Obama in 1980 said he was born in Mombasa, Kenya

Dec. 3, 2009

The Post & E-Mail

by John Charlton

Race Bannon, U.S. MarineRace Bannon, U.S. Marine 

(Dec. 3, 2009) — The stunning admission was made to a member of the U.S. Marine Corps, in a chance meeting in the vicinity of Kalakaua Blvd., one evening in early August of 1980.

The now, former Marine is a highly respected member of the Free-Republic online-community, and he has published the account of his personal meeting with the then Barry Soetero online at the Gathering of the Eagles Blog. After the divorce of Barry’s mother from his adopted father, Lolo Soetero, he began using the name “Barack Hussein Obama,” by which he is knows the world over, today. At the Free Republic, the ex-Marine goes by the name Race Bannon.

The crucial part of his testimony regards what he writes in his essay, “Another crappy day in paradise, or The things you see when you ain’t got a gun.” Speaking of his encounter with Soetero, Bannon writes:

He also told me something that I never forgot, for it caused me to do some other things in an effort to be nice to him and possibly a favor. We spoke of where I had been and the world as I saw it. I told him I had been to Africa , Mombassa specifically, and he said to me abruptly, “I was born there.” I told him he is not eligible to be president if that was true, but I remembered he said his mom was an American, so, maybe it was okay. But it was what I did after that makes this a true memory:  I went back to the barracks and told others of this guy and suggested we all grab our photo albums and visit him again and show him pictures of Mombassa so he could see where he was from.

No one wanted to go, and at that time, my camera had failed me weeks before we hit Mombassa and it was late August or early September until I had borrowed someone else’s pictures to develop myself so I had copies of where I was.  But I never forgot meeting that man for those reasons. I  was going to do him a favor and show him his home country of birth. And I never went back for some reason, most likely I forgot to or just felt that a one time chance encounter would be meaningless to both of us and didn’t mean we were friends.

Bannon then closes his testimonial with the following observation:

In the light of what is called “The Birther” movement, these memories are still foremost in my mind concerning this. While I cannot swear it was Barak Obama, all the details I do remember of that chance encounter fit the profile of the man who some people claim is born in Kenya and others claim he was born in Hawaii . The man I met was about 18, thin, Mulatto, told me he was born in Mombassa, raised overseas, was living in Hawaii and hadn’t yet been to many places in the world outside of those places, mostly, hadn’t been to the mainland of America for any long time period if at all. And he openly told me he wanted to be President.

And I remember that face, the face of a young man who sat on a table to my right front, his hands resting on the edge of the table, him leaning forward, his smile, all teeth. It was Barak Obama. I don’t know if I’d bet my life on it, but I am willing to tell people openly at the risk of my ridicule. I was there, and saw him, spoke to him, and he openly told me he was born in Mombassa, Kenya, not Hawaii .

Does it matter? Of course it does. It should not have to be explained as to why it matters.

Race Bannon’s testimony is corroborative of that of two witnesses to the uncut version of the Obama vs. Keyes Senatorial Debates of 2004.  The first and second testimonials of which can bre read at The Post & Email.  Five African News Agencies also reported that Obama was born in Kenya.

A discussion of Bannon’s testimony can be found at Free Republic, repleate with comments by the Marine himself and other photos of himself, from his time in the U.S. Marines.

Finally, The Post & Email has employed the modern spelling of Mombasa; but Bannon has used the former spelling.


Impeach Obama: He is Putting America On Trial for 9/11

Right Side News

Dec. 2, 2009

Written by American Patrol Report Comment

Wednesday, 25 November 2009 06:39
Op-Ed by American Patrol Report

Obama911CrusadersFour times in this YouTube video Obama refers to the Koran as the “Holy Koran.” He also says: Our partnership with the Muslim world is critical for all of us… we will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic world… the United States is not and never will be at war with Islam… many Americans have lived in a Muslim-majority country. I know, because I am one of them. My father came from a Kenyan family that include generations of Muslims.

As a boy I spent several years in Indonesia heard the call of the Azan at the break of dawn. (“The prettiest sound on earth,” he says).

I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was revealed. That experience guides my conviction… John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith… we are no longer a Christian nation …
Impeach Obama Now
Obama is a Muslim at heart and he is now going to put America on trial for the 9/11 attacks. He is going to blame our foreign policy for the deaths of all of those innocent people. (See O’Reilly from last night) – He has gone too far. The act of bringing the 911 perpetrators into New York and giving them a platform to spread the message of the “Holy Koran” is an act of treason. He should be impeached and removed from office immediately.
Related link: Terrorists use Democratic talking points, Washington Times

Prosecuting Obama

by Sharon Rondeau

The Post & E-mail

Obama's Campaign from day one has been to whitewash liesObama’s Campaign from day one has been to whitewash lies

(Nov. 22, 2009) — A new initiative has been launched by Bob Campbell, founder of American Grand Jury (www.americangrandjury.org).

An offshoot of the grand jury movement, the new website, www.prosecuteobama.org, was officially launched on Thursday, November 19, 2009. Its goal is to enlist the help of a constitutional attorney to file criminal charges against Nancy Pelosi, Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro, and others for fraud and treason.

Anyone wishing to join and/or contribute to this effort is welcome to log on to http://www.prosecuteobama.org and do so. Pledges are accepted in any amount, starting at $1.00. The short-term goal is to raise $15,000 and identify a patriot attorney who will act on the grand jury presentments and is willing to argue the case in court. If you can’t contribute but are willing to spread the word, please distribute this information to 15-20 friends.

The ultimate objective is to have Obama removed from office for his crimes.

Obama Nation Billboard Draws Attention

Dec. 1, 2009
The Obama File

The billboard is located along I-70 between the Adams Dairy Parkway and the Grain Valley exits.  The billboard reads, “How do you like your change now?  Obama Nation.  They are coming for you!  The Taxpayer.  First and Second Amendments are in jeopardy.  Live free or Die.”  There is also a hammer and sickle on the sign.

People said they might not agree with the sentiment of the sign, but they felt it was a matter of free speech.  Others that KCTV5 talked to said it is offensive and should come down.

A pastor who drives by the sign during his daily commute to his church said he lived in England for years and he agreed with the message.

“We lived in a socialist society and I guess what I am seeing in America is that we are pushing to some of those ways now,” he said.  “Especially the hospitalization.  It’s taking away some of our freedoms as Americans.”

Obama Seen As Weak, Cold, Indecisive

Dec. 1, 2009


Jim Meyers says that one year into Barack Obama’s usurpation, his talent for controlling his image seems to be faltering and several anti-Obama storylines are gaining momentum, Politico observed on Monday.

And these storylines are serious threats to Obama if they become widely held views on his actions and motives.

Politico listed seven storylines Obama should worry about:

He thinks he’s playing with Monopoly money.  Obama underestimated the political consequences of appearing to be a profligate spender.  Passage of healthcare reform that is weak on cost control will exacerbate the problem.

Obama has shattered all spending records for in his first year of occupying the Oval Office, his budget plans will create $9.3 trillion dollars in deficits during the next decade, and, he doesn’t seem bothered in the least by this astronomical sum.

Too much Leonard Nimoy.  Several columnists have compared Obama to Mr. Spock of “Star Trek” in that he employs logic without a grasp of the human dimensions of policy.

Obama does not follow the Vulcan path — the path of logic — his demeanor may be calm, cool, and unemotional, but his thought process is driven by raw emotion.  He represents decades of grievance education, America bashing, and misplaced empathy.  There is nothing logical about the man.  Exhibit A is his Stimulus plan.

That’s the Chicago way — intimidation.  The perception is that the Obama White House is dominated by brass-knuckled politicians who want to buy off the people Obama can and “bowl over those he can’t.”

He’s a pushover.  Obama backed down to Democrats on a healthcare vote and to the Israeli government on a settlement freeze, and some insiders “are starting to whisper that he’s a patsy,” the Web site reported.

On at least four occasions this year, Obama set deadlines for Iran to comply with international demands that it demonstrate transparency and cooperation on nuclear developments, but the Islamic Republic has blatantly ignored all deadlines set by Obama to freeze its uranium enrichment program, prompting critics to say that another “deadline” will have little, if any, impact.  On Sunday, Iran announced ambitious plans to construct another 10 nuclear facilities.

He’s more interested in being President of the World than President of the United States and is comfortable with a relative decline in American influence in the world.

Obama is moving towards a world government.  He doesn’t want America to continue to be a superpower.  Right now soldiers are dying because they are in great need of troops overseas and Obama seems as though he could care less.  He seems to be obsessed with power and believes he can make everyone equal around the world.  He has been traveling around the world apologizing for America’s “faults.”  Why is he trying to make friends with the world?  What is really his goal?  Does Obama want to be to be President of the world?

Some Republicans and journalists have concluded that Speaker Pelosi’s achievements outshine Obama’s or come at his expense.

The House Speaker is standing her ground on demands for a government-run plan, even as Obama signaled over the weekend that the “public option” is just that — desirable, but not mandatory in the massive health care overhaul being debated in Congress.

He’s in love with the man in the mirror.  It’s a common theme in Washington.

A picture is worth a thousand words — this man has a pathological love of himself.

Official Hot Air

There’s a new picture of Obama that’s sticking in my mind, like a song that keeps playing in your head (the one that keeps playing for me this week is “Empire State of Mind,” especially the lines by Alicia Keys).

In this mental picture of Obama, he’s crunched down in a tiny cockpit and wearing oversized Kamikaze goggles.

His plane is completely coming apart, pieces flying off in all directions, and he’s stepping on the gas, going faster and faster with that big million-dollar smile fixed on his face like everything’s cool.

That picture first popped into my mind when the survey from Gallup on Obama’s crashing poll numbers showed that his approval rating among whites has dropped to 39 percent (down from 61 percent in February) and the White House simultaneously announced that Obama will be flying off to Europe to pick up his peace prize and stopping in Copenhagen to vow that the United States will cut its greenhouse emissions by nearly 20 percent over the next 10 years.

Given the administration’s job-killing agenda, Obama might well be able to more than accomplish that energy-cutting goal without adding a single windmill.

With unemployment already at 10.2 percent (actually 17.5 percent by the government’s own numbers, counting “discouraged” workers who’ve quit looking for a job and counting part-timers seeking full-time), and the economy still losing a quarter million jobs per month, and 2.9 million jobs lost since Obama signed the $787 billion non-stimulating stimulus bill into law in February, the administration’s economic agenda is basically a suicide mission that treats job creation like cigarettes — something to discourage through increased regulations, more central controls  and higher taxation.

The basic Law of Demand principle in Economics-101 shows that consumers purchase less of something when the price goes up, and it’s no different with employers and entrepreneurs when they’re deciding on how much labor to purchase or how many jobs to create through business expansion or new start-ups.

So how can Obama maintain that economic recovery and more jobs will be delivered through his administration’s agenda of higher costs on business by way of carbon taxes, higher energy prices for consumers and employers, the cancellation of secret ballots for workers in union-organizing drives, mandated hikes in the minimum wage, higher payroll taxes on business to fund proposed health care mandates, a new surtax of 5 points on the incomes of the nation’s key job creators, a higher inheritance tax that directly drains capital from the small business sector that’s creating most of the new jobs in the economy, and a 69 percent increase in the tax on capital gains, all of which are clear disincentives to new investment and job creation?

It’s either a complete lack of understanding of even the basics in freshmen economics or a refusal to accept the reality of how the world works, a blind devotion to what’s been proven to be a failed ideology, a Kamikaze mission, a last ditch effort to intentionally go down in flames as a spotless devotee of statism and collectivism.

So off he’ll fly, picking up a peace prize and vowing to obey international directives that will diminish America’s sovereignty and economic growth. Totally ignoring the recent disclosures on how climate researchers have trumped up global warming numbers and plotted to crush dissent, he will advocate a global redistribution of wealth scheme in which the United States, already $12 trillion in the hole, will send hundreds of billions to the world’s poorest countries in order to green up a planet that’s already cooling.

And so it’ll be windmills for Ethiopia and a redistribution of American wealth on a global scale while the official arbiters of climate science continue to rig the warming “consensus” by silencing their critics by way of organized disparagement and exclusion from publication in peer-reviewed journals.

It wasn’t all that long ago that Obama pledged that his administration would “base our public policies on the soundest science” and be “open and honest with the American people about the science behind our decisions.”


by John Charlton


The U.S. ConstitutionThe U.S. Constitution

(Nov. 25, 2009) — It is often asked whether the usurpation of the presidency by Barack Hussein Obama will ever have a remedy in the courts.  But the fact is that there already is a remedy in the courts:  the ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 1 Cranch 137 137 (1803).

That case was the first to expressly indicate that no action of Congress was valid if it contravened the Constitution.  Since the U.S. Constitution requires that a President be a natural born citizen; and since the Supreme Court has in 4 cases used the term “natural born citizen” only in reference to one born in the U.S.A. of parents who were citizens at the time of his birth, it follows inexorably that Obama’s election as president by the Joint Session of Congress, on January 8, 2009, is null and void.  Against this legal conclusion there is no argument.

Here is the crucial text of the Supreme Court’s decision in Marbury v. Madison.

The question whether an act repugnant to the Constitution can become the law of the land is a question deeply interesting to the United States, but, happily, not of an intricacy proportioned to its interest. It seems only necessary to recognise certain principles, supposed to have been long and well established, to decide it.

That the people have an original right to establish for their future government such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it nor ought it to be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so established are deemed fundamental. And as the authority from which they proceed, is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent.

This original and supreme will organizes the government and assigns to different departments their respective powers. It may either stop here or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments.

The Government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the Legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the Constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may at any time be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested that the Constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it, or that the Legislature may alter the Constitution by an ordinary act.

Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The Constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.

If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law; if the latter part be true, then written Constitutions are absurd attempts on the part of the people to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.

Certainly all those who have framed written Constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be that an act of the Legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void.

This theory is essentially attached to a written Constitution, and is consequently to be considered by this Court as one of the fundamental principles of our society. It is not, therefore, to be lost sight of in the further consideration of this subject.

If an act of the Legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the Courts and oblige them to give it effect? Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it was a law? This would be to overthrow in fact what was established in theory, and would seem, at first view, an absurdity too gross to be insisted on. It shall, however, receive a more attentive consideration.

It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each.

So, if a law be in opposition to the Constitution, if both the law and the Constitution apply to a particular case, so that the Court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the Constitution, or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the law, the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.

If, then, the Courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the Legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.

Those, then, who controvert the principle that the Constitution is to be considered in court as a paramount law are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the Constitution, and see only the law.

This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written Constitutions. It would declare that an act which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void, is yet, in practice, completely obligatory. It would declare that, if the Legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual. It would be giving to the Legislature a practical and real omnipotence with the same breath which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.

That it thus reduces to nothing what we have deemed the greatest improvement on political institutions — a written Constitution, would of itself be sufficient, in America where written Constitutions have been viewed with so much reverence, for rejecting the construction. But the peculiar expressions of the Constitution of the United States furnish additional arguments in favour of its rejection.

The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the Constitution.

Could it be the intention of those who gave this power to say that, in using it, the Constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising under the Constitution should be decided without examining the instrument under which it arises?

This is too extravagant to be maintained.

In some cases then, the Constitution must be looked into by the judges. And if they can open it at all, what part of it are they forbidden to read or to obey?

There are many other parts of the Constitution which serve to illustrate this subject.

It is declared that “no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any State.” Suppose a duty on the export of cotton, of tobacco, or of flour, and a suit instituted to recover it. Ought judgment to be rendered in such a case? ought the judges to close their eyes on the Constitution, and only see the law?

The Constitution declares that “no bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed.”

If, however, such a bill should be passed and a person should be prosecuted under it, must the Court condemn to death those victims whom the Constitution endeavours to preserve?

“No person,’ says the Constitution, ’shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.”

Here. the language of the Constitution is addressed especially to the Courts. It prescribes, directly for them, a rule of evidence not to be departed from. If the Legislature should change that rule, and declare one witness, or a confession out of court, sufficient for conviction, must the constitutional principle yield to the legislative act?

From these and many other selections which might be made, it is apparent that the framers of the Constitution contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the Legislature.

Why otherwise does it direct the judges to take an oath to support it? This oath certainly applies in an especial manner to their conduct in their official character. How immoral to impose it on them if they were to be used as the instruments, and the knowing instruments, for violating what they swear to support!

The oath of office, too, imposed by the Legislature, is completely demonstrative of the legislative opinion on this subject. It is in these words:

“I do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich; and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent on me as according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States.”

Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the Constitution of the United States if that Constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him and cannot be inspected by him?

If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe or to take this oath becomes equally a crime.

It is also not entirely unworthy of observation that, in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned, and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank.

Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.

OBAMAZILLA is America’s true nemesis, not fellow patriots

By Lloyd Marcus

Eleven months ago, he landed on the shores of America destroying everything in his path. A gigantic fire breathing monster wreaking havoc, consuming private sector industries, crushing institutions which have made America great and destroying lives. With fear and trembling we dare to utter his name…Obamazilla! Though appearing indestructible and unstoppable, millions of brave patriots arose to challenge the beast; vowing not to sit idly by as America as we know it is terminated.

As a patriot, I am totally focused on defeating Obamazilla, America’s true Nemesis. I will not allow myself to be side tracked into participating in Tea Party movement family feuds. We are blessed to have brilliant strong willed strategists on our side who think they know which direction is best for the movement. That is fine. However, it is unfruitful and misdirected to boycott, trash and waste time and resources suing those on our side who have varying opinions.

Nobody or organization can claim ownership or take credit for this amazing historical Tea Party movement. It belongs solely to We The People. It still blows my mind how without media support, but through on-line social networks and word of mouth, 1.7 million patriots showed up in Washington DC on 9-12 to oppose tyrannical government.

Some have even attempted to force me to take sides. They threatened, “Lloyd, if you sing at their tea party, I will no longer be your fan.” Unless a tea party group is wacko, while I may not totally agree with their approach, I consider them an ally. Again, my total focus is on the big picture, stopping the huge monster which is destroying our freedom, liberty and culture.

Back in April, an upset California patriot emailed me after their successful tea party. His local organizers were gung-ho about fighting the battle on the national level. My emailer had a fire in his belly to fight locally. I advised my patriot brother to follow his passion. Our incredible movement was sparked by the passion of one man, Rick Santelli. What began with passion can only be sustained by passion, everyone doing what they feel passionate about doing.

Besides, we need patriot freedom fighters in all areas and on all levels.

Unfortunately, feuding over strategies has become a major distraction in the tea party movement. No, I am not asking anyone to compromise their beliefs or ideas. Quite the opposite. Whatever way you and your group chooses to fight Obamazilla is fine with me. But do not feud with tea party patriots who disagree or do not share your passion. Remember, your target is Obamazilla.

Like everyone else, I have opinions regarding the focus of the movement, but I will not allow my opinions to cause me to break fellowship with my fellow freedom fighters.

For example. Some think the Tea Party movement should remain “pure” not supporting any political candidates. I disagree. We can tea party until the cows come home, but if we do not work to put true conservatives in office, we are simply making noise without achieving anything.

Another source of contention in the movement is talk of a third political party. I believe a third party would insure the election of democrats. Remember how Ross Perot got Clinton elected?

Having said that, you third party patriots, if you feel strongly about starting a third party, go for it. You will not get any flack from me. My efforts are targeted solely on stopping Obamazilla. I only ask that you graciously accept me not wearing your t-shirt.

For crying out loud patriots, Obama has awarded a terrorist the same legal rights as an America citizen. Reid is muscling through Health Care. Cap and Trade is next on the agenda. In America, we have a “pay czar.” The list of horrors grow daily; and we patriots are fighting amongst ourselves. Please stop it. Stay focused on the real monster, the real enemy, the real threat to America, Obamazilla!

The Tea Party movement has birthed countless grassroots organizations. It is truly a wonderful thing. I find it extremely exciting that patriots all over America are fighting to defeat this monster administration and restore our great nation in their own way. I met many of these committed patriots while traveling on the national Tea Party Express II tour. Conservatives from twenty something to eighty are running for office for the first time. Old ladies are bombarding their congressmen and senators with phone calls and letters. Everyone is doing their part.

As corny and cliché as this sounds, it still holds true, “United we stand, divide we fall.” Let’s stand together brothers and sisters. Let’s stand!

Obama in a Bind Over Country of Birth

View Image

President Obama is in a fix over his country of birth.

The President started to dig the hole as Senate candidate and now he is president, the hole is getting deeper and uglier, mainly because of his evasive actions. Many Democrat supporters are either ignoring the problem or are vehemently attacking “birthers” who question the President’s eligibility.

Republicans are not the only ones concerned about his eligibility. Libertarians, independents, constitutionalists and even democrats are wondering why Obama is fighting so hard to hide his origin.

Unfortunately, Obama dug the hole himself, and like a hole created when a water main leaks and then bursts, the hole is expanding day by day and as it does, the fallout is increasing.

The President and his legal teams have done everything in their power to prevent anyone from accessing his real birth certificate, if he has one, but there are other lines of investigation they cannot block.

During his campaign for the Senate, he and his team touted his Kenyan birth, possibly because it made him more appealing to the voters they needed. Unfortunately, admitting to his birth in Kenya makes him ineligible for the Presidency.

So the question now is, was he really born in Kenya and he told the truth in the Senate campaign, or was he really born in Hawaii, and the Kenya story was a lie, used to deceive Illinois voters.

Obama can’t have it both ways. The answer to this question will be interesting!

Of course, he could say the campaign and the reporters all got it wrong, but it will be interesting to follow the trail on this investigation and discover the sources for the AP story that documents the apparent fact that Obama was Kenyan born.

If it wasn’t the truth back then, why didn’t he stop the campaign using that information and why didn’t he make the AP issue a retraction?

Obama supporters who say it is nobody’s business, need to take a step back, imagine the president is George Bush and ask themselves the same question they should ask now. “Is it OK for the President to hide his origin and what are his motives for doing it?”

I want there to be a simple, truthful answer to these questions, but I have a strange feeling the answer is not what any of his supporters wants to hear.

Archive of AP story in the Sunday Standard
Headline: Kenyan-born Obama all set for US Senate
Kenyan-born US Senate hopeful, Barrack Obama, appeared set to take over the Illinois Senate seat after his main rival, Jack Ryan, dropped out of the race on Friday night amid a furor over lurid sex club allegations.

Archive of Obama information from the Fight the smears website.

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”

See Also: Obama Citizenship Questions Threaten to Become Major Fiasco


Terrorist Criminal Trials and the Coming Jihad

By Abraham H. Miller

// <![CDATA[//
// <![CDATA[//
After the bombing of the American embassy in Nairobi, the police found amid the belongings of one of the perpetrators the list of the unindicted co-conspirators of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing in New York.  The list had been submitted to the lawyers for the defendant, Sheik Abdel Rahman,  and signed by Mary Jo White, the United States Attorney.  Under the rules of discovery in a criminal trial, the defendant had every right to the list.  If you read through the names of the unindicted co-conspirators, one name will jump off the page and grab your attention.  It is Number 95:  Osama bin Ladin.

If ever you had to have a reason why terrorists had to be dealt with as foreign combatants, and not as criminals, it would have stared you in the face from the discovery process of Sheik Rahman’s trial.  But there was more.  Rahman’s activist attorney, Lynne Stewart, used her position to pass information from the cleric to his terrorist followers in Egypt.  Stewart was later disbarred and sentenced to twenty-eight months in prison.
Stewart, however, is not an anomaly.  Radical lawyers, bent on using the legal system for furthering a political agenda, will be falling all over themselves to represent the five alleged terrorists who will now stand trial in New York City.  These lawyers will put American foreign policy on trial for the events of September 11, 2001.  Attorney General Eric Holder and President Barack Obama — in putting September 11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed and his co-conspirators into the criminal justice system — have given the Jihadists an incomparable stage for their propaganda.
What then possessed the Obama administration to ignore the obvious and to try these defendants in civil and not military proceedings?  It most certainly is not to showcase the American justice system for the world.  Both the president and the attorney general, in a consummate act of legal stupidity, have announced to the world that the defendants are not only guilty, but they are also going to be sentenced to death. If ever a national jury pool was tainted, this one was.  In the Islamic world, no one remotely sympathetic to the defendants could ignore the hypocrisy of this conduct.
Obama is willing to compromise intelligence and provide the Jihadists with a propaganda platform because he needs to placate the extremist elements of his political base. By taking these terrorists out of the hands of the military and putting them in the criminal justice system, Obama is redefining terrorism as a criminal justice issue and not as irregular warfare. In this, Obama is beginning a process that will reshape the meaning of terrorism in consonance with the sympathetic and minimalist notions of leftist ideology.
Terrorist trials in the media capital of the world will be a magnet for the inspired publicity of Jihadism.  All terrorism finds its inspiration in violence as theater.  The theater in the courtroom will be overshadowed by the inevitable carnage in the streets.
Terrorists have always wanted a lot of people watching, a lot of people asking, “Why?”  From Abane Ramdane, who moved the Algerian insurrection against the French out of the anonymous Sahara and into the media-saturated streets of Algiers, to George Habash, of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, who blew up air planes, terrorist leaders have thrived on the oxygen of publicity.
It is inconceivable that the Jihadists will not find New York, during the terrorist criminal trials, a place for statements to be written in blood and punctuated by explosions.
Innocent blood will flow in the streets of New York because Obama chose to make a political statement rather than confront the reality of what terrorism is and how it works.