by Pen Johannson
A new report authored by Western Journalism Center senior research fellow, Stephen Baldwin exposes vast and widespread corruption within the Obama administration. The report presents evidence which directly confronts the liberal establishment, led by Obama's radical agenda and pervasive attempts to undermine America’s powerful standing by devaluing vintage American heritage and by rejecting the reality of American exceptionalism.
Among the measures implicated to this end are the Obama administation's covert implementation of socialism through wealth redistribution legislation; The expansion of government control over private industry; The empowerment of entitlement based policies for minorities; Government supported racial bias against whites and overt deficit spending intended to burden affluent American tax payers to the point of crisis thereby devaluing American currency and forcing massive internationalization of the American financial system.
Baldwin’s “The Case for Impeachment: Why Barack Hussein Obama Should be Impeached to Save America" covers several troubling issues about the conduct of the Obama adminstration.
The report explains the fundamental problem facing America today as an insidious, passive allowance of the destruction of our sovereignty at the hands of perverted liberals and violent religionist extremists.
"Basically, its vintage American heritage against the world," says Queens University, College of Social and Political Science's, Dr. Alvis Meachum, "This is about the melanic world's unjustifiable hatred and jealousy of America's economic and social exceptionalism along with a disparate rejection of the perpetuity of Christian faith by vast numbers of its citizens."
The origins of this problem are deeply rooted in our denial of the preciousness of our blood-ransomed freedom and in our lack of principled adherence to the foundational, Christian values upon which America was established. America’s power was endowed through the covenantal prescriptions of Judeo-Christian faith in the Highest authority, Who is Christ, which is greater than any powers of man’s government in this world.
Unfortunately, we have forgotten our vintage American heroes. We have abandoned their memory. We have forgotten the sacrifice of those worthier...
Most tragically, we have rejected God, and His Son, Jesus Christ, Who loved us first.
"This report reveals a pattern that demonstrates Obama is constantly engaging in actions that reflect a hard-left ideology antithetical to America's founding principles. … Obama is clearly dismissive of America’s constitutional principles and obviously dislikes the role America plays in the world. He dislikes our Judeo-Christian heritage and detests America's historical allies.”
The report continues:
"Less than halfway through his first term, Obama has done more damage to America than any previous president in history. Some of the damage can be repaired; some can't. Some of his policies will haunt generations to come," the report says. "It's time for the American people to rise up and demand Congress impeach him."
The report cites a specific account when Obama even altered the established record of history in order to remove Christian references:
"In his 2010 Easter greeting message, Obama quoted from a sermon given by a military pastor on Iwo Jima in 1945. However, he removed passages dealing with Christian doctrine – like Christ's resurrection – in order to make the quote appealing to all religions, even though Easter is NOT a multicultural event; it's a Christian event. Obama altered a great historical quote in order to serve his multicultural worldview. Apparently he is embarrassed by America’s Christian heritage."
The account also addresses specific misconduct deeply rooted in the Obama administration’s ideological contempt for ethics and American law.
Among the accounts addressed in the report are:
1. Obama's violations of federal campaign and ethics laws, including the offers from his administration to Democratic U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak, who reported he was offered a high-ranking government job to drop his opposition in the Pennsylvania Senate primary to sitting Sen. Arlen Specter.
These violations began as early as 2006 when Obama violated the Logan Act by campaigning for his “cousin”, Raila Odinga, a communist presidential candidate in Kenya, which essentially influenced the outcome of the foreign election. Obama’s participation was a blatant violation of American law. The election resulted in a loss for Odinga who immediately filed an appeal with the Kenyan Election Ministry. The appeal was followed by weeks of violent protest which resulted in the brutal murder of hundreds of Christians and the burning of hundreds of non-muslim churches.
The violence essentially spurred a legislative revision of the 40 year old Kenyan Constitution to add a new prime ministerial position in order to include Odinga in the Kenyan government.
It has since been discovered that Odinga entered into an agreement with Kenya’s leading Muslim organization prior to the election, promising fundamental changes to legislative processes meant to favor Muslim doctrine in government including a push for the implementation of Sharia law, a legal system based on the Muslim religious doctrine outlined in the Koran.
2. Obama's Corruption of Municipal Political Process. Supported by Obama's effort "…to persuade the [Illinois] governor, Rod Blagojovich, to fill the vacated Senate seat with his longtime adviser Valerie Jarrett."
Blago has since been tried and convicted on only one of 27 federal indictments, a remedial charge of lying to federal authorities. This astonishing verdict was no doubt a direct result of Blago’s threat to testify during trial and expose high ranking members of the Obama administration in their complicity with the crimes committed by the Chicago regime. No time will ever be served by Blago as a “reward” arranged with federal prosecutors, who were undoubtedly influenced by Obama, after Blago’s decision to forego testifying.
3. Illegal Acceptance of Foreign Political Contributions. Suggestions from Obama's own Federal Election Commission documentation that he got at least $33.8 million for his campaign from disallowed foreign contributions, including 520 contributions from interests in Iran as well as $30,000 from the Hamas-controlled Gaza area.
4. Obama's Corruption of the American Justice System. This is supported by the fact that the administration made a decision to drop a case that prosecutors already had won against "black nationalist thugs" who were seen on video apparently intimidating voters during the 2008 election.
A Department of Justice lawyer has since resigned after he was allegedly told by the supervisors of the Civil Law division that the government would not prosecute any cases of alleged election fraud “…when the plaintiff was white and the defendant was black.”
5. Obama's Abuse of Executive Power. Obama fired an inspector general, Gerald Walpin, after he exposed corruption linked to one of Obama's buddies, Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson.
6. The president's system of rewarding supporters has come under question. The report confirms more than 70 individuals who raised $50,000 or more for Obama "have been rewarded with ambassadorships or high ranking jobs.
This is what happens when you deny the most basic principles of rightness and decency. By default, an illegitimate, ineligible radical will fill the void and assume control of power and wield it to exploit, pervert and enslave.
However, there are other prolific, more “organic” reasons which provide direct insight into the vast liberal pathology propagating from this regime. These reasons begin with the seeds of Obama’s very existence:
7. A Lack of Confirmation of Legal Constitutional Eligibility. The Founders of America understood better than anyone how the sovereignty of America and, thus, national security could be compromised by a failure to uphold the integrity of our leadership, from “conception to election”. The monarchal government, against whom our Founders fought for independence, was vastly corrupted by a lack of sovereignty in its hierarchy. This was caused mainly by intermarriage with the families of foreign rulers and a lack of boundaries between the political, religious, legal and social factions within the British ruling class. The corruption of British leadership by foreign political, social and religious powers created tyranny which forced freedom loving citizens to unify in a violent revolution and declare their own independence.
It is also unarguable that America’s Founders sought to protect America’s political and military security by establishing a sovereign presidency. This was sought in order to prevent influence by foreign interests or manipulations through the extortion of a President’s plural heritage, or through political blackmail of a President’s foreign loyalties.
It is clear that Barack Obama has not thoroughly disclosed adequate information proving his compliance with all of the Constitutional eligibility mandates to be President. It is widely accepted that Obama meets two of the three mandates for Constitutional eligibility. He was older than 35 and he had resided in the U.S. for 14 years prior to the 2008 election. However, there are legitimate, unanswered questions, stemming from a lack of common evidence, about BOTH his Natural Born and legal U.S. citizenship, as discussed below.
8. A Lack of Federal U.S. Natal Documentation. Establishing one’s natal identity and/or legal citizenship status is an essential requirement for most Americans for various reasons. Some of these reasons include providing identification for obtaining a driver’s license, registering for school, applying for a job, applying for a passport, applying for a loan, applying for a marriage license or applying for a professional license. Many of America’s licensures simply require the applicant to be a legally registered citizen of the U.S. This means that the individual could have been born outside of the United States and then became a “legal” citizen of the U.S. by applying for citizenship through our U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service. This form of citizenship is not Natural Born.
The office of the Presidency is a federal office, not a local (city or county) or municipal (State) office. Therefore, in America, we have a federal documentation process used to confirm the status of eligibility for our federal office holders. This federal documentation includes the long accepted, historically approved document used to prove natural born natal identity. It is the federal, U.S. Department of Health’s “Certificate of Live Birth” published through formatting standards set by the National Vital Statistics Division (NVSD) and created in close collaboration with standards established by the National Conference on Records and Statistics. This document’s form and function was first established in its functional form around 1915 as an improved method of collecting data and information for Census and Natality data in the U.S. developed.
The four notable revisions in the document’s life cycle occurred in 1915, 1933, 1946 and 1956. Since it was formally adopted as a Standard Certificate in 1956, the NVSD “Certificate of Live Birth” has been the exclusive form of documentation published at the time of any live birth event which adequately confirms, with absolute certainty, a “Natural Born” citizen of the U.S. The NVSD Certificate of Live Birth determines a child’s Natural Born identity with six (6) specific metrics.
a. The geographical location of the birth in the U.S., or in a location under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Constitutional protections, including the name of the facility and/or physical address of the birth location.
b. The citizenship of the mother established by either providing the location of her birth or documentation of legal citizenship in the U.S.
c. The date of birth of the child and at least one parent, preferably the mother.
d. The citizenship of the Father established by either providing the location of his birth or documentation of legal citizenship in the U.S.
e. The name, signature and license information of the official attendant of the birth (usually a physician, practician, midwife or medical official qualified to testify to the occurrence of a living or non-living birth event. If the birth does not occur in the presence of a licensed medical professional, witness testimony is taken from those present at the birth and attested as fact by a doctor at the soonest possible opportunity.
f. The registration of the birth with a municipal agency charged by the federal government with the responsibility of recording, collecting, storing and reporting vital information and data to the federal departments of Health and Vital Statistics.
Since 1915, the “Certification of Live Birth” template underwent refinements, revisions and contextual changes as data reporting standards formalized, but there has never been a reduction in the amount of essential data. The essential and preeminent purpose of the NVSD “Certificate of Live Birth” was to provide the most complete, most thorough, most accurate information possible about births in the U.S. As time progressed and our population grew and became more diverse, each state made various minor changes in order to accommodate local laws protecting privacy. However, the spirit of the federal documentation process for births in the U.S. has never changed and has always conformed to the federal standard since as early as 1850 when the first census was attempted.
If any individual fails to produce this documentation, it is reasonable, and encouraged of government officials, to doubt their Natural Born identity.
9. A Lack of Verification of Immigration Activity and Documented Legalized U.S. Citizenship. There is a difference between legalized U.S. citizenship and Natural Born citizenship. Natural born citizenship is obtained by no other means except being born under specific natal circumstances, as previously discussed. Legalized U.S. citizenship is achieved through legal and administrative processes undertaken by non-citizen’s application for U.S. citizenship.
On March 25th, 1965, Barack Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham, married an Indonesian man named Lolo Soetoro. Recent images of court documents show that Dunham was granted a divorce from Barack Obama Sr. on March 20th, 1964. In 1967, Barack Obama moved to Indonesia with his mother where he allegedly became an Indonesian citizen through his adoption by Mr. Soetoro. He attended two schools there and was registered under the name “Barry Soetoro”.
In 1967, Indonesia was under restrictive laws essentially making it a closed society. This means that immigration laws in Indonesia at the time of Obama’s residence there restricted the circumstances by which a citizen of another country could attend school in Indonesia. Primarily, Indonesian law prohibited dual citizenship which would have required that Obama become a full, legalized citizen of Indonesia in order to attend school there until 1971.
As reported by World Net Daily on August 5, 2010:
“Barack Obama lived in Indonesia for "over three years by that time," discussing a visit with his mother to the U.S. Embassy in Jakarta at an unspecified time before he returned to the U.S. (Source: Dreams from My Father, p. 30).
"In Indonesia, I had spent two years at a Muslim school, two years at the Catholic school" (Source: "Dreams from My Father," p. 154).
Obama was in Indonesia from the time he was 6 years old until age 10, from 1967 to 1971.
On an unspecified date in 1971: Barack Obama returns from Indonesia to Hawaii alone, unaccompanied by his mother (Source: "Dreams from My Father," p. 53).
Obama asserts he hands his grandparents his U.S. passport upon arrival in Honolulu (Source: Dreams from My Father, p. 54).
Nothing in the released Freedom of Information State Department documents indicates Dunham Soetoro assisted her son in obtaining a U.S. passport in Indonesia after she amended her passport to remove his name.
To date, Obama has refused to release to the U.S. public his State Department passport records and international travel documentation.”
The four most shocking facts challenging Obama’s identity are:
a. Obama has never provided a verifiable, Federal version of a 1961 long-form, traditional U.S. Department of Health, National Vital Statistic Division “Certificate of Live Birth” which would have been issued to him through the physician of the hospital, if he were indeed born in the U.S. There is no escaping the conviction of this document for Obama. This document would reveal the complete information required to determine whether Obama is a Natural Born citizen, or not and it would verify all other circumstances, demographics and metrics of his identity at birth.
b. Obama’s father, Barack Obama, Sr., was not a U.S. citizen.
c. Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, was too young to confer her U.S. citizenship to Obama thereby defaulting the establishment of citizenry to that of his father’s, who was a British citizen from Kenya. The laws in affect at the time of Obama’s birth stipulated that if a child was born to only one parent who was a citizen of the U.S., that parent had to have resided in the U.S. for at least 10 years, 5 years of which had to be after the citizen parent’s 14th Birthday. Ann Dunham was only 18 when Obama was born making her ineligible to pass American citizenship to Obama. Therefore, Obama was born a British citizen, like his father.
d. Obama became a citizen of Indonesia in 1967. Today, there is no evidence available to prove Obama applied for and actually became a legal U.S. citizen upon returning to Hawaii in 1971.
10. A Lack of Verification of Obama’s Legal Name. Obama has used more than one name in his life. However, there is no legal chain of documentation verifying when or where he ever changed his name.
Obviously, Obama was born with a name given to him by his parents. However, no official, Federal or legal document has been provided to clarify what name Obama was given at birth.
Sometime after his mother’s marriage to Lolo Soetoro, Obama began using the name Barry Soetoro, which has been shown occurring in various sources from his school registration to labels on photographs to testimony from people who knew him during these years.
Then, sometime after he graduated from High School, Obama began using his current name “Barack Obama” as evidence shows in pictures and alleged documentation.
There is no Federal or legal documentation showing when or where Obama changed his name from his birth name (whatever that was) to Barry Soetoro, and then to Barack Hussein Obama. We might assume he was born with the name Barack Obama based on conjecture, but the fact of the matter is that we do not have legal documentation proving this.
11. Obama’s Use of Multiple Social Security Numbers. Obama has been accused of violating U.S. law by investigators who uncovered solid evidence that he has used multiple social security numbers throughout his life. When confronted with this evidence, White House spokesman, Robert Gibbs has simply refused to answer legitimate questions while accusing anyone asking about this serious legal matter of being a conspiracist against Obama.
Notably, a spokesperson from the U.S. Attorney General's office, led by Obama appointee, Eric Holder, has said that if anyone else in America had been confronted with the evidence Obama had been confronted with, they would have been indicted on charges of identity fraud.
12. Obama’s Political Plurality and His Blatant Connections With Foreign Interests. There are multiple accounts of Obama seeking political support from foreign heads of state and governments who have consistently violated U.N. security council regulations.
The most recent account was Obama's refusal to support the uprising of citizens of Iran in their protest against the fraudulently elected government of Mahmoud Amadinijad, who has repeatedly threatened Israel and America and has since achieved nuclear capability which the Muslim procaustic says is to be used for utility purposes only. Iran is a persistent violator of demands and sanctions implemented by global security officials and continues to incite anti-Semitic hatred for Israel.
13. The Complicity In Obama’s Deception By the Government of the State Of Hawaii. Since the 2008 election, thousands of requests have been made by the American people for that states cooperation in providing documentation of Obama’s identity for the purpose of verifying his eligibility to be president.
Many employees and elected officials of the government of the State of Hawaii, including Governor, Linda Lingle, the director of the Hawaiian Department of Health, Chiyome Fukino and the State Registrar, the DOH Communications Officer and several election officials have all engaged in highly irregular, suspect behavior and highly ambiguous testimony seemingly contrived for the illicit purpose of protecting Obama’s covert identity and concealing the circumstances of his murky natal history. At the center of the controversy is the state of Hawaii’s strange willfulness to promote Obama’s eligibility through secondary testimony without actually providing the original, official, federal records it has on file containing personal, biographical, natal and demographic information about Obama’s alleged birth and residence in the Hawaii islands since 1961.
It has since been learned that Governor Lingle has been a long-time advocate of economic partnerships with the nation of Indonesia, one of Obama’s geographic origins from where little information has been provided about his residency, travel and activity there.
Lingle traveled to Indonesia in June of 2007, immediately following the controversy surrounding Obama’s Hawaiian certification of Live birth, and subsequent questions about his Indonesian and Kenyan roots. Lingle’s stated purpose in Indonesia was to promote economic opportunities between Hawaii and the Muslim south pacific island nation. She also spoke at the joint Hawaiian-Indonesian Chamber of Commerce in June, 2010. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1Nu1H6qtLQ
Regarding the 2007 Indonesian trip, the Governor's own website states:
"The first leg of the trip will include a three-day visit to Jakarta to inaugurate a Hawai‘i-Indonesia State Partnership with the Hawai‘i National Guard in support of PACOM’s security cooperation strategy. The partnership program will offer opportunities for increased cooperation in the areas of mutual security cooperation, disaster preparedness, trade, education and tourism.
Governor Lingle will meet with Indonesia’s minister of defense and other cabinet members, as well as representatives of the U.S. Embassy. She will also participate in a roundtable discussion with the Indonesian Center for Security & International Services and the U.S.-Indonesia Society, tour the Indonesia Earthquake and Tsunami Research Center, and visit with U.S. forces participating in a disaster management exercise. In addition, she will meet with Indonesian women leaders and participate in an interactive conference."
The Governor will be accompanied by members of the Administration who will take part in various segments of the trip, including Major General Robert Lee, state adjutant general; Marsha Wienert, state tourism liaison; Dr. Chiyome Fukino, state health director; Sandra Lee Kunimoto, chair, Board of Agriculture; Kurt Kawafuchi, state tax director; JP Schmidt, state insurance commissioner; Craig Watanabe, captive insurance administrator, Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs; Lenny Klompus, senior advisor-communications; Russell Pang, chief of media relations; and representatives from the Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism."
It is highly irregular for a State official, like Lingle, to engage in international political, business and security affairs on behalf of America on an international level without participation of the federal government.
On many occasions, Lingle has expressed a bias in her relationship with the people in Obama’s former foreign homeland where he lived with his mother, half sister and late stepfather, Lolo Soetoro.
14. The Federal Court System is Protecting Obama. Federal court judges have rejected more than 30 legitimate cases filed against Obama seeking evidence of his presidential eligibility.
15. Obama's Racially Biased Sentiments in Favor of Minorities Against Whites. Throughout his presidency Obama has made unnecessary comments about racial issues. In no instance of alleged conflict along racial lines, has Obama ever spoke objectively in favor of unity. He has persistently taken the side of the non-white party involved while, on some occasions, actually disparaging the white people involved.
The most notable example of this was Obama’s comment that white Cambridge police officers acted stupidly in arresting Obama’s friend and former Harvard affiliate, Henry Louis Gates after Gates was charged with disorderly conduct and acting in a threatening manner against the police. Before Obama’s stupid comments, he even admitted that he did not know the facts of the case, yet, he commented on it anyway.
In conclusion
It is imperative that we return to the essential places of decency and principled behavior through repentance and contrition. We must gather up our brokenness and take it before the mercy of Christ’s forgiveness. Then, governed by this act of repentance, God will show his power and mercy once again by arming us to reject the implements of liberal degeneracy and destroy the agents of hate wrought by these current, illicit purveyors.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Monday, August 16, 2010
Obama Abandons 9-11 Victims Over Ground Zero Mosque
Radical Islam’s Favorite Enabler Holds Shameful Presser "Describing the Rights Of Islam" as Tear Soaked Eyes of 9-11 Families Look Painfully and Helplessly On
A Daily Pen guest editorial
by Debaris Bjorenserkven
New York – Jack Nicholsen had a line in the movie "As Good As It Gets." During a moment of desperation while begging for advice from his passively antagonistic counterpart, he shouted figuratively, "I'm drowing over here and you are describing the water."
Barack Obama's shockingly hurtful support of the inappropriate and intrusive construction of an Islamic mosque at the site of the 9-11 terrorist attacks was equally worthless to the murdered victims' families.
Shame on you, Barack Obama. Shame on you for being so entrenched in your selfish political correctness and bias for Muslims that you have failed to honor those who have suffered unimaginably as a result of them.
The liberal establishment is off its rocker defending the "rights of Muslims" using the narrative of the 1st Amendment's right to freedom of religious expression as the procaustic approvals of such a deranged thing. Since when did any heathen on the left ever care about religious rights? Yeah, liberals are really the lauded champions of religiously based morality in this nation. Give us a break. Liberals are about as qualified to lecture anyone on religious freedom as Ted Bundy is qualified to lecture on women's rights. It's ridiculous.
But, okay. If you want to play it that way, fine. Let's play, libnuts.
In an August 16th interview on CNN between "Anderson Cooper 360's" host and John Ridley, founding editor of thatminoritything.com and president of the National Action Network (a civil rights activism organization), Ridley, an extreme liberal, said this about the 1st Amendment in its application to promote villification of a conservative radio host, Dr. Laura after she used the word "nigger" on her live radio show last week. To illustrate the hypocrisy of liberals on this matter, we have substituted pronouns referencing Muslims and liberals in place of Mr. Ridley's reference to Dr. Laura:
"The big reaction for me is when (they) talk about (their) 1st Amendment rights being trampled, you know...the 1st Amendment pertains to government impeding on freedom of religion and freedom of speech. It has nothing to do with what I feel like or if you want to protest, or things like that. No one is impeding (their) 1st Amendment rights! But, to say that for some reason because someone disagrees with (them) that (they) are being maligned or somehow shoved (out), to me, is absurd..."
Amen, brother! This is a liberal activist saying this. Ridley's analysis is 100% correct. The 1st Amendment is a constitutional restriction on government actions respecting religion and speech, not a restriction on the actions of citizens. Ridley needs to call his liberal friend, Barack Obama, and let him know this.
If the citizens of New York and America choose to reject this mosque being built at ground zero, there are measures they can take to prevent it through protest, economic pressure, vindication, public activism, propaganda, and rhetoric, within the bounds of social and moral jurisdictions, without the government being involved. The 1st Amendment applies to all American citizens...right?
If that concept doesn't grab you, then consider this shocker. Dr. Laura actually has a Constitutional right to say the N-word. There is no law preventing her from doing it. She is protected in her right to speak freely by the 1st Amendment without fear of reprisal from the government. However, decency dictates that this word is hurtful to our fellow black citizens and therefore we should refrain from using it. Likewise, Muslims have a Constitutional right to build a place of worship at ground zero in New York. There is no law preventing it. However, decency dictates that this act would be hurtful to our fellow citizens who lost loved ones on 9-11 and therefore we should refrain from building it.
In 1 Corinthians 10:23, we are told by the Apostle Paul, "Everything is permissible – but not everything is beneficial. Everything is permissible – but not everything is constructive.”
It requires a higher wisdom to do the things that are beneficial and constructive when permission is available to do things that cause pain for others. Wisdom that Obama and Muslims in this matter don't seem to possess. Of course, building a mosque at ground zero is permissible...but it is not beneficial. It is permissible, but not constructive. Sometimes, things which are permissible are not always beneficial in all situations. If Muslims desire to gain respect for their religious freedom, they need to promote actions which demonstrate a desire not to abuse that respect. Building this mosque in this location abuses both freedom of religion and the citizens' choice to respect it. When Muslims speak of tolerance for their beliefs, they need to be equally considerate of tolerance for the loss suffered by victims of 9-11.
Its too bad that radical liberals are so blinded by their double-standardization and ideology that they are unable to see the equal merit in this. Its very sad for America's future.
Liberal politicians have the most poisonous tongues of all creatures. When they speak, their mind has already contrived the unfathomable lies efficiently rooted in the most hateful ideology used to justify their indecency. They are hypocrites and haters of decency as it is defined by the Son of God, who is Christ Jesus...the only Savior available for all on Earth.
Most do not understand that radical activists say indecent things which intentionally reveal their true character, which is intended to send a message to those they hate. Regardless, being equally displaced, a lack of moral aptitude and limbic orientation when confronted by righteous convictions make both creatures speak without reverence or respect for what is right, decent and appropriate.
Like the radical muslims promoting this unseemly project, Barack Obama is no exception to this. Moreover, to anyone doubting whether or not the Muslim promoters of this project are radical, just answer this question: Would a reasonable, moderate, peace-seeking man even consider such disgraceful social and moral deviancy?
A Christian saint provoked, "The best we can do as those sealed in Christ, the One and only King of peace and submissor to God the Father, is pray for His mercy for them when His judgment comes. The unimaginable horrors which are, at this very moment, coursing toward them from the Kingdom, are directed only by the reprevation granted by the One who has been given authority over the Earth in which they dwell, who is Christ. It is by this same authority, established by the shedding of Christ's blood for sin, upon His allowance of His own crucifixion and His resurrection by the Power of God, that we, as his trusted and forgiven, hold power over the depraved who perish without Him. How will lost humanity reject Christ the Son, and think they can find favor with God the Father?"
On August 13, Obama ventured, once again, uninvited, onto “sacred ground”, to a place where he doesn’t belong, when he commented in support of the construction of an Islamic mosque only a few hundred feet from the location where Muslim terrorists murdered 3000 innocent people and destroyed the World Trade Center. He has since “clarified” his stupid remarks with a softer version questioning the wisdom in undertaking such an endeavor, but the damage has already been done…again.
It is not good enough to simply express outrage at Obama's hostility and empty heart. It is not enough to disagree with his contrived doctrine of political lies and hate. He must be rebuked and his words cast down and trampled under the authority of God's grace and mercy.
Obama’s first mistake was saying anything about it in the first place. This is a social values issue to be resolved among the court of public opinion and the will of the citizenry, not the government. Everyone understands the government is not acting to abridge the religous freedom of anyone. Building a mosque at ground zero is not a matter of legal rights. It is a matter of moral right. Some day, in Obama’s fantasy world, when the American government attempts to make a law respecting some religion or abridging the free expression thereof, he can then make his liberal hay. Until then, his advisors should tell him to shut up and save some credibility for the sake of his party’s political future.
His second mistake was being indifferent to the suffering of American families now injured by his contrived, insensitive tripe.
In the address, Obama said,“…let me be clear, as a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country…”.
Shakespeare wrote of such legal adherences when he constructed the character of Shylock, as well. The some binding tune was sung by the legalist until the same law he defended suddenly had an inescable hold upon him! Likewise, Obama better be very careful around this subject. His political credibility is fragile enough without adding his rejection of the grief of victims of Islamic terrorists on 9-11-2001.
Let me be clear. No one has ever claimed the government should pass a law against the Muslim, or any, religion, as Obama is insinuating. We all know that the government is prevented from passing laws abridging the people's right to the free expression of religion. We are also aware the government is not allowed to pass any law respecting any religion. However, liberal degenerates are so vastly estranged from the principles of America's founders, and the faith by which they established this nation, they lack the intellectual capacity to understand the 1st Amendment of the Constution is a legal protection exclusively against the government's regulation of religious freedom, not against people's right to reject it. The 1st Amendment is not a restriction against the citizens' right to reject any religion when they determine that any systemic practice, religious or not, is deemed within the court of social values to violate human decency! American citizens are not subject to the restrictions of the 1st Amendment, the liberal government is! If America decides to reject the construction of a mosque because they believe it is indecent, then that mosque is not going to be built. End of story. If the builders attempt to defy the people's will, it will result in conflict, hatred and, perhaps, even violence and bloodshed. I'm no theologian, but those results don't seem very condusive with "tolerance" and "peaceful outreach".
Moreover, there is no law in America protecting one's right to be indecent. It is time for Islam to grow up and embrace the rights of others, not just be offended in their little world of hateful entitlements. Whereas the 1st Amendment protects the free expression of religion from the intrusion of government, it also protects American citizens' right to oppose, violently if necessary, threats against our national welfare. Obama and his liberal minions only seek to uphold the goose...not the gander of this double edged sword.
Obama’s lack of political legitimacy is only magnified by such unmitigated impulses to run astray of his plush liberal sanctuary. Oblivious to his collapsing credibility, he runs into localized social issues against exclusive ownership by vintage Americans and which are simply none of his government's damn business. Obama's "otherness" simply disqualifies him to comment on such matters of authentic holiness. The suffering of victims and their families as a result of actions by deranged, murderous, psychopathic religionist animals on 9-11 is subject matter best left to far worthier, advanced citizens endowed with proven moral aptitude. As a radical sympathist, Obama would do better to remain lashed in advocacy for poor minorities and leave the achievement of authentic justice to those who actually have lost and sacrificed something of value for this nation.
For someone championed by liberals as a lifelong justice seeker heavily beholding to the interests of the political left, Obama seems bound and determined to help his opponents through social and moral self-destruction. Not that he was a legitimate candidate to begin with, but if he wanted to be a community activist, he should have remained in Chicago working for Bill Ayers or Wade Rathke, attending Rev. Jerry Wrights black radical church and doing business deals with Tony Rezco. He could have been an open practician of Islam, instead of a covert one, and could have stood point for Muslims and promoted Mosque construction all over the windy city.
Obama’s words are disgraceful and an offense to the murdered innocents of 9-11-01 and their families. Plain and simple. His communications advisor should be fired.
Obama’s time in the White House can be summed up by massive failures within a very small, but extremely potent handful of key missteps which are so blatantly stark that they expose his lack of executive aptitude. Instead, they compliment characteristics his handlers have sought to conceal for more than four years, those of a radical communist sympathizer and community activist.
After a multitude of unnecessary and politically destructive comments about private, localized social issues, Barack Obama continues to prove himself as the radical, liberal activist he was honed to be. It’s become commonplace for this delegitimized, farce of an electant to show his true, radicalized colors when it comes to spewing an ideological bent on four primary fronts including race, wealth redistribution, anti-capitalism and Islam.
The shame in Obama’s words is that he seems to so easily abandon the truth that the construction of any Islamic shrine, or symbol of any kind, anywhere near ground zero in lower Manhattan is not a matter of Religious rights. It is a matter of what is right and which supports the spirit of uniting America, not dividing it. It is a matter of decency reflected by the contrition of an offender to remove himself as far from the pain and proximity of his offense until such time those who were injured by his violence may find healing and establish the capacity for grace and forgiveness at a time and place of their choosing, not the offender's choosing. Do Muslims now believe they can draw American affection buy forcing a relationship upon them? Building a mosque in this proposed location is an act of agression, not peace. If Obama were truly interested in promoting the tenets of a "peaceful", "tolerant" Islam, he would kindly remind his Muslim brothers and sisters of their duty to not be unprovoked agressors (DSQ2:190-195).
These truths are apparent, but, what is more difficult to reconcile is how this mosque is going to get built by any American contractor.
Who is ever going to accept that contract?
WHEN JUSTIFYING MURDER BECOMES RELIGIOUS EXPRESSION, THE APOCOLYPSE IS UPON US
Obama’s lack of insight to recognize Islam’s tenuous social standing in America after 9-11 is only surpassed by his obvious deranged radicalism promoting the construction of the very same kind of infrastructure from whence the evil of 9-11 was spawned. Does he honestly believe that propping another such a potentially satanic haven is supposed to work a miracle of healing. The whole affair is akin to memorializing the life of a murderer by constructing his tomb next to the graves of his victims. How does that promote tolerance, healing and acceptance, Mr. Obama?
We should not be surprised by this man’s lack of orientation toward what is morally right when he is confronted with a circumstance that allows him to be the unadulterated radical activist he was trained to be. Obama’s true faith rests in the god of his own ideological welfare and a perverted sense of cultural justice favoring melanic Muslims over white Christians and Jews. This is now blatantly apparent.
Obama concluded his ankle-deep plunge into shame with a line framing the self-serving hypocrisy when he said, “The writ of the founders shall endure…”
Notice that Obama did not say…”the writ of America’s founders shall endure…”. He said “…the writ of THE founders shall endure…”
The founders of what, Mr. Obama? The founders of Islam? The founders of socialism? The founders of America? The founders of Al Qaeda?
A cross reference of his “shall endure” closing remark with the content of the Koran produces reference to chapter 2 verse 190-195 in which the Koran directs Muslims in their fight against Christians, Jews and most shockingly, against those who are perceived to oppress Muslim worship. This section of the Koran is appropriately and expectedly titled “Rules of War”.
Verse 2:193 actually says: “You (the Muslim) may also fight (Christians and Jews) to eliminate oppression, and to worship GOD freely.”
That is quite the licensure for a religion of “peace” and “submission”, eh? Fits the Obama narrative to a tee!
So, what does a nation do when the right to free expression of religion is confronted by a “religion” professing, as a right of its expression, the duty to kill others in the name of that religion? Where is the line drawn by a government in its adherence to the restrictions of the 1st Amendment and it duty to enforce the law.
MUSLIMS HAVE NO RIGHT TO NOT FEEL OFFENDED
Being offended has become a new qualification for entitlement at the expense of others in America. Obama is the chief marketer of this psychopathology. It has now become a legitimate form of redress to simply claim that you have been emotionally offended, in order to cull spineless, liberal politicians into your favor. This is particularly effective if you claim you have been offended by a white, Christian, heterosexual, affluent, conservative male. This demographic is the new minority in the world.
The tragic reality quickly descending upon Muslims is that, in America, you do not have a right to NOT feel offended just because others disagree with you. In America, we have a right to hate and that right extends as far as our words against you. We have a right speak against blatant tenets of violence espoused by Islam against those who do not believe like them. Moreover, we have an exceptional right in America to bear arms against those who might attempt to hurt us for this same reason. We have a right to prevent the diminishment of our lives and define the terms of our defense as individual citizens. In America, you do not have a right to murder others who disagree with, or even hate Islamic doctrine. In America, rights are not opportunities, they are the best possible protections of the individual against harmful mass doctrine and murderous hordes...domestic, foreign or tyrannical.
Someone in the Obama administration communications office should simply tell Obama to stick to politics and completely avoid issues of character and decency. He sucks at the latter. The Democrats do not need any more help from this de-facto communist regime in losing their maligned power this election cycle. They will wreck that train just fine on their own.
Unfortunately, Obama simply cannot resist the temptation to let his tongue lead the way when it comes to defending the atrocities of Islamic violence.
A Daily Pen guest editorial
by Debaris Bjorenserkven
New York – Jack Nicholsen had a line in the movie "As Good As It Gets." During a moment of desperation while begging for advice from his passively antagonistic counterpart, he shouted figuratively, "I'm drowing over here and you are describing the water."
Barack Obama's shockingly hurtful support of the inappropriate and intrusive construction of an Islamic mosque at the site of the 9-11 terrorist attacks was equally worthless to the murdered victims' families.
Shame on you, Barack Obama. Shame on you for being so entrenched in your selfish political correctness and bias for Muslims that you have failed to honor those who have suffered unimaginably as a result of them.
The liberal establishment is off its rocker defending the "rights of Muslims" using the narrative of the 1st Amendment's right to freedom of religious expression as the procaustic approvals of such a deranged thing. Since when did any heathen on the left ever care about religious rights? Yeah, liberals are really the lauded champions of religiously based morality in this nation. Give us a break. Liberals are about as qualified to lecture anyone on religious freedom as Ted Bundy is qualified to lecture on women's rights. It's ridiculous.
But, okay. If you want to play it that way, fine. Let's play, libnuts.
In an August 16th interview on CNN between "Anderson Cooper 360's" host and John Ridley, founding editor of thatminoritything.com and president of the National Action Network (a civil rights activism organization), Ridley, an extreme liberal, said this about the 1st Amendment in its application to promote villification of a conservative radio host, Dr. Laura after she used the word "nigger" on her live radio show last week. To illustrate the hypocrisy of liberals on this matter, we have substituted pronouns referencing Muslims and liberals in place of Mr. Ridley's reference to Dr. Laura:
"The big reaction for me is when (they) talk about (their) 1st Amendment rights being trampled, you know...the 1st Amendment pertains to government impeding on freedom of religion and freedom of speech. It has nothing to do with what I feel like or if you want to protest, or things like that. No one is impeding (their) 1st Amendment rights! But, to say that for some reason because someone disagrees with (them) that (they) are being maligned or somehow shoved (out), to me, is absurd..."
Amen, brother! This is a liberal activist saying this. Ridley's analysis is 100% correct. The 1st Amendment is a constitutional restriction on government actions respecting religion and speech, not a restriction on the actions of citizens. Ridley needs to call his liberal friend, Barack Obama, and let him know this.
If the citizens of New York and America choose to reject this mosque being built at ground zero, there are measures they can take to prevent it through protest, economic pressure, vindication, public activism, propaganda, and rhetoric, within the bounds of social and moral jurisdictions, without the government being involved. The 1st Amendment applies to all American citizens...right?
If that concept doesn't grab you, then consider this shocker. Dr. Laura actually has a Constitutional right to say the N-word. There is no law preventing her from doing it. She is protected in her right to speak freely by the 1st Amendment without fear of reprisal from the government. However, decency dictates that this word is hurtful to our fellow black citizens and therefore we should refrain from using it. Likewise, Muslims have a Constitutional right to build a place of worship at ground zero in New York. There is no law preventing it. However, decency dictates that this act would be hurtful to our fellow citizens who lost loved ones on 9-11 and therefore we should refrain from building it.
In 1 Corinthians 10:23, we are told by the Apostle Paul, "Everything is permissible – but not everything is beneficial. Everything is permissible – but not everything is constructive.”
It requires a higher wisdom to do the things that are beneficial and constructive when permission is available to do things that cause pain for others. Wisdom that Obama and Muslims in this matter don't seem to possess. Of course, building a mosque at ground zero is permissible...but it is not beneficial. It is permissible, but not constructive. Sometimes, things which are permissible are not always beneficial in all situations. If Muslims desire to gain respect for their religious freedom, they need to promote actions which demonstrate a desire not to abuse that respect. Building this mosque in this location abuses both freedom of religion and the citizens' choice to respect it. When Muslims speak of tolerance for their beliefs, they need to be equally considerate of tolerance for the loss suffered by victims of 9-11.
Its too bad that radical liberals are so blinded by their double-standardization and ideology that they are unable to see the equal merit in this. Its very sad for America's future.
Liberal politicians have the most poisonous tongues of all creatures. When they speak, their mind has already contrived the unfathomable lies efficiently rooted in the most hateful ideology used to justify their indecency. They are hypocrites and haters of decency as it is defined by the Son of God, who is Christ Jesus...the only Savior available for all on Earth.
Most do not understand that radical activists say indecent things which intentionally reveal their true character, which is intended to send a message to those they hate. Regardless, being equally displaced, a lack of moral aptitude and limbic orientation when confronted by righteous convictions make both creatures speak without reverence or respect for what is right, decent and appropriate.
Like the radical muslims promoting this unseemly project, Barack Obama is no exception to this. Moreover, to anyone doubting whether or not the Muslim promoters of this project are radical, just answer this question: Would a reasonable, moderate, peace-seeking man even consider such disgraceful social and moral deviancy?
A Christian saint provoked, "The best we can do as those sealed in Christ, the One and only King of peace and submissor to God the Father, is pray for His mercy for them when His judgment comes. The unimaginable horrors which are, at this very moment, coursing toward them from the Kingdom, are directed only by the reprevation granted by the One who has been given authority over the Earth in which they dwell, who is Christ. It is by this same authority, established by the shedding of Christ's blood for sin, upon His allowance of His own crucifixion and His resurrection by the Power of God, that we, as his trusted and forgiven, hold power over the depraved who perish without Him. How will lost humanity reject Christ the Son, and think they can find favor with God the Father?"
On August 13, Obama ventured, once again, uninvited, onto “sacred ground”, to a place where he doesn’t belong, when he commented in support of the construction of an Islamic mosque only a few hundred feet from the location where Muslim terrorists murdered 3000 innocent people and destroyed the World Trade Center. He has since “clarified” his stupid remarks with a softer version questioning the wisdom in undertaking such an endeavor, but the damage has already been done…again.
It is not good enough to simply express outrage at Obama's hostility and empty heart. It is not enough to disagree with his contrived doctrine of political lies and hate. He must be rebuked and his words cast down and trampled under the authority of God's grace and mercy.
Obama’s first mistake was saying anything about it in the first place. This is a social values issue to be resolved among the court of public opinion and the will of the citizenry, not the government. Everyone understands the government is not acting to abridge the religous freedom of anyone. Building a mosque at ground zero is not a matter of legal rights. It is a matter of moral right. Some day, in Obama’s fantasy world, when the American government attempts to make a law respecting some religion or abridging the free expression thereof, he can then make his liberal hay. Until then, his advisors should tell him to shut up and save some credibility for the sake of his party’s political future.
His second mistake was being indifferent to the suffering of American families now injured by his contrived, insensitive tripe.
In the address, Obama said,“…let me be clear, as a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country…”.
Shakespeare wrote of such legal adherences when he constructed the character of Shylock, as well. The some binding tune was sung by the legalist until the same law he defended suddenly had an inescable hold upon him! Likewise, Obama better be very careful around this subject. His political credibility is fragile enough without adding his rejection of the grief of victims of Islamic terrorists on 9-11-2001.
Let me be clear. No one has ever claimed the government should pass a law against the Muslim, or any, religion, as Obama is insinuating. We all know that the government is prevented from passing laws abridging the people's right to the free expression of religion. We are also aware the government is not allowed to pass any law respecting any religion. However, liberal degenerates are so vastly estranged from the principles of America's founders, and the faith by which they established this nation, they lack the intellectual capacity to understand the 1st Amendment of the Constution is a legal protection exclusively against the government's regulation of religious freedom, not against people's right to reject it. The 1st Amendment is not a restriction against the citizens' right to reject any religion when they determine that any systemic practice, religious or not, is deemed within the court of social values to violate human decency! American citizens are not subject to the restrictions of the 1st Amendment, the liberal government is! If America decides to reject the construction of a mosque because they believe it is indecent, then that mosque is not going to be built. End of story. If the builders attempt to defy the people's will, it will result in conflict, hatred and, perhaps, even violence and bloodshed. I'm no theologian, but those results don't seem very condusive with "tolerance" and "peaceful outreach".
Moreover, there is no law in America protecting one's right to be indecent. It is time for Islam to grow up and embrace the rights of others, not just be offended in their little world of hateful entitlements. Whereas the 1st Amendment protects the free expression of religion from the intrusion of government, it also protects American citizens' right to oppose, violently if necessary, threats against our national welfare. Obama and his liberal minions only seek to uphold the goose...not the gander of this double edged sword.
Obama’s lack of political legitimacy is only magnified by such unmitigated impulses to run astray of his plush liberal sanctuary. Oblivious to his collapsing credibility, he runs into localized social issues against exclusive ownership by vintage Americans and which are simply none of his government's damn business. Obama's "otherness" simply disqualifies him to comment on such matters of authentic holiness. The suffering of victims and their families as a result of actions by deranged, murderous, psychopathic religionist animals on 9-11 is subject matter best left to far worthier, advanced citizens endowed with proven moral aptitude. As a radical sympathist, Obama would do better to remain lashed in advocacy for poor minorities and leave the achievement of authentic justice to those who actually have lost and sacrificed something of value for this nation.
For someone championed by liberals as a lifelong justice seeker heavily beholding to the interests of the political left, Obama seems bound and determined to help his opponents through social and moral self-destruction. Not that he was a legitimate candidate to begin with, but if he wanted to be a community activist, he should have remained in Chicago working for Bill Ayers or Wade Rathke, attending Rev. Jerry Wrights black radical church and doing business deals with Tony Rezco. He could have been an open practician of Islam, instead of a covert one, and could have stood point for Muslims and promoted Mosque construction all over the windy city.
Obama’s words are disgraceful and an offense to the murdered innocents of 9-11-01 and their families. Plain and simple. His communications advisor should be fired.
Obama’s time in the White House can be summed up by massive failures within a very small, but extremely potent handful of key missteps which are so blatantly stark that they expose his lack of executive aptitude. Instead, they compliment characteristics his handlers have sought to conceal for more than four years, those of a radical communist sympathizer and community activist.
After a multitude of unnecessary and politically destructive comments about private, localized social issues, Barack Obama continues to prove himself as the radical, liberal activist he was honed to be. It’s become commonplace for this delegitimized, farce of an electant to show his true, radicalized colors when it comes to spewing an ideological bent on four primary fronts including race, wealth redistribution, anti-capitalism and Islam.
The shame in Obama’s words is that he seems to so easily abandon the truth that the construction of any Islamic shrine, or symbol of any kind, anywhere near ground zero in lower Manhattan is not a matter of Religious rights. It is a matter of what is right and which supports the spirit of uniting America, not dividing it. It is a matter of decency reflected by the contrition of an offender to remove himself as far from the pain and proximity of his offense until such time those who were injured by his violence may find healing and establish the capacity for grace and forgiveness at a time and place of their choosing, not the offender's choosing. Do Muslims now believe they can draw American affection buy forcing a relationship upon them? Building a mosque in this proposed location is an act of agression, not peace. If Obama were truly interested in promoting the tenets of a "peaceful", "tolerant" Islam, he would kindly remind his Muslim brothers and sisters of their duty to not be unprovoked agressors (DSQ2:190-195).
These truths are apparent, but, what is more difficult to reconcile is how this mosque is going to get built by any American contractor.
Who is ever going to accept that contract?
WHEN JUSTIFYING MURDER BECOMES RELIGIOUS EXPRESSION, THE APOCOLYPSE IS UPON US
Obama’s lack of insight to recognize Islam’s tenuous social standing in America after 9-11 is only surpassed by his obvious deranged radicalism promoting the construction of the very same kind of infrastructure from whence the evil of 9-11 was spawned. Does he honestly believe that propping another such a potentially satanic haven is supposed to work a miracle of healing. The whole affair is akin to memorializing the life of a murderer by constructing his tomb next to the graves of his victims. How does that promote tolerance, healing and acceptance, Mr. Obama?
We should not be surprised by this man’s lack of orientation toward what is morally right when he is confronted with a circumstance that allows him to be the unadulterated radical activist he was trained to be. Obama’s true faith rests in the god of his own ideological welfare and a perverted sense of cultural justice favoring melanic Muslims over white Christians and Jews. This is now blatantly apparent.
Obama concluded his ankle-deep plunge into shame with a line framing the self-serving hypocrisy when he said, “The writ of the founders shall endure…”
Notice that Obama did not say…”the writ of America’s founders shall endure…”. He said “…the writ of THE founders shall endure…”
The founders of what, Mr. Obama? The founders of Islam? The founders of socialism? The founders of America? The founders of Al Qaeda?
A cross reference of his “shall endure” closing remark with the content of the Koran produces reference to chapter 2 verse 190-195 in which the Koran directs Muslims in their fight against Christians, Jews and most shockingly, against those who are perceived to oppress Muslim worship. This section of the Koran is appropriately and expectedly titled “Rules of War”.
Verse 2:193 actually says: “You (the Muslim) may also fight (Christians and Jews) to eliminate oppression, and to worship GOD freely.”
That is quite the licensure for a religion of “peace” and “submission”, eh? Fits the Obama narrative to a tee!
So, what does a nation do when the right to free expression of religion is confronted by a “religion” professing, as a right of its expression, the duty to kill others in the name of that religion? Where is the line drawn by a government in its adherence to the restrictions of the 1st Amendment and it duty to enforce the law.
MUSLIMS HAVE NO RIGHT TO NOT FEEL OFFENDED
Being offended has become a new qualification for entitlement at the expense of others in America. Obama is the chief marketer of this psychopathology. It has now become a legitimate form of redress to simply claim that you have been emotionally offended, in order to cull spineless, liberal politicians into your favor. This is particularly effective if you claim you have been offended by a white, Christian, heterosexual, affluent, conservative male. This demographic is the new minority in the world.
The tragic reality quickly descending upon Muslims is that, in America, you do not have a right to NOT feel offended just because others disagree with you. In America, we have a right to hate and that right extends as far as our words against you. We have a right speak against blatant tenets of violence espoused by Islam against those who do not believe like them. Moreover, we have an exceptional right in America to bear arms against those who might attempt to hurt us for this same reason. We have a right to prevent the diminishment of our lives and define the terms of our defense as individual citizens. In America, you do not have a right to murder others who disagree with, or even hate Islamic doctrine. In America, rights are not opportunities, they are the best possible protections of the individual against harmful mass doctrine and murderous hordes...domestic, foreign or tyrannical.
Someone in the Obama administration communications office should simply tell Obama to stick to politics and completely avoid issues of character and decency. He sucks at the latter. The Democrats do not need any more help from this de-facto communist regime in losing their maligned power this election cycle. They will wreck that train just fine on their own.
Unfortunately, Obama simply cannot resist the temptation to let his tongue lead the way when it comes to defending the atrocities of Islamic violence.
Co-Wiki-dences: Maybe Birthers Are Right...
New Evidence Reveals Some Editors of Obama’s “Eligibility Sensitive” Natal Information on Wikipedia Were Connected To His Covert Propaganda Machine.
A Daily Pen investigation
by Dan Crosby
On January 21, 2009, one day after being shoe-horned into the White House, Barack Obama’s first order of business was not to investigate the mortgage collapse. Nor did he assign an order to implement economic solutions. Nope.
Instead, he signed a far more important policy order to guard something far more valuable than America, in his eyes. He invoked Executive Order No. 13489 which essentially handicaps, if not outright prevents, the release of Presidential Records through the National Archives & Records Administration without that information being censored first. The astonishing order implements executive privilege authority over the discretion of the National Archives and the Freedom of Information Act when the release of Presidential records and information is requested.
The new era of covert opacity continues.
Thank God we have Wikipedia, right?
Among the documented facts previously discussed about Obama's Constitutional eligibility, there are several other coincidences which support reasons to question Obama’s natal identity, his character and his legitimacy as a President. The peripheral situations are based on facts coincidental to Obama’s election and they further indicate a need for a full investigation of the circumstances surrounding his tenuously vetted candidacy.
OBAMA ON WIKIPEDIA
Wikipedia a free web-based and collaborative multilingual encyclopedia. Wikipedia's 13 million articles have been written mutually by millions of user volunteers around the world, and almost all of its articles can be edited by anyone who can access the site. Wikipedia is currently the largest and most popular general reference work on the Internet. Wikipedia and its affiliated sites consistently rank in the top 10 most used sites in the world.
Though the information provided on Wikipedia is reliable and corroborated for the greatest majority of its articles and features, the information is not always accurate. As an encyclopedia site that is openly collaborative, the articles are not always edited honestly. And, often vigorous debates ensue within the “talk” module of the site about the authenticity of sources and revisions.
Despite excellent screening and arbitration of users, Wikipedia is vulnerable to exploitation by political propagandists who might use the site to disseminate erroneous information, favorable or not, about Barack Obama. When this happens, the information is rarely corroborated with documented fact creating a false perception about Obama to inexperienced users who mistakenly attribute the information to the authority of Wikipedia.
The risk of internet “vandalism” is always a threat to a massive web resource like Wikipedia. Though the security features to correct malfeasance are excellent on the site, it is still vulnerable to intentional misinformation and abuse against high profile biographies like Barack Obama’s. Wikipedia has been used by highly proficient users to “construct” facets of Barack Obama’s identity without the necessary source documents to back the claims made in his biography.
The bio page “Barack Obama” information appeared for the first time on Wikipedia’s Main page in the website’s “Today’s Featured Article” on August 18, 2004 as a short story about his then position in Illinois government. Since then, several standard Articles have been created about his life, his career, and his family. Of these, the primary biography page called “Barack Obama” has grown in popularity currently receiving tens of thousands of views per day. On Election Day alone, November 4, 2008, the “Barack Obama” bio page was viewed 2.3 million times. In July, 2009, the page was viewed 697,335 times. Along with the large amount of attention, abuse and false information have been troublesome and wide spread on the page, mostly since the summer of 2006.
A review of the revision history of the Wikipedia “Barack Obama” biography page shows that there have been utterly tens of thousands of revisions to his specific biographical information. Within his biography there is currently an ‘Early Life and Career’ section containing Obama’s birth information that has been edited approximately 5,000 times alone. This is significant because page statistics show that no other biography within the entire library of Wikipedia’s global website has had the subject’s natal information revised as much as Obama’s. This is an indication of widespread awareness of the controversy surrounding his origins and natal identity and, most importantly, an indication of the complete lack of resolution Americans, and the world, have about the matter.
Unfortunately, any argument against Wikipedia’s authority to determine the significance or accuracy of Barack Obama’s natal information is greatly diminished by the fact that Obama himself has been so evasive on the matter. The massive numbers of reversion and reiteration in the data is accountable only to Barack Obama and his advisors. This is the consequence of intentional ambiguity.
At the time it of its original posting on Wikipedia in 2004, then Senator Obama’s biography Article called “Barack Obama” remained largely unrevised for almost 2 years, except for minor edits. This activity remained consistent until August, 2006, when information regarding his trip to Africa coincided with revisions made to his birth information. This is not to insinuate that there is a connection between the trip and the change of birth information, but the timing simply raises another of many flags in the circumstances we will discuss. By searching media and internet data, we found interesting "activity" surround the movements and appearance of many of Obama's key staff.
WIKIBAMA
The Wikiuser log shows that a very active Obama information screener, a wikiuser known by username ‘HailFire’ had never made a revision to Barack Obama’s Wikipedia article page before August 25, 2006. The date is significant in that it coincides with the exact day of Barack Obama’s visit to Kenya during his well publicized six nation tour beginning in Cape Town, South Africa on August 19th.
A review of the Contribution Summary, a record of edits of all registered users on the Wikipedia site, revealed the total number of edits made by ‘HailFire’ as of August 4, 2009, over a 3 year period, for all sites, at 10,511. This large number peaked curiosity about the role “HailFire” plays within the Wikipedia community. Upon review of the USER:HAILFIRE bio page, no personal information is provided other than a quote and a tag emblem on the USER BIO page stating:
“This user is a member of WikiProject United States presidential elections."
‘HailFire’ is an example of the kinds of digitypes operating within the realm of media information supporting the Obama Administration. Statistics show this user as the most active contributor to Obama’s Wikipedia sites. As of June, 2008, ‘Hailfire’ had made 1300 revisions to the “Barack Obama” site alone. This is 800 more than the next closest contributor. This is not to imply complicity with any effort to manage misinformation, but it is interesting how uncorroborated, secondary information can become truth over time, despite the absence of facts.
Along with data about 'Hailfire', another interesting account is a revision made by username ‘Wizzy’ to the “Barack Obama” Wikipedia biography.
‘Wizzy’s’ first revision was also made on August 25, 2006, as well, but an hour and 41 minutes prior to ‘HailFire’s’ first revision. This revision was made to Obama’s ‘Trip to Africa’ section of his page. Unlike ‘HailFire’, though there is detailed personal information available on ‘Wizzy’ including his name, contact and blog information, places of African, Britain and American employment and other biographical information including growing up in Kenya and travel throughout Africa and south asia. When cross referenced with 'Hailfire's' access to Obama information, we made an astonishing discovery. The days and times of access are proportionately disparate...as though they were working together.
A review of ‘Wizzy’s’ user contribution information reveals his number of edits as being 4,777 as of August 4, 2009. A cross reference of the ‘Wizzy’ username with previous other Wikipedia page revisions revealed thousands of entries on several hundred pages containing information and content about African nations, leaders, politics and geographical information. In actuality, more than 98% of “Wizzy’s” edits were in this genre of Wikipedia’s web content. The revisions to these Africa themed pages was so numerous, compared to other normal user-editors on Wikipedia, it led one to believe ‘Wizzy’ has a particular capacity or knowledge about African affairs and cultural specifics. Additionally, a review of the discussions between ‘Wizzy’ and other users prompted curiosity about his expertise in computer applications and his involvement with the technical operation of the Wikipedia website. A review of the page revisions by ‘Wizzy’ reveals the use of WPCD template technology which is described as a document template application used for “transclusion” which allows revisions to many Wikipedia articles and pages at one time. This type of application allow for bulk, "universal" edits of information in a very short amount of time. So, if 10,000 people each make a change to a different page, the WPCD technology would allow a single editor to search for those changes and revert them back to original information or change them to whatever the user editor wants.
Some might say that ‘Wizzy’ visited Barack Obama’s page merely because he had interest in Obama’s trip to Africa. However, if the personal information above is an accurate identification of 'Wizzy', having grown up in Kenya, it is difficult to imagine how he had never heard or read about Barack Obama before and given his expertise in the Wikipedia subroutines that he or she would have never made a revision to the biographical information of a Presidential candidate who has family ties in the same country ‘Wizzy’ grew up in.
What is clear, however, based on the Wikipedia revision records for the Barack Obama page, the username ‘Wizzy’ had never appeared on the revision page until the day of Obama’s visit to Kenya on the 25th, after having already been in Africa for a week. Since then, ‘Wizzy’ had only made 3 revisions to Barack Obama’s biography page as of August 9, 2009.
THE HOSPITAL NAME CHANGES
In the original ‘Early Life’ section of Barack Obama’s biography, beginning on March 3, 2004, it was stated that he was born in Queens Hospital. It was later clarified as Queens Medical Center. The ‘Early Life’ section which contains information about Obama’s birth first received specific revisions by ‘HailFire’ on September 13, 2006 when he or she removed the reference to Queens Medical Center. No explanation is given for the removal of the phrase “…at the Queens Medical Center” from the Barack Obama page and no cited source was given as a reference for removing the information.
No information was entered to replace the blank entry for nearly 2 years, until June 7, 2008 when a revision attributed to the username “G.-M Cupertino” was made which contradicted the original entry as the hospital Obama was born in. The significance of June 7, 2008 is significant because it is one week before Obama released his ‘‘Certification of Live Birth’’ on the internet which was stamped by the Hawaiian Registrars office, June 6, 2007. Many believe the date of the stamp on the ‘‘Certification of Live Birth’’ is wrong by one year due to a clerical oversight and therefore the date was actually, June 6, 2008. The date suddenly becomes very signifcant!
A review of the “G.-M. Cupertino” User contributions page revealed this user has nearly 30,000 edits with a predominant history of revisions mostly to articles containing information about foreign celebrities, figures and leaders. Most interestingly , however, it reveals that this user only made revisions to Barack Obama’s biography page twice, out of 30,000 edits!
One of the edits was to add “Kapiolani Medical Center” as the name of hospital to his birth information.
On June 7, 2008, revision activity and discussion about the content of the Barack Obama biography Wikipedia page exploded. Revisions began to occur by the minute, many of them reiterative, back and forth. Unregistered users began making changes and debating the issue with established wikiusers. After several hours, action was taken by Wikipedia's administration to increase the security of the "Barack Obama" article preventing general users from further editing the page.
Attempts to track the identity of user ‘G.-M. Cupertino’ revealed that the user was conveniently banned from editing Wikipedia due to violations of the ban policy. No other explanation was provided and no source was ever provided for the now protected change to Barack Obama’s birth location which read "Kapi'lani Medical Center", prior to the infamous letter from the "white house" dated January 24th, 2009, just three days after Obama's inauguration, to Kapi'olani congratulating them on their anniversary and containing an uncorroborated claim by "Obama" that he was born there. The letter was later discovered to be a fake.
On July 12, 2009, another edit war began in another Wikipedia article called “Obama’s Early Life and Career”. This time the article was edited back and forth saying that Obama was actually born in either Hawaii or Kenya.
Regardless of any perceptible bias from wikiusers and the Obama Administration, in general, their contribution to the information filtering and control of information disseminated about Obama only contributes to the massive ambiguity surrounding his natural born identity.
Obviously the Wikipedia edit wars are just one of many sources of internet based controversy. We cannot decisively say that these specific individuals are involved in any formal effort to protect, reinterpret and misinform about Obama’s biographical information, but these circumstances only reinforce the difficulty in finding answers to basic questions about Obama’s natal identity.
Less than one week later, the Obama campaign allegedly, and conveniently, mind you, posted the infamous Hawaiian ‘‘Certification of Live Birth’’, a fake birth certicate, on three separate websites which shows his birth location as Honolulu, Hawaii.
Despite the fact that the Hawaiian ‘‘Certification of Live Birth’’ contains absolutely no information about the hospital of Obama's birth, the Wikipedia affair is symptomatic of how the media and the internet is used as a tool to reinforce the permission for uncorroborated, irresponsible information that is not proven...or provable.
The simple fact of the matter is that no official records have ever been provided from any authoritative source to prove that Barack Obama was born in Kapiolani Medical Center for Women & Children. More than a year later, no changes have occurred to the birth information on the Barack Obama article, mainly due to page security measures. This information is erroneous and has never been confirmed by primary sources or documentation from the Hospital, any birth records or eye witness accounts. Ever!
On January 24, 2009, just days after his inauguration, Barack Obama sent a letter to Kapiolani Medical Center (See Appendix) on the occasion of the hospital’s centennial celebration, in which Obama allegedly wrote, “As a beneficiary of the excellence of Kapi’olani Medical Center – the place of my birth – I am pleased to add my voice to your voice of supporters.”
Liars and abettors propped the letter as proof of Obama's Hawaiian birth...since, after all, it was written by...well...Obama, himself, of course.
It was later determined by administrators at Kapi'olani that the letter was a fake, probably sent by deranged Obama hacks desperate to create a chain of evidence to support the falsehood that he was born in Hawaii.
Somehow, it does not strike confidence in the mind to take the word of this man about his actual identity. Unfortunately, Obama has yet to offer any proof that he was born in America, let alone Hawaii, let alone Honolulu…let alone the Kapi’olani Medical Center. A letter claiming to be verification is just another piece of propaganda like a Hawaiian "Certification of Live Birth" and 78,000 Wikipedia edits.
A Daily Pen investigation
by Dan Crosby
On January 21, 2009, one day after being shoe-horned into the White House, Barack Obama’s first order of business was not to investigate the mortgage collapse. Nor did he assign an order to implement economic solutions. Nope.
Instead, he signed a far more important policy order to guard something far more valuable than America, in his eyes. He invoked Executive Order No. 13489 which essentially handicaps, if not outright prevents, the release of Presidential Records through the National Archives & Records Administration without that information being censored first. The astonishing order implements executive privilege authority over the discretion of the National Archives and the Freedom of Information Act when the release of Presidential records and information is requested.
The new era of covert opacity continues.
Thank God we have Wikipedia, right?
Among the documented facts previously discussed about Obama's Constitutional eligibility, there are several other coincidences which support reasons to question Obama’s natal identity, his character and his legitimacy as a President. The peripheral situations are based on facts coincidental to Obama’s election and they further indicate a need for a full investigation of the circumstances surrounding his tenuously vetted candidacy.
OBAMA ON WIKIPEDIA
Wikipedia a free web-based and collaborative multilingual encyclopedia. Wikipedia's 13 million articles have been written mutually by millions of user volunteers around the world, and almost all of its articles can be edited by anyone who can access the site. Wikipedia is currently the largest and most popular general reference work on the Internet. Wikipedia and its affiliated sites consistently rank in the top 10 most used sites in the world.
Though the information provided on Wikipedia is reliable and corroborated for the greatest majority of its articles and features, the information is not always accurate. As an encyclopedia site that is openly collaborative, the articles are not always edited honestly. And, often vigorous debates ensue within the “talk” module of the site about the authenticity of sources and revisions.
Despite excellent screening and arbitration of users, Wikipedia is vulnerable to exploitation by political propagandists who might use the site to disseminate erroneous information, favorable or not, about Barack Obama. When this happens, the information is rarely corroborated with documented fact creating a false perception about Obama to inexperienced users who mistakenly attribute the information to the authority of Wikipedia.
The risk of internet “vandalism” is always a threat to a massive web resource like Wikipedia. Though the security features to correct malfeasance are excellent on the site, it is still vulnerable to intentional misinformation and abuse against high profile biographies like Barack Obama’s. Wikipedia has been used by highly proficient users to “construct” facets of Barack Obama’s identity without the necessary source documents to back the claims made in his biography.
The bio page “Barack Obama” information appeared for the first time on Wikipedia’s Main page in the website’s “Today’s Featured Article” on August 18, 2004 as a short story about his then position in Illinois government. Since then, several standard Articles have been created about his life, his career, and his family. Of these, the primary biography page called “Barack Obama” has grown in popularity currently receiving tens of thousands of views per day. On Election Day alone, November 4, 2008, the “Barack Obama” bio page was viewed 2.3 million times. In July, 2009, the page was viewed 697,335 times. Along with the large amount of attention, abuse and false information have been troublesome and wide spread on the page, mostly since the summer of 2006.
A review of the revision history of the Wikipedia “Barack Obama” biography page shows that there have been utterly tens of thousands of revisions to his specific biographical information. Within his biography there is currently an ‘Early Life and Career’ section containing Obama’s birth information that has been edited approximately 5,000 times alone. This is significant because page statistics show that no other biography within the entire library of Wikipedia’s global website has had the subject’s natal information revised as much as Obama’s. This is an indication of widespread awareness of the controversy surrounding his origins and natal identity and, most importantly, an indication of the complete lack of resolution Americans, and the world, have about the matter.
Unfortunately, any argument against Wikipedia’s authority to determine the significance or accuracy of Barack Obama’s natal information is greatly diminished by the fact that Obama himself has been so evasive on the matter. The massive numbers of reversion and reiteration in the data is accountable only to Barack Obama and his advisors. This is the consequence of intentional ambiguity.
At the time it of its original posting on Wikipedia in 2004, then Senator Obama’s biography Article called “Barack Obama” remained largely unrevised for almost 2 years, except for minor edits. This activity remained consistent until August, 2006, when information regarding his trip to Africa coincided with revisions made to his birth information. This is not to insinuate that there is a connection between the trip and the change of birth information, but the timing simply raises another of many flags in the circumstances we will discuss. By searching media and internet data, we found interesting "activity" surround the movements and appearance of many of Obama's key staff.
WIKIBAMA
The Wikiuser log shows that a very active Obama information screener, a wikiuser known by username ‘HailFire’ had never made a revision to Barack Obama’s Wikipedia article page before August 25, 2006. The date is significant in that it coincides with the exact day of Barack Obama’s visit to Kenya during his well publicized six nation tour beginning in Cape Town, South Africa on August 19th.
A review of the Contribution Summary, a record of edits of all registered users on the Wikipedia site, revealed the total number of edits made by ‘HailFire’ as of August 4, 2009, over a 3 year period, for all sites, at 10,511. This large number peaked curiosity about the role “HailFire” plays within the Wikipedia community. Upon review of the USER:HAILFIRE bio page, no personal information is provided other than a quote and a tag emblem on the USER BIO page stating:
“This user is a member of WikiProject United States presidential elections."
‘HailFire’ is an example of the kinds of digitypes operating within the realm of media information supporting the Obama Administration. Statistics show this user as the most active contributor to Obama’s Wikipedia sites. As of June, 2008, ‘Hailfire’ had made 1300 revisions to the “Barack Obama” site alone. This is 800 more than the next closest contributor. This is not to imply complicity with any effort to manage misinformation, but it is interesting how uncorroborated, secondary information can become truth over time, despite the absence of facts.
Along with data about 'Hailfire', another interesting account is a revision made by username ‘Wizzy’ to the “Barack Obama” Wikipedia biography.
‘Wizzy’s’ first revision was also made on August 25, 2006, as well, but an hour and 41 minutes prior to ‘HailFire’s’ first revision. This revision was made to Obama’s ‘Trip to Africa’ section of his page. Unlike ‘HailFire’, though there is detailed personal information available on ‘Wizzy’ including his name, contact and blog information, places of African, Britain and American employment and other biographical information including growing up in Kenya and travel throughout Africa and south asia. When cross referenced with 'Hailfire's' access to Obama information, we made an astonishing discovery. The days and times of access are proportionately disparate...as though they were working together.
A review of ‘Wizzy’s’ user contribution information reveals his number of edits as being 4,777 as of August 4, 2009. A cross reference of the ‘Wizzy’ username with previous other Wikipedia page revisions revealed thousands of entries on several hundred pages containing information and content about African nations, leaders, politics and geographical information. In actuality, more than 98% of “Wizzy’s” edits were in this genre of Wikipedia’s web content. The revisions to these Africa themed pages was so numerous, compared to other normal user-editors on Wikipedia, it led one to believe ‘Wizzy’ has a particular capacity or knowledge about African affairs and cultural specifics. Additionally, a review of the discussions between ‘Wizzy’ and other users prompted curiosity about his expertise in computer applications and his involvement with the technical operation of the Wikipedia website. A review of the page revisions by ‘Wizzy’ reveals the use of WPCD template technology which is described as a document template application used for “transclusion” which allows revisions to many Wikipedia articles and pages at one time. This type of application allow for bulk, "universal" edits of information in a very short amount of time. So, if 10,000 people each make a change to a different page, the WPCD technology would allow a single editor to search for those changes and revert them back to original information or change them to whatever the user editor wants.
Some might say that ‘Wizzy’ visited Barack Obama’s page merely because he had interest in Obama’s trip to Africa. However, if the personal information above is an accurate identification of 'Wizzy', having grown up in Kenya, it is difficult to imagine how he had never heard or read about Barack Obama before and given his expertise in the Wikipedia subroutines that he or she would have never made a revision to the biographical information of a Presidential candidate who has family ties in the same country ‘Wizzy’ grew up in.
What is clear, however, based on the Wikipedia revision records for the Barack Obama page, the username ‘Wizzy’ had never appeared on the revision page until the day of Obama’s visit to Kenya on the 25th, after having already been in Africa for a week. Since then, ‘Wizzy’ had only made 3 revisions to Barack Obama’s biography page as of August 9, 2009.
THE HOSPITAL NAME CHANGES
In the original ‘Early Life’ section of Barack Obama’s biography, beginning on March 3, 2004, it was stated that he was born in Queens Hospital. It was later clarified as Queens Medical Center. The ‘Early Life’ section which contains information about Obama’s birth first received specific revisions by ‘HailFire’ on September 13, 2006 when he or she removed the reference to Queens Medical Center. No explanation is given for the removal of the phrase “…at the Queens Medical Center” from the Barack Obama page and no cited source was given as a reference for removing the information.
No information was entered to replace the blank entry for nearly 2 years, until June 7, 2008 when a revision attributed to the username “G.-M Cupertino” was made which contradicted the original entry as the hospital Obama was born in. The significance of June 7, 2008 is significant because it is one week before Obama released his ‘‘Certification of Live Birth’’ on the internet which was stamped by the Hawaiian Registrars office, June 6, 2007. Many believe the date of the stamp on the ‘‘Certification of Live Birth’’ is wrong by one year due to a clerical oversight and therefore the date was actually, June 6, 2008. The date suddenly becomes very signifcant!
A review of the “G.-M. Cupertino” User contributions page revealed this user has nearly 30,000 edits with a predominant history of revisions mostly to articles containing information about foreign celebrities, figures and leaders. Most interestingly , however, it reveals that this user only made revisions to Barack Obama’s biography page twice, out of 30,000 edits!
One of the edits was to add “Kapiolani Medical Center” as the name of hospital to his birth information.
On June 7, 2008, revision activity and discussion about the content of the Barack Obama biography Wikipedia page exploded. Revisions began to occur by the minute, many of them reiterative, back and forth. Unregistered users began making changes and debating the issue with established wikiusers. After several hours, action was taken by Wikipedia's administration to increase the security of the "Barack Obama" article preventing general users from further editing the page.
Attempts to track the identity of user ‘G.-M. Cupertino’ revealed that the user was conveniently banned from editing Wikipedia due to violations of the ban policy. No other explanation was provided and no source was ever provided for the now protected change to Barack Obama’s birth location which read "Kapi'lani Medical Center", prior to the infamous letter from the "white house" dated January 24th, 2009, just three days after Obama's inauguration, to Kapi'olani congratulating them on their anniversary and containing an uncorroborated claim by "Obama" that he was born there. The letter was later discovered to be a fake.
On July 12, 2009, another edit war began in another Wikipedia article called “Obama’s Early Life and Career”. This time the article was edited back and forth saying that Obama was actually born in either Hawaii or Kenya.
Regardless of any perceptible bias from wikiusers and the Obama Administration, in general, their contribution to the information filtering and control of information disseminated about Obama only contributes to the massive ambiguity surrounding his natural born identity.
Obviously the Wikipedia edit wars are just one of many sources of internet based controversy. We cannot decisively say that these specific individuals are involved in any formal effort to protect, reinterpret and misinform about Obama’s biographical information, but these circumstances only reinforce the difficulty in finding answers to basic questions about Obama’s natal identity.
Less than one week later, the Obama campaign allegedly, and conveniently, mind you, posted the infamous Hawaiian ‘‘Certification of Live Birth’’, a fake birth certicate, on three separate websites which shows his birth location as Honolulu, Hawaii.
Despite the fact that the Hawaiian ‘‘Certification of Live Birth’’ contains absolutely no information about the hospital of Obama's birth, the Wikipedia affair is symptomatic of how the media and the internet is used as a tool to reinforce the permission for uncorroborated, irresponsible information that is not proven...or provable.
The simple fact of the matter is that no official records have ever been provided from any authoritative source to prove that Barack Obama was born in Kapiolani Medical Center for Women & Children. More than a year later, no changes have occurred to the birth information on the Barack Obama article, mainly due to page security measures. This information is erroneous and has never been confirmed by primary sources or documentation from the Hospital, any birth records or eye witness accounts. Ever!
On January 24, 2009, just days after his inauguration, Barack Obama sent a letter to Kapiolani Medical Center (See Appendix) on the occasion of the hospital’s centennial celebration, in which Obama allegedly wrote, “As a beneficiary of the excellence of Kapi’olani Medical Center – the place of my birth – I am pleased to add my voice to your voice of supporters.”
Liars and abettors propped the letter as proof of Obama's Hawaiian birth...since, after all, it was written by...well...Obama, himself, of course.
It was later determined by administrators at Kapi'olani that the letter was a fake, probably sent by deranged Obama hacks desperate to create a chain of evidence to support the falsehood that he was born in Hawaii.
Somehow, it does not strike confidence in the mind to take the word of this man about his actual identity. Unfortunately, Obama has yet to offer any proof that he was born in America, let alone Hawaii, let alone Honolulu…let alone the Kapi’olani Medical Center. A letter claiming to be verification is just another piece of propaganda like a Hawaiian "Certification of Live Birth" and 78,000 Wikipedia edits.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
CNN’s and MSNBC’s Certi-Fictional Constipation
Despite Pervasive Lies and Bad Grammar, The Liberal Networks Just Can’t Seem to "Push Out" the Legitimacy of Obama’s Presidency...Even With A Mythical "Birth Certificate" Laxative
by Penbrook Johannson
New York - No matter how regularly the liberal hackshops at CNN and MSNBC want the eligibility of Obama's presidency to squeeze out, the incontinence of their lies and ignorance just keep them running to the grammatical lavatory of illegitimacy.
It’s no wonder CNN’s and MSNBC’s ratings are tanking. Their personnel either can’t disseminate the difference between an adjective and a noun in their reporting, or they are bald-faced liars. Regardless, these networks have proven themselves to be little more than a propoganda wing of the Obama White House, under the direction of Communications minister, David Axelrod.
Aside from the fact that the words “Certification” and “Certificate” are phonetically different, both have significantly different contextual implications when applied appropriately to describe modern birth records. One is merely a municipally designated header-title of a receipt issued no where else in the world except the state of Hawaii to indicate the recording of a birth registration by the Hawaii Department of Health. The other is a federally published document rooted in more than 150 years of vital statistics reporting system development and identity authentication through the National Vital Statistics Division of the U.S. Department of Health. The little weasel media nazis at CNN and MSNBC know this...and they use it for all its worth to control the narrative and pollute the mainstream of truth with lies and misinformation about the Obama eligibility fraud.
Maybe deranged liberals are more inclined toward verbs instead.
Over the past two weeks, we here at The Daily Pen, engaged a fun, but informative, YouTube research project in which we pulled from online videos every example we could find in which a correspondent, videographer or guest on a so-called “legitimate” news network had misidentified or outright lied about the header title of the documents in question regarding Obama’s birth records controversy. Apparently, liberals are very confused about the difference between the noun, “Certificate”, and the adjective, “Certification”.
Differentiation between the two grammatical elements is as desperately needed in the Obama Certi-Fiction saga as is disseminating the differences between a Hawaiian "Certification of Live Birth" and the U.S. NVSD "Certificate of Live Birth".
We have to admit, the first four or five YouTubed instances of this witless mistake was not worth noting. Grace for human error was given. In the beginning, we would quietly sound off, “Found one!”
A few minutes later, another staff member would chortle, “Here's another!”
However, we reviewed more than 400 videos and found a total of 216 instances of media subversion in which Barack Obama’s Hawaiian “Certification of Live Birth” had been either lazily or intentionally misidentified as a “Certificate of Live Birth” by so called journalists or documentarists.
We literally turned he whole affair into a pizza party here in our New York offices as we went from ho-hum to laughing hysterically at the blatant ignorance and intentional deception.
by Penbrook Johannson
New York - No matter how regularly the liberal hackshops at CNN and MSNBC want the eligibility of Obama's presidency to squeeze out, the incontinence of their lies and ignorance just keep them running to the grammatical lavatory of illegitimacy.
It’s no wonder CNN’s and MSNBC’s ratings are tanking. Their personnel either can’t disseminate the difference between an adjective and a noun in their reporting, or they are bald-faced liars. Regardless, these networks have proven themselves to be little more than a propoganda wing of the Obama White House, under the direction of Communications minister, David Axelrod.
Aside from the fact that the words “Certification” and “Certificate” are phonetically different, both have significantly different contextual implications when applied appropriately to describe modern birth records. One is merely a municipally designated header-title of a receipt issued no where else in the world except the state of Hawaii to indicate the recording of a birth registration by the Hawaii Department of Health. The other is a federally published document rooted in more than 150 years of vital statistics reporting system development and identity authentication through the National Vital Statistics Division of the U.S. Department of Health. The little weasel media nazis at CNN and MSNBC know this...and they use it for all its worth to control the narrative and pollute the mainstream of truth with lies and misinformation about the Obama eligibility fraud.
Maybe deranged liberals are more inclined toward verbs instead.
Over the past two weeks, we here at The Daily Pen, engaged a fun, but informative, YouTube research project in which we pulled from online videos every example we could find in which a correspondent, videographer or guest on a so-called “legitimate” news network had misidentified or outright lied about the header title of the documents in question regarding Obama’s birth records controversy. Apparently, liberals are very confused about the difference between the noun, “Certificate”, and the adjective, “Certification”.
Differentiation between the two grammatical elements is as desperately needed in the Obama Certi-Fiction saga as is disseminating the differences between a Hawaiian "Certification of Live Birth" and the U.S. NVSD "Certificate of Live Birth".
We have to admit, the first four or five YouTubed instances of this witless mistake was not worth noting. Grace for human error was given. In the beginning, we would quietly sound off, “Found one!”
A few minutes later, another staff member would chortle, “Here's another!”
However, we reviewed more than 400 videos and found a total of 216 instances of media subversion in which Barack Obama’s Hawaiian “Certification of Live Birth” had been either lazily or intentionally misidentified as a “Certificate of Live Birth” by so called journalists or documentarists.
We literally turned he whole affair into a pizza party here in our New York offices as we went from ho-hum to laughing hysterically at the blatant ignorance and intentional deception.
There is a reason the leftist slew fantasizes that Obama’s Hawaiian “Certification of Live Birth” is an actual U.S. “Certificate of Live Birth”. They want to endow it with synthetic authenticity. They want America to believe that Obama is an actual president with legal, constitutional authority by the fact that he has been issued a natal document with resembles one which is an authenticator.
Sorry, liberals. It isn't working. The harder you try to make vintage Americans believe Obama is legitimate with illegitimate documents and information the more you look like liars and idiots. On the other hand, the more you try to push propoganda with absurd messages intending to interupt the sturdy domain of obviousness without actually opening the records of legitimacy, the more you look like criminals and fools.
For the sake of establishing inconvenient facts, we’ll let CNN and MSNBC in on a little secret. Consulting the 1961 U.S. Vital Statistics Report of the U.S.: Volume 1, Natality, which would have applied during Obama’s birth, along with Hawaii’s Revised Statute 338-1 through 338-18, and Administrative Rule 91, we find the following laxatives:
A “CertifiCATION of Live Birth” is an independently published document created by the state of Hawaii, not the U.S. department of Health, as an exclusive, municipally approved, (not federally approved) summary of a birth registration, not birth confirmation. As recently as 2009, this document was not officially recognized as a primary form of identification by any state, other than Hawaii. No other state issues this form of birth registration certification.
Based on Hawaii Revised Statute 338-17.8, a “Certification of Live Birth” may be issued for alleged births of children born outside of the United States if the mother of the child claimed Hawaii as her residence within one year prior to the birth. Contrarily, a “Certificate of Live Birth” cannot be issued for a foreign birth or any birth that does not occur in the United States.
A “Certification of Live Birth” does not adequately establish “natural born” status, as is required to be President of the U.S., because it does not provide the actual location of the birth nor does it attest to a “live” birth event with an original medical doctor’s signature affixed at the time of the birth. The NVSD mandates that an authentic birth record must be signed by a consulting physician present at the birth, or in witness of an attendant’s testimony, in order to verify that the child listed on the document was born “alive” in cases when it was required to medically determine whether the child may have died right after birth, or had emerged from the womb still born. Documentation is different for these two events and is recorded differently by the U.S. Vital Statistics and Census offices, so therefore they require accountability by a medical doctor. The definition of a Live birth is described in Hawaiian revised statute 338-1.
Therefore, the Hawaiian “Certification of Live Birth” is merely only required to provide the “usual residence” of the mother at the time of birth, not the location of the birth. This administrative directive is based on vital statistics collection protocols adopted by the Hawaiian Vital Statistics office in 1959 and are applied even if the birth occurs outside of the state of Hawaii or outside of the U.S. This disqualifies the Certification of Live Birth from serving as official confirmation of Natural Born status.
On the other hand, a “CertifiCATE of Live Birth” is the standard, federal form of birth documentation issued through the former National Vital Statistics Division of the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare (which became the U.S. Department of Health in 1979 while the Departments of Education and Human Services were created as independent agencies), beginning after 1915 (No formal census data was taken between 1900 and 1915 according to the NVSD Report) (See 1961 NVSD report, Section 5: Technical Appendix - 'Standard Certificate', page 232)
The “CertifiCATE of Live Birth” was officially submitted to the states’ Health Departments in 1956, three years before Hawaii became a state and five years before Obama was born, by the National Conference on Records and Statistics, for adoption as a formal, nationalized form of birth documentation. The synopsis of the 1961 Conference describes the “Certificate of Live Birth” as a document rooted in 110 years of input from state and federal officials working to refine the methods, content and accuracy of recording actual vital events in the United States.
In 1959, the state of Hawaii was already employing a “Certificate of Hawaiian Birth” form since 1911 in order to document multitudes of undocumented indigenous and migrant peoples.
The words ‘Certificate’, ‘Certification’ and ‘Live’ have great significance when discussing the issue of Obama’s natal documentation. In those major news network broadcasts during the past year of the Obama Birth Certi-Fiction saga, hosts, guests and pundits misspoke, mispronounced or misunderstood the difference between a noun and an adjective as they apply to Obama’s estranged birth records.
Here are but a few of our findings:
During 18 different MSNBC broadcasts covering Obama’s birth-eligibility facts in July, 2009, the host or the guest mistakenly referred to Obama’s Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’ as a federally issued standard ‘Certificate of Live Birth’ more than 50 separate times.
For example, as early as November 26, 2008, Pete Williams of NBC wrote, “The Obama campaign had hoped to end the controversy last spring by releasing his actual Hawaii birth certificate.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqH7rSHcvgU
This is a lie. To date, the Obama campaign has still never released any ‘certificate’ for Obama’s birth.
In a December 4, 2008 interview with Jonathan Turley, flaming liberal nutcase, Keith Olbermann vomited all over himself in desperation to promote the Hawaiian Certification as a legitimate Certificate when he also said the state of Hawaii had legitimized the “original birth certificate”. Showing a forged image of a Certification of Live Birth, Olbama-ermann-servant went on to say that even World Net Daily said the document was a legitimate reflection of Obama’s natural born natal identity. This too was an intentional lie.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RV4YKMnicc0&feature=related
The stupidity continued. In a discussion about the subject of Obama’s birth documentation between CNN’s Lou Dobbs and guest, Guy Lambert, on July 21st, 2009, Lambert used the word “Live” (L-i-v) rather than the word “Live” (L-eye-v) when he mistakenly described Obama’s Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’ as a “Certificate of LIVE Birth”. Lambert is an Obama eligibility doubter, but he still did not know the difference between the NVSD Certificate and the Hawaiian Certification. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2zettCjack&feature=related
In a subsequent discussion on the subject between Dobbs and Roland Martin, Dobbs referred to Obama’s Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’ as a “Certificate of Live Birth”. Martin is a rabid liberal with his surrogate tongue so far into Obama’s lie, it’s amazing he can say anything, let alone the word “Certificate”…but, he did, 4 times in about 5 minutes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWFlHSOqA9o&feature=related
In another interview between MSNBC’s Chris Matthews and G. Gordon Liddy, posted July 29, 2009, Liddy misidentified Obama’s document as a “Certificate of Live Birth” rather than a Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’. Matthews pushed the ineptitude to even lower depths by simply referring to the “Certification of Live Birth” as a “Birth Certificate”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6ilvPTW3lE
In another Hardball interview with Representative John Campbell, posted July 21, 2009, Matthews waggled a cardstock photocopy of a redacted copy (of a copy, of a copy, of a copy, of a copy…you get the point), of an internet image of an unsigned Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’ in front of the camera and lamented it as a “birth certificate”. In a somewhat less than cordial response to Campbell’s explanation of a need for legislation confirming eligibility of future candidates, Matthews displayed his multiplicated facsimile of an uncertified, unverified, unsigned, Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’ and told Campbell, “Let me show you his birth certificate! That is the way to deal with this. Mail this birth certificate to the wacko wing of your party so they agree with this…its over.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCmPPxca4s4
Matthews’ idiocy on this issue has been proven time and time again. He is either ignorant about the facts or an intentional liar about them.
In an October 6, 2009 interview with Larry King, Minnesota Congresswoman, Michelle Bachman said, “Obama has shown his real birth certificate. This is a non-issue.”
Bachman is mistaken, but she is not a liar. Obama has not submitted any “real birth certificate” which confirms his natural born natal identity and his legal eligibility to hold the office of the President. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWV-ZWJCrY8
At the 43 second mark of his broadcast, CNN’s Rick Sanchez referred to the “Certification of Live Birth” as a “birth certificate” on July 21st, 2009, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIjnF8ZR4aw
John King also referred to the “Certification of Live Birth” as a “birth certificate” on July 30, 2009.
In an interview on July 26th, 2009, CNN’s Howard Kurtz misidentified the Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth 3 times and allowed his guests to do it 5 times on his show, Reliable Sources.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drbRAHQt7Sc
Anderson Cooper has misidentified the “Certification of Live Birth” a whopping 9 times in 4 different reports from May 20th to July 17th, and in an interview with Lt. Col. Terry Lakin, who is challenging his military orders on the grounds that Obama is not a legal president, Cooper failed 3 separate times to correctly identify the Certification of Live Birth even though the Header Titled document was posted right in front of him on an 8 foot tall, high resolution screen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aU0sIe1CRfA&feature=related
In a July 25th, 2009 interview with Red Eye’s Andy Levy, David Weigel, columnist for the Washington Independent referred to Obama’s Certification as a birth certificate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qUy4j1m2_Y
Ironically, all of this hoopla began because of allegations started by the Hillary Clinton campaign during the Democratic Primaries in 2007.
These are just a few examples. However, we found the following media “professionals” abuse the basic grammar of the English language in their ignorance about the difference between a noun and an adjective when it comes to accurately describing the Obama eligibility controversy:
Keith Olbermann, Lou Dobbs, Bill O’Reilly, Megyn Kelly, Ed Shultz, John King, Roland Martin, Michael Savage, Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, David Shuster, Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Larry King, Peter Williams, Brian Williams, and David Weigel.
Finding ignorance among the Obama junkies at CNN and MSNBC is not surprising. But, when you combine journalistic ignorance with intentional deception, the result is an insidious propaganda complex which should be forcibly eliminated from American society, for the sake of the welfare of the nation.
After more than two hours of video review, it became apparent that CNN and MSNBC are engaged in an intentional misinformation campaign to try to convince anyone who will listen, under the noise of their laughter, that Barack Obama is an actual, real live, legitimate, authentic, eligible, president. As if misusing the noun, “Certificate” in place of a less potent, less authentic, less credible adjective, “Certification” would miraculously make everyone forget about what a fraudulent usurper Obama really is.
Our next project is to identify the number of instances these same deranged Obamanazis have constipatedly pushed and grunted liberal excrement that the Obama eligibility controversy is a matter of Obama’s American citizenship. That class will teach CNN and MSNBC the constitutional difference between generic citizenship and natural-born citizenship.
Hopefully, they will have passed Journalism Ethics 101 by then.
Monday, August 2, 2010
Corrupt Money Dregs, Rangel And Waters Will Play Their Race Card…Bank On It!
Prediction: Embattled Black Congs Will Blame Racism For Their Transgressions
by Daniel Crosby
New York - Here it comes, America. Prepare yourself for the mother of all race-card flops...coming soon to a Congressional ethics panel hearing near you.
Apparently, ethics violations are not a “black thing” in politics. Really. They are the result of the choice to behave badly and capitulate to degenerate character. Just ask any politician, including Chris Dodd, Tim Geitner and Eric Massa.
Setting the stage for another tired, accusatory saga, are two prominent black Democrats who find themselves marred by a litany of ethics violation charges. New York representative Chuck Rangel and California representative Maxine Waters are currently under investigation and will face ethics committee trials for allegedly abusing their positions of power and for the illegal allocation of government money for personal gain...which, by the way, are violations actually based on choices they made in character and behaviors which are unrelated to the fact that they are indeed black.
Say it isn't so. Oh, how we long for the days of a white president lying to a grand jury about his illicit sexual conduct with a white intern...and getting away with it.
Waters will face a public grilling for allegedly using her political influence to allocate federal bailout funds for a Massachusetts bank in which her husband was a member of the Board of Directors and owned stock in the bank. The bank received $12 million in tax-payer money after suffering losses from poor investment strategies prior to the 2008 mortgage market collapse of entitlement-based lending institutions, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.
Charges against Waters were filed just one day after Rangel was also formally charged with 13 counts of violating Congressional ethics rules. Rangel is charged with attempting to leverage is position and influence to horde money from donor companies for an educational institution which bears his name.
Both Waters and Rangel are both longstanding, black members of Congress, therefore, America can rest assured that this convenient demographic circumstance will be exploited by them and the liberal establishment as a way to divert media resources and, ultimately, justify their criminal behavior.
This pathetic tactic fits the narrative of our times since the O.J. Simpson murder trial in the mid 1990s invoked a myth that criminal behavior is bad unless you are a black person being accused by white people. Then, being a debauched wretch is not a consequence of your own behavior, it is the result of being a dark-skinned victim of some mythological racial bias. O.J. Simpson made the murder of white people by black people okay, as long as it was shown, without context, that suspicions of guilt were being raised by white people accused of racism.
Yet, liberal America continues to fail to realize that being a criminal is a bad thing too.
RANGEL AND WATERS ARE VICTIMS OF THEIR OWN CHOICES, NOT RACISM
America has devolved into a nation of mongerism. Accusations of racism, hatred, debauchery, misogyny, androphobia, derangement and moral regression are only diminishing the severity of actual occurrences of these atrocities. Being a racist is becoming less and less of a bad thing because liberals fling the term around like used socks. Indecency is being justified by the perverted social values of the liberal establishment while actual racists are becoming legitimate aggressors justified by a continually diminishing vilification from psychotic liberals.
Liberals can only accuse innocent people of being racist for so long before their accusations become impotent and dismissed. The consequence of this form of "wolf crying" is that actual racism is gaining legitimacy while decent, hardworking, vintage Americans are victimized by reverse bigotry as they are enslaved in taxation by career liberal legislators, like Waters and Rangel, who build despicable, race-based institutions rooted in their perverted rendition of social justice.
Chuck Rangel and Maxine Waters did not choose to be black. Therefore the justice they receive should be based on that which they did choose. Otherwise, if justice sees color as a precedence, America will soon perish beneath the weight of a collapsing justice system which rewards involuntary benign characteristics while disregarding voluntary bad behavior. Rangel and Waters did choose to conjoin themselves with people and institutions which have a greater potential to press against decency, honesty and morality. They chose to behave a certain way and the chose to make certain decisions which have brought them to this moment of scrutiny about their character and conduct. Only decisions and behavior warrant true justice.
Where does moral bearing originate? What is the source of our understanding of the difference between right and wrong?
A QUESTION OF CHOICE, NOT OBLIGATION
The epic failure of the lost is believing they can legislate decency. Liberal dissonance has caused a lack of moral capacity to understand that Jesus Christ never acted through a government agency to affect the poor. He never hired a lawyer to contrive bureaucracy in order to implement a miracle. Nor, did He elect a politician to issue policy commanding charity. In fact, Christ issued a sermon of "woes" against such ideology and warned world leaders of His time against legal impositions on individual rights of charity.
Regardless of whether or not you are Christian, social justice, as a defined form of reward or punishment, is only legitimate when it is based on independent choice to be charitable by the individual, voluntary participant acting in a personalized manner upon the needful. This is appropriate with the commissions under the authority of any social doctrine, especially that which was espoused by Jesus Christ. This truth is not only elicited through a belief in Christ as the divinely appointed Savior, it is a general directive upon all humanity to preserve its own existence.
However, Christ's commission upon the individual is factually inescapable within the historical message of His life as it is conveyed along the common accounts of His affect upon those less fortunate. Christ was not an elected official acting under the authority of a world jurisdiction to enact some secular doctrine to afford a certain demographic with health care. He simply chose, as an individual, to heal the sick and feed the poor. In fact, the State authority of His time, was threatened by Christ because He preached the importance of independent choice acting in coordination to affect and empower the individual first, not the masses, or the government.
The biblical account of Christ's "social justice" on earth gives countless examples of his defense of the individual against the hordes. No one understands the potential corruptability of the masses like Jesus Christ. He was betrayed by his own Jewish demographic, challenged by thugs, crucified by a tyrannical empire, rejected by whole towns, vilified by the masses, spit upon by a mob, beaten by barbarians, and sacrificed for the cause of billions. Yet, He restored sight to one blind man, forgave the sexual transgressions of one harlot, emparted hope to one adultress, cured one demon possessed boy, raised one dead man, saved one man's soul, resurrected one little girl, forgave one thief, traded his freedom for one convict, gave his own, single life that each one of these acts would cause each of these individuals to choose to convey these blessings to others. He acted as One choosing to act, not a part of many. He did not obligate them to act under exorbitant tax laws, nor did Christ ever impose state sponsored social justice upon the masses with deragatory rhetoric. He was charitable, gracious, merciful and righteous because he chose to be. He chose to implement justice not because he was a jew, or black, or poor, or heterosexual, or gay, or tall, or male. He chose justice because He chose to be just toward the character and behavior, not the race, of others.
Therefore, social justice becomes illegitimate when its implementation is attempted by political power as a means to confiscate resources from masses of involuntary participants and then channel those resources through systemic controls to other masses of recipients based on disseminations of bureaucratically defined, involuntary characteristics...such as race.
It is important to understand the difference between these diametric forms of doctrinal exercise. There is a stark contrast between the legitimate form of interpersonal justice based on voluntary characteristics of decent, generous behavior and humility between individuals, and the oppressive federal policies attempting to impose false justice based on the involuntary characteristics of demography among the masses. The latter form is a lie and does not foster life and peace. It provokes resentment, war and death. It opposes the easily understandable commands from God for humanity to seek peace, reconciliation and stewardship through confidence in Him, not the exaltation of the “first black” someone.
God made it this way for a reason. He wanted us to seek justice through Him, not the gods of this world. He wanted us to understand the importance of justice and charitable service as a reflections of His own loving regard for us, not as the result of guilt-mongering and gullibility under authoritarian lies.
Liberal minded people, like Waters and Rangel, fail to recognize that humanity was brought to justice in the world based on the choice of the individual to be charitable without redress, based on an independent submission to divine authority, on an intrapersonal basis. The ransom paid for our justice did not originate upon the doctrines of the state. Instead, the modern liberal establishment desperately wants the masses to believe that the ruling class has the right to act as some all-knowing, divinely appointed, regulator in conveying and interpreting God’s legitimate message by convincing wholesale society that resources should be confiscated, not allowed to be surrendered based on charity, seeded upon ambiguous boundaries within quantitative affluence, skin color demography, culturalism, geography or stateism.
If reprobates like Waters and Rangel are successful in their entitlement based justice, it perverts the hope for all humanity in its need to find reconciliation from actual racism and injustice. Their ideology demeans the true source of justice, which is Christ, Jesus, by removing the right to choose to “love thy neighbor as thyself”. Liberal ideology removes the reasons anyone should have to follow God’s commission to be loving and generous and it supersedes the supremacy of divine authority in matters of justice among humanity. If one fails to believe in God, then they are subject to wrath from those for who the implementation of artificial justice is attempted.
Therefore, before we even get started with legitimate proceedings intended to levy justice against bad behavior, lets go ahead and transcend the issue of race by dismissing the fact that Rangel and Waters are black.
This is the only way to find true justice for all. Right?
by Daniel Crosby
New York - Here it comes, America. Prepare yourself for the mother of all race-card flops...coming soon to a Congressional ethics panel hearing near you.
Apparently, ethics violations are not a “black thing” in politics. Really. They are the result of the choice to behave badly and capitulate to degenerate character. Just ask any politician, including Chris Dodd, Tim Geitner and Eric Massa.
Setting the stage for another tired, accusatory saga, are two prominent black Democrats who find themselves marred by a litany of ethics violation charges. New York representative Chuck Rangel and California representative Maxine Waters are currently under investigation and will face ethics committee trials for allegedly abusing their positions of power and for the illegal allocation of government money for personal gain...which, by the way, are violations actually based on choices they made in character and behaviors which are unrelated to the fact that they are indeed black.
Say it isn't so. Oh, how we long for the days of a white president lying to a grand jury about his illicit sexual conduct with a white intern...and getting away with it.
Waters will face a public grilling for allegedly using her political influence to allocate federal bailout funds for a Massachusetts bank in which her husband was a member of the Board of Directors and owned stock in the bank. The bank received $12 million in tax-payer money after suffering losses from poor investment strategies prior to the 2008 mortgage market collapse of entitlement-based lending institutions, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.
Charges against Waters were filed just one day after Rangel was also formally charged with 13 counts of violating Congressional ethics rules. Rangel is charged with attempting to leverage is position and influence to horde money from donor companies for an educational institution which bears his name.
Both Waters and Rangel are both longstanding, black members of Congress, therefore, America can rest assured that this convenient demographic circumstance will be exploited by them and the liberal establishment as a way to divert media resources and, ultimately, justify their criminal behavior.
This pathetic tactic fits the narrative of our times since the O.J. Simpson murder trial in the mid 1990s invoked a myth that criminal behavior is bad unless you are a black person being accused by white people. Then, being a debauched wretch is not a consequence of your own behavior, it is the result of being a dark-skinned victim of some mythological racial bias. O.J. Simpson made the murder of white people by black people okay, as long as it was shown, without context, that suspicions of guilt were being raised by white people accused of racism.
Yet, liberal America continues to fail to realize that being a criminal is a bad thing too.
RANGEL AND WATERS ARE VICTIMS OF THEIR OWN CHOICES, NOT RACISM
America has devolved into a nation of mongerism. Accusations of racism, hatred, debauchery, misogyny, androphobia, derangement and moral regression are only diminishing the severity of actual occurrences of these atrocities. Being a racist is becoming less and less of a bad thing because liberals fling the term around like used socks. Indecency is being justified by the perverted social values of the liberal establishment while actual racists are becoming legitimate aggressors justified by a continually diminishing vilification from psychotic liberals.
Liberals can only accuse innocent people of being racist for so long before their accusations become impotent and dismissed. The consequence of this form of "wolf crying" is that actual racism is gaining legitimacy while decent, hardworking, vintage Americans are victimized by reverse bigotry as they are enslaved in taxation by career liberal legislators, like Waters and Rangel, who build despicable, race-based institutions rooted in their perverted rendition of social justice.
Chuck Rangel and Maxine Waters did not choose to be black. Therefore the justice they receive should be based on that which they did choose. Otherwise, if justice sees color as a precedence, America will soon perish beneath the weight of a collapsing justice system which rewards involuntary benign characteristics while disregarding voluntary bad behavior. Rangel and Waters did choose to conjoin themselves with people and institutions which have a greater potential to press against decency, honesty and morality. They chose to behave a certain way and the chose to make certain decisions which have brought them to this moment of scrutiny about their character and conduct. Only decisions and behavior warrant true justice.
Where does moral bearing originate? What is the source of our understanding of the difference between right and wrong?
A QUESTION OF CHOICE, NOT OBLIGATION
The epic failure of the lost is believing they can legislate decency. Liberal dissonance has caused a lack of moral capacity to understand that Jesus Christ never acted through a government agency to affect the poor. He never hired a lawyer to contrive bureaucracy in order to implement a miracle. Nor, did He elect a politician to issue policy commanding charity. In fact, Christ issued a sermon of "woes" against such ideology and warned world leaders of His time against legal impositions on individual rights of charity.
Regardless of whether or not you are Christian, social justice, as a defined form of reward or punishment, is only legitimate when it is based on independent choice to be charitable by the individual, voluntary participant acting in a personalized manner upon the needful. This is appropriate with the commissions under the authority of any social doctrine, especially that which was espoused by Jesus Christ. This truth is not only elicited through a belief in Christ as the divinely appointed Savior, it is a general directive upon all humanity to preserve its own existence.
However, Christ's commission upon the individual is factually inescapable within the historical message of His life as it is conveyed along the common accounts of His affect upon those less fortunate. Christ was not an elected official acting under the authority of a world jurisdiction to enact some secular doctrine to afford a certain demographic with health care. He simply chose, as an individual, to heal the sick and feed the poor. In fact, the State authority of His time, was threatened by Christ because He preached the importance of independent choice acting in coordination to affect and empower the individual first, not the masses, or the government.
The biblical account of Christ's "social justice" on earth gives countless examples of his defense of the individual against the hordes. No one understands the potential corruptability of the masses like Jesus Christ. He was betrayed by his own Jewish demographic, challenged by thugs, crucified by a tyrannical empire, rejected by whole towns, vilified by the masses, spit upon by a mob, beaten by barbarians, and sacrificed for the cause of billions. Yet, He restored sight to one blind man, forgave the sexual transgressions of one harlot, emparted hope to one adultress, cured one demon possessed boy, raised one dead man, saved one man's soul, resurrected one little girl, forgave one thief, traded his freedom for one convict, gave his own, single life that each one of these acts would cause each of these individuals to choose to convey these blessings to others. He acted as One choosing to act, not a part of many. He did not obligate them to act under exorbitant tax laws, nor did Christ ever impose state sponsored social justice upon the masses with deragatory rhetoric. He was charitable, gracious, merciful and righteous because he chose to be. He chose to implement justice not because he was a jew, or black, or poor, or heterosexual, or gay, or tall, or male. He chose justice because He chose to be just toward the character and behavior, not the race, of others.
Therefore, social justice becomes illegitimate when its implementation is attempted by political power as a means to confiscate resources from masses of involuntary participants and then channel those resources through systemic controls to other masses of recipients based on disseminations of bureaucratically defined, involuntary characteristics...such as race.
It is important to understand the difference between these diametric forms of doctrinal exercise. There is a stark contrast between the legitimate form of interpersonal justice based on voluntary characteristics of decent, generous behavior and humility between individuals, and the oppressive federal policies attempting to impose false justice based on the involuntary characteristics of demography among the masses. The latter form is a lie and does not foster life and peace. It provokes resentment, war and death. It opposes the easily understandable commands from God for humanity to seek peace, reconciliation and stewardship through confidence in Him, not the exaltation of the “first black” someone.
God made it this way for a reason. He wanted us to seek justice through Him, not the gods of this world. He wanted us to understand the importance of justice and charitable service as a reflections of His own loving regard for us, not as the result of guilt-mongering and gullibility under authoritarian lies.
Liberal minded people, like Waters and Rangel, fail to recognize that humanity was brought to justice in the world based on the choice of the individual to be charitable without redress, based on an independent submission to divine authority, on an intrapersonal basis. The ransom paid for our justice did not originate upon the doctrines of the state. Instead, the modern liberal establishment desperately wants the masses to believe that the ruling class has the right to act as some all-knowing, divinely appointed, regulator in conveying and interpreting God’s legitimate message by convincing wholesale society that resources should be confiscated, not allowed to be surrendered based on charity, seeded upon ambiguous boundaries within quantitative affluence, skin color demography, culturalism, geography or stateism.
If reprobates like Waters and Rangel are successful in their entitlement based justice, it perverts the hope for all humanity in its need to find reconciliation from actual racism and injustice. Their ideology demeans the true source of justice, which is Christ, Jesus, by removing the right to choose to “love thy neighbor as thyself”. Liberal ideology removes the reasons anyone should have to follow God’s commission to be loving and generous and it supersedes the supremacy of divine authority in matters of justice among humanity. If one fails to believe in God, then they are subject to wrath from those for who the implementation of artificial justice is attempted.
Therefore, before we even get started with legitimate proceedings intended to levy justice against bad behavior, lets go ahead and transcend the issue of race by dismissing the fact that Rangel and Waters are black.
This is the only way to find true justice for all. Right?
Was Obama’s Mother A Bigamist?
State Department Passport Document Shows Date of Marriage to Lolo Soetoro BEFORE Date of Divorce Decree from Obama Sr.
Corsi also reports that Ann Dunham’s passport applications show that she applied for and received three separate passports and a renewal between 1965 and 1981. However, in yet another example of convenient government complicity to “inadvertently” obscure Obama’s actual past, the Hillary Clinton-led State Department claims that a “General Services Administration” directive in the 1980s resulted in the destruction of passport applications and other "non-vital" passport records, including Dunham's 1965 passport application and any other passports she may have applied for, or held, prior to 1965. The released records also document that on Aug. 13, 1968, Ann Dunham applied to have her 1965-issued passport renewed for two years, until July 18, 1970.
Theoretically, if we use the "three years-plus-two year renewal" time model for any previous application, going back from July 18, 1970, Dunham could have applied for and received an original passport between August, 1960 when she allegedly met Obama Sr., and July 18, 1961, two weeks before giving birth to Obama.
Dunham’s 1965 passport application is missing despite a statement on the State Department’s website stating that the U.S. Passport Services Office maintains U.S. passport records from 1925 to the present.
The documents also reveal yet another possible name used to identify Barack Barry Hussein Obama Soetoro. According to the application for Dunham’s 1976 passport she uses the parenthetical name of (saebarkah), or perhaps “Subarkah”, which is a surname commonly found among Indonesian citizenry.
The existence of records of a passport or travel documents prior to 1965 would reveal information on Dunham’s travel and whereabouts when Obama was born and possibly reveal the location of Obama’s birth. Therefore, we can now add Ann Dunham’s official whereabouts to the litany of records and documents now missing from Obama’s biographical history.
There is also a disparity of an entire year between the disclosed dates of Mr. Soetoro’s birth in separate applications. In one application showing passport No. Z2433100, dated June 2, 1976, Dunham states “January 2, 1935” as the date of Soetoro’s birth. Then, in her application showing passport No. Z3037221, dated April 28, 1981, Lolo Soetoro’s birth date is listed as “1936”. There is no explanation for this disparity.
by Pen Johannson
New York - Documents released and posted on the Scribd.com website, show that Barack Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham, applied for a passport in 1981 and specified a date of her marriage to Lolo Soetoro as being March 5, 1964 which is 15 days before receiving a Decree of Divorce along with an Award of Custody of Obama Jr., from Barack Obama, Sr. on March 20th, 1964.
Although no marriage certificate, application for license, or public announcement of marriage has ever been found for any of Dunham’s marriages to either Soetoro or Obama Sr., the passport documents show that an immigration official verified Dunham’s marriage to Soetoro with some form of marriage certificate and approved the application as accurate.
Although no marriage certificate, application for license, or public announcement of marriage has ever been found for any of Dunham’s marriages to either Soetoro or Obama Sr., the passport documents show that an immigration official verified Dunham’s marriage to Soetoro with some form of marriage certificate and approved the application as accurate.
As reported on August 1, 2010, by Dr. Jerome Corsi of World Net Daily, the State Department released the documents on July 29, 2010, responding to a request submitted by Christopher Strunk, a New York resident who has actively pursued obtaining documents regarding Barack Obama's birth and his eligibility to be president under the "natural born citizen" requirement of Section 1, Article Two of the United States Constitution.
Corsi also reports that Ann Dunham’s passport applications show that she applied for and received three separate passports and a renewal between 1965 and 1981. However, in yet another example of convenient government complicity to “inadvertently” obscure Obama’s actual past, the Hillary Clinton-led State Department claims that a “General Services Administration” directive in the 1980s resulted in the destruction of passport applications and other "non-vital" passport records, including Dunham's 1965 passport application and any other passports she may have applied for, or held, prior to 1965. The released records also document that on Aug. 13, 1968, Ann Dunham applied to have her 1965-issued passport renewed for two years, until July 18, 1970.
Theoretically, if we use the "three years-plus-two year renewal" time model for any previous application, going back from July 18, 1970, Dunham could have applied for and received an original passport between August, 1960 when she allegedly met Obama Sr., and July 18, 1961, two weeks before giving birth to Obama.
Dunham’s 1965 passport application is missing despite a statement on the State Department’s website stating that the U.S. Passport Services Office maintains U.S. passport records from 1925 to the present.
The documents also reveal yet another possible name used to identify Barack Barry Hussein Obama Soetoro. According to the application for Dunham’s 1976 passport she uses the parenthetical name of (saebarkah), or perhaps “Subarkah”, which is a surname commonly found among Indonesian citizenry.
The existence of records of a passport or travel documents prior to 1965 would reveal information on Dunham’s travel and whereabouts when Obama was born and possibly reveal the location of Obama’s birth. Therefore, we can now add Ann Dunham’s official whereabouts to the litany of records and documents now missing from Obama’s biographical history.
There is also a disparity of an entire year between the disclosed dates of Mr. Soetoro’s birth in separate applications. In one application showing passport No. Z2433100, dated June 2, 1976, Dunham states “January 2, 1935” as the date of Soetoro’s birth. Then, in her application showing passport No. Z3037221, dated April 28, 1981, Lolo Soetoro’s birth date is listed as “1936”. There is no explanation for this disparity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
