Friday, August 6, 2010

The Mombosan Son: Chapter 1


"You could not be a moral person with the means to act, and stand still…To stand still was to choose indifference. Indifference was the opposite of moral…"

William C. Ayers
Domestic Terrorist

Using the words of a terrorist, like Ayers, to exonerate the motives of those questioning Obama's eligibility is an ugly way to justify any righteous cause, but he was right. Indifference and inaction are the opposite of moral in the face of lies and injustice.

However, being a hypocrite requires you to be wrong, first, and then right when it doesn't benefit you. The truth has to hurt, eventually. However, if hijacking the words of a killer and terrorist doesn't work, lets take testimony from a more viable source. How about the words of an eyewitness present at the scene of the crime? In a recent CBS interview with former senior Hawaiian election official, Tim Adams, his words revealed more damning evidence why America is right to doubt the honesty of Barack Obama:

"As of the time I was in Hawaii, working in the elections office, we had many people who were asking about the eligibility of Senator Obama to be president. I was told at the time there is no long-form birth record (an original NVSD “Certificate of Live Birth” from 1961), which would have been the case if Obama was born in a hospital in Honolulu. There is no such form for him in Hawaii. Barack Obama does not have an original birth certificate because he was not born in the state of Hawaii. Its like an open secret among officials of the Hawaiian Government..." Tim Adams, former Senior Election Clerk Supervisor for the Honolulu Elections Commission of Hawaii. June, 2010.

If, after taking accurate measurement of America’s history, considering the cost and remittance of treasure to overcome the enemies of Peace, upon the honor of our fathers’ fight for exceptionalism in the world, one does not conclude the authority of America’s unique moral qualification to inspire the world and establish the hope for the future of all mankind, then all blood lost since is merely for nigh that greater purpose which redeems it and hate has won.

Long after we have passed, it should be instinctive among every vintage of America’s applauders, and degenerate haters alike, that the cause for our brand of liberty decidedly rests upon the highest monuments of mankind as the perennial, solitary Hope for all creatures, that we shall all, upon the planet earth under Heaven, live in the divinely ordained manifest of the blessedness of God, our King, by Whose command, America was founded. We embrace this with defiant amplitude equal to our passion in defense of it. For, it is by this Love we were afforded the desperate righteousness to seek the deepest meaning of human identity, its salvation and our sovereignty as an epic nation.

As we have all heard in Sunday school, “No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit. Each tree is recognized by its own fruit. People do not pick figs from thornbushes, or grapes from briers. The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For out of the overflow of his heart his mouth speaks.”

In a March, 2010 radio interview with Stan Solomon, Dr. Alan Keyes, former Republican presidential candidate and former member of the Reagan Administration’s staff in the State Department, gave the most intellectually adept analysis of Obama’s constitutional eligibility problem. In response to the question, “If you have, at the roots of a tree, the illegal usurpation of power by a president, what can we expect from the fruit of this tree?”

Dr. Keyes delivered this bolt of reason and logic:

“Well, this very issue, as the question eludes to the fact that the approach being taken by the Obama administration to the legislative process is one in which a majority vote trumps the Constitution, and that if the majority at any given moment on any given bill wants to do something that violates the Constitution, then, (according to their “majority rules” belief), what they do is the “law”, even though the Constitution is against it. So essentially, the Constitution becomes no longer the supreme law of the land. Well, that was the exact same attitude that these people took with respect to the Constitution on the issue of Obama’s eligibility. Their position is: ‘..the majority of people have voted, therefore it doesn’t matter what the Constitution says, it’s over with..’..”

Keyes continued, “And, so, as I, and others warned at the time, this issue of Obama’s eligibility actually represents an effort to destroy the authority of the Constitution. And, now the work of destruction and the ‘hoped for’ result, which is, “…opposition to Obama’s claim to legitimacy does not have standing…” that, in turn, would actually lead people to stand in defense of the Constitution, is now being applied to probably the most important and critical and dangerous proposed legislation that we have had since the New Deal period. So, (the attitude of dismissing the Constitution and declaring the Constitution as meaningless on one issue), suddenly is now coming home to roost in the form of an assault on the legislative sovereignty of the American people, and particularly, within the House of Representatives which has been historically regarded as the grass roots representation of the American people, that is what is going on…"

"The fact that you have, in the first place, put in place a faction in the White House contrary to the Constitution’s authority, and with contempt for the Constitution’s authority, is, in fact, related to the fruit we are now seeing in terms of the same attitudes being taken toward the corruption and destruction of the legislative process. Basically, the aim is to take the Constitution and toss it over board, so that whatever is the will of a given, momentary, transient majority…that’s going to trump everything…"

"Now, consider that the next step in that is clearly to understand that the majority’s will trumps the rights that are provided by the Constitution…This is the end-game of our liberty…We are fighting a battle to maintain the truth and integrity of the Constitutional system which provides for the real sovereignty of our people.”

Keyes’ point is an apocalyptic one. If we have set the precedence of dismissing the Constitution’s prescriptions for the sovereignty of our leader’s identity, then how can we possibly then come to the forefront of the defense of the Constitution and justify our argument against the legislation, the fruit, of that same leader? You have no standing based on your previous precedent of dismissing the first law which says the roots of the tree must be legitimate. Now, since we have already, as a prerequisite to his despotic license, afforded him the legal exemption for taking office, he is now free and able to implement corrupt laws (bad fruit) against us. The roots of Obama are covert and malevolent, so therefore, why would we ever expect his fruit, in the form of policy, to be anything but covertly presented and malevolent.


There are four classifications of vital events defined by the U.S. Department of Health which occur among our population. They are births, deaths, marriages and divorces. They all demand and employ a standard form of legal documentation used to account them, statistically, and to provide for verification of their occurrence by an appropriately qualified and licensed official in the location which the vital event occurs.

Vital statistics were officially collected in the United States for the first time in1850. However, the national birth registration regions were officially created in 1915 as the national data collection structure for census and demographics records was formalized.

In 1961, as stated in the official Vital Statistic Report of the U.S., the standard ‘Certificate of Live Birth’ is the prescribed form of legal birth documentation issued through the U.S. Department of Health, National Vital Statistics Division. It evolved throughout 110 years of input from federal and state agencies seeking to improve the collection, accuracy and discernment of natal statistics in the United States. It was made in close collaboration with the Public Health Conference on Records and Statistics and was recommended to the States for adoption as of January 1, 1956.130

In Hawaii, however, the state’s Department of Health has gone astray from this federal standard. In creating an independently published document called the ‘Certification of Live Birth’, the state of Hawaii has deviated so much from the original form and function of the federally issued record, as it was intended by the U.S. Department of Health, that the credibility of Hawaii’s form of birth documentation is now in question.

When liberals persistently volunteer alternative biographical documentation about Obama, which we did not ask for, in the form of a Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’, and try to convince us that it is the standard of birth documentation in America, they are not only insulting our intelligence, they are contradicting the American standards created long before the Hawaiian islands became a state.

By pushing Obama’s natal identity with such a deficient form of municipal birth documentation, Obama apologists are encouraging the violation of the official standard of birth documentation developed by the federal U.S. Department of Health, which is representative of the entire nation, not just Hawaii, and they are acting in a manner that is counteractive to the function of this vital record in its importance as a primary source of statistical collection and personal identification.

The Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’ was autonomously created through an endemically ignorant Hawaiian municipality and used by Obama’s protectors to deceive a vast consensus by exploiting remote, state-level legalisms and license to customize records based on the need to conceal Obama’s identity. The ultimate objective of this fraudulently created form of vital record, crafted way out in the Pacific ocean, was to convince war-wary mainland Americans to accept Obama’s obscure Hawaiian identity without confronting his blatant dishonesty with America’s federal vetting standards.

If the sparse biographical information Obama has revealed so far is indeed true, then he simply only needs to produce the available standard documentation so we can corroborate his state-level claims with a federally eligible identity. If he was an honest leader, he would do this without hesitation. There should not be any difference between his stated legitimacy and his documented eligibility, if Obama has been telling the truth. On the other hand, in light of blatant attempts by this administration to set rules preventing access to Obama’s records (i.e. Executive Order 13489), we are reminded that being a liar is not just characterized by what you say. Lying also means remaining silent when you know others are being allowed to believe something you know is not true.

The records available about Obama’s natal identity do not support a full vetting of his political legitimacy, his political eligibility or his natural born citizenship, to date. However, Obama apologists within the liberal establishment continue to perpetuate the lie that the state of Hawaii has the authority to establish the eligibility of a candidate for the U.S. presidency by simply saying that secret “birth documents”, which no one outside of this remote municipal agency has ever seen, exist in some form in the secret files of the Department of Health.

The absurdity of Obama’s documented identity is as absurd as his radical political ideology and the deranged policies spawning from it. However, birth records are only one essential part of the entire roster of documents and information we should demand in order to verify the identity of our leaders, if not for the sake of constitutional integrity and national sovereignty, then for our desire to have confidence in the honor of the U.S. Presidency. Birth records are just the basic, most common source of personal data showing the biological beginning of our lives. However, these documents are the metrics by which our character is also measured. Not necessarily by the content of a birth certificate are we judged, but more so, we are held to the essential standards of national unity by our willingness to reveal it honestly. America knows that Obama has failed to do this.

Virtually all Americans are familiar with the most recognizable birth documents because they have to use them so frequently for sources of identification for themselves and members of their families for far less significant reasons than serving as President. It seems absurd that a little league baseball player would be required to show more proof of age, citizenship and birth documentation to play baseball than the President of the United States does to serve his office, but, that is how it is today.The absence of Obama’s personal data, such as education transcripts and medical records, also promotes suspicion in the collective conscience of people who define character through an emphasis on knowing a person’s identity. If they see essential, organic pieces of Obama’s identity missing, it is then reasonable to conclude that there must be fundamental pieces missing from his character, as well. Obama has made a bad choice to remain covert in this matter. It will infect the rest of his presidency if he does not reconcile with it. The absence of the other collaborative pieces of biographical history only seals the validity of the questions about his legitimacy. College records, travel documents, immigration documents, his voting records as a senator all have significant impact in determining Obama’s legitimacy.

Documents about Obama’s education have never been revealed. However, we know that Obama graduated without honors from Columbia University. This means that he entered Harvard Law School with an undergraduate grade-point-average of less than 3.30 but greater than 2.0. Based on this, given Harvard admission requirements by general applicants that they possess a minimum 3.5 GPA, Obama’s performance at Columbia lends weight to the theory that he may have been accepted to Harvard as a result of Affirmative Action. This, in turn leads to the possibility that his $40,000 annual tuition was paid through foreign aid sources. In order to receive foreign aid, Obama would have had to enroll as a foreign student. We know Obama was a citizen of Indonesia and his father was a citizen of the British Commonwealth.

Detracting from Obama’s credibility is the fact that his educational records and transcripts, like his birth records, are held in secret from the American public.

Set aside the birth records for a moment. Based on a July 31, 2009 “Research 2000” poll posted on the Daily Kos, a far-left liberal website, 23% of people surveyed are, at a minimum, not sure that Obama is constitutionally eligible to be president.28 At most, nearly half of those (47.8%) said they believe Obama is not a natural born citizen. Almost one out of four people have questions about Obama’s constitutional eligibility to be president simply because he has refused to resolve the matter once and for all. Extrapolated, that’s roughly 75 million people in the U.S.!

The ironically humorous result of this poll is that it was conducted by radical liberals intending to make people who ask any question about Obama’s natal history look “fringe”. Instead, it only demonstrated the intensity and validity of questions coming from the most conscientious majority of American society. Leftist websites spent the entire weekend after the completion of this poll conjuring ways to spin the truth and discount the monstrous amount of suspicion against Obama. The editor of the Kos tried to funnel the results into a right-wing conspiracy theory despite the fact that many of those polled voted for Obama.

There are also many unanswered questions about Obama’s demographic profile, which, in the absence of federal vital statistics documentation, remains undisclosed. Obviously, Barack Obama is America’s first ‘bi-racial’ president, but we are not sure which two races he actually is. Void of facts, the political left in America, particularly advocates of reparative economic justice, seek to craft him as the ‘first black’ president because the term ‘black’ promotes a argumentative proximity away from those out of whom they seek to extract the means to achieve their version of economic equality. The use of language to advance this oppressive and hate-felt licensure is driven by little more than ignorance about the historical facts of true generational inheritance in vintage America. Christening Obama as the ‘first black’ President is a technique used by the liberal establishment to protect his racial plurality while denying access, within the realm of lies and accusations, to his actual identity as it appears in the conscious domain of obviousness.


One of the funniest movie scenes occurred in the opening of 2002's "Men In Black II" when the character played by Will Smith, "Agent Jay" is attempting to warn a train full of commuters before a giant alien worm devours their subway car. He attempts to evacuate the train while announcing his authority.

"Ladies and Gentlemen, I am with the Transit Authority. We need to move the front car due to a 'bug' in the electrical system," he calmly states while displaying a badge.

Despite Agent Jay's efforts, however, he commuters remain indifferent to the warnings and simply ignore his desperate pleas for their cooperation.

Then, suddenly, the giant worm, named "Jeff", consumes half of the train car with one bite. The commuters, screaming in terror, try to run out of the car. Agent Jay chases them along the isle and calmly mocks their panic, saying, "Oh...hey, now you all runnin? Where you going? Just stay seated. It's only a 600 foot worm comin to eat you."

At the end of the ordeal, as the tattered train car shambles to a stop, Agent Jay gathers the commuters for the traditional "neuralization process". But, before erasing their memory he takes another moment to mock their stupidity saying, "The City of New York would like to thank you for participating in our drill. If this had been an actual emergency you all would have been eaten! Cuz you don't listen! You're ignorant! How a man gonna come bashing through the back of a subway...when...see, that's the problem with all you New Yorkers. 'Oh, we seen it all...oh no, a six hundred foot worm, save us Mr. black man..', and I come in and ask you nice, 'move to the next car,' and you all just sit there..."

Realizing its hopeless to continue, he gives up in mid sentence and erases their brains with a flash. Needless to say, Agent Jay's mockery is well understood by those sounding the Obama eligibility alarm. The ignorant masses are hopelessly perishing in their stupidity. Sometimes its just easier to erase their brains and move on.

Consider this. What if the only possible way to reclaim this country from progressive corruption was to expose the fraudulent identity of its ineligible officials in their violation of the sovereignty of Constitutional law, thereby realizing the fraudulence of the rules they create?

What if Barack Obama really has assumed the presidency without the legal qualifications as defined by the eligibility mandates of the Constitution and the only way to defeat his ideological proliferation was to prove he is an illegal office holder? What if the battle cannot be won by arguing against the "ineffectiveness" of policy when that policy is completely "illegal" to begin with?

What if the only way to repeal any socialist law created by the current progressive government, as signed by Obama, was to implement the truth about his natal history and the obligation of Constitutional law against his eligibility to be president, thereby disqualifying his presidency and all that came from it?

Without this course of action, what if there was no other defense against the destruction of our nation?

Odds are, those who were once "soft" around the middle on this issue would suddenly demand undeniable, unarguable, medically verifiable proof of Obama's eligibility.

How is it that media icons like Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity are so willing to lament the ineffectiveness of liberal policies, as though they are actually legitimate, without recognizing the evidence mounting against the legitimacy of the people implementing them. We give ventilation to our opposition of Obama's phony socialist laws as if those laws actually have a authentic place in American history to begin with, without ever challenging the authenticity of his legal qualifications to hold the office of the Presidency.

Beck, O'Reilly and Hannity want to argue against Obama's ideology when they should be investigating and exposing his probable illegality. They want to treat Obama like a legitimately elected radical liberal with whom they disagree when they should be seriously considering the possibility that he is an illegally elected criminal threat who should be arrested and tried for violating Constitutional law.

In his March 22, 2010 Fox News Network broadcast, Glenn Beck said the following:

“In my entire life, I never thought I would ever see the kind of corruption, the backroom deals, the out-and-out scumminess that brought us to this health care reform vote. I mean, what is the fruit of this tree going to be like? We know what the roots are.”

It's difficult to take Mr. Beck's outrage seriously when he has been so unwilling to question the "seed" of eligibility of the "tree" whose "fruit" he is worried about. If anyone has watched Beck's show, he has featured on his famous chalk boards an image of a tree labeled with the various factions of the Obama Administration. The drawing shows the branches, the fruit, the trunk and the roots of the "Obama" tree, but it fails to show the seed from whence it came. Of course, Mr. Beck knows that every tree starts with a seed. The seed establishes roots which support the tree which then grows branches and the fruit. Beck sees the rotten fruit, but refuses to embrace the fact that the original seed was not viable. Although he is right to be concerned about the "fruit", he has failed to prioritize his lamentations about the foremost problem which was the nature of the "seed".

The founders of America rightfully decreed that a President of our nation had to originate from a "seed" bearing certain natal characteristics which reflect the best interest of the sovereignty of America. They called these natal characteristics, "Natural-born". Being natural born means that the individual seeking to become President must not have achieved his or her citizenship through legal or administrative process after being born outside of the jurisdictions of the protections of the U.S. Constitution. This was essential because our founders understood that only a natural born President could never be without the protection of the Constitution when confronted by foreign interests.

Of course, Mr. Beck was right, but he had not fully vetted the depth of the truth in his words. Perhaps, he just stumbled on it. In fact, we do not know what the seed of the Obama "tree" is. The birth of the tree begins with the seed, yet Beck refuses to engage the debate over Obama’s natal "seed" because he has said that “it is an argument we can’t win.” The tragedy in this is that we cannot win any argument regarding any part of the tree unless we question the nature of the seed from where it was born.

However, until media powers, like Beck, O’Reilly, Hannity and Limbaugh are willing to investigate the legitimacy of the seed as the first essential measure of this usurpation outside of the propositions offered by secondary sources and liars, the true weight of this illicit scheme will remain successfully covert, concealed from the domain of obviousness. For, if we can’t argue against the legitimacy of a man’s identity, then how are we ever supposed to justify an argument against the legitimacy of his decisions? If we are unwilling to uphold the standards of sovereignty in the identity of leaders, then why would we ever be willing to uphold the standards governing over, and limiting, their legislation?

Bill O’Reilly actually told his viewers that his staff had fully investigated the Obama eligibility issue, and upon discovering two birth announcements published in 1961 in two Honolulu newspapers, (as though his investigation had discovered something no one else had at that point), he thereby determined that Obama was indeed born in Hawaii. His tragically misinformed conclusion was that the two papers would never forge birth announcements to covertly assist Obama’s aspirations in the off chance he might run for president sometime in the next 50 years and therefore how could he have possibly not been born there. O'Reilly, therefore, made the quantum leap that Obama was obviously born in Hawaii and, therefore, refuses to look any further into his eligibility. It is a very sad demonstration of journalistic laziness for someone with such a respected, longstanding career in media. O'Reilly is the most fair minded, credible, experienced media personality in the last 15 years. His career spans more than 35 years. However, his treatment of the Obama eligibility issue is quite sad.

If O'Reilly had done an actual investigation, he would have discovered that the newspapers print from information received from the Hawaiian Health Department and that the Hawaiian Health Department creates birth registration lists from file numbers assigned to birth records created through methods of accounting births which do not consider geography or medical verification in determining natal citizenry or residential status. Hawaii treats a natural born child the same as a foreign-born child when Hawaii is declared as the parent's residence.

Oh, what a tangled web we find when we understand the actual facts about the process and legislation governing the issuance of birth documents in Hawaii. It’s difficult to imagine that such a powerful media force like O’Reilly could be exploited by such blatant misinformation.

Hawaii Revised Statute 338, alone, eviscerates O’Reilly’s conclusions and makes him look foolish. Never mind the fact that these same newspapers have unequivocally stated that, in 1961, they printed information provided directly by the Hawaiian Department of Health and that this same Department of Health is obligated under state law to issue birth certificates for births outside of the United States under Hawaiian law.

HRS 338-17.7 and 17.8 explicitly states that the Director of the Hawaiian Health Department is obligated by Hawaiian law to issue such certificates, when a request is made to the Director of the Hawaiian Department of Health for a birth certificate, if proof is provided that the parents claimed Hawaii as their residence within one year of the birth, and that these certificates must state Hawaii as the place of birth based on the protocol that the mother usual residence is considered the same as the place of birth. The statute also says that the validity of the proof of residency is to be determined not by a judge or a federally appointed official, but by the director of the Hawaiian Health Department, alone! In this case, Dr. Chiyome Fukino.

O’Reilly fails to understand that this creates a chain of falsely endowed natal information under the authority of the local municipality as to the actual birth place of those it serves, while blatantly dismissing the federal authority of the Constitution in matters of Presidential eligibility, as well as the authority of the U.S. Department to Health obligating the states' Health Department director to report natal statistics for native born children, only.

O’Reilly also makes his "confirmation" declaration while excluding documented evidence that Obama’s mother sought to register the birth of Obama for the simple, logical purpose of receiving state aid as a single, teen mother, which, obviously was not a part of any conspiracy to see Obama become president, but rather a lie to make sure he had food and clothing as an illegitimate birth. It is not outside the bounds of probability to conclude that Obama’s mother, upon learning of Hawaii’s permissive foreign birth registration laws, simply registered Obama’s birth as occurring in the state of Hawaii for the purpose of receiving welfare funds.

This is not extraordinary to consider. Nearly 1000 other single mothers did this in Hawaii in 1961. This doesn’t suggest some epic, 50-year long conspiracy. It just simply means that by the time Obama’s handlers realized he was not eligible to be president because of his foreign birth, they were already too deep into the financial and political commitments to allow him to be disqualified. It was then incumbent upon them to investigate every possible way to promote Obama’s candidacy without ever allowing the public to have hard knowledge, backed by evidence, of the actual story of his birth as it related to the issue of Constitutional eligibility or, more importantly, his political legitimacy.

There was no conspiracy 49 years ago, there were just practical decisions made by the adults in Obama’s early life which were only recently discovered to be disqualifiers of Obama’s presidential candidacy. Once these discoveries were made, given the massive overinvestment of liberal money into Obama’s candidacy, actions had to be taken to neutralize this information in order to prevent it from being discovered and, therefore, prevent it from stopping Obama’s election.

Bill O’Reilly’s investigation is astonishingly wanton and lacking of any significant depth, not because he lacks the power to gain access to the information, but because he is limited by his own adherence to the mainstream modalities of media popularity. Simply, he fears being called a loon. It is this fear which has allowed Obama to get away with this grand lie.Quite simply, we do not know what the full tell-tale roots of Obama are. We have never been allowed to see this covert underworld of secret information. Therefore, since we are not allowed to see the legitimacy about the roots, we simply refuse to accept the legitimacy of his fruit.

Yet, it is at this very conjunction where media personalities like Beck and Bill O’reilly have failed in their journalistic responsibility to connect the actual roots of Obama to the fruit of his corrupt ideology. Mr. Beck, God love him, has frequently used the analogy of a tree, with accompanying drawing of such image on his chalk board, containing photos of people and influences of Obama’s corrupt past, but these musings only go as far as Obama’s past can be verified by investigation in the domain of safe obviousness.

With great affection for Mr. Beck, we must hold him partially responsible for allowing Obama to grow this putrid fruit because he has failed to uproot the poisonous tree by its roots. Beck is afraid to take that risk for fear of being referred to as a “birther” by people who hate him anyway. It’s weird. Beck has refused to dig to the very depths of this man’s lies. The deepest available information. Unfortunately, until a powerful force of justice takes this risk and makes a compelling argument against Obama’s Constitutional legitimacy, his policies will continue to be enacted with impunity. Ultimately, Beck and O’Reilly will go down in history as men who had the power and ability to raise significant forces against the deficiencies of this rogue leader, but refused to because they were too afraid of being called names by people with no honor.

You, on the other hand, have remained silent long enough. Your patience has been appreciated but the cry of your fathers’ blood has become too unbearable. Your overdue response should not be as much about the disputed theories regarding one leader’s natal information as it should be about the blatant offense of his audacity against the honor and sacrifice of those far worthier. Of course, your revulsion should be prompted by a lack of basic information which everyone else in normal humanity would unanimously consider commonly available to identify any other person born in America for purposes far less important than being a President.

However, the absence of this basic information in Obama’s case has reduced the value of his character and made him appear ridiculous rather than respectable. The residual void makes it difficult to take him seriously in the shadow of such artificial authenticity. As a result, the entire affair has worked to diminish the prestige of the Office of the American Presidency and has kneaded into the fabric of our government the corrupt deficiencies of covert ideology. Whether acknowledged or not, the failures of Barack Obama reside in the failure of his character measured against the judgment of history and God. His failure to make known his name among men has compromised his legitimacy among rulers.

On the other hand, perhaps this tragic manifestation is our fault. We allowed the manifestation of Obama to happen by permitting 50 years of progressivism to have authority in establishing guilt-based social standards in this country, when, in fact, we should have forcibly maintained jurisdiction over America’s essential sovereignty and authority in the world by eradicating these degenerates from our government, our neighborhoods and our society. When the advanced citizens of humanity become complacent and passive, the resulting vacuum is filled by a malignancy called progressivism. The primary symptom of this disease is the election of a radical ideologue.

When a nation betrays its founding principles, defies the message of its vintage heritage, adopts foreign policy as its own, enacts social standards based on economic justice, covets personality rather than character, promotes equality on the merits of demography rather than ability, surrenders the interpretation of its constitution and laws to derelict power-mongers and employs the most corrupt radicals the peoples tax money can bribe…the result is the covert emergence of a man like Barack Hussein Obama.


Vastly exceeding the necessary spending required to resolve our economic challenges, Barack Obama is obstinate to concede the favorable circumstances he actually inherited from previous administrations which provided his opportunity to build on our economy and strengthen our national security. Instead, ever the campaigner, Obama would rather wallow in the shallow eddies of history’s recent tide-pools blaming selected, but historically common, challenges on a single previous administration without ever exercising his Ivy League intelligence to understand the larger sea of reality.

Using the failures of the Bush administration to make even worse decisions under the guise of fixing the problems is a shamefully wanton deficiency for such a self-proclaimed agent of generational hope and paradigm change. He wants to fundamentally transform a 260 year-old nation, yet he continually blames his greatest, most powerfully opposing challenges on one, single administration during our most physically vulnerable era. Disappointingly, one would expect Obama to represent a cause substantially greater than lamenting his preeminent difficulties as being the result of one of the past 43 Presidents before him. Certainly, we hope he will uphold a worthier cornerstone of his fleeting moment in history. Endowing Bush with such power makes Obama seem petty.

Whereas Obama and his drones fail to understand that money is only effective when it is concentrated into the hands of those with the responsibility to spend it correctly, conservative Americans hold to the time tested reality that our stewardship to life, first, is the prerequisite to peace. Conservatives understand that defending life is the preeminent cause to having a lifestyle worth improving. Liberals do not understand this. Without the basic rights to national security, Barack Obama would not even have his current opportunity to improve our economic situation and, thus, employ any policy to “fundamentally transform” the American quality of life. Because of Bush’s hard work in the field defending America’s right to exist, Obama has the opportunity to now get the house in order.

Obama’s ease in blaming Bush is the result of his lack of understanding that America’s exceptionalism and security is not free. We should not be too harsh on Obama’s rookie status, however, his lack of executive experience on the international stages prevents him from understanding that defending our nation against hate and bloodlust costs large sums of beloved and well-spent treasure.

Among the obvious circumstances benefitting Barack Obama's tenancy, is his opportunity to serve as president in a world without the menacing presence of Saddam Hussein. For decades, the Iraqi dictator terrorized the Middle East and threatened world stability while murdering and torturing more than a half-million Iraqi citizens. His trial and execution made the world a better place.

This reality brutally confronts the weakness of liberal dissonance and forces upon the conscience of haters of vintage America the inexcusable question of our responsibility, as a super power, to act in the defense of oppressed people in underdeveloped and distressed nations. Surprising to most liberals, sometimes the threat is not global warming or an earthquake. When the threat is evil, sending bottled water and blankets is certainly appreciated, but inappropriate. Sometimes, it’s actually necessary to send American warriors with a mission to shoot bullets into the bodies of really bad people.

In the course of America's response to the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, Saddam Hussein presented himself as the convenient idiot justifying both his removal and the world’s proactive establishment of an overwhelming military presence amid the region of the planet where enemies of humanity breed and conspire against us.

The liberal denial of benefits in establishing a military presence in a place where attracting the attention of radical Islamic terrorists is less of a threat than allowing them on American soil only demonstrates liberal blindness to national security issues and their dejection about not thinking of it first.Moreover, Obama’s incapacity to understand the brilliance of the Bush Administration’s initiation of a proactive military presence in the Middle East is just one example of his profound ignorance and ineptitude in matters of quelling actual violence and hate. Obama is content to measure the depths of human rights violations within the narrow doctrines of social entitlements he once pushed on the glimmering streets of a pristine American city.

However, Obama is a rank fool compared to the epic genocide confronted in the streets of foreign squalor by the Bush Administration. And, this makes sense in accordance with an understanding about those who voted for Obama. The minions of the Democrat party have failed to associate the reasons for being alive, even at the most trivial level, with Bush's prevention of their death through another cataclysmic terror attack, to date. Tragically, this liberal ignorance may prove itself as the potential doorway through which terrorists can find opportunity to murder innocent Americans, again, under Obama.

Given the liberal establishment's irrational disdain for the former president, and his ancestors, their failure to appreciate his unwillingness to cower and wait for the next attack is a frightening insight into their desolate politics and their acceptance of self destructive fatalism. Of course the rest of the world hated George Bush. He refused to allow them to kill us! Bush understood something that Obama will never grasp.

The rest of the world does not have the right to not be offended by our desire to not be murdered by them. Yet, impudence remains the defining characteristic of liberal rookies in America’s war, who are subject to a culture of death and derelict to imagine effective, and feasible, global solutions to this lethal world-wide fanaticism.Obama gets to be president of a country that was made safer, and kept safe, for more than seven years after the worst terror attack in American history.
The murder of 3000 innocent people, from 90 different countries, at the hands of radical Islamic terrorists, took America, and the world, by surprise and prompted the efforts of our most powerful leaders to do their best to never allow it to happen again. Let’s remember who is really to blame for this atrocity. This transgression against humanity is the fault of insidious creatures which hijacked planes, full of innocent passengers, and used them as weapons to implement hatefully justified destruction and death.

The Bush administration took on the endeavor to realize a safer world by implementing controversial, but effective, proactive policy intended to fight against our terrorist enemies. Meanwhile, Obama is merely riding a pendulum of natural reaction while trying to make everyone believe he is making it swing. He’s not.In the weeks following the attacks of 9-11, many on the right called for the use of nuclear weaponry on several selected major cities in the Middle East as retaliation for ALL terror attacks in the past 50 years. Liberals refuse to see the measured focus of Bush's destruction of Saddam Hussein's government, and the subsequent liberation of the people of Iraq, as amazing demonstrations of restraint and responsible application of American military might, in lieu of the alternatives Bush was called to consider.

Vintage America must remind the deranged liberal hordes that America is the responsible one. If we fail in our responsibility, then, by definition, the world is already in sharp decline.Of course, the policies of the Bush Administration were extraordinary for our time. And, so were the destructive tactics of our dissonant enemy. But the fight against global terrorists and radical Islamic violence is an extraordinary matter requiring extraordinary responsibility. Obama’s liberal herd must be forced to understand, either by reason or apocalypse, that our response to a global terrorist threat should never be measured by a need to merely defend our lifestyle. Rather, it should always be measured by our right to the priority. What good is preserving our quality of life at the cost of not being alive to experience it? Vintage Americans are confident that Bush understood enough of this to make a pragmatic difference. But, they are doubtful that Obama understands it.

In Obama's narrow focus to tinker with economic leakage, he is failing to appreciate the implications of a breach in the successful dam Bush built to contain the terrorist threat. Whereas Bush was willing to go to the headwaters of terrorism and fight at the confluence and tributaries, we can only hope, desperately, that Obama will not withdraw completely, resigning our nation to finger plugging a collapsing structure at the precipice of our greatest vulnerability.

Most of Obama's supporters simply lack the mentality to realize the pointlessness of American citizenship without the resolve and methods to defend it by exceeding the level of lethality being employed against it. There is nothing more important than our security and the responsibility we have to ourselves, and the world, to remain eternally prepared to respond to terrorism with every available resource at anytime, everywhere. Our safety is no longer dependent on our geography, so we must prioritize our response to terror in every decision we make, regardless whether or not it concerns foreign or domestic matters. At a minimum, we owe this to the victims lost.This lack of acknowledgement is the biggest problem vintage America has with Barack Obama, and it is reflected in his first year approval ratings.

Prevailing as the macrocosm of his party, there is nothing particularly honorable about the man. How can we find safety from our foreign enemies under the administration of a man so alien to the fundamental truths of America? His character deficiencies present fodder for opinion, but it remains an obvious truth that his past offers nothing extraordinary to which we might attribute our confidence, or dispel his "otherness". How can it? It doesn’t exist because he refuses to reveal it.

Rather than merely squat on a constituency’s fawning lust for his media darlingness, perhaps if he had invented a useful implement, or submitted to some form of military service, or led a church, or even presented some evidence of physical sacrifice for America, we might have more favorable reasons to embrace him. Aside from merely being the man running on a “not-Bush” message and opposing the party of conservatives, what grand, selfless act has Obama committed to express his appreciation for the privilege of being a member of America’s advanced citizenry?

Though liberals will disdain it eternally, President Bush will be remembered in history as the father of the global war against terrorism. He was not a perfect leader, nor was he absolutely right in all decisions. However, along with the relinquishment of executive challenges, like many presidents before him, Bush has given Obama some extraordinary opportunities for success and distinction. Aside from the obvious fact that Bush was decidedly opposed to allowing the mass murder of Americans, it rests upon the responsibility of his successor to make the most of the grand stage foreset by the fundamental actions of such an unfairly and ignorantly reviled historic figure.


Compounding the stress of America’s difficult economic challenges, it remains a mission of most liberals to evoke hatred for Obama’s predecessor in response to what Democrats view as the unfavorable circumstances Obama “inherited” as president.

Disregarding the historical fact that our president's terms in office rarely begin or end coincidentally with the resolution of America's common problems, the liberal establishment is differentiating Obama's time in office, from other president's, as abnormally deprived by the previous administration. Much of this juvenile vitriol is showcased by the bias of the pro-Obama liberal media consisting of broadcast networks NBC, ABC, CBS, and CNN, as well as major publications, most notably, the New York Times, Newsweek and Time magazine, and hundreds of radical leftwing internet sites like the Huffington Post, the Daily Kos and Salon.

The media’s dementia over Bush began way back in the 2000 election when the liberal establishment was put in its place after the Supreme Court had to intervene on the Democrat’s attempt to disqualify absentee ballots in Republican districts. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of fairness by upholding election law, instead of liberal fantasy, which resulted in Bush winning the election by far less of a margin than the difference of actual votes cast in his favor.132

Then, scorned by the 2000 Election, the deranged liberal media cabal upped the ante by committing blatant slander in 2004 when CBS news producers, with the help of anchor, Dan Rather, used what appears to be the preferred method of cheating by liberals; A document scandal.

Instead of contriving documents in favor of their candidate, as they did for Obama in 2008, liberals employed a wing of their propaganda apparatus and showcased manufactured documents containing unfavorable reviews of Bush’s performance in the National Guard.

The malfeasance of CBS resulted in the end of Dan Rather’s career and the firing of several executive level employees at CBS. However, the flavor of the liberal approach toward getting their newest manservant installed in the White House in 2008 had been foreshadowed.

In 2008, with all the appropriate documents in place, their epic plan to contravene America’s founding principles would finally take center stage.However, despite the lies from liberal media networks, the nature of executive responsibility obligates the president to the will of the people who hire him. And, as America's political history reveals, a president's performance is evaluated benignly, in the long run, without comparison to the performance of previous office holders. History will not blame George Bush for Obama's failures. Nor will it blame Obama for the next president's conduct. In some cases, the new president must take on challenges which, as determined by the people, are within his capacity to resolve. Rather than engaging the opportunity like infantile, blame mongers, perhaps it is overdue to acknowledge that the decisions made by the successor actually have made the problems much worse than they would have been if he had done nothing at all.

Let's make sure we account blame accurately among all the suspects. Let us not forget the members of Obama's own party, including Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, John Murtha, Chris Dodd and Chuck Rangel, serving in high ranking committee positions with influential ties to our banking and mortgage industries, who all played illicit roles in undermining our economic situation during the previous administration. Many of these congressional Democrats used their political leverage to pressure lending institutions into issuing mortgage loans to customers they knew could not afford them.

The lending industry acted in accordance with the desolate intentions of liberals to redistribute opportunities in the housing market, by inferior standards. The end result was financial collapse because liberals pushed banks to give loans to the less affluent, high risk demographics of our society.The disastrous result of this stupidity was the fastest increase in foreclosures in American history, leading to the collapse of the housing market and the mortgage lending industry. Since then, more than 780 billion dollars in tax payer money has been used to rescue the mortgage and banking industry, to date. And, it appears this still will not be enough to solve the problem. We will borrow more of our grandchildren's worth because Barney Frank thought it was "fair" for recent, jobless immigrants, some of them residing here illegally, to live in ponzi-mortgaged houses. These are tidbits of information the lying liberal media refuses to tell us about.

Regardless what liberal propaganda disseminates, the executive branch of our government has no real, appreciable culpability, comparatively, for these realms of an economic downturn. So, finger pointing by a president sends a message to the essential economic power in America that his appointment was the wrong choice and that his abilities to resolve the issues for which he was hired were overestimated. When a president tells America that his job was made harder by his predecessor, America’s advanced citizenry concludes that he was the wrong person for the position, not that he has been unfairly treated. America wants somebody who exhibits mastery over problem he faces, no matter the reasons for it. America needs a leader willing to acknowledge the benefits of his successive place in the legacy of American Presidents, not blame them for his uncertainty and lack of qualifications.


After being received by America at a young age, in the remotest outpost of American geography, without the demands of the standard confirmation of his identity, Obama was afforded the opportunity for an education, and the means to pay for it, by a generous society.

Does anyone actually believe Obama paid for a Harvard Law degree by writing part-time for the “Sundial” and organizing war protests?

Obama was afforded professional opportunities available nowhere else on earth and he was blessed to be a part of a family structure reinforced by advanced social and economic resources, relatively speaking. Just by the fact that he existed in America, even if he did nothing with his life, Obama inherited a greater socioeconomic advantage than 98% of the world's population.

American institutions, and the financial system that supports them, were established by far worthier pedagogues and social engineers than Obama will ever be. His American predecessors pioneered innovation and built our society, developed a scholastic standard, established industry and created our quality of life, long before he arrived to benefit from them.

Obama’s academic accomplishments are recognized, and his command of language is appreciable, but the liberal promotion of his value is greatly inflated. Millions of Americans have completed higher levels of academic achievement worthy of far more veneration. And, without the availability of American scholarships, institutions, and industry, liberals need to be reminded that Obama would have been relegated to just another third world existence. In his eagerness to “showcase” the challenges he inherited from the Bush administration, Obama might promote himself better to a larger number of Americans if he would also recognize the benefits of inheriting his opportunities from those who came before him. After all, by the time Obama was ensconced as president in 2009, America’s history had progressed for 260 years...without him.

America had survived two major economic depressions and several smaller, but no less significant, ones. We had elected 43 other men before Obama who presided over far more challenging eras of our history than Obama ever will, and we fought and survived eight major wars in which millions of Americans sacrificed their lives and safety to secure the rights and liberties Obama, and all Americans, now enjoy.


Though we are all better off for having emerged from the Civil War, certainly, we would wish that we didn’t have to engage in such a terrible conflict. But, we did. So, with this historical fact securely in place, let it not be ignored that Obama is a particularly special beneficiary of the results of that conflict, by way of his much lauded heritage, even though he has no proven genealogical connection with American slaves.

Sadly, however, Obama seems to lack an appreciation for the sacrifices of our ancestors to bring him, and all black Americans, equality in a free society.There is a sense among vintage America that Obama secretly believes that, because of his one sided view of the history of our struggle for civil rights, he is somehow entitled to a privileged position in leadership. And, this does not sit well with the citizens of America who actually have bled and died, with the ability and power, to change it.

Of course, slavery is a part of an unfortunate chapter in our history as a species, and as Americans. But, equally, so is the fight we've engaged for freedom from it...for all humanity. Throughout the history of humanity, the suffering incurred to abolish slavery, and to emancipate its victims, is equally tragic. Emerging from the horrors and loss of our civil war, America was brought to a better place in time, where Obama is rightly embraced. Sadly, however, it is less without regard for his race than those lost in the Civil War might approve of.

However, in a political irony, one teeth-gnashing reality which liberals hate to acknowledge is that the end of slavery in America was the result of legislation passed under a white, republican president. And, the Emancipation Proclamation which followed led to the amendment of our constitution after the deaths of hundreds of thousands of white abolishionists on both sides of the Civil War. But, the radical left in our country, hell bent on redefining the significance of history for the purposes of promoting a reparative agenda, deny the sacrifices made by millions of Americans to bring an end to slavery.

America remains the only developed nation in human history to fight a nation-wide civil war over the issue of slavery. Perhaps this, in itself, is seen as irrelevant by some. Our society has become too depraved to appreciate the association of its venerated extravagances with the blood shed by heroes to provide it. And, as Obama continues to rob future generations of their worth to pay for his liberal dreams, perhaps we are beginning to realize that slavery has actually not been abolished, after all.Ironically, it appears Obama is reconstituting the sins of our past, in a new form. He is acting as a fiscal change agent serving the interests of radical left reparative justice ideology. By his assumption of power, Obama is enabling a systematic economic slavery, much to the joyful redemption of ashamed whites who voted for him, for the purpose of avenging the victim mentality rooted in plantation slavery. Obama might command more respect if he expressed an appreciation for some of the positive things he, and all Americans, have inherited from the legacy of those warrior's commitment to freedom through sacrifice.

Contrary to the liberal chorus, it remains a valid point that Obama’s success is not the result of his black heritage, but rather it is the result of being rejected by it. In this case, rather than relegating Obama’s upbringing to the proverbial single parent stigma, it appears the absence of his black father actually enhanced Obama’s chances for success. In 1962, his father, Barack Obama Sr., abandon him and his mother to attend graduate school on the east coast. Therefore left to an upbringing by his white mother’s family, in predominantly white society, Obama was linked with the facets of traditional American heritage necessary to his success. On the other half of his biography, Obama’s father was obviously not a man prepared for fatherhood, let alone raising a miscegenated son in an interracial marriage, in 1960’s American society. But, obviously, neither was his mother prepared to abort her pregnancy. However, it is difficult to find fault in them. They made a mistake in their youth without the guidance of those possessing better judgment.

The presence of Obama’s father, during his impressionable years, would have probably been a detriment in many ways to Obama’s personal success in the long run. Thankfully, for Obama, his mother was blessed to be a part of a generous, supportive extended family, willing to provide for their grandson. However, if Obama is thankful for this amazing salvation, it does not show in his demeanor as a president when he plays the petty blame game and engages this charade over his ambiguous birth.Barack Obama was brought to this moment in our history for a reason. Whether it serves the political interests of any party or individual, is unknown. But, what is known is that America is facing challenges, and, to some degree, these challenges have been ongoing for years, irrespective of the president serving at the time. But, also, the President’s experience has been given a wonderful legacy inherited by each of its successive office holders. Obama has made the most of his inherited opportunities as an American. But, there still remain a slew of ominous, unanswered questions about the circumstances surrounding his early life.


America is an open, free, economically diverse, successful society. Yet, the only standard we are inflexible to uphold is the mandate against the plural identity of our leadership. America was created this way in order to prevent enemies from taking advantage of our open system, and therefore, our vulnerable population.
Why are Obama’s natal origins important to America’s understanding of his identity and character? Regarding the matter of birthright, does Barack Obama have an inherent right, as a direct consequence of birth, to serve as president? What standard does America use to determine eligibility for leadership?Most would agree that the opportunity to be President is not a right, or an entitlement. It is a privilege. And, throughout our history, that privilege has fallen on men who, regardless of wealth or social standing, meet specific biographical, legal and genealogical criteria which demonstrate loyalty, citizenship and a tangible alignment with America's overall founding values. These criteria are defined in the language and prescriptions set forth by our Constitution.
These values typically, though not always, are a legacy perpetuated through generations of family-inspired leadership and honorability. The founders of America were linked by threads of these criteria and by a common mindedness to realize the American ideal. Obama’s “otherness” is defined by more than just his rapid ascendency to executive power in American politics. He brings with him a slew of cultural and ideological pluralities that America is not being given a chance to embrace.

America is being left in the dark about Obama and never in the history of this nation has a candidate for president been so secretive, so elusive, and so ambiguous in the necessary expression of his essential and documented self.

In light of this truth, Obama is the first man put into the oval office whose parents were not both U.S. citizens, as defined by the laws in effect, at the time of his birth. Obama’s mother, though born in the U.S., had not physically resided in the United States long enough after the age of 14, as prescribed by citizenship inheritance laws in effect in the 1960’s, to be a U.S. citizen. Ann Dunham had to have resided in the U.S. for five years after her 14th birthday, in order to be able to pass on the rights of full citizenship to Obama when he was born in 1961. She was not yet 19 when Obama was born. His father was a Kenyan national, subject to citizenship laws of the British Commonwealth. Regardless, he was not an American citizen. Obama’s Presidential eligibility is in doubt merely for these reasons, let alone for reasons based on questions about his geographic birth place.

Therefore, despite the psychotic lust of the liberal establishment to pin the argument in favor of Obama’s legitimacy to the questions of his geographic birthplace, there are far more important ambiguities in his cultural, migratory, paternal, genealogical, and ideological biography which pose far greater threats to American sovereignty than his physical birthplace.All legalities and conspiracies aside, this is historic in the case of Barack Obama because it represents the first instance in our history in which we’ve failed to accurately define the plurality of our elected leader’s national identification, even if it were not for the purposes of recusal. Obama’s covert identity speaks to the antecedence of presidential validation and how failure to establish a candidate’s sovereign identity “from conception to election” sets precedence for future passive tolerance of leaders who possibly possess plurality in their national loyalties and interests. This can potentially compromise national security and, more horrifically, compromise the physical security of our nation.

If we, as a nation, misinterpret or dismiss the eligibility standards required for our leaders to serve and protect us, we make it easier for foreign influence to take advantage of our national resources and our people. Without the constitutional prescriptions for sovereignty in the identity of our leaders, America is potentially made vulnerable to foreign authority and, worse, the harmful intentions of our enemies, through the exploitation of our leader’s insecurity. Barack Obama has been allowed to serve in our government despite possessing an ambiguously plural identity.

Whereas, any other nation on earth, in defense of its leadership’s sovereignty, would require verifiable acceptance of personal data metrics, or an accepted native citizenry by legal exception, Barack Obama’s presidency is the result of inheriting the position, in part, as a result of progressively relaxing standards used to vet candidate qualifications, and a failing method demanding a singular national identity. This is something never before seen in modern times. Obama has been allowed the privilege of serving as president amid unanswered questions and unsatisfactorily disclosed information about his basic genealogical, demographic, educational and immigration history. We do not know who this man is, or what he represents or what he intends to implement as a leader of the most powerful nation in human history. Despite a complete lack of disclosure supporting Obama’s compliance with the people’s Constitutional prescriptions, he has been allowed to assume control of immeasurable resources in the American government.

If we have a genuine interest in upholding the principles of vintage American values, defined through our Constitution, while having a rational discussion above the caterwaul of unreasonable liberal disdain, this analysis can benefit the pursuit of rationality. If we are interested in holding our leaders accountable for their dishonesty and partisan selfishness, this book is one perspective to consider. The story of Barack Obama’s ambiguous claims to political legitimacy, and the amazing reasons for his intentional effort to obscure the facts of his identity should be all we need to command our government’s compliance.


Sadly, since web-press hack shops like the Daily Kos, The Huffington Post, The New York Times and the Annenburg Foundation vouch for Obama, it appears the Constitution is no longer consulted by our justice system in matters of national sovereignty and government accountability.

While ignoring legitimate requests for legal assistance, our derelict court system has divorced itself from any role in protecting American in this matter. Reminiscent of Herod, spineless judges have shuffled the matter off into the nanny care of the political realm, rather than a taking charge of it with the authority of legal mandates. It’s easier for judges to wash their hands of the people’s grievance. In doing so, they are complicit in undermining America’s future, and perhaps the personal security of Obama.

In an October 29, 2009 ruling to dismiss one of the highest profile cases against Obama’s eligibility, after his previous contrary ruling to grant trial, United States District Court Judge, David O. Carter gave this convoluted, misguided rationale to justify his incorrect decision:

“Interpreting the Constitution is a serious and crucial task with which the federal courts of this nation have been entrusted under Article III. However, that very same Constitution puts limits on the reach of the federal courts. One of those limits is that the Constitution defines processes through which the President can be removed from office. The Constitution does not include a role for the Court in that process. Plaintiffs have encouraged the Court to ignore these mandates of the Constitution; to disregard the limits on its power put in place by the Constitution; and to effectively overthrow a sitting president who was popularly elected by We the People‚ sixty-nine million of the people. Plaintiffs have attacked the judiciary, including every prior court that has dismissed their claim, as unpatriotic and even treasonous for refusing to grant their requests and for adhering to the terms of the Constitution which set forth its jurisdiction. Respecting the constitutional role and jurisdiction of this Court is not unpatriotic. Quite the contrary, this Court considers commitment to that constitutional role to be the ultimate reflection of patriotism. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.”

Among judges given the opportunity to respond correctly to questions about Obama’s Constitutional eligibility, Carter’s misunderstanding is not unique. Every judge presented with this case has provided different reasons for the same result. The variances of random and benign rationale by different judges across the country is an indication that something other than legal precedence is influencing their decisions. Ominously, it seems judges have been infected with a contagious form of cowardice cloaked in sophistication. They all lack legal standing to make their decisions to dismiss this case, so they are left with little more than abstract reasoning.

Carter’s ignorance of the prerequisites of Constitutional eligibility and how they apply to the endowment of legitimacy to a “sitting President” is breathtaking. In his fallow explanation, Carter never gives a coherent legal reason for his moral reversal, nor does he address the reason for the plaintiff’s case, which is a failure by Obama to adhere to the federally mandated requirements of eligibility which are arrived at through the existing standard vetting process. The failure in this vetting process is the preeminent breach in the legal process by which Obama became artificially elected to begin with. Instead, Carter makes an absurd quantum leap from his previous position of realizing the “…vital nature in clarifying the rights of military personnel to serve under a legal President…” into the realm of declaring all elections pristine and all Presidential “sittings” as final. His aimless rant borders on incompetence.

Essentially, the failure of Carter’s logic lies in his misallocation of authority to the popularity of a candidate over the more substantive authority of the preeminent Constitutional mandates for becoming President. Carter’s choice to call Obama a “sitting President” provides artificial legitimacy to a fraudulent adherence to the vetting process without ever addressing the more essential question of Obama’s ineligibility. Carter fails to understand that just because a candidate was popularly elected, this by no means is an indication that he is constitutionally eligible to hold the office. Furthermore, Carter fails to acknowledge the validity of actual evidence showing that Obama’s natal eligibility is in question. The fact that both of Obama’s parents were not U.S. citizens is enough to bring actual legal authority against Obama, let alone the possible fraudulent misrepresentation of his unnatural natal prerequisites.

In Obama’s case, the election simply means that he was approved by a misinformed consensus, which was ultimately misled by a breach of constitutional law, and deprived of its right to vote for a legitimate candidate. Carter has incorrectly chosen to uphold Obama’s “elected status” as a President without ever considering the more important question of Obama’s “vetted status” as a candidate, first! The people bringing cases against Obama are not challenging the fact that he won the popular vote, they are challenging his adherence to the legal process, (from his candidacy, to his status as President-elect to the certification of election results to his Inauguration, to the invocation of his executive powers), by which he came to a position to participate in the election to begin with. Rather than define Obama’s legitimacy along distinctive legal boundaries, Carter has capitulated to the enticements of social influences under the weight of deranged liberal propaganda.
Legally Defined Progression of U.S. Presidency

1. Declaration of Candidacy
Achieved through application to the Federal Election Commission.
2. Vetting and Eligibility Review. Achieved through adherence to Constitutional mandates and requirements. Performed and determined by officials of the Secret Service in cooperation with the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Department of Justice, the State Department, the Federal Election Commission, the Social Security Administration and other agencies possessing biographical, legal and personal information about the candidate.

3. Primary Election Process. Achieved through party specific election process.
4. Presidential Election Process. Achieved through the completion of a national election within the structure of the national Electoral College.

5. President Elect Status. Achieved by receiving an absolute majority of electoral votes (currently 270), but not yet inducted by Inaugural oath. Electoral votes for each state are determined by the Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 2. Since 1964, there has been 538 votes available in the Electoral College, apportioning one vote per each member of congress plus three for the delegates of the District of Columbia (435 members in the House, 100 members in the Senate and 3 delegates in Washington D.C.)

6. Election Results Certification. Validated through Federal Voting Systems Standards (FVSS) and achieved through each state’s election officer, under the jurisdiction of each state’s office of the Secretary of State.

7. Inauguration. Achieved by taking of Presidential oath given by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

8. Invocation of Executive Powers. Achieved through signing of laws and executive orders during term(s) of Presidency.

9. Succession. Achieved by completion of term(s) in office either through new, valid election results, Constitution mandates on maximum terms in office or death.

10. Official Historical Recognition. Achieved when legally defined records of Presidency are authenticated through the official oversight of Library of Congress in cooperation with the White House, the State Department, the Secret Service, the Defense Department and the Intelligence agencies of the U.S.

From the listed steps above, it is easy to see how Carter’s lack of understanding of Constitutional preeminence of the vetting process prevents him from employing his own proportionate judgment toward the appropriate question in this case. Carter chose to dismiss the case based on his desire to endow more validation upon Obama’s Inauguration while denying the equally, but preemptive, validity of the vetting process. Carter failed to correctly interpret the legally defined progression of a legitimate presidency when he decided that, since Obama is currently the president, he must have achieved the position legally. Carter made the decision in his own mind to endow Obama with Presidential legitimacy.

This decision is recurring in Obama’s eligibility saga. It is the exact theme used to justify the decision by the state of Hawaii to legally endow Obama with his natal legitimacy after he applied for a “Certification of Live Birth.” The Director of Health in Hawaii, upon seeing Obama alive, standing in her office, made the quantum leap to conclude that since he is alive, right in front of her, applying for a Hawaiian birth certificate, he therefore must have been born in Hawaii 47 years earlier and therefore must now be a natural born citizen of the U.S. Otherwise, how could he possibly be a candidate for the U.S. Presidency, right now? The propensity on the part of Obama’s protectors to engage in this form of irrational, free association about his identity is ridiculous.

Likewise, Carter’s attempt to argue that his ruling was justified by “Constitutional limitations” was nothing more than an abstract decision, based on his freely associated conclusion that, since Obama is living in the White House, he therefore must be the President, and therefore, he must have been an eligible candidate. Otherwise, how could he have possibly been elected? The ridiculousness in this thought process is self evident. Essentially, Carter attempted to make Obama’s refusal to prove eligibility look like it was the will of “sixty-nine million of the people”.

The disgrace in this cowardly buck-passing is that Carter illegally dismisses his own authority to enforce Constitutional law by refusing to clarify the legitimacy of a federal office holder. In doing so, Carter has failed to protect the security of the American people. Like Herod in the trial of Jesus, Carter is simply washing his hands of the people’s grievance…then, only afterward, is he actually making the key decision which he knows will defeat their right to have that grievance remedied. His decision, like every other judge’s, to dismiss this case was a miscarriage of justice.

Despite the filing of more than 30 lawsuits by American citizens questioning Obama’s constitutional legitimacy and seeking to determine the facts one way or the other, no challenge has been allowed to go forward by the liberal court system. All have been dismissed or turned away without so much as a review of the charges or a hearing to determine if the evidence presented is verifiable or authentic. The liberal empire, with the help of selectively “blind justice” is allowed to continue its destructive riot deep into America’s conscience. There is nothing more egregious to those who sacrificed their lives for this country than for a judge to arrogantly dismiss the constitution and disregard the basic rights Americans have to petition their government for a redress of their grievances.
Every court that has dismissed a case asking Barack Obama’s to disclose his personal information, is violating not only Article II, but also the 1st Amendment of the constitution. The liberal establishment knows this. It also knows that the reiterative legal process to challenge such rulings simply overwhelms the resources of average Americans. Obama understands that if no grievance is filed, no redress is required. Obama wins by default because the judicial system is taking his side and helping him remain anonymous to the people.

When judges break laws, justice is simply too oppressed to reconcile. Perhaps political corruption permits such atrocity in the liberal ranks of America’s fringes, but the moral compass of middle class America remains true. Honesty and disclosure are rightly held as primary characteristics of a qualified leader. By the lack of evidence demonstrating Obama’s full identity, this is obviously a standard the pandering liberal is unable to meet when consenting to their own deception under the guise of political loyalty. Over the past two years, judges have had ample opportunity to help Americans answer their vital questions about Barack Obama, and they have all failed in their duty to do so.

Obama may not be able to rewrite the Constitution, but he, with the help of our judicial system, is going to try to make America think it means something other than it actually does. Obama announced his candidacy for the U.S. Presidency on February 10, 2007, in Springfield, Illinois. During his announcement, he opined, “The genius of our founders is that they designed a system of government that can be changed...”114

Obama intends to use the legal system to redefine the essence of America and implement the most massive redistribution of wealth in world history. Attributing his ideology to the “genius of our founders”, rather than expressing respect for the strength and sovereignty of America, Obama is making an audacious statement about what he believes is the flexible weakness of the American Constitution. His comment can be accurately attributed to his actual intention to challenge, if not outright circumvent, the laws governing the electoral process in America, not only for himself, but, as we have seen, for those who serve in his administration who have been sympathetic with communism, radicalism, and authoritarianism. The number of radicals and law breakers in the Obama Administration make our current government the most endemically corrupt generation of leadership in American history. Firing Van Jones and Anita Dunn, for their engagement in communist ideologies, is just the tip of a very large, very deep, revelation about the socialist agenda of the Obama administration.

The problem with the Obama mentality, whether it is exhibited by judges, lawyers, politicians, voters or Obama himself, is that it is completely contrary to what the founders actually framed within the language of the U.S. Constitution. In actuality, his radical ideology will only press against justice and promote more stringent, oppressive laws to control judicial decisions in the future.

Of course, the Constitution is very specific in its demands upon a potential candidate’s responsibility to disclose the appropriate information needed to meet the qualifications for the office. It is even more commanding of a candidate to satisfy the “spirit” of service by prompting standards of transparency in self identification. The implication of our founders is that our leaders would be subject to the people and required to provide for the confidence of the people and, most importantly enforce the sovereignty of the United States of America. However, when vindictive circumventors of America’s vintage election rules infiltrate the highest offices of leadership, it falls upon the courage of judicial champions to uphold the spirit, as well as the letter of the law against them. Without these lines of defense for the people, it then becomes incumbent upon the people to defend themselves.


Obama’s covert natal history is not the result of any conspiracy, in the traditional sense. Instead, it is the unintended consequences of the liberal establishment’s financial overinvestment in the cult of one man’s distorted historical relevance, without the due diligence to thoroughly review his candidacy beforehand. Obama’s infringement is the result of a mass derangement on the part of the political left to vindicate their hatred of George W. Bush for the previous 8 years while implementing their rendition of radical reparative economic justice through a vindictive representative. What better way to punish political rivals and ideological opposition than to impose the power of hate through government policy? As a result, Obama was installed by liberals to take freedoms and resources from people liberals hate.

Liberal investment in Obama’s victory was so deep and so motivated through the vengeance of a massive liberal vision of America, it became imperative to find an ordained, like-minded radical, like Obama, in the White House, even if it meant sacrificing morality and truth to accomplish it. Obama’s deficient natal transparency is merely seen as an inconvenience to those motivated by the prospects of the greater liberal agenda. However, it is their failure to see the reverberating consequences of such shortsightedness which will be the downfall of their fragile icons.
Even respected members of America’s media have recklessly dismissed the importance of Obama’s undefined natal legitimacy. They have concealed the truth and diminished its importance by imposing secrecy about Obama’s true identity without fully weighing the actual truth of its content or the consequences of its exposure.

The difficulty is compounded by the fact that the drones of the liberal cabal simply lack the intellectual and moral ability to implement solutions to the problem of Obama’s origins in a straight forward, honest manner. They do not have the skill to mitigate the political damage while achieving a “safe zone” of reconciliation with the American people about the matter. This dissonance is the result of their choice to hastily over-commit the full measure of their resources into an effort to get this man installed as the champion of an epic liberal agenda, while forsaking the basic principles upon which the institutions of American government were originally founded. In their willful lack of forethought, they have betrayed the founding fathers and undermined the integrity of modern America.

Before anyone ever discovered the problem with Obama’s vital information, the liberal establishment had already invested a billion dollars into his exaltation prior to his 2007 announcement date. By the time the truth about Obama’s real identity was realized, the investors were already committed to the 50 year-old radical agenda and Obama’s representation of it. Yet, finding themselves confronted by a terrible truth, they were already beyond the point of no return. There was no way to undo the transactions or withdraw the commitments to liberal interests. There was no way to un-promise the beneficiaries of an Obama presidency. The unions, the community organizations, the people seeking higher office, all had to be compensated, somehow, through the channels of Obama’s executive Presidential power. Allowing Obama’s withdrawal from the 2008 Presidential campaign after January of 2007 was impossible for the survival of the liberal establishment’s royalty and its financial viability to bring neo-liberal change.

The amount of money and human resources given by the liberal establishment to the cause of electing Barack Obama is unprecedented. According to reports filed with the Federal Election Commission, the Obama campaign raised more than $66 million in August, 2008, alone,113 setting a one month campaign fundraising record. Then, Obama raised another $104 million just within a few weeks of the 2008 election to set the overall Presidential campaign record. The Democrat Party’s balance sheet shows the liberal establishment raised nearly $750 million in private donations for Obama’s enthronement, nearly 3 times more than the McCain campaign. To give perspective, in 2004, Bush and Kerry raised a combined total of $504 million between the two parties, during the primaries.111

The amount of money raised through conventional campaign fundraising methods is only part of the liberal “investment” obligating Obama, however. In the months leading up to the 2008 election, Obama spent a quarter of a billion dollars on T.V. campaign ads, shattering the record set by the Bush administration by more than $50 million.112 This unprecedented injection of money into the broadcast networks of NBC, ABC and CBS not only translated into a propaganda-like monopolization of the American mainstream entertainment and media complex, it is the root of the prevailing blind loyalty to Obama’s presidency by media moguls, like George Soros and Warren Buffet, and the massive, world-wide pageantry created around Obama’s mystique. Frighteningly, this liberal pathology translates into billions of future dollars directed toward helping the liberal regime maintain power through the most massive propaganda machine in human history.

Obama’s political legitimacy in America is anchored in these fiduciary relationships rather than in any foremost adherence to the Constitution. His presidency is undeniable proof that if an ideological faction of American society throws enough money at a personality and a political cause, it will use any means necessary to justify the results of appointing its selected representative, regardless of that individual’s eligibility or legitimacy, even forsaking the principles of American exceptionalism.

It is impossible for the liberal establishment to separate such a fawning relationship from the lavishes of such large sums of money given for Obama’s installment. Combined with Hollywood’s slobbering fetish for Obama, it becomes apparent that America’s entertainment and media industry was at financial risk along with the liberal political establishment. So much so that failure to realize Obama’s election would have been fiscally fatal for many of the oligarchy pushing his reign. This is the essence of why Obama’s apparatus was unable to allow his removal, even after discovering comprised integrity in his vital information and natal history. Monetarily, it simply became cheaper and more expedient for Obama to circumvent the Constitution and betray the confidence of the American public by obscuring the facts, concealing the truth and destroying any effort to expose his biography, rather than risk political collapse and electoral failure.

Tragically, therefore, we are left with no choice but to conclude there are two possible reasons why Obama has concealed the details of his natal history. One reason is that there is information contained therein which compromises him politically, but not necessarily legally. Or, there is information in the murky recesses of his origins which compromises his eligibility to serve in American politics by revealing that he does not meet the requirements of American constitutional law to hold his office.

Regardless of which reason applies, there is only one consequence; Fundamental questions remain unanswered and there is no confirmation of any irrefutable evidence verifying the concealed facts about Obama’s true identity. Therefore, because of this vast violation of transparency, there will be an immovable obstacle preventing Obama from ever becoming a legitimate leader of any significance. Until these matters are reconciled, Obama is a little more than a fugitive from his obscure past, rather than a much needed distinguished helmsman leading America toward any better future. By all logical assessment, Barack Obama’s identity has been measured, and it has been found in desperate need of clarification.

Symptomatic of the overbearing pressure to control information about Obama, in August, 2009, the administration began to crack under the criticism of their leftist policies. Two months later, Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel declared Fox News an enemy of Obama’s agenda. This tactic of demonizing a news organization was last seen during the Nixon administration. And, we all remember how that turned out for the President. Fox News remains the only real media network refusing to frame its news reporting with bias in favor of Obama. This “declaration of war” on a media resource revealed an abysmal weakness on the part of Obama’s information managers. It exposed their thin skin and demonstrated a lack of appreciation for the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It also revealed their lack of confidence in the righteousness of their agenda.

The American people may not have intimate knowledge about Obama’s deception but they know, through Obama’s character and behavior, that he is hiding something about himself. He exhibits a multitude of symptoms of an individual fearing exposure. He is anxious, pressed, elusive, defensive and unnecessarily verbose in response to simple, intimate matters which affect him personally. Yet, he is absent and unresponsive in more universal matters of great importance which pose great threat to others. This tends to indicate a preoccupation with interpersonal, rather than external, issues.

Obama is ravenous to blame others for what he perceives are their failures in previous administrations, yet he is morally incapable of accepting responsibility for his own deficiencies. He is comfortable in apologizing for what he believes are mistakes of those who came before him, having the luxury of criticizing them for their difficult choices rather than risking his own reputation for a better result, yet he is completely void of any cognizance about his own ineffectiveness. Only cowards judge history without first being accountable for the future they cause.

Most disturbing, however, Obama preaches the virtue of transparency and the abstract rule of law, as he evangelized so eloquently during a televised speech13, while avoiding the standards of both when they apply specifically to his behavior, mainly the disclosure of information qualifying him for leadership. Historically, this has been shown to be a dangerous characteristic in an appointed leader.

Obama believes our government, and our nation should be different. But, he also seems to believe, as demonstrated by his elusive behavior, that this difference should manifest as a result of circumventing the rules governing it, rather than through transparency and allowing the inclusive process to determine the legitimacy of his qualifications. Obama speaks of the importance of honesty and transparency, yet he acts dishonestly and opaquely.

Whereas, the Constitution is the “birth certificate” of America, we might say the bible is the “birth certificate” of mankind. And, every man and woman under the jurisdiction of each has a birth certificate from the qualified agency of the United States which has been appropriately evaluated, adequately attested and is self-evidentiary in meeting the requirements of those to whom their identity is subject. In every case, the validity of this document is not established by the document holder as has been the case with Obama. It is established by the authority of its creator in concert with the confirmation of witnesses possessing a vested interest and risk in the integrity of that individual. A birth certificate is only valid if the intended purpose of the record is fulfilled. It is only valid if it is recognized by those who honor it as an accurate testament of the bearer’s natal identity. To date, the documents provided by Obama were specifically designed to conceal his identity, not reveal it.


Martin Luther King was one of the greatest men in American history. His dream was that America would someday recognize the value of character over the derision of demography. In August, 1963, he said:

“In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline…” 134

He continued:

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

The search for truth has never been more important than in the case of the biography of Barack Hussein Obama because it goes to the roots of the generational struggle for equality by blacks in America. Dr. King understood that any attempt to achieve artificial equality through acts of malfeasance would only cast a darker shadow on the spirit of America and undermine the value of suffering by those who struggled before.

If Martin Luther King were alive today, he would tell Obama to be transparent about his biographical identity. He would tell Obama to uphold the honor of the generational struggle of blacks in America by refusing to allow dishonesty and ambiguity to rule over his righteous cause. King would tell Obama not to allow such a trivial lack of information to diminish the value of his opportunity to create lasting, honored and enforceable values across all demographics in American history. Unfortunately, Obama’s election would have greatly disappointed Dr. King. In King’s commission for his heritage to avoid “wrongful deeds” in seeking justice, Obama has failed.

Never in the history of this nation has any elected official been so ambiguous or so evasive about the facts of their biological identity while pandering for such favorable consideration for his racial identity. Never has any president been so unwilling, so completely dismissive of an undeniably basic inquiry about the substance of their character by the American public while wanting to be respected by that public for his heritage. Never have the vetting authorities been so passively deficient in fulfilling the letter of informative transparency while defending their fraudulent opacity. Never has such an adept orator been so inept at the basic skill of communication while failing to act responsibly as the primary authority of his own vital information. Never has personal information about any elected official been so manipulated and so blatantly scripted with such a massively endemic effect as the circumstances surrounding the natal origins, and subsequent identity of this ghostly stranger. But, more importantly, never has an American president suffered from such justifiable excoriation of his character over such a fundamental question of integrity.

Apart from Obama, however, Martin Luther King would also admonish us for putting too much importance in a single document as the definitive depths of a man. However, he would also say that we should focus on the substance of character of the person who would deny open access the vital information that single document represents. Martin Luther King would say, “If you are someone seeking a grand endorsement of the importance of a piece of paper, exclusively, don’t waste your time.”

Dr. King understood, after such dishonesty from the American government over the years, there is no document available, authentic or counterfeit, which would reconcile the truth anyway. The damage is done.

We can be confident that Martin Luther King understood the decisions made by our leaders have direct influence on our daily lives and a profound impact on our psychology. As a means to justify his campaign for change, Obama may enjoy blaming Bush for the challenges he ‘inherited’. However, the fact remains that once conditions deteriorate beyond what the American majority is able to accept as the previous administration’s fault, Obama will be left holding a very big, and dirty, bag of garbage that he will be blamed for creating. The tide had already begun to turn within the first 9 months of his first term when his approval index sank to the lowest of any president in that time frame in history.

By August of 2009, the radicalism of Obama was violating America’s psychological boundaries of acceptability and grace. His “economic justice” policies drove our annual national deficit from $30,000 per household to $80,000, and this was before the passage of any healthcare reform bill.132 Aversion toward Bush is no excuse for making things monumentally worse. Just because the previous tenant left a pile of garbage on the lawn, it does not give Obama permission to throw it into his neighbor’s yard along with an even bigger pile of his own…then raise taxes for hauling it away.

When we discuss the issue of citizenship in America, it is important to research the immigration laws and understand the reasons for the constitutional prescription of such a mandate. The sovereign identity of our nation is tethered synchronically to the literal character of those in our leadership. This was an important component of Dr. King’s understanding about the foundations of unity.

King’s ideal transcended race and reached the global conscience. As such, aside from the domestic importance, the message of Obama’s natal sovereignty, demonstrated through the identity of our President to the rest of the world, impacts international opinion about our security and our responsible command over the potentially destructive power we possess. This message is vitally important for the confidence and security of our own citizens as well. It is imperative that America have an effective process in establishing, verifying and attributing the accurate identity of any person filling our most powerful leadership position.

The records which are available about Barack Obama’s natal history are inadequate for determining the truth about his origins. However, more importantly, any final conclusion about his legitimacy to be President resides in the information contained in existing records that are currently unavailable. The documents on file with the state of Hawaii present information which compel the employees of that municipality to confirm that Obama was born in the state of Hawaii, however, it is a certainty that none of them were present at his birth, nor are any of them qualified to define his birth by the requirements of the federal guidelines governing the determination of a witnessed ‘live’ birth in the United States of America.

Any credible argument supporting the fullest possible disclosure about Obama’s natal history will present detailed knowledge about the purpose of different forms of available documentation, at a minimum. Specifically, an understanding of the history of Hawaiian immigration, and the documentation thereof, is also important in understanding how Obama was able to take advantage of some unique circumstances.

The appetite of Obama supporters to invent him as the secret champion of liberal advocacy only paints him as a shadow boxer in a league of 43 previous “prize fighters”. This stems from the willful denial of their own available and equal accessibility to America’s true blessings, weighed against their desperate inability to abandon politically correct absurdity.

There was no greater demonstration of this degeneracy than when, during a July 16, 2009 hearing of the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee, in a heated debate over the Obama administration’s environmental policy’s impact on jobs, Committee Chair, Barbara Boxer (D-CA) actually told the President of the Black Chamber of Commerce, Harry Alford, a vintage American, that the environmental policies of her party were justified because other black leaders supported them. Boxer’s insidious accusation was that Alford should support Obama’s environmental policy simply because he too was a black man. This rightly offended Alford who was attending the committee to discuss the issues of energy and job loss, not race based politics. Boxer was obviously invoking Alford’s race in order to promote her desolate political point of view.131 Boxer also exposed herself as a racist.

Liberals, like Boxer, have infected the psychology of America with race-based ideology, not for the promotion of better social values, but for the advancement of their guilt-driven liberal doctrine. Like Boxer’s blatant condescension of Alford, if we allow liberals to promote Obama’s dishonest racial ambiguity, through the terms of ‘first black’ anything, it allows them to package their deception about his grandeur in a message that diametrically opposes the ‘evil white dominion’ of America’s essential history, while condescending our nation’s melanic cultures. This façade contradictorily derides the image of America’s white founders who were inconveniently different, demographically speaking, than the liberal preference for a synthetic society whose laws, opportunities and rights are based on skin color.

The ridiculousness in the liberal’s regard for Obama is that they want to promote him as the ‘first black’ champion of all things progressive, yet they refuse to show any documented vital statistical evidence that he actually is eligible to be “black”…let alone eligible to be President. The most absurd fact of this entire charade, however, is that his Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’ refuses to disclose his racial identification whereas the standard ‘Certificate of Live Birth’ would resolve this vital question about his natal identity. Liberals discount Obama’s obligation to disclose his personal information by stating that his ambiguously documented identity does not affect the fact that he is the elected President.
However, liberals will not face the undeniable truth that a fraudulent election does not have authority over the rules of the U.S. Constitution, nor does a slobbering love affair with the celebrity they seek to exalt. The hard lesson for liberals to accept is that Obama’s failure to be transparent does affect his ability to be an effective president and it may, in fact, lead to a complete diminishment of his Presidency sometime in the future. There is no time limit for his disqualification to have future consequences on the decisions he makes today. Hypocrisy eventually consumes the whole of a man, not just the parts that are kept secret. Obama’s illegitimacy will result in a Constitutional and legal crisis of unprecedented proportions. In this light, he is no better than the despots of history who deceive their way into a position in order to abuse the power it provides.

In general, politicians simply lack the moral fortitude to take a decisive position on the issue of Obama’s natal information. At this point, very few in America have the fortitude or monetary resources to legally challenge Obama’s ambiguous claim to American political legitmacy. However, it is always possible to challenge his authenticity as a leader. He has shown himself to be a vulnerable, oversensitive target of criticism. His natal illegitimacy has metastasized into political illegitimacy.

On August 28, 1963, set against the sky line from Memorial Park, as a warm eastern wind began to wipe the tears of America’s racial inequality away, Dr. King was frighteningly sincere in his glorification of the subject matter we was speaking about. King’s credibility was embraced because his message confirmed his behavior and his behavior confirmed his identity. King created a situation which allowed vintage America to accept both the grace of an effective figurehead with the doctrines of the U.S. Constitution.

Comparatively, 45 years later, on the night of November 4, 2008, set against the city sky line from Grant Park, as the cold Chicago wind began to freeze Oprah’s tear-ridden cheeks, Obama was frighteningly sincere in his glorification of subject matter he was lying about. Obama’s credibility is strained because his message does not confirm his behavior, and his behavior does not confirm his identity. He is creating a situation which forces vintage Americans to choose between an unsubstantiated figurehead and the U.S. Constitution.

After the lack of evidence about Obama’s identity is considered and we hold him to King’s standard,“…judging him not by the color of skin, but by the content of his character”, it is difficult to deny the embodiment of King’s warning in Obama.

Unfortunately, America is left to conclude that, in the process of “seeking his rightful place”, Obama may indeed be “guilty of the wrongful deeds” King advised against. The entire affair is a tragic undermining of the cause for racial equality and a hindrance to the redemption of America’s sons.

Ask the essential questions….

Why are commonly available documents, universally known to virtually all Americans, which account the alleged “natural-born” natal history of Barack Obama, being withheld from the public when these very documents, by the testament of Obama’s own handlers and apologists, would otherwise exonerate his claim to American political legitimacy while simultaneously defeating his opposition?

According to the U.S. Department of Health, National Vital Statistics Office, the “Certificate of Live Birth”, containing 55 entry boxes provided for information about the occurrence of birth, is the official document used to document natural born children in the U.S. This document is only declared valid with the signature of an attending licensed professional qualified to determine to the characteristics of a “live birth”, and a registered professional licensed to record vital events. Where is this document for the birth of Barack Obama?

What malevolent information could possibly be contained within the secret documented history of Barack Obama that it would prompt such vigorous contentiousness through legal counteraction, social ridicule and mass propaganda meant to prevent it from even being reasonably discussed, let alone, actually revealed?

1 comment:

  1. Pen:

    I very much enjoy your Daily Pen and your work as well as that of Dan Crosby.

    I have done a paper using the pretext (not the reality, of course) that if Barky's Apr. 27 WHBC were real, what does it really show?

    I conclude in the paper that it clearly shows him not born at Kapiolani nor any other hosipital in HI NOR in fact within the US.

    If you could send me your email address, I'd like to attach a Word document copy for any comment you might (or might not) have. My email address is:

    If you'd also ask Dan to forward me his email address, I'd be glad to send him a copy also. One question - why do you spell the title as "... Mombosan ..."?

    Keep up the great work!