Well, What Do You Think About This Obama’s Birth Certificate?

Wednesday, July 21, 2010

Wait, you did ask a short question, right? Well, here’s my not so short answer: I could expound on this as most conservatives would, but I will say that I think that we are on a train where the conductor, the brakeman, and the engineer (you could use the analogy of these as the three branches of our government) are all in agreement to run the train (our country) completely off the track (our Constitution).

These are the same people that claim the Constitution is a “living document” that can and should be changed at will (theirs), and they are determined to design and implement one to suit their agenda. They do not believe in truth as an absolute – or for that matter, period! Truth is only a perception…. Depends on what the definition of “is” is! So it’s no wonder that they believe a Hawaiian hospital certificate of live birth should suffice as “proof of birth”. Yeah, Hawaii, we all know he was born… the question is WHERE. Our Constitution has a restriction in that regard.


Through ignorance or design, those who agree with the agenda proposed by the Obama Campaign, and now Obama Administration, have succeeded in achieving part of the extreme liberals’ agenda by getting a man elected who refuses to be “transparent” not only about his birth or about his education – but anything about his personal history for that matter.

His offshore birthplace would obviously set a precedent that one does not need to be born in the US to “rule the US”, and is, in essence, the first step in re-writing the Constitution. Breaking down the foundational principles of the Constitution, like this very thing, is what is necessary to begin the total transformation of the United States of America (the only campaign promise Obama really intends to keep). I believe that the “shady way” that this topic has been dealt with is akin to acknowledgement of the fact that he was not born in the US. Further, I believe that a lie or at least a half-truth is being perpetrated, and with that lie they are forcing a perception of what is true for this situation. (I feel a blog article topic of situational ethics coming on! ) Because of bogus “legalities” and roadblocks (read Holder), though, there is no way that there is going to be any serious action taken to clear up the matter until it is too late and the precedent is fully established. And you know what? The entrenched GOP is just as guilty as the Dems, because they run around paying verbal homage to the “birther” concerns and liberal agenda issues, but they don’t really and genuinely care.

It certainly doesn’t stop with where Obama was born. Taking over corporations, banks, and regulating Wall Street make up Step Two, and a big move toward Wealth Distribution. Then Obamacare, Socialized Medicine, is Step Three and takes the US into a Social State….. and so on and so on. So, now we are coming quickly to the end of the track… Nov 2, 2010! The results of the mid-term elections will determine whether we have the same nation that was founded in 1776, in my humble opinion.

Got on my soapbox a little.  Sorry.  Short answer: I know that I can recreate a document like the one in the picture with Photoshop and a typewriter, plus a couple other tools. The ONLY way to verify its authenticity is to compare Obama’s footprint to that one on the certificate, which he will gladly do to clear up the matter – when Arabs kiss a pig.


President Obama Is Not Being Very Presidential

Wednesday, June 9, 2010

The President of the United States should be the country’s leader.  As a leader, he should attempt to represent the entire constituency to the best of his ability and to seek common ground among the varying points of view.   I guess it’s not news to you or to anyone that what Obama has succeeded in doing through much of his impromptu rhetoric, which may not be exactly what he had intended – or perhaps it is since he is not a stupid person! – is to send the country into a greater schism.  Obama appears to be calculating in all his endeavors. 

Even after campaigning on a platform of bringing unity, he has created a greater division among philosophical and political groups than ever existed before.  In this, he receives support of his cronies and the mainstream media.  Perhaps that is why he feels comfortable in being divisive even though he promised during his campaign to “bring the two sides” together.   But, how can you call a significant group of your “constituency” derogatory names or “diss” them in public forums if you truly want them to be included in a unified group? 

I know that this may be a peculiar claim, but President Obama has spent the last few years (well before his run for the presidency) establishing his own constituency. . . and obviously, it’s not the American population at large!   It has been evident from Day One of his presidency that Obama intended to establish himself not as a leader of a united American people, but as someone who will use his high office to repay those to whom he is indebted politically and those special interest groups who had financed his rise to the most powerful position in the country (dare I say the world anymore?).   I could take up time and space listing all those entities, but we all know of whom I speak.  Suffice it to say that he obviously has enormous debts to special groups of far left idealogues with whom he’s been closely tied all of his life, and he also has political debts to repay to those within the political circles who heavily backed him in his run for the White House.  To what end?  I will answer that in a moment.

Rather than giving leadership to his own country, he behaves  as a populist trying to “up” his image among national leaders who include the most despicable of despots.  By trying to garner favorable standing with that part of the global community, he is failing miserably at maintaining his favor with the US allies; and thus, has strained if not done real harm to the foundation of those relationships.  For example, one of our closest allies, Israel, has been treated with total contempt.

On the home front,  in his role as leader of the free world, Obama certainly earns a low grade, perhaps an “F”, surely nothing higher than a “D-“.  Many times he has shown he lacks the “class” and maturity that a national leader –  yea, a world leader – should possess.   Without his teleprompter (or when he goes off-script) he demonstrates a grammar-schoolish approach to handling himself, forgetting at times who he is.  At those times, or when he has his “posse” with him, Obama  likes to portray the “playground bully”, belittling or “dissing” those who disagree with his politics, primarily those with a conservative point of view and who revere the Constitution as it was implemented by our forefathers.

So to what end?  Ever the campaigner, Obama appears to be running for the office which is still being sought by former president Bill Clinton, that of President of the World.  And, as he did as an inexperienced Senator, Obama is running for that position even before gaining experience in his present one.  However, I believe he is finding it not quite as easy to do this time since there are more competitors in play.  And too, Obama is finding that he’s not “riding as high” as he once was in the polls with those he’s supposed to be leading.

It would, of course, be important for him to remain in the good graces of the US population if he is to have any hope of a second term.  (Or it may be that he’s expecting to leapfrog quickly to that “new office” like he did to the White House!)   In regards to 2012 elections, he obviously feels he needn’t worry too much about his majority of his base of Democrats and Independents, and even some of the Republicans who “crossed over” (who have, as a rule, suffered from short-term memory loss spanning one to two elections).  However, more and more of the independents, and even some of his more moderate Democratic base, are beginning to tire of his avant-garde style of presidency.  

Let me remind you with examples from his own words and actions just how Obama shows the lack of character that a leader in his position should have. 

Obama Bows to Saudi Prince

Obama and Chavez

After seeing these few examples, I ask you this:  Is Obama behaving like YOUR President?  In my opinion, he’s not acting like America’s President. 


Obama and Kharsai: “Pot Calling Kettle Black”?

Sunday, March 28, 2010

I first started this article a couple months ago, but didn’t post it thinking that I would expound upon my thoughts; but even today, it’s relevant.  So, here goes. 

Not too long ago, Obama made a “surprise” visit to Afghanistan to meet with Hamid Kharsai.  It was also reported that Kharsai was told that he MUST (and the emphasis here is mine, although apparently it is the underlying purposed of the visit), MUST do more clean up the corruption in the Kharsai government.  The old saying of “the pot calling the kettle black” came instantly to mind.  If you don’t like old clichés, then here’s a better descriptor:  Hypocrisy.

Here is an example of a “leader” who builds a regime of corruption by implanting and empowering czars to run his government while saying that another leader must clean up the corruption in their government.  For example, Obama’s czars are neither confirmed by Congress nor elected by the people, and as a general rule, have never experienced leadership in any type of major business, capitalistic venture, or industrial enterprise.  However, Obama’s czars now literally have control over large portions of the nation’s economy (the automobile industry, banking industry, etc.) – let’s not mention how the affectation of their decisions have far-reaching implications, impacting  the daily lives of ordinary individuals.  In fact, Obama recently put 15 more people into important positions while Congress was on a 2-week spring break, blaming the GOP for the timing of his actions.  How absurd is that?  These positions were not so critical to the function of the government that they could not be put off two more weeks for Congress to have the opportunity to at least put on their “show” of Congressional investigation prior to affirmation.  He just circumvented “the old system” with his new one. 

So, how is this different from some of the shenanigans that are done in countries like Afghanistan or Venezuela or Russia or, for that matter, any other country where there is supposed to be some form of democratic practices –  if only in theory?  Rather than standing apart, being ” a light in a dark world”, being an example to be followed as the US once was, the Omabanation (AKA, the USA) has made enormous steps toward blending in with countries led by thugs, vandals, and despots. 

How is being just like other countries that suppress the wishes of the majority of its people a good thing?  Who will now be able to hold up a standard against corruption in those countries, or in this one?  It will all be the same modus operandi, only now known by different monikers, depending upon which country and which leader.  The difference used to be that in this country was the standard-bearer with checks and balances to help limit corruption in its government.  However, this administration has made its own brand of corruption the standard from which to perpetuate their “change” while trying to persuade others to conform – but conform to what, the US form of corruption?  A rose by any other name!

So, will all this said,  and with obvious corruption in his own administration, how can Obama in any form of conscience make demands on the Kharsai regime?  There’s another quote that comes to mind:  “How can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye’, when you fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.” 

While the US is in an obvious downward spiral, morally and ethically speaking (with the corruption which now is more blatant and commonplace at the highest levels of our government), and with places like Afghanistan and others are being touted as “supposedly” on an upward trend (though we’ve seen no difference in their behaviors), will that mean, again ethically and morally speaking, that our countries will meet somewhere in the middle?   If so, the US loses big.  Why?  Because the US will no longer be the “example” that other countries have looked up to.  Where the US once was the country who led the world by example, they now will be “eye to eye” on a lower plane – down in the muck and mire with corrupted countries. 

So, there you have my take on it.  Simply stated, Obama is trying his best to lower the prestige and moral strength of this country while trying to compel other countries – who, by the way, don’t respect his leadership – to behave according to his set of standards for behavior.  He suggests that the US should lower its “standards” and compel others to “meet us halfway.”   Thousands of years of history tells us that this won’t happen.  So, who really comes out ahead in this situation? 

In my opinion, as far as the US is concerned, mediocrity is not a good thing.  NOT A GOOD THING AT ALL!

Tareq and Michaele Salahi Attend Dinner by Executive Order

Friday, December 11, 2009

With today’s reality show wanna be’s, it’s easy to jump on the band wagon of accusations when someone turns a public or media event into a faux pas.  When, Tareq and Michaele Salahi recently appeared at an important White House Dinner, it was said that they were looking for publicity for a possible reality show, or perhaps a book, or maybe both.   Adding to the mystique was Michaele’s reported gushing to her hair dresser of her invitation to the dinner, but somehow she was never able to produce that invitation – especially at the White House when they arrived!

Well, that was enough to set tongues a waggin’.  Who had allowed this “security breach”?  Was it the fault of the White House Social Secretary Desiree Rogers?  Was it the fault of the Secret Service?  The Salahis insisted they were invited and not “party-crashers”, so who had actually invited them?  Where was that mysterious invitation?  Were these people really able to slip through the tightest security known to the US? 

Here’s something I want you to look closely:

Look at the expression on Obama’s face.  This is not his normal “formal” smile  that he uses when saying, “Hi, how are you?” to people he’s not familiar with.  In fact, the expressions on all three of their faces suggest that they are sharing some intimate information.
Now, the buzz has been about how these people could get into this event with no formal invitation.  No one is confessing to having any knowledge of them being on the guest list.  Again, they haven’t produced that formal invitation that everyone was required to have and they weren’t on the list that had been approved and cleared for attendance.
Now, look at this picture VERY CLOSELY:
Just who is that guy in the center?  Who is that man in the white jacket?  Who is the blonde on the right?  Hmmmm.  This picture was taken – at a fashion event or a “get out the vote” event or something or other – in 2005 when Obama was a Senator.
It’s obvious that this couple who are under suspicion of “crashing” a White House dinner event, weren’t strangers to the occupants of the White House.  So, if it wasn’t any of the White House staff who approved their attendance, and the Secret Service let them it – it obviously had to be by EXECUTIVE ORDER!
Again, when you “hear” the campaign rhetoric from Obama echoing in your ear about transparency and everything above board, add this incident to the multitude of “behind closed doors”, back-room deals, etc. 
Face it, America.  We’ve been hoodwinked by a pathological liar who lives by his own devised set of rules of conduct and propriety while governing by a totally different set.   The old political machines of which we had all grown tired have given way to a newer, but much more insidious one – and it’s rolling over us at an alarming speed.
I’m asking you to judge someone by their actions, not their words.  Make your decisions based upon facts, not emotions.  In regards to our national and even our local leaders – particularly the ones who have been in office a while – evaluate what they have done and are presently doing that isn’t in agreement with what they have proclaimed they would do.  Don’t listen to their promises, because as we have found from this last election, politicians will say whatever it takes to keep their positions of power – and they have shown, especially this year, that they have no intention of listening to the people they are supposed to represent.  
Remember, too, that all of them, including the President, are employees of We the People!   Therefore, as their employer, we must demand that they do what we want – that being open and transparent – or risk being fired and replaced with someone who will.  We will have a chance in the near future to drive this point home. 

Dreams of My Father – By Bill Ayers?

Wednesday, October 7, 2009

Rusty Humphries, of biggovernment.com, — you know, the same watchdog group who has helped expose the ACORN Housing Corporation debacle — has written an article on that website that is at the very least provocative.  I am not endorsing this information as true, but I will just share with you about what his articles says.  Then you can read his article and his supporting documents if you would like. 

Anne Leary, as it is pointed out in Humphries article, is a conservative blogger who happened to run into Bill Ayers at Reagan National Airport.  She claims that Ayers, for whatever reason, claimed that he, not Barack Obama, is the real author of his bestseller Dreams of My Father.  I am a little sceptical of this because while he has been candid about many things in his colored past, he has been tight-lipped on others.  It would be to no advantage politically for him to claim authorship of this book at this point in time.  I mean, after all, he’s seeing someone in office that is pushing the agendas that he espouses.  And he’s seeing the government transforming before his eyes.

There has been speculation that Obama didn’t write the book without help since he hadn’t demonstrated that level of skill prior.  The reason I would tend to believe that he did have a ghost writer is that without the TOTUS, Obama isn’t nearly as smooth in his communication skills as when he reads the words others have written.  In fact, sometimes it appears that if he ventures beyond his practiced rhetoric, he doesn’t know what to say and resorts to cliches and satirical phrases, as well as throwing blame on the republicans, and in particular Bush.  Watch him say, “Hey, look…”  and you know it’s not going to be eloquent!

There has been some research into whether Ayers played a role in writing the book.  Christopher Andersen has written a book on the First Couple and claims that he did in fact play a significant role in authoring the book, even though Obama claims he wrote it with no help.  It is suspected that Ayers, if he did ghost write for Obama, even ascribed some of his own life experiences to Obama.  That could account for the many discrepancies in Obama’s “history”.  There are too many irregularities and inconsistencies in Obama’s recollection of his life as a child… and too many gaps in his life as a young adult…. the tales and gaps continued — until he became president.

Jack Cashill’s research on the subject and Christopher Andersen’s book combined with the reported Ayers’ voluntary statement about him having written the book have created an “uh-oh” moment for the lame-stream media.  What will they do about this information?  Will they do their job and report on it, dig for the truth, or continue to deny the public the truth?   Why would it matter?  It would matter because the President’s credibility is on the line — again.  So in that regard, this intriguing revelation demands our attention.

Jack Cashill investigations can be found at The Improvised Odyssey of Barack Obama,  Who Wrote Dreams and Why It Matter, and Literary Lion Obama Will Roar No More.  Anne Leary’s blog is found at http://backyardconservative.blogspot.com/.  Rusty Humphrey’s article is found at http://bit.ly/34Ddh.

Failed to Persuade IOC , Obama says, “We Played a Great Game.”

Friday, October 2, 2009

…to the tune of $1.2 M for the overnight junket says one report.   If it was a game, the score was Michelle + Oprah = O says another report.

The Obama luster has been coming off of President Obama here in the States lately.  Now with a “last place showing”, which was worse than anyone anticipated – even it he hadn’t made the trip we wouldn’t have finished in a worse position!   In light of this “snub”, it appears that perhaps the loss of luster is happening internationally as well.  In my opinion, there are two primary reasons for this last place showing.  One is a weak showing as the  leader of the free world, and two is his dishonesty and untrustworthiness as was internationally revealed with the Missile Shield about face.  And so quickly, too, after confirming his support for the program. 

As I and others have pointed out, everything that Obama utters has a truth time limit on it.  It may be the truth as he sees it at the instant it is spoken, but by the next speech, all bets are off and he may proclaim the exact opposite as truth.  We have found that out here in the US with who he’s puts in as czars and with the healthcare issue.  Will he or won’t he sign the healthcare bill if it doesn’t have the public option.  (I bet we all know what he’d do!)  The world got a real good example of his vacillation with his smack in the face of Poland and other Eastern European countries and his concession to Russia over the Missile Shield program.  And I’m sure the world is watching him as closely as we are here, but they’re not being fooled like some Americans are.

So, Obama is playing a game, huh?  Okay.  Let’s play out that analogy just one more time.  Strike one was turning his back on a promise he made last spring to Eastern Europe to not leave them without the shield, vulnerable to attack.  Strike two is his inability to persuade the IOC to hold the Olympics in Chicago.  Strike three – do I hear healthcare coughing?  Do I hear a death rattle?

Obama at Joint Session of Congress: Portrait of a Liar?

Friday, October 2, 2009

President Obama addressed a joint session of Congress a few weeks ago, you’ll recall Rep. Joe Wilson’s outburst calling something President Obama said about coverage of illegals a lie? One thing Obama wasn’t called out on was one of this “horror” stories of insurance companies cancelling people’s coverage in several instances because of reasons that were just plain ridiculous. One example that he used… well, it turns out that one of these stories he told was not accurate.

The story Obama told of a woman named Robin Beaton from Texas, whose insurer dropped her health insurance just as she was about to have a double mastectomy. Obama claimed in his tale that it was because she forgot to declare a case of acne! Well, that was not the truth – not even near it. So, if it’s not accurate and it’s deliberately slanted to favor one’s view…  It’s a lie!

Yes, Ms. Beaton did lose her health insurance right before she was to have a double mastectomy; that part is true, but not declaring severe acne had nothing to do with it. The fact is that Ms. Beaton had a previous heart condition that she “forgot” to mention to the insurance provider. She also incorrectly stated her weight. When the insurance company discovered these discrepancies, they opened an investigation which occurred unfortunately right before her surgery. The timing of the investigation delayed her from having surgery right away and ultimately the insurer dropped her coverage. Another inaccuracy is that Obama also failed to include in his tale is that Ms. Beaton’s Congressman, Joe Barton (R), intervened and got her insurance coverage back and she was then able to have the surgery that she needed.

Though he campaigned on “it won’t be politics as usual”, what Obama is doing is using old and tired scare tactics to get what he wants. He is using inaccurate information about the lives of individual Americans (while accusing the Republicans of spreading “misinformation”) to sell his socialized medicine program to the American people, and using who knows what other strong-armed tactics to push his program through the Senate. What we are finding out about Obama’s Healthcare Program is that it’s not about getting everyone insured; it’s about giving the government more control over the personal affairs of Americans.

We have heard him in one speech saying, with finger shaking in the air, that he wouldn’t sign any healthcare bill that didn’t contain the public option. Then when his polls began to tank and the town hall meetings bubbled up so quickly against public option that he began to back pedal and even denied that was his intent… that the public option was only a “small slice” of the pie. This is one example of where in his speeches (practically back to back) he has said the polar opposite – not just a hedge, but the direct opposite – of what was previously stated. It’s a lie – and it’s caught on video tape as are others!

What about the “no lobbyists in my administration”? Mark Patterson, William Lynn, Valerie Jarrett, to name only a few, have histories as lobbyists. Even if lobbyists didn’t get into the “official” Obama Cabinet, they are in places of influence in his administration. They have the President’s ear – at his invitation! One more lie?

Transparency doesn’t mean “open and revealing” to Obama. What about posting legislation online for everyone to know what is going on? That hasn’t happened yet. Instead, bills are rushed through with no discussion or debate, and changes are being made in the dead of night that no one but the ones involved in the insertion or deletion is aware of. He said we would know what was in those bills before they came to a vote – another lie?

The latest example of this “Obama transparency” is the closing of Gitmo. No, not shutting down the facility, but closing the facility to reporters who are now limited in where they can go and basically what topics can be covered on that particular visit. In other words, if they schedule an interview on a certain topic, reporters can’t change the topic of questioning nor can they inspect the conditions of the prisoners if that’s not part of the topic at hand. And why? Earlier this year, the Ouigers (Chinese Muslim prisoners) made signs asking if Obama wasn’t guilty of the same violation of human rights as China by holding them there. Someone in the Obama Administration didn’t like the negative exposure. So as a result, freedom of the press has been squelched, and Obama’s transparency has hit a new low. (ACLU is even getting involved on this one!) Where’s the transparency? Apparently another lie?

So, these are only a few of examples of the portrait of a liar who happens to be our president.

Let’s keep the pressure on for real transparency and honesty. We need it more now than ever because so many things are transpiring that are changing the direction of our country – things that are happening under the cloak of darkness or behind veils of deception. We have to voice our opposition to the threats to our liberties, and protect our Constitution from being re-written into a Socialist Agenda. And we must hold the President accountable for his promises and his statements and demand the truth from him – and from Congress. No more lies!