Is the U.S. really capable of self-government any more?

“Can there be an issue more vital to the people of the United States than the overthrow of the Constitution that embodies their authority to govern themselves?” ~Dr. Alan Keyes, Obama's Eligibility: The True Issue.

Hasn’t the citizenry of the United States been lax in governing themselves for decades? We didn’t elect a [supposed] president like Barack Hussein Obama over just one election cycle, nor was it in response to what George Bush did or did not do. Without morality, I submit that we lack the capability to govern ourselves.

The downfall of morality in the United States has been happening for more than 100 years, each generation falling a little further than the previous one. The sad fact is that most Christians do not know what moral decency is any more. Off-color jokes, sensuality in music, sensuality in skits and plays. I note with interest that the BTK serial killer and Dr. George Tiller were both church-going citizens who were trusted members of the church laity. What’s even worse is that the church-going public doesn’t hear the same “hell, fire and brimstone” sermons of past generations. Hell is an uncomfortable subject, and many times glossed over so as not to offend.

Our nation, our states, our counties and our precincts are in the same shape that our church is in. In order to change our nation, we must change the morality of it’s churches which will in turn change the morality of the nation’s citizens. In order to change morality, the churches need a “come to Jesus meeting”–and the sooner the better.

Kenyan Birth Certificate, After Extensive Scrutiny, Still Stands

From America's Independent Party, America's Forum: http://www.aipnews.com/talk/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=6793&posts=5


Taitz-produced Kenyan Obama birth certificate, after extensive scrutiny, still stands up.

August 5, 2009

by BP2

Few people know the prima facie facts tied to the Obama’s mother’s 1964 and 1980 divorces as well as a handful of us here on Free Republic. I know it probably better than most.

When I started looking at the date (Feb 17, 1964) on this new Kenyan birth certificate, I immediately started comparing it with the dates of the 1964 divorce between Obama's mother and father – TRYING to REFUTE the Kenyan birth certificate. Was it at all PLAUSIBLE, at least based upon what we know as prima facie facts, confirmed by an independent source – such as a judge in a divorce case? If you wish to refer back to this initial comparison, the information is on Post 2,222 of the Free Republic thread "Is this really it? (re: possible Obama's Kenyan B.C.)".

There’s been a fair number of fake Obama documents surfacing in the days and weeks leading up to the release of the Kenyan birth certificate, quickly debunked, designed to create confusion of prima facie – so, many of us are naturally suspicious. You can cry “wolf” only so many times before others stop believing you, even though later there may truly be a wolf. That said, I'm not a forensics expert, nor have I seen the Kenya birth certificate – but I can connect dots.

Although ANY document can be faked, I find it incredibly difficult to believe that a sneaky pro-Obama “operative” came up with a fake document that also plausibly MATCHES the timeline of the 1964 Obama divorce and other events, as well as the new Kenyan birth certificate does. Anything is possible of course, but I see the Kenya birth certificate as a believable document – for various reasons that I’ll outline below.

Not all of the deductive reasoning used in Post 2,222 came from 13-page divorce decree. For example, information regarding the 10-day "knock and nail" notification for Obama SR in Boston came from work with a local Private Investigator and a clerk in a Hawaii Court records office (who will remain nameless to eschew FURTHER harassment to them from the Left). These “contacts” also explained that Marriage and Birth Certificates are NOT Public Record in Hawaii, but divorce decrees ARE Public Record. However, documents that are NOT Public Record have occasionally “popped-up” mixed in with Public Records upon modern review, due to sloppy record-keeping decades ago, as well as changes to Hawaiian privacy statutes since the cases were judged.

Additionally … there's the issue of the missing page from the 1964 divorce papers … page 11 …

In assisting with the retrieval of the initial 8 pages a couple of weeks before Obama’s Inauguration, I and a few other researchers subsequently discovered from the clerk in Hawaii that there were 6 MORE pages, or 14 total pages total. The clerk read the index information directly from the microfiche machine over the phone when the request was placed. “14 pages total,” she said, very clearly, repeating the answer when queried several more times on the page count.

I mailed off a check for the other 6 pages to be sent. Imagine my surprise a few days later when I opened the envelope and only saw 5 pages – page 11 was missing – bringing the total page count to 13.

See the whole Obama 1964 divorce on Scribd.com or as 13 individual images below (in proper order):

I immediately called the clerk in Hawaii and asked where the extra page was. She looked, and counted, and said that there must be some mistake in the records – she counted only 13 pages that are available for reprint. I pointed out to her that the page count she sent skipped from page 10 to page 12 – page 11 was missing. To that, she suggested that perhaps the pages were simply misnumbered before they where archived into the microfiche.

I accepted her answer, not thinking much about it at the time. Perhaps it was just a clerical error in the 1960s, when hand-filed paper records and IBM punch cards were how court documents were tracked and maintained.

I have since come to learn that Obama and his team of lawyers have been working to sanitize his records since he announced that he'd run for President circa November 2004. Now in the White House, he’s still ACTIVELY blocking subpoenas for such documents as his Cambridge and Occidental College records TODAY – the same type of documents promised to be made available during his campaign. Obama and his lawyers are exceedingly adept at exploiting loopholes in Hawaiian birth certificate law to keep Obama’s past hidden from the American people.

This missing page – page 11 – very likely is a copy of the original birth certificate, based upon the prima facie timeline of the 1964 divorce. The Kenya birth certificate was likely requested on Jan 23, 1964 by either Judge King (to award custody on the next trial date), or recommended to Ann Dunham by her attorney for the ex parte divorce, where only one parent was expected to be present.

The missing page, 11, should be chronologically-numbered as all other pages were in the original docket file, by the court clerk at the time. Starting at page 8, Exhibit A is placed where it would have occurred by date in the paperwork (and appeared on microfiche), even denoting an erased, yet barely-readable "8" on both pages of the returned notification sent to Obama SR. The missing page, numbered as page 11, would likely be a page that would have been admitted to the divorce file sometime in mid- to late-February 1964 – almost as if it were an undocumented “Exhibit B”.

Here’s a very plausible timeline merging the 1964 Obama Divorce papers and new Kenya birth certificate:

Jan 20 (Mon) – divorce request is filed by Stanley Ann D. Obama
Jan 23 (Thur) – divorce orders for trial are given by Judge King at chambers (note – if the judge, or Ann Dunham’s attorney, told her to order the Kenya birth certificate, it would have been mailed 10,000 miles away, to the “Coast Province” Registrar’s office of the “Republic of Kenya”, likely arriving around the first week of February 1964 to be processed)
Jan 28 (Tue) – Gail A. Watanabe, presumably an assistant of Ann Obama attorney George Kerr, mails the notification for trial to Obama SR (her affidavit is signed Feb 3 and filed)
Jan 30 (Thur) – via Air Mail, notification of trial arrives at Obama SR’s Cambridge, Mass, address. The 10-day "knock and nail" notification would have expired on Sun, Feb 9. Therefore, the next trial date would have been automatically set, per Judge King’s instructions, for the first Tuesday, 30 days later, on March 3
Feb 10 (Mon) – allowing for a 10-day “knock and nail” notification for trial, Obama SR's trial notification would have been retrieved by the US Post Office on this date, to be mailed back (as events turned out – UNSIGNED by Obama SR) to Hawaii as an exhibit for trial
Feb 17 (Mon) – the Obama Kenya birth certificate is signed by the “Coast Province” Deputy Registrar, to be mailed back to Hawaii for receipt by Ann Obama and/or her attorney (note: mail time would have ranged from a few days (Air Mail) to a couple of weeks (ship), arriving back in Hawaii in the last week of February to first week of March 3 (Tue). Based upon Judge King’s Jan 23 orders for the next trial date, "at 9:30 a.m. on the first Tuesday after thirty (30) days have elapsed from and after the date" that Obama SR would have been served with the notice of trial. That notification came back, unsigned, by Obama SR, so Ann’s attorneys surely requested, and received Default Judgment for the divorce in her favor for “grievous mental suffering”
Mar 5 (Thur) – trial takes place in favor of divorce in Hawaii, placing custody of Obama JR to his mother by default (note: the trial was likely rescheduled 2 days after the automatically set date of Mar 3, possibly for the convenience of the judge and/or parties)
Mar 20 (Fri) – the divorce decree is signed by Judge King

In Hawaii, birth certificates are not Public Record. If the Kenya birth certificate was a part of the divorce decree, it may have been pulled out at the end of the trial, or more recently by a watchful archivist or attorneys wishing to remove unfavorable information about Obama.

To date, despite other honest attempts to refute the Kenya birth certificate, such as dealing with when the “Republic of Kenya” came into existence as a republic have been “un-bunked.” Dishonest alterations of the Kenya birth certificate have been maliciously created by sites such as Democratic Underground, designed to discredit the Kenya birth certificate – they’ve been un-bunked as well.

Having not actually seeing the Kenya birth certificate, and it’s chain of evidence, no intellectually-honest person can say if it’s real or not. By the same token, none of us have seen or touched the short-form “Certification of Live Birth” that has appeared on Obama’s “Fight the Smears” or FactCheck.org websites.

No one can confirm the chain of evidence of Obama’s “Certification of Live Birth” that has appeared online, which is the abbreviated-version of Obama’s true, 1961, original long-form(s) “Certificate of Live Birth” and associated vital statistics records. Even the Hawaii Department of Health directly refuses to verify Obama’s online COLBs.

Hawaiian law would have allowed for Obama to have been born in a foreign country. The “Certification of Live Birth” can’t confirm if Obama has EVER been eligible to hold the office of Commander in Chief, based upon loopholes in pre-statehood, transitional and current Hawaiian statutes. Inconsistencies, such as conflicting hospitals in Hawaii that Obama, his friends and family have publicly-stated he may have been born only add to the confusion. Obama’s abstract “Certification of Live Birth” doesn't tell us if there were ANY "certifying officials" present who independent verified the "facts" of his birth – it's anyone's guess.

Obama himself cannot guaranty that he was born on American soil – really, who can remember their own childbirth?! Furthermore, his mother’s whereabouts are unconfirmed, inconsistent, and unknown, from the time of Obama’s conception, until a few weeks or months after his birth.

Thus is the purpose of Medical Doctors, Nurses, Midwives and Registrars, acting as "Certifying Officials" of a birth, to ensure the integrity – or chain of evidence – of the birth certificate to be properly recorded within Vital Statistics archives. Judges presiding over divorces ALSO produce a verifiable paper trail, as we can see on the 1964 Obama divorce.

At this time, both Birth Certificates from Kenya and Hawaii lack a publicly-exhibited, independently-verifiable chain of evidence – and chain of custody. As such, the Obama Kenyan birth certificate is as strong and believable a document as the Hawaiian “Certification of Live Birth”. However, Obama’s Kenyan birth certificate possesses something the Certification does not – plausibility, based upon independent prima facie facts – the 1964 Obama divorce decree.

6,799 posted on Wednesday, August 05, 2009 4:22:21 AM by BP2

Citizen at Birth vs. Natural Born Citizen?

From Mario Apuzzo's blog: A Place to Ask Questions and to Get the Right Answers
Posted by cfkerchner at 11:45 PM
Thursday, July 16, 2009

Citizen at Birth (CAB) does NOT equal Natural Born Citizen (NBC)

While a natural born citizen is obviously a citizen at birth, not all citizens at birth are natural born citizens. The two legal terms of art are not identical and are not equal.

There is absolutely nothing in that U.S. Statute, USC Title 8 Section 1401, that grants “natural born citizenship" to anyone. The legal term of art “natural born citizen” is not even mentioned in that law. USC Title 8 Section 1401 only determines by law who is a “citizen” or a “national” of the U.S. at birth, i.e., a basic "citizen at birth". The Section 1401 law is a naturalization law which grants citizenship by law, not by nature. The legal term of art “citizen at birth” is not the same legally as the legal term of art “natural born citizen”. Simply note that in one case we are talking about who is at least an ordinary, basic “citizen” at birth with no adjectives in front of the word citizen, and in the other case we have two very important adjectives placed in front of the word citizen by the framers of the Constitution, i.e., “natural born” citizen. That specific type of citizenship and "legal term of art" was codified by Vattel in his legal treatise "The Law of Nations", published in 1758, in which he said that ... a natural born citizen is a person born in the country to parents who are both citizens of the country. And this group or class of citizens are the most populous group of any nation.

Most citizens of the USA are natural born citizens. Most citizens of the USA were born in the USA to two parents who were citizens of the USA. And that is the pool of citizens that must be chosen from for the singular most powerful office in our nation, the President and Commander-in-Chief of our military. Simple citizenship at birth by being born in the USA without regard to the citizenship status of both your parents ... or by naturalization and swearing an oath to this country and renouncing all allegiances foreign kings, princes, and potentates later as an adult, is adequate for the offices of Senator, Representative, or a Governor of a state. But it is not sufficient to be the President under Article II, to Constitutional standards. Article II requires that the person to be eligible to be President must be a "natural born citizen". And that means that person must be born in the USA ... AND ... both his parents must be citizens of the USA.

Natural born citizenship status in a nation is granted by the facts of nature of your birth. No law or statute is necessary to grant it. The nations can make any law they wish to make a person a citizen at birth or later. But natural born citizenship can only be conveyed by nature by the facts at birth of the child. If you are born in the country of two citizen parents you are "naturally" ... a "natural born citizen" … a citizen too … but a specific kind of citizen who is eligible to be the President and Commander-in-Chief of our military since the child when born has sole allegiance to this country and there is no claim on him/her by a foreign country or power as to their citizenship at birth by that country too. Natural born citizens have unity of citizenship at birth. A natural born citizen is NOT a dual citizen at birth. A natural born citizen has no divided loyalty issues by his birth since the child was born in the country to two citizens of the country.

See this chart showing the five types of citizenship mentioned in the U.S Constitution:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/11737124/

And natural born citizens are not rare in the USA. The natural born citizens are by far the most populous group in the nation. And it from this group, under Article II of our Constitution, we are to choose our President and Commander-in-Chief, the group with sole allegiance at birth to the USA and only the USA, not someone who has foreign and/or dual citizenship and divided loyalties at and by birth.

Obama's father was not a citizen of the USA, nor was he an immigrant to the USA, nor was he even a permanent resident of the USA. Obama when born in 1961 was a British Subject via his British Subject father, per the British Nationality Act of 1948 which governed the status of children born to British Subjects. Obama thus was born with dual citizenship and allegiances and a foreign claim on his allegiance. Obama is not a natural born citizen of the USA and he is not eligible to be the President under Article II of our U.S. Constitution. He is a Usurper.

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr.
CDR USNR Retired
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner et al vs Obama & Congress et al

Will The REAL Americans Please Stand Up?!

[I have met some of the most wonderful, conservative people in the world at the social network "A Black Conservative Digest" (ABCD). One of my new-found friends, Emery McClendon, published this blog today and, with his permission, I've copied it here. Yes, Emery, I will stand with you and be counted.]

What are we to make of all the policies of the Obama Administration that are coming at us faster then a speeding bullet? Since the inauguration we are watching Socialist polices come out of Washington DC like lightening. We have witnessed attempts to raise our taxes, take over our healthcare system, a decline of support for our Military spending, an attempt to charge our Troops, and Veterans for healthcare, the take over of private business, the Value added tax, energy tax, universal healthcare; and now the appointment of a very liberal Supreme Court Justice to the Supreme Court. These are but a few things that our President and the liberal Congress have either proposed or placed into law under Executive Orders or through the passage of unread bills and the stimulus package.

Good conservative values based on the Bible are being tossed out of the window, and our President has told us that we are no longer a Christian nation. He is turning his back on our longtime allies, and degrading this nation in front of our enemies.

It has long been the goal of the socialist leaning left to destroy America “by any means necessary.” The term “by any means necessary” has a subtle meaning to the likes of Barack Obama and his friends. During the 60’s and 70’s militant groups used this language to express disgust with America and capitalism. Black militant groups used it to stir up disgust of Whites. The any means necessary meant just what it says. By “any means” which would work. Whether by violence, using false trust or what ever it takes to bring down “the man” and his system, America and capitalism.

They incorporated the phrase “if you can’t beat them join them” into the mix. Many of the radicals of the 60’s and 70’s have joined the system to take it down. Many hold elected office, and high positions in corporations. They now feel that it is “their time” to reshape America. Most of them feel the same as Jeremiah Wright, and Louis Farrakhan.

These radicals now hold positions in our federal government as well, and many have been appointed to cabinet level positions by Barack Obama to bid socialist policies into our society. They are taking over our government one branch at a time with out firing a shot. The true conservative has been labeled as terrorist, and extremist. We are also in jeopardy of losing our right to public assembly, and freedom of speech.

Let’s wake up and stand for freedom, and the Constitution. We must continue to fight for the truth, and to preserve the American way for our children. We must continue to attend conservative Tea Parties, and rallies that say no to more taxes, and a further erosion of our rule of law. We must vote the rascals out of office that do not support America, and stand up for our freedoms.

We cannot be led down a path that will doom us, and our children, by left wing radicals that want to force us into socialism, which by the way does not and never has worked. We cannot allow them to drive a wedge between us as Americans by using false claims of racism. We are all in this together, and we must work together to win.

They say that for America “the chickens are coming home to roost.” I say that America is still the greatest place on earth to live, and that we can continue to be great if we pay attention and defend our freedoms, and way of life as spelled out in the Constitution, and our Godly heritage.

America, stand up and be counted before it is too late. We have an opportunity to do so this Independence Day by voicing our opinion at patriotic rallies, and teaching our children the true meaning of our Constitutional liberties. Will you join in to save our nation?

Let Us Not Be Weary In Well Doing

Once again, I've been inspired by the words of Dr. Alan Keyes. I'm almost jealous that God gave Dr. Keyes a more astute mind than he gave me, lol. ALMOST. Just remember that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, each time expecting a different result. My sweetie still hasn't turned loose of his belief that 3rd parties spoil elections. That wouldn't be true if all the true conservatives would make a clean break with the party that keeps enslaving them (be it republican or democrat).

Just like Pavlov's dog, we've been conditioned to accept the candidates proffered by the GOP (no matter how distasteful their record on the issues), because "we don't want the democrats to win." Many Christians have stopped voting their conscience, and I am as guilty as the next person. BUT the debauchery of the last election has "cleared my sinuses" so that the stench of the GOP now matches the stench of the DNC. Heaven help us if we cannot stop the Wizard, the Wicked Witch of the West, and the Flying Monkeys from putting their agenda into place (we're not in Kansas any more, Toto). Sometimes I even wonder whether we will have elections in 2010.

To those who think we can't do anything because this is "end times" playing out like prophecy predicts, I say this: Jesus said no man knows the hour of the Lord's return. But we're to keep working until His return. So, it matters not whether I think that end times prophecy is being played out before my very eyes. I am to work until I can work no more. We're to keep working on the Great Commission, and we're to be salt and light in a dark, evil world. Let's not be weary of well doing.

Dr. Keyes' most recent blog post is awesome, read it here.

Born in the USA?

This issue is too important to be left on the back burner. Folks, it is time we stand up and demand that this man prove he is eligible, and not by some phony image that some loyal staffer put up on the internet. He needs to answer more than the question of where he was born, we need to see his passport(s), his college records (including financial aid), and his adoption records, if any. This article from World Net Daily has again renewed my hopes that perhaps we may find out just who this man is, versus what he claims to be.

Kentucky elections officer wants eligibility investigated
Refers matter to state attorney general for review

Posted: April 10, 2009
Time: 10:50 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

An official in the office of Kentucky's elections chief has referred to state Attorney General Jack Conway for investigation the issue of Barack Obama's eligibility to be president.

In a letter to Conway, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Leslie A. Fugate noted the issue of "President Barack Obama's eligibility to be on the ballot in Kentucky."

"Because our office does not have investigative powers … we are referring the matter to your office," she wrote."

The letter followed a visit to elections officials by California attorney Orly Taitz, who is working through her Defend Our Freedoms Foundation on several court cases challenging Obama's eligibility.

A committee of concerned citizens accompanied Taitz to Fugate's office to ask that the eligibility issue be investigated.

There was no immediate word on the status of any investigative work that might be launched by investigators for Conway, the 49th attorney general for Kentucky, who was elected in 2007 and has made targeting cybercrimes a priority.

If a formal investigation actually is begun it apparently would be the first time the many lawsuit plaintiffs across the country would see a door opening to some answers about the murky circumstances surrounding Obama's eligibility to be president.

Among the typical responses to eligibility challenges WND has reported was a federal judge's dismissal of a case because the issue already had been "twittered."

Further, lawyers hired to defend against such cases also have begun threatening sanctions against plaintiffs' lawyers unless they agree voluntarily to leave the issue of eligibility unquestioned.

Questions about Obama's birth place were being raised even before he was elected. He had reported he was born in Honolulu, but because he has steadfastly refused to release a copy of his long-form birth certificate, which would put such questions to rest, dozens of lawsuits have been filed challenging his eligibility to serve as president under the Constitution's "natural born citizen" clause.

While many of the lawsuits have been dismissed, most have not been heard for reasons of jurisdiction and standing, rather than on the evidence and merit of the challenges.

So far, there have been two definitive statements on his eligibility, including one from an Obama campaign spokeswoman talking about the challenges who told WND, "All I can tell you is that it is just pure garbage." [Editor's note: Boy, this settles it for me, how 'bout you? NOT!!]

The other is from Chiyome Fukino, the director of the Hawaiian Department of Health, who issued a statement, "I as Director of Health for the State of Hawaii, 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 Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures."

What is not said is significant. While the certificate on file is "in accordance with state policies and procedures," there's no affirmation that the document reflects a Hawaiian birth.

Nor is there any explanation for the image of the Hawaii state "certification of live birth" that has been posted by Obama on the Internet purporting to document his Hawaiian birth, even though Hawaiian procedures at the time allowed the document to be issued to parents of children not born in the state.

For example, why would an individual with a verified birth certificate also have a "certification of live birth?" [Editor's Note: Why would someone who had found their birth certificate amongst his mothers things after her death (from Dreams From My Father) have to post a phony one when he ran for president 13 years later?]

The questions raised over Obama's eligibility are all very simple: The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."

But getting the issue discussed has been a huge obstacle, and what courts have done several times, including once in a California case, is to schedule hearings on the issue on a date far beyond any reasonable expectation of having applicability, lawyers have said.

It was in his autobiography that Obama reported he was born in Honolulu, and the online "Certification of Live Birth" states that.

But when WND senior staff writer Jerome Corsi went to Hawaii, he was told any Obama records were sealed, and although they would be released if the person made the request, Obama simply has refused to do that.

Corsi also traveled to Kenya where he was also told records pertaining to Obama in Kenya were sealed.

There also have been no confirmed hospital records uncovered that would document his birth, and an investigator even cast doubt on whether the Obama family lived at the address listed in the newspaper announcements.

A woman who reportedly "remembered" Obama's birth and was quoted widely in support of his Hawaiian birth later explained to WND she had been told of the birth of a baby boy by an acquaintance who was a doctor who noted the mother's unusual name of Stanley, but she had no knowledge of the details.

According to much legal research, at the time of Obama's birth he could be a natural born citizen by being born in the United States, by being born to two U.S. citizen parents (not possible because of his father), or, if only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of the birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least 10 years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16. [Editor's Note: My research into the Constitutional provision discussed here said that at the time of Obama's birth in 1967, 5 of those 10 years had to be after the age of 14, not 16. Either way, Ann Dunham was not old enough to confer citizenship, should the birth have happened in a foreign country.]

The problem is, Obama's mother was only 18 when she gave birth, so his only apparent route to "natural born" citizenship status would have been to be born in

Some of the lawsuits that have been filed question whether Obama was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born. Further complicating the issue are the reports he was adopted by an Indonesia man during his childhood and moved to Indonesia and attended school there. There also are questions on what nation's passport he traveled to Pakistan....(read more)

The article continues with a list of all the various lawsuits and their current status.

Folks, this is a real issue--it isn't just sour grapes. It has nothing to do with race, and nothing to do with the fact that he is a democrat and I'm an independent (who leans toward republican candidates many times as the "lesser of two evils").

It has everything to do with whether our Constitution is still the controlling law of the land.

Let me say that again...it has everything to do with whether the Constitution is still the controlling law of the land.

Do you believe that the U.S. Constitution is still the law of the land?

British Press Entranced by Sheer Size of Obamas' Traveling Entourage

I received an email from a friend claiming this article appeared in the editorial section of The Knoxville News-Sentinel. I wasn't able to confirm that claim without paying an archive fee, but was able to verify the story with (free) archives from the London Guardian (original publishing date of 29 March 2009): http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/29/obama-london-visit-uk-g20.>

This is almost beyond belief.....

"The British press is entranced by the sheer size of Obama's traveling entourage and no wonder. Obama arrived with - 500 staff in tow, including:

200 Secret Service agents

A team of 6 doctors

The White House chef and kitchen staff with the president's own food and water. And, according to the Evening Standard, he also came with "35 vehicles in all, 4 speech writers and 12 teleprompters."

The president is entitled to all the security, communications and support he feels necessary to do his job. Surely, when we're trying to project a more restrained, humble image to the world, the president's huge retinue could be scaled back to something less than the triumphal march from "Aida."

Now, I whole heartedly agree with the last paragraph of this editorial article, wherever it is from. How about you?

Ambassador Alan Keyes...

I don't know how many of you are regular readers of former Ambassador Alan Keyes, but he is always "spot on" when it comes to moral, spiritual and Constitutional issues. Among other things, Dr. Keyes writes a blog at http://www.loyaltoliberty.com/.

Loyal to Liberty's latest post (if it isn't the latest, then seek it out) "Fifth Column Conservatives" is an intriguing piece. Dr. Keyes begins by defining the term fifth column: "Webster's online dictionary defines the phrase "fifth column" as "a group of secret sympathizers of an enemy that engage in espionage or sabotage within defense lines or in national borders." Keyes continues:

This phrase has been much on my mind of late as I consider the bloodless coup d'état that is currently underway in the United States. In speech and deed the Obama faction has displayed its intention to overthrow the Constitution of the United States.

My intent in quoting from this article is to make you curious enough to go and read it for yourself. You won't be sorry. Later in the article, Keyes identifies those he believes are fifth column conservatives:

As it turns out the greatest threat to the effort to dispel complacency before it's too late doesn't come from the Obama faction. They have moved with alacrity to implement their agenda. Like a brake impaired double truck trailer hurtling down a steep incline, their excessive speed stirs up a gust hefty enough to shake the unwary from their stupor, provided no one explains it away as a harmless passing breeze. But some folks stamped with a phony imprimatur of "conservatism" are doing just that. At first people like this resisted the idea that we should call Obama a socialist, as I did during my campaign against him in Illinois in 2004. Now they themselves admit his socialism, but claim that it's a benign variety, well known in Western Europe to have caused no more than a mild epidemic of productivity-stifling bureaucracy, with no jackboots in sight. The smug epithets and ridicule once reserved for anyone who wouldn't call a socialist a "liberal" is now heaped upon anyone who calls Obamacytes by their right names. They are advocates of cult-of-personality fueled submission to pervasive government control (complete with Hitler Jugend style reeducation of the young as uniformed "mandatory volunteers" programmed for loyal subservience to "the leaders" will). But the Devil take anyone who identifies them by the labels historically associated with the strikingly similar Nazi, Fascist, Stalin- and Maoist models of totalitarian socialism that wrecked havoc in the twentieth century.

Again and again Dr. Keyes correctly analyzes and labels the problem. I, as reckless as I am, would have went one step further to say that "centrists," "moderates," and "middle-of-the-roaders" are the largest group of "fifth column conservatives" that I know. They cringe whenever political policy moves off center in either direction. They despise what they consider "far right republicans," as well as "far left liberals." They want to be comfortable, but not too passionate. The problem with people who spend all their time in the middle of the road is that they get hit by traffic from both directions. Moreover, "moderate republicans" are really anathema to the the Grand Old Party, as they retain only the fiscal principles and none of the social and moral principles.

No doubt I'll be soundly corrected for saying so, but I believe moderate republicans bare a lion's share of guilt for why the country has shifted so far to the left as to allow an enemy like Barack Hussein Obama to be elected president. They do not see the need to oppose abortion, nor do they see the need to return to the moral values of our founding fathers. As I said before, all moderates, regardless of party, who stand in the middle politically are going to be hit with traffic from both directions. Their wishy-washy "let's just get along" views are worthless in the fight to secure our country and our Constitution, and are worthless against the far-left liberals fight to socialize our country.

I can hear them all whining even now..."can't we all just get along?"

Telling CO2 Lies to Destroy America!!

Folks, other nations see right through him. Yet our hapless masses are still awe-struck. Read on...Governmental Gangsterism? Folks, I'm not making this up!!!

CANADA FREE PRESS

Dr. S. Fred Singer, 'the CO2 wars', Greens and the Obama administration war on U.S. Economy

Telling CO2 Lies to Destroy America

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/9722

By Alan Caruba Sunday, March 29, 2009

My friend, the internationally famed climatologist, Dr. S. Fred Singer, calls them “the CO2 wars.” It is the last ditch attempt by the Greens, under the aegis of the Obama administration, to declare carbon dioxide a pollutant and thus open the door to its regulation.

Singer says such regulation “would be the equivalent of an atomic bomb directed at the U.S. economy—all without any scientific justification.”

I am increasingly of the opinion that the main goal of the Obama administration through CO2 regulation, exploding deficits, punishing taxation, and any other means at their disposal is the destruction of the economy and the complete control of impoverished Americans.

Governmental gangsterism

This is an administration that exists to impose an Orwellian socialist utopia after the smokescreen clears.

When it comes to CO2, Obama, his so-called science advisors, and the Environmental Protection Agency are all lying. It is governmental gangsterism.

As reported in The Wall Street Journal, “The Environmental Protection Agency has sent the White House a proposed finding that carbon dioxide is a danger to public health, a step that could trigger a clampdown on emissions of so-called greenhouse gases across a wide swath of the economy.”

Here are a few things you need to keep in mind about carbon dioxide:

• CO2 is not a “pollutant.” It is a trace gas necessary for all life of Earth because it is essential to the growth of all vegetation.
• Without CO2 all vegetation—grasses, forests, jungles, crops such as wheat, corn and rice—dies. Then herbivores die. Then you die.
• The CO2 produced by human industry or activity is a miniscule fraction of a percentage of greenhouse gases. It constitutes a mere 0.038% of the atmosphere.
• The oceans emit 96.5% of all greenhouse gases, holding and releasing CO2 as it has down through the millennia of Earth’s existence.
• In past millennia, CO2 levels were often much higher than the present.
• CO2 levels rise hundreds of years after temperature rise on planet Earth.
• The Sun is the primary source of warmth on Earth. Rising CO2 is an effect of global warming, not a cause.
• Both global warming and cooling are natural phenomenon over which humans have no control.
• The Earth is not currently warming. It has been cooling for a decade and likely to continue for at least another twenty years or longer. If a new Ice Age is triggered, it will last at least 10,000 years.
• Polar ice is now at record levels and still growing.

If you had a choice, would you prefer a warmer or colder Earth?

And consider this, if only the United States was to significantly cut its CO2 emissions, how much effect, if any, would that have in a world where most other nations, including China and India, have no intention of doing so? Both are exempt from the UN Kyoto Protocol. The answer is zero!

The EPA proposal is not about science. It is about power and it is about money. As the Wall Street Journal noted, “The administration has proposed a cap-and-trade system that could raise $646 billion by 2019 through government auctions of emission allowances.”

The federal government, though the aegis of the EPA, would have control over the destinies of an estimated 13,000 facilities if this regulatory obscenity were to become law.

“Coal-fired power plants, oil refineries and domestic industries, such as energy-intensive paper, cement, fertilizer, steel and glass manufacturers, worry that increased cost burdens imposed by climate-change laws will put them at a severe competitive disadvantage to their international peers that aren’t bound by similar environmental rules.”

Such industries would flee the United States as the most toxic place on Earth in which to do business.

This would be the fulfillment of the Obama administration’s goal and explains in part why this new assault on science, industry, and common sense has been put forth by the EPA.

One of the best sites for information about carbon dioxide is ilovemyco2.com
I recommend you visit and browse through its extensive data.

A tip of the hat as well to ilovemyco2.com.

My Definition of Stimulous?

Oh, wow! I thought you'd never ask! I've cooked up the perfect plan....

And that would be for both houses of Congress (elected officials, not staffers) AND THE PRESIDENT to volunteer to take half salary this year for all the mess they've caused over the last two years. I'd like Nancy Schmancy Pelosi to give up her airplane and travel like the rest of us peasants. I'd also like Congress to discontinue their elite retirement plan, or at least phase it out over a couple of years. I want them to live like I live--paycheck to paycheck, and I want them to look forward to Social Security and 401(k)s as their retirement options, just like we do.

Does anyone remember way back when John Kennedy was President? Now there's a Democrat that you can shake hands with and not feel like you need a bath afterward, lol. Do you remember that he refused his Presidential salary, always placing it back into the treasury every pay day? His reasoning was that he and his family had enough money to live on, and that they didn't need that salary. Boy, those were the days, eh? A stark contrast to today's society where enough is never enough, isn't it?

Every institution that has been bailed out thus far has paid their executives big bonuses: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, CitiBank, and all the others that I can't remember at the moment. I've been "frosted" for so long over so many atrocities that I'm like an ice cube. :D Every time Mr. Obama approaches a microphone I go into another deep freeze.

In fact, it wouldn't hurt my feelings if we reverted back to the way Congress was convened in the early days: statesmen were not paid, they volunteered their time; congressional sessions were only 3-4 months long and held during the winter so as not to interfere with the farmers' planting and harvesting.

What d'ya think of them apples? :D

AIG Gave Obama $101,332!!!

From: http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaLatest.htm

AIG Gave Obama $101,332

Senator Barack Obama received a $101,332 bonus from American International Group in the form of political contributions according to Opensecrets.org. The two biggest Congressional recipients of bonuses from the A.I.G. are -- Senators Chris Dodd and Senator Barack Obama.

The A.I.G. Financial Products affiliate of A.I.G. gave out $136,928, the most of any AIG affiliate, in the 2008 cycle. I would note that A.I.G.’s financial products division is the unit that wrote trillions of dollars’ worth of credit-default swaps and "misjudged" the risk.

With the anger and rage that is being exhibited against A.I.G., perhaps the bonuses Obama received from A.I.G. explain Obama's A.I.G crocodile tears.

Now that the Wall street Journal has revealed that A.I.G. paid bonuses of $1 million or more to 73 employees, it's time to ask if recipients of A.I.G. "bonuses," including President Obama, will give what now ought to be taxpayer money back?

The Trip to Pakistan in 1981 outs Obama

Based upon Dr. Orly Taitz's blog: http://defendourfreedoms.us/
March 9, 2009

Well is He or Isn't He?

Paul Hollrah

It is a popular topic of discussion in political circles these days, and as the weeks pass more and more people are asking, “Is Barack Obama really a natural born citizen of the United States? Is he eligible to serve as President, or isn’t he?” If he is, then so be it. We’ll just have to grit our teeth until this long dark nightmare comes to an end…one way or another.

But what if he is not eligible? What then? Well, in that case we have a problem…a very large problem, the solution to which could tear asunder the fabric of American society.

Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution states that, “No person except a natural born citizen…shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.”

That’s pretty straightforward, yet, when confronted with the possibility that the man who sits in the Oval Office may be a usurper, a great many otherwise patriotic Americans can be heard to say, “What difference does it make? The election’s over; the people have spoken. Get over it!”

Well, it’s not quite as simple as all that, and the sooner we can all be satisfied that Obama is or is not a natural born citizen the better. To postpone that finding for a year or two and then find, conclusively, that Obama is not eligible to serve as president would be disastrous. Every new law and every executive order he had signed, every political appointment, every judicial appointment, every order he had given to the military, and every act and every decision of all of his appointees would immediately become null and void. How could we ever undo all of that? The American people would quickly learn that it is not much easier to undo two or three years of history than it is to undo a decade or a century. Obama must end his stubborn refusal to produce his birth certificate, his passports, his visas, and his college records. We must continue to recruit more and more Americans to insist that he do so.

To do that it is not necessary to prove that he was born in Kenya, not in Hawaii…as his paternal grandmother, a Kenyan half-brother, and a Kenyan half-sister insist…or who his natural father may have been. The proof of Obama’s failure to meet the “natural born citizen” standard is much simpler than that.

To convert a non-believer…one who insists that the Constitutional requirements must be met, but who believes that questions about Obama’s citizenship status are nothing more than sour grapes…it is only necessary to establish the facts surrounding Obama’s travel to Indonesia and Pakistan in the summer of 1981.

Although Obama fails to mention that trip in either of his memoirs…not in Dreams from My Father and not in The Audacity of Hope…he made a potentially fatal error when he mentioned the Pakistan trip during an April 6, 2008 speech in San Francisco…the same speech in which he referred to rural Pennsylvanians as “bitter” people who “cling to guns or religion…” In that speech, Obama explained in an offhand manner the value of that trip, vis-à-vis his knowledge of foreign affairs, saying, “I knew what Sunni and Shia was (sic) before I joined the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.”

When questioned about that trip, Obama’s campaign press secretary, Bill Burton, confirmed to the New York Times, and others, that Obama had visited Pakistan in 1981 on his return from Indonesia, traveling there with a Pakistani friend from Occidental College, Wahid Hamid. According to Burton, Obama stayed in Karachi with the family of another Pakistani friend, Mohammed Hasan Chandoo. Obama has never mentioned the Pakistan trip again.

So it is well established that Obama did travel to Indonesia and Pakistan in 1981. What is not established, and what is critically important, is what passport he used during that trip. There are only three possibilities: Obama could have traveled under a U.S. passport…a passport first issued when he and his mother moved from Hawaii to Indonesia in 1967; he could have traveled under an Indonesian passport, issued following his adoption by his Indonesian stepfather; and it is conceivable that, if he was, in fact, born in Kenya in 1961, he could still have been a British subject, traveling with a British passport. So which is it?

Unfortunately for Obama, in the present circumstance, Pakistan was under martial law in 1981 and certain undesirables…Christians, Jews, and Americans…were prohibited from entering the country. Pakistan was on the U.S. State Department’s “no travel” list, making a U.S. passport no more valuable than an empty chewing gum wrapper at the Karachi Port of Entry.

So how did a young man who arrived in New York in early June 1981, without the price of a hotel room in his pocket, suddenly come up with the price of a round-the-world trip just a month later? And once he was on a plane, shuttling between New York, Jakarta, and Karachi, what passport was he offering when he passed through Customs and Immigration? The American people not only deserve to have answers to these questions, they must have answers.

It makes the debate over Obama’s citizenship a rather short and simple one.

Q: Did he travel to Pakistan in 1981, at age 20?
A: Yes, by his own admission.

Q: What passport did he travel under?
A: There are only three possibilities:

1. He traveled with a U.S. passport;
2. He traveled with a British passport; or
3. He traveled with an Indonesian passport.

Q: Is it possible that Obama traveled with a U.S. passport in 1981?
A: No. It is not possible. Pakistan was on the U.S. State Department’s “no travel” list in 1981.

Conclusion: When Obama went to Pakistan in 1981 he was traveling either with a British passport or an Indonesian passport.

If he was traveling with a British passport that would provide proof that he was born in Kenya on August 4, 1961, not in Hawaii as he claims. And if he was traveling with an Indonesian passport that would tend to prove that he relinquished whatever previous citizenship he held, British or American, when adopted by his Indonesian step-father in 1967.

Whatever the truth of the matter, the American people deserve to know how he managed to become a “natural born” American citizen between 1981 and 2008. The sooner we learn the truth of all this, the better.

Is he a “natural born” citizen, or isn’t he? It seems pretty clear from currently available evidence that he is not. If this proves to be the case he should minimize the damage to the country and follow the Nixon example; he should simply resign from office so that we can begin to clean up the mess he leaves behind.

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Paul Hollrah is a Senior Fellow at the Lincoln Heritage Institute.

Ut oh...the budget is out. Look out below!

Jeff Schreiber once again hits the nail on the head on this one. Here's a little bit just to whet your whistle:

I am so angry right now as an American that, by God, I need to hit something. I feel a bit like a tiger in a cage, pacing back and forth, fuming, snarling, waiting for the next handler stupid enough to unlock that door.

The budget details are out. The White House calls it "A New Era of Responsibility." I ask -- responsibility to whom?

The American people are being pissed on and told that it’s raining. Our ship is sinking, but we’re being told they’re just drawing us a bath. We are being lied to over and over and over again and I, for one, am just tired of it.

Between the $410 appropriations bill approved by the House yesterday, last week’s commitment of $275 billion to artificially prop up homeowners too short-sighted or too gluttonous to realize their financial limitations, the president’s need for a $634 billion healthcare reform plan, and the $787 billion signed away for the latest attempt at a Keynesian recovery destined to fail like all other such plans in history, our federal government has spent or has committed to spend roughly $2.1 trillion in the past two weeks alone.

This is the link to the whole story:

http://www.americasright.com/2009/02/new-era-of-responsibility-to-whom_26.html

I think maybe I'll move to Afghanistan and look for an empty cave to hide in. After all, Al Qaida isn't using them any more and sometime soon all the Hamas terrorists from Gaza will be "migrating" to the United States via the invitation issued by our usurper President Obama.

Jeff Schreiber isn't the only person who is angry. I'm angry enough to bite a ten-penny nail in two. Jeff wants to hit something. It is time for a citizen revolt, for outraged voters to be heard. I know there are more of us than there are of them, because they kill their unborn, help each other commit suicide, and practice "mercy killings," aka euthanasia. Fortunately for my Kansas U.S. Senators and U.S. Representative, they all voted "no" on the porkulus bill. I haven't yet checked how they voted on the "appropriations" bill.

Folks, people are organizing and getting ready to burst with protests. Again, I say get involved. America needs you to be involved. Each and everyone of you. There are many projects, and they are suitable for both the young and the not so young. You are never too old to get involved, and I would venture to say that you're never too young to get involved. After all, they're brainwashing your children in public school to be good little socialists. If you don't correct it early and immediately, you'll regret it.

Come on folks! Let's at least get out of the rain (see the quote from Jeff above).

Obama's Revenge by Joan Swirsky

Again, I'm borrowing from Dr. Orly Taitz, DDS, Esq., http://defendourfreedoms.us/. Interesting analysis of "that one's" life. =)

Obama's revenge by Joan Swirsky

Obama's Revenge - SARASOTA COUNTY (FL), Part of the Red County Network
http://www.redcounty.com/sarasota/2009/02/obamas-revenge/

Joan Swirsky's analysis of Barack Obama's psychological profile is a masterpiece. You will want to pass this along to your friends, as Americans (and other "global citizens") are beginning to realize that Obama isn't what he appeared to be during a theatrically orchestrated campaign. Does inner rage - not hope - lie at the root of this man's motivations? You decide.

Obama's Revenge
Posted by: Joan Swirsky 02/15/2009

Once upon a time, a white teenager from Kansas got pregnant by her black Kenyan boyfriend, Barack Obama Sr., or was it her husband? Whatever. (I say no whatever because we've never seen either marriage or divorce certificates). Some say the couple was in Kenya visiting relatives when the birth of their son, Barack Obama Jr., occurred. No matter. (I say no matter because we've never seen an authentic birth certificate). By the time the baby was two years old his father abandoned him for his other wife and child in Kenya.

I wonder how toddler Barry felt when his father left him, and never reappeared until a single time when the boy was 10. Bewildered? Sad? Lonely? Angry? What do two-year-olds do with those feelings?

It didn't take long for Barry's mother to meet and marry an Indonesian native named Lolo Soetoro. They moved to Indonesia, where her child became Barry Soetoro, took on Indonesian citizenship, and was presumably schooled in public, Christian, and Muslim schools. (I say presumably because we've never seen those school records). But when Barry was 10 years old, his mother sent him back to the U.S. to be raised by her parents, Madelyn and Stanley Dunham, although she kept her baby daughter Maya Soetoro with her.

I wonder how the by-now fully-sentient young Barry felt when his mother sent him packing. Sad? Jealous of the baby who remained behind with mommy? Confused and dizzy by the disparate cultures - languages, customs, foods, sights, sounds, schooling - he had experienced? Resentful? What did Barry do with those feelings?

By the time he was 10, the boy had been abandoned three times - by his father, stepfather, and mother. And although he was raised by his white grandparents in Hawaii - where "people of color" were not his color - he found out soon enough that his mixed-race background rendered him, in effect, an outsider. Did that make him feel self-conscious, indignant, victimized?

But he wasn't altogether an outsider. In Hawaii, young Barry met Frank Marshall Thomas, his first and perhaps most influential mentor. The infamous Marshall, a Communist activist (and self-confessed pedophile) taught Barry - was it Obama, Soetero, Dunham? - that white people were the devil incarnate and that blacks were the most "victimized" people on earth.

Yet the abandoned and rejected child was lucky. His white-devil grandparents gave him a comfortable life in Hawaii, and an education that apparently qualified him to attend several prestigious schools - Occidental College in CA, Columbia Univ. in NY City, and Harvard Law School in Cambridge, MA.(I say apparently qualified because we've never seen any of his college transcripts).

BARRY MORPHS INTO BARACK

After his undergraduate days at Columbia, Obama chose not to go to graduate school, but instead held various jobs in the Big Apple and then moved to Chicago to become a community organizer. Although he had been exposed to American exceptionalism through his life in the United States and his privileged education, it is clear that his experiences in impoverished Kenya and totalitarian Indonesia, as well as his exposure to Marshall and the other radicals he had met during his years in New York - among them the unrepentant domestic terrorists William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn of Weather Underground infamy - made the deepest and most lasting impressions.

Their messages of American imperialism and its white-devil culture clearly resonated in the thrice-abandoned boy. In his young-adult and adult years, free to choose his friends and pursuits, he opted exclusively for far-left socialists and Marxists, and activities aimed at relieving the suffering of people he perceived to be as victimized as apparently he felt he had been. He understood their feelings of helplessness, hopelessness, and impotent rage, as well as the pain of fatherlessness. After all, his Harvard-educated father consciously chose to leave him. And his mother gave him away. Was that depressing to Barry? Infuriating?

When given the opportunity to join one of dozens of churches in Chicago, Barry - who had morphed into Barack - opted for the Trinity United Church of Christ, which was led by the fire-breathing Rev. Jeremiah Wright, whose decades-long anti-American and anti-Semitic rants apparently resonated in Obama's rejected and abandoned heart and soul. (I say apparently resonated because in over 20 years of regular attendance, Obama said he heard nothing inflammatory or anti-American, and we've never seen the videotapes of any sermon, although each one was unfailingly recorded).

"God damn America," Wright raged. "The chickens have come home to roost," he "preached" to his whooping and hollering congregation after 9/11. Obama heard nothing.

But it wasn't only Wright who Obama was attracted to in Chicago. He was also drawn to another hate-spewing radical, Rev. Louis Farrakhan, as well as to the raving Father Michael Phleger, the radical Islamist Khalid Rashidi, his friends and neighbors the Ayers, and to equally-close friends "Tony" and Rita Rezko - Tony being the notorious "fixer" and now-convicted-and-imprisoned felon for fraud, bribery, and money laundering. What did the seemingly mild-mannered Obama find so irresistible in these angry and/or crooked people and others like them? Was it the same thing that a shy man finds in his attraction to a flamboyant girlfriend - and alter-ego, a person who expresses what he really feels but is unable to give voice to?

In these relationships and in community organizing - which offers inner-city mostly-black residents job training, tutoring, and methods to organize tenants'-rights groups and voter-registration drives, etc. - the twenty-something Obama apparently found his calling, and also a renewed and burning ambition.

WITH FRIENDS LIKE THESE

While his community-organizing job paid a paltry $12,000 or so per year, Obama somehow managed to pay his way through one of the priciest graduate schools in the world, Harvard Law School. (I say somehow managed because we have no record of his tuition payments). Even more amazing, he became the first black president of the Harvard Law Review without ever producing a written paper - or at least a paper that the public has ever read.

There is a good deal of evidence that Obama's acceptance at Harvard Law - and his tuition - were facilitated by friends who had a vested interest in the community organizer. Among them was Percy Sutton, a former Manhattan borough president and ardent leftist, who was also Malcolm X's lawyer. In an interview last year, the octogenarian Sutton stated: "I was introduced to [Obama] by a friend. The friend's name was Dr. Khalid al-Mansour, and the introduction took place about 20 years ago." Sutton described al-Mansour as "the principle adviser to one of the world's richest men" and suggested that al-Mansour was raising money for Obama. Knowing that Sutton had friends at Harvard, al-Mansour asked him if he would write a letter to Harvard recommending Obama, which Sutton did most agreeably. This took place about 1988 when 27-year-old Obama was applying to Harvard Law.

Journalist Jack Cashill has credibly speculated that Obama's two memoirs were actually written by his pal Bill Ayers, who was and is a University of Illinois at Chicago English professor, having escaped life in prison on a technicality. Two years [after he was admitted to law school], Cashill writes, "while still a law student, Obama improbably received an advance to write a memoir that would be called `Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance,' which was published in 1995." His second memoir, published in 2006, was "The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream." (I suspect Cashill said "improbably received an advance" because, as stated earlier, Obama had not produced even one paper or distinguished himself in any way to have inspired a major publishing company to approach him).

Al this begs the question: Who writes two memoirs about himself before the age of 45? My own speculation is that it could be no one but a narcissist. As most people know in this age of pop psychology, the psychiatric disorder of narcissism derives from the Greek myth in which Narcissus, a handsome young man, became obsessed with himself and fell in love with his own image as he gazed into a pool of water. A lot of people have some degree of narcissism, which is characterized by grandiosity, an unquenchable need for admiration, unhealthy self-absorption, dependence on the affirmation of others, and also a lack of empathy, which is hidden by both personal charm and the kind of earnest language that pretends to "feel your pain."

Or he could be a malignant narcissist., which psychiatrist Dr. Otto Kernberg, a legendary leader in thought disorders, compares to a narcissist on steroids. This variety involves paranoid traits (think of Obama's thin-skinned, quasi-hysterical reactions to Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin), and ego-syntonic aggression, which means the person is perfectly in-sync with people who have the courage he lacks to lash out.

But consider the source! Obama's father was a self-aggrandizing narcissist who thought nothing of throwing his son away to fulfill his own ambitions and his mother also threw him away for the same reason. Talk about DNA, which Obama perfectly exhibited when, during his campaign, he unflinchingly dispensed with both his white grandmother and his black "mentor" Rev. Wright for his personal ambition.

GROOMING THE PERFECT MARXIST CANDIDATE

This leads me to only one conclusion, which I wrote about in a former article: "Obama: The Trojan Horse." My theory is that President Obama's narcissistic charm, even temperament, skill with words (teleprompter included), hunger to please, radical agenda, and subterranean rage at the "unfair" American system have been brilliantly exploited by powerful leftist radicals and Marxists in the United States, who for decades have plotted America's path to socialism. He is their pawn, totally dispensable but handy while the "aura" lasts.

These "handlers" saw in Obama the ideal blank slate on which to actualize their agenda, and they made sure the slate remained blank by concealing (or destroying) any evidence of his past, including his birth certificate, Selective Service record, visa(s), school transcripts, and other vital documents. All of which is costing his moneyed backers - including America-loathing billionaire George Soros - multimillions in lawyers' fees to fight the proliferating lawsuits that seek the truth about this stealth president.

In fact, former ambassador Alan Keyes, one of the many plaintiffs seeking proof of Obama's American citizenship, has reported that Obama's lawyers have now filed a motion "to quash our effort to obtain the relevant documents...[which] confirms Obama's ruthless determination to destroy anyone who continues to seek the information the Constitution requires. Obama thus signals his intent to bring financial ruin on those who won't accept his cover-up of the circumstances of his birth is a tactical escalation. It confirms the common sense suspicion that he won't act forthrightly in this matter because he has something to hide."

It is clear that Obama and his fellow radicals are restive. In the less-than four weeks of his presidency, the new president has taken volumes from the Marxian handbook, which dictates that the stupid masses be blitzed with an overload of information, hollow press conferences, appointments, dismantling of formerly effective national-security programs, et al., in order to set the stage for a massive, Soviet-style takeover of our government, including a civilian national security force that Obama has said should be "just as powerful, strong and well-funded as the U.S. military." Echoes of Nazi Germany in 1938, anyone?

According to writer Kyle-Anne Shrive, in Obama's ascendance:
"We have yet to see a more perfect collision of Murphy's Law with the Peter Principle. In only three weeks' time, [he] has signaled to every terrorist on the planet that we are a sorry, groveling, ashamed nation ready to come to the diplomatic confessional. He is closing Gitmo within one year, has suspended trials there, and dismissed the charges against the U.S.S. Cole plotter. [He] has just put our money where his mouth is and is using $20.3 million to bring in Palestinian refugees from Gaza...[he] had the gall to pronounce the so-called economic stimulus bill absolutely free of `earmarks' and `make-do work'...but according to the Congressional Budget Office [this bill] will do worse to our overall economy than no government action whatsoever."

And Obama has done all this with the predictable double-speak that characterizes malevolent intention, i.e., touting transparency while concealing everything, speaking of integrity while appointing crooks and incompetents riddled with conflicts-of-interest, supporting energy independence while killing off-shore and domestic oil-drilling and nuclear power, and feigning optimism while he speaks of impending "catastrophe" in order to push through a pork-laden, trillion-dollar-plus Stimulus plan that rewards the corrupt voter-fraud organization Acorn with billions and unions with discriminatory union-only labor agreements, paves the way for socialized medicine, and threatens to take away the most cherished rights of We The People.

As blogger Eric Gurr has said: "We still talk about the health care crisis, the environmental crisis, the oil crisis, the banking crisis. Let me tell you my friends you are about to learn the meaning of the only crisis that matters, the survival crisis."

You can be sure that the sad-lonely-angry two-year-old, the jealous-confused-resentful 10-year-old, the self-conscious- cheated-victimized adolescent, and the man who found solace in and identified with his hate-America mentors is now determined to redeem all of his demons.

Unfortunately, he is acting out his rage on free-market capitalism, a free press, property and gun rights, a limited constitutional government, protection of the unborn, and everything else that is good and great about our country.

This is Obama's revenge!

Joan Swirsky (http://www.joanswirsky.com/) is a New York-based author and journalist who can be reached at joansharon@aol.com.

Posted by Dr. Orly Taitz at 2/15/2009 5:45 PM