The Decorated Military Officer’s Righteous Fight To Measure Obama’s Integrity Is A Mantle For Vintage American Survival In Much The Same Way Our Founders Commanded
A Daily Pen guest editorial
by Dan Crosby
The superior actions of an honorable warrior speak louder than the inferior words of those who merely observe his struggle.
When Dr. Lakin decided to measure, qualify and, ultimately, challenge Barack Obama’s Constitutional standing to be America’s executive officer, he fully understood the price of his fight. Having already proven his "honor, duty, sacrifice and bravery" for 20 years on the fields of battle, fighting for America, he was suddenly confronted with the reality that he now must prove that honor, duty, sacrifice and bravery on the battle field of legal justice and integrity.
Liars and abettors beware. In criticizing Lakin's dutiful responsibility to challenge orders he believes are illegal, Obama sycophants are causing the storage of a special wrath for themselves. Their first offense is denying the truth of Lakin's honor and integrity as it emulates the foundations of America, itself. The very America in which they are allowed to reside...at least for the moment.
Lt. Col. Lakin has seen the horrific wounds of war. He as seen the cost of a blood ransomed nation and witnessed the loss of human life. As a medical doctor serving in the military, it’s difficult to imagine the pain and injury he has witnessed in the worthiest of freedom’s deservers. Dr. Lakin heals and comforts the young men and women who fight for us. He has done this loyally and without blemish for two decades.
Therefore, like many of our brave men and women serving in our military, there is no one with better qualifications to confront the dishonesty and lack of integrity of a civilian commander about his ineligibility to give orders to them than Dr. Lakin. Anyone doubting this should simply ask the soldiers and officers Lakin has served what they think. The contrast between a man like Lakin and a man like Obama is so vast it staggers the mind.
At the beginning of America's existence, Thomas Paine, an American founder said, “An army of principles can penetrate where an army of soldiers cannot.”
In the case of Lt. Col. Terry Lakin, a vintage American hero and decorated military veteran, we can boldly add to Paine’s truth:
“…and if those we elect to represent us are void of those principles, that same army of soldiers must impose upon them by those principles.”
Obama's legal defenders, including the judge assigned to the case, are in a terrible position. They cannot address the merits of Lakin's case if their intention is to protect Obama's lies, yet they cannot allow the truth about Obama to be used to rebut Lakin's charges for fear of Obama's "embarrassment". Moreover, they cannot allow Lakin to be acquitted lest they undermine the command structure of the entire military apparatus. They understand that an acquittal would set a precedent allowing any military service member to refuse any order based on their challenge of Obama's eligibility to command a military giving that order. So, they can't fight and they can't surrender. Which leaves only one nauseating option available for them.
Obama must run and hide.
If Obama's minions attempt to meet the merits of the case, they understand that they would have to be measured by Lakin's standard and thereby be convicted of immeasureable offenses against a blood ransomed nation. Therefore, the only option available in his defense is to cower in the darkness away from the light.
In this result, Lakin is accomplishing something far more effective than exposing the truth about Obama's covert identity. Lakin is rendering him impotent against the essential value of America. For, as long as Obama runs away from the truth, he cannot be worthy of a relationship with vintage America. As long as Obama refuses to disclose his identity, openly to the essential peoples of America, he will not be able to gain the affect he desires from the source of America's value. As long as Obama abandons men like Lakin, the more distant he must retreat from the core of American principles.
This option is not necessary for Lakin. He need only maintain the standards of honesty, transparency and integrity by which he as served America for all of his professional life, and America will love him for it.
As such, Dr. Lakin should know, without doubt, that his name is spoken with honor, joy and pride among the echelons of vintage American heritage. He should forever be encouraged to simply disregard the inferior, cowardly, ignorance of those opposing him, knowing with full confidence that they do not matter to the honorability of America or the glory of God. He should know, and be told daily, by anyone who values truth, transparency and integrity, that his position for America is not only valid and right, it is graciously obligated of him in his sworn duty to not only uphold the documented sovereignty of the nation for which he fights, which is the Constitution of the United States, but to also demand that same documented sovereignty from those under whom he voluntarily surrenders his very existence and which he, himself, is asked to submit as identification in his duty to America. Ironically, unlike the President under whom he serves, Lakin must submit a valid, original birth certificate, passport and military service identification in order to be eligible for his duty.
However, let us be reminded. Dr. Lakin’s court martial for disobeying deployment orders is not about exposing Obama as it is about preserving the integrity of America’s reputation. Dr. Lakin understands this.
Unfortunately, however, the justice system available to Lakin is deficient of the character required to measure the metrics of his case on the merits of its evidence. The military Lakin now serves in does not deserve his level of dedicated service or his purity of honorable substance. This military has been usurped, and even corrupted, from the highest rank and influenced by roguish cowards too weak of mind to embrace the rule of law in such matters. So, perhaps it is poetic that his duty within it should be relieved under hostile conditions. If the dregs of Obama's regime were real Americans of the highest order, they would abandon all reservations to help Lakin in his endeavor. If they were truly men and women of integrity upholding the value of America's blood ransomed worth, they would sacrifice their own standing for Lakin's greater cause. Lakin understands this, too.
Certainly, Lakin believes that all men are created equal. However, he also understands that men deserve inequality through the course of this life after they have been created. Lakin sheds light on this truth more than anyone in our nation today. Bearing witness to the injury and death of warriors, Lakin will never say that he is worthier than anyone. His humility resounds authentically upon those unspeakable experiences, but Lakin must be made to understand that he deserves a extraordinary level of respect. It is an abomination that his lascivious opposers deny this in their hateful derision while supporting a figure as covertly blacked-out as Obama.
More importantly, however, Lakin also understands that, someday, perhaps many years from now, America’s future generations will wonder what some in our society were thinking. Suffering, they will ask what could have possibly possessed some citizens to make such destructive and depraved decisions in electing such a disdainful horde of unprincipled purveyors to govern what was once the greatest nation in the history of mankind.
Sadly, of course, the only actual answers available for the loss of that generation’s value will be that many today abandoned their honor for the fraud of governmentally imposed social justice. They will have to say that many betrayed America’s vintage heritage for a perverted global citizenry based on communal doctrine. They will have to admit that many allowed the destruction of themselves from within, enabling their own death, by shielding their enemies with political correctness and Godless existentialism.
Most tragically, however, America will have to explain to future Americans why they failed to uphold the essence of America's citizenry in men like Dr. Lakin. They will have to explain how they allowed the value of America’s worth to be undermined by a psychotic generation of hateful liberal extremists who ventured too far into their delusion, confiscating that worth through irresponsibility. Many will have to say that they allowed this today, recklessly, without caring that the maintenance of that worth will burden those Americans tomorrow.
Then, many will have to explain to that diminished generation how they allowed deranged radicals in America’s government to undersell their worth to global interests and enemies in order to create a perverted rendition of social equality through redistributive transformation and reparative economics. Many will actually have to explain why they allowed degenerates to legislate decency, charity and ability blessed exclusively to some of us.
In providing specific examples, among the many which will certainly exist, they will have to give an account to our great-grandchildren why they allowed our government and sheepish factions of liberal humanity to betray vintage American heroes.
Needless to say, there will be no worthy answer to explain their loss and the systematic death they will suffer. However, they will yearn for the merciful treatment and healing wisdom of men, like Lakin, who were rejected by corrupt legalists and incompetent legislators.
Honorable, merciful men, like Lt. Col. Terry Lakin will have long since passed. They will never have to explain the reasons for those befallen horrors. They are exempt from blame for America’s failure, now and then.
For now, Lakin must engage his fight on a second front. He now must apply his duty to protect the U.S. Constitution for a more important cause against the lack of integrity of our current leadership under which he serves and under whom serves those Lakin must witness the suffering of.
Upon such experience, Lakin is sovereign in his right to challenge the eligibility of Barack Obama. He is fighting a more insidious enemy than any radical muslim terrorist. He is fighting those who falsely claim to be protectors of vintage America while bleeding away its treasure and forsaking its blood ransomed sovereignty. Not only has Lakin done his job honorably among the dangers of war throughout the world, he is doing the job that others in our elected government are too cowardly to do. He is questioning their worthiness after being confronted with the blatant evidence of their deficiency.
More importantly, Lakin is now not only fighting to protect the sovereignty of our nation from terrorists, he is also fighting to prevent the usurpation of our society from within by treacherous, power lusting liars. Instead of applying his medical expertise and combat experience to mend the lives of battle field warriors, Lakin is applying his conscience and professional integrity to protect the lives of all Americans, now and in the future.
As with all those who serve in the American military, we owe Lt. Col. Lakin all that we are.
As a message to all liberals and Obama supporters alike, you might not like the fact that Dr. Lakin is challenging the integrity of someone you support. You might not like the fact that Dr. Lakin is a vintage American hero possessing a vast record of honorable service and decorated recognition which Obama does not possess. You might not even like him personally because of your dissonant prejudice to understand that your very right to be hateful and wrong is protected by worthier men, like him.
Certainly, you wanted to believe that the person you voted for was worthy of your vote. You wanted to believe that all of those endless arguments with your conservative friends would prove you right and justified. You wanted to believe that if Barack Obama was ever measured against another American, like Lakin, that he would not be proven to be the wanton, dishonest charlatan he has been shown to be.
You want to believe that your worth would be upheld by Obama…not a man like Lakin.
However, the teeth gnashing reality that you must now bear is that Lt. Col. Terry Lakin has more integrity and honor and credibility than Barack Obama will ever have. It’s understandable that truth is painful for you to accept, but that is just the way it is.
You see? Men and women, like Lt. Col. Lakin are the bearers of America’s value. They are the ones with the actual authority to determine the worthiness of our nation among its people because he has paid the price for its ransom…which is the right to be free.
Contrarily, Barack Obama is not a provider of freedom. He is an exploiter of it. Obama has lived a life without the record of service which endows Dr. Lakin’s value as an American. Obama is the worst kind of citizen. Rather than one willing to shed his blood for other’s freedom, Obama is one seeking to draw other’s blood for his freedom. This not only makes men, like Obama, criminal. It makes them an enemy.
Oh, you thought the duty of a good soldier was just to obey orders without reasoning? Sorry, the Constitution disagrees.
When Thomas Paine wrote “Common Sense”, America was also under the threat of a powerful, but evil regime. Paine, like Lakin, seemed to understand that the essence of America exists in its forthright leadership toward remaining loyal to principles, truth and decency. Paine, like Lakin, seemed to understand that the greatest bastion of this essence was embodied by those we choose to represent us and, that if we failed to pick men and women worthy of the blood ransom paid by those for its sovereignty, we are truly in peril of losing our liberty and thus, our worth to one another, and thus our very existence.
In the end, even if Dr. Lakin loses his freedom at the hands of Obama’s abetting, corrupted judges, even if he is dishonorably discharged from under a now dishonorable military command hierarchy, even if he loses his monetary compensation as an exceptional medical professional, even if he must perform hard labor under this fraud-ridden circumstance, even if the inferior liberal portion of America betrays him…it is forever necessary that he carries within him the knowledge that he is the essential worthiness of America, unburdened by his decision to fight these enemies.
These truths become apparent because we are now forced to compare the character of Lt. Col. Terry Lakin with the character of Barack Obama. It has come to this dichotomy not because of Dr. Lakin’s dutiful responsibility to act in accordance with honor, but rather, it has come to this because of Barack Obama’s disdainful choice to act covertly in violation of the standard of honor set by Lakin.
That comparison is simply not fair. Obama can never reach that mark.
This is a last available opportunity for Obama to tell the truth. He has the opportunity to act in accordance with what is right, true and honorable and win some semblance of respectability as a man, even if his political identity is dissolved. This is an opportunity for Obama to be truly set free from social injustice and personal desperation. This is an opportunity for Obama to stand with Lt. Col. Lakin and make himself truly known before men, and God. For, at a minimum Barack Obama owes Terry Lakin, and all Americans, the truth. At most, based on comparable biographies, Obama owes Lakin for his existence in America. If Lakin goes to prison, that opportunity is lost forever. Mercy can only store wrath for so long before the constraints of grace give way.
God bless Lt. Col. Terry Lakin in his righteousness. And, yes, may God bless Barack Obama, that truth and transparency will win him over before it is too late, and that he will join the American people in preserving the blood ransomed sovereignty of the last, greatest nation on earth.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Saturday, September 4, 2010
Judge Cheats Lakin But Accidentally Exposes Obama’s “Embarrassing” Natal Identity
What information does Obama’s natal documentation and biographical records contain that judge knows would be humiliating for Obama?
A Daily Pen guest editorial
by Dan Crosby
Sometimes, judges make unpopular decisions based on a responsible adherence to the rule of law. It has only been during the recent era of neo-liberalism in America, however, that we have actually seen judges act stupidly and contrive irrelevant opinions which abrogate the essence of constitutional law.
In what may be characterized as the most subjectively advocatory decision in military justice history, Army Judge Col. Denise Lind, presiding in the case against Lt. Col. Terry Lakin, refused to allow the defendant his right to access commonly available evidence in his defense. Lakin is charged with disobeying deployment orders under UCMJ Articles 87 and 92.
In a pretrial hearing held at Fort Meade, Maryland, on September 2, 2010, Lakin’s defense team requested discovery of Obama’s natal documentation and scholastic records pertaining to his identity and relevance to determining his Constitutional eligibility to hold the office of the presidency.
The biographic information, which covers Obama's natal history, parentage, school attendance, travel and political roots between 1959 and 1994 is currently being held under top secret treatment by several institutions and Hawaiian municipal agencies acting under the control of, and in the interest of, the Obama administration. Essentially, Obama's opacity is acting to undermine his effectiveness more than the revelation of the documents could ever do.
This same request for discovery of evidence is granted in hundreds of American courts every year, in every classification of civil and military proceedings. Yet, despite the fact that access to this type of documentation has never been denied in any case when it serves as “at first view” evidence, known as Prima-Facie evidence, toward proving the facts of guilt or innocence, Lind went completely outside her jurisdiction in denying the merits of Lakin’s request.
Lind subjectively opined that Lakin’s request for Obama’s records are, “not relevant for the military to be considering such claims” and that “the laws allegedly violated by Lakin were legitimate on their face” and that “the chain of command led up to the Pentagon, and that should have been sufficient for Lakin.”
Then, the judge suddenly endowed herself with psychiatric qualifications in support of Obama. In what can only be characterized as shortsighted emotionalism for Obama’s delicate sensitivity to humiliation, Lind made this shocking statement:
“…opening up such evidence could be an “embarrassment” to the president, and it’s up to Congress to call for impeachment of a sitting president.”
A Daily Pen guest editorial
by Dan Crosby
Sometimes, judges make unpopular decisions based on a responsible adherence to the rule of law. It has only been during the recent era of neo-liberalism in America, however, that we have actually seen judges act stupidly and contrive irrelevant opinions which abrogate the essence of constitutional law.
In what may be characterized as the most subjectively advocatory decision in military justice history, Army Judge Col. Denise Lind, presiding in the case against Lt. Col. Terry Lakin, refused to allow the defendant his right to access commonly available evidence in his defense. Lakin is charged with disobeying deployment orders under UCMJ Articles 87 and 92.
In a pretrial hearing held at Fort Meade, Maryland, on September 2, 2010, Lakin’s defense team requested discovery of Obama’s natal documentation and scholastic records pertaining to his identity and relevance to determining his Constitutional eligibility to hold the office of the presidency.
The biographic information, which covers Obama's natal history, parentage, school attendance, travel and political roots between 1959 and 1994 is currently being held under top secret treatment by several institutions and Hawaiian municipal agencies acting under the control of, and in the interest of, the Obama administration. Essentially, Obama's opacity is acting to undermine his effectiveness more than the revelation of the documents could ever do.
This same request for discovery of evidence is granted in hundreds of American courts every year, in every classification of civil and military proceedings. Yet, despite the fact that access to this type of documentation has never been denied in any case when it serves as “at first view” evidence, known as Prima-Facie evidence, toward proving the facts of guilt or innocence, Lind went completely outside her jurisdiction in denying the merits of Lakin’s request.
Lind subjectively opined that Lakin’s request for Obama’s records are, “not relevant for the military to be considering such claims” and that “the laws allegedly violated by Lakin were legitimate on their face” and that “the chain of command led up to the Pentagon, and that should have been sufficient for Lakin.”
Then, the judge suddenly endowed herself with psychiatric qualifications in support of Obama. In what can only be characterized as shortsighted emotionalism for Obama’s delicate sensitivity to humiliation, Lind made this shocking statement:
“…opening up such evidence could be an “embarrassment” to the president, and it’s up to Congress to call for impeachment of a sitting president.”
This statement is unprecedented in American military justice history. It is a blatant violation of the most basic legal protections in our legal system, civilian or military.
“This is not a judge in submission to the rule of law,” said an ALAC spokesperson who asked to remain anonymous, “this is a radical enabler of the plaintiff. She is harmful in her opinion. Her decision sets precedence for actually allowing elected officials, regardless of the possible illegality of their appointment, the ability to violate Constitutional law and then hide the evidence of their crime. Lind is ridiculous and her course of action is far more harmful to the nation than embarrassing an ensconced maliform, like Obama.”
The tragedy of Lind's mistake, however, is her presumption that Obama is on trial instead of Lakin. Lind, like so many afoul judges has been summarily overridden in their ability to separate the realm of political consequence and legal justice. Obama's political well being is not more important than upholding the sovereignty of the citizenry and the timeless Constitutional rights endowed to them by God. Obama is not on trial here. Lakin is.
"Judges are not allowed to make decisions because they are afraid of the political consequences for someone. Obama is not even involved in this trial, but Lakin is. Any consequences perceived by Lind as to their adversity against Obama is clearly irrelevent in this case. She is obligated to consider the rule of law, not political consequences."
Under UCMJ SCR 47, Lakin is afforded the right to call any evidence or testimony in his defense when that evidence has not been proven in court to cause harm for those providing it. To date, no evidence about Obama's personal history has been proven to be harmful to him or those who hold it.
Someone needs to inform Lind that Obama losing a prospective election does not qualify as harm as a legal excuse for denying an American citizen's right to defend himself.
By putting Obama's sensibilities ahead of the Constitution, Lind has committed one of the most abhorrent litigatory acts in history. She has "propped" the interests of a single man ahead of the Constitutional welfare of an entire nation of people while violating her own sworn duty to defend that same Constitution. Lind should be removed from this case and immediately removed from judicial service.
Of course, we knew the Obama regime would not make it easy for Lakin to prove he is right about Obama, but when judges, themselves, deprive an honorable, exceptional, decorated military veteran his legal right to defend himself, with unclassified evidence, we have lost our way as a nation. However, when that deprivation of rights takes precedence over a risk of “embarrassing” a politician who is under vast suspicion of criminal wrongdoing in a judges decision, we have lost the sovereignty of America. Game over. Its time to arm yourself.
Moreover, What does Lind know about Obama’s covert identity?
Lind seemed to suggest that she holds specific understanding about the nature of the information about Obama while also hinting that the only way to deal with an entrenched figure like Obama is to seek Congressional proceedings in having him removed.
However, Lind fails to understand that if Obama is not eligibile to be president to begin with, Congress does not have the power to impeach him because he is not the president in the first place.
"Correct," says the ALAC spokesperson, "The only course of action is law enforcement to intervene. The legislative branch has no power in this case. Again, Lind is mistaken."
The only way to have Obama removed from the White House is to treat him as common trespasser if it is indeed discovered that he is ineligible to be president. He only needs to be arrested and tried as a usurper and an impersonator of an elected official. There is no legal mechanism for impeaching an ineligible candidate who was elected under false pretenses. However, the social and political pressure would mount so massively that he would have to be deported for his own safety. A result which is ironically meet.
"Basically, he becomes a party crasher, only worse. He was a fraud endowed with control of the most powerful military force in human history. Kinda scary to think, under similar circumstances, that the Salahis could have assumed control over our nuclear arsenal."
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Army Judge In Lakin Case Joins Civilian Cowards In Protecting Obama’s Lie
Ruling Against Lt. Col. Terry Lakin's Right To Evidence Supporting His Own Defense, Colonel Denise R. Lind Obstructs Justice And Undermines The Sovereignty Of America
by Penbrook Johannson
Fort Meade, Maryland – U.S. Army military judge, Col. Denise R. Lind, presiding over a hearing in the prosecution of Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, joined the slew of legal obstructionists today when she ruled that her military court would not serve as a stage to evaluate the Constitutional eligibility of Barack Obama.
In the wake of Lind’s decision, calls began flooding the media and internet in support of military personnel to act in accordance with Lakin’s example and disobey all orders until such time Mr. Obama provides documentation proving he is eligible to be the military's commander-in-chief.
Millions of respondents seeking to preserve the honor of America’s military and protect the sovereignty of America, spoke out to remind military personnel that their honor will always be upheld in the eyes of those who matter, and their courage will be recognized in their righteous, conscientious objection of this fraudulent contravention of our founder's blood ransomed nation. Many wanted to simply encourage active military service members to be brave, refuse orders, and let the course of legal and political forces reach a critical mass forcing authority against Obama.
One astonishing outpouring from thousands of veterans was the proclamation that they would find more honor in duty to America by opposing Obama's illegal command and be found guilty in military court rather than fulfill their military service within Obama's fraudulent chain of command. Many said they would rather serve prison time under a sentence of hard labor than serve with "fake honor" under Obama.
"A dishonorable discharge from a military hijacked by a dishonorable command is an honorable thing," said one veteran, "Lakin is the epitome of honor and justice."
Another agreed, "At least you go out knowing you stood right for protecting America, the constitution and for your brothers in arms by attempting to expose a suspected invader. You can't even say Obama is a traitor. A traitor has to be on your side to start with, then betray you. But, what do you call someone who assaults you first? You call them the enemy."
He continued, "Anyone going to prison for opposing this liar is considered a prisoner-of-war in my book and should get formal commendations once he is released. I would rather be a legitimate inmate than dishonorably ranked."
Those responding to Lind's decision seemed to understand that honorability and integrity begins at the top of the command structure.
Following more than 4 years of obscurity and lies, it has become obvious that a vast majority of Americans now support the forced exposure of Obama’s records containing any and all information about his natal history and identity.
During the hearing, Lind ruled that Lakin’s defense team would not be allowed to have access to any of Obama's records as well as any testimony from Hawaiian officials who have access to the records.
Lind’s unqualified decision falls lock-step in line with a horde of shockingly obtuse federal judges dismissing civil lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility or which demand verification of his natal documentation proving he meets the Natural Born citizen requirement of the Constitution to hold the office of the presidency. Every judge in each case has denied the plaintiffs' access to any requested documentation regarding the president's eligibility.
As reported by World Net Daily, Lind incorrectly concluded that it was "not relevant" for the military to be considering claims against Obama’s eligibility, and that the laws allegedly violated by Lakin were legitimate on their face and that the chain of command led only as far as unnamed Pentagon officials which Lind did not identify, yet she said that should have been sufficient for Lakin to obey deployment orders.
Paul Rolf Jensen, Lakin's civilian attorney, said the courts now have denied his client the opportunity to present his defense despite according to U.S.C. Rule 46, a defendant put on court martial has the right to call any and all witnesses and obtain any evidence in his or her defense.
NEWSFLASH TO LIND: FEDERAL LAWS SUPERCEDE STATE LAWS IN FEDERAL ELECTIONS
Evidence clarifying Obama's authority over Lakin would include an original, 1961, federal NVSD "Certificate of Live Birth" signed by an attending physician if, as Obama has said, he was indeed born in a hospital in the U.S. The 1961 U.S. Report on Vital Statistics, Volume 1: Natality dictates the "Certificate of Live Birth" as the 'standard certificate' to be used by state health agencies in recording births in the U.S. The Certificate of Live Birth originated in America 50 years before Hawaii became a state, and 52 years before Obama was born.
To date, Obama has provided no such federally issued, official documentation verifying his natural born citizenship, thereby proving he is eligible to be president. Instead, the Obama administration has co-opted abettors of the state of Hawaii municipal government to produce an independently published cover document designed to conceal and protect natal identity, not disclose it.
The Hawaiian "Certification of Live Birth" has been widely disseminated by Obama propagandists as a legitimate birth certificate endowing Obama with federal approval. However, at the time of Obama's election the Hawaiian "Certification of Live Birth" was not even unanimously accepted by all agencies in that state. The Department of Hawaiian Homelands rejects the "Certification of Live Birth" as adequate identification for its services. Also, there is longstanding legal precedence showing that federal documentation supercedes the inferior authority of state-level documentation when a candidate is seeking eligibility to run for federal office. The presidency is obviously a federal office, not a state-level office.
The governor of the state of Hawaii, Linda Lingle, the director of the Hawaiian Department of Health, Chiyome Fukino along with Hawaiian Registrar, Alvin Onaka, are key witnesses to Obama's records in that state. In Hawaii, state-level legalisms and administrative rules, which diametrically conflict with federal eligibility laws of the Constitution, are being exploited by these municipal deceivers in order to allow them to "justify" their lack of cooperation.
The two Hawaiian statutes which are being exploited to unlawfully shelter and enable Obama's criminality are HRS 338-17.8 and HRS 338-18, along with Administrative Rule 91. The first statute says that the Hawaiian Department of Health is obligated to issue a Hawaiian birth certificate for births to parents who claim Hawaii as their residence within a year of the birth, regardless of the location of the birth. A.R. 91 puts the authority for determining the validity of the information submitted by the applicant for such certificate solely in the hands of the Hawaiian Health Director, Chiyome Fukino.
HRS 338-18 conveniently allows municipal employees to refuse to disclose information in vital records to the public.
Judge Lind understands that sworn testimony from these individuals would prove that Obama possesses documentation which has not been revealed and possibly does not possess natural born citizenship and is therefore not qualified to be president.
It has since been learned that Lingle has strong economic and political ties to Obama's adoptive father, Lolo Soetoro's, home country of Indonesia, a "Pacific rim" commerce partner with both Hawaii and Japan. Obama lived in Indonesia as a boy in the late 1960's and many believe that he still has citizenry and interests there. Given her's and Obama's mutual political and economic affiliations with the Pacific rim, Muslim nation, Lingle has a clear motive to protect Obama's presidency. Lingle is also a close friend of Obama's Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano.
In an hour-long apologetic dissertation, judge Lind proclaimed that opening up such evidence could be an "embarrassment" to the "president", even though no proof exists that Obama is actually the president, and it's up to Congress to call for impeachment of a sitting president. In her shortsighted reasoning, Lind failed to grasp the legal reality that Obama, by way of his unproven eligibility, has never been and cannot be confirmed as a legally recognized "sitting president" and therefore is not subject to Lind's judicial compassion to protect him from "embarassment".
Lind also wrongly presumes that Obama is automatically a legitimate president simply because he was voted for by a majority of voters. Lind needs to be scolded and reminded that the Constitutional mandates governing eligibilty circumvent the result of any popularity contest.
Lind made her irresponsible conclusions while disregarding the vast and mounting evidence against Obama. The evidence irrefutably shows that Obama was never properly vetted or biographically analyzed as a candidate and, therefore, is only able to usurp the authority of the position without having the ability to hold its power.
THE CONSTITUTION IN CRISIS
The power of a legitimate presidency is timeless. This means that a legitimate president is able to invoke legally upheld executive power while in office which later must either be judicially and legislatively enforced after his departure from office, or which can only be changed or repealed by the Constitutional processes moving forward.
However, if a president is found to be illegimate after trespassing the office, the Constitution has no power to address or uphold the implements of usurped power. Therefore, all laws, vetoes, executive orders, military commands, international treaties, pardons, agreements and records created during the fraudulent office holder's criminal residence are contravened by a rescinding outside of the jurisdiction of our legal system. This means that if Obama is ever found to be ineligible as a president, at anytime in American history, it must be decreed by a Constitutional Amendment process that America was without executive leadership for the time of the usurpation. All references of Obama as a president would be legally removed from historical records and the power of the U.S. presidency during that time would be declared void. Foreign nations could assert their "right" to claim concessions lost during that time. Pardoned inmates would have to be re-arrested and perhaps, in cases of capital punishment, be put to death without appeal. Treaties signed by he usurper would immediately be void allowing hostilities to resume. International economic contracts would be cancelled.
The consequences threatening America because of Obama's actions are potentially cataclysmic to the very existence of the nation.
Lind, like many wrong-headed judges, fails to grasp that Obama's ineligibility has no statute of limitation. At any point in the future, his presidency can be nullified thereby creating a Constitutional crisis of irreparable proportions. The fact that Obama was never confirmed as an eligible candidate automatically disqualifies him from any legitimacy regardless of the result of any electoral process. An election carried out under false pretenses is void in all cases. Essentially, Lind failed in her judicial duty to uphold the authority of the Constitution over the electoral process. Instead, she audaciously and harmfully declared the electoral process, even one which invokes a usurper, as the authority over the Constitution, which was written specifically to prevent individuals like Obama from taking power in America.
Also, Lind upheld protective cessation for Obama even though her failure to uphold the merits of Lakin’s valid case only works to undermine the credibility of Obama as an individual. Her actions did more to "embarrass" Obama than any legal action demanding that truth set him free. By disallowing a vintage American hero's rightful request to verify the qualifications of his superior, before agreeing to obey mortally threatening orders to deploy during active combat, Lind has essentially rejected that which is honorable and enabled criminal behavior at the highest level of command. In essence, she has approved the violation of the legal jurisdiction of the Constitution while permitting an ongoing deception to bring shame upon, not only Obama as an individual, but the office of the U.S. Presidency in the future.
Lind's decision came just days after retired U.S. Air Force, Lt. Gen. Thomas G. McInerney, who commanded nuclear armed forces, filed an affidavit saying that the disclosure of Obama's documentation is not just critical to Lakin's defense, but to the preservation of the nation itself.
"There can be no question that it is absolutely essential to good order and discipline in the military that there be no break in the unified chain of command, from the lowliest E-1 up to and including the commander in chief who is under the Constitution, the president of the United States. As military officers, we owe our ultimate loyalty not to superior officers or even to the president, but rather, to the Constitution," stated McInerney.
He explained, "good order and discipline requires not blind obedience to all orders but instead requires officers to judge – sometimes under great adversity – whether an order is illegal."
Lind also failed to understand that each and every time a judge dismisses a case or prejudges an law abiding citizen or military service member, it only ratchets up the political ante, expands media awareness and increases the pressure on successive case holders to establish Obama’s authenticity and legitimate authority.
Unfortunately, the Obama regime has proven itself to be the most dishonest, opaque band of anti-Americans in history. For every true patriot who suffers injustice at the hands of those protecting Obama’s lie, it only undermines the security of America more.
Perhaps when all this is said and done, Lt. Colonel Terry Lakin should run for President. After all, we know he has a legitimate birth certificate.
by Penbrook Johannson
Fort Meade, Maryland – U.S. Army military judge, Col. Denise R. Lind, presiding over a hearing in the prosecution of Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, joined the slew of legal obstructionists today when she ruled that her military court would not serve as a stage to evaluate the Constitutional eligibility of Barack Obama.
In the wake of Lind’s decision, calls began flooding the media and internet in support of military personnel to act in accordance with Lakin’s example and disobey all orders until such time Mr. Obama provides documentation proving he is eligible to be the military's commander-in-chief.
Millions of respondents seeking to preserve the honor of America’s military and protect the sovereignty of America, spoke out to remind military personnel that their honor will always be upheld in the eyes of those who matter, and their courage will be recognized in their righteous, conscientious objection of this fraudulent contravention of our founder's blood ransomed nation. Many wanted to simply encourage active military service members to be brave, refuse orders, and let the course of legal and political forces reach a critical mass forcing authority against Obama.
One astonishing outpouring from thousands of veterans was the proclamation that they would find more honor in duty to America by opposing Obama's illegal command and be found guilty in military court rather than fulfill their military service within Obama's fraudulent chain of command. Many said they would rather serve prison time under a sentence of hard labor than serve with "fake honor" under Obama.
"A dishonorable discharge from a military hijacked by a dishonorable command is an honorable thing," said one veteran, "Lakin is the epitome of honor and justice."
Another agreed, "At least you go out knowing you stood right for protecting America, the constitution and for your brothers in arms by attempting to expose a suspected invader. You can't even say Obama is a traitor. A traitor has to be on your side to start with, then betray you. But, what do you call someone who assaults you first? You call them the enemy."
He continued, "Anyone going to prison for opposing this liar is considered a prisoner-of-war in my book and should get formal commendations once he is released. I would rather be a legitimate inmate than dishonorably ranked."
Those responding to Lind's decision seemed to understand that honorability and integrity begins at the top of the command structure.
Following more than 4 years of obscurity and lies, it has become obvious that a vast majority of Americans now support the forced exposure of Obama’s records containing any and all information about his natal history and identity.
During the hearing, Lind ruled that Lakin’s defense team would not be allowed to have access to any of Obama's records as well as any testimony from Hawaiian officials who have access to the records.
Lind’s unqualified decision falls lock-step in line with a horde of shockingly obtuse federal judges dismissing civil lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility or which demand verification of his natal documentation proving he meets the Natural Born citizen requirement of the Constitution to hold the office of the presidency. Every judge in each case has denied the plaintiffs' access to any requested documentation regarding the president's eligibility.
As reported by World Net Daily, Lind incorrectly concluded that it was "not relevant" for the military to be considering claims against Obama’s eligibility, and that the laws allegedly violated by Lakin were legitimate on their face and that the chain of command led only as far as unnamed Pentagon officials which Lind did not identify, yet she said that should have been sufficient for Lakin to obey deployment orders.
Paul Rolf Jensen, Lakin's civilian attorney, said the courts now have denied his client the opportunity to present his defense despite according to U.S.C. Rule 46, a defendant put on court martial has the right to call any and all witnesses and obtain any evidence in his or her defense.
NEWSFLASH TO LIND: FEDERAL LAWS SUPERCEDE STATE LAWS IN FEDERAL ELECTIONS
Evidence clarifying Obama's authority over Lakin would include an original, 1961, federal NVSD "Certificate of Live Birth" signed by an attending physician if, as Obama has said, he was indeed born in a hospital in the U.S. The 1961 U.S. Report on Vital Statistics, Volume 1: Natality dictates the "Certificate of Live Birth" as the 'standard certificate' to be used by state health agencies in recording births in the U.S. The Certificate of Live Birth originated in America 50 years before Hawaii became a state, and 52 years before Obama was born.
To date, Obama has provided no such federally issued, official documentation verifying his natural born citizenship, thereby proving he is eligible to be president. Instead, the Obama administration has co-opted abettors of the state of Hawaii municipal government to produce an independently published cover document designed to conceal and protect natal identity, not disclose it.
The Hawaiian "Certification of Live Birth" has been widely disseminated by Obama propagandists as a legitimate birth certificate endowing Obama with federal approval. However, at the time of Obama's election the Hawaiian "Certification of Live Birth" was not even unanimously accepted by all agencies in that state. The Department of Hawaiian Homelands rejects the "Certification of Live Birth" as adequate identification for its services. Also, there is longstanding legal precedence showing that federal documentation supercedes the inferior authority of state-level documentation when a candidate is seeking eligibility to run for federal office. The presidency is obviously a federal office, not a state-level office.
The governor of the state of Hawaii, Linda Lingle, the director of the Hawaiian Department of Health, Chiyome Fukino along with Hawaiian Registrar, Alvin Onaka, are key witnesses to Obama's records in that state. In Hawaii, state-level legalisms and administrative rules, which diametrically conflict with federal eligibility laws of the Constitution, are being exploited by these municipal deceivers in order to allow them to "justify" their lack of cooperation.
The two Hawaiian statutes which are being exploited to unlawfully shelter and enable Obama's criminality are HRS 338-17.8 and HRS 338-18, along with Administrative Rule 91. The first statute says that the Hawaiian Department of Health is obligated to issue a Hawaiian birth certificate for births to parents who claim Hawaii as their residence within a year of the birth, regardless of the location of the birth. A.R. 91 puts the authority for determining the validity of the information submitted by the applicant for such certificate solely in the hands of the Hawaiian Health Director, Chiyome Fukino.
HRS 338-18 conveniently allows municipal employees to refuse to disclose information in vital records to the public.
Judge Lind understands that sworn testimony from these individuals would prove that Obama possesses documentation which has not been revealed and possibly does not possess natural born citizenship and is therefore not qualified to be president.
It has since been learned that Lingle has strong economic and political ties to Obama's adoptive father, Lolo Soetoro's, home country of Indonesia, a "Pacific rim" commerce partner with both Hawaii and Japan. Obama lived in Indonesia as a boy in the late 1960's and many believe that he still has citizenry and interests there. Given her's and Obama's mutual political and economic affiliations with the Pacific rim, Muslim nation, Lingle has a clear motive to protect Obama's presidency. Lingle is also a close friend of Obama's Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano.
In an hour-long apologetic dissertation, judge Lind proclaimed that opening up such evidence could be an "embarrassment" to the "president", even though no proof exists that Obama is actually the president, and it's up to Congress to call for impeachment of a sitting president. In her shortsighted reasoning, Lind failed to grasp the legal reality that Obama, by way of his unproven eligibility, has never been and cannot be confirmed as a legally recognized "sitting president" and therefore is not subject to Lind's judicial compassion to protect him from "embarassment".
Lind also wrongly presumes that Obama is automatically a legitimate president simply because he was voted for by a majority of voters. Lind needs to be scolded and reminded that the Constitutional mandates governing eligibilty circumvent the result of any popularity contest.
Lind made her irresponsible conclusions while disregarding the vast and mounting evidence against Obama. The evidence irrefutably shows that Obama was never properly vetted or biographically analyzed as a candidate and, therefore, is only able to usurp the authority of the position without having the ability to hold its power.
THE CONSTITUTION IN CRISIS
The power of a legitimate presidency is timeless. This means that a legitimate president is able to invoke legally upheld executive power while in office which later must either be judicially and legislatively enforced after his departure from office, or which can only be changed or repealed by the Constitutional processes moving forward.
However, if a president is found to be illegimate after trespassing the office, the Constitution has no power to address or uphold the implements of usurped power. Therefore, all laws, vetoes, executive orders, military commands, international treaties, pardons, agreements and records created during the fraudulent office holder's criminal residence are contravened by a rescinding outside of the jurisdiction of our legal system. This means that if Obama is ever found to be ineligible as a president, at anytime in American history, it must be decreed by a Constitutional Amendment process that America was without executive leadership for the time of the usurpation. All references of Obama as a president would be legally removed from historical records and the power of the U.S. presidency during that time would be declared void. Foreign nations could assert their "right" to claim concessions lost during that time. Pardoned inmates would have to be re-arrested and perhaps, in cases of capital punishment, be put to death without appeal. Treaties signed by he usurper would immediately be void allowing hostilities to resume. International economic contracts would be cancelled.
The consequences threatening America because of Obama's actions are potentially cataclysmic to the very existence of the nation.
Lind, like many wrong-headed judges, fails to grasp that Obama's ineligibility has no statute of limitation. At any point in the future, his presidency can be nullified thereby creating a Constitutional crisis of irreparable proportions. The fact that Obama was never confirmed as an eligible candidate automatically disqualifies him from any legitimacy regardless of the result of any electoral process. An election carried out under false pretenses is void in all cases. Essentially, Lind failed in her judicial duty to uphold the authority of the Constitution over the electoral process. Instead, she audaciously and harmfully declared the electoral process, even one which invokes a usurper, as the authority over the Constitution, which was written specifically to prevent individuals like Obama from taking power in America.
Also, Lind upheld protective cessation for Obama even though her failure to uphold the merits of Lakin’s valid case only works to undermine the credibility of Obama as an individual. Her actions did more to "embarrass" Obama than any legal action demanding that truth set him free. By disallowing a vintage American hero's rightful request to verify the qualifications of his superior, before agreeing to obey mortally threatening orders to deploy during active combat, Lind has essentially rejected that which is honorable and enabled criminal behavior at the highest level of command. In essence, she has approved the violation of the legal jurisdiction of the Constitution while permitting an ongoing deception to bring shame upon, not only Obama as an individual, but the office of the U.S. Presidency in the future.
Lind's decision came just days after retired U.S. Air Force, Lt. Gen. Thomas G. McInerney, who commanded nuclear armed forces, filed an affidavit saying that the disclosure of Obama's documentation is not just critical to Lakin's defense, but to the preservation of the nation itself.
"There can be no question that it is absolutely essential to good order and discipline in the military that there be no break in the unified chain of command, from the lowliest E-1 up to and including the commander in chief who is under the Constitution, the president of the United States. As military officers, we owe our ultimate loyalty not to superior officers or even to the president, but rather, to the Constitution," stated McInerney.
He explained, "good order and discipline requires not blind obedience to all orders but instead requires officers to judge – sometimes under great adversity – whether an order is illegal."
Lind also failed to understand that each and every time a judge dismisses a case or prejudges an law abiding citizen or military service member, it only ratchets up the political ante, expands media awareness and increases the pressure on successive case holders to establish Obama’s authenticity and legitimate authority.
Unfortunately, the Obama regime has proven itself to be the most dishonest, opaque band of anti-Americans in history. For every true patriot who suffers injustice at the hands of those protecting Obama’s lie, it only undermines the security of America more.
Perhaps when all this is said and done, Lt. Colonel Terry Lakin should run for President. After all, we know he has a legitimate birth certificate.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Obama's "Birth Certificate" Response To Religious Question Reveals Hidden Birth Record
Liberals Berserk Over Unprovable Religious Beliefs, Which Are Not Present In Their Lauded Available Document, Yet, Ignore Provable Eligibility Issue
A Daily Pen Guest Editorial
by Dan Crosby
Look who the conspiracists are now!
No matter how many stories about the consequences of Obama’s executive fairy tale cross the headlines, it is fascinating to see how the liberal media complex deranges its priorities.
Ever since the Ground Zero mosque achieved 'Feature' status as a news story, the oft-spun myth about Barack Obama’s religious inclinations has taken the opening line in most follow-up stories over the past month. Yet, laughably disregarded by the inept media are the geo-chronological facts of Obama’s derelict Constitutional authority to even hold the office of the presidency to begin with.
In a strangely revealing response to a question regarding the public's doubts about his religious views in an interview with NBC's Brian Williams on Sunday, Obama answered oddly, "I can't spend all my time going around with my birth certificate plastered on my forehead...the facts are the facts...its not something I can spend all my time worrying about."
Obama and his liberal minions have a problem. That document does not contain information about his religion.
You remember?...the much exalted Hawaiian "Certification of Live Birth" waggled all over MSNBC and CNN by Chris Matthews, Rick Sanchez, Anderson Cooper, Keith Olberman and Rachel Maddow as his authentic "birth certificate. You remember...the Hawaiian "Certification of Live Birth" posted all over the internet on leftwing websites like Huffington Polssk, FactCheck and the Daily KKKos as his "real" birth certificate. You remember...the Hawaiian "Certification of Live Birth" that White House Presswit, Robby Gibbs said on multiple occasions was his birth certificate available on the internet...Remember?
The Hawaiian "Certification of Live Birth" is Obama's actual, real, authentic birth certificate, right, Chris? Right, Rob? Right, Andy? Right, Keith? Right, Ricky? Woops. Apparently Obama didn't get the memo. He still thinks there is a "birth certificate" out there which contains information about his religion.
Looking at the available document very closely, we don't find any information about Obama's religion on it anywhere. Wait, let's check one more time...Nope. Not a word.
Maybe Obama was confusing this document with another one that remains a secret. Hmm?
Obama made this oddly revealing statement even though the document his regime has pushed as an authentic "birth certificate" does not contain information about his religion. This leads us to conclude that Obama was thinking about another birth certificate he has which does contain information about his religion? Does anyone think, maybe this "other" birth certificate might contain other information too? NBC's Brian Williams didn't follow up on it (Surprise, surprise).
But, since Obama brought it up, we'll ask the question Williams should have. Someone has to be the adult journalist here.
Obama's unsolicited specificity implicating this missing birth record seems to expose an underlying consciousness that he indeed bears the massive weight of secrets as the validity of unanswered questions about his Constitutional legitimacy and his obscure natal demographics continues to mount.
This response is also particularly strange considering that an original birth certificate, in the form of the authentic, NVSD, federal long-form, 1961 "Certificate of Live Birth" signed by his attending physician, also might not necessarily provide up-dated information about the bearer's religion either. Anyone seriously doubting Obama's eligibilty knows this, and, most certainly, so does Obama. In fact, a very tiny fraction of people, if any, with questions about Obama's natal identity have ever actually requested "documented" proof of his religion in the form of his original, 1961 "Certificate of Live Birth" document.
ACCIDENTAL TRANSPARENCY
So, why did he play the "birth certificate" card?
"Freudian slip. That was a bizarre, accidental response," says Marian Taylor, lead research analyst from Philadelphia based, PM Media Group, "considering the fact that an official birth certificate does not list the baby's religion, it only lists the parent's in some cases."
Taylor says, "Confirming his religious beliefs has never been a matter of verifying documented proof as would be case with his "Natural Born" status. You don't have to be Christian to be President. The fact that he brings the "birth certificate" up, unsolicited, reveals his deep, perhaps troubling, psychological awareness about the validity of questions about his legitimacy, and it makes me wonder why his thoughts are this prejudiced about it."
Taylor, a leading expert in the field of Social Science and Political Psychology, says that this kind of tangential specificity about a particular piece of evidence raises flags in her kind of work.
"He brought it up without prompting. It is so obvious what he is doing. To any professional in my field, that was a blatantly leading response rooted in pychological dissonance or dishonesty," she says.
"Volunteering unsolicited information is usually a sympton of a suspect trying to overcompensate to protect against further investigation of a possible lie or crime. We often see this when a speeder is stopped by police, then, while answering routine questions the speeder suddenly offers the police permission to search his vehicle without being asked. This immediately alerts the police to the fact that the speeder may be attempting to appear generous with the hope that the officer will think 'no, that's okay, if you were trying to hide something you would have never offered to let me search your car.'"
"Most criminals don't realize that investigators are trained to recognize this behavior as suspicious. In most cases, we soon learn the speeder is also a drug smuggler. Obama's answer to this question prompts elevated response from anyone trained in criminal investigative methodology. This behavior should prompt further investigation in my view. We might find out that Obama is not only a Muslim, he might indeed also not be eligible to be president."
Taylor went on to say that if NBC's Brian Williams were a diligent journalist, the follow-up question should have immediately been, "What does your birth certificate have to do with your religious beliefs...?', but we all know the derelict media has been trained by the Obama administration to not pursue issues about his Constitutional eligibility and his covert natal identity. This was a perfect example of that media's obedience. Williams is obviously one of Obama's 'good pets"."
However, for most of the advanced, rational citizenry anchored in the “know” regarding the ambiguity about all of Obama’s biographical metrics, not just his mysterious natal identity, it stands to logical and expected reason that his religion would, of course, be just one more thing that nobody can seem to get a handle on. Obama’s covertness has become legendary, if not outright laughable. At this point, the idea of actually clarifying his real identity in any facet of his demographic information is completely absurd.
However, the mainstream media hounds, including Fox News, and psychopathic liberals, just keep trying to latch themselves, daily, to something they desperately want the public to think is important about Obama.
A poll promoted by the media this month found that nearly one in five people, or 18 percent, said they thought Obama was Muslim, up from the 11 percent in March 2009. The proportion who believe he was Christian was 34 percent, down from 48 percent in March of last year.
However, a “Research 2000” poll released in 2009 said that nearly 42 percent of people were at least not certain that Obama was Constitutionally eligible to be president to begin with.
Can some dweeb in the liberal media please explain how 42% of the people doubting something that is an, as yet, undisclosed, legally documented fact about Obama are more crazy than the 18% of people questioning something that is a circumstantially undocumented suspicion professed only by the most adept liar in American political history about his own secret thoughts and personal observances? Seriously?
Calling liberals "crazy" just became an insult to crazy people.
The mathematics of such implications makes one wonder, of those believing Obama is Muslim, if not most are simply disregarding the religious question as irrelevant without having the answer to the eligibility question, first! These are the truly rational minds we need to hear from. Therefore, the proportion of people who actually think Obama leans away from Christianity is more like 60%. After all, an authentic Christian would never be so dishonest and deceptive.
HIS COVERT LACK OF ELIGIBILITY IS EXPOSED BY HIS OVERT LACK OF CREDIBILITY
The fact of the matter is that no one in the general media or public knows what faith-based doctrine Obama embraces. That is not the point which matters. It would be weird if they did. He could pray to Allah by morning, worship Buddha by day and read the Gospel at night...and no one would know the difference. Assuming specificity in his religious faith is to ignore the greater issue that Obama has proven himself to be a brazened liar with instances of this sin being too numerous to count. Therefore, in the absence of his requests for forgiveness, why should we not also assume he lies about his faith? By claiming certainty in the matter, the media is diminishing its own credibility in making light of other more pressing, less "conspiracal", more factual indictments.
Sadly, the media which has employed this strange logic to prop the issue of Obama’s non-legally, unverifiable religious beliefs is the same media that has completely failed in its investigative responsibility to promote the legal verifiability of his eligibility to even be president in the first place. We have officially entered into the twilight zone of the Obama darkness. Now, by lauding Obama's faith, the media has essentially resorted to looking at the "grassy knoll" of Obama’s demographic evidence in order to exonerate him. It's ridiculous. At least "birthers" have an authentic Header Title for the missing document evidence they seek.
Perhaps Hawaii should consider publishing yet another fake certification for Obama, this one for verifying his religion. Then, the slew of defamatory hacks over at MSNBC can wave that flag in front of their psychotic misinformants' salivating orifices for a while. Chris Matthews spits all over himself so much since Obama was ensconsed, NBC not only carries ad space for the ShamWOW Guy, they hired him as a personal assistant.
Tragically, the significance of the issue of eligibility is firmly reconcilable through "trial by standards" clearly defined in the Constitution while pinning down the facts of an ill-elected official’s mythological beliefs is virtually impossible, from an “available legal records” standpoint. Religious beliefs can be verified through observable disseminations provided by the bible, but they are rarely documentable in any legal sense which would be consumable by the general and secular public.
Obama’s natal identity is a documented fact…set in stone in an official legal record…attested by somebody professionally qualified to be accountable for the evidence, somewhere, at a specific time. Within the domain of obviousness, Obama’s natal history actually exists.
His religious beliefs, however, are more difficult for the general public to define and his specific claims to Christianity are even more indefinite unless it is being evaluated by other “veteran” Christians who are unequivocal “experts” in biblical scripture outlining the traits of a true Christian.
Even Fox News, the current bastion of rationality in the American media, claims with odd certainty that Obama is a Christian. Woopty-friggen-doo! That's like a ring master saying the elephant likes doing tricks for the circus, "The animal is still here, so it must like it...right?"
First of all, how would Fox, or any media network for that matter, actually know someone’s religion without some documented proof? If we have resorted to relying on this media for determining the authenticity of a man's faith, armageddon has arrived. This media can’t even find a public birth record for a man violating the mandates for the most powerful seat in the world, how the hell are they going to find a private record of someone’s undocumented personal religious beliefs?
Secondly, America doesn’t believe Obama is a Christian because he doesn’t exhibit the commandeered characteristics of a Christian as they are defined in the Christian Bible…(the books of Acts, Romans, I Corinthians, Ephesians, Timothy, John and Revelation comes to mind).
Thirdly, Obama’s continual favoritism for Islam while speaking out unnecessarily on localized, transient issues is not helping his cause. One tell-tale sign is that most true Christians know when to shut up.
Finally…who cares? Perhaps the whirling liberal media dervishes could do America a solid and prop something that is actually verifiable about this guy. Sure, his internal substance is important in conveying his intentions for America, but, for God’s sake, it is more important to establish whether or not he even possesses the damn qualifications for the position in which we would even have cause to care about his religion to begin with.
When you in the media have something important to report about Obama, let us know. Until then, we're content to dig into the seeds of his illegality. It will also be fun to see what happens when Jesus returns for actual Christians, forcing liberals to hold their exploding heads while they try to reason how two "Messiahs" exist in the same place at the same time.
Now, that is going to be really funny.
A Daily Pen Guest Editorial
by Dan Crosby
Look who the conspiracists are now!
No matter how many stories about the consequences of Obama’s executive fairy tale cross the headlines, it is fascinating to see how the liberal media complex deranges its priorities.
Ever since the Ground Zero mosque achieved 'Feature' status as a news story, the oft-spun myth about Barack Obama’s religious inclinations has taken the opening line in most follow-up stories over the past month. Yet, laughably disregarded by the inept media are the geo-chronological facts of Obama’s derelict Constitutional authority to even hold the office of the presidency to begin with.
In a strangely revealing response to a question regarding the public's doubts about his religious views in an interview with NBC's Brian Williams on Sunday, Obama answered oddly, "I can't spend all my time going around with my birth certificate plastered on my forehead...the facts are the facts...its not something I can spend all my time worrying about."
Obama and his liberal minions have a problem. That document does not contain information about his religion.
You remember?...the much exalted Hawaiian "Certification of Live Birth" waggled all over MSNBC and CNN by Chris Matthews, Rick Sanchez, Anderson Cooper, Keith Olberman and Rachel Maddow as his authentic "birth certificate. You remember...the Hawaiian "Certification of Live Birth" posted all over the internet on leftwing websites like Huffington Polssk, FactCheck and the Daily KKKos as his "real" birth certificate. You remember...the Hawaiian "Certification of Live Birth" that White House Presswit, Robby Gibbs said on multiple occasions was his birth certificate available on the internet...Remember?
The Hawaiian "Certification of Live Birth" is Obama's actual, real, authentic birth certificate, right, Chris? Right, Rob? Right, Andy? Right, Keith? Right, Ricky? Woops. Apparently Obama didn't get the memo. He still thinks there is a "birth certificate" out there which contains information about his religion.
Looking at the available document very closely, we don't find any information about Obama's religion on it anywhere. Wait, let's check one more time...Nope. Not a word.
Maybe Obama was confusing this document with another one that remains a secret. Hmm?
Obama made this oddly revealing statement even though the document his regime has pushed as an authentic "birth certificate" does not contain information about his religion. This leads us to conclude that Obama was thinking about another birth certificate he has which does contain information about his religion? Does anyone think, maybe this "other" birth certificate might contain other information too? NBC's Brian Williams didn't follow up on it (Surprise, surprise).
But, since Obama brought it up, we'll ask the question Williams should have. Someone has to be the adult journalist here.
If there is another, hidden birth certificate which contains information about Obama's religion at birth, we haven't seen that one. Rather than "plastering" it to his "forehead", perhaps simply submitting it as evidence to prove that his "facts are the facts" in all the lawsuits challenging his eligibility, in which he's paid 2 million dollars to hide from, would be easier.Mr. Obama, which "birth certificate" are you referring to that would answer questions about your religion if you did 'go around with it plastered to your forehead'? You say, 'the facts are the facts', sir...but the 'facts' about your religious beliefs are not available on the Hawaiian birth document presented to America, therefore, is there another birth certificate somewhere we haven't seen that you do "spend all your time worrying about"?
Obama's unsolicited specificity implicating this missing birth record seems to expose an underlying consciousness that he indeed bears the massive weight of secrets as the validity of unanswered questions about his Constitutional legitimacy and his obscure natal demographics continues to mount.
This response is also particularly strange considering that an original birth certificate, in the form of the authentic, NVSD, federal long-form, 1961 "Certificate of Live Birth" signed by his attending physician, also might not necessarily provide up-dated information about the bearer's religion either. Anyone seriously doubting Obama's eligibilty knows this, and, most certainly, so does Obama. In fact, a very tiny fraction of people, if any, with questions about Obama's natal identity have ever actually requested "documented" proof of his religion in the form of his original, 1961 "Certificate of Live Birth" document.
ACCIDENTAL TRANSPARENCY
So, why did he play the "birth certificate" card?
"Freudian slip. That was a bizarre, accidental response," says Marian Taylor, lead research analyst from Philadelphia based, PM Media Group, "considering the fact that an official birth certificate does not list the baby's religion, it only lists the parent's in some cases."
Taylor says, "Confirming his religious beliefs has never been a matter of verifying documented proof as would be case with his "Natural Born" status. You don't have to be Christian to be President. The fact that he brings the "birth certificate" up, unsolicited, reveals his deep, perhaps troubling, psychological awareness about the validity of questions about his legitimacy, and it makes me wonder why his thoughts are this prejudiced about it."
Taylor, a leading expert in the field of Social Science and Political Psychology, says that this kind of tangential specificity about a particular piece of evidence raises flags in her kind of work.
"He brought it up without prompting. It is so obvious what he is doing. To any professional in my field, that was a blatantly leading response rooted in pychological dissonance or dishonesty," she says.
"Volunteering unsolicited information is usually a sympton of a suspect trying to overcompensate to protect against further investigation of a possible lie or crime. We often see this when a speeder is stopped by police, then, while answering routine questions the speeder suddenly offers the police permission to search his vehicle without being asked. This immediately alerts the police to the fact that the speeder may be attempting to appear generous with the hope that the officer will think 'no, that's okay, if you were trying to hide something you would have never offered to let me search your car.'"
"Most criminals don't realize that investigators are trained to recognize this behavior as suspicious. In most cases, we soon learn the speeder is also a drug smuggler. Obama's answer to this question prompts elevated response from anyone trained in criminal investigative methodology. This behavior should prompt further investigation in my view. We might find out that Obama is not only a Muslim, he might indeed also not be eligible to be president."
Taylor went on to say that if NBC's Brian Williams were a diligent journalist, the follow-up question should have immediately been, "What does your birth certificate have to do with your religious beliefs...?', but we all know the derelict media has been trained by the Obama administration to not pursue issues about his Constitutional eligibility and his covert natal identity. This was a perfect example of that media's obedience. Williams is obviously one of Obama's 'good pets"."
However, for most of the advanced, rational citizenry anchored in the “know” regarding the ambiguity about all of Obama’s biographical metrics, not just his mysterious natal identity, it stands to logical and expected reason that his religion would, of course, be just one more thing that nobody can seem to get a handle on. Obama’s covertness has become legendary, if not outright laughable. At this point, the idea of actually clarifying his real identity in any facet of his demographic information is completely absurd.
However, the mainstream media hounds, including Fox News, and psychopathic liberals, just keep trying to latch themselves, daily, to something they desperately want the public to think is important about Obama.
A poll promoted by the media this month found that nearly one in five people, or 18 percent, said they thought Obama was Muslim, up from the 11 percent in March 2009. The proportion who believe he was Christian was 34 percent, down from 48 percent in March of last year.
However, a “Research 2000” poll released in 2009 said that nearly 42 percent of people were at least not certain that Obama was Constitutionally eligible to be president to begin with.
Can some dweeb in the liberal media please explain how 42% of the people doubting something that is an, as yet, undisclosed, legally documented fact about Obama are more crazy than the 18% of people questioning something that is a circumstantially undocumented suspicion professed only by the most adept liar in American political history about his own secret thoughts and personal observances? Seriously?
Calling liberals "crazy" just became an insult to crazy people.
The mathematics of such implications makes one wonder, of those believing Obama is Muslim, if not most are simply disregarding the religious question as irrelevant without having the answer to the eligibility question, first! These are the truly rational minds we need to hear from. Therefore, the proportion of people who actually think Obama leans away from Christianity is more like 60%. After all, an authentic Christian would never be so dishonest and deceptive.
HIS COVERT LACK OF ELIGIBILITY IS EXPOSED BY HIS OVERT LACK OF CREDIBILITY
The fact of the matter is that no one in the general media or public knows what faith-based doctrine Obama embraces. That is not the point which matters. It would be weird if they did. He could pray to Allah by morning, worship Buddha by day and read the Gospel at night...and no one would know the difference. Assuming specificity in his religious faith is to ignore the greater issue that Obama has proven himself to be a brazened liar with instances of this sin being too numerous to count. Therefore, in the absence of his requests for forgiveness, why should we not also assume he lies about his faith? By claiming certainty in the matter, the media is diminishing its own credibility in making light of other more pressing, less "conspiracal", more factual indictments.
Sadly, the media which has employed this strange logic to prop the issue of Obama’s non-legally, unverifiable religious beliefs is the same media that has completely failed in its investigative responsibility to promote the legal verifiability of his eligibility to even be president in the first place. We have officially entered into the twilight zone of the Obama darkness. Now, by lauding Obama's faith, the media has essentially resorted to looking at the "grassy knoll" of Obama’s demographic evidence in order to exonerate him. It's ridiculous. At least "birthers" have an authentic Header Title for the missing document evidence they seek.
Perhaps Hawaii should consider publishing yet another fake certification for Obama, this one for verifying his religion. Then, the slew of defamatory hacks over at MSNBC can wave that flag in front of their psychotic misinformants' salivating orifices for a while. Chris Matthews spits all over himself so much since Obama was ensconsed, NBC not only carries ad space for the ShamWOW Guy, they hired him as a personal assistant.
Tragically, the significance of the issue of eligibility is firmly reconcilable through "trial by standards" clearly defined in the Constitution while pinning down the facts of an ill-elected official’s mythological beliefs is virtually impossible, from an “available legal records” standpoint. Religious beliefs can be verified through observable disseminations provided by the bible, but they are rarely documentable in any legal sense which would be consumable by the general and secular public.
Obama’s natal identity is a documented fact…set in stone in an official legal record…attested by somebody professionally qualified to be accountable for the evidence, somewhere, at a specific time. Within the domain of obviousness, Obama’s natal history actually exists.
His religious beliefs, however, are more difficult for the general public to define and his specific claims to Christianity are even more indefinite unless it is being evaluated by other “veteran” Christians who are unequivocal “experts” in biblical scripture outlining the traits of a true Christian.
Even Fox News, the current bastion of rationality in the American media, claims with odd certainty that Obama is a Christian. Woopty-friggen-doo! That's like a ring master saying the elephant likes doing tricks for the circus, "The animal is still here, so it must like it...right?"
First of all, how would Fox, or any media network for that matter, actually know someone’s religion without some documented proof? If we have resorted to relying on this media for determining the authenticity of a man's faith, armageddon has arrived. This media can’t even find a public birth record for a man violating the mandates for the most powerful seat in the world, how the hell are they going to find a private record of someone’s undocumented personal religious beliefs?
Secondly, America doesn’t believe Obama is a Christian because he doesn’t exhibit the commandeered characteristics of a Christian as they are defined in the Christian Bible…(the books of Acts, Romans, I Corinthians, Ephesians, Timothy, John and Revelation comes to mind).
Thirdly, Obama’s continual favoritism for Islam while speaking out unnecessarily on localized, transient issues is not helping his cause. One tell-tale sign is that most true Christians know when to shut up.
Finally…who cares? Perhaps the whirling liberal media dervishes could do America a solid and prop something that is actually verifiable about this guy. Sure, his internal substance is important in conveying his intentions for America, but, for God’s sake, it is more important to establish whether or not he even possesses the damn qualifications for the position in which we would even have cause to care about his religion to begin with.
When you in the media have something important to report about Obama, let us know. Until then, we're content to dig into the seeds of his illegality. It will also be fun to see what happens when Jesus returns for actual Christians, forcing liberals to hold their exploding heads while they try to reason how two "Messiahs" exist in the same place at the same time.
Now, that is going to be really funny.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
THE FINAL VERDICT: Obama Is An Enemy To America - Suggests Shocking Report
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
