CLICK BELOW TO FULLY PROTECT YOUR COMPUTER AND SUPPORT TRUTH
MINERS Vipre Antivirus Premium does it all! Keeps
out ALL the bad stuff! If your
computer is running slow, it is probably infected with one or more of these
problems. Download the trial version and get instant relief from the
bad stuff. Purchase and register and get up-to-date, real time
A major research institution has recently
announced the discovery of the heaviest chemical element yet known to
science. The new element has been named “Governmentium”. Governmentium has
1 neutron, 12 assistant neutrons, 75 deputy neutrons, and 111 assistant
deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312. These 312 particles are
held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast
quantities of lepton-like particles called peons. Since Governmentium has
no electrons, it is inert. However, it can be detected as it impedes every
reaction with which it comes into contact. A minute amount causes one
reaction to take over 4 days to complete when it would normally take less
than 1 second. Governmentium has a normal half-life of 2 – 6 years. It
does not decay, but undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the
assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places. It’s mass will
increase over time, since each reorganization causes some morons to become
neutrons, forming isodopes. This characteristic of moron-promotion leads
some scientists to speculate that Governmentium is formed whenever morons
reach a certain quantity in concentration. This hypothetical quantity is
referred to as “critical morass.”
Various Messages About Various Politicians and Supposed policies
Rangel is introducing a bill to reinstate the draft
puts Howard Metzenbaum in his place
trying to regulate the internet through an "internet neutrality" bill
rights act is set to expire
full of crooks
refugees get a better deal than retirees
can get Social Security benefits
Is "Real ID"
is the mark of the beast?
government is keeping oil fields in Colorado or North Dakota a secret
Minister makes anti-Islam remarks
President G.W. Bush was asked by the Obama administration to leave Ft.
Hood when he visited after the shootings
be exempt from participation in new health care laws
35 states are
calling for a constitutional convention
Did Obama nominate Elena Kagen to the Supreme Court as a
reward for defending him in eligibility suits and did Snopes lie
the original (and best - thanks Barbara for all your years of hard
work!) hoax debunking site did some research in response to an
email claiming that Elena Kagen's nomination to the Supreme Court
was a quid pro quo for work she did to defend and get dismissed
suits coming before the Supreme Court about Obama's eligibility
for President of the United States due to questions about his
email was the result of an article at World Net Daily, citing 9
cases. However, Snopes research showed that not a single
case cited was even about that issue. Although WND removed
the article in question, the newest emails claim that Snopes lied
about it, basically because they're liberals.
the person who does the research and writes the articles for
Snopes, Barbara Mikkelson, is Canadian. Her husband, Dave,
is the tech behind it all. Barbara says she tries to keep
her own politics out of it, but I have, on occasion, detected a
bit of conservatism coming out. I appreciate the work they
have done over the years and quote them often.
This is where I wish to
warn Christians about forwarding unchecked email. The entire
piece accomplishes one thing: bearing false witness. As I
recall, it happens to be God's law that we should not bear false
witness. You can rally in support of ten commandment
monuments all you want, but don't break the very commandments you
claim to support.
I followed their links and then researched each case myself.
Snopes is absolute correct. In fact, only one of these cases
was even about Obama and it was filed during while he was a
Senator. It was about some regulations regarding certain kinds of
political advertising, not eligibility. In all the other
cited cases, the suits were filed during the Bush administration.
by the time each of these cases reached the Supreme Court, Elena
Kagen was the Solicitor General. The duties of the Solicitor
General is to represent the United States in cases before the
Supreme Court in which the country is a party. He or she argues
the state's case. In the Federal Court of Appeals, he or she also
reviews cases decided against the United States and decides which
ones that they will seek to have reviewed by the Supreme Court.
Many Supreme Court Justices have been chosen from this position.
Kagen's name appears on each suit because the suit is against the
United States of America, not Barack Obama personally. She
could not in fact, represent or argue personally for the President
as the Solicitor General.
my research without further ado.
Petitioner: The Real Truth About Obama, Inc.
Defendent: The Federal Election Commission (not Barack Obama)
What the case was about:
Truth About Obama, Inc. ("Real Truth") brought this action against
the Federal Election Commission and the Department of Justice,
challenging the constitutionality of three Federal Election
Commission regulations—11 C.F.R. §§ 100.22(b), 100.57(a), and
114.15—and a Federal Election Commission enforcement policy under
the First and Fifth Amendments. Real Truth said that these
regulations "chilled its right to disseminate information about
presidential candidate Senator Obama's position on abortion. Real
Truth seeks, among other things, a preliminary injunction
prohibiting enforcement of these provisions." The case was
filed while Obama was a Senator.
the rest of these cases were filed while George W. Bush was
Petitioner: William Holt, Federal Prisoner, Tenn
Defendent: The United States of America
What the case was about
an APPEAL after exhausting all other appeals. The President of
the United States when Holt was convicted was G.W. Bush. By the
time of his final appeal to the Supreme Court, the President was
Barack Obama. Basically, Holt wanted the federal court to vacate
his criminal conviction on weapons charges. He said he was
sentenced under a Class A felony, while his jury heard evidence
related to a Class C felony.
Petitioner: James Julius Brown
Defendant: Originally G.W. Bush, President - by the time it got to
the Supreme Court, Barack Obama, President of the United States
What the case was about
August 3, 2010, Jerome Julius Brown ("Brown") filed a Complaint
accompanied by several attachments related to criminal charges
filed against him in the District Court for Prince George's
County, Maryland. Docket No. 1. The Complaint is completely
incomprehensible as it consists of several running, disjointed
sentences that make no sense. The attachments do, however, shed
some possible light on Brown's impetus for filing this action. On
June 29, 2010, a statement of charges was filed by Prince George's
County Police alleging that Brown was found to be in possession of
a vehicle that had been reported stolen by the Charles County
Sheriff's Office. Id. On June 29, 2010, Prince George's County
Commissioner Susan Mason set the bail amount and determined that
Brown should not be released on his personal recognizance."
everything I read, none of the lower courts or the SC could make
head or tails out of this bit. His first filing was in January
2008 against G.W. Bush in the District Court of D.C. I
quoted it because I couldn't understand it either.
Petitioner: Louis Lutz
Defendant: The President of the United States and Kellogg, Brand &
What the case was about
a civilian contractor truck driver in Iraq from 2004 - 2006
(predates Obama administration). Lutz claimed to be representing
a sort of class action suit with the class being:
current and former employees and/or contractors of either or both
of the defendants working, or who have worked in Iraq or
Afghanistan since September 11, 2001, whether they be citizens of
the United States or not: (2) All current and former employees
and/or contractors of Defendant, the President of the United
States of America, would include individual contractors or
employees of any company or organization, foreign or domestic,
under the control or payment of The Government of the United
States, working or who have worked, in Iraq or Afghanistan since
September 11, 2001; (3) Current and former civilian government
service employees of the United States of America, whether they be
citizens or not, working or who have worked in Iraq or Afghanistan
since September 11, 2001; (4) Who claim they are being, and/or
have been damaged as a result of the violation of law by the
Petitioner: Abdul Hamid Al-Ghizzawi, Prisoner, Guantanamo Bay
Defendant: (original was George W. Bush, President - Barack Obama
by the time it made the Supreme Court)
What the case was about
claimed he was not an enemy combatant and should not be held at
Gitmo. He was actually released by the Supreme Court after 7 years
imprisonment. This suit began when G.W. Bush was President and
had nothing to do with Obama eligibility.
# 7, 8 & 9
Petitioner: Jamal Kiyemba, Ugandian Prisoner, Guantanamo Bay
Defendant: (original was George W. Bush, President - Barack Obama
by the time it made the Supreme Court)
What this case was about
was a free man at the time he began his suit. It was about
unlawful imprisonment and torture. A full article can be found
Does a video on You Tube show Obama saying that he was born in
Kenya and is not an American and is the video in danger of being
pulled off You Tube?
all these silly warnings to watch something "before it is
pulled." You Tube rarely pulls a video and usually only if it is
a copyright issue. Some of the messages claim that some news
source like Fox is "trying" to show the video. There is a
reason no reputable conservative news source is reporting it -
In the transcript you can see where the satire
piece begins and then substitutes the rest of the supposed
speech. The faked parts are when his back is to the camera and in
a long shot. Here is what is happening when the fake part starts:
Q In one of your interviews you said you want us
to be a member of the European Union. But after that, Nicolas
Sarkozy said, it's not yours, it's European Union decision. Now I
want to ask you that what's your opinion, and why Nicolas Sarkozy
said that? Is that because he's more likely to support the
so-called Armenian genocide?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: You know, the -- I don't think
-- well, first of all, it's true, I'm not a member of -- (after
the a, the rest is substituted with other audio snipped from
It would be really easy to "snip" words and
partial sentences here and there and replace the audio, especially
when there is a long shot or he is not turned towards the camera.
It is possible that Obama was born in Kenya.
However, that doesn't necessarily disqualify him from being a
natural born citizen. If any of the cases ever make it to court,
this will be the single question facing a judge. Normally it
wouldn't be an issue, just like with John McCain. Both of his
parents were citizens of the U.S., his father on assignment in
Panama. What complicates Obama's issue is that his father was not
a U.S. citizen. It is well known that the pair was in Kenya while
she was pregnant. Some say that an 18 year old, even though only
visiting another country at the time of birth, cannot confer
citizenship on the child. That doesn't sound correct. Others say
that because the father was a citizen of Kenya, if Obama was born
there he was automatically granted Kenyan citizenship and a
natural born citizen cannot have dual citizenship. I'm not so
sure about that. I believe that we are one of the few countries
in the world to automatically grant citizenship by virtue of
Is Obama an outright Muslim or
secret Muslim? (Warning: this is an opinion piece with
logical conclusions based on evidence)
The weight of evidence is against either theory.
I have presented plenty of clear evidence that he cannot be a
Muslim in either beliefs or action. In response, many have
theorized that he must then be a secret Muslim. I'll blow
that one out of the water as well and show that he is exactly what
he purports to be and that what he really believes is the real
danger. By the way, guess who started the whole idea that
Obama is a Muslim? The Hillary Clinton 2008 campaign for her
presidential nomination against Obama. Anyone who wants to
continue to proclaim Obama a Muslim instead of a communist should
His known history:
Obama's father (after whom he was
named) was born in Kenya in a Muslim family, hence his name.
However, when he became an adult, he became an atheist. He
renounced Islam. That is one of the things that brought Sr.
together with Jr's mother. The younger Barack's mother (Ann
Dunham) was an atheist and a communist sympathizer. However, the
parents split when Jr. was 2 years old. Jr. never saw his father
again until he was 11, and then only once. Obama's mother then
married a man who was a nominal Muslim. In other words, he
attended mosque on occasions, but had none of the trappings we
associate with Muslims - no robes, no beards, no subjugation of
women, etc. Barack's momma was a tough cookie and wouldn't have
put up with it for a minute. Nor would she have put up with a
great show of religion. Obama's step-father, Lelo Sotero,
was Asian, not Arabic. It turns out that Sotero was fully
in line with Dunham's communist leanings.
born in Hawaii (debatable at this point - more on that in another
article), which is where his mother's family lived. They then
lived in Indonesia, a predominately Muslim country. In the first
place they lived, Obama attended a Roman Catholic school. His
mother, although an atheist, felt that this school was much better
for Obama's education than the public schools. A job change took
them to another city and into a better class. In this city, the
public school seemed to be the best choice. This particular
school has been visited by the media ever since the Hillary
campaign began the "he's a Muslim" issue in 2008. It is fully
westernized. It is co-ed. The teachers wear western clothing.
No beards, robes or burkas. The school serves a predominately
upper class neighborhood. Children attending it come from Muslim,
Christian and Buddhist backgrounds. However, the majority are
Muslim as is true in most parts of Indonesia. During this
time, he was registered under his step-father's name (Sotero) and
as a Muslim because it is required. This is very hard for
those living in countries with true freedom of religion.
People in many parts of the world MUST register their religion.
He was a child and had no choice in the matter. The children
registered as Muslim must attend religious classes in Islam. The
children registered as Christian must attend Christian religious
classes, etc. It is required. One former classmate of Obama's
claims that they would indeed learn their lessons, but that
"Barry" (as he was then known) always mocked it. Of course he
did! His strong mother was an atheist! For more on his
mother and her influence on Obama, the following article describes
it best. This came out before his election, but it all holds
true. Further, after reading about Michelle Obama, who in
the world is going to believe she married a Muslim?
For high school, Obama returned to
Hawaii to live with his grandparents and finished school there.
He then went on to Columbia and then (for law school) Harvard.
During his years at these schools he pursued social justice issues
with what I would consider a liberal eye (more below).
From his actions, statements and writings, what is his real
"The proof is in the pudding" is still a good
adage. Yes, a person may say and apparently do things they
really don't believe for some time, but eventually their real
belief system will emerge. Most Christians I know are
completely (and unfortunately many times willfully) ignorant about
what fuels the belief system of most that they would consider
liberal. The weight of evidence shows that Obama is a
post-modernist/socialist/neo-Marxist liberal. Religiously,
he has adhered to a socialist/neo-Marxist version of Christianity
since the 1990's.
Nearly everything Obama knows, believes and
loves is due to one person, his mother. She was the strength, not
his step-father. She was an atheist and communist. His
closest friends, allies, and those who had the most influence on
him, especially during his college years and after, are ALL
Marxists/socialists of some sort (see information in paragraphs
Now, go on to the basic tenet of Marxism. Rene
Rousseau, the main teacher of Marx, said that man was born good
and that he is corrupted by institutions. In Marx's eyes, the
corrupting influence was private ownership, which fomented greed.
In neo-Marxism, the corrupting influence can be other things.
In socialism, it is generally the holding of wealth. The
socialist believe that all wealth must be distributed evenly to
Post-modernism, which is the product of both
Rousseau and Marx. The basis tenet of post-modernism is that
there is no such thing as right or wrong and that there is no such
thing as absolute truth. According to this philosophy, which is
dominate in our educational system (both lower and higher), we
develop frameworks or stories to understand life in order to cope
with life. None are true and all are fine, unless you proclaim
yours to be absolute. This is why tolerance cannot be extended to
Christianity. However, it can be extended to Islam even if
they espouse the idea that their way is the only way. Why?
Because post-modernism is a western thought process that came as a
result of rejecting Christianity, all cultures and religions are
equal except Christianity, even though it is not truly a "western"
religion. Further, the post-modernist cannot believe
anything they seen and hear that shows a culture to be evil in any
sense. They must chalk up any evil to the beliefs and plans
of just a few extremists. This particular philosophy is
called multi-culturalism and leads to a need for diversity simply
for the sake of diversity, no matter what problems it leads to.
In these philosophies, the evil is always
outside man and they are constantly trying to find that outside
influence that causes hatred, fighting, poverty, etc. We know
that the evil is inside, not outside. As a consequence, man only
needs to eliminate these corrupting influences to live in an
eventual Utopia. Oh yeah, tell me when that works. In our faith,
we know that only a transcendent God can eliminate the actual
corruption that exists inside of man.
Another thing to be considered is his choice of
friends and associates over the years. Any radical Muslims
among them? No? Any nominal Muslims among them? No?
Any anarchists, communists and socialists among them? Yep -
lots. Lots of notorious ones at that. One that comes
to mind is Bill Ayers. Read the following article by Jack
Cashill. I've got Cashill's book "Hoodwinked." It is
Anyone really interested in all this can read more about Ayers and
Obama's other communist and socialist friends.
I could certainly write reams of stuff on the
belief system of Barack Obama. However, many others have
already written them. For a full understanding of
communism/neo-Marxism/multi-culturalism/deconstructionism and a
host of other related popular "isms", I suggest reading Chuck
Colson and Nancy Pearcy's "How Now Shall We Live?" Also read
Nancy Pearcy's book "Total Truth." These books make these
philosophies understandable. They also show how these
philosophies have created the mess we now see in Europe, Canada
and the United States and just how far back they go. I read
The Pearcy Report on a
daily basis and subscribe to Chuck Colson's
some of Jack Cashill's books
as well. As I said before, Hoodwinked really opened my eyes.
Obama is shown in a photo taking off his
shoes in preparation to pray at a Muslim prayer gathering - FALSE
The picture was taken when Obama visited
Istanbul's Blue Mosque while he was in Turkey in April. The
Mosque is famous and many people visit it. One is required to
remove ones shoes before entering. He didn't go there and pray,
just visited. George W. Bush also visited this mosque and
removed his shoes. Anyone want to call him a Muslim?
Obama canceled the 2010 Day of Prayer -
Obama signed the proclamation as always.
Nothing got canceled. What did happen is that a federal district
judge in Wisconsin declared the day unconstitutional. Obama,
aware of the decision, not only went ahead and signed the
proclamation, but appealed the verdict to higher appeals court.
He did opt not to attend the official prayer breakfast.
Obama intentionally removes American flags
from press conferences - FALSE
A 2010 picture shows Obama at a press conference
held in the East wing (the room with the yellow curtains) on May
27, 2010 and there is no flag behind him. I have personally
seen dozens of photo of him in this same room WITH the flags.
After the photo started it's rounds on the internet claiming that
he removed the flags because he is not an American, I saw him in
the same room, on TV, with the flags. What gives? It
turns out that this has happened to other American president's as
well. Both George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan have been filmed
and photographed in a press conference with NO FLAG behind them.
There are also images of Jimmy Carter and Richard Nixon with NO
FLAG. I don't know why nor does any other researcher I've
yet read. However, it is extremely funny that in that at
that same conference on May 27, 2010, Obama is wearing an American
flag lapel pin!
Obama is shown with a book about the end of
America written by "a fellow Muslim" - PARTLY TRUE BUT MISLEADING
I did some reading about this book and it's
author. His worldview and mine are miles apart, but I can
certainly see why any genuine post-modernist would be listening to
him, and apparently, a ton of people are.
Fareed Zakaria is the editor of Newsweek
International, a Washington Post columnist, a best selling author
and a foreign policy advisor. He was born in India and is
Asian, not Arabic. His family is Konkani Muslim, the oldest
Muslim sect in India. His upbringing was notably secular
however. He grew up with a mix of Christian, Muslim and
Hindu teachings. His father was a politician with the Indian
National Congress and his mother was at one time the editor of the
Sunday India Times. He has a B.A. from Yale and a Ph.D. from
Harvard in political science.
The book is not so much about the decline of
America, but about the rise of other superpowers like China and
India. Certainly much of this is due partly to America's
decline. The guy is a global warming theory enthusiast. Here is
what he says:
In my book I talk about the "rise of the
rest" and about the reality of how this rise of new powerful
economic nations is completely changing the way the world works.
Most everyone's efforts have been devoted to Kyoto-like solutions,
with the idea of getting western countries to reduce their carbon
dioxide emissions. But I grew to realize that the West was a
sideshow. India and China will build hundreds of coal-fire power
plants in the next ten years and the combined carbon dioxide
emissions of those new plants alone are five times larger than the
savings mandated by the Kyoto accords. What do you do with the
Indias and Chinas of the world?
Zakaria claims that he is optimistic about where
the 21st century is heading and claims that we are living in a
peaceful era and that world violence peaked around 1990 and is now
at a record low.
If I was the President of the U.S. I would
certainly want to be informed on what these kind of talking heads
are saying. However, I would also think that, because of his
post-modernist view of the world, he would think much like this
Obama claims he is a Muslim on a video
that people had better watch before it is pulled from the internet
and Fox News is "trying" to show it but can't - FALSE
The video has never been blocked and Fox News
hasn't been "trying" to show it. I've been getting this email for
a long time and watching the video. If you'll note where it
starts it obviously eliminates the previous statement in which he
refers to his Muslim heritage from his biological father (a man he
only saw once from the time he was 2 until he was 11 and then
never again). His comment "I am one" refers back to the previous
statement they don't show that he has Muslim heritage. Of course,
that was only pandering to his audience of Muslims. His father
was born into a Muslim family but gave it up for atheism and
communism and alcoholism.
There is another video of an interview in which
he also seems to be saying that he is a Muslim. This one
occurs prior to his election as President. The context is
missing. The word "supposed" would have been appropriate in his
comment, but I probably wouldn't have thought to say it either.
It's tacit. What he was addressing (and you don't see the whole
interview) is the fact that many were accusing him of being a
Muslim. He was accusing the GOP of doing this (when Hillary
Clinton was the one who started the whole magilla). He had
suggested (in that interview) that McCain was behind it all.
Stephanopoulos reminded him that McCain had denied spreading the
rumor. Obama then replies with what you see. It's all a matter
of context. It makes total sense and in the context one would not
have thought to include the word "supposed". I see perfectly well
what he is saying - in the context. This fits in with EVERYTHING
that man has ever said or done.
Both Obama and Michelle Barack
surrendered their law licenses because they were being
investigated - FALSE
I went to
www.iardc.org/ There was nothing on the site anywhere about
Obama surrendering a law license. Indeed, I put his name in the
search and got nothing. The Illinois Bar allows an attorney to
change his/her status. The allowed status are active, inactive
and retired. Once one is disbarred, they are removed from the
roll. In Barack Obama's case, he is listed as retired. Michelle
is listed as inactive. I then went to the attorney search and I
checked these out myself. They have not "surrendered" their law
degrees and, if they desired, could apply to the bar to be
re-registered as active again anytime they wish. Changing one's
status to retired or inactive would not prevent any investigations
or disbarring. If one would bother to check on the site, neither
Obama has any public record of discipline.
Obama is not a natural citizen of the
United States - updated June 2010
This has yet to be determined. Some swear
he was born in Hawaii, some swear he was born in Kenya. It
is certain that his mother visited Kenya with Obama Sr. late in
her pregnancy. Even then, that really is not the issue.
A person can be born in a foreign country and still be deemed a
natural born citizen. Prior to John McCain running for
President, he was vetted as a natural born citizen although he was
born in Panama. His father was stationed there and both of
his parents were U.S. citizens and had no intention of anything
Obama's situation is a little more complex.
First, his biological father was not a U.S. citizen, but his
mother was. However, she was only 18 years old when he was
born. Some claim that if one is born in another country and
one of the parents is not a citizen, then the person is not a
natural born citizen. Some claim that an 18 year old cannot
confer citizenship upon a child. Some claim that since he
went by his step-father's last name while in Indonesia, he is
actually an Indonesian citizen. I have not found any
corroboration for these claims as yet. These issues will
have to be decided by those who know these laws really well.
There are a few who claim that Obama himself gave up his
citizenship at one time. That one is extremely doubtful.
I have seen photos of supposed documents.
One is the certificate from Hawaii. It is real, but it is
also issued to persons who have been born outside the country
(where the mother was visiting another country or stationed
somewhere). There is a document purporting to be a long form
birth certificate from Kenya. Again, even if it is real,
that doesn't solve the issue at hand. It is well known that
his mother was in Kenya late in the pregnancy.
Some supposed officials in Hawaii insist that he
was born there and does have a birth certificate. Some
supposed officials claim there is none. The rules in Hawaii
state that a birth certificate copy can only be ordered by the
person or direct family member. Obama has chosen not to get
his (if he has one) and not to publish it. This gives
further rise to these theories. Why not just produce it and
get this all over with quickly?
The only way this will ever be resolved is
through the courts. Congress should have vetted him just as
they required McCain to be vetted (double standard?). Dozens
of lawsuits are making their way through the court systems.
So far, none have passed muster as yet. I continually see
emails claiming that a suit will be heard by the Supreme Court,
but the few that have made it to hearing by the SC have been
rejected, mostly on ground that those bringing the suit did not
have legal standing (this includes the conservative members of the
Of course, one will eventually get through the
system and we'll know not only where he was born, but whether his
mother could have indeed conferred citizenship upon him.
Should it ever be determined that he is not a natural born
citizen, all laws and treaties signed by him would probably become
null and void.
Obama did not graduate from Columbia
according to George Stephanopoulous or others
Columbia claims that Obama was there and
graduated in 1983. The publication Columbia College Today
profiled him as a graduate after he became a senator. Obama
published an article in the school magazine on March 10, 1983.
Stephanopoulous was not a classmate of Obama.
He received his degree a full year before Obama and the likelihood
of them running in the same circles or attending the same classes
is nil. As an example, my husband and a friend of ours attended
the same undergrad university. She was a year ahead. They had
never even heard of each other. They didn't even know any of the
same people except their professors. They met here in Florida when
we attended the same church. Furman is not near as large as
Columbia, so you can see how Obama and Stephanopoulos would never
have heard of each other.
Wayne Allen Root, who was the Libertarian VP
candidate in 2008 claimed Obama was there and was a Marxist. It
was the form of his claim that led some to believe Obama had not
attended, but all he was saying was that his 1 1/2 years at
Columbia were not memorable to anyone. In fact, he said he'd bet
that his GPA was better than Obama's. Root and Obama would
certainly NOT have had the same friends or traveled in the same
circles or had the same classes.
certain that Obama's writings on his years in NY are full of
exaggerations. Following is an excellent article that tries to
track down what he did do in NY (and includes a former teacher who
does remember him):
His roommate at the time has written about those
times. Obama has written about them as well. He was a less than
stellar student. He didn't do much during that 1 1/2 by his own
admission. In fact, he was smoking pot during that time. He says
he mostly hung out at the library, but considering his other
"stoner" admissions (much earlier), that seems unlikely.
he wasn't at Columbia long. He transferred
there from Occidental College in his junior year (1981). He
finished that year and his senior year at Columbia, then went on
to law school
Since he transferred there
so late and apparently had a hard time finding his footing as a
mid-year transfer, its not very unusual that few remember him.
Columbia isn't exactly small. Some say he wrote a thesis,
some say no. Writing a thesis for an undergrad degree is highly
Road sign in Kenya proclaims that it is the
birthplace of Barack Obama - FALSE
The photo has been altered. The sign is in
Oman, an Arabic nation. The doctored photo shows WELCOME TO KENYA,
then some Arabic writing and a supposed translation of the Arabic
writing as proclaiming Kenya as the birthplace of Obama.
Kenya has two official languages - English and Swahili.
These are used on signs, not Arabic. The original sign says "Wilayat
Madha Welcomes You," which is the place in Oman where the sign is.
Kenya is still a mostly Christian country. 50% of Kenyans are
Protestants. Only 10 - 11% are Muslim and this is in a pretty
concentrated area. Of interest, Kenya is the birthplace of Barack
Obama, Senior that is.
Obama is shown in photos not pledging to
the American Flag and says he doesn't - FALSE
All the photos taken of him supposedly taken
during the pledge where others are placing their hands over their
hearts, supposedly during the pledge to the flag are always taken
during other events. Some were taken during the playing of
the national anthem. Just for the record, I do not put my
hand over my heart during the singing of the national anthem and I
have noticed that most people don't either. I was taught
this was reserved for the pledge to the flag. Another photo
taken on Memorial Day 2009 shows everyone around him with their
hands over their hearts, but not him. The song "Hail to the
Chief" was being played at that time. I'm kind of pleased
that he didn't salute himself!
that claims that he explains why he doesn't cover his heart with
his hand during the pledge is fake. It came from a satirical
column written by John Semmens of The Arizona Conservative. It
was written and published in the 10/27/07 issue.
Another email claims he is explaining this, but
he is talking about flag pins. For awhile he didn't wear
one. However, in 2010 he has been seen, photographed and
filmed wearing one.
Obama's Occidental College Records have been found and his
diploma reads "Barry Sotero! - FALSE
The group that originally posted this claim (and
hoped it was true) had to admit that they found out it was a hoax.
In the original, the group that has supposedly been able to get
Obama's transcripts was called The Coalition for Freedom of
Information. They are an amateur UFO research outfit and this
didn't come from them. The most recent postings have changed the
name to American's For Freedom of Information. There is no such
organization or group. Finally, a person's transcript is NOT
public information. Only Barack Obama can ask for his own
transcript. He has not done so, nor released it.
It is highly unlikely that he has been running
around all these years with a diploma that reads Barry Sotero. No
one has found one. He had to be enrolled in elementary and junior
high under his step-father's last name and his nickname was Barry
when he was growing up. However, in his junior year he went to
live with his maternal grandparents and, now being in the United
States of America instead of a majority Muslim country, he was no
longer forced to use Sotero's name and graduated from high school,
college and university under his own legal name. He continued to
be called Barry for many years, but it was never his legal name.
The email claims that all of this has been
published in the Daily Mail. There has never been an article in
the Daily Mail or any other publication with this information. A
portion of this hoax has been traced back as far as January 2010,
but the full piece was published as an 2010 April Fool's joke on
Fact Check, a liberal run site.
There is a bill in congress to
eliminate term limits on the Presidency so that Obama can become
dictator - FALSE
There is one representative who, every two
years, has put forth a bill to get rid of the 22nd amendment.
Rep. Jose Serrano has been proposing this bill since 1997,
regardless of which party was in power. His first two bills were
under Clinton, the next four attempts were under George W. Bush.
That being the case, did he want George W. Bush to be president
for life? No. He obviously just doesn't believe in term limits.
The issue is term limits, not presidency for life. Repealing the
22nd amendment would not get rid of presidential elections, just
the term limits. Personally, I'd like to see term limits on
representatives and senators as well. However, since they do the
lawmaking, we'll never see such.
Others who have put forth bills since 1991 to
repeal the 22nd Amendment include both Democrats and Republicans:
Barney Frank (D): 1995, 1997 & 1999 ALL under GWB. Did he want GW
to be president for life?
David Dreier (R): 1997 - Clinton
Jerrold Nadler (D): 1995 - Clinton
Mitch MCConnell (R): 1995 - Clinton
Vander Jagt (R): 1991 - elder Bush
Martin Sabo (D): 1991 - elder Bush
As you can see, the idea of repealing the
presidential term limits is not limited to one sitting president
or one party. In fact, those making the proposals all seem to be
doing it outside of their party being in power. Further, not a
single one of these proposals has ever made it out of committee.
The process of repealing an amendment to the
constitution is enormous. First, the proposed bill has to make it
through several committees (none of these ever even got that
far). After approval from the committees, it goes to the floor
for debate and several rewrites. Both the house and the senate
will write their own versions. Next, it has to pass through the
entire house or senate. Then the two have to agree on a single
bill. Then the president has to sign it. When it is an amendment
or nullification of an amendment, all the states have to vote on
it next. Most bills become law after the president signs, but not
when the actual constitution is being amended. Each state in the
union has to have their own vote on whether to ratify or repeal an
amendment. By the time any such action could be accomplished (if
indeed it could), the sitting president would be out anyway. Look
at the ERA. That amendment made it through everything except the
states ratification. Further, even if the 22nd amendment were to
be repealed, it does not get rid of elections. The President and
Congress must be elected. It would not enable anyone to hold a
position for life.
Obama is the Anti-Christ!
I am pleased to disappoint those who believe
that the United States of America is the center of the world and
who believe that it has a prominent place in the Biblical
apocalypse (which I believe in). The very first statement in
this email is, "a man will come from the East." Well, that
lets Obama out! Neither Kenya nor the U.S. would qualify.
I am the bearer of some bad news as well.
In the very first part of what is called "the tribulation",
something large hits the earth (called Wormwood) and destroys 1/3
of the earth. Since the Middle East, Russia, Europe and
China are all mentioned in all the apocalyptic literature, where
would that that 1/3 have to be? Try North and South America.
America just doesn't figure in it. If the Anti-Christ is
going to fool people, he'd better fulfill at least a few of the
well known Old Testament prophecies about Messiah and be able to
bring together, for a time, both the Arabs and the Jews. I'm
afraid Obama doesn't meet any Biblical qualifications for the
I saw plenty of people claiming that both Bush
the Elder and GW were the Anti-Christ as well as numerous claims
about Gorbechev when each was in power. The elder Bush got
labeled because of a single statement about a "new world order."
Gorbechev got labeled mostly because of his birthmark. The
GWB allegations were numerous and at times, downright inane.
Some of the same people making the current claims have also made
the previous claims.
take his oath of office on the Koran?
No, Obama took
his oath of office on the Bible. The message mixed up Rep. Keith
Ellison (D-MN) and Obama. Ellison is a Minnesota attorney who
converted from Roman Catholicism to Islam in 1982. However, he also
has many ties to Nation of Islam, an American offshoot now led by Louis
Farrakhan. He has said that he was only involved with them for a
short time and rejects most of their core views (a separate black state
and anti-Jewish attitudes), identifying himself now as Sunni.
He was elected
as representative for the Minnesota 58B District with 84% of the vote in
2004. In 2006 he won with 56% of the vote. He also won the 2008
election with a 70% vote. While he was the first Muslim to be elected to
Congress, he is now not the only one.
gave special help to Palestinian refugees?
The email claims
that President Obama signed an order to give $20,300,000 to allow
"hundreds of thousands" of Palestinian refugees who are part of Hamas to
immigrate to the U.S. Actually, the money went to "relief efforts in
Gaza." This was done in January 2009. That was the time when
Israel spent 3 weeks working towards eliminating Hamas rocket launchers in
Gaza. The U.N. made an appeal for aid. The money was supposed
to go to food, medical care, shelter, potable water and electricity.
President Obama responded by using the Emergency Refugee and Migration
Assistance Fund. This was set up in 1962 and any sitting President
can use it to release funds to aid refugees.
G.W. Bush used the fund to help refugees in the West Bank, Gaza and Sudan.
Of the $20.3
million, $13.5 was to go the U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine
Refugees, $6 million to the International Red Cross, and $800,000 to the
U.N. Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. None was to go
to help these people immigrate to the U.S.
Obama have the largest staff of any First Lady?
Hillary Clinton Defended Black
Panther Member Accused of Murder
In 1969, Black Panthers member Alex Rackley
was suspected of being a government informant. He was taken to the
home of Black Panthers member Warren Kimbro, held captive for 24 hours and
tortured. At that point, Kimbro, George Sams and Lonnie McLucas took
Rackley to a marsh field and shot him to death. Many people
took part in the torture. Eventually, 14 Black Panthers were
arrested and charged in varying degrees in the death of Rackley.
One of the people charged was the leader of
the group, Bobby Seales. From all accounts, Seales was not present
during Rackley's torture or murder. The man who took up his defense
was attorney Charles Garry.
In 1969, Hillary Clinton WAS NOT an
attorney, but a law student. She worked as assistant to Charles
Garry. One of her duties during the Seales trial was to organize
groups of Yale students to attend and observe the trial. Of all the
cases involved in Rackley's murder, this one was the most high profile
since the accused had not been present during any of the events. Clinton
was not directly involved in the defense of Seales, nor did she have
anything to do with the defense of Kimbro or Huggins.
What happened to both Kimbro and Huggins
after they served their time has nothing whatsoever to do with Clinton.
She had nothing to do with any one of them "getting off easy."
Indeed, she could not have had done so.
Clinton was not involved with
"shutting down Yale with demonstrations," since that never
happened at all. There were certainly protests over the Seales
trial, but nothing on a grand scale. Although the Kent State
protests turned ugly and lethal a few days later, the Yale protests were
pretty tame by all accounts. There is some scant evidence that Clinton may have helped
organize some of these protests. However, the last time I checked,
that is the right of every U.S. citizen when they feel that an injustice is
happening. Don't tell me conservatives don't protest - we do
and sometimes loudly.
Mr. Lee had nothing to do with the trials
or the defense of any of these or the other Black Panthers that were to be
tried for this case. He was not a lawyer, nor even a law student,
but a Yale undergrad. He did express solidarity with the Black
Panthers in that he believed that many of these trials were unfair since
some being tried were not participants in the crime. He also appears to
have been involved with protests.
There is something about this message that
bothers me and it should bother anyone who really reads it. The
implication is that these people did not deserve a defense. One of
the backbones of our judicial system is that all people deserve and fair
trial and proper defense. It may turn out that the person on trial
is not guilty. Look at how many innocent people are being freed from
years in prison after being convicted by a jury. Conservatives, do
we not believe in this?
George Sams, Warren Kimbro and Lonnie
McLucas were all convicted on various charges for the murder of Alex
Rackley. Bobby Seale and Erika Huggins were eventually acquitted by a hung
jury. The jury voted 11 to 1 for Seale's acquittal and 10 to 2 for
Huggin's acquittal. Of course an acquitted person (Huggins) went on
with her life. Of course a man who has done the time set by a jury
will (hopefully) go on and get an education and contribute positively to
society. Do we really want them to return to a life of crime?
Of course not. I'm sorry they've been given so high a stature based
on a hung jury, but judgment is coming unless repentance comes first.
Whether or not you like or approve of Ms.
Clinton, truth is truth. I'm no fan myself, but this is just a
matter of dirty politics. Conservatives complain about the left
doing it, then do it themselves. As a conservative, I would hope for
better from us.
This was also never one of Paul Harvey's tall tales
either. He did tell a few. One research outfit, Urban Legends
Zeitgeist, said that the "email closely resembles part of a article by
John McCaslin's 'Inside the Beltway' column that appeared in June 12, 1998
in the Washington Times."
Bill & Hillary Clinton are
charging the Secret Service Rent To Protect Them In Their N.Y. Home!
No, they aren't.
This is not true.
It is a standard agreement that the Secret Service pay a fee to the
homeowner for the space they use to protect the ex-president. The
amount of this fee is set by government formula, not by the homeowner.
The amount for the Clintons is $1,100, which is definitely NOT the amount
of the mortgage. I'm sure it's not even close. Even though
regulations call for the Secret Service to pay this, the Clintons have not
accepted any money from them. BTW, Clinton is the last president to
receive this service. It was eliminated by Congress after Clinton.
Talking about the Clinton's, its
common knowledge that, in order for her to establish NYS
residency, they purchased a million-dollar house in up-scale
Chappaqua, NY. Makes sense. Now, they are
entitled to Secret Service protection for life. Still makes sense.
Here is where it becomes interesting. A residency had to be
built in order to house the Secret Service agents. The
Clinton's now charge the Secret Service rent for the use of said
residence and that rent is just about equal to their mortgage
payment, meaning that we, the tax payers, are paying the
Clinton's mortgage.... And it's all perfectly legal.
Refuses To Meet With Delegation From Gold Star Mother's Group!
The email message that Hilary Rodham Clinton refused to
meet with a delegation from the Gold Star Mothers at the time that she was
a senator. It is quite
false. Christian author & speaker Dr. Rich Buhler states the following
on his website, "Truth or Fiction":
The National President of The American
Gold Star Mothers, Georgianna Carter-Krell, told TruthOrFiction.com,
however, that the two mothers did not have an appointment with Senator
Clinton and that, it turns out, she wasn't even in her office that day.
Carter-Krell said that her office regrets the misunderstanding and hopes
that the negative comments about Hillary Clinton will stop.
The two Gold Star Mothers dropped by
Clinton's office on February 27, 2001, but Ms. Clinton was not in.
They were apparently not taken care of properly by the receptionist.
They were miffed on a made a few media comments. Gold Star Mother Shirley Jones was the one who made the
comments and later said that it was the receptionist she was upset with,
Clinton, upon hearing of the incident,
was not only apologetic, but had her staff communicate with Jones about
the issues in question.
Gold Star Mothers is an organization made up of women whose sons
killed in military combat during service in the United States
Recently a delegation of New York State Gold Star Mothers made a
Washington, DC to discuss various concerns with their elected
representatives. According to published reports, there was only
one politician who refused to meet with these ladies. Can you
guess which politician that might be? Was it New York Senator
Charles Schumer? Nope, he met with them. Try again. Do you know
anyone serving in the Senate who has never showed anything but
contempt for our military? Do you happen to know the name of any
politician in Washington who's husband once wrote of his loathing
for the military? Now you're getting warm! You got it! None other
than the Queen herself, Hillary Clinton. She refused repeated
requests to meet with the Gold Star Mothers Now -- please don't
tell me you're surprised. This woman wants to be president of the
United States --- and there is a huge percentage of voters who are
eager to help her achieve that goal. Sincerely, Cdr. Hamilton
McWhorter USN (ret) PS: Please forward this to as many people as
you can. We don't want this woman to even think of running for
President. May you sleep in peace always...and please...hug or
thank a Veteran for that privilege.
Is Bill Clinton the first pardoned federal felon
to serve as President? FALSE
Bill Clinton registers for the draft on September 08, 1964, accepting
all contractual conditions of registering for the draft.
Given Selective Service Number 3 26 46 228.
Bill Clinton classified 2-S on November 17, 1964.
Bill Clinton reclassified 1-A on March 20, 1968.
Bill Clinton ordered to report for induction on July 28,1969.
Bill Clinton dishonors order to report and is not inducted into the
Bill Clinton reclassified 1-D after enlisting in the
United States Army Reserves on August 07,1969 under authority of Col.E.Holmes. and takes oath of enlistment.
Bill Clinton fails to report to his duty station at the University
of Arkansas ROTC, September 1969.
Bill Clinton reclassified 1-A on October 30, 1969, as enlistment
with Army Reserves is revoked by Colonel E. Holmes and Clinton now
AWOL and subject to arrest under Public Law 90-40 (2)(a) 'registrant
who has failed to report...remain liable for induction'.
Bill Clinton's birth date lottery number is 311,
drawn December 1, 1969, but anyone who has already been ordered to
report for induction, is INELIGIBLE!
Bill Clinton runs for Congress (1974), while a fugitive from justice
under Public Law 90-40.
Bill Clinton runs for Arkansas Attorney General (1976),while a
fugitive from justice.
Bill Clinton receives pardon on January 21, 1977 from Carter.
Bill Clinton FIRST PARDONED FEDERAL FELON ever to serve as
All these facts come from Freedom of Information requests, public
laws, and various books that have been published, and have not been
refuted by Clinton.
Since former President Bill Clinton was never charged with evasion of the
draft, he cannot be a fugitive from justice. Since he was never
charged, he could not be convicted. Since he was never convicted, he
could not be pardoned. He was not pardoned for anything by Jimmy
Carter or any other former President of the United States. While
Carter DID indeed pardon all Viet Nam war draft dodgers on that date, Bill
Clinton was not among them because he was never considered to be one.
At age 18, Clinton entered Georgetown University and did
register for Selective Service, as was required by law. However,
full-time students got a deferment.
In his senior year he received a Rhodes Scholarship to
Oxford. In 1968 the deferment program for graduate students was
eliminated, so Clinton is again eligible for the draft. Clinton has
made many political connections during his college years and especially
after being chosen as a Rhodes Scholar. He signs up for what is called
a "Naval Billet" at his local naval reserve and receives temporary draft
protection in order to begin his scholarship at Oxford. He was ordered
to report for induction in 1969 but did not get the order until he began his
2nd term at Oxford. He is then allowed to complete the term and is to
report for induction at the end of the term (July 1969.). Meanwhile,
he gets accepted into the University of Arkansas ROTC program, which
nullifies his draft notice. He won't be called again until he
completes basis training in this program. Clinton then decides to
return to Oxford and asks the draft board to drop his ROTC deferment.
By that time the regulations had once again changed, allowing graduate
students to complete their schooling. To top this off, Clinton
apparently had a high draft number and was never called to report for duty
Did Pres. Clinton break
promises to track down and punish terrorists? No.
First let me
state that this research was already done by the time I saw this message.
Many others got to the research before I did, so I am just repeating their
findings. The original message was only an
anti-Clinton piece. A later version added the words, "Bush covered it"
after each section without bothering with any details about just how he
accomplished this. As you will see, there's not much truth in either
The 1993 World Trade Center: The terrorists were all
convicted and punished during the Clinton administration.
We captured and convicted four followers of Egyptian cleric Sheik Omar Abdel
Raham. The supposed mastermind, Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, was captured (1995) and
convicted (1997). All were sentenced to 240 years in prison. There is
supposed to be one more suspect in this case that did escape capture.
1995 Saudi Arabia Bombing: It was the Saudi's
themselves who hunted down these perps. The Saudi's say they had
confessions from four Saudi men, but never let any U.S. officials see them.
The Saudi's convicted them and beheaded them in May 1996.
1996 Khobar Towers:
the Saudi's wouldn't let us question the suspects. On 21
June 2001, just before the American statute of limitations would have
expired, a federal grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia, indicted thirteen
Saudis and an unidentified Lebanese chemist for the Khobar Towers bombing.
However, to this day, we can't get to these people, even to question them
because they are held in Saudi Arabia.
1998 Embassies Bombings:
Four men who seemed to be followers of Osama bin Laden, were captured and
convicted (sentenced to life in prison) in October 2001. There are
still 14 more suspects out there (both Clinton & Bush administrations unable to capture
them) and it seems that there are 3 more we have been trying to
extradite from London.
USS Cole Bombing:
occurred in October of 2000. President Clinton had only three months left in
office. Yemeni finally captured and sentenced to death those
who were involved in the bombing. In early 2006, one of these men made
news when he escaped from prison. He was finally caught and returned
Did Clinton free Mohammed Atta, who later master-minded the 9/11
hijackings plot? No.
The Mohammed Atta the
piece described is not the same man that was involved in the 9/11
terrorist attacks. This is a new version of the message that blames
Clinton. The original version blamed Regan. Here is the original
An Arab terrorist
named Atta blew up a bus in Israel in 1986. The Israelis captured, tried
and imprisoned him. As part of the Oslo agreement Israel had to agree to
release so called "political prisoners". However, Israeli officials
insisted that they would not release any with "blood on their hands". Some
well meaning American President and Secretary of State insisted that all
Thus Mr. Atta was
freed and eventually thanked the US by flying an airplane into Tower One
of the World Trade Center. This was reported by many of the networks at
the time the terrorists were first identified. It was missing from later
reports. That President and Secretary of State were Ronald Reagan and
Here is the Clinton
version: Terrorist pilot Mohammad Atta blew up a bus in Israel
in 1986. The Israelis captured, tried and imprisoned him. As part of the
Oslo agreement with the Palestinians in 1993, Israel had to agree to
release so-called "political prisoners." However, the Israelis would not
release any with "blood on their hands." The American President at the
time, Bill Clinton, and his Secretary of State, Warren Christopher,
"insisted" that all prisoners be released. Thus Mr. Atta was freed and
eventually "thanked the US" by flying an airplane into Tower One of the
World Trade Center. This was reported by many of the American TV networks
at the time that the terrorists were first identified. It was censored in
the US from all later reports. The American public must be made aware of
The Mohammad Atta who was involved in the bus attack was
arrested by the FBI and extradited to Israel and this took place 2 years
after Reagan left office. This man was 14 years older than the Mohammed
Atta involved in 9/11. Israel tried and sentenced him to life in
prison. According to the Jerusalem Post, the bus attack Atta was
freed by the Israeli Supreme Court at some point. Neither Reagan nor
Clinton had anything whatsoever to do with this decision and he was not
the same man involved in 9/11.
Vote Bulwinkle & Rocky!
The Whatsamatta U faculty urges you to vote for a brainless bumbler and his
sidekick, a petulant, but true blue squirrel. Hey, it's no worse than
the other choices!
When you order from Amazon, support Truth
Miners by clicking this link first
Truth Miners is run by, owned by, written by and maintained by Cathy Holden -
all articles, unless noted, are written by me. Ask for reprint permission