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.
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.
John, One of Alinsky's Rules for Radicals is to ridicule your opponent to marginalize them. Obama and his handlers do that very well with the aid of their lapdogs, the liberal MSM. Politicians don't want to be marginalized, especially in an election year.
Further, Obama's Administration has evidently strong-armed the MSM into submission. I read an article recently about the TV networks being strong-armed, unfortunately I can't locate it. But here is an excerpt from an article that appeared in the Canada Free Press:
In an explosive interview by Dr. Laurie Roth on her syndicated West Coast radio show on August 7th, Douglas Hagmann—a respected journalist, director of the Northeast Intelligence Network and longtime private investigator, and Judi McLeod, a prolific journalist and the managing editor of Canada Free Press—the reason for the media blackout about the birth-certificate issue was nothing less than organized Mafia-like dire threats to members of the media issued not only from the heads of major TV and radio stations but also from Federal Communication Commission officials!
According to Hagmann and McLeod, who conducted a nine-month investigation and documented their findings scrupulously, after Obama was elected but before he was inaugurated:
During the interview, Hagmann and McLeod—who never mentioned a particular network by name—alluded to e-mails and other evidence in their possession, copies of which, they said, were secreted in several locations. But they did tantalize listeners with descriptions of meeting with “sources” outside of St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York City, a high-placed contact looking nervously over his shoulder, references to directives and warnings given by “those at the top,” and the undisguised threat of one executive to his underlings: “This is serious, and so will the consequences be if anyone chooses not to be a team player with this.”
This comes as no surprise to Fox watchers who have noticed that the Stalinist-style censorship of the Obama regime is already here. This couldn’t possibly be because of the healthy shares of stock the Saudis bought in Fox, could it? If so, why would the Saudis care so much about quashing potentially damning revelations about Obama? Have they also bought shares in Obama?
Come to think of it, who exactly paid the tuition for Obama’s stint at Harvard Law School? What role did Obama’s long-time friend, Khalid al-Mansour, a key advisor to a Saudi billionaire, play? Writer Kenneth Timmerman describes al-Mansour as “well known within the black community as a lawyer, an orthodox Muslim, a black nationalist, an author, an international deal-maker, an educator, and an outspoken enemy of Israel.” This is not to omit that al-Mansour was originally contacted to intervene with Harvard on Obama’s behalf by Percy Sutton, former Manhattan Borough President and the lawyer of Malcolm X. Ah…the tangled web of it all!
Then there is the question of what role was played by Saudi Prince Alwaleed, the nephew of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia? You remember Prince Alwaleed, who offered then-Mayor Rudy Giuliani $10 million after September 11 if he would only blame America for the terrorist attacks of which 15 of 19 perpetrators were Saudi Arabian—a “gift” the mayor promptly and with appropriate contempt rejected!
In short, what influence have the Saudis exerted on Fox to muzzle the issue of Obama’s birth certificate? I don’t ask this about the network TV channels or cable channels like CNN and MSNBC, which are still issuing daily hagiographies of Obama.
Just who has been sending “the message”? And how did it permeate not only the media, but also the once-respected U.S. Congress and the courts of our land, including the once-incorruptible Supreme Court? And what menacing forces made the once-courageous conservative media abandon their mission to expose rank corruption and collusion?
Two words: Money Talks!
If you’re a media mogul and you get word from the FCC that your license will be pulled immediately and irrevocably if you mention only three words—Obama’s birth certificate—poof! You send that word to your employees and tell them that their mega-salaries—in fact, their employment—are on the line.
If you’re a conservative talk-show host and you get your boss’s directive not to dare to mention only three words—Obama’s birth certificate—poof! Lips sealed; curiosity zero!
If the money thing doesn’t work, there’s always the threat thing, i.e., “going public” about tax records, health status, or family secrets. Or be audited by the IRS. Or be investigated by any number of regulatory agencies.
One aspect of the article above I posted where it says that Khalid al-Mansour was contacted by Percy Sutton to intervene at Harvard on Obama's behalf, it's actually the reverse. al-Mansour went to Percy Sutton to ask him to write a letter of recommendation for Obama to Sutton's contacts at Harvard. Here's Percy Sutton in his own words:
One of the saudi prince's was obamas father,according to my mother in 1961.
The allegation that Obama was disbarred because of multiple and known lies on his bar application, which showed a pattern of not only criminal conduct, but of intentional misrepresentation of facts as well. Since his usurpation of the office of President this pattern of intentional lying has only increased. The record of lies is only exceeded by the New York Times and other purported news outlets augmenting the lies unabatedly.
The sealing of the disbarment is surpassed by the FCC illegally violating the 1st Amendment by forcefully forbidding disclosure of information related to Obama's birth certificates or mention of the circumstances resulting in the loss of privilege to practice law in Illinois.
The lies revealed in a 2008 complaint to the State Bar of Illinois include self-admitted felonious drug use and lying about his multiple parking tickets. As with most scandals, it is the cover up that is more of an issue than the original crime. Conspicuously missing from the complaint is the glaring perjury of Obama not admitting any of his aliases.
Janet I don't know why Media Matters is reporting this?
Seems Soros did not believe in birth control.
Of course they could be syblings.
It smacks of nepotism!!
György Schwartz, better known to the world as George Soros, was born August 12, 1930 in Hungary . Soros' father, Tivadar, was a fervent practitioner of the Esperanto language invented in 1887, and designed to be the first global language, free of any national identity. The Schwartz's, who were non-practicing Jews, changed the family name to Soros, in order to facilitate assimilation into the Gentile population, as the Nazis spread into Hungary during the 1930s.
Here is a partial transcript from an interview done by Steve Kroft for CBS' 60 Minutes George Soros on December 20, 1998:
George Soros Interview On 60 Minutes
When the Nazis occupied Budapest in 1944, George Soros' father was a successful lawyer. He lived on an island in the Danube and liked to commute to work in a rowboat. But knowing there were problems ahead for the Jews, he decided to split his family up. He bought them forged papers and he bribed a government official to take 14-year-old George Soros in and swear that he was his Christian godson. But survival carried a heavy price tag. While hundreds of thousands of Hungarian Jews were being shipped off to the death camps, George Soros accompanied his phony godfather on his appointed rounds, confiscating property from the Jews.
(Vintage footage of Jews walking in line; man dragging little boy in line)
KROFT: (Voiceover) These are pictures from 1944 of what happened to George Soros' friends and neighbors.
(Vintage footage of women and men with bags over their shoulders walking; crowd by a train)
KROFT: (Voiceover) You're a Hungarian Jew…
Mr. SOROS: (Voiceover) Mm-hmm.
KROFT: (Voiceover) …who escaped the Holocaust…
(Vintage footage of women walking by train)
Mr. SOROS: (Voiceover) Mm-hmm.
(Vintage footage of people getting on train)
KROFT: (Voiceover) …by–by posing as a Christian.
Mr. SOROS: (Voiceover) Right.
(Vintage footage of women helping each other get on train; train door closing with people in boxcar)
KROFT: (Voiceover) And you watched lots of people get shipped off to the death camps.
Mr. SOROS: Right. I was 14 years old. And I would say that that's when my character was made.
KROFT: In what way?
Mr. SOROS: That one should think ahead. One should understand and–and anticipate events and when–when one is threatened. It was a tremendous threat of evil. I mean, it was a–a very personal experience of evil.
KROFT: My understanding is that you went out with this protector of yours who swore that you were his adopted godson.
Mr. SOROS: Yes. Yes.
KROFT: Went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of property from the Jews.
Mr. SOROS: Yes. That's right. Yes.
KROFT: I mean, that's–that sounds like an experience that would send lots of people to the psychiatric couch for many, many years. Was it difficult?
Mr. SOROS: Not–not at all. Not at all. Maybe as a child you don't–you don't see the connection. But it was–it created no–no problem at all.
KROFT: No feeling of guilt?
Mr. SOROS: No.
KROFT: For example that, 'I'm Jewish and here I am, watching these people go. I could just as easily be there. I should be there.' None of that?
Mr. SOROS: Well, of course I c–I could be on the other side or I could be the one from whom the thing is being taken away. But there was no sense that I shouldn't be there, because that was–well, actually, in a funny way, it's just like in markets–that if I weren't there–of course, I wasn't doing it, but somebody else would–would–would be taking it away anyhow. And it was the–whether I was there or not, I was only a spectator, the property was being taken away. So the–I had no role in taking away that property. So I had no sense of guilt.
Billionaire currency trader and hedge fund investor.
Source: Philanthropy Notes, Capital Research Center Foundation Watch, August 2006, page 8.
Hardcopy: Copy of page 8 from the source document.
Where: In a discussion of his future philanthropic plans in The Age of Fallibility.
I once met what I dubbed a white-gloved mafioso, I call him John. I met him in a hospital room shared by brother-in-law Fred; both were dying. After he died the NYT printed his obituary, it was then I learned what he represented. During my visits to see Fred I had a number of conversations with John. One day when I was pointing to the doings of mob members that appeared in the newspapers, he said that those guys were lower echelon. He saw my amazement and said that those who directed criminal undertakings are quietly in the background, and he mentioned a name that appeared on a huge complex west of St. Patrick's in NYC. He said we are no different. Shifted my thinking that those that wear white gloves engage in accumulating wealth quietly. We hear of George Soros doing this and that so much that he doesn't meet being a member of the white glove club; that he is of the lower echelon. It is said that the Rothchilds run things and they do it quietly. Soros is a soldier. Some detail was made obscure but the background is
Also David Rockefeller.
Janet, the Brothers.