Skip to comments.Blogger admits Hawaii birth certificate forgery, subverting Obama claims (Uh-oh)
Posted on 07/03/2008 4:35:19 PM PDT by SE Mom
click here to read article
The plan,from the look of his actions, is to advance socialism,power to his party while attacking capitalism every way he can.
To do it he needs both houses, a willing press, but most important 50% plus numbers in the rat polling machine.
Once his numbers drop below 50% he endangers rat reelection since this is an empty core party. With no solid core, no internal guiding beliefs other than pure unadulterated power, he can't last once he gets unpopular.
Endangering the reelection chances of either House or Senate members is the only thing the lemmings in both bodies will not stand for.
They will allow anything else.
To get there we have to provide the transparency he promised yet "forgot".
We have to show the public how he goes before them once a week and tries to recreate the "hope and "change" the errors of the previous week.
Example, his obvious attacks on capitalism and the economy of the U.S. by placing health care,further busting the budget, and every other agenda before fixing the economy did not go unnoticed by many who voted for him. His numbers will suffer when that happens.
Answer: tell Wall Street he is thinking about cutting taxes on them,--problem solved. Will that ever happen--doubtful--does it accomplish this weeks numbers game? Can he turf his way back to popularity? For a while. His side are incredibly stupid. They will fall for anything for a while but sooner or sooner he will be toast.
Once his numbers fall below 50% he will be a lame duck Socialist. Either that or the eligibility question will be outed.
Obama part of group locked up at Russian airport // U.S. delegation stripped of passports as guards demand to inspect plane
Chicago Sun-Times (IL) - Monday, August 29, 2005
Author: Lynn Sweet, Sun-Times Washington Bureau chi
WASHINGTON Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) were not allowed to leave a Russian airport Sunday and were locked in a room briefly.
The incident prevented their departure for about three hours, but Obama told the Sun-Times it ended up not being a very big deal.
The senators had their passports seized by local officials at an airport in Perm. Obama said the officials demanded, unsuccessfully, to inspect the DC-9 military aircraft being used by the congressional delegation for the trip.
It wasnt the gulag
We were in a lounge with a locked door at one point, Obama said. It wasnt the gulag.
Obama , who will meet with Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko today in Kiev, is on his first foreign visit as senator. He said he was never concerned that the group would be taken into custody, because after all, we are a couple of U.S. senators.
Although he was on a first-time diplomatic mission, Obama has traveled extensively, spending part of his youth in Indonesia and visiting Kenya, where his father was born. He noted that as a back- packing college student he had a lot less leverage than this time.
Obama , a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, and Lugar, its chairman, left Wednesday for a trip to inspect sites where nuclear and biological weapons are slated to be destroyed in Russia , Ukraine and Azerbaijan. On Sunday, the U.S. group was scheduled to fly from Perm to Kiev, Ukraine. But border guards wanted proof that the groups aircraft which Obama said looked like a mini-Air Force One was really an official U.S. government plane, which would be exempt from an inspection.
Robert Gibbs, Obama s spokesman traveling with him, said in an e-mail that the border guards took our passports and demanded to inspect our aircraft, which we refused. We were moved to a room to wait.
At one point they were demanding to inspect virtually everything, including the gifts their representatives at the missile facility had given us. The border guard said they were acting on the authority of the FSB, the Russian intelligence agency.
Federal Law, Article II, Section I of the United States Constitution provides: No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Barack Obama is ineligible for the office of the presidency because he is not a natural born citizen of the United States. Article II, Section I of the United States Constitution provides:
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. Natural born citizen means a person born in the United States to parents that were both citizens, and to children born out of the United States to parents that were both citizens, provided that no citizenship would be allowed for a person whose father was not a resident of the United States. Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, First Congress, Sess. II, Chapter 3, Section I, approved March 26, 1790, 1 Stat. 103.\
Compare with the Fourteenth Amendment: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. Natural born citizens continues to mean a person born in the United States to parents that were both citizens, and arguably to people born outside of the United States to parents who were both citizens, provided that the father was a resident of the United States. The Amendment also provides that persons naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens [not natural born citizens].
THEREFORE, at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment, you were either a natural born citizen or, if you had citizenship, it was obtained through a process of naturalization, as established by federal Acts of Naturalization, Immigration and Nationality. A child born overseas, of an American citizen and a foreign national is not a natural born citizen, and the childs citizenship can only be established by a process of naturalization.
A child born in the United States of an American citizen and a foreign national is also not a natural born citizen if the child obtained citizenship of another nation automatically at the time of his birth.
The British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent [italics added] if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth [italics added]. The legislative history of the phrase and subject to the jurisdiction thereof meant, according to the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment, exclusive jurisdiction. A subject of the British Crown, for instance, could claim that jurisdiction was proper only under the Crown.
Barack Obama has failed to establish that he is an American citizen. Barack Obama readily admits the following facts: 1. He was born in 1961. 2. His mother was an American citizen. 3. His father was a Kenyan citizen.
To establish American citizenship, Sen. Obama must prove one of two things:
1. He was born on American soil, and was not subject to any other jurisdiction;
2. He was naturalized pursuant to the immigration laws of the United States.
At the time of his birth, he was automatically a British citizen, pursuant to the The British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5). Consequently, the United States did not have exclusive jurisdiction, and he is disqualified from automatic citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment. He has failed to demonstrate that he was actually born in Hawaii.
Barack Obama has submitted the following to establish his birth in Hawaii:
1. A Certification of Live Birth (not a Certificate of Live Birth) purportedly from the state of Hawaii; 2. The affidavit of an Hawaiian official who claims that he has seen a birth certificate.
While these may be legally sufficient to register a birth in Hawaii, neither is sufficient to establish that he was born on American soil.
Hawaii, under HRS 338-17.8 allows for the registration of births to parents who gave birth while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii [emphasis added] and who declare the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.
Because HRS 338-17.8 exists, a Certification of Live Birth in the form provided by Barack Obama is insufficient to establish native birth. Instead, he must produce a Certificate of Live Birth, which sets forth his name, his mothers name, his fathers name, the hospital where he was born, the attending physician, and which includes his mothers signature, the attending physicians signature, and the signature of another witness.
As a matter of law, there is no official Hawaiian birth certificate there is only the Certification of Live Birth, and the Certificate of Live Birth.
As of the present moment, Barack Obama has not produced a single piece of evidence demonstrating that he was born on U.S. soil. Even his birth announcement in the Hawaiian press is inconclusive, given that he was born in August of 1961, and the article was published in August, 1962, and at that time, his father was already back in Kenya.
Corroborating evidence as to his birth and citizenship allegiances could be established by the production of his passport, and his college transcripts, none of which can be obtained because Barack Obama has hired several law firms to make sure that such records remained sealed.
In the meantime, informal polling of the hospitals in Hawaii have received responses from all of the hospitals in Honolulu reporting that they have no records for Stanley Ann Dunham, Baracks mother, or Barack Hussein Obama. On the other side of the world, however, Baracks paternal grandmother has stated that she was present at his birth in the Coastal Hospital of Mombasa, Kenya. The Kenyan Ambassador to the United States has said that a memorial is being placed at the site of Barack Obamas birth in Mombasa, Kenya.
In addition, because Barack Obama was adopted by his mothers second husband, Lolo Soetoro, he obtained Indonesian citizenship as well. Because of his multiple citizenships, Barack Obama does not have automatic citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Barack Obama has never demonstrated that he was naturalized as an American citizen, which requires a residency period, a test, and an oath of allegiance.
Barack Obama is not qualified under 8 U.S.C. §1401(g). In 1986, Congress amended the statute, replacing the phrase ten years, at least five with five years, at least two. Pub. L. No. 99-653, § 12, 100 Stat. 3655 (1986), now codified at 8 U.S.C.§ 1401(g). The 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act also replaced the residence requirement, found in the earlier Nationality Act of 1940, with a requirement of physical presence for transmission of citizenship to a child born abroad. See Drozd, v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 155 F.3d 871 at 87( 2nd Cir.1998) (citing to the Nationality Act of 1940, ch.876, § 201(g), 54 Stat. 1137, 1139). That change in language compel[s] a strict adherence to the plain terms of the Act. Id. Further, the change from ten years, at least five years to five years at least two applies only to those born after 1986. U.S. v. Flores-Villar, 497 F. Supp. 2d 1160, 1162-64 (S.D. Cal. 2007) affd, 536 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2008). The amendment had no retroactive application that would change the legal analysis for Senator Obama.
Barack Obama did not qualify for automatic citizenship under the INA of 1952. Baracks mother gave birth at age 18. The INA of 1952 simply disqualified children that were born to mothers who were less than 19 because of the five years of continuous residency requirement after age 14. Because Sen. Obama has not established that he was born in the United States, he cannot claim automatic citizenship, and can only establish his citizenship by means of naturalization (process described above). There is no record of Barack ever naturalizing as an American citizen.
BARACK OBAMA HAS NEVER ESTABLISHED THAT HE IS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN. Barack Obama did not run under his legal name Barack Hussein Obama is not the legal name of the candidate, and Sen. Obama has failed to produce any evidence of a legal name change from Barry Soetoro to Barack Hussein Obama. Sometime in the 1960s, Barack was adopted by Lolo Soetoro, and obtained the legal name Barry Soetoro and Indonesian citizenship. When a person is adopted, a new birth certificate issues in the name of the adopted father, establishing the legal name of the child in the name of the father, and establishing the citizenship of the child in the citizenship of the father. Barack Obama has never produced a single piece of evidence demonstrating a legal name change from his adopted name Barry Soetoro to his name at birth, Barack Hussein Obama. Obama is in direct violation of Washington statute RCW 29A.24.060(3), which provides that no candidate may . . use a nickname designed intentionally to mislead voters. Barack Obamas candidacy is a violation of WAC 434-215-012, which requires that declarations of candidacy contain the following affirmation:
I declare that this information is, to the best of my knowledge, true. I also swear, or affirm, that I will support the Constitution and laws of the United States and the Constitution and laws of the State of Washington. Senator Obama either failed to sign such a document, or has misled the Secretary of State as to the affirmation in paragraph 2 of the required Declaration of Candidacy which declares that and, at the time of filing this declaration, I am legally qualified to assume office if elected.
If both parents have attached earlobes then the child will definitely inherit these. if they both have detatched "dangly" earlobes then the child will inherit detatched ones. If one parent has attatched and the other has detatched then the child can inherit either (although the attatched earlobes are the more dominant gene so this would appear more likely). This is currently the most accurate way to determine a child's paternity other than taking a DNA sample
nothing conclusive, just very interesting...
NOthing surprises me any more.
One doesn’t need to be a biologist to see that “b” is closer to “a” than “c.”
the malcolm x project at columbia university...
...probably kept obama busy at Columbia, and that’s why the records are sealed.
...not at all..all the more reason to suspect he was born anywhere other than the US. Malcolm would have been ruined had his infidelity been exposed.
I would suggest Ghana. That’s where his connections were.
I thin you are on to something.
Why would Malcolm have been ruined if infidelity exposed? I thought these folks were a giant gang bang...
go back aways...and read on...
Elijah Muhammad wouldn’t have liked it one bit...
That morph always gets me .. it’s so eerie.
Good polling article
“Recent Gallup data echo these concerns. That polling shows that there are deep-seated, underlying economic concerns. Eighty-three percent say they are worried that the steps Mr. Obama is taking to fix the economy may not work and the economy will get worse.
Eighty-two percent say they are worried about the amount of money being added to the deficit. Seventy-eight percent are worried about inflation growing, and 69% say they are worried about the increasing role of the government in the U.S. economy.”
The Natural Born Citizen Blog Is Now Restricted
There exists a statute enacted by Congress wherein it exercised Constitutional authority to challenge the credentials of, and/or remove, a sitting President found to be a usurper by failing to possess Article 2 Section 1 qualifications for holding the office of President of the United States.
The Statute exists in the District of Columbia Code, the same Code which includes the United States Constitution.
District of Columbia Code Section 16-3501 states:
§ 16-3501. Persons against whom issued; civil action.
A quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military. The proceedings shall be deemed a civil action.
This is the only statute in the entire body of United States federal law which specifically provides for removing all officers of the United States located in the District of Columbia, whether appointed or elected.
In Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17, Congress was given broad sweeping authority over every possible legal case involving offices of the Government of the United States located in the District of Columbia. The office of President of the United States is in the District of Columbia and is certainly governed by the United States Constitution. Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17 states:
The Congress shall have Power To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States
Due to a little thing called SEPARATION OF POWERS, Congress is the only branch which has the authority to remove a sitting President. For a comprehensive review of this issue, please see my prior series of posts entitled, Quo Warranto Legal Brief: part 1, part 2, and part 3.
Since Barack Obama received the requisite number of electoral votes and has been sworn in as President, his eligibility for that office can only be challenged by Congress.
Congress, via the DC Code quo warranto statute, has exercised that authority to challenge the sitting Presidents eligibility by authorizing exactly one specific court - the District Court for the District of Columbia - with the power of carrying out the ministerial task of holding a trial of fact concerning questions as to the Presidents eligibility to hold the office of President.
Section 16-3544 of the DC Code provides for a jury trial as to all issues of fact on this issue of Presidential eligibility. The provisions of 16-3502 also provide the only means available under the law where an action to challenge President Obamas qualifications can be instituted without the acquiescence of any Judge or Justice.
Every prior attempt to have this issue litigated has been squashed by a plethora of justices on grounds of personal standing, subject matter jurisdiction, or, as to SCOTUS, unknown reasons.
So the DC Code should be the center of attention for all concerned about POTUS eligibility questions.
While there are many law suits pending in a multiplicity of jurisdictions around the United States, not one of those law suits has availed itself of the District of Columbia Codes quo warranto statute, the only statute which specifically provides for a trial as to the issue of whether the President of the United States is eligible to the office of President.
Because all of these law suits are a distraction from the exclusive Constitutional means available to any new or pending litigant on this issue, I am restricting this blogs content and all discussion therein to issues concerning the DC Code quo warranto statute and to issues concerning Constitutional qualifications for President.
I am doing this to keep the light shining on what I feel - as an attorney - is the very truth of the law. I have worked hard to gain peoples faith in my legal analysis, and Ive tried to keep the discussion of this blog pure and free from spin and sensation so as to educate my readers as to the cold hard facts of the law and to its limitations which we must abide by if we are to preserve our Constitution.
Moreover, I have never taken any donations for this effort and I never will.
From now on, I will not allow comments to be posted which mention the names of, or which identify in any way with, law suits and/or attorneys, who refuse to acknowledge the applicable authority of the DC Code quo warranto statute. I wish the other attorneys no ill will. I just dont have faith in their tactics.
I'm beginning to agree with the Europeans that Americans are really a bunch of very stupid, uneducated, un- worldly morons who live for their stomachs and sex organs.
We have a HUGE problem in this country and it isn't just Obama...
It seems no attorney has yet unlocked the key to a perfectly presented case, with proper standing, jurisdiction, form, plaintiff, etc. But they keep swinging, and I don’t think they’re going away.
Latest re Keyes v Bowen
Superior Court of California
These respondents demur that the Court has no jurisdiction over the subject of this action (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10(a)). The demurrer is sustained on this ground as well. Federal law establishes the procedure for election of the President and Vice President and establishes the exclusive means for challenges to the qualifications of the President and Vice President.
That procedure is for objections to be presented before the United States Congress pursuant to 3 U.S.C. section 15. Petitioners belief in the importance of their arguments is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon this Court.
These respondents also contend that the case is not justiciablethat it is moot in all respects except those that are unripe. The Court finds this argument well taken.
The case is clearly moot. The Secretary of State already placed the candidates names on the ballot, the election has already taken place, the Electors were certified elected by the Secretary of State, met and cast their votes, the governor certified those results and transmitted them to the President of the Senate, and President Obama and Vice President Biden have now been inaugurated and are engaged in the duties of their offices.
It is too late for relief against the Secretary of State and the California Electors as to the 2008 General Election. And as to any future election, the claims are not ripe.
There is no actual controversy which admits of definitive and conclusive relief, as distinguished from an advisory opinion upon a hypothetical state of facts. (Selby Realty Co. v. City of San Buenaventura (1973) 10 Cal.3d 110, 117; Pacific Legal Foundation v. California Coastal Commn (1982) 33 Cal.3d 158.)
The Request of President Barack Obama et al. for Judicial Notice in Support of Demurrer is GRANTED.
Perhaps Donofrio’s Quo Warranto approach, which would have to be voluntarily undertaken by Atty General Holder and DC US Atty, are now the proper legal approach, but the chances of them taking up this mantle are probably very slim ... but, you never know.
If lawsuits against BHO are in fact initiated in the future in droves by folks aggrieved by bills he’s signed into law, as has been speculated, that could generate a pressure cooker of trouble that would be very hard to ignore.
God bless America.
“undertaken by Atty General Holder and DC US Atty”
Holder OR DC US Atty
Thanks for posting this STARWISE...and for ALL your other posts :)
Anyone want to venture a guess as to the meaning of “unripe”
in this context?
“These respondents also contend that the case is not justiciablethat it is moot in all respects except those that are unripe. The Court finds this argument well taken.”
not ripe or mature; green
not yet fully developed unripe plans
Obsolete premature: said esp. of a death
Not yet fully developed unripe plans...?
Possibly ... or maybe a situation caused by
an ineligible POTUS in the course of signing
bills into laws, which impact the citizenry
Wasn’t it Vieira who said that dozens and
dozens of lawsuits would occur AFTER folks
were harmed by virtue of bills he signs into
... Found it .. worth the reminder:
Edwin Vieira, a constitutional lawyer who has practiced for 30 years and holds four degrees from Harvard, said if it were to be discovered Mr. Obama were not eligible for the presidency, it would cause many problems. They would be compounded if his ineligibility were discovered after he had been in office for a period of time.
Mr. Vieira said such an ethical question of representing a client who refused to produce such a basic document is important, even in a small civil case. The current question is concerning the man who potentially could have his finger next to the nuclear button.
“[The birth certificate], in theory, should be there,” said Mr. Vieira. “What if it isn’t? Who knows, aside from Mr. Obama? Does Russian intelligence know it isn’t there? Does Chinese intelligence know it isn’t there? Does the CIA know that it isn’t there? Who is in a position to blackmail this fellow?”
Mr. Vieira explained all laws have to be submitted to the president. In the event that there is no valid president, then no laws passed by Congress in that administration would be legally null and void. Because of that, this case will probably not go away, even after Mr. Obama takes the oath of office.
“If you don’t produce it, you think it’s going to go away,” he said. “There are all these cases challenging Mr. Obama, and some challenging secretaries of state, and they run into this doctrine called standing.”
Mr. Vieira explained although legal standing is difficult to get around in Federal courts, the document could be produced in any criminal cases stemming from legislation passed in the Obama administration.
“Let’s assume that an Obama administration passes some of these controversial pieces of legislation he has been promising to go for, like the FOCA (Freedom of Choice) Act,” said Mr. Vieira. “I would assume that some of those surely will have some severe civil or criminal penalties attached to them for violation. You are now the criminal defendant under this statute, which was passed by an Obama Congress and signed by President Obama.
Your defense is that is not a statute because Mr. Obama is not the president. You now have a right and I have never heard this challenged, to subpoena in a criminal case, anyone who has relevant evidence relating to your defenses. And you can subpoena them duces tecum, meaning ‘you shall bring with you the documents.’ “
Such a criminal defense would enable the defendant to subpoena any person to testify in court and any person to bring evidence in their possession to the court.
Further, records could be subpoenaed directly, in the case of a birth certificate. Once the record could be subpoenaed, the birth certificate could be examined by forensic experts, who would then be able to testify to the document’s veracity as expert witnesses.
Any movement by the judges to make a special exception to the president in a criminal case would hurt the legitimacy of that presidential administration.
I'm an Australian. I think that's a bit rough. The europeans aren't that much different, regardless of their claims, it's just fashionable in europe to look down their noses at the US - it makes them feel superior.
We have a HUGE problem in this country and it isn't just Obama...
With that I must agree, and here's an example of one of them (IMO)
Malcolm X had been a pimp, a cocaine addict and a thief. He was an unashamed demagogue. His gospel was hatred: "Your little babies will get polio!" he cried to the "white devils." His creed was violence: "If ballots won't work, bullets will." Yet even before his bullet-ripped body went to its grave, Malcolm X was being sanctified. Negro leaders called him "brilliant," said he had recently "moderated" his views, blamed his assassination on "the white power structure" or, in the case of Martin Luther King, on a "society sick enough to express dissent with murder." Malcolm's death, they agreed, was a setback to the civil rights movement. Alias John Doe. In fact, Malcolm X in life and in deathwas a disaster to the civil rights movement...
Read it all, five pages of the truth. The enemy within was islam all along, Malcolm X was recruited in prison just as is going on right now. Islam uses the blacks and the indigenous everywhere to further its aims. Marxism is simply its 'white' face.
Amen to that.
That’s islam behind the white hatred, behind that fraud Jeremiah Wright who ran Trinity ‘church’ (who studied islam) - that’s islam behind the worship of Malcolm X - and the muslim clerics in the prisons.
Wright used the same words, chickens coming home to roost:
“...Malcolm was also a savage speaker. After the 1962 plane crash in France that killed 121 whites from Georgia, he rose before a Los Angeles audience and said: “I would like to announce a very beautiful thing that has happened. I got a wire from God today. He really answered our prayers over in France. He dropped an airplane out of the sky with over 120 white people on it because the Muslims believe in an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. We will continue to pray and we hope that every day another plane falls out of the sky.”
“The Comeuppance. In demand as a speaker, not just among Negroes but before white civic groups and on college campuses, Malcolm gained in popularity and became a threat to Elijah Muhammad’s leadership of the Black Muslims.
“All Elijah wanted was a chance to give Malcolm his comeuppanceand in 1963 Malcolm offered him the opportunity. After President Kennedy’s assassination, Malcolm publicly called the murder a case of “the chickens coming home to roost.” Cried he: “Being an old farm boy myself, chickens coming home to roost never did make me sad; they’ve always made me glad.” ...
That disgusting piece of work who called himself Malcolm X has been elevated to martyr status. The truth about black muslims seems to have been buried with him. As an Aussie, I’m only just now catching up with the background.
the malcolm x project at columbia university...
...probably kept obama busy at Columbia, and thats why the records are sealed.
WHOOPS! Looks like someone didn’t like me posting that link, all I get now is ACCESS DENIED!
I just tried, got Access Denied. Clicked it earlier and saw the Malcolm X fan club crap.
Here's an intersting take:
A cathartic moment, a sudden change of vista and a vision of hope -- the election of Barack Obama as the next US president was all these things, despite some ominous signs of things to come, writes Hamid Dabashi* (Published in Cairo.)
Ultimately, I voted for Obama for all the right reasons, reasons that in the course of the grueling presidential campaign were turned upside down and turned into causes not to vote for him. I voted for Obama because the noble anger of Malcolm X resonates gently in his two books ( Audacity of Hope and Dreams from my Father ), and no matter how hard he now tries to conceal the cadences of Malcolm's voice and speech patterns we can still hear the Muslim revolutionary emerge from under Obama's sweet and gentle demeanour.
I VOTED FOR OBAMA because for two long and formative decades he was graced by the prophetic voice of Jeremiah Wright, the liberation theologian who lent Obama the title of his book -- "The Audacity of Hope" -- and preached to him in the abiding moral voice of a nation in search of its better angels. I voted for Barack Obama for the courage he once had to seek the company of Bill Ayers, the defiant voice of the Civil Rights Movement, whom John McCain and Sarah Palin called a "domestic terrorist." If Bill Ayers once saw something in Obama worthy of his friendship, then there must have once been something good in Obama...
Keep an eye over your shoulder. These are big league folks and I’ve watched them do some incredibly nasty stuff to people who get in the way of the Internationalist Movement. They are reading every post... right comrades???
Of course they are. I am aware of that. But everything we write is there, out in the open; we don’t make this stuff up, we always provide a link or quote a source. And as quickly as they scrub something, another one pops up.
That is the beauty of this forum. Freedom of speech at its finest. Heck, we exposed Dan Rather!
ACKKK! Who the he!! is that sick (deleted bad words)??? I am a gentle vegetarian ahimsa practicing ol’ lady (yes I am actually MRS lj) but reading that vile stinking crap makes me want to find a weapon and beat that (deleted bad words) until he stops breathing and his heart is broken into many pieces. I have to get away from my computer right now for my mental health and blood pressure.
You are a saint that you find this stuff, it takes guts and determination, the world needs to know that truth about the jackal who fraudulently “won” the election and the evil people who support him and indeed, pull his strings.
and no matter how hard he now tries to conceal the cadences of Malcolm's voice and speech patterns we can still hear the Muslim revolutionary emerge from under Obama's sweet and gentle demeanour.
sweet and gentle I'm not quite so sure of, however...but the muzzies recognize one of their own, obviously, and the paternity question seems settled as far as this muslim writer in Cairo is concerned.
If he’s in Cairo how did he vote for 0bama?
He really thinks he’s a great writer, too..
sounds like an arab with dual citizenship...like so many of them, he was probably educated in the US...
“On Tuesday, 4 November 2008 at 6:57 am, I cast my first and only vote during my American sojourn for Barack Hussein Obama. You are the second person to vote, sir, a young Korean-American official told me at Election District 88 where I live with a smile, as her African-American colleague took my New York State driving licence and looked up my name on the roster of registered voters.”
Well, that’s his word on it. Goodness knows...
FOR THE RECORD:
Is Barack Obama related to Malcolm X?
the source will surprise.
FOR THE RECORD:
The Malcolm X Project at Columbia - link has been restored.
I wonder if anything got sanitized off of it?
you can bet on it, there must have been something there that connected...
The FOI report for periods in 1959 are also ACCESS FOBRIDDEN.
‘They’ don’t want us to see this:
Malcolm X shows pictures of his travels in Africa, urges blacks to fight whites at home, not abroad, and that whites are afraid of what Muslims will do next (9/25/59).
sorry, forgot the link:
They’re really reading this thread, for sure.
And other threads I mean.
Note to 0-team lurkers:
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.