The left likes to call it the “birther” issue. The term birther is used as a derisive term by the left, much as truther is. Of course the difference is truthers beliefs are based on a paranoid ideology, where as the birther issue is based on facts.
I prefer to call it the eligibility issue, not the birther issue. Whether you agree or not, the people who are pushing the eligibility issue are on our side. It is certainly counter-productive to deride them like liberals do.
Recently a whole stream of Republicans have come out, at the prompting of the drive by media, to reassure us that Obama is a citizen and oh, yes, he is a Christian too.
Last Sunday, at the prodding of David Gregory on Meet the Press, or as Rush likes to call it, Meet the depressed, Boehner said, the State of Hawaii had said he was born there, that was good enough for him.
Karl Rove, not a friend of the Tea Party, pushed the RINO line that Obama is a citizen and Sarah Palin, at a meeting in Long Island, a few days ago, also denounced the eligibility issue. Palin ended her remarks on the subject by saying, “let’s stick with what really matters.”
This issue does matter.
There are three variations on the eligibility issue. Two are based on undisputed facts. The third is in dispute.
The most commonly reported of the eligibility challenges is the claim that Obama was actually born in Kenya, not Hawaii. I believe, based on the available evidence, that it is more likely than not, Obama was actually born in Hawaii. Obama has spent a lot of time and (other people’s) money, keeping his original birth certificate out of sight.
Why?
Jack Cashill is one of my favorite writers and he has a theory which I think makes sense, that Obama was in fact born in Hawaii, but there is something else on his birth certificate that would destroy the myth of Barack Obama. (See his website, Cashill.com). In the law, there is a presumption that if a party has exclusive access to a piece of evidence and will not release it, the evidence must be adverse to their position.
The second eligibility issue is the claim that because Barack Obama’s father was a Kenyan, a British subject at the time of Obama’s birth, he is not a natural born citizen.
The third is the argument that because Barack Obama was adopted as a child by an Indonesian and moved to Indonesia, he is not an American citizen. Under the law at that time, if an American child was adopted by a citizen of another country and moved to that country, he lost his citizenship. He could regain his citizenship by applying at an American Embassy when he was 18, but would then be treated as a naturalized citizen and thus ineligible to be President.
What is stunning about all of this is the mainstream Republican reaction to the eligibility issues.
The RINOs turn their noses up at the people who want the answers, which, incidentally is 60% of Republican voters. They turn their noses up at the Tea Party movement. Yet, they do not take a moment to consider why this is important.
If Barack Obama is proved to be ineligible to be President, everything he has done is wiped out. Obamacare is gone. The START treaty is gone. The liberal lunatics Obama has appointed to the Federal Judiciary, including the two he has put on the Supreme Court are gone.
Much of the damage Obama has done to this country can be undone. Unfortunately, the Country Club Republicans remain clueless. In their minds, the Democrats are simply the lower class versions of themselves. They do not understand that if the party of treason has its way, America will be forever changed and ultimately destroyed.
The Courts have so far brushed aside all of the eligibility claims. None have been addressed on the merits under the claim that Americans lack standing to challenge the issue. Recently, the Supreme Court has given some indication it may consider one of the issues. We can only hope.
What are the chances of success? Who knows?
Why do football teams run the flea flicker play? It does not work all of the time, but when it does, the results are spectacular. Why should conservatives all hope this works out? Because this wipes out almost everything the Obama regime has done. We get a do over.
You would think, even the RINOs who want to denigrate the eligibility issue could figure this one out.
Permalink Reply by Donna on After World war 2,the japenese emperor said that "one day we will take America without fireing a shot". What are the Japenese saying now?
Permalink Reply by Elizabeth Shea on Amen to that!
Earlier on this thread an announcement regarding a reward -- see the following:
[$100,000 Reward For Verifiable Evidence of White House
Published in Washington Times July 18
(Media: contact 703-938-9626 or art@conservativeusa.org for interviews)
Wanted—The Truth!
Was Operation Fast & Furious
Simply a bungled attempt to capture
Mexican Drug Lords, or was it an “under the radar”
political scheme hatched at the White House as now appears possible? That’s why we’re offering a …]
I bet it would be easy to raise a lot more money than that -- $1,000,000 perhaps? There are many angry Americans who would be glad to contribute.
$100,000 might not be enough to entice an informer since he could be putting his life in danger. I wonder if TPN would donate more to the sum.
Americans for Truth & Justice
A Special Project of The Conservative Caucus
P.O. Box 166
Vienna, VA 22183
Reward@ConservativeUSA.org
When I first learned of the tragic massacre in Aurora, CO, my first thought was that it may have been a setup to frighten people into giving up their guns. It is nearly August and the gangsters in DC have got to get going if they are going to get the Usurper reelected.
Meanwhile, I'm forwarding information about Obama and the Washington gangsters to those on my email list. I''ve been informed by a few that it's not welcome. Too bad -- I will send it anyway.
Permalink Reply by Elizabeth Shea on MILITARY INSIDER: President Obama – “By Any Means Necessary”
The Ulsterman Report
July 19, 2012
For the first time in over two years of ongoing interviews, a powerful and highly influential Wall Street Insider allows for direct interview participation of a figure we will simply call “Military Insider.” What follows is the first of a two-part interview with both of these individuals who are warning of an impending manufactured crisis within the United States by powers desperate to secure a second term for “the man calling himself Obama.” For those who have followed these insider interviews from the beginning – you know just how accurate they have proven to be. Please remind yourself of that as you read this latest discussion.
UM: Can we begin?
WSI: (Broad smile) Yes – and might I just say this before we do…it is so very nice to see you.
UM: I’m just as glad to see you looking so much better. Out of the woods?
WSI: No-no…at my age one is always “in the woods” if you will. But at this point, I’m not helping to fertilize the trees just yet! (laughs).
UM: Why did you decide to invite him here? I’m glad – honored, to have them here, but can you explain…briefly explain why you’ve done this?
WSI: Certainly. I invited…I guess that term is sufficient…I invited them here for no other reason than to have what they know and what their experience tells them – I wanted that perspective to now be included in this from the first person. I…we…- name deleted - and I decided it would be best, when possible, to have this information come to you without the filter of our own interpretations.
UM: How long have you known each other?
WSI: (Looks over at MI) That would be…nearly twenty years? Perhaps a bit more?
MI: Twenty three years.
WSI: That long? Really?
MI: Just over twenty-three years. That’s correct.
UM: Have you known – name deleted - that long as well?
MI: No.
WSI: I introduced them…it wasn’t more than a few years ago. Shortly after the election…in 2008. Shortly after – name deleted - told me there had been a terrible mistake made. That Obama being elected had been a terrible mistake. Then I began hearing similar things from him…the concern that was…mounting within the military and intelligence community regarding the new president.
UM: Can you expand on that? Those concerns. What were they?
WSI: You’ve already – we’ve already been down that path. A number of times.
UM: I’d like to hear it from him. If that’s ok. Their perspective. Unfiltered. Like you just said you wanted.
(Military Insider looks at WSI)
WSI: If they wish to share that with you…that is certainly fine. But I would caution there is a great deal of information that this interview is to…coordinate with your own efforts…you may not want to spend too much time rehashing what was. I would rather concentrate on what I now know that is going to be…or what some hope is to be.
UM: We’ve got time – I really want to hear them describe these concerns. It’s those concerns that pushed us to this point, right? So if you’re comfortable with that – please…you can be brief if you want…but tell us a bit about those concerns back then. After 2008. Or before 2008 if there were concerns before then.
MI: There were.
UM: Concerns? Before 2008? About Obama?
Read More: http://theulstermanreport.com/2012/07/19/military-insider-president...
Permalink Reply by Royce Latham on Elizabeth
Thank you for that like. Remember the operation, BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY.
Permalink Reply by Elizabeth Shea on I won't forget it, Royce!
Permalink Reply by Royce Latham on from: http://www.islam-watch.org/Others/Islamic-sexual-perversion.htm
Muslims have morals as outlined by below:
"A man can marry a girl younger than nine years of age, even if the girl is still a baby being breastfed. A man, however is prohibited from having intercourse with a girl younger than nine, other sexual acts such as foreplay, rubbing, kissing and sodomy is allowed. A man having intercourse with a girl younger than nine years of age has not committed a crime, but only an infraction, if the girl is not permanently damaged. If the girl, however, is permanently damaged, the man must provide for her all her life. But this girl will not count as one of the man's four permanent wives. He also is not permitted to marry the girl's sister."
Is there a proper Muslim way to have sex with animals? Indeed, there is! Guidelines for sex with animals can be found in the writings of Ayatollah Khomeini. Two excerpts from his writings serve to clarify the matter.
"A man can have sex with sheep, cows and camels and so on. However, he should kill the animal after he has his orgasm. He should not sell the meat to the people in his own village; however, selling the meat to the next door village should be fine." Don't the buyers deserve a discount of some kind?
Khomeini's "Tahrirolvasyleh" fourth volume, Darol Elm, Gom, Iran, 1990
"If one commits the act of sodomy with a cow, a ewe, or a camel, their urine and their excrement become impure, and even their milk may no longer be consumed. The animal must then be killed and as quickly as possible and burned." What if it was really good and invites another lap or two? Must animals always be one-night stands?
Permalink Reply by Elizabeth Shea on 
Permalink Reply by Elizabeth Shea on Gerald Celente -- John Stadtmiller Radio Show - July 17, 2012
The American Dream Is Over
Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f60KSEr0Fvk
Permalink Reply by Elizabeth Shea on Gerald Celente is the owner of Trends Research and publisher of "Trends Journal" (which is often referred to as "The Bible" by people in the world of finance).
Permalink Reply by Royce Latham on Here is an idea. Start tracking the banks. Start tracking the members of CFR. Start learning the real history of the last hundred years. All the evidence is available.
Permalink Reply by Royce Latham on 
© 2013 Created by Judson Phillips.
