In response to mounting media questions about the failure of the Barack Obama presidential campaign to produce the presumptive Democratic nominee’s birth certificate, an official spokesman of the campaign has endorsed as genuine the image of a document purporting to be his “birth certificate.” But some who have examined that image in high resolution claim inconsistencies and irregularities which suggest that the purported document is a forgery. Its high profile use by the campaign, they claim, suggests an attempt to conceal the truth of Obama’s birth circumstances and citizenship qualifications from the American people.
The campaign has posted only a low-resolution image of that document, which it claims is his “birth certificate,” on its “Fight the Smears” website, along with purported proof of why the claim that Obama may not qualify as a “natural born citizen” is false:
— Lie:
Obama Is Not a Natural Born Citizen
Truth:
Senator Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961, after it became a state on August 21st, 1959. Obama became a citizen at birth under the first section of the 14th Amendment
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside….”
—
Contrary to the campaign’s claims, the issue of when Hawaii became a state and the wording of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, are not at issue.
Rather it is Article Two, Section One of the Constitution which requires that the President be a “natural born citizen” and not simply a naturalized citizen. The issue is whether there is proof that Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961, the legal status of his mother at the time, and what exactly is written on the original birth certificate — if it in fact such a certificate exists.
Some bloggers have claimed that the purported official State of Hawaii document, originally published by the radical left Daily Kos blog, is a fake, and a poorly executed one at that.
Examination of the higher resolution of the image indicates irregularities which suggest to some that the purported “certificate” may be a forgery produced or modified by Photoshop or another image-editing software, and not a genuine item.
“I can confirm that that is Sen. Obama’s birth certificate.” Ben LaBolt, an Obama campaign spokesman, to the Los Angeles Times.
1. Use of a second generation reproduction of the seal of the State of Hawaii at the top
2. Blacking out of the Certificate number in an attempt to prevent it from being traced
3. Absence of any official signature or seal which typically appear on such documents
4. Crudely arranged borders inconsistent with a professionally produced official document
5. Crude overlay of the textual items on top of the patterned background, indicating that the background was produced first and then the textual images laid on top of it by a graphical program rather than being scanned from the original.
6. Failure to use the double-S symbol before the listing the relevant statute (HRS 338-13b) as appears in official uses of the State of Hawaii.
7. The appearance of the backward facing text “Jun 6, 2007″ that appears to come from a stamp in the lower right hand portion of the document.
8. The description of his father’s race as African, when the term Negro was reportedly used at the time of birth.
9. The use of an identical typeface for all text items on the page.
Even if one or two of the above irregularities may have an explanation, they claim, the aggregate points to an amateurish attempt to manufacture an official-looking document that may not exist in the official records of the state of Hawaii.
On its face, this document does not even presume to be a copy of the original birth certificate — contrary to the claims of the Obama campaign — but rather a secondary Certification of Live Birth, which may be used when the original birth certificate can’t be located, and can be produced after the fact with just the affadavits of a family member, or even the child himself.
The Obama campaign, however, has not even produced a paper version of this document, and indeed it does not even publish the high resolution version that appeared on the Daily Kos. It has not fulfilled the media’s persistent requests to produce the original Birth Certificate, or to respond to media questions about the birth certificate controversy.
What could be the Obama campaign’s motive for withholding the original birth certificate and passing off instead a crudely forged facsimile of a “Certification of Live Birth”?
Speculation in the blogosphere and mainstream media is rampant that the concealment is for one or more of the following reasons:
1. There is no proof that Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961.
2. The father listed on the birth certificate is not Barack Hussein Obama.
3. The father’s race is listed as something other than African, perhaps Muslim or Arab.
4. The mother was no longer at that time an American citizen.
5. The child’s name is not listed as Barack Hussein Obama II.
Jim Geraghty, reporting on the Campaign Spot blog of the National Review and one of the original writers on the controversy, cited the “rumor” that Obama was born not within the United States, but elsewhere, possibly Kenya.
Geraghty stated that “If Obama were born outside the United States, one could argue that he would not meet the legal definition of natural-born citizen — because U.S. law at the time of his birth required his natural-born parent (his mother) to have resided in the United States for ‘10 years, at least [f]ive of which had to be after the age of 16.’”
He then points out that Ann Dunham, Obama’s mother, was 18 when Obama was born “so she wouldn’t have met the requirement of five years after the age of 16.”
According to FindLaw.com, cited by Geraghty, the requirements that were in force from Dec. 24, 1952 to Nov. 13, 1986, encompassing the time of Obama’s birth, state, “If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least 10 years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16.”
Geraghty said the Obama campaign could “debunk” the rumors about his birth simply by releasing a copy of his birth certificate, but the campaign has so far chosen not to do that.
The seriousness of this latest controversy cannot be underestimated. Unlike the scandals related to Obama’s various associations with unsavory characters, or claims about his Muslim upbringing, the issue here relates to his citizenship and legal qualification to run for President of the United States.
One would have thought that the most basic documentary proof of the location and date of his birth should be a basic and non-controversial requirement for any presidential candidate, and part of the public record, much more so than one’s tax return or annual checkup. It is almost incomprehensible that they would withhold this information — unless there is something to hide.
Ironically, a similar controversy surrounded Obama’s likely opponent in the Presidential race, John McCain. McCain was born to two American parents, one of whom was serving in a US military hospital in the Panama Canal Zone.
“McCain was indeed born in the Canal Zone, and Article II of the Constitution plainly states that ‘no person except a natural born Citizen… shall be eligible to the Office of President.’
“Some might define the term ‘natural-born citizen’ as one who was born on United States soil. But the First Congress, on March 26, 1790, approved an act that declared, ‘The children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens of the United States.’ That would seem to include McCain, whose parents were both citizens and whose father was a Navy officer stationed at the U.S. naval base in Panama at the time of John’s birth in 1936.”
But the issue is not legally closed, and therefore this year, as reported in the legal column of the Wall Street Journal a non-binding resolution was introduced and passed affirming that McCain qualifies as a “natural born Citizen,” as specified in the Constitution and is therefore eligible for the highest office in the land. Ironically, the resolution was co-sponsored by Barack Obama.
About McCain, of course, there is no question about the facts surrounding his birth, but over their legal significance. He is not denying that he was born in Panama, or posting certificates that claim he was born in Florida. Obama’s campaign, on the other hand, seems intent on evading the need to produce and submit to public scrutiny the official document that could prove that his qualification to run for President according to the Constitution.
The cloud of controversy, of course, could be dispelled with ease, of course, if Obama would release the real documentation of his birth, or even the original printed version of the online document the campaign claims as genuine. And yet the campaign is sticking by its guns, despite the evidence from the blogosphere pointing to the forgery and inadequacy of the proffered image of the non-birth certificate. Ben LaBolt, an Obama campaign spokesman, told the LA Times: “I can confirm that that is Sen. Obama’s birth certificate.”
Validation for the authenticity of the image is provided by a reporter for the St. Petersburg Times, who reportedly emailed the image and got a confirmation from an official in the Hawaiian Department of Health. “It’s a valid Hawaii state birth certificate,” spokesman Janice Okubo is quoted as telling the reporter.
Back on July 2, Barack Obama read his “public service” address, and it contained this line that hasn’t received much notice:
“We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set… We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded.”
LOL What? Obama’s going to create a civilian national security force as strong as the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines — combined? With the same budget? And hardware, apparently? Holy %^&*!
This inconceivably vast proposal is hardly being mentioned by the MSM; just a throwaway line in last week’s speech about voluntarism. But what will this “civilian national security force” do? Obama didn’t say. Where will they get their funding? Didn’t say. Wouldn’t this force be at least extra-constitutional, if not unconstitutional? Who would control them? Would service be mandatory like his other youth “volunteer” initiatives? ::shrug::
At this same speech, he promised to withhold funds from school districts that don’t make their junior high and high schoolers serve 50 hours a year. 100 hours for college students, provided their type of service is deemed acceptable by a sprawling new Federal bureaucracy.
Oh, and Obama’s going to double the size of the Peace Corps while quadrupling AmeriCorps. I’m curious if anyone will be left to fill all the newly vacated private sector jobs. St. Barack concluded his speech with this gem: “Loving your country must mean accepting your responsibility to do your part to change it.”
But what if I love my country the way it is?
Throwing more kerosene on the mob’s torches, Obama is moving his nomination acceptance speech to Denver’s 75,000-seat outdoor stadium. And is thinking about a speech at Berlin’s Brandenburg Gate. Odd that he didn’t choose Nuremberg.
According to news reports, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton went out of their way to hold their long-awaited private meeting in a very specific location - not at Hillary’s mansion in Washington - but in Northern Virginia, which also just happens to be the scene of the 2008 Bilderberg meeting.
Obama’s spokesman Robert Gibbs told the media that Obama and Clinton held a private meeting last night but he refused to disclose where it taken place, except that it was not at Clinton’s home in Washington, as had been widely reported. Hillary campaign managers also refused to disclose the location of the rendezvous.
“Reporters traveling with Obama sensed something might be happening between the pair when they arrived at Dulles International Airport after an event in Northern Virginia and Obama was not aboard the airplane,”
Dulles just happens to be walking distance from the Westfields Marriott hotel in Chantilly where Henry Kissinger, David Rockefeller and the rest of the Bilderberg globalists are convening
Asked at the time about the Illinois senator’s whereabouts, Gibbs smiled and declined to comment,” the reports adds.
What is the only political “event” taking place in Northern Virginia at the moment? The Bilderberg Group meeting of course. Rather than taking the easier option of meeting at Clinton’s Washington mansion, Obama and Hillary went out of their way to grace the Bilderberg elitists with their presence.
The neo-liberal website Wonkette, which had previously ridiculed “conspiracy theorists” for ascribing power to Bilderberg, seemed to take a somewhat different tone when it made the connection between Obama and Hillary’s meeting and the Bilderberg Group.
“Guess who had a very private talky-talk in (maybe) romantic Northern Virginia tonight, probably at the Bilderberg Group meeting in Chantilly? Your Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton!,” states the blog. “They really met and talked, in private, Thursday night. And really, it sounds like they did this at that creepy Bilderberg Group meeting, which is happening now, and which is so secret that nobody will admit they’re going, even though everybody who is anybody goes to Bilderberg.”
To have the potential future President and Vice-President of America attend a conference that debunkers have dismissed as a mere talking shop for old white men once again underscores the real influence that Bilderberg enjoys.
Not one U.S. corporate media outlet has made the connection between the location of the Bilderberg Group conference this year and Obama and Hillary’s decision to venture out to Chantilly for their confidential “tet a tet”.
Not one U.S. corporate media outlet has yet uttered one word about 125 of the world’s most influential power brokers meeting behind closed doors to discuss the future of the planet on U.S. soil - while being met by the probable future President of the United States.
Both Hillary and Obama have deep rooted connections to the Bilderberg elitists.
Bill Clinton attended the 1991 meeting in Germany shortly before becoming President and he attended again in 1999 when the conference was held in Sintra, Portugal (despite Clinton’s lie that he had not attended in 15 years).
Hillary herself was rumored to have attended the 2006 meeting in Ottawa, Canada.
As we reported last month, Bilderberg luminary and top corporate elitist James A. Johnson will select Democratic candidate Barack Obama’s running mate for the 2008 election and in turn potentially act as kingmaker for America’s future President.
Johnson also selected John Kerry’s running mate John Edwards in 2004 after Edwards had impressed Bilderberg elitists Henry Kissinger and David Rockefeller with a speech he gave at the globalist confab in Italy that year.
Johnson, who attended last year’s Bilderberg meeting in Turkey, is a representative for Friends of Bilderberg, an offshoot group that organizes Bilderberg’s annual meeting.
Hillary and Obama’s attendance of the 2008 Bilderberg meeting, and the complete failure of the mainstream media to report on the fact, once again betrays the super-secretive nature and influential reputation that the 54-year-old organization still maintains.
This morning, a Boston-born performance artist, Yazmany Arboleda, tried to set up a provocative art exhibition in a vacant storefront on West 40th Street in Midtown Manhattan with the title, “The Assassination of Hillary Clinton/The Assassination of Barack Obama,” in neatly stenciled letters on the plate glass windows at street level.
By 9:30 a.m., New York City police detectives and Secret Service agents had shut down the exhibition, and building workers had quickly covered over the inflammatory title with large sheets of brown paper and blue masking tape. The gallery is across the street from the southern entrance to The New York Times building.
The police officers declined to answer any questions, and at first would not permit reporters to speak with Mr. Arboleda, who was wearing a black T-shirt and making cellphone calls from inside the makeshift gallery.
Later, Mr. Arboleda, who is 27, said in an interview: “It’s art. It’s not supposed to be harmful. It’s about character assassination — about how Obama and Hillary have been portrayed by the media.” He added, “It’s about the media.”
Mr. Arboleda said the exhibition was to open on Thursday and run all day.
The interview was abruptly ended as Mr. Arboleda was led off to the Midtown South police precinct station for what he called an interrogation.
Reached by telephone this morning, Eric Joza, the building manager for the building at 264 West 40th Street, between Eighth and Seventh Avenues, said: “I had no idea what he was going to do. All I knew is that he was an artist and was going to use the store for two days: today and tomorrow.” There are offices above the storefront.
Mr. Joza would not identify the building’s owner, and he would not disclose the terms of the lease or the previous occupant of the storefront, beyond saying that the storefront had been vacant.
Mr. Arboleda has even set up elaborate Web sites, one for Mrs. Clinton and one for Mr. Obama.
Shortly after 11:30 a.m., Mr. Arboleda called reporters to let them know that he had been released.
“The Secret Service had to do a whole questionnaire with me,” he said. “It was about an hour of questioning. They asked if I owned guns, if I was a violent person, if I had ever been institutionalized.”
Mr. Arboleda answered no. Nonetheless, he said the Secret Service asked him if he would voluntarily take down the exhibition title from the window.
“I’m renting that space; the space was allocated for an exhibition and it’s my right to put those words up,” he said. “They said it could incite someone to do something crazy, like break the window. It’s terrible, because they’re violating my rights. If someone breaks a window, they’re committing a crime.”
He added, “The exhibition is supposed to be about character assassination. It’s philosophical and metaphorical.”
He said he had not yet decided whether to take down the exhibition’s title, saying he first needed to speak to representatives of the building’s owner.
Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly, speaking to reporters at 1 Police Plaza around noon, said, “I am not certain he has been arrested,” then added, “He put up signs indicating the assassination of Senator Clinton and Barack Obama. And we notified the Secret Service. This individual is being spoken to. He apparently made statements that had to with their reputation. This is all under investigation.”
Asked whether the artwork was being seen as dangerous, Mr. Kelly said: “Obviously, it sounds totally inappropriate. We need more information as to what the purpose of it was. As I say, apparently he made some statements that he was referring to their reputations … don’t know, we will have to get more information. But he is being questioned now by our detectives and the Secret Service.”
Mr. Kelly was also asked why the artist would be questioned at all. “Why would we question him?” he responded. “Well, we want to determine what his motives are. Obviously they could be interpreted as advocating harm to protectees; both of the senators, of course, are now being provided Secret Service protection, that’s why the Secret Service was interested; both of them are federal employees, so, ah, of course it is a concern to federal authorities as it is to ourselves. Our lawyers are researching it and will determine if there are any violations of law; right now he is being questioned.”
(In fact, when Mr. Kelly spoke, Mr. Arboleda had already been released from custody a short while earlier.)
Special Agent Eric P. Zahren, a spokesman for the Secret Service in Washington, emphasized in a telephone interview that the agency did not seek to shut down the show.
“We did not shut down that exhibit or request that anybody else shut it down,” Agent Zahren said. “This was brought to our attention, we went out there and had a conversation with the individual, but we did not shut it down.”
According to Mr. Arboleda’s Web sites, he was born in Boston in 1981 and lives in New York City. His family moved to Medellín, Colombia, shortly after he was born, and lived there until 1992. He holds a master’s degree in architecture from the Catholic University of America and has been trained in photography, painting, fashion design and graphic design. His first solo show, “The New Vitruvians,” was presented at Tribeca Issey Miyake in 2007.
Assassination has been the subject of many cultural products, including even a Stephen Sondheim musical, “Assassins.” But in the post-9/11 context, recent comments touching on assassination during this political season — including references by former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton — have hit a nerve, and have been followed by apologies.
The safety of Mr. Obama, the presumptive Democratic Party presidential nominee, has been an issue. When he was assigned Secret Service coverage in May 2007, it was the earliest point in a campaign that a candidate had been given protection. In February, Jeff Zeleny of The Times wrote a Political Memo on the “hushed worry” on the minds of many Obama supporters; it mentioned how his wife, Michelle Obama, had voiced concerns about his safety.
“Checkpoint,” a 2004 novel by Nicholson Baker, purported to plumb the thoughts of a would-be presidential assassin. In 2006, a British digital-television station commissioned a 90-minute film, “Death of a President,” about the aftermath of a fictional assassination of President Bush by a sniper.
SIOUX FALLS, South Dakota (Reuters) - Hillary Clinton mentioned the June 1968 assassination of Robert Kennedy in explaining on Friday why she had resisted calls to end her White House bid, drawing a rebuke from Democratic front-runner Barack Obama’s campaign.
Clinton, who later apologized, made the remark about Kennedy to the editorial board of the Sioux Falls Argus Leader newspaper when explaining that other races for the Democratic presidential nomination had lasted into June.
“My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California,” she said.
“I don’t understand it,” Clinton said, referring to calls for her to pull out of the Democratic nominating race, which ends on June 3 with primaries in South Dakota and Montana.
Kennedy, brother of slain U.S. President John F. Kennedy and Massachusetts Sen. Edward Kennedy, was assassinated during the 1968 race for the Democratic nomination.
Clinton’s comments drew a sharp response from the Obama campaign.
“Senator Clinton’s statement before the Argus Leader editorial board was unfortunate and has no place in this campaign,” said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton.
Clinton told reporters later, “I regret if my referencing of that moment of trauma for our entire country and particularly the Kennedy family was in any way offensive. I had no intention of that whatsoever.”
“I’m honored to hold Senator Kennedy’s seat in the United States Senate from the state of New York and have the highest regard for the entire Kennedy family,” Clinton added.
A spokesman said Clinton had simply been pointing out that Democratic campaigns in the past had continued into June and therefore people should not be pressuring her to withdraw.
“She was simply referencing her husband in 1992 and Robert Kennedy in 1968 as historical examples of the nominating process going well into the summer. Any other reading is inaccurate,” Clinton spokesman Mo Elleithee said.
There have been concerns about the safety of Obama, an Illinois senator who would be the first black U.S. president. He began receiving Secret Service protection 18 months before the November election — earlier than any other candidate has received increased security.
The protection came after congressional leaders raised the issue with Homeland Security and other groups and presented information that reportedly included threats on the Web and in letters.
Obama has an almost insurmountable lead over Clinton in the race for Democratic nomination. The former first lady has said she would continue until the last state has held its nominating contest.
The Trilateral Commission—one of the three most powerful globalist groups in the world—held closed-door meetings right here in Washington, D.C. from April 25 to 28. True to form, those members of the media who knew about the meeting—or were themselves participants in the proceedings—refused to discuss what went on inside or report on the attendees. Luckily, AFP’s own editor, Jim Tucker, was on the scene to bust this clandestine confabulation wide open.
Luminaries at the Trilateral Commission meeting in Washington expressed confidence that they own all three major presidential candidates, who, despite political posturing, will support sovereignty-surrendering measures such as NAFTA and the “North American Union.”
The second item of interest this morning was titled “The New Feudalism” by Moss David Posner. David postulates in this essay that Americans have a disconnect to reality that has been carefully groomed over the years to make them susceptible to things that they would normally not accept. He goes on to conclude,
The current crop of international criminals wishes to reduce the world to one large feudal system. Such a notion endured for many centuries before. Could they really believe such is possible? Could they really pull it off? In this last regard, history does not speak in our favor.
Connecting the dots, one would have to conclude that David is absolutely correct in his conclusion. It all makes sense.
Standing Orders for the Next President
According to James Tucker,
This panel [Trilateral Commission] had these orders for the next president: increase foreign aid across the board because “America does not pay its fair share,” pay up the arrears in UN dues, allow as many immigrants into the United States as want to come and provide “amnesty” for illegal aliens already here.
Why else would the Trilateral Commission’s standing orders for the next President include such things as open borders, illegal alien amnesty, and shelling out even more taxpayer money, if not to reduce American citizens to lives of servitude and desperation?
All three handpicked Presidential candidates will do nothing to stop NAFTA or the NAU. In fact, they have pledged to support them. Here are quotes from the Trilateral Commission’s meeting regarding the candidates’ stand on these issues:
“John has always supported free trade, even while campaigning before union leaders… Hil and Barack are pretending to be unhappy about some things, but that’s merely political posturing. They’re solidly in support…” referring to Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.). Mrs. Clinton, they noted, held strategy sessions as first lady on how to get Congress to approve NAFTA “without changes.” As president, they agreed, she would do no more than “dot an i or cross a t.” Candidate Obama has not denied news reports in Canada that his top economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee, assured Canadian diplomats that the senator would keep NAFTA intact and his anti-trade talk is just “campaign rhetoric.” (Tucker, 2008)
The Trilateral Commission members concluded that the only real danger is Ron Paul.
They expressed concern that Paul’s rallies have attracted multitudes of young people who are getting “their political education.” They want Republicans to pressure Paul to drop out now and stop his education rallies. This assignment was given to Thomas Foley, former U.S. House speaker. (Tucker, 2008)
An educated and informed populace is not on the agenda for these New World Order (NWO) promoters. After all, have you ever seen an educated feudal serf?
The Stockholm Syndrome
Remember President Bush saying after 9/11 “if you are not with us, you are with the terrorists?” Who is this “us?” Why, the global elite of course. You thought it was all loyal Americans? Think again. Who are “the terrorists?” anyone besides the global elite. And what do you do with terrorists? If you are the ruling power, you exterminate, torture, and use them to accomplish your objectives. You keep them uninformed, fill their lives with propaganda and lies, and make them believe that there is nothing they can do about it. In fact, if you’re very good at what you do, they even learn to love you for it. This phenomenon is called the Stockholm Syndrome.
The Stockholm syndrome occurs when abused persons show signs of loyalty to their abuser/s because they become emotionally attached. How do you get your victim to become emotionally attached? According to Katina Krasnic, “This development occurs when there are perceived threats of violence, disempowerment of the subject, high levels of stress or trauma upon subject, and ultimate dependence upon the person in control for base survival” (LINK).
Isn’t this exactly what our government is doing? The population is bombarded with perceived threats of terrorism, our basic human rights are being confiscated before our eyes and we are becoming more disempowered by the day. People are under high levels of stress due to the threat of violence, as well as foreclosures, gasoline prices, lowering wages, loss of jobs, lack of medical care, and the myriad of other ways stress is induced. This stress creates the ultimate dependence desired by the abusers in power, and is exactly what is happening at this very moment. By the time the program is complete, people will be running to the government to protect them from the government, and thus, the serfdom noose tightens; and as good little serfs, will defend their master to the death.
In an act of self-delusion, the victims of Stockholm Syndrome develop conditions in order to reassure themselves that they will be protected or cared for. By creating a false emotional attachment and seeking praise and approval of their captor, they attempt to make a false reality for themselves, in which no harm can come to them. And by defending and/or protecting their captors from police or anyone who “comes to the rescue,” they allow themselves to appear as if they have some control in a relationship which they really have no power. The value of their lives, which the captor grants, is seen as a sign of affection or love, and the captive wishes to reciprocate in order to maintain their own position at that time. By accepting a level of objectification that one should reject as a matter of basic human dignity, hostages or captives weaken their ability to control their emotions. This allows them to become malleable, thus becoming easily susceptible to the whims of their captors, and creates this unbalanced relationship of attachment between the captor and the captive. (Krasnec, 2008)
Presidential Elections and the Road to Serfdom
Our Presidential elections are an emotional parade in which charlatans called candidates create a false reality for a nation of Stockholm Syndrome victims who desperately need to believe that someone in a high place actually cares about what happens to them. This is a carefully constructed delusion. While the populace lives the delusion and buys into the lies perpetrated by these Trilateral Commission globalist lackeys, the real players work the sidelines and act as shills in a crowd of marks, spurring the act on.
Wake up! John, Hillary, and Obama do not care one iota about the people of this country. They are charlatans in a circus staged for no other purpose than to push the people of this country further down the road to delusion and serfdom.
There is no doubt in this writer’s mind that feudalism is the global elite’s plan for the earth’s population. David Posner has nailed it. Americans are to be reduced to serfdom in this Utopia envisioned by the Trilateral Commission, Bilderbergs, and the rest of the criminals in power in a worldwide conspiracy to dominate life itself.
What Chance Do We Have?
The only chance that we as a people have is that these “leaders” do not perceive their own weaknesses because of arrogance. The more power they get, the more arrogant they get, and the weaker they become. As one ascends into the heights of arrogance, the less aware a person becomes of any personal weakness, and as any fighter knows, if an opponent is not aware of personal weakness, vulnerabilities are created. The key is to study one’s opponent, and prepare one’s self to strike at his/her undefended weakness. You cannot study your opponent if you are too engrossed in his/her charade by being a good little Stockholm Syndrome victim.
Therefore, I encourage people to think outside the box. Do not get wrapped up in the emotional hype surrounding the three Presidential “frontrunners.” They are all supporting the same ideology, and that is feudal serfdom for America as well as the rest of the world. Wake up! Join the people willing to think beyond the hype. Start studying your adversary and spreading the word about the weaknesses you encounter. It is the only chance we have.
Obama is the lead sponsor of U.S. Senate bill S.2433 that most people never even heard about - his $845 BILLION Global Poverty Act
More of the socialist agenda to redistribute the wealth that we no longer have to the rest of the WORLD when the US is already in financial straits. Shouldn’t charity begin at home?
Again - Obama’s actions contradict his words.
US National Debt is now over $9.3 TRILLION.
I guess this is part of the CHANGE Obama keeps talking about.
The leaders of the United States, Mexico and Canada defended the 14-year-old North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) at the conclusion of an annual summit here on Tuesday.
“Now is not the time to renegotiate NAFTA or walk away from NAFTA. Now is the time to make it work better for all our people and now is time to reduce trade barriers worldwide,” Bush told a joint news conference with his Mexican counterpart Felipe Calderon and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
Turning on an abortive bill on a free trade agreement with Columbia, Bush blamed Democrats for their efforts to block it on Congress.
“It makes no sense to me to say that Columbian goods can come into our country duty free, yet our goods can’t go into Columbia duty free,” Bush said.
He said that a failure by the U.S. Congress to pass the agreement would send “a terrible signal” to neighboring countries.
“An agreement with Columbia would level the playing field,” he said, adding that it was a “bad decision” for Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the House of Representatives, to have blocked a vote on the deal.
Pelosi has refused to schedule a vote on the agreement with Columbia, a move Bush said could effectively kill it this year.
U.S. Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton, who are locked in a bitter struggle for the Democratic party’s presidential nomination, have threatened to renegotiate NAFTA or even pull back from it if elected.
Bush also expressed concern over the rising prices of oil for U.S. consumers as it surged to a fresh high above 119 U.S. dollars a barrel.
But he denied that the U.S. economy is being dragged down into a recession by the subprime mortgages meltdown.
“We are not in a recession, we are in a slowdown,” said Bush, who has repeatedly expressed confidence in the resilience of the U.S. economy.
Echoing Bush’s comments, Calderon said that “this is not the time to even think about amending it or canceling it.”
“This is the time to strengthen and reinvigorate this free trade agreement among our three countries,” Calderon said.
The Mexican president said that NAFTA has helped create jobs, improved services and enhanced people’s quality of life and that “we want these benefits to reach more and more of our citizens.”
Calderon announced that the next North American Leaders’ Summit will be held in Mexico in 2009.
In his remarks, Harper said NAFTA was “critically important” for jobs and posterity on both sides of the border, saying that it would be a mistake to renegotiate it.
Harper stressed the importance of energy security, describing it as a “critical part of NAFTA arrangements.”
“Canada is the biggest and most stable supplier of energy to the United States in the world,” said the prime minister.
The press conference capped the North American leaders’ annual summit under the framework of the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) launched in March 2005.
Earlier in the day, they met with top business leaders from the three countries before heading into formal talks.
Apart from the free trade issue, the three leaders also spent the two days at the summit discussing broad topics such as food safety, emergency responses, energy supply, border security, environmental protection and organized crime.
Lately, the political world has buzzed about Barack Obama’s tenure with the Woods Foundation, where he worked with domestic terrorist William Ayers and which issued a $75,000 grant to Yasser Arafat toady Rashid Khalidi. However, Politico has found another paid foundation gig which may raise even more questions about Obama’s positions and honesty. While working as a director at the Joyce Foundation, the organization funneled almost $3 million in grants to political groups opposing gun rights:
Barack Obama’s presidential campaign has worked to assure uneasy gun owners that he believes the Constitution protects their rights and that he doesn’t want to take away their guns.
But before he became a national political figure, he sat on the board of a Chicago-based foundation that doled out at least nine grants totaling nearly $2.7 million to groups that advocated the opposite positions.
The foundation funded legal scholarship advancing the theory that the Second Amendment does not protect individual gun owners’ rights, as well as two groups that advocated handgun bans. And it paid to support a book called “Every Handgun Is Aimed at You: The Case for Banning Handguns.”
Obama’s eight years on the board of the Joyce Foundation, which paid him more than $70,000 in directors fees, do not in any way conflict with his campaign-trail support for the rights of gun owners, Ben LaBolt, a spokesman for Obama’s presidential campaign, asserted in a statement issued to Politico this week.
Seven of the grants were awarded when Obama served on the board. Where did the money go?
$2.5 million went to the Violence Policy Center, which has campaigned for a national ban on all handguns.
$20,000 paid to publish Every Handgun Is Aimed at You: The Case for Banning Handguns
$10,000 went to another gun-banning group, Handgun-Free America
Does anyone else see a pattern? If Obama doesn’t want to ban handguns, he certainly chose the wrong foundation to help run. Once again, his track record speaks in opposition to his blandishments towards the benighted and embittered gun owners that he wants to rescue through bigger federal government.
Editor & Publisher called this week’s ABC presidential debate “perhaps the most embarrassing performance by the media in a major presidential debate in years.”
Moderators George Stephanopolous and Charlie Gibson spent the first 50 minutes obsessed with distractions that only political insiders care about–gaffes, polling numbers, the stale Rev. Wright story, and the old-news Bosnia story. And, channelling Karl Rove, they directed a video question to Barack Obama asking if he loves the American flag or not. Seriously.
Enough is enough. The public needs the media to stop hurting the national dialogue in this important election year. Can you sign the petition to ABC and other media outlets and pass it on to friends who are also fed up?
