The biggest story NOT being reported in US media

I know you've heard of this one. Obama's birth certificate has been an issue for months and now it seems that the Supreme Court may get involved (don't hold your breath). Regardless of where you stand on this issue, every citizen should be outraged at the idea that even though the Constitution has a requirement that anyone elected President must be a natural born citizen, there does seem to be one single governmental institution willing to compel Obama to verify this. Have we gotten so lazy as a society that the government no longer feels obligated to carry out such a basic function? Have we become so lazy to not DEMAND that this be done?

I won't get into the theories...many of you are probably all too familiar with them. In fact, in researching some of them, there are reason to doubt some of them. For example, you can Google "Kenya seals Obama records" all day long...all you will find are BLOG sources...not one actual media report of such an event. If I'm wrong, post it in the comments and the link.

Anyway, the more important issue is that thanks to the mainstream media, most Americans do not even know that this controversy is going on right now. Some have a false understanding that Obama was required to respond to an inquiry by Supreme Court Justice David Souter on December 1. First of all, failure or refusal to respond to Writs of Certiorari are common, so there will not be any consequence for missing this deadline. Second of all, everyone must remember that Souter votes more often with the liberal side of arguments than the conservative ones, despite being appointed by Bush I (much to the dismay of conservatives afterward), so he knows all about being given office under false pretenses. Plus let's not forget that Souter was embittered by the 2000 recount challenge, in which the Supreme Court ruled in favor or Bush II (below courtesy of Wikipedia)...

Bush v. Gore

In 2000, Souter voted and dissented along with the three other liberals in Bush vs. Gore to allow the presidential election recount to continue while the conservatives voted to end the recount, making Bush the president.

Jeffrey Toobin wrote in his 2007 book The Nine of Souter's reaction following Bush v. Gore:

"Toughened, or coarsened, by the their worldly lives, the other dissenters could shrug and move on, but Souter couldn’t. His whole life was being a judge. He came from a tradition where the independence of the judiciary was the foundation of the rule of law. And Souter believed Bush v. Gore mocked that tradition. His colleagues’ actions were so transparently, so crudely partisan that Souter thought he might not be able to serve with them anymore. Souter seriously considered resigning. For many months, it was not at all clear whether he would remain as a justice. That the Court met in a city he loathed made the decision even harder. At the urging of a handful of close friends, he decided to stay on, but his attitude toward the Court was never the same. There were times when David Souter thought of Bush v. Gore and wept."[12]

...so it's safe to say that Souter may be doing a whole lot of nothing about the situation as payback for the 2000 election. Actually a better indicator is that Souter has rejected the applications of both Peter Berg and Leo Donofrio in their quest for Supreme Court action. The only reason why Donofrio was successful in getting today's conference heard is because while Souter said no, Donofrio reapplied to Justice Clarence Thomas, who said yes.

So for this reason, I'm not holding my breath for a majority of justices on the Supreme Court to compel Obama to prove anything later today...though it should be a standard practice for ALL candidates. I think the reason why this one has slipped so far through the cracks is because it is more common that the media makes this request during the campaigns and the candidates merely comply, as did John McCain without hesitation this last go around. But never before has any candidate NOT done this, so the importance of verification at this stage, and its NECESSITY in this case, appears lost by most. Yes, the liberals who happen to be black will complain that Obama is being "picked on" but they ignore the facts of the situation as I just described.

All I have to say is that the democrats would be wise to encourage Obama to put this to rest now by producing proof...because if it is found to be true later that he is in fact NOT a citizen eligible to be president, then all hell will break loose for everything he signed or performed in his duties as president become NULL and VOID. Maybe the Republicans are just sitting back and waiting because they know that if this web unravels a couple of years down the road, the democrats would probably not sniff the presidency or a Congressional majority for decades as it would be the most embarassing event in U.S. history that we would all unfortunately have to bear (and perhaps some Republicans think its worth it).

The big question that remains however is that if Obama has nothing to hide then why not produce the document? To not do so will continue to divide the country and is therefore irresponsible, making any claims to want to unite all as disingenuous.

Here is perhaps the best way to stay informed in light of the lack of coverage in the MSM: Peter Berg's Obamacrimes.com. Yes, the web address is a bit "conspiracy theorish" but you'll see when reading the content that the man is just truly passionate about Obama doing what he and many others feel is a requirement to officially become President...he even asks readers to not perform counter-productive activities such as call and harass the Supreme Court.

Oh, and one final note about the birth certificate above...the one that is being touted by Obama as proof of his U.S. citizenship...the document is merely a Certificate of Live Birth, which any foreign citizen can obtain by showing the original Birth Certificate, regardless of what country the child was born in. The reason why I have it going back and forth between his and a real one is because there are countless sites on the web that prove that Obama's is actually a forgery (again the question must be asked -- why?). My link takes you to one of the best ones.

Now here is a document that does not appear to be a forgery -- Obama's school registration record from Indonesia. First, here's the untranslated original:



Now here's the translated version:



What is established with this document:

1. That Barack had an alias, which he denied when he filled out his registration form to practice law in Illinois:



2. That he was considered Muslim, which in my view is inconsequential since he was a child and was spoken for by his father and his personal preference at the time can never be truly known except for Barry himself.

3. Most important -- this document claims that he is an Indonesian citizen.

Here's where I think the smoking gun lies (see my bold emphasis below):

TITLE 8. CHAPTER 12. SUBCHAPTER III. Part III. § 1481

§ 1481. Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions

(a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality—
(1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application or upon an application filed by a duly authorized agent, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or
(2) taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after having attained the age of eighteen years; or
(3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if
(A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States, or
(B) such persons serve as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer; or
(4)
(A) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years if he has or acquires the nationality of such foreign state; or
(B) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years for which office, post, or employment an oath, affirmation, or declaration of allegiance is required; or
(5) making a formal renunciation of nationality before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state, in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State; or
(6) making in the United States a formal written renunciation of nationality in such form as may be prescribed by, and before such officer as may be designated by, the Attorney General, whenever the United States shall be in a state of war and the Attorney General shall approve such renunciation as not contrary to the interests of national defense; or
(7) committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of title 18, or violating section 2384 of title 18 by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.
(b) Whenever the loss of United States nationality is put in issue in any action or proceeding commenced on or after September 26, 1961 under, or by virtue of, the provisions of this chapter or any other Act, the burden shall be upon the person or party claiming that such loss occurred, to establish such claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Any person who commits or performs, or who has committed or performed, any act of expatriation under the provisions of this chapter or any other Act shall be presumed to have done so voluntarily, but such presumption may be rebutted upon a showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the act or acts committed or performed were not done voluntarily.

Why is Section 1 above relevant you ask? Obama has said that he traveled to Pakistan while in college in 1981, which puts him at 20 years old at the time. It is widely speculated that in order to travel into Pakistan, he had to have had an Indonesian passport because it would have been extremely difficult as an American, which would be perfectly fine except for the fact that Indonesian passports are only issued to citizens. Since Barry reached adult age, the only way for him to have a valid Indonesian passport would be if he had re-applied for citizenship upon becoming an adult...and he had to formally claim Indonesian citizenship to do so because while he was a child, he was considered a resident alien. This is known because in 2006 Indonesia changed this provision (curiously I might add). Notice also that in the second decree that was passed in 2006 that Indonesian citizens who did not reclaim their citizenship status to the Indonesian government after five years as was previously required, which presumably applies to Obama, now have a three-year window until 2009 to get reinstated. I'd be curious to see if Obama has or plans to have a valid Indonesian citizenship while being president...

Makes all kinds of sense in an upside-down world...

I think I hurt my neck doing a double-take when I read today that not only would Barack Obama likely avoid audit for his campaign fundraising, and to rub salt in the wound, that John McCain would definitely be audited. As they say, no good deed goes unpunished.

This is a terrible precedent being set by the Federal Election Commission, and is yet another example of how the American people are being woefully unrepresented in government operations. In case you didn't know, the FEC is comprised of six Commissioners and are all appointed by the President and approved by the Senate. No more than three can be from one political party, and since no one except democrats and republicans have ever been president, it's safe to assume that at any given time in history, three have been democrats and three have been republicans. Since there is no mechanism to break any dead lock, not a whole lot gets done. I imagine it would be a lot like playing rock, paper, scissors without the paper and scissors. I'm sorry but that is completely inept.

To get any action to be performed voluntarily the offense would apparently have to be SO bad that one of the three in the offending party would have to stand up and say, "Whoa...I'm sorry but I can't defend that." Given that, are you telling me that not one of the three current democratic commissioners aren't NOW SAYING THIS? Oh that's right...when it's their guy, the rules change. I'm sure they're secretly loving the irony that they are required to audit McCain because he accepted public campaign funding, while the decision to audit Obamessiah or not rests solely in their hands...which isn't going to happen.

Not to single anybody out, but only one of the FEC commissioners is clearly a democrat based on her professional history having had worked for Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), but Cynthia Bauerly knows full well that if she were to stand up for what is proper and appropriate, she would likely get a dead fish in the mail from Rahm Emanuel.

This is your inept government at work, everyone...getting a warm fuzzy yet?

Who is Sonal Shah?

I was forwarded an article about one of Obama's Transition Team members, Sonal Shah, and I have to admit that at first I didn't find anything of interest regarding her alleged associations to the Vishwa Hari Parishad (VHP), a group responsible for the massacre of Indian muslims in 2002 and recent violence against Christians.

Sonal Shah's involvement with these groups has yet to be proven, and it appears that her parents are the ones closely involved with the group, but after looking further into her co-founding of Indicorps, other questions emerged for me. Since she is a co-founder of this group, I decided to look at the partners of Indicorps to see what sort of company they keep.

One partner group of interest was the Manav Sadhna...I went to the "Our Projects" section, then clicked "Spiritual." Two projects of interest are entitled, "Spiritual Prayer" and "Love All, Serve All."

The "Spiritual Prayer" project shows a list of prayers, and I found clues to their underlying beliefs from them, which basically promote the idea that all religions are the same. Here are some examples (bold is my emphasis):

od you are the Hindu Gods, Narayan and Purushottama
God you are Buddha, you are you the sun and the fire (Parsis)
God you are from the Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, and Christian faiths
God you are in the form of Vasudeva and Vishva. You are in the form of happiness
God, you are only one.

This promotes the idea that no one is wrong and all ideas are valid...these conflict with my Christian beliefs...

Speak the truth, practice non-violence of thoughts, speech, actions, do not steal, do not accumulate more than you need
Control all your senses, perform efforts on your own, do not believe in untouchabilty, all are equal
Do not have fear of anything, use things made in your own country, sacrifice tastes, all religions are equal
Practice these principals, bow down with respect and practice these things in your life.

Again, this negates the Christian belief of Jesus and His death for our sins...

Here is the excerpt from "Love All, Serve All" (again, bold emphasis is mine):

Value education at Manav Sadhna emphasizes spiritual development. All daily activities commence with an “All Religions” prayer. Beliefs, symbols and texts of all religions are discussed, so that children develop a respect for all faiths. Children are also encouraged to practice meditation for inner spiritual strength. Manav Sadhna sees every religious festival as an occasion of joy to celebrate with vigor and enthusiasm. Festivals like Christmas, Eid, and Diwali are observed with equal zeal, and are used to encourage children from all castes and all religions to celebrate, in unison. By inculcating children with the concept of communal harmony at an early age, we hope to prevent communal violence in the future generations.

By celebrating all religious observances, it dilutes their importance and significance, in my view. Again, it promotes an "everyone's right, nobody's wrong" philosophy...the corner stone of a socialist society. I think it is reasonable to suspect that Sonal Shah shares these values, and that Barack Obama in turn shares these values. What Barack Obama seems to lack in Christian convictions, he makes up for with aspirations for a socialist society, and it is very possible that Sonal Shah is providing him a road map of a way to unite people under a national cause.

Annie, go get a gun?

There have been several news reports about a sharp increase in guns sales out of fear that Obama and the Democratic-led Congress will make it difficult to either get guns or buy ammunition. Heavy speculation is that the likely method would be to assess a hefty tax on the price of ammunition.

Here is a sampling of some recent articles:

NY TIMES

ABC's Nightline

Oregon's Statesman Journal

Business Day

The National Rifle Association web site references a gun ban agenda that was listed on Obama's Transition web site, but has since been removed. Now the most you will see is a very vanilla statement about his general plan for the country under "The Agenda" section. Clearly, there is reason for concern as it is clear that Obama's staff is finding it harder and harder to be transparent about future plans and intentions. One needs to ask why are campaign statements floating around in cyberspace not being left alone? Why is there a constant effort to revise previous statements?

Keep this handy from Hot Air back in September in case he reneges on his promise.

See today's poll on this topic along the right column.

So of course the topic to procure our first home defense weapon is being discussed in our home. My better half wants a good old handgun...but I want something that makes more of a statement --


Meet the Mossberg 500 aka "Zombie Stopper"...as I've said to my wife, I want to send a gentle but firm warning as to what is about to come next for a would-be intruder with the deep, distinct sound of my first round being chambered with the pump action.

However, if I want such a weapon, I need to hurry as it is clear that Obama's definition of an "assault weapon" includes any weapon procured for the use of the military or law enforcement...and Mossberg is one of the preferred shotguns by law enforcement. Granted that the ones for law enforcement use have an "A1" designation, do you think Obama and the democrats will split hairs on that? I think that if he adopts Joe Biden's expanded definition of an assault weapon, Obama will outlaw ALL types of Mossberg 500 shotguns. Of course, we can't trust FactCheck.org's claim that Obama would not expand the list of weapons on the assault weapons ban, since FactCheck.org is funded by the Annenberg Foundation, a key funder of ACORN.

UPDATE: The Liberal Power Struggle Begins

Take THAT, Senator Reid! Today it was reported that Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT), is in talks with the GOP to join its caucus.

Apparently Joe is sending a clear message that he's not waiting around for the Senate Supreme Leader to rule on his "case."


UPDATE: Related to the original story below (see "The Liberal Power Struggle Begins"), the Henry Waxman power play on John Dingell's chairman seat was apparently orchestrated by the Obama camp.

Obama White House gets a dog

Well that didn't take very long. Obama has already asked US Representative Rahm Emanuel (D-Illinois) to be his Chief of Staff. He's described in the link above as "sharp-tongued" and "sharp elbowed." That's a really nice way to say that if you have someone that needs convincing by sending the goon squad, Rahm is your man. I guess an Obama gesture of "reaching across the aisle" involves a baseball bat.

There are conflicting stories regarding who was involved, but here are some of the resume highlights for "Rahm-bo":

1. His appointment would represent Obama's first import of good, old-fashioned Chicago politics. He's quoted as saying that democrats represent a break from the status quo and cronyism, yet his own roots seem to imply that he's no different.

2. There are legendary stories of psychopathic behavior like sending an ex-girlfriend a dead fish and stabbing a table incessantly during a victory dinner akin to something you'd see in an Al Pacino or Robert DeNiro performance. There are some potential explanations for this. One might be that he was forced to take ballet as a young boy.


Let's look at his record briefly...

Just when you thought that Obama was pro-choice, we may have found a more left democrat...NARAL gives him a 100% voting record rating. Use your imagination for what all that emcompasses.

He's against defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

Curiously was in favor of making the Patriot Act permanent.

Rated by the HRC as having a 100% pro-gay stance

The Christian Coalition gave him an 8% grade...which means that he's pretty anti-family (even though he has one).

He's against the requirement to show a photo ID to vote.

Is for the immediate pull out of troops from Iraq.

Is against all anti-immigration measures.

Curiously against ending offshore tax havens.

Just some highlights for you to enjoy. Sounds like a real uniter. So the bottom line is that appointing Emanuel enables Obama to keep his nice-guy image while his junkyard dog does all the dirty work. Most likely, Emanuel will be in charge of the far left wing agenda and will meet with Obama often to determine the what and when of things that will be "safe" to unleash upon the public.

So now what?

It is the morning after -- November 5, 2008, and I'm still processing the election results. America's desire to elect its first black president was so great that it overlooked his politics. I'm not that old but I've never seen a presidential candidate get so little vetting by the media. I won't rehash all the old factors that never got traction prior to his election. I will instead focus on where we may go from here.

I will say that I am proud for America that we have elected a black president. Blacks have indeed waited a long time for representation at this level of government so hopefully now there will be a greater sense among them that there is but ONE America. I'm not a big John Wayne fan, but I agree with him that a hyphenated America (i.e. African-American, Asian-American, etc.) is a divided America. What I think will happen though is that blacks will end up feeling lukewarm towards him by the end of his term because he will not solve poverty, though many would like to believe that. What he MAY do however is make that pool of folks BIGGER through taxation (yes, we'll ALL be taxed when he lets those Bush tax cuts expire people!). No, Obamanation won't pay your mortgage or your car loan through the magical taxation of the highest 5%.

So I see two possible models that Obama may govern. One extreme would be that Obama goes to the extreme left to appeal to the loonies. Things that come to mind are: streamlined processes for killing the unborn, stifling our free media via the Fairness Doctrine, and/or discouraging Second Amendment rights using tactics used by the idiots running Washington DC. Government-run health care (now THERE'S an oxymoron!) and overhauls of tax laws to redistribute wealth also fall into this category. Keep an eye on his appointments to see if ACORN loyalists or mutual friends of Bill Ayers get in the door -- you think I'm kidding but I'm fully expecting a disciple of Ayers to be appointed to the Department of Education so their loony "social justice" enterprise can be unleashed full scale.

The other extreme I see is Barack Obama actually being kept at bay by the remaining Republicans in Congress with the help of "Blue Dogs" (but keep an eye out for pork for these guys to vote in the affirmative for Obamanation initiatives) due to Obama's extreme ambitions being too extreme perhaps for even some liberals. If he is effectively neutered from putting into place his most extreme ambitions, his presidency could perhaps go down historically as nothing more than the second coming of JC (as in Jimmy Carter) in that he would go down in the books as a wimp with no moral compass or meaningful convictions to contribute to the American story still being written.

So this blog will be dedicated to revealing and discussing all Executive Orders by President Obama (that hurts to type that) and other shenanigans performed by liberal pinheads like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. It will be amazing to see what else the demoncrats try to blame on the minority Republicans over the next four years. This blog will also bring to light stories that the liberal media tries to outright ignore or bury on page 23 in the Travel and Living section.