Obama

[Soldier4Christ]

ROFL

[nChrist]

          ROFL!

Consider that graphic snagged!

[HisDaughter]

Wasn't that great?!  My brother sent it to me today and that's what I was trying so hard to get posted before work this morning, when I was so rudely banned! 

[Shammu]

[Soldier4Christ]

Obama adviser travels to Syria
Urges Damascus to speed up talks aimed at Israeli retreat from Golan

A key foreign policy adviser to Sen. Barack Obama has traveled to Damascus where he reportedly urged Syrian officials to fast-track negotiations with Israel, it has emerged.

Both Israel and Syria announced in May they were holding indirect talks aimed in part at an Israeli evacuation of most of the Golan Heights, which looks down on Israeli population centers and twice was used by Damascus to mount ground invasions of the Jewish state.

The talks have been progressing at a very slow pace, with Syrian President Bashar Assad in Russia today discussing military cooperation between Damascus and Moscow.

But Daniel Kurtzer, a top adviser to Obama on Israeli-Palestinian affairs who visited Syria last month, reportedly has offered Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem some advice.

"I urged him to move ahead in the Israel-Syria negotiations as much as possible so that whoever is the next president would not start from too far down the track," Kurtzer disclosed yesterday in an interview with the New York Sun.

"I did not say anything about Obama or McCain. I said whoever is the next president is not going to want to inherit a process that isn't going anywhere," Kurtzer said.

He stressed he was not in Damascus as part of Obama's campaign but instead visiting as a private expert attending an international lawyers conference. The event is co-sponsored by British organizations and arranged by the British Syrian Society, chaired by Dr. Fawaz Akhras, the father of the wife of Syrian President Assad. The conference was aimed at helping Syria develop legal programs and expand international contacts for the country's lawyers.

Kurtzer last month joined Obama in his visit to Israel. Kurtzer is a high-profile Obama adviser on Mideast affairs identified by Israeli diplomatic sources as likely to become the Illinois senator's envoy to the Israeli-Palestinian issue if he wins the presidency. It is unlikely Syrian officials did not associate Kurtzer with Obama's campaign in their talks with him.

Kurtzer said he informed the Obama campaign of his trip to Damascus.

The State Department considers Syria a state sponsor of terror. Damascus openly hosts the leaders of the Palestinian Hamas and Islamic Jihad terror groups and is accused of providing weapons and financing to the Iranian-backed Lebanese Hezbollah terror group.

The McCain campaign immediately seized on Kurzter's trip to Syria.

McCain spokesman Michael Goldfarb, stated, "If one of Senator Obama's advisers has been to Damascus, we just wonder how many have been to Tehran."

McCain's headquarters even scheduled a public phone conference for tomorrow to discuss Kurtzer's Syria trip.

Kurtzer 'one of Israel's greatest foes'

Kurtzer long has been identified by Israeli leaders speaking on the record as one of Israel's greatest foes in Washington, and his appointment as a primary Mideast adviser to Obama raised some eyebrows in the pro-Israel Jewish community. "We oppose the appointment of Kurtzer because of his long, documented record of hostility to and severe pressure upon Israel," said Zionist Organization of America National Chairman Morton Klein.

Kurtzer has been blasted by mainstream Jewish organizations, including the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations.

He has angered Israeli leaders many times for pushing Israel into what they described as extreme concessions to the Palestinians.

"With Jews like Kurtzer, it is impossible to build a healthy relationship between Israel and the United States," Benjamin Nentanyahu was quoted saying in 2001 by Israel's Haaretz newspaper.

Former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir said Kurtzer "frequently pressured Israel to make one-sided concessions to the Arabs; he constantly blamed Israel for the absence of Mideast peace, and paid little or no attention to the fact that the Palestinians were carrying out terrorist attacks and openly calling for the destruction of Israel."

Morris Amitay, former executive director of the America-Israel Public Affairs Committee, told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency in 2001: "Kurtzer ... will use his Jewishness as a protective cover for his anti-Israel views."

The ZOA points out Israel's leading daily, Yediot Ahronot, editorialized on Kurtzer's negative influence against Israel:

"Possibly more than any other U.S. State Department official, Kurtzer has been instrumental in promoting the goals of the Palestinians and in raising their afflictions to the center of the U.S. policymakers' agenda," the paper stated.

Kurtzer first rose to prominence in 1988 when, as a State Department adviser, he counseled the Reagan administration to recognize the Palestine Liberation Organization led by Yasser Arafat. The PLO had carried out scores of anti-Western attacks, but in the late '80s Arafat claimed to have renounced violence.

In 1988, Kurtzer was noted as the principal author of a major policy speech by then-Secretary of State George Shultz in which the U.S. government first recognized the "legitimate rights" of the Palestinians.

Haaretz reported in 2001 that Kurtzer had a "vocal conflict" with an Israeli government official in Philadelphia in the summer of 1990 after Kurtzer "attacked the Israeli government for refusing to include the PLO in the peace process [and] said that this constituted the main obstacle to peace."

[nChrist]

It would appear that Obama and company don't have a CLUE! The Middle East is already a powder keg, but they want to distribute matches and play with the matches. At the very least, Obama is showing gross immaturity in choosing an adviser like this. In reality, it's worse than immaturity - it's INSANE! If these are the End Days of the Age of Grace, there will be worldwide INSANITY soon. "Soon" is really not a very accurate term since we are already seeing worldwide INSANITY, just not at the level described in Bible Prophecy yet.

[Shammu]

Obama's 'infanticide' vote exposed

Posted on Aug 20, 2008 | by Michael Foust

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)--Presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama asserted Aug. 16 that National Right to Life was "lying" about his record as an Illinois state senator in opposing a bill commonly known as the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, a bill pro-lifers say protects against infanticide. As it turns out, Obama apparently was the one wrong on the facts.

The controversy -- which comes as the party tries to soften its abortion stance with a new platform -- surrounds Obama's opposition to bills in the Illinois state Senate from 2001-03 that would have required medical attention be given babies who survive botched abortions and that would have given them legal rights. On several occasions he was the leading opponent.

A nurse at Advocate Christ Medical Center in Chicago testified that she saw babies who had survived abortions left unattended to die, but surviving on their own for several hours. It shocked her so much that she is now a pro-life advocate.

Ever since he ran for U.S. Senate in Illinois in 2004, Obama has defended his opposition to the various bills by saying he would have supported them if they had contained "neutrality clause" language stating -- as a federal version did -- that the bills would not weaken abortion law. The federal version passed the U.S. House and Senate in 2002 by voice vote, with Senate passage coming unanimously.

But public documents released by National Right to Life Aug. 11 show that Obama, as committee chairman in the Illinois Senate in March 2003, voted against a version of the bill (S.B. 1082) that contained a neutrality clause identical to one in the federal bill, leading to its defeat on a 6-4 vote. In fact, the neutrality sentence was copied word for word from the federal bill. National Right to Life charges Obama was part of a "cover-up" and for years has "blatantly misrepresented" the truth.

The news is significant not only because it conflicts with Obama's own stated reasoning (AGAIN!! DW) behind his opposition to the bill, but also because the federal bill had the support of the U.S. Senate's most pro-choice members, including Democrats Barbara Boxer and Ted Kennedy. Even NARAL Pro-Choice America -- a leading supporter of abortion rights -- didn't oppose it. Pro-lifers charge that if Obama in fact opposed a federal version of the bill on the state level, then he's further to the left on abortion than anyone in Washington.

"We now know Barack Obama as state senator voted against identical Born Alive Infants Protection Act legislation that was passed overwhelmingly on the federal level and accepted by even NARAL," the aforementioned nurse, Jill Stanek, wrote on her blog. "For 4 years Barack Obama has misrepresented his vote and must answer for that."

Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, called Obama "the most radically pro-choice nominee ever nominated by a major party."

"Barack Obama voted against the born alive infants protection act in the Illinois state senate and against the ban on partial-birth abortion, which means that Sen. Obama has never met an abortion he couldn't live with," Land told Baptist Press.

In 2004 Obama told the Chicago Tribune he opposed the state bill because it "lacked the federal language clarifying that the act would not be used to undermine Roe vs. Wade." He has repeated that claim, with his campaign telling The New York Times in an Aug. 6 story that Obama would have supported a similar bill as the federal one. Obama himself told CBN's David Brody Aug. 16, "I have said repeatedly that I would have been ... fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported.... That was not the bill that was presented at the state level. What that bill also was doing was trying to undermine Roe vs. Wade." In the same interview, Obama said of National Right to Life, "I hate to say that people are lying, but here's a situation where folks are lying."

Obama's campaign, though, acknowledged to the New York Sun in an Aug. 18 story that he did vote against a bill that was identical to the one on the federal level. The campaign now says Obama opposed the state bill because it would have weakened existing Illinois state abortion law -- a reason pro-lifers say wasn't previously given, and one that amounts to changing the subject. Obama's campaign also says that existing Illinois law already protected babies from botched abortions, although National Review's Ramesh Ponnuru disagrees and says existing Illinois law protected only post-viability babies, and not pre-viability babies. The bill would have closed that loophole, he says.

The neutrality clause that was part of the federal bill and added to the Illinois bill stated that "nothing" in the bill "shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right" to a baby prior to being born alive. Both the federal bill and the Illinois bill defined a "born alive" aborted baby as one who is completely outside the mother's body but who still "breathes or has a beating heart," has "pulsation of the umbilical cord" or shows "definite movement of voluntary muscles."

The national controversy over Obama's opposition to the bill has been brewing for more than a year, but is getting far more attention now that Obama is the presumptive nominee, and now that National Right to Life has released the documents.

cont'd next post

[Shammu]

"Let's be clear about what Obama did, once in 2003 and twice before that. He effectively voted for infanticide," former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum, a Republican, wrote in a February editorial in The Philadelphia Inquirer. "He voted to allow doctors to deny medically appropriate treatment or, worse yet, actively kill a completely delivered living baby. Infanticide -- I wonder if he'll add this to the list of changes in his next victory speech and if the crowd will roar: 'Yes, we can.'"

The procedure that normally resulted in a botched abortion is called "induced labor abortion" and requires inducing the woman, with the goal that the baby will die during labor. But sometimes, as Stanek testified before the Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee in 2001, the baby survives.

"In the event that a baby is aborted alive at Christ Hospital, he or she is not given any medical care, but is rather given what my hospital calls 'comfort care,'" she testified, according to a transcript. "'Comfort care' is defined as keeping the baby warm in a blanket until the baby dies, although until recently even this was not always done."

Parents were given the opportunity to hold their aborted baby, but most of the time they declined. Stanek then told of how she watched one particular baby die, a moment that helped change her mind about abortion.

"One night, a nursing coworker was taking an aborted Down Syndrome baby who was born alive to our Soiled Utility Room because his parents did not want to hold him, and she did not have time to hold him," Stanek testified. "I could not bear the thought of this suffering child dying alone in a Soiled Utility Room, so I cradled and rocked him for the 45 minutes that he lived. He was 21 to 22 weeks old, weighed about half a pound, and was about 10 inches long. He was too weak to move very much, expending any energy he had -- trying to breath.

"Toward the end, he was so quiet that I couldn't tell if he was still alive, unless I held him up to the light to see if his heart was still beating through his chest wall. After he was pronounced dead, we folded his little arms across his chest, wrapped him in a tiny shroud, and carried him to the hospital morgue where all of our dead patients are taken."

The controversy comes as the Democratic National Convention gets set to adopt a platform with language meant to attract voters who are concerned about the party's pro-choice image. Pro-lifers, though, say the new platform does little to advance the pro-life cause. The organization Democrats for Life says the platform falls far short of its goals.

The new proposed platform begins by saying the "Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v Wade and a woman's right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right." The "ability to pay" reference -- which was in the previous platform -- apparently puts the party on record as supporting taxpayer-funded abortion. The new platform language asserts that family planning and sex education reduces "the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce(s) the need for abortions." It also says the party "strongly supports a woman's decision to have a child by ensuring access to and availability of programs for pre and post natal health care, parenting skills, income support, and caring adoption programs." The new platform deletes the following sentence from the previous platform: "Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare."

Land, of the Southern Baptists Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, says the new platform remains staunchly pro-choice.

"I'm glad that they want programs to support women having their children," Land said. "That's a step in the right direction. We have supported legislation in the Congress -- put forward by Democrats for Life and others -- that would essentially do those things. But then [writers of the platform] turn around and take out the language in the previous platform that said their goal was to make abortion safe, legal and rare. So what the right hand gives, the left hand takes away. This is far from a pro-life platform. It is still an extremely pro-choice platform plank. This is a distinction without a difference.

"One who is taken in by this is being gullible in the extreme."

Obama's 'infanticide' vote exposed

[nChrist]

"One night, a nursing coworker was taking an aborted Down Syndrome baby who was born alive to our Soiled Utility Room because his parents did not want to hold him, and she did not have time to hold him," Stanek testified. "I could not bear the thought of this suffering child dying alone in a Soiled Utility Room, so I cradled and rocked him for the 45 minutes that he lived. He was 21 to 22 weeks old, weighed about half a pound, and was about 10 inches long. He was too weak to move very much, expending any energy he had -- trying to breath.

"Toward the end, he was so quiet that I couldn't tell if he was still alive, unless I held him up to the light to see if his heart was still beating through his chest wall. After he was pronounced dead, we folded his little arms across his chest, wrapped him in a tiny shroud, and carried him to the hospital morgue where all of our dead patients are taken."

Brothers and Sisters,

Regular abortions are cruel, barbaric, sick, heartless, and MURDER. I wouldn't know how to describe what was done in this article. It's really to INHUMAN to adequately describe. At the very least, it would be a grotesque form of torture before MURDER - something like Hitler would have done. This is an example of how cruel and EVIL this world has become. It makes me sick to even think about this. In one way I don't want to even think about things like this, BUT we have to think about it and keep ourselves motivated in stopping the MURDER of precious babies that belong to GOD. THAT'S RIGHT - Babies belong to GOD - not us! Babies are gifts from GOD to us for temporary care - to love, care for, and bring up for GOD in this short life.


Matthew 18:1-6  At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?  2  And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,  3  And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.  4  Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.  5  And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.  6  But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

Matthew 19:14  But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.


Love In Christ,
Tom

Christian Quotes 71 - Without a doubt there is no greater, or more
valuable possession that we can hold in our hands than the word of God
- The Holy Bible. And while we hold, and read, and study God's word,
we have no greater need than to know how to handle it as God has
intended that we handle it. For only then will we handle the Bible
properly. and only then will it be able to effectually and fully
function for us as "the word of truth' that it is, and thereby be able
to accomplish what God has designed it to accomplish in our minds, and
hearts, and lives. -- K. Blades

[HisDaughter]

Constitutional Scholar Obama Questions Legality of Slavery Ban
08/20/2008 - Ann Coulter's Column

This week, Barack Obama's challenge is to select a running mate who's young, hip, and whose accomplishments in life don't overshadow Obama's. Allow me to suggest Kevin Federline.

The only thing we can be sure of is that Obama will choose someone who is the polar opposite of all his advisers until now. In other words, it will be a very, very white male who was probably proud of his country even before being chosen as Obama's running mate.

Obama's got a lot of ground to make up following that performance last weekend at the Saddleback presidential forum with pastor Rick Warren.

After seeing Obama defend infanticide with the glib excuse that the question of when life begins is above his "pay-grade," Rev. Jeremiah Wright announced that although he's known Obama for 30 years, he only recently became aware of how extreme the senator's viewpoints were. Wright, after all, has his reputation to consider.

Network heads responded by dashing off an urgent memo: During the main presidential debates this fall, ask NO questions about abortion, ethics or evil! Morality isn't the Democrats' forte.

Obama's defenders spin his abominable performance in the Saddleback forum by saying he's just too smart to give a straight answer. As Rick Warren charitably described Obama's debate performance: "He likes to nuance things ... He's a constitutional attorney." The constitutional lawyer "does nuance," as Bill Maher said on "Larry King Live," "and you saw how well that goes over with the Rick Warren people."

If that's Obama's excuse, he ought to know a few basics about the Constitution.

Did the big constitutional lawyer whose "nuance" is too sophisticated for Rick Warren's audience see the letter his wife sent out on his behalf in 2004? Michelle Obama denounced a federal law banning partial-birth abortion, writing that "this ban on a legitimate medical procedure is clearly unconstitutional." Clearly!

The Supreme Court later found the law not "unconstitutional," but "constitutional" -- which I believe may have been the precise moment when Michelle Obama realized just how ashamed she had always been of her country.

But most stunningly, when Warren asked Obama if he supported a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, Obama said he did not "because historically -- because historically, we have not defined marriage in our Constitution."

I don't care if you support a marriage amendment or not. That answer is literally the stupidest thing I've ever heard anyone say. If marriage were already defined in the Constitution, we wouldn't need an amendment, no?

Say, you know what else was "historically" not defined in the Constitution? Slavery. The words "slavery" and "slave" do not appear once in the original Constitution. The framers correctly thought it would sully the freedom-enshrining document to acknowledge the repellent practice. (Much like abortion!)

But in 1865, the 13th Amendment banned slavery throughout the land, in the first constitutional phrase ever to mention "slavery": "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

On Obama's "historical" argument, they shouldn't have passed the 13th Amendment because the Constitution "historically" had not mentioned slavery.

Do we know for a fact Barack Obama has read the Constitution? Obama's Facebook profile: "I'm pro-infanticide, I love sunsets, and I don't get the 13th Amendment!"

This is the guy who thinks he can condescend to Clarence Thomas? Asked at the Saddleback forum which Supreme Court justice Obama would not have nominated, Obama said ... the black one!

In Obama's defense, he said he thought Thomas wasn't experienced enough "at the time." So I guess Obama thinks Thomas should have to "wait his turn."

By contrast, Obama has experience pouring out of those big ears of his. Asked last year by Robin Roberts on ABC's "Good Morning America" about his lack of experience in foreign policy, Obama took umbrage.

Swelling up his puny little chest, Obama said: "Well, actually, my experience in foreign policy is probably more diverse than most others in the field. I'm somebody who has actually lived overseas, somebody who has studied overseas. I majored in international relations."

He actually cited his undergraduate major as a qualification to be president.

But on Saturday night, Obama said he didn't think Clarence Thomas was a "strong enough jurist or legal thinker" to be put on the Supreme Court.

I bet Thomas has heard of the 13th Amendment!

[Soldier4Christ]

If it weren't for the chance that this person could actually become President he would be something to laugh at. He is continually saying things that are so stupid on a daily basis that it is actually funny. I am still trying to figure out why many people are saying that he is such a smooth, slick speaker. I have never heard a worthwhile speaker that stammers as much as he does nor makes such obvious lies.

[Shammu]

Constitutional Scholar Obama Questions Legality of Slavery Ban
08/20/2008 - Ann Coulter's Column

This week, Barack Obama's challenge is to select a running mate who's young, hip, and whose accomplishments in life don't overshadow Obama's. Allow me to suggest Kevin Federline.

May I suggesy, this guy......................

http://www.jamesgoulding.com/My%20Art/Cartoon,%20Goofy%201.jpg

[nChrist]

May I suggesy, this guy......................

http://www.jamesgoulding.com/My%20Art/Cartoon,%20Goofy%201.jpg

    


This would increase the intellectual capacity of the ticket greatly!

[Soldier4Christ]

The only thing wrong with Goofy is that he already overshadows Obama's accomplishments in life.

 

[Soldier4Christ]

Obama Sued on Grounds He is Constitutionally Ineligible. Obama Is a U.S. Citizen

Looks like all the blog speculation on fake birth certificates were in vain. Factcheck.Org:

    In June, the Obama campaign released a digitally scanned image of his birth certificate to quell speculative charges that he might not be a natural-born citizen. But the image prompted more blog-based skepticism about the document’s authenticity. And recently, author Jerome Corsi, whose book attacks Obama, said in a TV interview that the birth certificate the campaign has is “fake.”

    We beg to differ. FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship. Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are false. We have posted high-resolution photographs of the document as “supporting documents” to this article. Our conclusion: Obama was born in the U.S.A. just as he has always said.

Of course this isn’t going to end anything. Check this out. It isn’t just about whether he was born here, but whether multiple citizenships, updated birth certificates, etc. threaten his validity to even run.

    A prominent Philadelphia attorney and Hillary Clinton supporter filed suit this afternoon in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Illinois Sen. Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee. The action seeks an injunction preventing the senator from continuing his candidacy and a court order enjoining the DNC from nominating him next week, all on grounds that Sen. Obama is constitutionally ineligible to run for and hold the office of President of the United States.

    Phillip Berg, the filing attorney, is a former gubernatorial and senatorial candidate, former chair of the Democratic Party in Montgomery (PA) County, former member of the Democratic State Committee, and former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania. According to Berg, he filed the suit–just days before the DNC is to hold its nominating convention in Denver–for the health of the Democratic Party.

    “I filed this action at this time,” Berg stated, “to avoid the obvious problems that will occur when the Republican Party raises these issues after Obama is nominated.”.

    Berg cited a number of unanswered questions regarding the Illinois senator’s background, and in today’s lawsuit maintained that Sen. Obama is not a natural born U.S. citizen or that, if he ever was, he lost his citizenship when he was adopted in Indonesia. Berg also cites what he calls “dual loyalties” due to his citizenship and ties with Kenya and Indonesia.

    Even if Sen. Obama can prove his U.S. citizenship, Berg stated, citing the senator’s use of a birth certificate from the state of Hawaii verified as a forgery by three independent document forensic experts, the issue of “multi-citizenship with responsibilities owed to and allegiance to other countries” remains on the table.

    In the lawsuit, Berg states that Sen. Obama was born in Kenya, and not in Hawaii as the senator maintains. Before giving birth, according to the lawsuit, Obama’s mother traveled to Kenya with his father but was prevented from flying back to Hawaii because of the late stage of her pregnancy, “apparently a normal restriction to avoid births during a flight.” As Sen. Obama’s own paternal grandmother, half-brother and half-sister have also claimed, Berg maintains that Stanley Ann Dunham–Obama’s mother–gave birth to little Barack in Kenya and subsequently flew to Hawaii to register the birth.

    Berg cites inconsistent accounts of Sen. Obama’s birth, including reports that he was born at two separate hospitals–Kapiolani Hospital and Queens Hospital–in Honolulu, as well a profound lack of birthing records for Stanley Ann Dunham, though simple “registry of birth” records for Barack Obama are available in a Hawaiian public records office.

    Should Sen. Obama truly have been born in Kenya, Berg writes, the laws on the books at the time of his birth hold that U.S. citizenship may only pass to a child born overseas to a U.S. citizen parent and non-citizen parent if the former was at least 19 years of age. Sen. Obama’s mother was only 18 at the time. Therefore, because U.S. citizenship could not legally be passed on to him, Obama could not be registered as a “natural born” citizen and would therefore be ineligible to seek the presidency pursuant to Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution.

    Moreover, even if Sen. Obama could have somehow been deemed “natural born,” that citizenship was lost in or around 1967 when he and his mother took up residency in Indonesia, where Stanley Ann Dunham married Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian citizen. Berg also states that he possesses copies of Sen. Obama’s registration to Fransiskus Assisi School In Jakarta, Indonesia which clearly show that he was registered under the name “Barry Soetoro” and his citizenship listed as Indonesian.

Of course no media is reporting on this. This could get very interesting. Break out the popcorn and get ready for some more from the Hillary camp.