Starting in 1996, Alexa Internet has been donating their crawl data to the Internet Archive. Flowing in every day, these data are added to the Wayback Machine after an embargo period.
Starting in 1996, Alexa Internet has been donating their crawl data to the Internet Archive. Flowing in every day, these data are added to the Wayback Machine after an embargo period.
TIMESTAMPS
The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20120107120049/http://bobmccarty.com:80/
Jan. 3, 2012 will be long remembered as a historical landmark by true American patriots. It is the day on which The Hon. Michael M. Malihi, deputy chief judge of the Georgia Office of State Administrative Hearings, issued a ruling denying Barack Obama’s motion to dismiss four cases alleging that he is not eligible to serve as president of the United States. The headlines screamed, “Obama’s Motion Denied, He Must Prove His Qualifications.”
Since 2008, nearly 90 court cases have been filed, challenging Obama’s qualifications to serve as president of the United States. None have been successful. However, at least one of the cases now proceeding through the Georgia courts… David P. Welden v. Barack Obama… is different in that it challenges Obama at his weakest point, his inability to qualify as a “natural born citizen.” The case will be heard in Judge Malihi’s court on Jan. 26, 2012.
Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution states as follows: “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
In his challenge, filed with Georgia Secretary of State Brian P. Kemp Nov. 15, 2011, Welden asserts the following: “Pursuant to O.C.G.A. (Official Code of Georgia Annotated) §21-2-5, I hereby challenge the eligibility of Barack Obama to appear on the March 6 Democratic Presidential Preference Primary Ballot and/or on the November 6, 2012 general election ballot for President of the United States.”
Welden then proceeds to outline five specific allegations against Obama:
1. The official state certified birth certificate proffered by Barack Obama contains a factual inconsistency and other anomalies that calls into question the veracity of the rest of the information contained within said document.
Doctored Certificate of Live Birth?
Welden is correct in his assertion that the Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) released by Obama April 27, 2011 contains a “factual inconsistency” and raises more questions than it answers. For example, Obama claims to have been born Aug. 4, 1961. The COLB released by Obama was registered with the Hawaii Department of Health Aug. 8, 20111961, and contains the registration number 61 10641. However, the mother of the Nordyke twins, Susan and Gretchen, born at the same hospital Aug. 5, 1961, has produced certificates bearing registration numbers 61 10637 and 61 10638, respectively. The birth certificates of the Nordyke twins were not registered with the Hawaii Department of Health until Aug. 11, 1961, three days after Obama’s COLB was registered.
Numerous forensic experts have evaluated the Obama COLB and have found conclusively that it is nothing more than a poorly-constructed forgery.
2. Barack Obama has not adequately proven that he was born a natural born citizen of the United States.
Under long-standing Supreme Court precedent [Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875)] the term “natural born citizen” is defined as follows: “…(A)ll children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners...”
The precedent established under Minor v. Happersett has not been altered or amended in the 137 years since it was handed down. It is established law and it applies to Obama just as it does to every other citizen.
3. Barack Obama’s alleged father, Barack Obama, Sr., was never a citizen of the United States and, at the time of his son’s birth, was not a permanent resident of the United States. Consequently, Barack Obama was born to only one parent who was a U.S. citizen or U.S. permanent resident.
In 1866, John A. Bingham, chief framer of the 14th Amendment, which granted citizenship to the freed slaves, wrote as follows: “Every human being born within the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty (emphasis added) is, in the language of the Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”
In order for Obama to qualify as a “natural born citizen,” as required by Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, it is necessary that both parents must have been U.S. citizens, either native born or naturalized, at the time of his birth. Obama’s father returned to his native Kenya in July 1964.
In recent decades, the “natural born citizen” status of three potential presidential candidates has been questioned. In 1968, former Michigan governor George W. Romney, was a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination. In November 2003, shortly after becoming governor of California, famed movie actor Arnold Schwarzenegger expressed an interest in one day seeking the U.S. presidency. Finally, in 2008, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was the Republican candidate for president. The “natural born” status of all three was questioned.
Although Romney was born in Chihuahua State, Mexico, and McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, both men were found to be “natural born” U.S. citizens because, in both instances, both parents were U.S. citizens. However, speculation regarding Schwarzenegger’s ambitions was short-lived. Not only was he born in Austria, both of his parents held Austrian citizenship at the time of his birth. For these reasons he could not meet the “natural born citizen” standard.
4. By his own admission, and under the British Nationality Act of 1948, Barack Obama was born a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, and from 1963 until at least 1984 was a citizen of the Republic of Kenya.
Obama was born with dual U.S.-British citizenship by descent from his Kenyan father and his American mother. Part 2, Section 5(1) of the British Nationality Act of 1948 reads, in part, as follows: “Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act (Barack Obama, Jr.) shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father (Obama, Sr.) is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.”
Obama lost his dual U.S.-British citizenship Dec. 12, 1963, the day on which Kenya won its independence from Great Britain. However, Chapter VI, Section 87[3] of the new Kenyan Constitution provided as follows: “(1) Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (Barack Obama, Sr,)… shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December 1963… (2) Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (Barack Obama, Jr.)… shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963.”
Obama held dual U.S.-Kenyan citizenship from December 12, 1963 until Aug. 4, 1984, his 23rd birthday. However, he became a Kenyan “citizen by birth” Aug. 4, 2010, the day on which Kenya adopted a revised constitution. Chapter 3, Section 14 of the 2010 constitution provides as follows: “A person is a citizen by birth if on the day of the person’s birth, whether or not the person is born in Kenya, either the mother or fatherof the person is a citizen (of Kenya).”
What this tells us is that, since Aug. 4, 2010, as Obama sits in the Oval Office, he has been reinstated as a “citizen by birth” of Kenya, a dual citizen of the United States and Kenya.
5. Due to his dual citizenship with the United Kingdom and with Kenya, Barack Obama was born with dual allegiances to foreign nations other than the United States of America.
The official U.S. government policy regarding dual citizenship is found in publications of the Consular Affairs Division of the U.S. Department of State, as follows:
“The concept of dual nationality means that a person is a citizen of two countries at the same time. Each country has its own citizenship laws based on its own policy. Persons may have dual nationality by automatic operation of different laws rather than by choice…
“The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it… because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law… However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries…”
It is incomprehensible that any person who holds, or has held, allegiance to any foreign sovereignty should be allowed to serve as president or vice president of the United States. It is precisely why the Founding Fathers limited access to the U.S. presidency to those who are “natural born” citizens of the United States.
Paul R. Hollrah
The Administrative Court in Atlanta has no choice but to find that Barack Hussein Obama is ineligible to serve as President of the United States and must remove his name from the March 6, 2012 Democratic Presidential Preference Primary ballot, and from the Nov. 6, 2012, General Election ballot in the State of Georgia.
How many Missouri Republican voters know the votes they’ll cast for a presidential nominee Feb. 7, won’t count? I suspect the number is extremely small, but before I explain my suspicions, let me offer some background.
If you go to the Missouri GOP website and start looking for any news about major changes to the process via which Show-Me State Republicans will cast votes to select a presidential nominee in 2012, you’ll find nothing without digging deep.
As of noon Jan. 3, there was nothing about the change on the site’s homepage, and the site lacks any kind of search tool a visitor might use to locate such important information. Only by clicking on the News/Blog tab, scrolling to the bottom of the page, selecting the “BLOG” link next to “Older Entries” and clicking on the next three “Older Entries” links did I find a link to a Sept. 29 post, MOGOP votes to go to caucus system for selecting delegates to national convention, which mentions the major change in the state Republican Party’s election process.
In the three-months-old party website post, the state Republican apparatus rightly blamed Democrat Gov. Jay Nixon‘s veto of an elections bill and the Show-Me State General Assembly‘s failure to achieve final passage of the presidential primary bill prior to Oct. 1, 2011. Plus, they went on to explain that members of the MOGOP’s State Committee were forced to hold an emergency meeting and, during that meeting, committee members voted unanimously to go to a caucus system for the 2012 election:
“The Missouri Republican Party is committed to ensuring that the Governor’s veto of the elections bill and the General Assembly’s failure to move our presidential primary will not disrupt the national nominating process,” said David Cole, chairman of the Missouri Republican Party. “A caucus will continue to protect the rights of Missourians to select the Republican nominee for president—and any self-declared Republican who is registered to vote in Missouri has the ability to participate in the caucus process.”
Now, back to the question at the top of this piece: How many Missouri Republicans — specifically, those who vote Republican but are not active in the county, state or national party organizations — know about this change to an Iowa-style caucus system and that their Feb. 7 primary election votes to select a presidential nominee will not count for anything? I suspect the number is small.
Individuals who miss the limited amount of media coverage devoted to the change, such as KSDK’s coverage today (see video), will likely think their votes, part of a primary election process estimated to cost up to $8 million, count for something.
Therefore, because I’m a large-C Conservative and a tiny-R Republican, I share the remainder of the three-month-old news from the state GOP below and encourage you to circulate this information and all of the nitty-gritty details as widely as possible during the next ten weeks:
*The County Caucuses will take place on March 17, 2012. At these caucuses, which are open to any Republican who is registered to vote in that county, attendees will select delegates and alternates to the Congressional District Conventions and State Convention. No delegates to the national convention are selected at this time. The number of delegates and alternates per county is determined by the Missouri Republican Party based upon the number of GOP votes cast in the last presidential election.
* The Congressional District Conventions will take place on April 21, 2012. At each of these 8 conventions, delegates chosen at the county level will select 3 delegates and alternates to the National Convention and 1 presidential elector. The delegates and alternates will be required to declare allegiance to a candidate prior to the voting, and they will be bound to that candidate on the first ballot—unless they are released prior to the convention.
*The State Convention will take place on June 2, 2012. At the convention, delegates chosen at the county level will vote on 25 at-large delegates and alternates to the National Convention and 2 at large presidential electors. The delegates and alternates will be required to declare allegiance to a candidate prior to the voting, and they will be bound to that candidate on the first ballot—unless they are released prior to the convention.
In total, Missouri will have 52 delegates and 49 alternates to the Republican National Convention—24 selected at the congressional district caucuses, 25 selected at the state convention, and 1 delegate (but no alternate) for the state Party chairman, national committeeman and national committeewoman.
This Party action does not require legislative approval.
FINAL NOTE FOR THOSE RUNNING THE MISSOURI GOP: People shouldn’t have to run a Google search or drill through layers of pages to find out vital information about the electoral process. Moreover, they shouldn’t have to rely on the news media to report it. Instead, they should be able to visit MOGOP.org and find what they need quickly and easily; therefore, I implore you to put something about the switch from a traditional primary election system to the caucus system front and center on the party website. To do less might cause someone to think you’re trying to control the outcome of the nomination process by tricking people into thinking their votes count or, heaven forbid, you’re trying to limit participation in the caucuses. That’s not the case, is it?
Wall Street meltdowns? Banking industry bailouts? Hedge fund hanky-panky? Multi-million-dollar Wall Street bonuses? Collapse of the dollar? National debt default? Economic collapse? Who can possibly make sense of it all? How did it happen, and who’s to blame? Did George W. Bush create the mess and leave it for Obama to clean up, or were Democrats to blame all along and Obama was just too incompetent to know what to do about it? What is the truth of all this?
Now that the Securities & Exchange Commission is finally pursuing wrongdoing at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, it’s time the American people knew the root causes of our current economic difficulties. We all need to have a basic understanding of the mess… one that will allow us to explain it to our Democrat friends in terms that even they can understand.
First, it must be said that the Community Reinvestment Act, a Carter Administration initiative, was not a totally bad idea. It encouraged lenders to make loans to qualified borrowers who had previously been denied solely on the basis of the color of their skin. The CRA was intended to reduce or eliminate a practice known as “redlining,” in which Realtors and lenders discriminated against potential buyers in low-income and depressed neighborhoods, approving home loans for lower-income whites but not for middle or upper-income blacks.
Throughout the Reagan and Bush (41) years, between 1981 and 1993, the CRA was enforced in a straightforward manner. Lenders were encouraged to abandon the “redlining” practice and to meet the credit needs of all members of the community, consistent with sound lending practices.
However, when Democrats regained control of the White House in 1993, in the person of Bill Clinton, Democrats began to act like Democrats. They decided that the CRA, if strategically enforced with a political end in mind, provided a unique opportunity to purchase the votes of those at the lower end of the economic ladder.
Under the Clinton Administration, regulators paid particularly close attention to the lending practices of banks and savings & loan associations. In other words, were lenders meeting the credit needs of all borrowers in their local communities, regardless of borrowers’ ability to repay their loans? Accordingly, they began to use the results of those examinations to determine whether or not to approve mergers and acquisitions, and whether or not to approve applications for new branch banks. Lenders soon found that the CRA was more stick than carrot.
As a result, lenders abandoned traditional lending criteria and made mortgage loans to almost anyone who applied, regardless of their income level or credit worthiness. Under normal circumstances, no prudent lender would ever lend money to those with little or no ability to repay, but these were not normal circumstances. Two of the Democratic Party’s favorite patronage cesspools, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, were standing ready to buy up any and all mortgages. And why should Fannie and Freddie worry about the quality of the mortgages they bought? They had no reason to worry because, as quasi-public institutions, they had the cash assets of the American taxpayer, the U.S. Treasury, at their disposal.
Here’s how it worked. When a home buyer took out a home loan from a bank or a savings & loan association, the mortgage was then sold to what was known as a Government-Sponsored Enterprise (i.e. Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac). Fannie and Freddie then bundled the loan with other sub-prime mortgages and sold the bundle to private investors, promising not only attractive returns, but a high degree of security as well. By year end 2010, Fannie and Freddie had acquired more than half of the $11 trillion mortgage loan market in the United States.
However, the sale of mortgages to private investors was not a totally arms-length proposition because, even though Fannie and Freddie had sold the bundled mortgages, they continued to have a financial interest in them. They guaranteed the securities for the investors, promising to continue making payments on the mortgages even if the homeowner stopped paying. In 2008, when the overheated real estate market collapsed and a great many homeowners stopped paying all at once, the cash reserves of Fannie and Freddie were soon depleted, forcing them to default on their guarantees and precipitating a major economic crisis.
One might ask, how could something like this happen directly under the noses of our political leaders without anyone taking notice? The fact is, shortly after taking office in 2001, the Bush administration did notice and took steps to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. What they apparently failed to understand was that Fannie and Freddie existed in a world of their own, a world in which Democrats who were either owed big favors, or who were being paid to keep their mouths shut for one reason or another were well taken care of.
Among these was Franklin Raines, former Clinton White House budget director, who served as chairman and chief executive officer of Fannie Mae. Raines took “early retirement” from Fannie Mae on December 21, 2004 after the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight accused him of participating in widespread accounting irregularities, including the shifting of losses so that senior Fannie Mae executives could earn large bonuses. Some $90 million was paid to Raines based on overstated earnings… earnings initially reported at $9 billion but later found to be in the neighborhood of $6.3 billion.
Tim Howard, chief financial officer under Raines, is a former senior economic advisor to Barack Obama. When Howard was terminated at Fannie Mae, he walked away with a “golden parachute” reported to be worth approximately $20 million.
Jim Johnson, a former Lehman Brothers executive who headed Obama’s vice presidential search committee, is also a former Fannie Mae CEO who was forced to resign. Johnson’s 1998 Fannie Mae compensation was reported at between $6-7 million. In truth, it was $21 million.
And last, but not least, we have Jamie Gorelick, a former deputy attorney general in the Clinton Administration and the woman who erected the infamous “Gorelick Wall” which prevented the CIA and the FBI from sharing intelligence that could have prevented the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. After leaving the Justice Department, she resurfaced as vice chairman of Fannie Mae from 1997 to 2003. And although she had no training or experience in finance, whatsoever, she earned over $26 million during the six years she worked at Fannie Mae.
While serving as vice chairman of Fannie Mae, Gorelick participated in the development of an accounting scheme which allowed Fannie’s Mae’s top executives – whose bonuses were tied to earnings-per-share – to meet the target for maximum bonus payouts. For example, in 1998 the target earnings for maximum bonus payout at Fannie Mae was $3.23 per share. Fannie Mae reported earnings of exactly $3.2309. (Don’t you just hate it when that happens?)
So how was this arranged? Because of lower interest rates in 1998, Fannie Mae found itself facing an extraordinary expense estimated at $400 million. Johnson, Franklin and Gorelick decided to recognize only $200 million of the $400 million expense, deferring the remainder to the next fiscal year. This fortuitous “coincidence” resulted in maximum bonus payouts: $1.932 million to then-CEO Johnson, $1.19 million to CEO-designate Raines and $779,625 to accounting whiz Gorelick.
Democrats do have an uncanny way of taking care of their own.
In the two years and 11 months that Barack Obama has been in office, Democrats have waged an uninterrupted and unabashed attack on George W. Bush, insisting that he did nothing to forestall the Fannie and Freddie disasters that we now face. However, the facts are these: The Bush Administration warned Congress of impending insolvency at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in April 2001, May 2002, November 2003, February 2004, August 2007, December 2007, March 2008, April 2008, May 2008 and June 2008. In addition, Bush Administration officials testified before Congress, calling for reform of Fannie and Freddie, in September 2003, June 2004, April 2005 and February 2008.
In each instance, their warnings were either ignored or were subjected to strong push-back from leading Democrats, who charged Republicans with opposing home ownership by the poor and minorities. In each instance, the principal push-back came from Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), chairman of the Securities and Investment Subcommittee of the Senate Banking Committee, the recipient of major “sweetheart” loans from now-defunct Countrywide Financial Corporation; and Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), ranking member of the Housing and Community Opportunity Subcommittee of the House Financial Services Committee. Not surprisingly, one of Frank’s homosexual partners, Herb Moses, was a high-ranking official of Fannie Mae at a time when he and Frank played house together on Capitol Hill.
In short, the financial crisis that our country now faces is exclusively the product of Democratic political excess. It is further proof that, when government interferes in the private economy in order to guarantee what liberals and Democrats see as “fairness” and “equal outcomes,” the unintended consequences are always predictable, but never pretty. What would be pretty would be to see Dodd, Frank, Raines, Johnson, Gorelick, and other Obama cronies being led away in handcuffs. The current charges being investigated by the Securities & Exchange Commission are a good beginning.
In the first post (above left), I highlighted the different ways in which soldiers make headlines and are sometimes declared “guilty” in the court of public opinion.
In the second post (above right), I observed how a convicted soldier and his wife avoided becoming a sad statistic amidst news that one in 27 service members divorced in 2011.
I trust you’ll take a look at them and, afterward, consider buying the took to get the full story about a case of military justice gone awry.
I’m using this 4,578th post to wish you a Happy New Year and all the best as 2011 draws to a close at BobMcCarty.com.
Thanks to people like you sharing news of this site with friends and acquaintances, nearly 3 million visitors — two-thirds of them unique — have visited since I began tracking them in the fall of 2007. In total, you and others have viewed more than 10 million pages on this site. Most importantly, you gave me a voice.
This year, I leveraged that voice and morphed from blogger to nonfiction author and published my first book, Three Days In August: A U.S. Army Special Forces Soldier’s Fight For Military Justice. In upcoming months and years, I plan to write and publish other works as well. Two are in the works at this moment. One should be completed by fall.
Though writing and researching stories for my books has reduced the amount of time I spend blogging, I think the end results will be worth it. Those who’ve written reviews of Three Days In August seem to agree.
If Barack Obama was as honest as the folks at Twitter were on the final day of 2011 when their system was intermittently “Over Capacity” or having something go “Technically Wrong,” visitors to the White House website would encounter the image below each and every time they tried to visit.
The big difference between the Obama Administration and Twitter is that the folks who invented the 140-character missive are, unlike those at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, able to fix their errors.
If you enjoy this blog and want to keep reading stories like the one above, show your support by using the “Support Bob” tool at right. Follow me on Twitter @BloggingMachine. Thanks in advance for your support!
In his most recent book, Dupes: How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century, Kengor makes the point that American Communists have always been quite realistic about their inability to impose a Soviet-style Communist regime on the American people. He writes, “We now know that American Communists and their masters in Moscow were acutely aware that they could never gain the popular support they needed to enlist the support of a much wider coalition that could help them push their private agenda.”
But what should be most distressing for Americans is Dr. Kengor’s discovery that “it was nothing short of stunning to research this book during the presidential bid of Barack Obama and hear so many of the names in my research surface repeatedly in the background of the man who became president of the United States of America. The way in which so many names and themes from the Cold War past aligned and made their way into Obama’s orbit was chilling.”
As conservative Alan Caruba points out in his Dec. 12 column, America’s Communist President, “Obama’s December 8th speech in Osawatomie, Kansas revealed to anyone paying attention that the president is a Communist.” Referring to the free market system that has made this the most prosperous nation on Earth, Obama said, “It doesn’t work. It has never worked.”
It brings to mind an article, The First Time I Heard of Barack, by Tom Fife, first published Nov. 20, 2008, and which has been held in reserve on countless computer hard drives, awaiting confirmation of its legitimacy. Fife wrote, “In the period of roughly February 1992 to mid 1994, I was making frequent trips to Moscow, Russia, in the process of starting a software development joint-venture company with some people from the Russian scientific community. One of the men in charge on the Russian side was named V. M.; he had a wife named T.M.
“V. was a level-headed scientist while his wife was rather deeply committed to the losing Communist cause – a cause she obviously was not abandoning.”
Fife goes on to describe a dinner party at the Russian couple’s Moscow apartment early in 1992. He tells us that, as the evening progressed and the dinner conversation became more and more political in nature, Mrs. M. “developed a decidedly anti-American edge.”
According to Fife, she said, “You Americans always like to think that you have the perfect government and your people are always so perfect. Well then, why haven’t you had a woman president by now? You had a chance to vote for a woman vice-president and you didn’t do it… Well, I think you are going to be surprised when you get a black president very soon.”
The Americans responded matter-of-factly that there was nothing to bar a black person from being elected president and that, given the right person and the right circumstances… “America would try to vote for the right person, be he or she black or not.”
Not satisfied with that response, Mrs. M. continued, “What if I told you that you will have a black president very soon and he will be a Communist?”
Fife reports that the Americans stared at her in disbelief. One responded, “It sounds like you know something we don’t know.” To which Mrs. M. replied, “Yes, it is true. This is not some idle talk. He is already born and he is educated and being groomed to be president right now. You will be impressed to know that he has gone to the best schools of Presidents. He is what you call ‘Ivy League.’ You don’t believe me, but he is real and I even know his name. His name is Barack. His mother is white and American and his father is black from Africa. That’s right, a chocolate baby! And he’s going to be your President.”
As Fife reported, the woman then became much more specific, saying that the man being groomed for the presidency was from Hawaii, that he went to school in California, that he lived in Chicago, and that he would soon be elected to the state legislature. She said, “Have no doubt; he is one of us, a Soviet.”
Most who are aware of the Fife article question its authenticity. Is it fact or fiction? Does Fife really exist? Did the 1992 dinner party in Moscow really happen? While the Fife article is still available on the Internet, it has yet to be proven or disproven and Fife is a difficult man to track down. And while the story of the dinner party conversation in Moscow may be pure fiction, the specifics appear to fit nicely with what we actually know about Obama’s path to power.
For example, we know that a young black man from Hawaii who was educated in California and in Ivy League schools, lived in Chicago, entered American politics, was elected to the Illinois state senate and to the U.S. Senate, and later became president. We know that to be true.
We are also aware that Democrats in Congress attempted to amend the U.S. Constitution to make it possible for an individual who is not a “natural born” U.S. citizen to serve as president or vice president. The first of these attempts was made in June 2003, followed by a second attempt in September 2003, a year before Obama exploded onto the national scene as keynote speaker at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. Was that pure coincidence, or are we allowed to suspect that it might have been part of some grand international conspiracy?
If the “natural born Citizen” requirement of the U.S. Constitution has not represented a major problem at any time in history, why were Democrats suddenly so concerned about it in 2003 when a young black man, fathered by an African Communist, raised by a radical left mother and grandparents, and mentored by a well-known black Communist, was emerging as a rising star in the Democratic Party? Was it pure coincidence, or was it part of a grand conspiracy?
Obama was elected to the Illinois State Senate in 1996, one of 6,978 state legislators in the United States. He served eight totally unremarkable years in the legislature… voting “present” on some 129 occasions so as not to create a record that might later be difficult to defend… before announcing his candidacy for the United States Senate in 2004. Then, months before being elected to the U.S. Senate, he was selected to deliver the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. Of the thousands of capable young Democrats available to them… men and women of experience and accomplishment… why did convention officials find it necessary to award that “plum” to a young man who had accomplished little or nothing in his life? Was his name drawn out of a hat, or was his selection dictated by a grand international conspiracy?
Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate in November 2004 and was sworn into office on Jan. 4, 2005. Almost immediately, he launched his campaign for the presidency. In the ensuing three years he devoted most of his time to his presidential ambitions and on Aug. 28, 2008, he defeated Hillary Rodham Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination. Was his victory over the vaunted Clinton machine the result of tactical superiority, or was it purchased for him?
Following his nomination, when the chairman and the secretary of the Democratic National Convention, Nancy Pelosi and Alice Travis Germond, respectively, were required to certify the names, home addresses, and qualifications of their candidates to the election boards of the 50 states, so that ballots could be printed, why did they certify to only one state, the State of Hawaii, that Obama and Biden were eligible to serve under provisions of the U.S. Constitution?
So the question arises, what role did the Communist Frank Marshall Davis, Obama’s childhood mentor, play in his intellectual development? And what did two Democratic Congressmen know that caused them to offer proposed constitutional amendments in 2003 that would benefit no one but Obama in 2008? Specifically, what did they know about Obama’s presidential ambitions and his inability to meet the “natural born Citizen” standard, and when did they know it? And why did Speaker Pelosi, third in line to the presidency, purposely aid and abet in the commission of a felony by purposely hiding from state election board officials, and from the American people, the fact that the man nominated for President of the United States at the 2008 Democratic National Convention was, in fact, ineligible to serve in that office?
The speech that Obama delivered at Osawatomie, Kan., was a speech that could just as easily have been delivered in the Presidium of the Communist Party, USSR. Now, as Republicans focus on the Iowa caucuses, they must choose a candidate capable of convincing the American people that everything that Obama has accomplished in eight years can and must be undone. But first, they must nominate a candidate who can not only defeat Obama, but defeat him utterly and completely. His defeat must be of such a magnitude that he will not want to remain in the country that he has been taught from childhood to hate… and where he will be forever an object of derision. Short of impeachment and conviction, it is the only thing that will send the proper message to those who put him where he is.
If you enjoy this blog and want to keep reading stories like the one above, show your support by using the “Support Bob” tool at right. Follow me on Twitter @BloggingMachine. Thanks in advance for your support!
Since 2008, nearly 90 court cases have been filed, challenging Obama’s qualifications to serve as president of the United States. None have been successful. However, at least one of the cases now proceeding through the Georgia courts… David P. Welden v. Barack Obama… is different in that it challenges Obama at his weakest point, his inability to qualify as a “natural born citizen.” The case will be heard in Judge Malihi’s court on Jan. 26, 2012.
