Tag Archives: Bill O’Reilly

Pres. Lucifer has America in a Satanic grip

Rev./Dr. James David Manning, the pastor of ATLAH World Missionary in Harlem, NY city, has been fighting the good fight, speaking truth to power, fearlessly and outspokenly.

But I’ve never seen him as despairing as he is today.

Pres. Lucifer

We The People Have Been Sold Out

By Dr. James David Manning

The cover-up of Obama’s CIA service, terrorist activity ties to Bill Ayers, criminal ties to Tony Resko, hate whitey and America ties to Jeremiah Wright, homosexual activity, connection to the death of Donald Young and his wholly ineligible status has been a combined effort of both democrats and republicans, liberals and conservatives, the media, the courts and the Congress.

When the DNC took the nomination from the Clinton’s and gave it to Obama, it was empirical evidence that Obama held powers that were larger than the American government.

When Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck finally put the birth certificate question to rest by declaring that O’Reilly had seen the original; they further stated that the Birthers were crazy racists. It was clear Obama and his power brokers controlled all media, both liberal, and conservative. When the stories about Bristol Palin and her boyfriend Levi suddenly disappeared from the news cycles, I knew he had silenced Sarah Palin and The Tea Parties nationwide.

Whatever Obama is, be he Muslim, Communist, Homosexual, Ineligible, or a Brooks Brothers suit wear terrorist, so goes America, it is clear no elected official, no sitting justice, and no media will lay a finger on him. Then why do we think he will ever relinquish power?

He has put the NDAA* in place. He has perfected and gotten approval for the use of drones both nationally and internationally. Homeland security has purchased 1.6 billion hollow point bullets, and he is prepared to hand out 500k assault weapons to black youth from the ghettos and prisons of America in Taliban and Al Queda fashion to defend him and his legacy.

Obama will never release his records, nor will he release America. Our government (Liberals and Conservatives) has conspired a deal that Obama does not have to release his records nor will he have to release America from his Satanic grip.

* NDAA is the National Defense Authorization Act that “authorizes” the U.S. president and the military to arrest and indefinitely detain U.S. citizens, without charge or trial. NDAA was passed by both parties in both houses of Congress in 2011.

Do you agree with Rev. Manning? If you do, what recourse should we take? Do you think Rev. Manning has given up the fight?

See also “Obama’s mentor was a Satan worshipper, what does that make Obama?,” May 28, 2011.

H/t FOTM’s joworth

~Eowyn

Why Obama has a Connecticut Social Security no.

One of the many mysteries about the POS is his Connecticut-issued Social Security number — a state in which he had never resided and with which he has no association.

In 2010, two licensed private investigators, Susan Daniels and Neal Sankey, found that multiple Social Security (SS) numbers are associated with Barack Obama’s name. Daniels and Sankey put their findings in sworn affidavits. Dr. Orly Taitz further verified their information with a third source, a retired Department of Homeland Security senior investigator named John Sampson.

In May 2010, the mystery deepened when it was determined that the SS number Obama is currently using (042-68-4425) has a Connecticut prefix, 042, but Obama had never lived in nor had associations with the state of Connecticut.

In late February 2011, the mystery further deepened when retired US Air Force Col. Gregory Hollister, the litigant in an Obama eligibility lawsuit, conducted a search for Obama’s Connecticut SS number in the Social Security Number Verification System used by small businesses to verify employment eligibility. The results came back as “Failed: SSN not in file (never issued).”

All along, the question is why would Obama obtain a Connecticut-issued SS number instead of one by Hawaii? Author Jack Cashill has a plausible explanation that deserves airing. It all goes back to Obama’s birth certificate.

In an article for American Thinker, “A Possible Explanation for Obama’s Connecticut Social Security Number,” on September 14, 2012, Cashill writes:

As I reported on Tuesday, Barack Obama has yet to provide an explanation for how he came to have a Social Security number that begins with the Connecticut prefix “042.”

Filmmaker Joel Gilbert read the piece.  He has been in Hawaii doing follow-up research on his insightful new documentary, Dreams from My Real Father, and he sent me the single best explanation I have yet to see.

What intrigued me about this story from the moment Ohio private investigator Susan Daniels first came across Obama’s Connecticut SSN was the ineptness of the left-wing explanations.

“Numbers are assigned based on the return address on the request envelope, not residency,” crowed Jason Linkins in the Huffington Post, as though he had said something meaningful. Linkins suggested two possible explanations, both preposterous.

One is that Obama applied for his SSN as a little boy in Indonesia for no known reason, and the application just happened to be processed in Connecticut for no known reason, too.

For the second, Linkins cited the argument [...], “In fact, Barack Obama’s dad attended college in Connecticut and in 1977, Obama was college aged; is it beyond reason to consider that he might have checked out his father’s alma mater?”

Last time I checked, Harvard was in Massachusetts.  The closest town to Harvard in Connecticut is about 90 minutes away, and there is no record at all that Obama Sr. lived there, let alone that Obama visited his imaginary alma mater and just happened to apply for a Social Security card while visiting.

On the respectable right, Fox News host Bill O’Reilly finessed this claim.  “[Obama's] father lived in Connecticut for several years,” O’Reilly said inaccurately on air last April. He added that “babies sometimes get numbers based on addresses provided by their parents.” Wrong again.

The left-leaning fact-checking service Snopes.com [...] repeats the irrelevant detail that Obama would only need to have sent his application in from Connecticut, but how or why the 16-year-old Obama could or would have done so is overlooked.

Snopes concludes that “the most likely explanation” is a “simple clerical or typographical error.” Obama, they contend, lived in the Hawaii zip code of 96814, while the zip code for Danbury, CT is 06814. As it happens, “clerical error” is the same excuse used to explain away Obama’s claim to a Kenyan birth in his literary agent’s 1991 promotional piece.

Joel Gilbert suggests a more likely explanation. In doing his research in Hawaii, Gilbert heard from several sources that pre-statehood, every institution or branch of government in Hawaii was dominated by the Japanese syndicate known as the “Yakuza, the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU), and a complicit bureaucracy.  “After statehood in 1959 the Federal Government came in, and the syndicate went underground, but maintained the same control, and does so to this day,” says Gilbert.

Hawaii was and is a corrupt state,” Gilbert continues.  He was told by retired Honolulu police detectives that in the state bureaucracy, “anything could be purchased, including Social Security numbers.” These were real numbers, likely available because the original card holder was dead. The sellers trafficked in SSNs that did not originate in Hawaii. That way, if the person using the phony SSN were ever caught, the crime would be traced back to the issuing state, not the Hawaii office.

Gilbert’s theory is that the SSN problem is related to the question of Obama’s birth certificate, which is required to get a SSN. Lacking a valid birth certificate, Obama was forced to buy an SSN so he could get his first job at the Baskin Robbins in 1977. In this theory, Obama was sold an SSN that was Connecticut-based so it couldn’t be traced back to the Hawaii office.

The easiest way to test this theory and establish the truth is to ask the people who know. WND’s veteran White House correspondent Les Kinsolving tried to do just this at a press briefing a few years back. Predictably, Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs laughed Kinsolving off and switched the subject to the birth certificate.

In a televised address two years ago, Obama famously said, “The only people who don’t want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide.” So could someone in the media please ask him about that “042″?  We can be sure they would be asking questions if Mitt Romney had a Hawaii-based SSN, and they would not be satisfying themselves with “clerical error.”

~Eowyn

Barnhardt: Why conservative media avoid Obama ineligibility

We “get it” as to why the Liberal Establishment Media simply refuse to investigate or even pay attention to the mounting evidence on Obama’s dubious birth eligibility to be POTUS. But we are baffled why supposedly Conservative media such as FoxNews and Hot Air, pundits such as Ann Coulter, and talk show hosts like Sean Hannity also shy away from it. Worse still, Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly not just avoid it, they go out of their way to mock the “birthers”.

The fearless and outspoken Ann Barnhardt has an idea as to why. Here’s a hint:

“Follow the money!”

The following are excerpts from her blog of May 17, 2012, “Yes, I saw the Breitbart Obama Bio Thing” – referring to the revelation that, as recently as 2007, Obama’s literary agency Acton & Dystel in its book promotional brochures described Obama as having been “born in Kenya”:

Two points:

1. This proves that Obama is a stone-cold liar and con-man. Checkmate. Either he lied when he said he was born in Kenya, or he lied when he said he was born in Hawaii. The fact that he commissioned and released an OBVIOUSLY FORGED Hawaiian birth certificate certainly causes the Obama garbage scow to list to the side of the lie being that he was born in Hawaii.

Barack Obama IS A LIAR. He is a man of degenerate morality, and is a psychopath. Is anyone going to do anything about the fact that a con-artist psychopath is the Chief Executive of the largest economy in the world and the history of the world? Is anyone going to do anything about the fact that a con-artist psychopath is the Commander-in-Chief of the largest military force in the world and the history of the world? Is anyone going to do anything about the fact that the entire intelligence, law enforcement and bureaucracy of the United States government is either so incompetent that they couldn’t even vet ONE MAN or that they are complicit in Obama’s con?

Which segues into my second point . . .

2. The Breitbart group AND the HotAir fools (Ed Morrisey and Allahpundit), ONCE AGAIN are pissing all over people who dare point out that Obama’s eligibility to hold the office of the Presidency is seriously, seriously in question. They are doing this in the same breath WHILE REPORTING THIS VERY STORY, which proves beyond any doubt whatsoever that Obama is a liar and con-artist.

WHY? Why do these “conservatives” refuse to engage reality on this point?

I know the answer, and I warn you, it is very depressing.

These folks have made a BOATLOAD of money off of the Obama usurpation. Bottom line: Obama is good for business if you are a “conservative” blogger looking to advance your career and either move into a high-paying gig in the “mainstream media” OR attempting to establish a new-model business like Glenn Beck. It was reported (I think in Forbes) that Beck made a cool $80 million last year. Don’t think for a second that Morrisey, Allahpundit and the Breitbart Team aren’t salivating at the thought of seven-to-eight figure annual hauls.

I actually believe that most of these folks are rooting for Obama to “win”, for whatever that means in a lawless electoral environment, in November because Obama is very, very good for their businesses. Think about yourself. Do you read more or less news now than you did four years ago? Oh, I’d be willing to bet that you read MULTIPLES of what you read four years ago. I do. No doubt.

In order to get those page views, and thus that ad revenue, these folks want as much upheaval and fear among their readers as possible. Obama provides upheaval, fear and outrage in massive quantities. Thus more page views. Thus more income. If Romney is “elected”, many folks would stand down and traffic to sites like HotAir, Breitbart and Beck would curtail precipitously.

Before you accuse me of hypocrisy, please remember that there are no ads on this site. I have been told that I could easily generate several thousand dollars per month by putting ads up here. I refuse. I refuse to profiteer off of the end of the world. I also fully realize that if I started advertising here that I would notice and CARE about traffic, and would thus censor or otherwise shade what I write in order to maximize revenues and retain readers. Okay, at that point I would not be serving God, I would be serving mammon (money). Nope. I don’t give a crap if I have ten million readers or zero. It’s all exactly the same to me, and it is going to stay that way. In other words, HONEST.

Doing this “blogging thing” has done nothing but cost me money, and now that Barnhardt Capital Management is no longer in business (thanks to Obama crony and oligarch Jon Corzine, who stole $1.6 billion and totally destroyed the entire financial market paradigm) I am burning through reserves with each passing month. I have enough material to publish at least TWO books of essays – I even have a self-publishing deal ready to go – but I can’t bring myself to do it because I don’t want to go to hell for profiteering off of the death of my country and civilization.

So yeah, I am uniquely qualified to call out these money-hungry bloggers and pundits (Malkin, Coulter, Limbaugh) who refuse to report on the fact that Obama is illegitimate, and who may even be rooting for his reign to continue.

Sins of omission are every bit as grave as sins of commission, and protecting income or assets is not a valid excuse for concealing the truth. Michelle, Ann C. and Rush may be able to buy their way out of the country when the poop hits the prop, but they won’t be able to buy their way out of their Particular Judgments.

+++

Like Barnhardt’s blog, Fellowship of the Minds (FOTM) also does not make any money for its owner (Dr. Eowyn) or our hardworking team of writers. FOTM does not solicit ads, nor do we have ads on this site. But FOTM’s host, WordPress, does occasionally insert an ad into one of our posts — which FOTM writers don’t see but you, dear reader, do. FOTM has no control over it, nor do we derive even a penny from those WordPress-inserted ads.

Like Barnhardt, I’ve also been told if FOTM were to go the commercial route, with total “hits” or views of over 4,373,000 in a mere 2 years and 5 months, we’d probably make thousands of dollars a month in ad revenue. But I had made a decision at FOTM’s inception on December 23, 2009, that this blog will remain non-commercial for the same reason as Barnhardt’s: I want our writers to speak the truth, unimpeded by fears of offending ad sponsors.

And that is why I laugh whenever some drive-by troll or an outraged reader goes into a hissy fit and threatens that he or she will no longer read FOTM. That threat is an empty one because it makes no difference to us: FOTM doesn’t live or die by how many hits we get. So if someone goes into a snit and threatens to forever leave FOTM, it’s not our loss. The loss is wholly yours!

~Eowyn

Why are Obama and Sharpton So Skinny? Rev. Manning Has a Theory

~LTG

Sheriff Joe is looking into Obama’s Conn. Social Security no.

On March 1, 2012, Arizona Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio held a press conference to present the findings of a 6-month investigation into the murky background of Barack Obama whom the media refused to vett in 2008.

After interviewing dozens of witnesses, examining hundreds of documents, and taking sworn statements from many witnesses around the world, Arpaio’s all-volunteer Cold Posse investigators concluded that the online image of Obama’s purported long-form birth certificate and his Selective Service registration likely are forgeries.

Some have wondered why Arpaio’s team did not look into Obama’s curious Connecticut-issued Social Security number.

In this radio interview on Denver’s 630 KHOW, beginning at around the 5:45 mark, Arpaio and the posse’s lead investigator, Michael Zullo, confirm that they have and are looking into the matter. But it’s been “extremely difficult” because they’ve run into “roadblocks” — they “can’t run that Social Security (SS) number, you can’t run any background investigation.” Running that SS number through the federal government’s E-Verify is now “blocked” as well.

But Zullo notes, wryly, that it is very difficult to explain how a 15 or 16-year-old kid living in Hawaii (Obama) could manage to acquire a Connecticut-issued SS number. Fox TV’s Bill O’Reilly had said that Obama’s father had obtained that SS number while he was in Yale. (The problem, of course, is neither Obama Sr. nor Jr. ever went to Yale University.)

Arpaio’s team’s investigation into Obama’s college transcripts and admissions is also “ongoing,” but the effort has been very difficult. The team is especially interested in Obama’s Punahou High School records because annual tuition there was expensive ($5,000 to $6,000). How could his grandparents have been able to afford it?

Zullo is asked about the passport then-Occidental College student Obama used to travel to Pakistan — what passport? in whose name? Zullo says if they could get that information, “the whole case would be solved.” But they couldn’t find information on this because the records have been destroyed, including all of Obama’s mom’s passport records.

Both Arpaio and Zullo also express frustration with how the media are not reporting on their March 1 press conference. Arpaio: “We have the evidence, but no one wants to talk about it.”

H/t ObamaReleaseYourRecords

~Eowyn

Memo to Fox News: The First Birther Movement Began in 1880

The next time Margaret Hoover decides to go on BOR and insist that natural-born citizenship is code for racism, O’Reilly needs to mention an inconvenient fact from history.

A helpful writer at NewsBusters found this little gem from CBS News back in 2009:

Nearly 123 years after [Chester Arthur's] death, doubts about his U.S. citizenship linger, thanks to lack of documentation and a political foe’s claim that Arthur was really born in Canada – and was therefore ineligible for the White House, where he served from 1881 to 1885.

I know public school history books struggle with anything older than the Vietnam War – but is it too much to ask for our supposed intellectual betters on cable news to know these things?

-Candance

Is Obama Behind Public Union Demonstrations?

In a recent interview on FoxNews, Bill O’Reilly said: “I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that President Obama may be behind the scenes in this Wisconsin brawl. It might be he and his guys directing what happens out there.”

O’Reilly is not prone to paranoia or conspiracy theories. Heck, O’Reilly is not even a birther! LOL

Given Obama’s Feb. 17 characterization of Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s efforts to trim the state’s $3.6 billion deficits as an “attack on unions,” the notion that Obama is not just sympathetic to unions but may be orchestrating the demonstrations is not wholly far-fetched.

To make my case, I present you with six exhibits or pieces of evidence.

Exhibit 1:

On January 15, 2008, when Obama was still a mere senator before he was elected president, he said this to the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), the fastest growing  labor union in the United States representing about 1.8 million workers:

“[Political candidates] all sing we love the SEIU. The question you’ve got to ask yourselves is do they have it in their gut, do they have a track record of standing alongside you in picket fights, do they have a track record of going after the companies that aren’t letting you organize, do they have a track record of voting the right way but also helping you organize to build more and more power…. I come from an organized background, so I know. I’ve been working with SEIU before I was elected to anything….”

Exhibit 2:

On August 23, 2009, now President Obama once again rallied the SEIU troops:

“Hope and Change is not just the rhetoric of a campaign for me. Hope and Change has been the causes of my life…. We have a lot of good friends of labor who are running in this election. I admire all of them. But the question I do want SEIU to ask yourselves is not who can talk about your agenda, but who can change the politics in Washington so that we can actually make your agenda a reality. And I believe I can do that. But…I can’t do this by myself. That’s why I am not just asking you to trust my ability to change this country, I’m asking you to trust in yourselves. I’m asking you to bet not just on me, I’m asking you to bet on us…. That’s what you did with me in 2004 because I probably wouldn’t be standing here if it hadn’t been for the SEIU endorsement back then….”

Exhibit 3:

Obama and Trumka

Richard Trumka, President of the AFL-CIO, is very close to Obama. Trumka recently said: “I’m at the White House a couple times a week. Two, three times a week. I have conversations everyday with someone in the White House or in the administration. Everyday.”

Stern is the white-haired guy.

Bill O’Reilly points out that this means Trumka, as of January 28 this year, has been to the White House 46 times since Obama was elected. We also know that Andy Stern, former SEIU president, had made 58 visits to the Obama White House.

Exhibit 4:

Organizing for America had planned and sponsored the unions’ “emergency rallies” on February 15 and 16 in Wisconsin. This is what Wikipedia tells us about the organization: “Organizing for America is a community organizing project of the Democratic National Committee. Founded after the presidential inauguration of Barack Obama, the group seeks to mobilize supporters in favor of Obama’s legislative agenda.”

Exhibit 5:

MoveOn.org is calling for a nationwide march on state houses at noon tomorrow (Saturday, Feb. 26), to counter Wisconsin’s and other states’ efforts to trim multibillion dollar deficits by reining in public employee unions. MoveOn.org calls these efforts “Republicans…using the wrecked economy as an excuse to slash vital programs and hurt workers. The American Dream itself is under attack. So we’re helping lead an emergency call for rallies in every state capital this Saturday at noon to support folks in Wisconsin and oppose these attacks, wherever they occur.” MoveOn.org is a Progressive Democratic Party political action committee, financed by George Soros, Peter Lewis (of Progressive Auto Insurance), and Linda Pritzker (of the Hyatt hotels).

Exhibit 6:

On February 17, 2011, a Tweet from Bob Woodhouse, the Democratic National Committee’s communication director, said the White House was “proudly” playing a role in the Wisconsin public employee union protest.

~Eowyn

Sarah Palin & Karl Rove Want Birthers to Shut Up

Either the U.S. Constitution is the highest law of the land, or it isn’t. And if Americans still hold the Constitution to be the highest law of the land, then its integrity must be safe-guarded, respected, and protected.

So what is it with the elites of the Republican Party? Why are they so hellbent on not just avoiding, but denying and suppressing the Obama eligibility issue, which pertains to nothing less than the very integrity of the Constitution?

One after another, GOP and so-called conservative elites refuse to address this matter. New Speaker of the House John Boehner won’t. FoxNews’ Bill O’Reilly wasted a perfect opportunity to confront Obama about it. His fellow firebrand talking head Glenn Beck not just avoids it but went out of his way to mock “birthers.”

Among conservative national talk radio hosts, only Rush Limbaugh and to a lesser extent Sean Hannity talk about it, which is most strange because, as WorldNetDaily publisher Joseph Farah points out, the Obama eligibility issue is not just all-important, it is a winning issue.

The latest GOP elites to dodge this issue are Karl Rove and none other than Her Preciousness, Sarah Palin.

Bush & Rove

Yesterday, in an interview with O’Reilly, Karl Rove, George W. Bush’s former consigliere, urged conservatives to focus on “real issues” and said Republicans should speak out against those in the party who question whether Obama is a citizen of the United States. Rove said whatever percentage of Republicans are so-called “birthers,” it “ought to be less.”

Alas, her kiss is not for "birthers" 'cause Sarah finds you "annoying"

On Thursday, in a rare public appearance in Woodbury, NY, in which reporters were allowed, Sarah Palin had the appalling arrogance as to chide some of her supporters for sustaining the “annoying” claims that Obama is foreign-born and Muslim.

As reported by Beth Fouhy and Frank Eltman of the Associated Press, February 17, 2011, when asked whether she intends to run for the presidency in 2012, Palin touted herself by saying “No one is more qualified, really, to multitasking and the things you need to do as president, than a woman, a mom.” She then “distance[d] herself from the so-called birthers, who believe Obama was not born in the United States, and others who contend he is not Christian, as he insists, but Muslim. She said she does not question the president’s faith or citizenship and added, ‘It’s distracting. It gets annoying. Let’s stick with what really matters.’”

GOP elites are hellbent on avoiding, suppressing, and mocking the issue, but ordinary rank-and-file Republicans aren’t. Like the little boy who cried out “The Emperor has no clothes!” because he had not yet been corrupted and intimidated by his “elders” and so, spoke the truth that everyone could see but were afraid to say, a recent poll found that “birthers” make up a majority of those voters who say they’re likely to participate in a Republican primary next year. They are not just a majority; “birthers” are a majority that is increasing!

Tom Jensen of the left-leaning Public Policy Polling (PPP) reports on Feb 15, 2011 that:

51% say they don’t think Barack Obama was born in the United States to just 28% who firmly believe that he was and 21% who are unsure. The GOP birther majority is a new development. The last time PPP tested this question nationally, in August of 2009, only 44% of Republicans said they thought Obama was born outside the country while 36% said that he definitely was born in the United States. If anything birtherism is on the rise.

More than rank-and-file Republicans, the legislatures of eleven of America’s constituent states have introduced or are considering eligibility bills – legislation that would plug the hole in federal election procedures that in 2008 allowed Barack Obama to be nominated, elected and inaugurated without providing proof of his qualifications under the U.S. Constitution. They are Arizona, Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, Maine, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas, and the most recent one, Tennessee.

So when GOP elites such as Karl Rove and Sarah Palin deride eligibility as “not a real issue” and “birthers” as “annoying,” they are mocking their fellow Republicans in at least 11 state legislatures as well as a majority of thsoe who will be voting in 2012′s GOP primary elections. What a winning formula! – Not.

H/t Fellowship co-founder Steve.

~Eowyn

Why Do Conservative Elites Avoid Obama Eligibility?

The GOP honchos, beginning with John McCain in 2008 and continuing to new House Speaker John Boehner, avoid it.

Conservative columnists and talking heads such as Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly not just avoid it, they go out of their way to mock those who don’t. The latter chickened out when he wasted a golden opportunity to ask Obama about his elusive long-form birth certificate (and other documents such as his kindergarten and college records) in their recent sit-down interview.

When even an Obama worshipper such as Chris “thrill-up-my-leg” Matthews calls on O to release his original long-form birth certificate, it grows ever more curious why conservative elites avoid it with that proverbial 10-foot pole. I don’t buy the excuse that it’s because they fear a civil war would result should the Fraud be found to be constitutionally ineligible for the presidency.

Among national talk radio hosts, only Rush Limbaugh and to a lesser extent Sean Hannity talk about it, which is most strange because, as WorldNetDaily publisher Joseph Farah points out, the Obama eligibility issue is not just all-important, it is a winning issue. Go figure!

~Eowyn

The humongous elephant in the room everyone is denying

Why eligibility is a winning issue

By Joseph Farah - WorldNetDaily – February 03, 2011

Conservatives make me laugh – and cry, sometimes.

From the very beginning of WND’s relentless coverage of the eligibility issue, there were many very high-profile conservatives in public office and the media who discouraged any focus on it.

They whispered and muttered that it was not a “winning issue.”

They wrung their hands in worriment over the possibility that Barack Obama would pull the rug out from under the pursuit by pulling his long-form birth certificate out of his hat – making us look ridiculous for ever asking for it.

They even went so far as to suggest the whole controversy was a “trap” being set for those who went near it.

They warned that Obama is waiting for me to get out far enough on a limb so he can saw it off.

They were even afraid that Obama might indeed be ineligible and the nation would face a constitutional crisis as a result.

I didn’t listen to them then, and I don’t listen to them now.

Why?

It’s very simple.

There is no doubt, none whatsoever, that Barack Obama is hiding something about his origins and his life leading to the White House.

It has been two-and-a-half years since serious questions first arose about his birthplace, his parentage, his adoption, his travels, his college years, his early education and so on. When we began pursuing the question of his constitutional eligibility, no one else was covering it or taking it seriously. In fact, we were pleasantly surprised in June of 2009 when we conducted our first scientific public-opinion poll on the issue to learn that 50 percent of the public had even heard about the controversy – and that half of those were skeptical about Obama’s claims.

We were amazed at how many people were aware of the story with only one news source covering it.

The most recent poll, conducted by CNN last summer, showed 58 percent of Americans skeptical of Obama’s claims and that the entire world knows about the controversy – and that’s with practically the entire media establishment devoted to denying there is any story worth covering.

How is that not a winning issue?

Yet, most conservatives are still hiding in the tall grass on this issue, afraid of their own shadows and being outsmarted by their political opponents.

I have always looked at this issue through the eyes of a newsman. It is the job of the news media to hold politicians accountable to the law and the standards of our society.

The Constitution requires the president to be a “natural born citizen,” and the very first piece of evidence one would need to show to establish that fact is a long-form birth certificate – and actual eyewitness account of a birth taking place in a specific place, at a specific time, by specific parents.

So we asked for that specific document. We couldn’t get it. Obama wouldn’t release it. Nobody in government, no controlling legal authority has ever seen it as part of a process of evaluating Obama’s eligibility.

Even as a rookie cub reporter 35 years ago, I would have recognized that as a cover-up – a deliberate one. Somebody clearly had something to hide.

It’s amazing to me today, even as this story begins breaking out beyond WND, that practically no one in the media sees what I and my merry band of WND reporters and editors see. The American people get it. But the media and even most conservative political activists don’t. Most Republican officials are afraid of it.

But what could possibly be wrong with asking for the documentation that is absolutely necessary to meeting the constitutional test?

How could it backfire if Obama actually produces the proof? That’s all we’re asking for. That’s all we ever asked for. I would consider it a major victory if Obama produced what I have been asking him to produce for two-and-a-half years. I would even be relieved to find out that the man occupying the White House is indeed constitutionally eligible for the office he has held for the last two years.

I still don’t understand what is the downside of demanding something so innocent and so essential to constitutional governance as proof of eligibility.

I’m not afraid Obama will produce what I’m asking for. I’m afraid he won’t. That’s something very scary. It is already a constitutional crisis when the president can assume office and make profound changes in the direction of the country without ever proving he is constitutionally eligible.

Why won’t he produce it?

Americans are asking this question more frequently than ever before. It has become something of a national joke. But it’s not a joking matter. It’s a matter of national security and constitutional integrity.

Now that several states are ready to approve legislation requiring future presidential candidates to prove their eligibility before getting on the ballot, we are closer than ever to learning whether Obama can meet that test.

If he seeks re-election, he can. If he doesn’t, he can’t.

If he doesn’t and can’t, I dare someone to tell me our hard work and dedication on this issue wasn’t worthwhile and productive.

Two-Faced Obama Lies Again

 

 Here is partial transcript from the pre-Super Bowl interview that Obama gave to Bill O’Reilly:

O’REILLY: Here’s what the Wall Street Journal said, I want you to react to this. Mr. Obama is a determined man of the left whose goal is to redistribute much larger levels of income across society. He may give tactical ground when he has to, as he did on taxes to avoid a middle class tax increase, but he will resist to his last day any major changes to Obamacare and the other load-bearing walls of the entitlement state.

This is The Wall Street Journal you know painting you as pretty left-wing guy. Are you going to go along?

OBAMA: Well, the Wall Street Journal probably would paint you as a left-wing guy. I mean, if you’re talking about the Wall Street Journal editorial page…

O’REILLY: I’ve got to tell you, that’s what this is.

OBAMA: You know, that’s like quoting the New York Times editorial…

O’REILLY: Do you deny the assessment? Do you deny that you are a man who wants to redistribute wealth.

OBAMA: Absolutely.

O’REILLY: You deny that?

OBAMA: Absolutely. I didn’t raise taxes once, I lowered taxes over the last two years.

And less than 24 hours later this is Obama giving a speech at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce:

Did you catch the lie at the :35 mark?

In the interview Obama flat denies that he wants to redistribute wealth and then during the speech he advocates the exact opposite.

He continues to live up to the old adage, “you can tell he’s lying because his lips are moving.”

A little side note: During the Chamber of Commerce speech, Obama only received two rounds of applause in 35 minutes, I’m assuming the first was to courteously greet him and the second was at the end because they were grateful the BS was over.

Tom in NC