Truth Miners large logo

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 protection.

Cars Oil Gas
Chain Mail
Free Stuff
Health Issues
Pleas For Help
Postal Service
Prayer Requests
Virus Hoaxes

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



Barack Obama


Did Obama nominate Elena Kagen to the Supreme Court as a reward for defending him in eligibility suits and did Snopes lie about it?


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?


Is Obama an outright Muslim or secret Muslim?


Does a picture show Obama preparing to pray at a mosque or at a Muslim prayer gathering?


Did Obama cancel the 2010 National Day of Prayer?


Did Obama intentionally remove the American flag from press conferences?


Is Obama shown reading a book about the end of America?


Did Obama claim to be a Muslim in an interview or video that Fox News "can't" show?


Were Barack and Michelle Obama forced to give up their law licenses or be investigated?


Is Obama a natural born citizen of the U.S.?


Did Obama really graduate from Columbia?


Does a road sign in Kenya proclaim that it is the birthplace of Obama?


Does Obama refuse to put his hand over his heart during the pledge to the American flag?


Have Obama's Occidental College records been found and released?


Is there a bill in congress to eliminate presidential term limits to make Obama dictator for life?


Is Obama the Anti-Christ?


Did Obama take his oath of office on the Koran?


Did Obama gave special help to Palestinian refugees?


Does Michelle Obama have the largest staff of any First Lady?


Bill or Hillary Clinton


Hillary Clinton Defended Black Panthers    


The Clinton's Charge the Secret Service Rent to Protect Them?


Hillary Clinton snubs a group of Goldstar Mothers?   


Was Bill Clinton the first pardoned felon to serve as President?    


Did Bill Clinton break promises to track down terrorists?    


Did Clinton free Mohammed Atta, who later was accused of masterminding the 9/11 attacks?


Other Messages


Rep. Charles Rangel is introducing a bill to reinstate the draft


John Glenn puts Howard Metzenbaum in his place


Congress is trying to regulate the internet through an "internet neutrality" bill


The voting rights act is set to expire


Congress is full of crooks


Foreign refugees get a better deal than retirees


Immigrants can get Social Security benefits


Is "Real ID" is the mark of the beast?


The U.S. government is keeping oil fields in Colorado or North Dakota a secret


Aussie Prime Minister makes anti-Islam remarks


Former President G.W. Bush was asked by the Obama administration to leave Ft. Hood when he visited after the shootings


Muslims will 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 about it?

Snopes, 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 birth status.


The 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.


First, 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. 


Second, 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. 


Third, 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.


Elena 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.


Here is my research without further ado.


Case # 1

Petitioner: The Real Truth About Obama, Inc.

Defendent: The Federal Election Commission (not Barack Obama)

What the case was about:

The Real 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.


All of the rest of these cases were filed while George W. Bush was President.


Case # 2

Petitioner:  William Holt, Federal Prisoner, Tenn

Defendent: The United States of America

What the case was about

This was 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. 


Case # 3

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

"On 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."


From 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.


Case # 4

Petitioner: Louis Lutz

Defendant: The President of the United States and Kellogg, Brand & Root, Inc.

What the case was about

Lutz was 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:

"(1) All 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 defendants."

Lutz claims that instructions in his orientation materials were against the Geneva Convention.  A photocopy of the entire thing can be found here:


Case # 5 & 6

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

Al-Ghizzawi 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.


Case # 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

Kiyemba was a free man at the time he began his suit.  It was about unlawful imprisonment and torture.  A full article can be found here:

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?

Ignore 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 - it's fake.

The guy who did this runs a You Tube channel called "Obama Snippets."  It is a parody site.  What he did was simple provided one has the proper software.

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 various places). 

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 birth.

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 read this:

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.

Obama was 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 belief system?

"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 below).

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 all.

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 certainly enlightening.   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 Breakpoint.  Read 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 - FALSE

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 guy.

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  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 else. 

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 court). 

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.

It is 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 unusual.

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!

The email 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:

Rep. Barney Frank (D): 1995, 1997 & 1999 ALL under GWB.  Did he want GW to be president for life?


Rep. David Dreier (R): 1997 - Clinton


Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D): 1995 - Clinton


Sen. Mitch MCConnell (R): 1995 - Clinton


Rep. Guy Vander Jagt (R): 1991 - elder Bush


Rep. 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 final Anti-Christ. 

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. 

Did Obama 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.

Did Obama 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.


Former President 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.

Does Michelle 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.


Original Message:  

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.


Hillary Clinton 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, 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, not Clinton. 

Clinton, upon hearing of the incident, was not only apologetic, but had her staff communicate with Jones about the issues in question.

Original Message:  

Gold Star Mothers is an organization made up of women whose sons were killed in military combat during service in the United States armed forces. Recently a delegation of New York State Gold Star Mothers made a trip to 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


Clinton's Military record:

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 military.
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 President.

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 again.


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 version. 


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: Again, 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: This 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 to prison.


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 version:

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 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 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 George Schultz.

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 this fact.

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

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!

Truth Miners small logo


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 please.  Thanks!