Obama - What’s wrong with that?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Obama posted a fake document on his site and still has not removed it. Why didn't he show it to the judge and ended it all?

I didn't see anything on that link that claimed it was a fake document. Do you have a good source on that?

Do you recognize how serious this lack of interest by MSM to investigate Obama is?

Yes indeed. It is beyond "serious." If these accusations pan out, it appears that the MSM is using information to control the mind of the American population. Knowledge is power.

There's www.obamacrimes.com that I mentioned above with over 70 million visits. There's also www.americasright.com.

I'll check it out asap.

I just learned that the judge said that the plaintiff was not "qualified" to bring this matter to court. So he will be appealing straight to the Supreme Court.

Was that info on the links above?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I found this site that definitively states that Obama's birth certificate is valid;

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...icate-part-ii/

They give many details of what they did to determine the truth. Most significantly, the Hawaiia Department of Health stated that “It’s a valid Hawaii state birth certificate.” From what I've read, it seems that the birth certificate question is settled in Obama's favour.

And that means that maybe all those other issues are also invented and invalid. If that is the case, then maybe there is not a "vast MSM conspiracy" to hide the truth about Obama. Now don't get me wrong, the stats that I've read show that there is a very strong MSM bias in favor of Obama, but a bias is a far cry from a conspiracy to hide legitimate facts.

[Victor]

Sorry for the delay, I took a couple of days off.

The website you mention is outdated. It is from June 27th. A lot of stuff took place since then. For example, Obama later said he actually had 'double citizenship'. And people have filed lawsuits against him because the digital image of the birth certificate in his site has many features of a forgery.

First, I'm not saying that he is a Muslim in disguise or anything like that. I also am not saying that he is not an American because I don't know. What I'm saying is: American law says that the President of the United States must be an American citizen. Obama must present a valid birth certificate if he is elected. Why doesn't he show the hard version of the document now that the issue is raised instead of putting online a lame low resolution version that doesn't confirm anything? He keeps on bragging about his past in his two books but he can't manage to present a hard copy of such an elementary document? McCain promply did so to dissipate any doubt. But Obama is above everything; he is the Messiah after all.

One has to keep in mind that you don't need to be born in the US to hold an office like Senator, so the issue of the birth certificate was pointless back then. The birth certificate is only necessary if you are elected President.

The answer of the Hawaii Department of Health is lacking. First, what they recieved was an email with an image of a certificate. Second, they provided a Clintonist answer 'It’s a valid Hawaii state birth certificate,' which can be interpreted as "this image follows the standard form of our birth certificate models".

PolitiFact.com then makes an appeal to authority. 'We always go to the heart of the issues,' they say. And then they dismiss any desire to investigate further because this will fuel conspiracies!!

They simply ignore all the investigation that developed in the weeks that followed. A top expert documented in excruciating detail why that image is a forgery. I haven't seen a single refutation of his analysis. Israel Insider also went to the heart of the issue.

Democrat lawyer Philip Berg filed a suit in August asking Obama to present the hard document and instead of setting the issue once and for all his lawyer introduce a motion for dismissal to buy out time. That's absolutely suspect. From a legal standpoint he may have a point but he is running for Presidency so he should have tried to resolve the issue instead of raising doubt upon it. Check post #8 above.

I never said that there's a "media conspiracy". I'm just saying that they don't have any interest of investigating that! They simply brush it off, like a mountain of other facts about Obama. That would be just one more in the overall count.

[Victor]

Obama's birth certificate sealed by Hawaii governor
Says Democratic senator must make request to obtain original document


By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2008 WorldNetDaily


HONOLULU, Hawaii – Although the legitimacy of Sen. Barack Obama's birth certificate has become a focus of intense speculation – and even several lawsuits – WND has learned that Hawaii's Gov. Linda Lingle has placed the candidate's birth certificate under seal and instructed the state's Department of Health to make sure no one in the press obtains access to the original document under any circumstances.

The governor's office officially declined a request made in writing by WND in Hawaii to obtain a copy of the hospital-generated original birth certificate of Barack Obama.

"It does not appear that Dr. Corsi is within any of these categories of persons with a direct and tangible interest in the birth certificate he seeks," wrote Roz Makuala, manager of constituent services in the governor's office, in an e-mailed response to a WND request seeking the information.

Those listed as entitled to obtain a copy of an original birth certificate include the person born, or "registrant" according to the legal description from the governor's office, the spouse or parent of the registrant, a descendant of the registrant, a person having a common ancestor with the registrant, a legal guardian of the registrant, or a person or agency acting on behalf of the registrant.


WND was told the official reason for denial of access to Obama's birth certificate would be authority granted pursuant to Section 338-18 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, a provision the anonymous source claimed was designed to prevent identity theft.

Still, the source told WND confidentially the motivation for withholding the original birth certificate was political, although the source refused to disclose whether there was any information on the original birth certificate that would prove politically embarrassing to Obama.

The source also refused to answer WND's question whether the original document on file with the Department of Health was a hospital-generated birth certificate or a registration of birth that may have been filed subsequent to the birth.

The anonymous source made clear the Hawaii Department of Health would immediately release Obama's original birth certificate, provided Obama requested the document be released, but the Department of Heath has received no such request from the senator or from anyone acting officially on his behalf.

WND also found on microfilm in the Honolulu downtown public library a notice published under the "Births, Marriages, Deaths" section of the Honolulu Sunday Advertiser for August 13, 1961, on page B-6, noting: "Mr. and Mrs. Barack II Obama. 6085 Kalanianaole-Hwy, son, Aug. 4."

In searching through the birth notices of the Honolulu Advertiser for 1961, WND found many birth notices were published between one and two weeks after the date of birth listed.

The notice in the Honolulu Advertiser does not list the hospital where the Obama son was born or the doctor who delivered the baby.

In a startling development, Obama's Kenyan grandmother has reportedly alleged she witnessed Obama's birth at the Coast Provincial Hospital in Mombasa, Kenya.

Friday, U.S. Federal judge Richard Barclay Surrick, a Clinton appointee, dismissed a lawsuit brought by Pennsylvania attorney Phillip J. Berg who alleged Obama was not a U.S. "natural born" citizen and therefore ineligible for the presidency under the specifications of the U.S. Constitution, under Article II, Section 1.

Berg told WND last week he does not have a copy of a Kenyan birth certificate for Obama that he alleges exists.

In Kenya, WND was told by government authorities that all documents concerning Obama were under seal until after the U.S. presidential election on November 4.

The Obama campaign website entitled "Fight the Smears" posts a state of Hawaii "Certificate of Live Birth" which is obviously not the original birth certificate generated by the hospital where Obama reportedly was born.

"Fight the Smears" declares, "The truth is, Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native citizen of the United States of America."

Although the Obama campaign could immediately put an end to all the challenges by simply producing the candidate's original birth certificate, it has not done so. And the "Fight the Smears" website offers no explanation as to why Obama has refused to request, and make public, an original hospital-generated birth certificate which the Hawaii Department of Health may possess.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hey Victor,

I've been looking into the issues relating to Obama's birth certificate, and I agree there are some strange things going on there. Why is he HIDING the evidence? Why is the Governor of Hawaii HIDING the evidence too? Why is the press silent on this issue? If there are any irregularities found after the election that invalidates him as a candidate, our country is in for a world of hurt. There will be riots in the streets. And there are other documents that Obama is HIDING. I simply do not understand what is going on here, or why the government is not interested in truly vetting this candidate.

Of course, it could turn out to be nothing but a dirty political attack .... that would explain why the press, even Fox news, is ignoring it. I simply don't have enough info yet. But from what I have seen, it looks pretty bad. If the document that Obama posted on his site is real, then why would the governor of Hawaii feel a need to HIDE the evidence of the document they have?

Richard

[Victor]

Hey Victor,

I've been looking into the issues relating to Obama's birth certificate, and I agree there are some strange things going on there. Why is he HIDING the evidence?

We just need to connect the dots to know why.

Why is the Governor of Hawaii HIDING the evidence too?

Likely because political correctness is the leading guideline to conduct political affairs these days. Who wants to be accused of being racist?

Why is the press silent on this issue?

The press is silent about a thousand other issues around Obama. They don't want to air anything that may undermine even a little bit of the campaign effort. People who discern that manipulation should cut subscriptions, etc, with news sources that actually are liberal propaganda machines instead of investigators and fact hunters.

If there are any irregularities found after the election that invalidates him as a candidate, our country is in for a world of hurt. There will be riots in the streets.

That's probably the main reason why leftists placed Obama there. They want chaos. They want to humiliate America. They want to deconstruct traditional American values and bring about a Constituional crisis. People who were part of Obama's "formation" teach exactly that.

And there are other documents that Obama is HIDING.

Yes, take for example Obama's college records. Why doesn't he show them? Because his college college education was paid by Khalid al-Mansur, a racist and agitator who promised a blood bath of white Americans and represents Saudi prince Alwaleed bin Talal, who celebrates September 11th as God's punishment on America.

Obama could immediately dissipate such an horrific suspicion by simply showing his records. But unlike any other politician with minimum-level self-respect and unlike any other one running for Presidency ever, he won't show anything that clears his past, and anyone who complains abouth is automatically considered evil incarnate for daring to raise any sort of suspicion upon him. Even if he is not elected, he has already subverted American tradition, basic values, logic and rationality by the simple fact that he (and specially all the big ones who support him) feels protected and safe from any sort of deeper questioning that should be basic for anyone who aspires the office of Presidency; he knows people in key places are protecting him (specially MSM).

I simply do not understand what is going on here, or why the government is not interested in truly vetting this candidate.

We don't understand because for decades we have been trained to see America's enemies as monolithic opposers such as the Soviet Union and the Communists. But the truth is that those who now want to subvert America work, not as organized governamental powers as in the past but as flexible networks such as NGOs and interest groups. At the same time, they infiltrate colleges, TV stations, churches, etc, etc. Obama is product of this kind of people who have as their top-priority deconstructing America bit by bit.

When we face a "little or medium size" evil, we usually see it for what it is - as evil -, but when evil is truly huge our minds enter into cognitive dissonance and cannot accept the fact that someone or some group can be so evil. All scandals upon Obama are dismissed as "empty political attacks" because our minds cannot believe that he can be so evil as described. We cannot believe that we can be duped like that. Obama is terrorist-friendly and will change America as we know it but we just try to "go past" it and go on with our lives trying to avoid thinking too hard on the consequences.

Like the text I posted above says:

[Society is turned upside downs by] lies and bluffs so colossal that the population instinctively refuses to believe that there is anything real behind them. The actual victim of the swindle reacts vehemently to any attempt to expose it, because he feels that admitting the reality of the situation would be a humiliating confession of stupidity. In order not to feel like a fool, the poor devil is willing to be a fool without sensing that he is one, confirming the old Jewish proverb 'a fool has no delight in understanding.'

Of course, it could turn out to be nothing but a dirty political attack .... that would explain why the press, even Fox news, is ignoring it. I simply don't have enough info yet. But from what I have seen, it looks pretty bad. If the document that Obama posted on his site is real, then why would the governor of Hawaii feel a need to HIDE the evidence of the document they have?

Richard

Fox News is practicing self-censorship. They don't want to dig deep into it for the reasons stated above. It is just too bad to be true, so it can't be true. "Better to stick to our traditional election coverage."

This cannot be a dirty political attack because if Obama was interested in truth he could in a second humiliate all the bashers by merely showing his documents. But he won't.

And that's just the beginning.

[Victor]

Barack Obama according to Thomas Sowell:

Changes in Politics
Barack Obama's "change" is a recycling of the kinds of policies and rhetoric of the New Deal that prolonged the Great Depression of the 1930s far beyond the duration of any depression before or since. These are the same kinds of liberal policies that led to double-digit inflation, double-digit interest rates and rising unemployment during the Carter administration. These are "back to the future" changes to economic disasters that need repeating. ...

Knock or Boost? (About Sarah Palin and MSM)
Since Governor Sarah Palin's daughter is not running for election this year, it is amazing how much the media has suddenly become obsessed with her. ...

Foreign Policy "Experience"
... this is an incredible argument coming from those whose presidential candidate has even less experience in public office than Sarah Palin, and none in foreign policy.

Idols of Crowds
A human group transforms itself into a crowd when it suddenly responds to a suggestion rather than to reasoning, to an image rather than to an idea, to an affirmation rather than to proof, to the repetition of a phrase rather than to arguments, to prestige rather than to competence. ...

Do Facts Matter?
The current financial bailout crisis has propelled Barack Obama back into a substantial lead over John McCain-- which is astonishing in view of which man and which party has had the most to do with bringing on this crisis.

The Real Obama
Associations are very different from alliances. Allies are not just people who happen to be where you are or who happen to be doing the same things you do. You choose allies deliberately for a reason. The kind of allies you choose says something about you. Jeremiah Wright, Father Michael Pfleger, William Ayers and Antoin Rezko are not just people who happened to be at the same place at the same time as Barack Obama. They are people with whom he chose to ally himself for years, and with some of whom some serious money changed hands.

The Real Obama - Part II
Does it matter if Barack Obama is for sex education in kindergarten? It matters more than most things that are called "the real issues."
Seemingly unrelated things can give important insights into someone's outlook and character.

The Real Obama - Part III
What about those "real issues" that Barack Obama's supporters in the media say we should get back to, whenever some new unsavory fact about his past comes out?

The "Real Issues" - Part IV
Barack Obama's supporters often try to sidestep questions about his character and judgment by saying that we should stick to what they arbitrarily define as "the real issues." But Senator Obama's record on specific issues is as bad as his record of repeatedly allying himself over the years with people who make no attempt to hide their hatred of America.

Negative Advertising
... Barack Obama is much smoother. Instead of issuing explicit denials, he gives speeches that sound so moderate, so nuanced and so lofty that even some conservative Republicans go for them. How could anyone believe that such a man is the very opposite of what he claims to be-- unless they check out the record of what he has actually done?
In words, Obama is a uniter instead of a divider. In deeds, he has spent years promoting polarization. That is what a "community organizer" does, creating a sense of grievance, envy and resentment, in order to mobilize political action to get more of the taxpayers' money or to force banks to lend to people they don't consider good risks, as the community organizing group ACORN did. After Barack Obama moved beyond the role of a community organizer, he promoted the same polarization in his other roles.

Obama and the Law
Senator Obama has stated very clearly what kinds of Supreme Court justices he wants-- those with "the empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old." Like so many things that Obama says, it may sound nice if you don't stop and think-- and chilling if you do stop and think. Do we really want judges who decide cases based on who you are, rather than on the facts and the law?

Taxing Times
The two months between the time of a presidential election and the time when the new president takes office is an eternity in terms of how much money can be transferred out of the country electronically before any new high-tax laws can be enacted.

A Perfect Storm
Once the election is over, the glittering generalities of rhetoric and style will mean nothing. Everything will depend on performance in facing huge challenges, domestic and foreign. Performance is where Barack Obama has nothing to show for his political career, either in Illinois or in Washington. Policies that he proposes under the banner of "change" are almost all policies that have been tried repeatedly in other countries-- and failed repeatedly in other countries.

[Victor]

The candidate of fear
Olavo de Carvalho


Called 'the Messiah' by radical Muslim leader Louis Farrakhan and 'My Jesus' by the college associate editor of a student newspaper, Barack Hussein Obama informs us, 'Contrary to the rumors you have heard, I was not born in a manger.' What if he did not let us know?
Whatever the case, he has already performed at least one confirmed miracle: he is the first presidential candidate who has won the applause of all the enemies of the United States without it having ever aroused the least suspicion of the American establishment against him. Counted among his enthusiasts are Hamas, Iranian president Ahmadinejad, Muammar Khadafi, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chávez, and the television station Al-Jazeera. I wonder what would have happened to Franklin D. Roosevelt’s candidacy in 1932 if he had received ostensible support from Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, and Benito Mussolini.

It is true that Obama pledges to dismantle the space defense system of the United States, to slow down unilaterally the American program of nuclear research, to turn victory in Iraq into defeat, to ban new oil drilling, and to grant driver’s license and health care to illegal aliens, that patriotic mob which wants to turn Texas and California into Mexican states. But if you insinuate that any of those things is a good reason for Communists and radical Muslims to like him, the media en masse will say that you have 'crossed the line' and that you are virtually guilty of a 'hate crime.'

Ahmadinejad has declared that the victory of the Democratic candidate in the election will give the green light to the Islamization of the world, Khadafi has proclaimed that Obama is a faithful Muslim financed by Islamite millionaires, and Louis Farrakhan, availing himself of the wave of pro-Obama enthusiasm, has announced that the Nation of Islam, the secret society of radical Muslims he presides over, which has been making slow progress for decades, is having a 'new beginning,' and will be fully operational soon. The meaning of those facts is clear, but noticing it is immoral: every decent citizen has to swear that the support coming from the enemies of America is only a mistake on their part, since Obama has never given—oh, no!—the least pretext for them to sympathize with him. To insinuate any convergence of interests is to impute to Obama 'guilt by association'—an act of perfidy, obviously, loaded with racial 'overtones.'

Besides, any stronger word used against the black candidate is pointed out as proof of racism, and the least suggestion that there is racial blackmail in this is double proof. John McCain himself makes a point of confining the debate to the sphere of 'ideas,' emphasizing that his opponent is 'a decent person and a person you do not have to be scared of.'

This statement is unintentionally ironic. The thing that every American fears most, nowadays, is being suspected of thinking bad things about Barack Hussein Obama. Following the example of their leader, Republican militants are doing their best to show respect and veneration for the person of the adversary. A staffer at the John McCain campaign office in Pompano Beach, California, who posted behind his desk a sign associating Obama with Marx and Hitler was immediately fired.

An Ohio citizen, who asked some tougher questions to the Democratic candidate about his tax plan, paid dearly for his boldness. He had his life rummaged through by reporters and was severely criticized for the heinous crimes of working as a plumber without a license and of not having paid a traffic fine he had incurred in Arizona eight years ago. That gives an idea of the exasperated zeal with which the mainstream media protects Barack Obama’s image. Samuel Wurzelbacher, or Joe the Plumber,—the nickname by which he has become known nationwide—draws from his experience an unavoidable conclusion, 'When you can’t ask a question to your leaders anymore, that gets scary.'

This fear is not just psychological. Several Republican activists have already reportedly been beaten up by Obama supporters, McCain campaign offices in various states have been broken into and destroyed, and only police action managed to prevent, just in time, hundreds of well-trained Obama agitators, armed with Molotov cocktails, from setting fire to the buses heading to the Republican Convention in St. Paul (even so, the remainder managed to wreak quite some havoc). When a candidate employs terrorist methods, and at the same time the establishment decrees that calling him a terrorist is insanity to the utmost, it is clear that this candidate has unlimited rights. He is allowed to receive $63 million in illegal contributions from abroad, and nothing bad will happen to him. An NGO that patronizes him can flood thirteen states with fraudulent voter registrations, and woe to them who suggest that he bears some guilt in the case.

In contrast, McCain was charged with criminal verbal violence for the simple fact of mentioning the widely attested link between Obama and William Ayers. A pro-McCain-Palin march, in New York, was received with every sort of insult and threat. As, on the other hand, no violence could be observed against Obama militants, it was necessary to invent a story that, in a Sarah Palin rally, somebody shouted 'Kill him' after hearing Obama’s name mentioned. The police looked carefully into the tapes of the rally and concluded that nobody shouted any such thing at all.

Another intimidating factor is economic superiority. Obama’s campaign collected nothing less than $605 million in contributions. For every McCain ad, four Obama ads come out. Even more overwhelming is the free advertisement provided by the big media for the Democratic candidate.

To this day, the only newspaper of some importance that has reported the lawsuit filed by Democratic attorney Philip Berg against Obama was the Washington Times—nominally Republican—which, nonetheless, categorizes doubts about Obama’s nationality as mere 'internet rumors' and, alluding to the lawsuit only in the last lines, as if it were nothing but one more rumor, omit informing that Obama, instead of presenting his birth certificate as requested by the plaintiff, preferred making use of a complex legal argumentation in order to dodge doing so. The second lawsuit on the same issue, filed in the state of Washington, is not even mentioned.







The major newspapers and television companies protect the Democratic candidate not only against his adversaries but against himself. Acts or statements that may show him in an unfavorable light are carefully omitted. In all the American mainstream media one will not find a single word about Obama’s long career as an abortion militant, let alone about the only important activity he undertook on the international level: the campaign set up, with public money, to bring into power in Kenya the anti-American and pro-terrorist agitator Raila Odinga, guilty of ordering the murder of more than a thousand of his political opponents and of conspiring with Muslim leaders to impose the Islamic religion on a Christian-majority nation. Not only did Obama help Odinga with American tax-payers’ money, and introduce him to contacts in the Senate, but spoke in his favor at rallies in Kenya. If there is something that shows the true nature of the international commitments of the Democratic candidate, it is this episode—but even Fox News omits touching upon the subject.

Here in the United States everybody says that Obama’s victory is certain. It seems to me that, even if Obama loses the election, he will be a winner. The party of his adversaries was already on its knees at the moment that, instead of an authentic conservative, it chose a typical liberal Republican for a candidate, a sure promise, if he is elected, of a weak administration subservient to critics, exactly like George Bush’s. After this first fit of frenzy, there followed a worse one: from the moment when Republicans, instead of filing a thousand lawsuits like that of Philip Berg, accepted as a legitimate and decent electoral adversary a candidate with no ascertained nationality, with a misty biography full of flagrant lies, aided and subsidized by the most heinous enemies of the country, it became clear that they had abdicated all sense of honor and consented to legitimate a farce. If they lose the election, they will deserve as many tears as those who preferred to allow Lula to win the presidency of Brazil rather than tell what they knew about the São Paulo Forum.

As to Obama’s campaign, its profile is clear. The amalgam of utopian promises, overwhelming advertisement, psychotic beatification of the leader, racial appeal, media control, and systematic intimidations of voters is identical in the least details with Hitler’s electoral strategy in 1933, but in order to say this in public—or even to become aware of it in a low voice—it takes more courage than one can expect from the average voter nowadays.

[joel]

Could he be a "John the Baptist-type" forerunner of the Man of Sin described by Paul in II Thessalonians 2:3.

"Strong delusion".....and "they should believe a lie".......is at work here.

Joel

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Could he be a "John the Baptist-type" forerunner of the Man of Sin described by Paul in II Thessalonians 2:3.

"Strong delusion".....and "they should believe a lie".......is at work here.

Joel

Just to toss in my two-cents worth ... it seems clear to me that the "man of sin" appeared in the literal Temple of God that stood in the first century. This seems clear because that Temple has since been destroyed and we know that God will never again sanctify a first covenant Jewish Temple now that the New Covenant has been established. So if there will never be legitmate Jewish Temple of God in the future, there is no way that the prophecy of II Thessalonians 2:3 could be still future.

Richard