Obama

[Soldier4Christ]

The American Public doesn't even know who this guy is yet.

Unfortunately many of them don't want to really know who he is. They want to accept him on face value, the image that has been portrayed very flimsily of him up front in their minds. They want that image so badly that they are willing to throw all caution, all reason, all values into the garbage and go recklessly forward toward him elevating him beyond that which he is and totally ignoring that which they have been taught by God.

Jer 29:8  For thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Let not your prophets and your diviners, that be in the midst of you, deceive you, neither hearken to your dreams which ye cause to be dreamed.
Jer 29:9  For they prophesy falsely unto you in my name: I have not sent them, saith the LORD.

1Jn 4:1  Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

Jer 5:31  The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and my people love to have it so: and what will ye do in the end thereof?

2Pe 2:2  And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.

[Soldier4Christ]

Hawaiian Patriots Contact Hospitals: Obama & Mom Never There

Sun setting on Hawaii and maybe on the Obama Presidency
Who will do the right thing?

Earth Frisk Blog claims that every hospital in Hawaii was recently queried in an attempt to discover the hospital where Ann Dunham (Obama) gave birth to Barack Hussein Obama.

According to admin at Earth Frisk, all of the following hospitals were:

    …called or visited from November 20-December 2nd, 2008. Hospital employees bribed, some gave info for free. All to be released on video shortly

    Hospitals you can check yourself

        * The Queen’s Medical Center - Honolulu, Hawaii Obama claims as his birth hospital
        * Kapi’ olani Medical Center Obama’s sister claims Barack Obama born here
        * Honolulu Shriners Hospital Never a patient Mom or Obama
        * Straub Clinic & Hospital Never a patient Mom or Obama
        * Hawaii Health Systems Corporation - Honolulu, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama
        * Cancer Institute of Maui - Wailuku, Hawaii No Comment
        * Kuakini Hospital - Honolulu, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama
        * Rehabilitation Hospital of the Pacific - Honolulu, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama
        * St. Francis Healthcare System of Hawaii - Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama
        * Straub Heatlh - Honolulu, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama
        * Tripler Medical Center - Honolulu, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama
        * Wahiawa General Hospital - Wahiawa, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama
        * Wilcox Memorial Hospital - Lihue, Kauai, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama

    We were pretty detailed in our calls and visits thanks to dozens of native Hawaiian patriots! To the College Republicans all over the Island kudos!. You can look at every hospital here and call or visit any of them. Everyone has a family member working in a hospital. Talk, pay and bribe. You can file freedom of information acts, you can do everything and anything you wish. Barack Obama was never born in a hospital in Hawaii as claimed.

For the full article:

http://www.earthfrisk.com/blog/?p=135

I definitely find it suspicious that Obama has spent $500,000.00 to try to keep people from seeing his birth certificate. He is definitely hiding something he doesn't want the people of the U.S. to see.

[David_james]

why not subject him to a lie detector?

[Soldier4Christ]

A lie detector is not accepted in all courts. There are people that are able to fool them for various reasons. Personally I think that Obama might be one of those that could. Besides that it would not be necessary if he would just provide the records that he is so adamantly trying to keep hidden.

[Soldier4Christ]

'Natural-born' requirement
called 'stupidest provision'
Also 'discriminates, outdated, undemocratic
and assumes birthplace a proxy for loyalty'

An associate lawyer in a Chicago-based firm whose partner served on a finance committee for then-Sen. Barack Obama has advocated for the elimination of the U.S. Constitution's requirement that a president be a "natural-born" citizen, calling the requirement "stupid" and affirming it discriminates, is outdated and undemocratic.

The paper was written in 2006, just two years after Obama had won a landslide election in Illinois to the U.S. Senate, by Sarah Herlihy. She is listed as an associate at the Chicago firm of Kirkland & Ellis, and a partner in the same firm, Bruce I. Ettelson, cites his membership on the finance committees for both U.S. Sens. Obama and Richard Durbin on the corporate website.

The article by Herlihy remained available online under the law review articles from Kent University.

http://lawreview.kentlaw.edu/articles/81-1/Herlihy.pdf

The published paper reveals that such a requirement likely was considered in a negative light by organizations linked to Obama in the months before he announced in 2007 his candidacy for the presidency.

"The natural born citizen requirement in Article II of the United States Constitution has been called the 'stupidest provision' in the Constitution, "undecidedly un-American," "blatantly discriminatory," and the "Constitution's worst provision," Herlihy begins in her introduction to the paper titled, "Amending the Natural Born Citizen Requirement: Globalization as the Impetus and the Obstacle."

She concludes that the "emotional" reasons to oppose changing the Constitution will prevail over the "rational" reasons demanding a change.

"The current American perceptions about the effects of globalization and the misunderstanding about what globalization actually is will result in Americans deciding that naturalized citizens should not be president because this would, in effect, be promoting globalization.

"Although this argument is admittedly circular, because globalization is the thing that makes the need to abolish the requirement more and more persuasive, Americans' subsequent perceptions about globalization are the very things that will prevent Americans from embracing the idea of eliminating the natural born requirement.

"Logical Americans are looking for a reason to ignore the rational reasons promoted by globalization so that they may vote based on their own emotions and instincts," she wrote.

She blamed that on "fear, racism, religious intolerance, or blind faith in the decisions of the Founding Fathers."

WND called Herlihy's number listed on the law firm website, and a woman answered with the words, "Sarah Herlihy." But when WND identified itself as a news agency, the woman said she didn't think "Sarah Herlihy" was in, but would take a message. There was no return call.

In the body of her argument to throw out the constitutional provision, Herlihy said the plan simply is outdated.

"Considering that the Founding Fathers presumably included the natural born citizen clause in the Constitution partly out of fear of foreign subversion, the current stability of the American government and the intense media scrutiny of presidential candidates virtually eliminates the possibility of a 'foreigner' coming to America, becoming a naturalized citizen, generating enough public support to become president, and somehow using the presidency to directly benefit his homeland," she wrote.

"The natural born citizen clause of the United States Constitution should be repealed for numerous reasons. Limiting presidential eligibility to natural born citizens discriminates against naturalized citizens, is outdated and undemocratic, and incorrectly assumes that birthplace is a proxy for loyalty," she wrote.

Many of the reasons for keeping the limit, she wrote, "are based primarily on emotion."

WND reported earlier when Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga began demanding payback from Obama for silencing WND staff writer and best-selling author Jerome Corsi, who investigated Obama's links to the authoritarian African official.

Odinga told Kenya's newspaper, The Nation, that he expected Obama's election to provide a windfall of U.S. trade, tourism and investment.

"What we want to see is the expansion of relationships in terms of trade and direct investments," said Odinga. "We want to see more of our products finding markets in the U.S. and expect more direct investments by the Americans in the country."

Odinga made it clear he played a small role in helping Obama win the White House – specifically by detaining Corsi and preventing him from holding a press conference in Kenya to disclose the findings of his investigation.

In addition, Odina said he made a deliberate decision to minimize his relationship with Obama – even while previously claiming to be related to him.

As WND had reported exclusively, Odinga is a Luo tribesman affiliated with Obama's father when Odinga's communist father was Kenya's first vice president after Kenyan independence and Obama's father was a Harvard-educated economist working in the Jomo Kenyatta government.

Obama campaigned openly for Odinga for president in 2006 when Obama was in Kenya on a U.S. Senate "fact-finding" mission. Kenya's President Mwai Kibaki asked Obama to stop interfering with Kenyan presidential politics. Obama raised an alleged $1 million for Odinga to run for president in Kenya in December 2007, adding to the $1 million raised for Odinga's 2007 presidential campaign by Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi.

A web blogger suggested, "So it sure looks like Obama's people have looked into the matter of 'natural born' as far back as early 2006. What is even more disturbing is that it would appear that they are following the thought of : 'If the facts do not support the theory, Destroy the facts!'"

[nChrist]

Brothers and Sisters,

The TRUTH of the matter is very simple:  there HAS BEEN AND IS A MASSIVE CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY to elect a President who IS NOT ELIGIBLE OR QUALIFIED IN ANY WAY!The people should demand that JUSTICE BE DONE TO THE LIMITS OF THE LAW! There are many people in high places behind this, and every single one of them needs to be prosecuted and sent to PRISON! The list of FELONIES that have been committed is LENGTHY! Literally any necessary CRIMINAL ACTIVITY has BEEN DONE to reach their objective, so what will be done in office? NOBODY SHOULD CARE BECAUSE THEY SHOULD NEVER REACH OFFICE - RATHER PRISON! A lengthy list of people KNEW and PARTICIPATED, and PRISON SHOULD BECOME THEIR HOME! If justice isn't served in this case, this country would cease to have ANY HONOR OR INTEGRITY. Further, the country would become the laughing stock of the world.

BY THE WAY, THIS HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH RACE - RATHER THE LAW, THE CONSTITUTION, AND THE RULE OF LAW! The absence of these qualities is a form of DICTATORSHIP where the DICTATOR does as he pleases and without any consequences for ANYTHING! This MUST NOT be allowed, and it WON'T be allowed! We all obey the LAW and CONSTITUTION or we have NONE! NOT ONE IS EXEMPT!

[Soldier4Christ]

Pravda raises Obama eligibility issue
Other media outlets begin reporting concerns over president-elect's citizenship status

Questions about Obama's citizenship status are spreading like wildfire on the Internet, and some media outlets are beginning to run stories on the issue.

Even the Russian online newspaper Pravda featured a column about "the man with no visible past."

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/02-12-2008/106778-Amazing_Obama-0

"Barry Sotero, AKA Barack Obama, along with the Democratic National Committee and the Federal Election Commission have successfully ignored a Federal Lawsuit asking him to produce a valid Birth Certificate," the piece by Mark McGrew states. "When the time to respond to that lawsuit expired, under Federal Court Rules, they all admitted that he was not a citizen of The United States of America and deemed to have committed fraud. A normal man would have been found to have admitted he was not a U.S. citizen."

While McGrew acknowledges Obama is praised for his way with words, he warns, "Every con man walking free or in jail is an articulate speaker. Who would give their trust to a man who could not use the right words to convince his targets to trust him? Articulate speaking is no way to judge or rate the integrity of a person."

The writer said every con man sells a "dream," pushes a "greed button," stresses "urgency" – and it claims Americans fell for a con man.

"Obama sold the dream of hope and change so desperately wanted by the American voters. He pushed the greed button by promising to take from the rich to give to the poor. And he stressed urgency by himself and his wife telling voters to vote early."

McGrew explains that Obama's "certificate of birth" is not a birth certificate, but a certification of live birth that any foreigner can acquire by applying for one in the state's vital records department, regardless of where the baby was born.

The column said Obama can easily put the issue to rest by producing the document, rather than spending thousands of dollars on attorneys to defy federal and state lawsuits.

"Barack Obama may just win his place in history as the greatest con man of all time," the author said. "A hundred million people believed him and spent 600 million dollars to get him 'elected' to the highest office in America, without ever knowing if he is or is not eligible to even run as an American citizen. It is either amazing that he will pull it off or it is amazing that so many millions of people believed him."


Other coverage

Other media outlets have also begun reporting on the issue.

The Chicago Tribune published a news article about Robert L. Schultz, chairman of the We The People Foundation, after he ran a full-page ad in the newspaper demanding Obama produce documents proving he is eligible for office. However, the writer attempted to debunk Schultz's claims paragraph by paragraph.

A Chicago Sun-Times columnist accused the We The People Foundation of having "money to throw away" for posting an "inflammatory ad" in the Chicago Tribune.

NBC Chicago's website led its story with the following statement: "Critics continue to invest in ads to convince Americans that he is not one of theirs."

Also, the Kansas City Star featured a news article claiming "legions of anti-Obama bloggers" have filed lawsuits claiming Obama is constitutionally ineligible to be president.

The Star's story said "skeptics" believe there are several "co-conspirators" in the "tangled web of conspiracy and silence," including election officials who put candidates' name on ballots, judges who throw out lawsuits, mainstream media, Obama's family and Hawaiian authorities.

Even AOL News' blog featured a "Q&A with Obama birth certificate doubters," while another entry accused the We The People Foundation of being part of "the cult of Barack Obama's birth certificate."

However, amid skeptical reports, the New American reported, "This story has gained credence, separating it from Internet rumors, because Obama has reputedly hired three law firms (firms, not lawyers) to make sure that no one gets access to his birth records in Hawaii or his college transcripts from Occidental College and Harvard."

So far, major television networks and many other mainstream newspapers are continuing to be silent on the matter.

[Soldier4Christ]

Obama Believes Global Warming Fairy Tale

By: Philip V. Brennan

A patient in a mental institution was being asked how he would earn a living if he were released, but every possible occupation he mentioned was knocked down on the grounds that given that he'd been a mental patient he might not qualify. When asked what his alternative would be, he answered, "Well then I'd do what I always wanted to do — be a teapot."

Having surprised many with his pragmatic choices for his Cabinet and other administration posts, Barack Obama suddenly veered off course and showed his teapot side.

In a video to be shown at a U.N. conference called to revive the discredited Kyoto Treaty approach, Teapot Barry declared that the science behind global warming "is beyond dispute and the facts are clear."

He went on to claim that "sea levels are rising, coastlines are shrinking, we've seen record drought spreading famine, and storms are growing stronger with each passing season."

Only a teapot can believe that the science behind the global warming hoax is "beyond dispute." Thousands of scientists disagree.

As Christopher Booker wrote in Britain's Telegraph on Nov. 28, "Far from the science being 'beyond dispute,' we can only deduce from this that Mr. Obama has believed all he was told by Al Gore's wondrously batty film 'An Inconvenient Truth' without bothering to check the facts.

“Each of these four statements is so wildly at odds with the truth that on this score alone we should be seriously worried."

Take Teapot Barry's rising sea levels claim, for example. Booker points out that while average sea levels are modestly rising, that aren't rising faster than they have been doing for three whole centuries.

In an interview available at www.iceagenow.com, Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University in Sweden, past president of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, and a leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project said he has been studying the sea level and its effects on coastal areas for some 35 years.

Dr. Mörner said: "You have to look at that in a lot of different ways . . . We can see that the sea level was indeed rising, from, let us say, 1850 to 1930 to 40. And that rise had a rate in the order of 1 millimeter per year . . . That ended in 1940, and there had been no rise until 1970 . . . There's no trend, absolutely no trend."

As for droughts, Booker notes that, "Far from global warming having increased the number of droughts, the very opposite is the case. The most comprehensive study (Narisma et al, 2007) showed that, of the 20th century's 30 major drought episodes, 22 were in the first six decades, with only five between 1961 and 1980. The most recent two decades produced just three."

Turning to hurricanes despite a recent press release from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) claiming that 2008's North Atlantic hurricane season “set records,” NOAA admits that it only tied as “the fifth most active' since 1944.” Moreover, "NOAA's own graphs show hurricane activity higher in the 1950s than recently. A recent Florida State University study of tropical cyclone activity across the world shows a steady reduction over the past four years."

Despite claims that global warming is causing more frequent and severe hurricanes, hurricane expert Chris Landsea published a study on May 1 documenting that hurricane activity is no higher now than in decades past. Hurricane expert William Gray reported on April 27, that the number of major hurricanes making landfall on the U.S. Atlantic coast has declined in the past 40 years.

So where do all his pseudo-scientific misconceptions lead Teapot Barry? What is his solution to a problem that does not exist? Nothing short of economic suicide for the U.S.

Booker writes that Obama plans to introduce a "federal cap and trade system," a massive "carbon tax" designed to reduce America's CO2 emissions to their 1990 levels by 2020 and reduce them an additional 80 percent by 2050. Such a target could only be achieved by closing down a large part of the US economy.

That's in addition to spending $15 billion a year to encourage "clean energy" sources, such as thousands more wind turbines despite the fact that wind energy "is so hopelessly ineffective that the 10,000 turbines America already has, representing '18 gigawatts of installed capacity,' only generate 4.5 gigawatts of power, less than that supplied by a single giant coal-fired power station."

He speaks about allowing only "clean" coal-fired power plants, using "carbon capture" — burying the CO2 in holes in the ground — which would not only double the price of electricity, but the technology for which hasn't even yet been developed.

Booker concludes, "For 300 years science helped to turn Western civilization into the richest and most comfortable the world has ever seen. Now it seems we have suddenly been plunged into a new age of superstition, where scientific evidence no longer counts for anything.

“The fact that America will soon be ruled by a man wholly under the spell of this post-scientific hysteria may leave us in wondering despair."

Listen carefully and you might hear Teapot Barry singing that old ditty "I'm a little teapot, short and stout. Here is my handle, here is my spout. When I get all steamed up, hear me shout . . ." global warming is what it's all about.

[Soldier4Christ]

Obama backtracks on pledge to 'end the war' in Iraq
Thousands of troops will be left even if combat forces out within 16 months

On the campaign trail, Senator Barack Obama offered a pledge that electrified and motivated his liberal base, vowing to “end the war” in Iraq.

But as he moves closer to the White House, President-elect Obama is making clearer than ever that tens of thousands of American troops will be left behind in Iraq, even if he can make good on his campaign promise to pull all combat forces out within 16 months.

“I said that I would remove our combat troops from Iraq in 16 months, with the understanding that it might be necessary — likely to be necessary — to maintain a residual force to provide potential training, logistical support, to protect our civilians in Iraq,” Mr. Obama said this week as he introduced his national security team.

Publicly at least, Mr. Obama has not set a firm number for that “residual force,” a phrase certain to become central to the debate on the way ahead in Iraq, though one of his national security advisers, Richard Danzig, said during the campaign that it could amount to 30,000 to 55,000 troops. Nor has Mr. Obama laid out any timetable beyond 16 months for troop drawdowns, or suggested when he believes a time might come for a declaration that the war is over.

In the meantime, military planners are drawing up tentative schedules aimed at meeting both Mr. Obama’s goal for withdrawing combat troops, with a target of May 2010, and the Dec. 31, 2011, date for sending the rest of American troops home that is spelled out in the new agreement between the United States and the Iraqi government.

That status-of-forces agreement remains subject to change, by mutual agreement, and Army planners acknowledge privately that they are examining projections that could see the number of Americans hovering between 30,000 and 50,000 — and some say as high as 70,000 — for a substantial time even beyond 2011.

As American combat forces decline in numbers and more provinces are turned over to Iraqi control, these military planners say, Iraqi security forces will remain reliant on significant numbers of Americans for training, supplies, logistics, intelligence and transportation for a long time to come.

There always was a tension, if not a bit of a contradiction, in the two parts of Mr. Obama’s campaign platform to “end the war” by withdrawing all combat troops by May 2010. To be sure, Mr. Obama was careful to say that the drawdowns he was promising included only combat troops. But supporters who keyed on the language of ending the war might be forgiven if they thought that would mean bringing home all of the troops.

Pentagon planners say that it is possible that Mr. Obama’s goal could be accomplished at least in part by relabeling some units, so that those currently counted as combat troops could be “re-missioned,” their efforts redefined as training and support for the Iraqis.

In Iraq today, there are 15 brigades defined as combat forces in this debate, with one on its way home. But the overall number of troops on the ground is more than 50 brigade equivalents, for a total of 146,000 troops, including service and support personnel. Even now, after the departure of the five “surge” brigades that President Bush sent to Iraq in January 2006, the overall number of troops in Iraq remains higher than when Mr. Bush ordered the troop increase, owing to the number of support and service personnel remaining.

At his news conference in Chicago on Monday, Mr. Obama emphasized his willingness to listen to the advice from senior officers and that of his new national security team, which includes Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, the first Pentagon chief in history to continue serving under a newly elected president; Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and, as national security adviser, Gen. James L. Jones, the retired four-star Marine officer who served as NATO’s supreme commander.

Since the election, Mr. Obama has held unannounced consultations with both Mr. Gates and Admiral Mullen, described by Obama aides and Pentagon officials as having focused less on tactics and operations and more on broad, strategic views for American national security. On Wednesday, he made a telephone call to Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, Iraq’s prime minister, according to the Obama transition office.

To date, there has been no significant criticism from the antiwar left of the Democratic Party of the prospect that Mr. Obama will keep tens of thousands of troops in Iraq for at least several years to come.

At the Pentagon and the military headquarters in Iraq, the response to the statements this week from Mr. Obama and his national security team has been akin to the senior officer corps’ letting out its collective breath; the words sounded to them like the new president would take a measured approach on the question of troop levels.

“I believe that 16 months is the right time frame, but, as I’ve said consistently, I will listen to the recommendations of my commanders,” Mr. Obama said at that news conference on Monday. “And my No. 1 priority is making sure that our troops remain safe in this transition phase, and that the Iraqi people are well served by a government that is taking on increased responsibility for its own security.”

An apparent evolution of Mr. Obama’s thinking can be heard in contrast to comments he made in July, when he called a news conference to lay out his Iraq policy in unambiguous terms.

“I intend to end this war,” he said then. “My first day in office I will bring the Joint Chiefs of Staff in, and I will give them a new mission, and that is to end this war — responsibly, deliberately, but decisively.” And in a news conference that month in Amman, Jordan, Mr. Obama acknowledged that the American troop increase had bolstered Iraqi security but declared that he would not hesitate to overrule American commanders and redirect troops in Afghanistan.

Mr. Gates, speaking at the Pentagon on Tuesday, a day after he appeared with Mr. Obama to announce the new national security team, made clear that the direction of troop levels now had been decided, with the only decisions remaining on how fast and how low.

“And so the question is, How do we do this in a responsible way?” Mr. Gates said. “And nobody wants to put at risk the gains that have been achieved, with so much sacrifice, on the part of our soldiers and the Iraqis, at this point.”

[Soldier4Christ]

Weatherman terrorists: Obama's centrism a 'smokescreen'
Forecast a radical agenda that would impress Lenin coming

President-elect Barack Obama is "feigning" a centrist position on some issues so he can ultimately push through a radical agenda, including universal healthcare and trimming the military, according to analysis by a founder of the Weathermen terror group, Mark Rudd, who has ties to Obama mentors.

Another top former Weathermen terrorist with ties to Obama mentors, Jeff Jones, concurred the president-elect will attempt major change, including "redistributing financial resources downward." He called Obama's "centrist" appointments a "smokescreen" to "co-opt the moderate center," declaring, "even Lenin would be impressed!"

In an article on the radical leftist Rag Blog, Rudd commented, "Obama plays basketball. I'm not much of an athlete, barely know the game, but one thing I do know is that you have to be able to look like you're doing one thing but do another. That's why all these conservative appointments are important: the strategy is feint to the right, move left. Any other strategy invites sure defeat. It would be stupid to do otherwise in this environment."

Rudd stressed what he called Obama's second-tier appointments to various agencies, claiming those individuals are far more "progressive."

"Cheney was extremely effective at controlling policy by putting his people in at second-level positions," noted Rudd.

The terror group founder outlined what he believes is Obama's domestic agenda:

"What he's doing now is moving on the most popular issues – the environment, health care and the economy. He'll be progressive on the environment because that has broad popular support; health care will be extended to children, then made universal, but the medical, pharmaceutical, and insurance corporations will stay in place. ... The economic agenda will stress stimulation from the bottom sometimes and handouts to the top at other times. It will be pragmatic."

He said Obama ultimately seeks to shrink the military but cannot make that goal public for some time.

Find out all about Barack Obama's links to Weather Underground leader Bill Ayers and his entire agenda for "change" in Brad O'Leary's "The Audacity of Deceit," the virtual blueprint for the next administration's radical prescriptions.

"Leave the military alone because they're way too powerful," writes Rudd. "For now, until enough momentum is raised. By the second or third year of this recession, when stimulus is needed at the bottom, people may begin to discuss cutting the military budget if security is being increased through diplomacy and application of nascent international law."

On the same blog, former Weatherman terrorist Jones wrote Obama is "really SMART."

"His centrist appointments are a smokescreen; they co-opt the moderate center, but he's still the commander in chief. Even Lenin would be impressed!" he declared.

Jones wrote that Obama's various initiatives, "which will collectively set the nation on a path towards energy independence, ending the war and redistributing financial resources downward, are presented as unconnected pieces of legislation, but actually they are interlocking components of Obama's coherent multi-layered agenda."

Both Jones and Rudd were active in Progressives for Obama, an independent organization acting to ensure the Illinois senator's election. The group includes among its ranks many former members of the 1960s radical organization Students for a Democratic Society, or SDS, from which the Weathermen splintered, as well as current and former members of other radical organizations, such as the Communist Party USA and the Black Radical Congress.

Jones, according to his own website, was "elected, along with (Weathermen terrorist) Bill Ayers and Mark Rudd, to the SDS national office. Then, in the spring of 1970, he disappeared. As a leader of the Weather Underground, Jeff evaded an intense FBI manhunt for more than a decade. In 1981, they finally got him. Twenty special agents battered down the door of the Bronx apartment where he was living with his wife and four-year-old son."

Jones' site says he traveled to Cambodia in 1966 to meet with high-level leaders of the anti-American National Liberation Front. In 1967 and 1968 he served as an SDS regional organizer for New York City.

Rudd, a petition supporter as well as a main signatory to the Progressives for Obama group, was one of the main founders of the Weathermen terrorist organization. A biography published on his website explains Rudd worked to form the Weathermen as a radical alternative to the SDS and for white Americans to eject their "white skin privilege" and begin "armed struggle" against the U.S. government.

Rudd went underground in 1970 when a bomb exploded in a townhouse in Greenwich Village in New York City, killing three of his comrades. He lived for seven and a half years in hiding as a fugitive, finally surrendering in 1977 and facing only low-level state charges after federal charges against Weathermen leaders had been dropped. He resurfaced as a teacher in New Mexico.

As late as 2005, Rudd wrote an editorial in the Los Angeles Times lamenting the state of the anti-war movement in the U.S.

"What's hard to understand – given the revelations about the rush to war, the use of torture and the loss of more than 2,000 soldiers – is why the antiwar movement isn't further along than it is," he wrote. "Given that President Bush is now talking about Iraq as only one skirmish in an unlimited struggle against a global Islamic enemy, a struggle comparable to the titanic, 40-year Cold War against communism, shouldn't a massive critique of the global war on terrorism already be underway?"

In the piece, Rudd condemned the Weathermen's decision to embark on an "armed-struggle," calling it "stupid" since the violent acts led to the group's demise. But he didn't condemn the terrorism itself, only its contribution to the downfall of the Weathermen.

The New Zeal blog noted both Rudd and Jones have connections to Obama through the radical Movement for a Democratic Society, where the two serve on the board alongside former Weathermen Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, whose deep connections to Obama sparked controversy during the presidential campaign.

[Soldier4Christ]

Eligibility dispute story spreads
Now National Press Club event scheduled on challenge to Oval Office occupant

Questions raised over Barack Obama's citizenship are reaching into the National Press Club now, with an event scheduled Monday at which an activist group will call for the release of documentation proving his eligibility to occupy the Oval Office.

Already, at least one legal advocacy group is promising to raise legal challenges to whatever Obama would do as president, until and unless his eligibility is established.

Now the group that has aired and published a number of ads challenging Obama based on charges that he was born in Kenya, not Hawaii, and doesn't meet the U.S. Constitution's requirement that all presidents be "natural-born" citizens has scheduled a news conference in Washington.

Among those scheduled to be present are attorneys handling a Pennsylvania case brought by Philip Berg, a New Jersey case brought by Leo Donofrio and a California case brought by Orly Taitz. The U.S. Supreme Court justices were scheduled to have a conference today on whether to accept arguments on the issue, but no immediately announcement was made.

WeThePeopleFoundation.org, which is scheduling the event, will talk about Obama's response to the publication of an open letter last week in the Chicago Tribune.

The letter sought Obama's authorization for access to his original birth certificate, which state officials in Hawaii report having seen.

"Under our Constitution, no one is eligible to assume the office of the president unless he or she is a 'natural born citizen,'" Bob Schulz of WeThePeople said. "To date, Mr. Obama has refused all requests to release his original birth certificate or other documents that would definitively establish his citizenship status and thus his constitutional eligibility."

More than a dozen legal challenges have been initiated over Obama's citizenship, all citing Obama's clouded history and the U.S. Constitution's requirement that a president be a natural born citizen.

Schulz' open letter asked that Obama have delivered to the National Press Club a certified copy of the original birth certificate, including any under the names Barack Husssein Obama, Barry Soetoro, Barry Obama, Barack Dunham and Barry Dunham, a certificate of his citizenship and admission forms for his attendance at Occidental College, Columbia and Harvard.

The dispute is facing an immediate deadline, because members of the U.S. Electoral College are scheduled to vote Dec. 15 formally to make Obama the next president.

"Should the state members of the Electoral College cast their votes for Mr. Obama in the face of such overwhelming evidence, and without verification of Mr. Obama's eligibility, they would be committing treason to the Constitution," Schultz said.

WND has reported that as long as two years ago, a lawyer whose firm is linked to Obama was advocating  abandonment of the "natural-born" requirement in the Constitution.

And in an analysis in the Philadelphia Bulletin, constitutional lawyer Edwin Vieira, suggested there would be major problems should Obama not be eligible, and assume the office anyway.

"Let's assume he wasn't born in the U.S.," Vieira told the Bulletin. "What's the consequence? He will not be eligible. That means he cannot be elected validly. The people and the Electoral College cannot overcome this and the House of Representatives can't make him president. So what's the next step? He takes the oath of office, and assuming he's aware he's not a citizen, then it's a perjured oath."

The result would be any appointments made an ineligible president, and all the appointees' decisions, would be invalid, he said.

Vieira suggested Obama supporters should be the ones raising the questions, because of the discredit that would follow a revelation of ineligibility.

"Let's say we go a year into this process, and it all turns out to be a flim-flam," Vieira told the newspaper. "What's the nation's reaction to that? What's going to be the reaction in the next U.S. election? God knows. It has almost revolutionary consequences, if you think about it."

He also suggested Obama's silence on the issue, itself, is a concern.

Vieira told the newspaper the question is significant because it involves the man who could have his finger next to a nuclear button. He also said the question would remain whether any laws he signs would be valid.

Even after Obama takes the oath of office, the questions will remain, he suggested.

Wes Pruden, editor emeritus of the Washington Times, said Obama's refusal to authorize release of his birth certificate has fueled the dispute.

"This has led to furious speculation on the Internet that Mr. Obama's parents returned to Hawaii with him shortly after his birth and simply registered his Kenyan birth certificate, certified by the doctor who delivered him and by the hospital where he was born, with the Hawaii Department of Health. Why, these skeptics ask, won't the president-elect authorize release of the original Hawaii certificate and squelch speculation once and for all?" he said. "It's a good question, though lack of his asking doesn't prove anything."

[Soldier4Christ]

Decision on Obama citizenship pending
Court delays action on suit – 'They apparently need the time to deliberate'

The Supreme Court held off Friday on deciding whether to grant a hearing in a long-shot lawsuit that would decide whether Barack Obama can constitutionally become president as a "natural born" U.S. citizen.

The Friday list of court orders that denies or grants hearings did not mention the lawsuit, which says Mr. Obama should be disqualified from the presidency because he purportedly acquired the same British citizenship that his father had when he was born.

A spokesman for the court said the decision on whether to hear the suit brought by retired New Jersey lawyer Leo Donofrio is likely to be announced next week.

A decision not to grant a writ of certiorari -- the legal term for the declaration that the justices will hear the case -- would mean that a lower court ruling that dismissed the lawsuit can stand.

The Supreme Court's justices met in a private conference Friday morning to discuss the issue. At least four of the court's nine justices must approve before the case is heard.

Justice Clarence Thomas picked up the petition to hear the lawsuit after it was denied by Justice David H. Souter. Justice Thomas referred it to the full court, which decided to distribute the case for the justices' conference.

Mr. Obama demonstrated his citizenship during his campaign by circulating copies of his birth certificate, which showed he was born in Hawaii on Aug. 4, 1961. But unlike many of the lawsuits regarding Mr. Obama's citizenship -- which claim he really was born on foreign soil -- Mr. Donofrio's case concedes that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii but says he still held foreign citizenship at birth.

"Since Barack Obama's father was a citizen of Kenya, and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of Senator Obama's birth, then Senator Obama was a British citizen 'at birth,' just like the framers of the Constitution, and therefore, even if he were to produce an original birth certificate proving he were born on U.S. soil, he still wouldn't be eligible to be president."

Kenya was British East Africa until it received its independence in 1963.

Legal scholars doubt the court will hear the case. The Supreme Court rarely grants the kind of court orders -- or stays -- sought by Mr. Donofrio. And doing so in this case would set up an unprecedented challenge to the presidency of a man who already has won the election and almost certainly will have taken office by the time any hearings or decisions could occur.

About a half-dozen people who say the court should stop Mr. Obama from becoming president protested in front of the Supreme Court on Friday morning.

"He does not meet the criteria of the Constitution that the Founding Fathers set out," said Roger Bredow, an Internet publisher from Bethlehem, Ga., who has tried to rally lawsuit supporters to block Mr. Obama's presidency.

Valerie Wohllheden, of Alexandria, said the danger is that in deciding the lawsuit, the Supreme Court might bend to "the will of the people" by allowing Mr. Obama to become president despite constitutional provisions.

"Then you've got mob rule," she said. "How can he uphold the Constitution if he's breaking it?"

The Supreme Court may hear a lawsuit that argues President-elect Barack Obama cannot become president as a "natural born" U.S. citizen. (Associated Press)

After the list of actions was released, Washington resident Theresa Cao said she took heart from the court's delaying its decision on whether to grant a hearing.

"They apparently need the time to deliberate," she said.

[Soldier4Christ]

Supreme Court denies
citizenship challenge
Justices won't give questions
about eligibility full hearing

The U.S. Supreme Court today announced it has denied bringing Donofrio v. Wells – one of several cases challenging Barack Obama's eligibility to serve as president of the United States – before a full hearing of the Court.

The case of Leo C. Donofrio v. New Jersey Secretary of State Nina Mitchell Wells claims Obama does not meet the Constitution's Article 2, Section 1 "natural-born citizen" requirement for president because of Obama's dual citizenship at birth.

Unlike many of the lawsuits regarding Obama's "natural-born citizen" status, the Donofrio case makes no allegation that Obama was born on foreign soil. Instead, Donofrio contends Obama was a British citizen at birth, because of citizenship in a British colony, Kenya.

"Don't be distracted by the birth certificate and Indonesia issues," Donofrio writes on his Natural Born Citizen blog. "They are irrelevant to Senator Obama's ineligibility to be president. Since Barack Obama's father was a citizen of Kenya and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of Senator Obama's birth, then Senator Obama was a British citizen 'at birth.'"

Obama's Fight the Smears website confirms that Donofrio is correct about the Democrat's citizenship at birth, but says his dual citizenship with Britain expired, leaving him with only American citizenship.

Donfrio, however, contends that the Constitution was written in such a way to exclude dual citizens like Obama.

"The Framers of the Constitution, at the time of their birth," Donofrio writes, "were also British citizens, and that's why the Framers declared that, while they were citizens of the United States, they themselves were not 'natural born citizens.'"

"Therefore," Donofrio summarizes, "even if he were to produce an original birth certificate proving he were born on U.S. soil, he still wouldn't be eligible to be president."

Donfrio's case was originally denied even a conference of the judges by Justice David H. Souter, but Justice Clarence Thomas agreed to bring it back for consideration last week. In order to go forward in the legal process, from conference to a full hearing, the case needed four of the Supreme Court's nine justices to approve taking it the next step.

As WND has reported, Donofrio's case is only one of several filed around the country challenging Obama's eligibility to be elected president under the Constitution.

Last month WND reported worries over a "constitutional crisis" that could be looming over the issue of Obama's citizenship.

WND senior reporter Jerome Corsi even traveled to Kenya and Hawaii prior to the election to investigate issues surrounding Obama's birth. But his research and discoveries only raised more questions.

The biggest question is why Obama, if a Hawaii birth certificate exists as his campaign has stated, simply hasn't ordered it made available to settle the rumors.

The governor's office in Hawaii said there is a valid certificate but rejected requests for access and left ambiguous its origin: Does the certificate on file with the Department of Health indicate a Hawaii birth or was it generated after the Obama family registered a Kenyan birth in Hawaii?

Obama's half-sister, Maya Soetoro, has named two different Hawaii hospitals where Obama could have been born. There have been other allegations that Obama actually was born in Kenya during a time when his father was a British subject.

Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes and others filed a court petition in California asking the secretary of state to refuse to allow the state's 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office.

The California action was filed by Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation on behalf of Keyes, the presidential candidate of the American Independent Party, along with Wiley S. Drake and Markham Robinson, both California electors.

"Should Senator Obama be discovered, after he takes office, to be ineligible for the Office of President of the United States of America and, thereby, his election declared void, Petitioners, as well as other Americans, will suffer irreparable harm in that (a) usurper will be sitting as the President of the United States, and none of the treaties, laws, or executive orders signed by him will be valid or legal," the action challenges.

The popular vote Nov. 4 favored Obama over Sen. John McCain by several percentage points. But because of the distribution of the votes, Obama is projected to take the Electoral College vote by a 2-to-1 margin.

The California case states, "There is a reasonable and common expectation by the voters that to qualify for the ballot, the individuals running for office must meet minimum qualifications as outlined in the federal and state Constitutions and statutes, and that compliance with those minimum qualifications has been confirmed by the officials overseeing the election process," the complaint said, when in fact the only documentation currently required is a signed statement from the candidate attesting to those qualifications.

"Since [the secretary of state] has, as its core, the mission of certifying and establishing the validity of the election process, this writ seeks a Court Order barring SOS from certifying the California Electors until documentary proof that Senator Obama is a 'natural born' citizen of the United States of America is received by her," the document said.

"This proof could include items such as his original birth certificate, showing the name of the hospital and the name and the signature of the doctor, all of his passports with immigration stamps, and verification from the governments where the candidate has resided, verifying that he did not, and does not, hold citizenship of these countries, and any other documents that certify an individual’s citizenship and/or qualification for office.

The "certification of live birth" posted by the Obama campaign cannot be viewed as authoritative, the case alleges.

"Hawaii Revised Statute 338-178 allows registration of birth in Hawaii for a child that was born outside of Hawaii to parents who, for a year preceding the child’s birth, claimed Hawaii as their place of residence," the document said. "The only way to know where Senator Obama was actually born is to view Senator Obama's original birth certificate from 1961 that shows the name of the hospital and the name and signature of the doctor that delivered him."

The case also raises the circumstances of Obama's time during his youth in Indonesia, where he was listed as having Indonesian citizenship. Indonesia does not allow dual citizenship, raising the possibility of Obama's mother having given up his U.S. citizenship.

Any subsequent U.S. citizenship then, the case claims, would be "naturalized," not "natural-born."

[Soldier4Christ]

Liberals voice concerns about Obama
Seems to be stiffing them on Cabinet jobs, policy choices

Liberals are growing increasingly nervous – and some just flat-out angry – that President-elect Barack Obama seems to be stiffing them on Cabinet jobs and policy choices.

Obama has reversed pledges to immediately repeal tax cuts for the wealthy and take on Big Oil. He’s hedged his call for a quick drawdown in Iraq. And he’s stocking his White House with anything but stalwarts of the left.

Now some are shedding a reluctance to puncture the liberal euphoria at being rid of President George W. Bush to say, in effect, that the new boss looks like the old boss.

“He has confirmed what our suspicions were by surrounding himself with a centrist to right cabinet. But we do hope that before it's all over we can get at least one authentic progressive appointment,” said Tim Carpenter, national director of the Progressive Democrats of America.

OpenLeft blogger Chris Bowers went so far as to issue this plaintive plea: “Isn't there ever a point when we can get an actual Democratic administration?”

Even supporters make clear they’re on the lookout for backsliding. “There’s a concern that he keep his basic promises and people are going to watch him,” said Roger Hickey, a co-founder of Campaign for America’s Future.

Obama insists he hasn’t abandoned the goals that made him feel to some like a liberal savior. But the left’s bill of particulars against Obama is long, and growing.

Obama drew rousing applause at campaign events when he vowed to tax the windfall profits of oil companies. As president-elect, Obama says he won’t enact the tax.

Obama’s pledge to repeal the Bush tax cuts and redistribute that money to the middle class made him a hero among Democrats who said the cuts favored the wealthy. But now he’s struck a more cautious stance on rolling back tax cuts for people making over $250,000 a year, signaling he’ll merely let them expire as scheduled at the end of 2010.

Obama’s post-election rhetoric on Iraq and choices for national security team have some liberal Democrats even more perplexed. As a candidate, Obama defined and separated himself from his challengers by highlighting his opposition to the war in Iraq from the start. He promised to begin to end the war on his first day in office.

Now Obama’s says that on his first day in office he will begin to “design a plan for a responsible drawdown,” as he told NBC’s “Meet the Press” Sunday. Obama has also filled his national security positions with supporters of the Iraq war: Sen. Hillary Clinton, who voted to authorize force in Iraq, as his secretary of state; and President George W. Bush’s defense secretary, Robert Gates, continuing in the same role.

The central premise of the left’s criticism is direct – don’t bite the hand that feeds, Mr. President-elect. The Internet that helped him so much during the election is lighting up with irritation and critiques.

“There don't seem to be any liberals in Obama's cabinet,” writes John Aravosis, the editor of Americablog.com. “What does all of this mean for Obama's policies, and just as important, Obama Supreme Court announcements?”

“Actually, it reminds me a bit of the campaign, at least the beginning and the middle, when the Obama campaign didn't seem particularly interested in reaching out to progressives,” Aravosis continues. “Once they realized that in order to win they needed to marshal everyone on their side, the reaching out began. I hope we're not seeing a similar ‘we can do it alone’ approach in the transition team.”

This isn’t the first liberal letdown over Obama, who promptly angered the left after winning the Democratic primary by announcing he backed a compromise that would allow warrantless wiretapping on U.S. soil to continue.

Now it’s Obama’s Cabinet moves that are drawing the most fire. It’s not just that he’s picked Clinton and Gates. It’s that liberal Democrats say they’re hard-pressed to find one of their own on Obama’s team so far – particularly on the economic side, where people like Tim Geithner and Lawrence Summers are hardly viewed as pro-labor.

“At his announcement of an economic team there was no secretary of labor. If you don’t think the labor secretary is on the same level as treasury secretary, that gives me pause,” said Jonathan Tasini, who runs the website workinglife.org. “The president-elect wouldn't be president-elect without labor."

During the campaign Obama gained labor support by saying he favored legislation that would make it easier for unions to form inside companies. The “card check” bill would get rid of a secret-ballot method of voting to form a union and replace it with a system that would require companies to recognize unions simply if a majority of workers signed cards saying they want one. Obama still supports that legislation, aides say – but union leaders are worried that he no longer talks it up much as president-elect.

“It's complicated,” said Tasini, who challenged Clinton for Senate in 2006. “On the one hand, the guy hasn't even taken office yet so it's a little hasty to be criticizing him. On the other hand, there is legitimate cause for concern. I think people are still waiting but there is some edginess about this.”

That’s a view that seems to have kept some progressive leaders holding their fire. There are signs of a struggle within the left wing of the Democratic Party about whether it’s just too soon to criticize Obama -- and if there’s really anything to complain about just yet.

Case in point: One of the Campaign for America’s Future blogs commented on Obama’s decision not to tax oil companies’ windfall profits saying, “Between this move and the move to wait to repeal the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, it seems like the Obama team is buying into the right-wing frame that raising any taxes - even those on the richest citizens and wealthiest corporations - is bad for the economy.”

Yet Campaign for America’s Future will be join about 150 progressive organizations, economists and labor groups to release a statement Tuesday in support of a large economic stimulus package like the one Obama has proposed, said Hickey, a co-founder of the group.

“I’ve heard the most grousing about the windfall profits tax, but on the other hand, Obama has committed himself to a stimulus package that makes a down payment on energy efficiency and green jobs,” Hickey said. “The old argument was, here’s how we afford to make these investments – we tax the oil companies’ windfall profits. … The new argument is, in a bad economy that could get worse, we don’t.”

Obama is asking for patience – saying he’s only shifting his stance on some issues because circumstances are shifting.

Aides say he backed off the windfall profits tax because oil prices have
dropped below $80 a barrel. Obama also defended hedging on the Bush tax cuts.

“My economic team right now is examining, do we repeal that through legislation? Do we let it lapse so that, when the Bush tax cuts expire, they're not renewed when it comes to wealthiest Americans?” Obama said on “Meet the Press.” “We don't yet know what the best approach is going to be.”

On Iraq, he says he’s just trying to make sure any U.S. pullout doesn’t ignite “any resurgence of terrorism in Iraq that could threaten our interests.”

Obama has told his supporters to look beyond his appointments, that the change he promised will come from him and that when his administration comes together they will be happy.

“I think that when you ultimately look at what this advisory board looks like, you'll say this is a cross-section of opinion that in some ways reinforces conventional wisdom, in some ways breaks with orthodoxy in all sorts of way,” Obama recently said in response to questions about his appointments during a news conference on the economy.

The leaders of some liberal groups are willing to wait and see.

“He hasn’t had a first day in office,” said John Isaacs, the executive director for Council for Livable World. “To me it’s not as important as who’s there, than what kind of policies they carry out.”

“These aren’t out-and-out liberals on the national security team, but they may be successful implementers of what the Obama national security policy is,” Isaacs added. “We want to see what policies are carried forward, as opposed to appointments.”

Juan Cole, who runs a prominent anti-war blog called Informed Comment, said he worries Obama will get bad advice from Clinton on the Middle East, calling her too pro-Israel and “belligerent” toward Iran. “But overall, my estimation is that he has chosen competence over ideology, and I'm willing to cut him some slack,” Cole said.

Other voices of the left don’t like what they’re seeing so far and aren’t waiting for more before they speak up.

New York Times columnist Frank Rich warned that Obama’s economic team of Summers and Geithner reminded him of John F. Kennedy’s “best and the brightest” team, who blundered in Vietnam despite their blue-chip pedigrees.

David Corn, Washington bureau chief of the liberal magazine Mother Jones, wrote in Sunday’s Washington Post that he is “not yet reaching for a pitchfork.”

But the headline of his op-ed sums up his point about Obama’s Cabinet appointments so far: “This Wasn’t Quite the Change We Envisioned.”

[Soldier4Christ]

Supreme Court denies citizenship challenge

Liberals voice concerns about Obama

“This Wasn’t Quite the Change We Envisioned.”

I've just got to say it ...  toldja so.