March 13, 2009
Obama suddenly burst on the conscience of America less than four years ago, and more recently the world. Before that, he was a little-known state Senator from the Midwest. Prior to that he had worked in Chicago as a local neighborhood organizer, where he caught the attention of questionable people with his ability to speak well, convey an air of confidence, and get things done in the local community.
If you trace his origins back even further, the mysteries surrounding Obama increase dramatically. As you attempt to pull back the veil and peer behind it, you will be met by a complete darkness that seems to have a life of its own. This living darkness guards its secrets very well, muting any attempt to shine light into it.
Obama’s birth is where the mystery begins with his determination to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to hide his birth location, rather than simply produce the document in question. By producing the original, unmolested and unaltered birth certificate, he could, if he is a natural born citizen, in one hour, silence those that question his natural born status and throw dozens of lawsuits out the window. Yet he chooses to ignore the increased attention to this subject, only adding more doubt about who he is and where he came from. We know the governor’s office in Hawaii said there is a valid certificate but has rejected every request for access & left the origin of the ambiguous. We also know that the state of Hawaii has issued birth certificates for people that were never born in Hawaii! Where is the transparency? Where is the accountability? Why does his Kenyan grandmother Sara, insist she was present at his birth if she was not? Why has his half-sister Maya Soetoro named two different Hawaii hospitals as Obama’s place of birth? Maybe it’s because Obama himself is not certain of his birth date. While in Selma, Alabama he claimed that he was born in 1965, not 1961. Oh, the tangled web we weave when we practice to deceive.
What little we do know about Obama only raises more questions about his eligibility to legally and constitutionally serve as President of the United States. He moved around a lot as a child. We know he scarcely knew his biological father, who left him and his mother when Obama was only two years old. After his mother remarried, we know he lived abroad and attended school in Indonesia, a country that requires its students to be citizens of that country, and does not allow dual citizenship. So this raises the possibility that his mother gave up his U.S. citizenship. If she did surrender her son’s U.S. citizenship, then to regain it at some point in the future would have meant he would classified as a “naturalized” citizen, not a “natural-born” citizen. We know that if Obama’s mother had surrendered his U.S. citizenship that she would not have been able to comply with federal law to regain his U.S. citizenship because she herself was too young.
We know that in 1981 Obama traveled to Indonesia, Pakistan, Southern India and Kenya in. Obama stated he went to Indonesia to visit his mother. But his mother returned to Hawaii in 1980 to divorce Obama’s step-father! Did she return to Indonesia after receiving the divorce from Lolo Soetoro? There is no record that she did. We know there is no record of a passport having been issued for Obama prior to the one he received after becoming a U.S. Senator. We know that in 1981, Pakistan was in turmoil and under martial law. The U.S. State Department had also placed a ban on travel to Pakistan for U.S. Citizen’s. Did Obama illegally travel to Pakistan in 1981 as a U.S. citizen, or did he travel there under a passport issued to him from Indonesia?
Obama wants to unify America, yet he was the MOST liberal of the 100 U.S. Senators as rated by National Journal. His uncompromising stand on abortion makes it impossible for anyone that is pro-life to reach common ground with him on the issue. To be a Christian and believe in the sanctity of life, yet at the same time to not only support Roe v. Wade, but issue Executive Orders to fund abortion overseas with tax payer money and continue to push the Freedom of Choice Act makes Obama a confusing paradox. So I question his Christianity. The God of the Bible always chooses life over death, and is very specific about protecting those unable to protect themselves, the very young, and the aged. Obama’s socialistic views on government and the rights of the people will continue to be a source of contention between him and conservatives. The only compromise he seems to be capable of to date is the compromise others must make toward his policies. On these and many other issues his attitude is more akin to arrogant master of the people rather than humble servant of the people. Proverbs 15:25 tells us, “The Lord tears down the proud man’s house,” and Proverbs 16:18 tells us “Pride goes before destruction and a haughty spirit before a fall. ”
Obama has stated that he is a Professor of Law and a Constitutional lawyer. Yet, we know that he was actually a Senior Lecturer on leave. Where does his confusion come from? Obama seems confused also on his own voting record. He just can’t seem to remember exactly how he voted as a Senator from Illinois on a number of issues. He seems confused on passing 900 bills as a State Senator. He actually passed 26, and most of those he did not write himself, but were written by a fellow Senator to assist Obama in a bid for higher office. Do we truly know who Obama is? Do we see and hear the real Obama, or the Obama he wants us to see and hear? Does he provide transparency and accountability, or just talk a good talk?
People are known by the company they keep. Responsible people stay away from people that will teach them bad habits. Responsible people avoid people that have a history of making bad decisions, especially when those bad decisions bring unwanted results and penalties. Responsible people stay away from trouble and trouble makers and those that practice dishonesty and other forms of evil. 1 Corinthians15:33 reminds us that, “Bad company corrupts good character.” So why does Obama, a professing Christian, keep company with people with questionable reputations and activities. Why does Obama surround himself with people that seem to all share anti-American, Socialist/Marxist thoughts and plans for America? People like William Ayers who was a one-time member of a terrorist cell known as the Weathermen. Ayres was personally responsible for exploding bombs on U.S. soil, which resulted in the death of innocent people. He is still an active ardent Marxist. He and Obama used to pal around together pushing their radical reform of American education, which promotes a Socialist/Marxist worldview. In 1997 Obama gave an endorsement of William Ayers book A Kind and Just Parent, which praises the Marxist book as “a searing and timely account of the juvenile court system.” There is also evidence that Ayres either edited or co-wrote Obama’s Dreams book.
Then there is Obama’s association with Tony Rezko, a Chicago developer who took out loans to renovate low income housing. He is under investigation because millions of dollars in loans is gone, yet the properties remain unrenovated. And what about Obama’s Chicago home actually being titled to Tony Rezko’s attorney William Miceli, not Barack Obama? I’m looking for the transparency and accountability, but it is obscured by all the mud.
The Rev Jeremiah Wright, Sr. Pastor of the Chicago Trinity United Christian Church, in whose pews Obama sat for 20 years, is a radical and militant supporter and promoter of Black Liberation Theology. From the pulpit, Rev. Wright spews vial and profane words as he delivers his anti-American sermons. Black Liberation Theology is an ardent Marxist philosophy, denouncing anything and everything that is American. Yet Obama pleads ignorance of the teachings of Rev. Wright, stating he never heard anything that ordinary Christian’s would object to come from the lips of Rev. Wright. As someone that has been actively involved in church for many years, I can guarantee you that if a pastor stood up in his pulpit and delivered just one anti-American, anti-Christian sermon, or spoke such things to others, he would be out of a job post haste. So Rev. Wright must have the support of his entire church and community; a den of conspirators. Obama wants us to believe, for his own agenda’s sake, that he is a Christian. Trinity United Christian Church may bear the word “Christian” in its name, but it is not a Christian church. Jesus said in Matthew 7:15–16, “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them.”
This is only a partial list for brevity’s sake, but the list is indeed long that ties Obama to radical Muslim’s and Marxist alike. But let us not also forget about those he has chosen to serve on his Cabinet that seem to have a common thread about them; that being the inability to pay their taxes like the rest of hardworking Americans must do. Their names are Timothy Geithner, Nancy Killefer, Thomas Daschle, and Rep. Hilda Solis. You would think that a responsible act of any President would be to privately “interview” the one he is about to name publicly to a post to see if there is anything in their closet that might come out and embarrass everyone later, like, willfully not paying their taxes on time. Of course, Obama seems to just overlook these things and dismiss them without much thought as to the character of people that can’t pay their tax obligation. But I have to ask; if they are dishonest with their tax bill, what else are they hiding? I will say that if this is an example of the “sweeping ethics reforms” Obama promised during his election campaign, America cannot afford it any more than we can afford the trillion plus dollar debt Obama has saddled future generations with.
So I ask again; just who is Barack Hussein Obama? Will his radical Socialist agenda save America from her current turmoil, or be the undoing of her? Will his policies toward America’s enemies and military weaken us to the point that we are unable to defend ourselves against those that seek to destroy us? Is his agenda one that will destroy, or strengthen America from within? Will the American people follow his vision of Socialist reform, or will the independent spirit that forged this great land put an end to his plans? Does his plans seek to seduce us, little by little, until we are only too happy to surrender our God-given rights to the privileged few in exchange for a chicken in every pot, a car in every garage, peace and prosperity at any price? What kind of a track record will the Supreme Court Justices he elects have? Will he seek to repeal or change those amendments to the Constitution that does not agree with his philosophy?
I ask because it seems that, like any good illusionist, he distracts us with keeping our attention on one thing while he creates an illusion of reality he hopes we will all believe, scratch our heads in wonder, and ask how he did that. Is he allowing us to see only a part of what he is actually doing? Is he only showing us as much of himself and his agenda for America as he believes the American people will accept before they completely reject him and call for his impeachment? I think there is more to the man and his plans for America than we are aware of. He isn’t ready to saw Uncle Sam in half before our eyes yet. But when he does it, will we recognize it for what it is? Or, will we say, “it was all an illusion, nothing wrong here. ” Pay attention to what he does and does not do. Therein lies the telling.
© Bob Kemp
12 comments
Comments feed for this article
March 13, 2009 at 5:42 pm
Ask the leadership coach » RenewAmerica: Just Who Is Barack Hussein Obama? « Just Americans …
[…] unknown posted a noteworthy aricle today onHere’s a small snippetThe Rev Jeremiah Wright, Sr. Pastor of the Chicago Trinity United Christian Church, in whose pews Obama sat for 20 years, is a radical and militant supporter and promoter of Black Liberation Theology. From the pulpit, Rev. … […]
March 14, 2009 at 7:32 am
Mountain Jack
You need to get your facts straight or your credibility suffers greatly. There was NO ban on travel to Pakistan in 1981. The U.S. State Department Travel Advisory to Pakistan in 1981 confirms the newspaper account:
“NO. 81-33A
Travel Advisory
Passport Services/Bureau of Consular Affa[irs]
Department of State/Wahington. D.C. 205__
AUGUST 17, 1981
TRAVEL TO PAKISTAN
BEFORE TRAVELING TO PAKISTAN, AMERICAN CITIZENS SHOULD BE AWARE OF THE FOLLOWING UPDATED VISA REQUIREMENTS:
30 DAY VISAS ARE AVAILABLE AT PAKISTANI AIRPORTS [FOR] TOURISTS ONLY. AS THESE VISAS ARE RARELY EXTENDED BEYOND THE 30 DAY TIME PER[IOD,] TOURISTS PLANNING TO STAY LONGER SHOULD SECURE VISAS BEFORE COMING TO PAKISTAN.
=======================================
As to his birth certificate, Nobody has ever come up with one shred of solid evidence that his mother was EVER in Kenya. We do know through travel records that his father was in Kenya in 1960, but not again until 1965. That means that if Barack Obama was really born in Kenya in 1961, his father was not there. Now what person in their right mind truly believes that his pregnant 18-year-old mother decided to leave her comfortable home in Hawaii where she was staying with her parents, and travel to Kenya during the late stages of the Mau Mau Rebellion WITHOUT HER HUSBAND, to give birth, then traveled back to Hawaii? IT JUST DIDN’T HAPPEN. The only reasonable conclusion is to believe the state of Hawaii’s verification of the authenticity of his birth certificate is true, since the other “option” is so obviously ridiculous.
As to the birth certificate, the state of Hawaii WILL NOT GIVE OUT A VAULT CERTIFICATE TO ANYONE. If Obama requested his birth certificate, he would receive the short form again. For the past 30 years the state has provided a laser copy “short-form” as in Obama’s case. It is not necessary for him to show a birth certificate because the certification is a legal document showing that the birth certificate exists in the files. It is like a bank book, which proved that you had money in the bank.
It is true that the state used to issue birth certificates to those born out of the country, but under place of birth it would say: “Toronto, Canada” or “Paris, France”. Obama’s short form says he was born in Honolulu.
Finally, On November 3, the Chicago Tribune’s Swamp reported that Ms. Okubo (Health Department Spokeswoman, per the Press Release) confirmed in both e-mail and telephone interviews that Obama was BORN IN HAWAII:
“Seeking to squelch persistent rumors that Sen. Barack Obama isn’t eligible to become president because he allegedly was born outside the United States, a Hawaiian official has confirmed she has “personally seen and verified” that the state “has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate” – meaning Obama was born in the Aloha state, and is therefore an American citizen.
Does this mean Obama was born in Hawaii?
“YES,” said Hawaii Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo, in both email and telephone interviews with the Tribune. “That’s what Dr. Fukino is saying.”
CASE CLOSED.
=======================================
Your comment on radical socialist agenda is laughable. Socialist? The highest tax rates under Reagan were 50%; under Nixon 70%, under Eisenhower 91%. You crybabies are upset because Obama wants to raise it back to 39.5%! Greedy.
March 14, 2009 at 8:58 am
JAMES
Mountain Jack: Having looked for the “Ban” that has been mentioned, the most I had been able to find was the many times that the State Dept had Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc. on warning lists, much like they recently issued for Mexico.
As far as birthplace, I am more inclined to believe that he was born in Canada. No ne has found the marriage licnse between Stanley Ann and Obama Sr, to the best of my knowledge, and I would go along with the theory shown here:
Further, the Press Release from the Hawaii Health Dept does not say Obama was born in Hawaii, nor does Dr. Fukino. The fact that a spokesperson, the day before the election, may have opted to “add” on behalfof the doctor does not alter that the Hawaii Helath Dept DID NOT CONFIRM that the original document shows that he was born in Hawaii.
“A” for effort though!
March 15, 2009 at 5:21 am
Interested Bystander
Mountain Jack,
I agree, and have argued for a while now that when it is posted that travel to Pakistan in 1981 was not banned by the US Government, maybe we could agree that traveling under an Indonesian passport would allow Obama more freedom of movement, and would have raised less “red flags” with Pakistani authorities?
You do know that Obama visited his mother in Indonesia for one month prior to traveling to Pakistan, don’t you?
I am still very interested in why Obama failed to mention this “vacation” in either of his books. Why would he leave this out? I would also question how Obama got the money for the plane tickets for his trip. I am sure that it was not inexpensive to travel half the way around the world, even in 1981.
As far as where Obama was born, I tend to agree with JAMES, Obama was probably born in Canada, IF he was born outside of Hawaii.
As far as your comment about the Hawaiian official, I would comment that this would be illegal for this official to do. It is against the law of Hawaii for DOH officials to confirm or deny what is on a birth certificate. This official was more than likely confirming that Obama’s Certification of Live Birth says he was born in Hawaii.
However I question whether the article is accurate. I would like to see the emails, or hear the tape of the interview, IF the emails or interview actually took place.
Also, just because DOH has Obama’s “original” birth certificate does not insure that he was born in Hawaii, as what you posted as the article is suggesting. ANYONE could have registered their birth with Hawaii back in 1961. I believe they do have the “original” birth certificate and a couple “altered” birth certificates on file.
Just because an official with DOH verified that they have Obama’s “original” birth certificate on file, does not guarantee that what the Certification of Live Birth states is what his “original” birth certificate states.
March 15, 2009 at 6:53 am
Mountain Jack
It’s great to receive a civil reply. Thank you. My point was that I have seen Hawaiian birth certificates of people born in other countries and they state the place of birth as that city or country, such as Toronto, Canada. Obama’s place of birth is listed as Honolulu. You must understand that the short form the state provides is merely a laser copy of the original absent the hospital, doctor’s name, etc., hence since the copy is simply a short form of the original, the original states that he was born in Honolulu.
There is no way he was born in Canada because Canadian records are open and if that was the case, those records would have been found. IMO, he was born in Hawaii so those who oppose him will have to find a new tact.
March 15, 2009 at 8:33 am
JAMES
Mountain Jack: Civil discussions was the main reason I set up this blog. I was tired of always being labelled as racist just because one dared question something; voicing dissent was acceptable until Barack Obama was the candidate.
Perhaps, in th =e end, it will turn out that bama was born in Hawaii, but hen there still becaomes the issue of his dual citizenship and the definintion of “natural born” citizen in lght of the writings of our forefathers, in particular the first Chief Justice John Jay.
What is disconcerting is the fact that when he was labelled as a Muslim, the campaign faced the issue head on. When the birth certificate issue was brought up, he used a far left blog site to dispel it; he used blog attacks to dispel it. If there was absolutely no concern whatsoever, why not release the document. If there is some family secret with the lines of the document, they could easily be redacted.
Now, IMHO, if I was an advisor to Obama now, I would ask for a group of 15-20 individuals, from both sides of the issue, to meet in one place for one hour, and allow them to review the original document, the college records, etc., and then they could say “A, B, & C” as to what they reviewed. I would make sure they were names that whose word would be accepted. Would that satisfy everybody.? Probably not, but it would proabably satisfy the majority of those in question. However, Obama would have to be prepared to accept the consequences and provide verifiable answers to the public if there were some concerns found, such as receiving a financial grant at Occidental from the State of California as a foreign student, if that were found to be in the records.
March 15, 2009 at 11:32 am
Interested Bystander
Mountain Jack,
I will not disagree that you have seen some Certifications of Live Birth from Hawaii that state that so and so was born in Canada, or wherever.
What I will contend, is that Stanley could have registered Obama’s birth certificate with DOH, and at the same time “altered” it to state that he was born in Hawaii, by the mere fact that she was a resident of Hawaii at the time, possibly saying that she was on vacation, or visiting friends, or something to that extent as the reason for the “alteration”. His “original” would then have been sealed, with his “new original” being the document that his COLB was derived from. I also believe that IF Lolo Soetoro adopted Obama, and his name was changed to Barry Soetoro, which is what he was enrolled in to Indonesian school under, than his “new original” would have been “altered” to state his changed name, and the “new original” would have been placed under seal, and a “new, new original” placed in his file as the “original”. And IF Obama changed his name back to Barack Obama, then the “new, new orignal”, would have been “altered” to change his name back to Barack Obama, and the “new, new original” would have been placed under seal, and a “new, new, new original” generated and placed in his file as the “original”.
All of this would be perfectly legal, and Obama would have 4 “original” Birth Certificates on file with DOH.
I know it sounds confusing, but it all would have adhered to the statutes of Hawaii, and Obama’s COLB would state that he was born in Hawaii, when he actually was born somewhere else.
March 15, 2009 at 11:34 am
Interested Bystander
JAMES,
I would volunteer to go wherever, and sit on a committee to look at these documents.
March 16, 2009 at 8:39 pm
Dave Baz
Liberals exist naturally. Nature abhors a vacuum. Therefore conservative brains are abhorrent. Your last great leader was TR….today he’d be a Democrat.
March 17, 2009 at 8:09 am
Mountain Jack
“Just because an official with DOH verified that they have Obama’s “original” birth certificate on file, does not guarantee that what the Certification of Live Birth states is what his “original” birth certificate states.”
This is where I disagree with you. The short form the state provides is simply a laser copy of the original vault certificate and the information on the latter is simply copied by laser on to the short form. His birth certificate says he was born in Honolulu on the island of Oahu. That’s pretty specific. He had to have been born in Hawaii as his mom was never in Kenya. For anyone to believe that she went through all this subterfuge so that her son could run for President in another 45 years or so is simply too far-fetched.
Just one more thing. The reference to factcheck.org being a “liberal” website because it is owned by Annenberg is really stretching it.
1. Factcheck.org is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania (“APPC”) (Source: http://www.factcheck.org/about) Obama has never been ““heavily associated with” or “served on the board of” the APPC. (Neither Berg, nor his supportes have asserted otherwise.)
2. The APPC was established by publisher and philanthropist Walter Annenberg in 1994 “to create a community of scholars within the University of Pennsylvania that would address public policy issues at the local, state and federal levels.” (Source: http://www.factcheck.org/about) Obama has never been “heavily associated with” Walter (or Leonore) Annenberg. (Neither Berg, nor his supportes have asserted otherwise.)
3. Walter and Leonore Annenberg, also established The Annenberg Foundation, which funds the APPC and issues grants on a wide variety of issues, worth 100s of millions of dollars. (Source: http://www.annenbergfoundation.org)
Obama has never been “heavily associated with” or “served on the board of” The Annenberg Foundation. (Neither Berg, nor his supportes have asserted otherwise.)
4. Mrs. Leonore Annenberg — the surviving member of the couple who started The Annenberg Foundation — has endorsed John McCain for president. (Source: http://www.newsmax.com/kessler/ambassador_mccain_/2008/10/05/137538.html) Obama has never been “heavily associated with” Mrs. Leonore Annenberg who endorsed McCain. (Neither Berg, nor his supportes have asserted otherwise.)
5. The Annenberg Foundation, which funds the APPC and issues grants on a wide variety of issues, worth 100s of millions of dollars, funded the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. (Source: http://www.annenbergfoundation.org/usr_doc/Retrospective.pdf at page 8; http://www.annenberginstitute.org/challenge/sites/chicago.html)
Therefore, the “connection” between Obama and Factcheck.org is as follows:
In the 1990s, Obama served on the board of an organization that received funding from a foundation, which
(a) was established and funded by a couple, the surviving member of whom has expressly, publicly, endorsed McCain; and
(b) now provides 100s of millions of dollars of grants to a wide variety of public interest organizations, including the organization (APPC) that runs Fact.check.org.
Therefore, Berg’s attempts to discredit Factcheck.org by asserting that it is owned by the Chicago Annenberg Challenge are inaccurate. Just thought I’d clear that up.
March 17, 2009 at 9:45 am
JAMES
But FactCheck only saw the alleged copy that Obama posted on his website and the Daily Kos. The fact that our “leaders” cite Factcheck and Snopes as valid sources of their information that “Confirms” the validity of Obama’s claims, as well as the fact that Obama felt more comfortable using the Daily Kos instead of the New York Times to publish the document is still baffling. Yes, I know that using the New York Times may have given the story more light than he wanted it to have, but it would have been a far better choice. Though the NYT has credibility issues, Obama’s choice of the Markos at the Daily Kos diminished the credibility of the document, IMHO.
March 19, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Mountain Jack
If you don’t want to believe factcheck.org, how about WORLD NUT DAILY? Even World Nut Daily published their verification of authenticity of the COLB.
“WorldNetDaily reports that the birth certificate is authentic. The WorldNetDaily has also investigated the claim. WND (a) found the document to be authentic; (b) uncovered forgeries and alterations made by the purported “experts”:
“A separate WND investigation into Obama’s birth certificate utilizing forgery experts also found the document to be authentic. The investigation also revealed methods used by some of the bloggers to determine the document was fake involved forgeries, in that a few bloggers added text and images to the certificate scan that weren’t originally there.”
See “Democrat sues Sen. Obama over ‘fraudulent candidacy’; Lawsuit disputing U.S. citizenship based in part on discredited claims,” World Net Daily (Aug. 23, 2008) (emphasis added).
Given that WorldNetDaily is the publication for whom Jerome Corsi reports, it defies credibility to argue that that organization is any sort of “pro-Obama” tool. (Jerome Corsi is the person who wrote the widely-discredited anti-Obama book, The Obama Nation.