Over 100 FREE Online Calculators

Saturday, November 1, 2008

Now there can be No Doubt as to the fact the image of Obama's birth certificate from Obama's web site was altered when checked with a hex editor.

Now there can be No Doubt as to the fact the image of Obama's birth certificate from Obama's web site was altered when checked with a hex editor. The hex editor displays information about the image and in this case reveals the image was edited with adobe photoshop CS3 on 6/12/2008 at 8:42am

It was altered on a Macintosh.2c Using Adobe Photoshop CS3 at 08:06:12 08:42:36 as indicated in the right side column of the free hex editor I downloaded to check this out myself. Wow! whoever did this did not know about hex editors and the fact they can be used to check an image attributes. The editor also can be used to change the attributes but in this case it seems very obvious the changed attributes match what has been altered to fake Obama's certificate of birth, which IS NOT A LEGAL DOCUMENT!.

This short video will explain why Obama's birth certificate is a fake. Notice the missing signature at the bottom and the missing embossed stamp.

Obama Birth Certificate Seal Is Missing Also

UPDATE! - Barack Obama Birth Certificate Forgery Confirmed

DNC and Obama Move to have Case Dismissed

Is this a fake birth certificate? We must ask and hope on Nov 18,2008 Andy Martin can reveal the truth about the Barack Hussein Obama.

Andy Martin Lawsuit against Obama

Andy Martin Web Site and Current Information about the Nov 18, 2008 Court date that could reveal Obama's original birth certificate

Download a FREE hex editor and check the Obama birth Certificate for yourself!

Validate what I am telling you! I verified it with this free hex editor and I also truly believe and know from examinating the jpg from his web site which is pictured above, that it is a FAKE! Just right click to download and save image as BO_Birth_Certificate.jpg and then open it up in the hex editor and look at the right side column!

Additional Information Abourt Hawwian "birth Certificates"

The primary documents used to show you are of age and a qualified native Hawaiian are:

* A certified copy of Certificate of Birth;
* A certified copy of Certificate of Hawaiian Birth, including testimonies; or
* A certified copy of Certificate of Delayed Birth.

As you can see there are 3 types..Take your pick

Certificate of Hawaiian Birth - These forms were issued to people who did not have a birth certificate recorded at the time of their birth. In order to get a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth a person had to take witnesses that could testify to the circumstances of their birth. Those testifying were usually family members or family friends. This is what Obama has said is his proof of American Natural Born Citizenship, A Certificate of Hawaiian Birth, which means a birth certificate was not recorded at the time of his birth as it says above.
An altered photoshop certificate.

Hawaiian Roots

If I'm reading this correctly Obama can apply today for a birth certificate that has never existed: If there is no standard birth certificate on file, an applicant is required to submit documentary evidence of the birth facts necessary to support of the registration of the late certificate of birth. If approved, the late birth certificate will be registered in place of the Certificate of Hawaiian Birth, which must then be surrendered to the Department of Health.

Who is Eligible to Apply for the Issuance of a Late Birth Certificate in Lieu of a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth?

Who is Eligible to Apply for the Issuance of a Late Birth Certificate in Lieu of a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth?

The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth program was established in 1911, during the territorial era, to register a person born in Hawaii who was one year old or older and whose birth had not been previously registered in Hawaii. The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth Program was terminated in 1972, during the statehood era.

Certified copies of a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth may be requested following the procedures for certified copies of standard birth certificates (see Certified Copies). The eligibility requirements for issuance of a certified copy of a standard birth certificate apply to Certificates of Hawaiian Birth. And the same fees charged for standard birth certificates are charged for Certificates of Hawaiian Birth. Copies of the set of testimony used to establish a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth may also be requested, and an additional fee is charged for each copy of the set of testimony.

Any person to whom a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth has been issued may submit a request to amend an entry, including a legal change of name, on an existing Certificate. A request to amend a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth will, however, be considered to be and treated as an application with the Department of Health for registration of a late certificate of birth in current use, unless a standard birth certificate for that person already exists in the vital records of the Department of Health. Should there be a situation of dual registration, the requested amendment will be made to the standard birth certificate on file if the required documentary evidence in support of the amendment has been submitted and evaluated to be adequate. If there is no standard birth certificate on file, an applicant is required to submit documentary evidence of the birth facts necessary to support of the registration of the late certificate of birth. If approved, the late birth certificate will be registered in place of the Certificate of Hawaiian Birth, which must then be surrendered to the Department of Health.
How to Apply for the Issuance of a Late Birth Certificate in Lieu of a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth

Upon receiving a request to amend an entry on an existing Certificate of Hawaiian Birth, the Registration Unit of the Office of Health Status Monitoring will send:

1. notification to the requestor that the amendment request is treated as an application for registration of a late certificate of birth, and
2. instructions on procedures for and submission of required documentary evidence in support of registration of a late certificate of birth.

If the amendment request is subsequently withdrawn, all documents received in support of the amendment will be returned. If the requestor elects to proceed with the application for registration of a late certificate of birth, the documentary evidence submitted in support of registration will be reviewed and evaluated for adequacy. If the application is approved, a late birth certificate will be issued and the original Certificate of Hawaiian Birth issued to the applicant must be surrendered to, for cancellation by, the Department of Health. No filing fee is charged for the late birth certificate.

Obama went to Hawaii last week but I see no need to do this in person, it seems according to this Obama can pull a birth certificate out of thin air using Hawaii birth certificate procedures.

Nov 1,2008 Newsmax headline that says, “Hawaii Declares Obama Birth Certificate Genuine.”

Read the article carefully. It states:

State officials say there’s no doubt Barack Obama was born in Hawaii.

Health Department Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said Friday that she and the registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, have personally verified that the health department holds Obama’s original birth certificate.

Fukino says that no state official, including Republican Gov. Linda Lingle, ever instructed that Obama’s certificate be handled differently.

We believe that the original BC in the name Obama was sealed when Obama was adopted by Soetoro, and a new BC in the name Barry Soetoro was issued, and the Soetoro BC would be the current legal version of Obama’s BC. We believe THAT is the factual scenario he has attempted to cover up. We believe that Obama has concealed the Soetoro BC because it is direct evidence of Indonesian identity/citizenship, and Dual Citizenship presents an eligibility problem for him under Article II of the Constitution. These legal problems exist regardless of whether Obama was born in the USA (we assume he was), and regardless of whether is/was a US citizen (we assume he is).

This law suit has the most potential to reveal Barack Hussein Obama's original birth certificate

Hawaii Circuit Judge Bert I Ayabe set a November 18 hearing in Andy Martin's case to release Barack Obama's original, typewritten 1961 birth certificate and any supporting documents

(HONOLULU)(October 29, 2008) Judge Bert I Ayabe Wednesday set a hearing in the case of Andy Martin vs. Linda Lingle, First Circuit for Honolulu, No. 08-1-2147-10.

The hearing is set for November 18, 2008 at 10:30 A.M.
Hawaii Circuit Judge Bert I Ayabe set a November 18 hearing in Andy Martin's case to release Barack Obama's original, typewritten 1961 birth certificate and any supporting documents

Research has been done by Andy Martin about who "Obama" really is and it does seem very possible his conclusion are correct. Maybe we all will find out on Nov 18,2008
"Obama" was really the son of Frank Marshall Davis, a controversial leftist with a checked history in Honolulu
Patriot Brigade Talk Radio Network

There is strong internal fear that there are no more votes left for Obama to pick up

This is very funny and I believe very possible if Barack Hussein Obama is elected.

The poster known as Sarah P, who Rush quoted yesterday 10/30/08, posted another comment at HillBuzz last night.

I was going to write a long response to validate and defend myself, but I just don’t feel that its necessary. I am sorry some feel offended by my post. I have no shame or guilt, we all have careers but don’t necessarily agree with the boss. My duties are so benign and clerical that I don’t have a hand in what I feel is a “game”. The “game” as I see it is much like a play on vanity, its a ruffle up your feathers to appear larger kind of game. The campaign is now nearing 1 billion dollars, a 1 billion dollar campaign. Can you imagine, if 1 little girl came forth and tried to take on that kind of establishment. I am not the person for that, and its not possible for me to do without implosion. I am not sure I can offer much up that would take notice in the MSM and get reported. My story would not make news, its not newsworthy. Its not illegal, the ideas I am suggesting. Its smoke and mirrors, sure. Its playing with emotions, absolutely. But, to the masses and to the pundits it would be viewed as “campaigning” and you would be told that it was just Obama being the “better” campaigner.

The truth is simple. The idea is to appear as a winner. To deflate your opponent. To overwhelm your opponent. To confuse your opponent. And to own the airwaves. There was a mass coordination on foreigners to visit online sites and vote to declare who won in the debates. Did you notice that John Mccain seemed to lose and lose badly every time. Where did all those voters come from?

I could explain more, but my point wasn’t to dissect and draw this into a debate. My point was simple, never in my wildest dreams would I have ever considered myself a person who would vote for a “repug” as some like to call them. I have been involved in two elections and voted twice now. Straight democrat. I now see the truth, and the truth is to vote for what is best for our country. Vote not on emotion and don’t lose yourself to a game of mirrors. This election is down to a candidate that wants to win for his own desires and down to a candidate that wants to win for the country. Don’t allow yourself to be told what is right by anyone, review the facts, take a long good look at the candidate and decide what you believe is the right choice for us, for everyone in the united states. Your vote is your vote. Don’t allow a massive machine to feed you the answer.

I wrote the initial post to tell everyone to remain calm, stay firm in your convictions, vote with your heart don’t let the news and polls keep you and your will down. The news channels, the advertisements, the polls, are not the truth. They are not the truth. The truth is inside the people. Don’t be discouraged, and don’t give up.

And please, just ignore any oppositional voice on any forum, youtube, etc. Ask yourself one question, would there really be this much activity and opposition all on its own? Or were they sent, was this their mission? What seems more plausible?

How about the polls, how were the skewed? Take a look at the internals, always. But, above that think about something. How wold a polling company get paid? How would this be a viable business just on its own? They get paid by networks, ever notice how every two hours there is a pollster being interviewed and talking about his polls. Ever notice, the polls one day will have Barack Obama leading by 12, then the next day leading by 5, then the next day up to 8. How is that possible? Think about just one poll, that has Barack up 13 points, how badly would that destroy the average? Don’t you think it would be pretty easy to put together a few Pollsters to stick a few high polls up to throw off the average? This then makes other pollsters question their techniques, then they question the electorate and devise some kind of formula. They see their numbers as say Barack Obama up by 3, but they see another poll with Barack Obama up 13. They then formulate that there is problem, maybe some truth in the 13 poll, but that its overly exaggerated and that their poll is maybe too conservative so they then take their 3 and bump it up to say a 5-6. Its to split the difference, and the thought is that John Mccain doesn’t have the enthusiasm that Barack Obama does, so they give a weight adjustment that favors the democrat.

Lets just keep this simple, the race is 2-3 points in favor of Barack Obama. This is the internal truth. However, there is strong internal fear that there is no more votes left for him to pick up. Currently we see him at only 46% of the vote. Maybe 48% maximum.

If that wasn’t the truth, if all the polls were correct. Then why would there be a need for a 30 minute spot on all the networks. The goal from now and until next tuesday is to pick up 2 more percentage points. That is the goal. That is what the campaign is working on right now. That is the focus.

All the polls will all end up being around 3 point difference come monday. There will be a few rogue polls who will stick to their inflated numbers to help as that is their job, to help. but most will show it a 3 point race come monday.

The winner will be based on turnout, thats the secret, thats why you have seen so much opposition.”

October 31, 2008

Internals = everything that's not the headline number on a poll. And 'crosstabs' usually refers to breakdowns of questions by race, gender, age, party ID -- often with comparative breakdowns from previous polls.

The margin for error, according to standards customarily used by statisticians, is no more than plus or minus 4 percentage points. This means that there is a 95 percent probability that the "true" figure would fall within that range if the entire population were sampled. The margin for error is higher for any subgroup, such as a regional or racial grouping. In other words it ain't set in stone!

The best way to see this at work is to look at the full reporting of a poll like the example [PDF] below, which will usually open with a summary of the headline numbers, then go through the questions that were asked and offer a demographic breakdown.

This is an example of the 'internals" of a poll



Posted by hillbuzz Halloween Report 10/31/08

Last night here in Chicago’s Boystown, we counted 22 separate Sarah Palin/John McCain costumes out - always generating strong crowd interest, cheering, and applause. One of the costume sets was a guy dressed as Alaska (outline of state) matched up with another guy dressed as a house (I can see Alaska from my house). There was one group of people who dressed as Palin and her secret service entourage. Another of Palin with her husband Todd, and plenty of Palin’s by themselves in bright red suits. The best of the night was a man dressed as McCain and another as Palin, complete with a Cindy and Todd and a Bullwinkle moose.

Not a single person dressed as Obama and Biden.

Halloween costumes are a reflection of the zeitgeist in that moment — Palin and McCain were the costumes on people’s minds, because they are who are in the pop culture’s imagination right now.

The ticket that is best represented in Halloween costumes in an election year is the ticket that has won the White House since people first started paying attention to this anecdotal barometer.

If that’s true, then there’s a chance this election could not even be close and McCain/Palin could absolutely TROUNCE the Democrats. We’ve never seen that many representations of a Republican ticket out at Halloween. Never.

People are fascinated by Palin — hence the sustained effort to destroy her.

But, people today are talking about all the Palins they say last night out for Halloween. Tomorrow, they’ll still be talking about it, when they are at home with family and people make up their minds who to vote for. That’s what “undecideds” will truly do tomorrow — they decide the Sunday before the election.

And they sure as heck aren’t talking about Obama or his TV special today.


I can only hope this is not a trick and the treat will be Obama "the one, the empty suit, the socialist will loose"

Friday, October 31, 2008

Its a good ole boy club between the States the DNC and RNC.

Its seems there is "No Controlling Authority"

In my State SC the election commission not the Secretary Of State certifies the nominee

I sent a letter to my SC Secretary of State asking him how he had certified Barack Hussein Obama and he referred me to the state election commission. The SC State election commission sent me copy of "Offical Certification Of Nomination" from the DNC.

I quickly knew my State and probably every US State is relying only on the document the DNC has sent out that certifies Barack Hussein Obama was nominated at the convention for President of the US

In other words the whole country is relying on the DNC certification of nomination only!

This "Official Certification of Nomination" only states Obama was nominated in Denver Colorado Aug 2008. It doesn't say ANYTHING about his natural born citizenship!

How slick is this every Seretary Of State relies on the "official Certification Of Nomination' only!

I believe the same is true for the RNC.

SO there is a BIG loop hole here don't you think?

Nothing about qualifications under the US constitution is questioned by any State and no offical mention of qualifications from the DNC other that Barack Hussein Obama was nominated.

Sort of don't ask don't tell.

The States don't ask and the DNC doesn't tell.

If you don't believe me just ask your Secratary of State or State election Commission

Its a good ole boy club between the States the DNC and RNC.


This is the Key to the Election and Obama Knows it
by The One on Fri 31 Oct 2008 08:42 PM EDT

Its seems there is "No Controlling Authority"

Because he is a constitutional lawyer obama knows the only real controlling authority is ultimately the American People!

If WE THE PEOPLE will rise up and question what Barack Hussein Obama's qualifications for President are the "controlling authority" can question if he is a legitimate candidate for president if he is qualified under the US Constitution to be President because of natural born citizenship in the US, and has certified and proven this fact by producting a vault copy of his original Hawaiian birth certificate as required by the controlling authority, the American People.


We must contact congress and demand before Jan 6, 2009 when the electorial votes are counted that our employees question and object to Barack Hussein Obama's natural born citizenship.

WE THE PEOPLE can and do have this Constitutional right and obligation. If Obama is an illegal alien and his qualification are not questioned by Congress it will be like the American People have let him "cross the border" illegally an used a fake birth certificate to obtain the job of President of the US!

An Official Certification of Nomination, is no qualification for President This is only a statement by a political party about Obama's nomination for President!

Contact Your Senator And Congressman To Submit an Objection To The Qualification of Barack Hussein Obama To Be President before January 6, 2009 when Congress meets to count the electoral votes in a joint session. Ask Congress to confirm or deny if Obama is a natural born citizen of the US as required by the constitution. Demand Congress examine Barack Hussein Obama's original birth certificate from Hawaii. Yes America you do have standing to do this.

Contact Congress Here!

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Why would anyone vote for Barack Hussein Obama?

Rush is Right About Obama Read His excellent transcript for today 10/29/2008
Rush Is Right!

Why would anyone vote for Barack Hussein Obama?

Barack Hussein Obama is a charismatic demagogue that will change our great nation in ways that will diminish it. If you believe what he says without looking into his past record you are only deceiving yourself and voting for Barack Hussein Obama hoping what he says is true. Anyone will vote for Barack Hussein Obama if they believe what he says on face value. Many people believe everything a saleman tells them but after they have bought the product and find it is defective without a guarantee it is to late and the defective product is not as advertised.

When Barack Obama says that he will make sure you do not lose your home, that you will go to college, that you will receive free health care, that you will have child care, that you will be free from want, free from desire, free from need, he repeats the lies of past authoritarians who have made the same claims and the same promises and who have delivered nothing but poverty, misery, and hopelessness. Obama represents an ideology for which there are no limits on power. He wants to lead a different kind of government, one in which there are no limits to how much it can confiscate from the people, he wants to lead a movement in which the individual is crushed under the weight of the many. And Obama, like others in the past, speaks of democracy as he pursues anti-democratic goals. As his mentor Saul Alinsky taught, you must use the language of the middle class in order to destroy it.

Barack Obama Revealed, A Dire Warning from an African American

This is interesting. This is man who has realized who Barack Hussein Obama really is: I have copied his open letter to America for your edification. A black man exposing Barack Hussein Obama as a radical black socialist that will take what you have and give it to someone else for the combined social good. It has already begun with the 200 billion dollar bailout by Bush,Obama and Mccain. Obama will finish the socialization of America if elected.

Barack Obama Revealed, A Dire Warning from an African American

I have been hoping I would never have to write this article. I hoped it would never get to this point, which would force me to openly speak out against the first African American to seriously have a chance to be elected President of the United States.

But after reviewing all the Stanley Kurtz material on Barack Obama/Bill Ayers relationship, I've come to the conclusion Barack Obama is definitely under the influence of a radical ideology that is so dangerous, it could literally pose a danger to the very existence of the United States, especially when we have an economy already in crises, and a war in progress against one of the greatest threats we have ever faced, in Islamic terrorism. (Photo to the right is William Ayers mug shot taken upon arrest by Chicago police in 1968 - just before Ayers began his campaign in the early 70's - bombing campaign that is, not political)

I know Barack Obama. No I haven't met Barack Obama personally, but I know many African Americans like him. African Americans who were born in the 1950's and early 1960's who are now in their 40 and 50's in age. I am of that generation.

Our generation grew up personally witnessing the turmoil of the 1960's and 70's, which shaped our viewpoint of America. During the great civil rights movement of this era a very young radical element evolved and came into being in the Northern black communities of major cities of America.

This element I refer to did not embrace the nonviolent civil disobedience philosophy of Martin Luther King. In fact we ridiculed King's non-violent movement going on in the South. We wanted to meet violence with violence, and so organizations like the Black Panther Party, Student Non Violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) (which later renounced non-violence) and The Nation of Islam came into being in cities like NY, Chicago, Boston, and LA. Those times and organizations produced leaders like Malcolm X, Stokely Carmichael, Huey Newton, the dis-Honorable Elijah Muhammad, Bobby Seale, and others.

In the mid 60's those leaders of the black radical movement began to form alliances with white radical groups also dedicated to the use of violence in the opposition to American policies. Groups like the Weathermen (or Weather Underground as they later became known), the Yippies (Youth International party) , the SDS, had become active on American college campuses protesting the Vietnam war. These groups were led by people such as Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, Bill Ayers, Berenedette Dohrn , Cathy Wilkerson. I remember them all. Young Kathy Boudin was one who died in preparation of a bomb.

At age 16, born and being raised in New York City, these people became my greatest political influence and also that of many other young African Americans, I came very close to joining the Black Panther Party, but in several years I was totally discouraged with that movement and embraced the teachings and beliefs of MLK.

But there are many AA's who grew up in that era who never stopped believing the basic idea that America was a evil and racist place, although these same people moved into the mainstream of middle and upper class American society to have families, own homes, and get decent paying jobs, as they grew older.

I personally know many of them who still have a deep rooted, well hidden hatred, for white Americans, for perceived racial grievances, both past and present. These people will interact with whites on a daily basis, but in private in the presence of other AA's express their true bitterness regarding this country, and the need for change, no matter how radical that change may be

Based on things I have heard and read of his associations in the 90's with Bill Ayers and others,, when he was 34 and not 8 years old (as Barack relates his age to the bombing apex of Ayers, instead of when his true interaction occurred), I believe Barack Obama is one of those people with a basic belief that America is an evil and racist nation that needs radical change. I not only believe that of Barack, but of his wife Michelle too, who early in his campaign let slip her true feelings about this country.

I too once held that same bitterness, and I won't claim it doesn't some time well up in me. But I finally rejected , and am able to overcome the hatred and bitterness, as I came to understand through my Christian spiritual experience what the true causes of racism and all other hatred and disputes between humans truly stem from.

But I truly doubt Barack and Michelle have rejected their hidden rage and bitterness, under the warped hateful Afro-centric version of Christianity , which they were subjected to for many years under the pastor-ship Rev Jeremiah Wright.

Afro-centrisim is basically came into being to falsely legitimize the deeply hidden bitterness and hatred toward the white community. Instead of a true Christian spirituality which would cleanse the person of hatred and bitterness, Afro-centrism re enforces that hatred and bitterness. A couple of very subtle but sure signs of how Barack and Michelle truly feel about his country were his refusal to wear an American flag pin on his lapel, until media coverage of the issue forced him too, and Michelle's statement about being feeling some pride for her country for the first time in her life. Every African American in this country from age 40-60 could probably identify with, and understood those two statements , one physical and one verbal, by the Obama's.

But although I can identify with the Obama's,, feelings I can't stay silent in the thought that this type of radicalism may soon sit as the executive head of our government. I feel African Americans in our sometimes blind rage about racism, have made many unholy alliances with less than stellar elements of the white community on a quest to press to their own agendas, to the detriment of ours.

I truly believe the relationship between Barack Obama and William Ayers epitomizes those unholy alliances of the 60's and early 70's, which driven from the streets, moved into the inner city black neighborhoods and schools of Chicago, morphed into something seemingly respectable, but only spreading the same hatred and bitterness.

My warning to all Americans both white and black (those AA's who can overcome the vote black impulse) is that in Barack Obama, you are not getting Bill Cosby, you are getting a very well disguised version of Louis Farrakhan.

The question you need to ask yourself now and on Nov 4th is this.

Do you really want to put the toxic cocktail of a character mentored and tutored by Rev Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers in the White House?

Especially when this country is facing economic and security issues so critical our very existence is threatened.

I do not.

Some African Americans will read this and brand me a traitor for this article. I say to them what good is changing America from what you may believe is bad to something much worse, for the small satisfaction of being able to say we have a black man in the White House.

So personally, with conflicting feeling about it, I'm rejecting the first African American nominated for the Presidency, for what I honestly believe is the future good and well being of this country.

I hope all those reading this will give serious consideration to what I present here.

Jazzman you are correct, Obama will try to move the US from capitalism to socialism while claiming to do so for the combined social good. Obama is a dangerous radical socialist who has been trained well.

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Barack Hussein Obama wants to transistion our country from capitalism to socialism

Here is what Barack Hussein Obama represents. (He wants to spread the wealth around, take your hard earned money and give it to someone in need. He is a modern day robin in the hood political gangsta)

Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society. Modern socialism originated in the late nineteenth-century working class political movement. Karl Marx posited that socialism would be achieved via class struggle and a proletarian revolution which represents the transitional stage between capitalism and communism.

Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and creates an unequal society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly.

Karl Marx said that socialism is the the transitional stage between capitalism and communism.

Yes Obama wants to transistion our country from capitalism to socialism.

All communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists.

An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity. There are many varieties of socialism. Some socialists tolerate capitalism, as long as the government maintains the dominant influence over the economy; others insist on an abolition of private enterprise. All communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists.

David Kimbaugh
Obama and the conspiratorial media
Posted: October 28, 2008
1:00 am Eastern

I am sincerely worried that if Obama wins, the checks and balances incorporated into our Constitution may not be enough to prevent a radical and irreversible diminution of our individual liberties, because a confluence of factors has emerged to create a climate conducive to fundamental change.

These factors are: a shockingly unknown candidate whose mysterious past and numerous shady alliances are deliberately left unexplored by a corrupt, supportive media; the candidate's charismatic qualities that inspire a cultish loyalty; his intellectual trappings that create a fascination and allure among the intellectual elite, including some hypnotized conservatives; a major financial crisis that exacerbates the people's fears and uncertainties; a largely manufactured cloud of negativity placed over America by the media and a grossly partisan Democratic Party that places its self-interest above the national interest; and an apparently discredited Republican Party and conservative movement that have been blamed for our actual and perceived problems.

All of these could lead to entrusting this man with unprecedented power, giving him a license to operate with minimum scrutiny and an opposition party effectively impotent to oppose his radical blueprint for America.

More than ever, perception is trumping reality. An unprincipled Democratic Party, aided by a morally decadent media, has demonized President Bush
, the Republican Party and America itself with distortions and polarizing propaganda designed to dispirit and divide Americans on the bases of race, class and gender. Just look at the domestic and foreign policy
picture they have painted the past eight years.

While we are having serious financial problems now, we had a strong economy for most of President Bush's two terms, but the media pushed the Democrats' critique that it was in perpetual recession. As for our real financial crisis, objective observers understand Democratic programs and policies primarily caused it, but Democrats have successfully blamed Republicans for it.

Similarly, despite our problems in Iraq, we are clearly winning there now, but the media are suppressing the good news, just as they have refused to credit Republicans for their wisdom on the surge and protected Democrats from their reckless opposition to it.

The only arrow left in the Democrats' Iraq quiver is to perpetuate their "big lie" that Bush led us into war with lies about WMD. Through stunning and numbing repetition broadcast by a conspiratorial media, they have succeeded in making this the majority narrative, even though anyone who lived through this period knows Democrats supported this policy as long as it was politically expedient, having had access to the exact same intelligence. They've also convinced people, contrary to the facts, that Saddam Hussein didn't have ties to and wasn't abetting our terrorist enemies. And they've completely ignored the many other compelling reasons justifying our bipartisan decision to attack Iraq, including Saddam's persistent and ongoing violations of some 17 U.N. and post-war resolutions and treaties.

Democrats and the media, instead of condemning recalcitrant European nations for not joining the coalition against Iraq despite endless diplomatic overtures by President Bush, falsely indicted the Bush administration for its "unilateral" action against Iraq.

They colluded to publish the slander that the Bush administration sponsored abuses at Abu Ghraib, created inhumane conditions at Gitmo and routinely tortured enemy prisoners. Democratic presidential candidates Al Gore, John Kerry and Barack Obama have all blithely and falsely accused our troops of atrocities, from systematic torture and prisoner abuse to raping Iraqi civilians to air raiding Afghan villages. They have mischaracterized our essential National Security Agency monitoring of international terrorist communications as domestic spying on little old ladies.

They have portrayed the Bush administration's phenomenal accomplishment of preventing further attacks on our soil since 9/11 not as an administration success but as proof that we no longer face a serious threat.

All of these factors could coalesce to give Obama a mandate to fundamentally move our economy toward socialism in the name of economic fairness and emasculate our war on terrorists in the name of restoring our international image.

Would Obama win if people believed he might well nationalize health care, unilaterally disarm our nuclear weapons, push the Global Poverty Act, appoint judges to the left of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, pass legislation banning handguns, greatly increase federal spending by euphemistically disguising it as a stimulus package, increase taxes on producers and expand "redistribution," impose limitations on private executive salaries, empower labor unions, further nationalize public education with the leftist indoctrination agenda of the National Education Association, further open our borders, ratify the Kyoto climate change treaty, abandon Israel, retreat and surrender in Iraq, dramatically reduce the defense budget, possibly reinstate the draft in the name of racial equity, nationalize our private 401(k) funds, abuse governmental power to target and investigate dissent from ordinary "Joes," and implement the Fairness Doctrine to shut down political dissent from his talk-radio critics?

The 'man who never was or empty suit' wants to take what you have and give it to someone else he deems worthy. This is not hard to understand given what Obama has said and done in the past. I ask you what is more important voting for a candidate
who wants to control your money or a candidate that wants to take your money? Either way this is what you will get if you vote for Barack Hussein Obama.

So go ahead vote for a socialist to take your money and do with it as he wants. You want change, he will produce it and leave you with none

Monday, October 27, 2008

Obama has taught Constitutional Law at University of Chicago - emphasis? CHANGE to the Constitution.

Alinsky was a ferocious critic of mainstream liberalism. A champion of radical propaganda tactics and propaganda techniques, Alinsky encouraged deception in organizational strategy. (Occidental College has "sealed" Obama's undergraduate thesis he wrote under Alinsky. ) Yes Obama has used what Alinsky taught him well as referenced below:

2001 Radio Interview Tapes Released by FOX today:
1) Obama is funded to Harvard by a radical Islamic Saudi Prince - Studies Constitutional Law
2) Obama's undergraduate & life mentors? Saul Alinsky & Frank Davis Marshall - THEIR SPECIALTY? OVERTHROW OF THE U.S. FROM WITHIN. On the tapes he talks about "community organizing" (ACORN) as a way to seize power.
3) Occidental College has "sealed" Obama's undergraduate thesis he wrote under Alinsky.
3) He teaches Constitutional Law at University of Chicago - emphasis? CHANGE to the Constitution.
4) He states on video that the courts are not enough to CHANGE, it must be done with the Legislative & Executive Branches as well.


Saul David Alinsky (January 30, 1909 Chicago, Illinois - June 12, 1972 Carmel, California) is generally considered the father of community organizing. A criminologist by training, Alinsky in the 1930s organized the Back of the Yards neighborhood in Chicago (made famous by Upton Sinclair's The Jungle). He went on to found the Industrial Areas Foundation while organizing the Woodlawn neighborhood, which trained organizers and assisted in the founding of community organizations around the country. In Rules for Radicals (his final work, published one year before his death), he addressed the 1960s generation of radicals, outlining his views on organizing for mass power. A young Hillary Clinton was a major admirer, writing her undergraduate thesis on his work and ideas.

Related Topics:
January 30 - 1909 - Chicago, Illinois - June 12 - 1972 - Carmel, California - Community organizing - Criminologist - Back of the Yards - Chicago - Upton Sinclair - The Jungle - Industrial Areas Foundation - Woodlawn - 1960s - Hillary Clinton

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Author of Reveille for Radicals, Alinsky encouraged controversy and conflict, often to the dismay of middle-class activists who otherwise would sponsor his activism. Alinsky is often credited with laying the foundation for confrontational political tactics that dominated the 1960s, but late in his life he encouraged holders of stock in public corporations to lend their votes to "proxies" who would vote at annual stockholders meetings in favor of social justice. While his confrontational style took hold in American activism, for a while at least, his call to stock holders to share their power with disenfranchised working poor never took hold in U.S. progressive circles.

Another Obama Mentor

Sunday, October 26, 2008

Wow! Thank You Sen Conyers, lead they way

Ole boy got a little ticked here when real questions were asked about the socialist candidate he is promoting. :)
Orlando TV Anchor conducts 'unprofessional interview' of Biden


Wow! Thank You Sen Conyers, lead they way for Republicans to follow.

by The One on Sun 26 Oct 2008 09:57 PM EDT

In 2004 Sen Conyers tried to formally challenge the vote of the Ohio electors when the Electoral College ballots were opened before the joint session of Congress. Thank you Sen Conyers for leaving us the bluebrint to know what to email,fax,write and call our 535 Congress members about when they meet in Jan 2009.

This is his letter to Senator Boxer in 2004 seeking a Senator to join house members objecting to electors. By reading this letter we can see what the law says and what an individual Senator and Congressman can do to object to electors of Obama

"Dear Senator Boxer,

"As you know, on January 6, 2005, at 1:00 P.M, the electoral votes for the election of the president are to be opened and counted in a joint session of Congress, commencing at 1:00 P.M. I and a number of House Members are planning to object to the counting of the Ohio votes, due to numerous unexplained irregularities in the Ohio presidential vote, many of which appear to violate both federal and state law. I am hoping that you will consider joining us in this important effort to debate and highlight the problems in Ohio which disenfranchised innumerable voters. I will shortly forward you a draft report itemizing and analyzing the many irregularities we have come across as part of our hearings and investigation into the Ohio presidential election.

"3 U.S.C. §15 provides when the results from each of the states are announced, that "the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any." Any objection must be presented in writing and "signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received.The objection must "state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof. When an objection has been properly made in writing and endorsed by a member of each body the Senate withdraws from the House chamber, and each body meets separately to consider the objection. "No votes . . . from any other State shall be acted upon until the [pending] objection . . . [is] finally disposed of." 3 U.S.C. §17 limits debate on the objections in each body to two hours, during which time no member may speak more than once and not for more than five minutes. Both the Senate and the House must separately agree to the objection; otherwise, the challenged vote or votes are counted.

"Historically, there appears to be three general grounds for objecting to the counting of electoral votes. The language of 3 U.S.C. §15 suggests that objection may be made on the grounds that (1) a vote was not "regularly given" by the challenged elector(s); and/or (2) the elector(s) was not "lawfully certified" under state law; or (3) two slates of electors have been presented to Congress from the same State.

"Since the Electoral Count Act of 1887, no objection meeting the requirements of the Act have been made against an entire slate of state electors. In the 2000 election several Members of the House of Representatives attempted to challenge the electoral votes from the State of Florida. However, no Senator joined in the objection, and therefore, the objection was not "received." In addition, there was no determination whether the objection constituted an appropriate basis under the 1887 Act. However, if a State — in this case Ohio — has not followed its own procedures and met its obligation to conduct a free and fair election, a valid objection — if endorsed by at least one Senator and a Member of the House of Representatives — should be debated by each body separately until "disposed of".

"Sincerely, John Conyers, Jr."

Here is a general objection:
(2) the elector(s) was not "lawfully certified" under state law;

{For an elector to be "lawfully certified" the elector should have been "lawfully nominated" by the DNC. To be lawfully nominated by the DNC in each state the nominee must be a natural born citizen. The elector should be objected to on the basis that the DNC has not lawfully nominated a natural born citizen of the US therefore the elector will be casting a vote for Obama not being "lawfully nominated" by the DNC.}

Do you think this will pass the smell test?

Can you think of another way to word the objection?

Comments on 10/26/08

As you can read below the democrates were objecting to the electorial votes in the Joint session of Congress in Jan 7, 2005 but voted to admit them anyway.

Electoral Vote Challenge Meets Venomous Response in Congress
by Brian Dominick and Ariella Cohen
The 2004 presidential election culminated yesterday with George Bush officially winning office amidst congressional challenges and persistent allegations of voter suppression.

Jan. 7, 2005 – In special sessions of both chambers of Congress Thursday, Republican lawmakers met a handful of Democratic colleagues with vitriolic diatribes when the latter raised concerns about electoral irregularities that took place during Ohio?s controversial November 2 election process. The Democrats? challenge came on the heels of a congressional report detailing numerous allegations of disenfranchisement in Ohio.

In a departure from traditional procedure, the joint session of Congress convened to certify the electoral vote count and officially recognize George W. Bush as president elect broke up for two hours of separate debate among senators and representatives. The special session was activated when Senator Barbara Boxer (D-California) joined Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-Ohio) and other House members in challenging the certification of Ohio?s 20 crucial electoral votes.

Rather than an attempt to overturn the outcome of the 2004 election, Democratic legislators said they wished to use their protest as a means of highlighting what they consider ongoing election problems that stand little chance of correction unless the status quo is confronted.

"This objection," Tubbs Jones said on the House floor, "does not have at its root the hope or even the hint of overturning the victory of the president but it is a necessary, timely and appropriate opportunity to review and remedy the most precious process in our democracy. I raise this objection neither to put the nation in the turmoil of a proposed overturned election nor to provide cannon fodder or partisan demagoguery for my fellow members of Congress."
In addition to the misallocation of voting machines, the House Democrats' investigation found the process surrounding the casting and counting of provisional ballots deeply problematic.

Speaking to the press Thursday morning, Boxer announced her decision to co-sign Tubbs Jones? objection. "Every citizen of this country who is registered to vote should be guaranteed that their vote matters, that their vote is counted and that in the voting booth," Boxer said, "their vote has as much weight as any senator, any congressperson, any president, any cabinet member, or any CEO of any Fortune 500 corporation."

The chief concerns raised by dissenting politicians were mostly straightforward, like the alleged misallocation of voting machines that affected primarily Democratic districts.

Voters waited "hours and hours and hours in the rain to vote," Boxer said. "Why did an estimated 5,000 to 10,000 voters leave polling places in frustration without having voted? How many more never even bothered to vote after they heard about this?"

Boxer also asked, "Why did Franklin County officials reduce the number of electronic voting machines in downtown precincts while adding them in the suburbs?"

To punctuate the urgency of her appeal, Boxer said the time has come to "cast the light of truth on a flawed system which must be fixed now. Not in years from now, but now."

The fiercest debate took place in the House, where visibly frustrated Republicans unleashed verbal attacks on their Democratic colleagues. Representative Deborah Pryce (R-Ohio) said she regretted that so early in the 2005 session, Congress was "bogged down" in "frivolous debate." She warned the American public not to be deceived by dissenters, whom she called "aspiring fantasy authors" of "wild conspiracy theories," possessing "no credible agenda for America" and bent on "baseless and meritless tactics."

Florida Republican Ric Keller distilled his message down to three simple words: "Get over it," he told Democratic detractors. Rep. David Hobson, an Ohio Republican, called the proceedings "outrageous."

House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Missouri) said questions about Ohio?s electoral process should be dealt with in Ohio, not in the United States Congress. "Every time we attack the process, we cast that doubt on that fabric of democracy that is so important."

In an apparent attempt to argue against the Democratic challenges, Blunt continued: "People do have to have confidence that the process works in a proper way. They don?t need to believe that it is absolutely perfect because after all it?s the greatest democracy in the history of the world. And it?s run by people who step forward and make a system work in ways that nobody would believe until they see it, to produce the result of what people want to have happen on election day."

Calling the proceeding "an assault against the institutions of our representative democracy" and "a threat to the very ideals it ostensibly defends," Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) denied that any voter disenfranchisement took place anywhere in 2004 or 2000. He accused Democrats of crying wolf, and wondered "what will happen" when a future election is actually stolen.

Rep. Tubbs Jones, one of the members of the Congressional Black Caucus, that spearheaded the challenge, preempted Republican attacks by setting the tone of the admittedly symbolic protest. "It is on behalf of those millions of Americans who believe in and value our democratic process and the right to vote that I put forth this objection today," she said. "If they are willing to stand at polls for countless hours in the rain, as many did in Ohio, then I should surely stand up for them here in the halls of Congress."

North Carolina Democrat Mel Watt couched his objection in terms of the US agenda abroad. "The United States cannot continue to claim that it stands for and is willing to fight for democracy and the rights of people to vote in Afghanistan, Iraq and other places around the world while not being willing to do whatever is necessary to guarantee the vote of our citizens here at home," Watt said.

The handful of Democrats who acknowledged the voter disenfranchisement made clear that while Ohio may have been under the most scrutiny and may have seen some of the worst election irregularities, the state was but an example of voting problems throughout the nation.

In the end, each house had to vote on whether to accept Ohio?s 20 electoral votes for the Bush/Cheney ticket. The Senate voted 74-1, with Sen. Boxer maintaining her objection, while in the House, the vote was 267-31 in favor of certifying the Ohio outcome.

Wow if this happens again when ojections to Obama's electors are made, the 2008 Presidential election could really be resolved in a joint session of Congress.
I would like to see Obama exposed as a FRAUD but Joe Biden as President would be another nightmare!!!!!!! It is a real possibility the real vote will be in a joint session of Congress. Congress could just object to certain electors and then etc, etc, roll the lets see......President Palin?