Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Question: Could steps Team Obama has taken – such as the closure of Guantanamo Bay, the release of some hardened terrorists held there to Yemen (where Abdulmuttalab claims he got his plastic explosive device), granting others access to civilian courts and constitutional rights, etc. – actually be emboldening them to believe that murder and mayhem will accelerate the defeat and conquest of the infidel West?

This article and/or blog post reveals the eye-opening answer to this question-You Decide:

Jihad 101: Posted On Act! For America-Center for Security Policy-By Frank Gaffney, Jr.-On December 29, 2009:

http://www.actforamerica.org/index.php/learn/recent-news/10-newsmaster/1759-jihad-101

These are pertinent excerpts from this article:

“Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano came in for some well-deserved criticism for declaring over the weekend that “the system worked” with respect to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s effort to blow up the plane he was flying from Amsterdam to Detroit. By Monday, she was backpedalling, acknowledging that “our system did not work in this instance.”

In truth, for a lot of Americans, Ms. Napolitano has not had much credibility since she tried to ban “terrorism” from the official lexicon of her department. But arguably the most serious indication that she is wholly ill-equipped to carry out her present responsibilities can be found in another – as yet uncorrected – statement she made on Sunday. She told CNN’s “State of the Union” that, “Right now, we have no indication [that Abdulmutallab’s actions were] part of anything larger.”

Not “part of anything larger”? Is she serious? Does she take us for fools?

Read my lips, Secretary Napolitano: Abdulmutallab’s actions were absolutely, positively part of something larger. What they were part of is the comprehensive theo-political-legal program that authoritative Islam calls Shariah.

This supremacist program requires its adherents to engage in jihad, or holy war, to bring about the triumph of Islam under a global theocracy, one that will impose Shariah on Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Pursuant to Shariah, jihad should – wherever practicable – be pursued through the terrifying use of violence. Where violent jihad is impractical or would be counterproductive, Shariah directs faithful Muslims to use other means to advance the same goal. Koran expert Robert Spencer calls the latter “stealth jihad.”

The question must be asked: Are we seeing a dramatic increase in violent jihadism in America - National Public Radio reported on Saturday that there had been fourteen attempts in 2009 (compared to two or three in recent years) and that they had been increasingly “operational” in character, not just “aspirational” – because violence is now seen to be practicable here?

Specifically, could it be that jihadists have been emboldened by what they see as weakness and/or fecklessness on the part of the U.S. administration? Could steps Team Obama has taken – such as the closure of Guantanamo Bay, the release of some hardened terrorists held there to Yemen (where Abdulmuttalab claims he got his plastic explosive device), granting others access to civilian courts and constitutional rights, etc. – actually be emboldening them to believe that murder and mayhem will accelerate the defeat and conquest of the infidel West?

The U.S. government was warned by Abdulmutallab’s father at least two months ago that his son had been “radicalized” – in other words, that he had embraced Shariah. That being the case, he was transformed from being one of the hundreds of millions of Muslims around the world who are not a problem into one of those who are.

In the wake of the latest, narrowly averted massacre at the hands of jihadists, we are being promised executive branch reviews of the practice that, in the wake of his father’s warning, put Abdulmuttalab on the improbably named Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment (TIDE) database – but did not revoke his multiple entry U.S. visa or otherwise keep him from flying. Multiple congressional investigations will be launched, as well.

Such reviews will, however, amount to little more than a waste of time and taxpayer resources – and possibly a serious distraction – if they do not address, and henceforth require screening for, the motivation for such attacks. It is absurd to think that “the system” is going to do anything other than exponentially increase the amount of discomfort for airline passengers as long as it does not weed out those who embrace as an article of faith their duty to destroy us.

We need to be equally clear about the menace posed by those who adhere to Shariah but profess to seek to “Islamicize” America through non-violent means. In the wake of the recent actual and averted attacks, the press has, for example, trumpeted the views of parents of five jihadists from Northern Virginia, imams at mosques where they worshipped and prominent fixtures in the various Muslim Brotherhood front organizations. Unsurprisingly, all of them profess shock – shock! – that these young people would want to do as they have been taught to, pursuant to Shariah: namely, follow the way of jihad against the Dar al-Harb (the “House of War” that is the non-Muslim world).

Nowhere in these disinformation operations is any mention made of the Muslim Brotherhood’s self-declared mission in America. According to an internal Brotherhood strategic plan dating from 1991, that mission is: “A kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

As long as Janet Napolitano, Attorney General Eric Holder, the intelligence community, law enforcement, the military, the media and most especially President Obama refuse to acknowledge what animates our enemies, we will never develop an effective strategy for defeating them, let alone successfully implement it. Part and parcel of achieving such an understanding is to stop allowing the stealth jihadists in our midst to blind us to this reality.

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. is President of the Center for Security Policy, a columnist for the Washington Times and host of the nationally syndicated program, “Secure Freedom Radio.”

Note: The following articles, books and/or blog posts overwhelmingly support this article-You Decide:

Barack Obama Gets an ‘F’ For Protecting Americans:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyharnden/100020934/barack-obama-gets-an-f-for-protecting-americans/

CIA: We Didn’t Fail to Stop Airline Bomber:

http://newsmax.com/InsideCover/cia-airline-attack-obama/2009/12/30/id/345029?s=al&promo_code=9478-1

Obama: U.S. Knew of Nigerian Terror Threat But Did Not Act:

http://newsmax.com/Headline/Obama-Yemen-plane-bomber/2009/12/30/id/344985?s=al&promo_code=9469-1

Morning Bell: Does Obama Realize We Are at War Yet?

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/12/30/morning-bell-does-obama-realize-we-are-at-war-yet/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell

Nigerian Islamic scholars pass the buck: “Al-Qaeda,” you say? No “Al-Qaeda” here!-Posted On Jihad Watch-By Robert-On December 30, 2009:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/12/nigerian-islamic-scholars-pass-the-buck-al-qaeda-you-say-hmm-no-al-qaeda-here.html

Andy Martin-U. S. Senate Candidate Charges That Barack Obama is the Greatest Threat to National Security:

http://andyforussenator.blogspot.com/2009/12/u-s-senate-candidate-charges-that.html

Muslim Strategies to Convert Western Christians: Posted On Middle East Quarterly
Spring 2009-By Uriya Shavit and Frederic Wiesenbach:

http://www.meforum.org/2104/muslim-strategies-to-convert-western-christians

Fayetteville Observer Climbs into Bed with CAIR-Posted On Islamist Watch Blog-By David J. Rusin-On March 16, 2009:

http://www.islamist-watch.org/blog/2009/03/emfayetteville-observer-em-climbs-into-bed-with-cair

CBS Publishes Piece Criticizing “Homegrown Jihad” and End Up Embarassing Themselves-Posted On Jihad Watch-By Robert-On February 15, 2009:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/02/cbs-publishes-piece-criticizing-homegrown-jihad-and-end-up-embarassing-themselves.html

Resisting Stealth Jihad: Posted On Middle East Forum-A briefing By Robert Spencer- On January 14, 2009:

http://www.meforum.org/2052/resisting-stealth-jihad

Stealth Jihad-By Robert Spencer:

http://www.regnery.com/books/stealthjihad.html

Note: These articles, books and/or blog posts overwhelmingly support my recent blog posts-You Decide:

Radical Movement’s Leader Forecasts America’s Demise!

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2009/12/11/radical-movements-leader-forecasts-americas-demise/

Obama and Holder’s Hidden Agenda!

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2009/11/14/obama-and-holders-hidden-agenda/

Ongoing Concerns With This President and His Administration!

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2009/09/26/ongoing-concerns-with-this-president-and-his-administration-92609/

Have Americans Stopped Having Confidence In Their Government-Why?

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2009/08/24/have-americans-stopped-having-confidence-in-their-government/

NYC Police: Terror Suspects Wanted To Commit jihad!

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2009/05/21/nyc-police-terror-suspects-wanted-to-commit-jihad/

“Food For Thought”

“God Bless & Keep Our USA Safe”

Semper Fi!

Question: Was there any question in your mind that this last election was riddled with ACORN voter fraud and that there was a connection between ACORN and President Obama?

This recent article reveals how President Obama and his administration continue to be in bed with ACORN-You Decide:

Justice Department Says Acorn Can Be Paid for Pre-Ban Contracts: Posted On: New York Times-By CHARLIE SAVAGE:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/28/us/politics/28acorn.html?_r=1&nl=us&emc=politicsemailema1

These are pertinent excerpts from this article:

“WASHINGTON — The Justice Department has concluded that the Obama administration can lawfully pay the community group Acorn for services provided under contracts signed before Congress banned the government from providing money to the group.

The department’s conclusion, laid out in a recently disclosed five-page memorandum from David Barron, the acting assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Counsel, adds a new wrinkle to a sharp political debate over the antipoverty group’s activities and recent efforts to distance the government from it.

Since 1994, Acorn, which stands for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, has received about $53 million in federal aid, much of it grants from the Department of Housing and Urban Development for providing various services related to affordable housing.

But the group has become a prime target for conservative critics, and on Oct. 1, President Obama signed into law a spending bill that included a provision that said no taxpayer money — including money authorized by previous legislation — could be “provided to” the group or its affiliates.

A Housing and Urban Development Department lawyer asked the Justice Department whether the new law meant that pre-existing contracts with Acorn should be broken. And in a memorandum signed Oct. 23 and posted online this week, Mr. Barron said the government should continue to make payments to Acorn as required by such contracts.

The new law “should not be read as directing or authorizing HUD to breach a pre-existing binding contractual obligation to make payments to Acorn or its affiliates, subsidiaries or allied organizations where doing so would give rise to contractual liability,” Mr. Barron wrote.

The deputy director of national operations for Acorn, Brian Kettenring, praised Mr. Barron’s decision.

“We are pleased that commitments will be honored relative to Acorn’s work to help keep America’s working families facing foreclosure in their homes,” Mr. Kettenring said.

Mr. Barron said he had based his conclusion on the statute’s phrase “provided to.” This phrase, he said, has no clearly defined meaning in the realm of government spending — unlike words like “obligate” and “expend.”

Citing dictionary and thesaurus entries, he said “provided to” could be interpreted as meaning only instances in which an official was making “discretionary choices” about whether to give the group money, rather than instances in which the transfer of money to Acorn was required to satisfy contractual obligations.

Since there are two possible ways to construe the term “provided to,” Mr. Barron wrote, it makes sense to pick the interpretation that allows the government to avoid breaching contracts.

Moreover, he argued, requiring the government to cancel contracts with a specifically named entity — “including even in cases where performance has already been completed but payment has not been rendered” — would raise constitutional concerns best avoided by interpreting the law differently.

The Constitution prohibits “bills of attainder” — legislation intended to punish specific people or groups. Acorn has filed a lawsuit arguing that the statute banning the government from providing it money amounts to a bill of attainder.

Founded in Arkansas in 1970, Acorn describes itself as the nation’s largest grass-roots community organizing group. It provides financial services to poor and middle-income families, conducts voter registration drives, and advocates for higher minimum wages and more affordable housing.

Conservatives have long complained about Acorn’s voter drives in poor neighborhoods, citing instances in which workers fraudulently registered imaginary voters like Mickey Mouse. Acorn has argued that it is the real victim of such incidents, which its employees have often brought to the attention of the authorities.

Criticism of Acorn escalated in September, when two conservative activists released videos they had recorded using secret cameras of Acorn workers in several cities. The activists had posed as a pimp and a prostitute seeking financial advice. Instead of raising objections, the Acorn employees counseled the couple on how to hide their illicit activities and avoid paying taxes.

Conservatives seized on the videos to criticize the group further, highlighting that the Obama campaign had paid an Acorn affiliate for get-out-the-vote efforts. Congress then enacted the ban on providing money to it.

Acorn has fired several of the employees depicted in the videos.”

Note: This video reveals the connection between President Obama and ACORN-You Decide:

Representative Steve King:  ACORN Tracks Lead To Obama:

http://www.newsmax.com/video/?bcpid=36344180001&bclid=22770166001&bctid=59392940001&s=al&promo_code=9456-1

Note: These articles and/or blog posts support this video-You Decide:

What Makes Obama Run? - Posted On Chicago Reader-On December 8, 1995:

http://www.chicagoreader.com/obama/951208/

Obama’s Community Roots: Posted on April 3, 2007:

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:OKOK2zwPNKwJ:www.thenation.com/doc/20070416/moberg+%22barack+obama%22+and+%22gamaliel+foundation%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=us

More ACORN Fraud Exposed: ACORN Whistleblowers: Posted On NewsMax.Com-On October 13, 2008:

http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/acorn_voter_fraud/2008/10/13/140131.html?s=al&promo_code=6D07-1

Note: This article and blog post relate to this issue-You Decide:

Justice Dept. Moves Panthers Pursuer to S.C.:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/29/justice-transfers-panthers-pursuer-out-of-dc-offic/

Obama Makes First Move to Undermine 2010 Elections:

http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/12/21/obama-makes-first-move-to-undermine-2010-elections/

Note: These articles, video and/or blog posts overwhelmingly support my recent blog posts-You Decide:

First 100 Days-Administration Working Hard To Fix The Problems President Bush Left Behind?

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2009/04/30/first-100-days-administration-working-hard-to-fix-the-problems-president-bush-left-behind/

New York Times Finally Admits It Spiked Obama/ACORN Corruption Story!

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2009/05/18/new-york-times-finally-admits-it-spiked-obamaacorn-corruption-story/

ACORN Charged With Voter Registration Fraud!

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2009/05/04/acorn-charged-with-voter-registration-fraud/

“Food For Thought”

“God Bless & Keep Our USA Safe”

Semper Fi!

Question: What is the latest on President Obama’s eligibility status?

This article brings us up to date on the President’s eligibility status-You Decide:

Closed Chrysler Dealers to Drive Obama’s Eligibility: Seeking damages for lost businesses, will question administration’s ‘authority’- Posted on: December 08, 2009-By Bob Unruh-WorldNetDaily:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=118403

These are pertinent excerpts from this article:

“Two lawyers have joined forces to assemble a case challenging in U.S. bankruptcy court the federal government’s use of Troubled Asset Relief Program funds to bail out Chrysler and in doing so may have created a scenario that finally will bring to a head the issue of Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president.

The attorneys are Leo Donofrio, who has launched cases directly challenging Obama’s eligibility, and Stephen Pidgeon, who also has worked on the issue.

Their new case questions the authority by which the federal government and administration officials intervened in the auto industry, specifically allocating some $8 billion-plus to Chrysler, which later was forgiven.

Pidgeon told WND the plaintiffs in the case are former Chrysler dealers who lost their businesses as part of the “restructuring” of the automobile company. They have been damaged with the loss of their businesses, and the case alleges the Obama administration, through its use of TARP money, influenced Chrysler’s outcome.

Donofrio told WND the core issue is the disbursement of TARP funds to the automaker that were intended to help banks and financial institutions. The previous Treasury secretary had indicated such expenditures were not appropriate, and, in fact, a congressional effort to authorize the expenditures failed, he said.

So, along with a bankruptcy-court challenge, a “quo warranto” case is being filed in Washington, D.C., demanding to know by what authority administration officials set up the financial arrangements with Chrysler and handed out taxpayer money.

As part of the demand for information about the authority used, Donofrio confirmed, there will be questions about Obama’s eligibility to be president. Donofrio contends that since by Obama’s own admission his father never was a U.S. citizen, Obama was born a dual citizen. The framers of the Constitution, he argues, did not consider a dual citizen to be a “natural born citizen” as required for the presidency.

See the movie Obama does not want you to see: Own the DVD that probes this unprecedented presidential eligibility mystery!

The burden, then, would shift to Obama and his administration officials to document their constitutional authority for their decisions and their handling of taxpayer money.

If the president cannot document his eligibility to occupy the Oval Office, his presidential task force had no authority to act at all, the case contends.

Pidgeon told WND the plaintiffs in the case are the former Chrysler dealers, and their interests will be paramount.

The goal is “to get them restored,” he said, and “put them back where they were before their contracts were rejected.”

“Our clients are not in this action as ‘birthers,’” he said, citing a term used for people who question Obama’s constitutional eligibility. “Our clients are here to seek redress for wrongs.”

But the case may open doors that have been closed in other disputes over Obama’s eligibility. Most previous cases, at one point or another, have been dismissed because the plaintiffs do not have “standing” – they have not suffered direct injury for which they have a reasonable expectation of seeking redress.

In the case of the dealers, they have suffered financial loss because of circumstances that developed with the government’s intervention in the auto industry.

According to columnist Devvy Kidd, the case is “complicated.”

She explained a “quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military.”

That means quo warranto applies not just to eligibility but to the “exercise” of authority through public office, she said.

She noted the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals already has described as “interesting and unresolved” some of the questions raised in a related case that did not involve the dealers. In that case, once again, the appellants did not have “standing.”

“The Chrysler dealers have the requisite injury – loss of their franchises – to meet the standing requirements,” she wrote.

The formal paperwork in the filings is expected to be submitted to the courts within days on a motion to reconsider the bankruptcy court’s decisions and the quo warranto pertaining to the authority of Obama and his appointees.

WND previously has reported on many cases brought over the issue of Obama’s eligibility, including one at the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that alleges Congress failed in its constitutional duties by refusing to investigate the eligibility of Obama to be president.

The case is being handled by attorney Mario Apuzzo for lead plaintiff Charles F. Kerchner Jr. and others against Obama, the U.S., Congress, the Senate, the House of Representatives and former Vice President Dick Cheney along with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

The case focuses on the alleged failure of Congress to follow the Constitution. That document, the lawsuit states, “provides that Congress must fully qualify the candidate ‘elected’ by the Electoral College Electors.”

The case asserts “when Obama was born his father was a British subject/citizen and Obama himself was the same.”

The Constitution also provides, the lawsuit says, “If the president-elect shall have failed to qualify, then the vice president elect shall act as president until a president shall have qualified.”

The Obama eligibility cases have cited Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution, which states, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”

Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama’s American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama’s citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

Further, others question his citizenship by virtue of his attendance in Indonesian schools during his childhood and question on what passport did he travel to Pakistan three decades ago.

Adding fuel to the fire is Obama’s persistent refusal to release documents that could provide answers and the appointment – at a cost confirmed to be at least $1.7 million – of myriad lawyers to defend against all requests for his documentation. While his supporters cite an online version of a “Certification of Live Birth” from Hawaii as his birth verification, critics point out such documents actually were issued for children not born in the state.

The ultimate questions remain unaddressed to date: Is Obama a natural born citizen, and, if so, why hasn’t documentation been provided? And, of course, if he is not, what does it mean to the 2008 election or the U.S. Constitution if it is revealed that there has been a violation?

WND also has reported on another case that was dismissed by U.S. District Judge David Carter in California. It also now is heading to the appeals level.

Among documentation not yet available for Obama is his kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and his adoption records.

Because of the dearth of information about Obama’s eligibility, WND founder Joseph Farah has launched a campaign to raise contributions to post billboards asking a simple question: “Where’s the birth certificate?”

As part of the demand for information about the authority used, Donofrio confirmed, there will be questions about Obama’s eligibility to be president. Donofrio contends that since by Obama’s own admission his father never was a U.S. citizen, Obama was born a dual citizen. The framers of the Constitution, he argues, did not consider a dual citizen to be a “natural born citizen” as required for the presidency.

See the movie Obama does not want you to see: Own the DVD that probes this unprecedented presidential eligibility mystery!

The burden, then, would shift to Obama and his administration officials to document their constitutional authority for their decisions and their handling of taxpayer money.

If the president cannot document his eligibility to occupy the Oval Office, his presidential task force had no authority to act at all, the case contends.

Pidgeon told WND the plaintiffs in the case are the former Chrysler dealers, and their interests will be paramount.

The goal is “to get them restored,” he said, and “put them back where they were before their contracts were rejected.”

“Our clients are not in this action as ‘birthers,’” he said, citing a term used for people who question Obama’s constitutional eligibility. “Our clients are here to seek redress for wrongs.”

But the case may open doors that have been closed in other disputes over Obama’s eligibility. Most previous cases, at one point or another, have been dismissed because the plaintiffs do not have “standing” – they have not suffered direct injury for which they have a reasonable expectation of seeking redress.

In the case of the dealers, they have suffered financial loss because of circumstances that developed with the government’s intervention in the auto industry.

According to columnist Devvy Kidd, the case is “complicated.”

She explained a “quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military.”

That means quo warranto applies not just to eligibility but to the “exercise” of authority through public office, she said.

She noted the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals already has described as “interesting and unresolved” some of the questions raised in a related case that did not involve the dealers. In that case, once again, the appellants did not have “standing.”

“The Chrysler dealers have the requisite injury – loss of their franchises – to meet the standing requirements,” she wrote.

The formal paperwork in the filings is expected to be submitted to the courts within days on a motion to reconsider the bankruptcy court’s decisions and the quo warranto pertaining to the authority of Obama and his appointees.

WND previously has reported on many cases brought over the issue of Obama’s eligibility, including one at the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that alleges Congress failed in its constitutional duties by refusing to investigate the eligibility of Obama to be president.

The case is being handled by attorney Mario Apuzzo for lead plaintiff Charles F. Kerchner Jr. and others against Obama, the U.S., Congress, the Senate, the House of Representatives and former Vice President Dick Cheney along with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

The case focuses on the alleged failure of Congress to follow the Constitution. That document, the lawsuit states, “provides that Congress must fully qualify the candidate ‘elected’ by the Electoral College Electors.”

The case asserts “when Obama was born his father was a British subject/citizen and Obama himself was the same.”

The Constitution also provides, the lawsuit says, “If the president-elect shall have failed to qualify, then the vice president elect shall act as president until a president shall have qualified.”

The Obama eligibility cases have cited Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution, which states, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”

Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama’s American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama’s citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

Further, others question his citizenship by virtue of his attendance in Indonesian schools during his childhood and question on what passport did he travel to Pakistan three decades ago.

Adding fuel to the fire is Obama’s persistent refusal to release documents that could provide answers and the appointment – at a cost confirmed to be at least $1.7 million – of myriad lawyers to defend against all requests for his documentation. While his supporters cite an online version of a “Certification of Live Birth” from Hawaii as his birth verification, critics point out such documents actually were issued for children not born in the state.

The ultimate questions remain unaddressed to date: Is Obama a natural born citizen, and, if so, why hasn’t documentation been provided? And, of course, if he is not, what does it mean to the 2008 election or the U.S. Constitution if it is revealed that there has been a violation?

WND also has reported on another case that was dismissed by U.S. District Judge David Carter in California. It also now is heading to the appeals level.

Among documentation not yet available for Obama is his kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and his adoption records.

Because of the dearth of information about Obama’s eligibility, WND founder Joseph Farah has launched a campaign to raise contributions to post billboards asking a simple question: “Where’s the birth certificate?”

The campaign followed a petition that has collected more than 480,000 signatures demanding proof of his eligibility, the availability of yard signs raising the question and the production of permanent, detachable magnetic bumper stickers asking the question.

The “certification of live birth” posted online and widely touted as “Obama’s birth certificate” does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same “short-form” document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii. The true “long-form” birth certificate – which includes information such as the name of the birth hospital and attending physician – is the only document that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not permitted its release for public or press scrutiny.

Oddly, though congressional hearings were held to determine whether Sen. John McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president as a “natural born citizen,” no controlling legal authority ever sought to verify Obama’s claim to a Hawaiian birth.”

Note: These are other articles and/or blog posts that relate to this article-You Decide:

Obama Eligibility Update from Phil@therightsideoflife.com:

http://www.resistnet.com/profiles/blogs/obama-eligibility-update-from

MOTION TO MOVE OBAMA ELIGIBILITY VENUE TO WASHINGTON D.C.:

http://noiri.blogspot.com/2009/12/motion-to-move-obama-eligibility-venue.html

JAMIE FREEZE CALLS ANYONE QUESTIONING SOETORO/OBAMA’S CITIZENSHIP STATUS “INCOMPETENT IDIOTS”:

http://obamacrimes.com/?p=340

Obama’s Signature On Healthcare Creates “Standing” To Challenge His Eligibility:

http://www.arguewitheveryone.com/general-political-discussion/93948-obamas-signature-healthcare-creates-standing-challenge-his-eligibility.html

New Ad – Obama is an Unconstitutional Illegal Putative President – 21 & 14 Dec 2009 Issues of Washington Times National Weekly Edition:

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/12/new-ad-obama-is-unconstitutional.html

Note: These articles and/or blog posts overwhelmingly support my blog post-You Decide:

Extensive Research Into Senator Obama’s Background Completed on November 10, 2008:

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2009/04/26/extensive-research-into-senator-obama’s-background-completed-on-november-10-2008/

Note: It seems self-evident that only anti-Americans and traitors won’t believe this or accept it as reality.  When will the masses once again return to the basics of our USA Constitution and what the founders based their beliefs that formed this masterpiece-You Decide:

One Nation Under God – Jon McNaughton:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VUo8OuFaiI

“Food For Thought”

“God Bless & Keep Our USA Safe”

Semper Fi!

Question: How far would this administration go to ensure that they have all democrats on-board on their Healthcare Bill?

These video interviews between Beck and Mike Goldfarb reveal  that the White House continues to use Alinky’s Rules, to include extortion, to get their way-You Decide:

Beck Interviews Mike Goldfarb Over Nelson Extortion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaZiaXBf5AI

Michael Goldfarb Talks About His Ben Nelson Rumor With Glenn Beck:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfjLQJkI1rM&NR=1

Note: These videos overwhelmingly support my recent blog post-You Decide:

Do Alinsky’s Rules Define This Administration’s Governing Style?

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2009/05/18/do-alinsky’s-rules-define-this-administration’s-governing-style-2/

Note: This recent article/blog post relates to this issue-You Decide:

Baldwin: Obama Created the Risky Bank Loans as Attorney:

http://capoliticalnews.com/blog_post/show/3817

“Food For Thought”

“God Bless & Save Our USA”

Semper Fi!


Question: What do we know about Barney Frank’s newly introduced Financial Services Bill that would allow the complete take over of our financial services sector by the federal government, at a time when government already controls approximately 30% of our private industry and appoints a member of ACORN to the financial services oversight committee?

This web site contains an eye-opening Breitbart TV News video interview with Representative Bachmann, who meticulously describes how the bill, if passed, will literally allow the tyrannical takeover of our financial services sector by the federal government.  This should be a call to action by all God and Country loving Americans -You Decide:

http://www.breitbart.tv/bachmann-on-the-b-cast-a-conservative-call-to-action/

Note: This interview relates to these recent articles and/or videos-You Decide:

The Secret Plan to Pass a Global Tax:

http://www.usasurvival.org/ck12.14.09.html

Bernanke Part of Bigger Problem:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6Q8m83z6wY

New York Times: U.S. Racing Toward Debt ‘Shock’:

http://moneynews.newsmax.com/headlines/nyt_us_debt_shock/2009/11/23/289782.html?s=al&promo_code=91C9-1

“Food For Thought”

“God Bless & Keep Our USA Safe”

Semper Fi!


Question: Could it be true that the President’s new Rules of Engagement (ROE) are getting Marines and Soldiers killed?

This recent article reveals that the President’s new Rules of Engagement (ROE) are getting Marines and Soldiers killed in Afghanistan-You Decide:

Rules of engagement killing U.S. soldiers: “You won’t believe new rules of engagement in Afghanistan”:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=118941

These are pertinent excerpts from this article:

“ASHINGTON – New military rules of engagement ostensibly to protect Afghan civilians are putting the lives of U.S. forces in jeopardy, claim Army and Marine sources, as the Taliban learns the game plan based the rules’ imposed limits.

The rules of engagement, or ROEs, apply to all coalition forces of the United States and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Their enactment is in response to Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s complaints over mounting civilian deaths apparently occurring in firefights.

Get the complete report on the new rules of engagement with a subscription to Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin.

Despite the fact that the newly arrived U.S. commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, imposed the more restrictive ROEs to minimize the killing of innocent civilians, however, the Taliban is well aware of them and has its own forces acting in ways to counteract them.

The impact of new restrictions has created increasing frustration and concern among U.S. Army and Marine Corps troops who now are compelled to follow these rules despite the danger of letting the Taliban live to fight again another day.

Critics see the new ROEs being more oriented toward defensive rather than offensive operations, as evidenced by recent charges of murder against two U.S. Army snipers because they had targeted a Taliban commander who reportedly wasn’t holding a weapon.

The actual ROEs are said to be classified U.S. and NATO secrets, but based on individual soldier accounts, those restrictions include the following:

  • No night or surprise searches
  • Villagers are to be warned prior to searches
  • Afghan National Army, or ANA, or Afghan National Police, or ANP, must accompany U.S. units on searches
  • U.S. soldiers may not fire at insurgents unless they are preparing to fire first
  • U.S. forces cannot engage insurgents if civilians are present
  • Only women can search women
  • Troops can fire on insurgents if they catch them placing an IED but not if insurgents walk away from where the explosives are.

Often, rules of engagement require varying levels of approvals before action can be taken. In one case, villagers had tipped off U.S. forces of the presence of a Taliban commander who was threatening village elders.

To get permission to go after him, U.S. troops had to get 11 separate Afghan, U.S. and international forces’ approval to the plan. The approval, however, did not come until well into the next day. By then, the Taliban commander had moved on, to the consternation of the villagers who had provided the tip. Observers have claimed that it can take some 96 hours to acquire all the permissions to act.

Keep in touch with the most important breaking news stories about critical developments around the globe with Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin, the premium, online intelligence news source edited and published by the founder of WND.

In other cases, the use of force against insurgents may be blocked if they lower their guns, only to have those insurgents return later to attack.

Also, ISAF troops cannot engage insurgents if they are leaving an area where an IED has been planted. In one case, insurgents planting an IED had detected the presence of U.S. forces and immediately began leaving the area, tossing evidence of their preparations along the way. U.S. forces could not fire on them.

The ROEs in some cases have gone beyond limiting ISAF troops in their operations. In one case, ROE restrictions were in effect when four U.S. Marines twice pleaded by radio for artillery support in combat action in Kunar Province in Afghanistan – and twice they were refused, before they were killed.

F. Michael Maloof, a frequent G2B contributor, is a former senior security policy analyst in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. He can be contacted here.

“Food For Thought”

“God Bless & Keep Our Troops Safe”

Semper Fi!

Question: How much do we really know about As-Sabiqun, a Washington D.C.-based radical islamist organization that has branches in four other major American cities?

This article reveals that As-Sabiqun recently released a flyer labeling shooter Nidal Malik Hasan as “victimized” and the “target of psychological warfare” and it has openly declared support for terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hizbullah, and even claimed it funded anti-American militants-You Decide:

Radical Movement’s Leader Forecasts America’s Demise:

http://www.investigativeproject.org/1553/radical-movements-leader-forecasts-americas-demise

These are pertinent excerpts from this eye-opening article:

“As the spotlight moves away from the Fort Hood massacre, one of America’s most openly radical Islamist organizations has taken to the murderer’s defense. As-Sabiqun, a Washington D.C.-based organization with branches in four other major American cities, released a flyer labeling shooter Nidal Malik Hasan as “victimized” and the “target of psychological warfare.” The handout also defended convicted terrorists and suspects.

As-Sabiqun has repeatedly predicted the demise of the United States and dreams of “the Islamic State of North America no later than 2050.” It has openly declared support for terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hizbullah, and even claimed it funded anti-American militants. With concerns growing over radical Islamist propaganda in the United States, As-Sabiqun is one of the leading organizations building a bridge between international Islamism and its developing American counterpart.

As-Sabiqun is headquartered in Washington D.C., but has branches in Oakland, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Diego, and Philadelphia. Its leader, Imam Abdul Alim Musa, is well-known in Islamist circles for spreading anti-American propaganda and militancy. Last weekend, Musa addressed the annual conference of the Muslim Students Association – Persian Speaking group, a Shia branch of the national Muslim Students Association primarily for Shia Muslims. There, Musa saluted the Iranian Revolution as the “greatest epic in modern, even ancient history” and urged the students to have patience as the United States collapsed:

“Well I’m telling you, it’s very simple. I think you got the message now. We’re in a big war brothers and sisters. This is as big as it gets for the United States. We are just like it is during the 60s and 70s. So if you’re gonna be Muslim, buckle down and be a tough one because in the final analysis the U.S. is finished.”

Musa was applauded following his conclusion, in which he honored the survival of the Iranian Revolution and its student supporters in the United States:

“Your survival has made you stronger and better and better in management and organization than anybody else, just by your survival. Remember, a revolutionary do [sic] not have to win any war. They only have to survive, even if you lose 90 percent of your people. You have to understand revolutionary warfare. If you lose 90 percent of your wealth and people and you still moving around and mobile, you can come back. That’s the rules of revolutionary warfare – to survive. I’m trying to tell you – the war is already won. [Musa laughs.] They just have to fall over.”

This is not the first time this year that Musa has preached hate and militancy to an American Muslim student organization. In a February 19th speech to the MSA at Berkeley, Musa explained how he funneled money to African jihadists with the intention of conquering the United States:

“So we have seen movements, because although we was in (UI word) in the first stage, and the next stage we were using criminal wealth to help our brothers, you know our brothers in Algeria and in Africa, they had fought the United States government, they was in exile. They knew about a revolution, but they didn’t know nothing about money. Well, since I was a criminal, I knew all about making money. So all the criminal money that I made I would take it to the brothers and say – OK, you guys, buy me some weapons, you’ll go back, we’ll take over the United States. That was the dream that we had. You got to dream big. Ain’t no sense in dreaming small, right? Live your dreams.”

Musa has traveled abroad to support Islamist movements worldwide. The As-Sabiqun website indicates that Musa traveled abroad several times to Iran. During a 1996 conference in South Africa, he stated:

“And this religion Islam will dominate all other religions whether the Americans, whether the British, whether the French, whether the Russians, whether the Japanese, whether all of them get together in one solid group to fight Islam. It don’t make no difference. In the final analysis, Allah (swt) said that his religion—Islam—will rise to the forefront, will be elevated to the role of leadership in this world, whether they all like it or not.”

That same year, Musa called for an Islamic state in London during a conference there that featured a wide assortment of radicals, including representatives of FIS [Islamic Salvation Front], Hizbullah and Hamas.

As-Sabiqun’s website describes how, “During a rally in July 1999, Imam Musa displayed a cashier’s check made out to ‘Hamas, Palestine,’ to protest the 1996 U.S. law which declared Hamas a terrorist organization.” On a February 18 2007 broadcast of Fox News, Musa stated, “I know Hamas. They are nice people. Very nice people.” Musa has repeatedly cheered Hizbullah’s “victory” over Israel and has saluted suicide bombers, saying:

“When they go out and strike at the heart of Zionism. They are not suicide bombers they are heroes they are she-roes, isn’t that right? That’s a part of our deen, that’s a part of our religion, let’s not become weak boned and apologetic…”

Musa has also fueled the flames of international hatred against the United States. In an appearance last month on Iran’s government-controlled Press TV, Musa pitted America against Islam:

“Islamophobia to us right now, coming out of 9-1-1 (9/11), is something that the [American] government and the Israelis did in the U.S. to justify a global attack on Islam … the perception management now by the media, gives the media and gives the military justification to invade our countries, to stop us in airports, to exclude us from society.”

The extremism expressed by As-Sabiqun and Musa might easily be passed off as the bizarre ranting of a radical cleric and his hateful organization. However, as the Fort Hood massacre, the FBI shooting of Luqman Abdullah and other recent investigations show, fiery rhetoric can lead to violent plotting. The lesson of Fort Hood is not to ignore open self-radicalization, but to heed those who openly preach our destruction from within.”

Note: These recent videos support this issue-You Decide:

http://downloads.cbn.com/cbnnewsplayer/cbnPlayer.swf?aid=11991

http://vodpod.com/watch/1556782-muslim-demographics

“Food For Thought”

“God Bless & Keep Our USA Safe”

Semper Fi!

Question: Could it be true that U.S. debt is rising so fast that the federal government is careening toward a “payment shock” in the not-too-distant future?

This article/blog post reveals that the U.S. debt is rising so fast that the federal government is careening toward a “payment shock” in the not-too-distant future-You Decide:

New York Times: U.S. Racing Toward Debt ‘Shock’:

http://moneynews.newsmax.com/headlines/nyt_us_debt_shock/2009/11/23/289782.html?s=al&promo_code=91C9-1

These are the pertinent excerpts from this article/blog post:

“A page one, top-of-the-fold New York Times report Monday warns that U.S. debt is rising so fast that the federal government is careening toward a “payment shock” in the not-too-distant future.

The Times lead headline read: “Federal Government Faces Balloon in Debt Payments: At $700 Billion a Year, Cost Will Top Budgets for 2 Wars, Education, Energy.”

The Times headline appears eerie just as the Senate moves to push forward on a radical healthcare reform — with CBO estimates for a final bill costing nearly $1 trillion dollars over the next year.

The national debt now stands at over $12 trillion and the White House estimates that the cost of servicing the debt will rise to more than $700 billion a year in 2019, up from $202 billion this year. The Times suggests that $700 billion annual payment cost may be conservative.

The additional $500 billion a year in interest payments would surpass the combined budgets this year for education, energy, homeland security, plus the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Times observes.

Treasury officials face not only huge new debts incurred in response to the economic meltdown but a balloon of short-term borrowings coming due in the months ahead, and interest rates that are certain to return to normal levels when the Federal Reserve concludes that the fiscal emergency has passed.

“Even as Treasury officials are racing to lock in today’s low rates by exchanging short-term borrowings for long-term bonds, the government faces a payment shock similar to those that sent legions of overstretched homeowners into default on their mortgages,” The Times reported on Monday.

Interestingly, the alarming Times analysis comes as the nation is in the midst of a debate over healthcare reform proposals that could add many billions of dollars to the overall debt.

Record deficits have arrived just as payments for Medicare and Social Security benefits are set to explode, with the oldest Baby Boomers approaching age 65. This will result in what experts have long warned will be a “fiscal nightmare” for the government, the Times article notes.

“What a good country or a good squirrel should be doing is stashing away nuts for the winter,” William H. Gross, managing director of the Pimco, a bond management firm, told The Times.

“The United States is not only not saving nuts, it’s eating the ones left over from the last winter.”

As for the balloon of short-term borrowings coming due, that debt now accounts for 36 percent of overall debt, compared to the historic average of less than 25 percent, and more than $1.6 trillion is due by March 31.

Another problem: The Federal Reserve’s purchases of Treasury bonds and mortgage-backed securities to prop up the economy pushed down long-term interest rates by about half of a percentage point, but the Fed is set to reverse those policies — that alone could add $40 billion to the government’s annual debt service expense.

The Treasury Borrowing Advisory Committee, a group of market experts that advises the Treasury on debt management, declared this month: “Inflation, higher interest rate and rollover risk should be the primary concerns. Clever debt management strategy can’t completely substitute for prudent fiscal policy.”

And The Times warns: “There is little doubt that the United States’ long-term budget crisis is becoming too big to postpone.”

Note: This article/blog post supports my recent blog post-You Decide:

Ongoing Concerns With This President and His Administration!

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2009/09/26/ongoing-concerns-with-this-president-and-his-administration-92609/

“Food For Thought”

“God Bless & Keep Our USA Safe”

Semper Fi!

 

 

 

 

Question: Could it be true that religious leaders are calling for civil disobedience?

This article reveals that a formidable coalition of 150 Catholic, Orthodox and evangelical leaders are calling on Christians in a new manifesto to reject secular authority – and even engage in civil disobedience – if laws force them to accept abortion, same-sex marriage and other ideas that betray their religious beliefs-You Decide:

Religious Leaders Call for Civil Disobedience if Laws Don’t Respect Faith-On November 21, 2009:

http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/wuerl_colson_christian/2009/11/21/289471.html

These are pertinent excerpts from this article:

“A formidable coalition of 150 Catholic, Orthodox and evangelical leaders are calling on Christians in a new manifesto to reject secular authority – and even engage in civil disobedience – if laws force them to accept abortion, same-sex marriage and other ideas that betray their religious beliefs.

On Friday, these leaders released a 4,700-word document – called the “The Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience.”

The document was signed by leaders ranging from evangelical leader Chuck Colson to two of the leading Catholic prelates in the U.S., Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington, D.C. and Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York, and calls on Christians to engage in civil disobedience to defend their doctrines.

The document also blasts the Obama administration, saying that social ills have grown since the election of President Obama, an abortion rights advocate, along with an erosion of what it calls “marriage culture” with the rise of divorce, greater acceptance of infidelity and the uncoupling of marriage from childbearing.

Colson says the project is aimed at instilling social conservative beliefs in a new generation of believers.

“We argue that there is a hierarchy of issues,” he told The New York Times. “A lot of younger evangelicals say they’re all alike. We’re hoping to educate them that these are the three most important issues” – abortion marriage and religious liberty.

“We are Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christians who have united at this hour to reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good, and to call upon our fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to join us in defending them,” says the declaration, which was drafted by Colson, an evangelical, and Princeton University professor Robert P. George, a Roman Catholic.

The declaration lists the “fundamental truths” as the “sanctity of human life, the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife, and the rights of conscience and religious liberty.”

“Throughout the centuries, Christianity has taught that civil disobedience is not only permitted, but sometimes required,” says the document which cited civil rights icon Martin Luther King and his willingness to go to jail for his beliefs.

“Because we honor justice and the common good,” it states, “we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide or euthanasia or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family.”

George and other signers backed off from specifically defining what civil disobedience may entail. Wuerl’s office played down the civil disobedience wording, saying he wasn’t urging Catholics to “do anything specific,” his spokeswoman Susan Gibbs told The Washington Post. “That wasn’t something we had talked about.”

“We certainly hope it doesn’t come to that,” said George, who told The Washington Times that he has represented a West Virginia resident who has refused to pay a portion of her state income tax that funds abortions. “However, we see case after case of challenges to religious liberty,” such as compelling pharmacists to carry abortifacient drugs or health care workers to assist in abortions, he added.

“When the limits of conscience are reached and you cannot comply, it’s better to suffer a wrong than to do it,” he said.

Unveiling the declaration Friday, Archbishop Wuerl appeared at a news conference in the District of Columbia even as the Church was considering a city-proposed compromise on its same-sex marriage measure.

He and other Church officials say the bill would require faith-based groups like Catholic Charities to extend benefits to married same-sex partners, thus forcing Christians to abandon their religious liberty. On Friday, Catholic Charities of Boston halted adoption services rather than comply with state law and allow children to be adopted by homosexual couples.

Other signatories to the document include Cardinal Justin Rigali, outgoing chairman of the U.S. Catholic bishops’ Committee for Pro-Life Activities; Pentecostal leader Harry Jackson, pastor of a Beltsville church; evangelical activist Tony Perkins; and National Association of Evangelicals President Leith Anderson.

Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, told Newsweek the point of the Declaration is really to avoid mistakes of the past, such as when religious leaders did not stand up early enough against no-fault divorce, which he says led directly to the breakup of families and high divorce rates.

“I’m a former police officer, and I have hard time with civil disobedience, but if it comes to the point where our religious liberty is at risk, I’d not only participate but would encourage people to resist.”

The leaders are urging the public to sign the online document.

Read the full document here:

Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience:

http://www.demossnews.com/manhattandeclaration/press_kit/manhattan_declaration_signers

“Food For Thought”

“God Bless & Keep Our USA Safe”

Semper Fi!

Question: What is the connection between President Obama and Communism in Hawaii?

The following report and video reveal Barack Obama’s contacts and associations with anti-American political figures-You Decide:

Communism in Hawaii and the Obama Connection:

http://www.usasurvival.org/docs/hawaii-obama.pdf

The following is the “Introduction” to the report by Cliff Kincaid:

“Introduction:

Of Barack Obama’s contacts and associations with anti-American political figures, none is more controversial than Frank Marshall Davis, a writer and poet identified as a member of the Communist Party USA by several sources, including some sources sympathetic to him.  Obama and Davis met in Hawaii, at a time when a young Obama was in need of a black role model and a mentor.

Obama’s relationship with Davis, including subsequent associations with radical, communist and socialist figures in Chicago, should be investigated for the benefit of promoting the public interest and the public’s right to know.  America’s Survival, Inc. believes that any public figure with links to foreign and hostile interests should be asked to explain those associations.

In the case of Obama, a new figure on the national scene, the facts suggest that he could have serious difficulty getting a security clearance in the U.S. Government.  An FBI background check was once used to examine one’s character, loyalty to the United States and associations.

The evidence shows that Obama’s friends chose him.  But he chose his friends carefully as well.

Obama’s controversial former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, has strident anti-American views, links to such figures as Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam, and has traveled to Cuba.  But Frank Marshall Davis is a far more controversial figure because he was a member of the Soviet-controlled Communist Party USA (CPUSA).  He was in Hawaii at the acknowledged suggestion of two other secret CPUSA members, actor Paul Robeson and labor leader Harry Bridges.  Davis had been a writer for a CPUSA-controlled newspaper, the Honolulu Record.

All of the evidence summarized by veteran investigator and researcher Herbert Romerstein in the special report that follows, suggests that Davis was a key member of a Moscow-sponsored international communist network.

First, a word about Herbert Romerstein.  He retired from the United States government after 25 years of service, including Investigator for the House Committee on Un-American Activities, Minority Chief Investigator for the House Committee on Internal Security, Professional Member for the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and head of the Office of Counter Soviet Disinformation for the United States Information Agency.

Romerstein examines Davis’s time in Hawaii.  Davis had come to Hawaii from Chicago, where Obama would eventually end up.  It was in Chicago that Davis had been in contact with Robeson and Bridges and had edited another newspaper, the Chicago Star.

In other words, communist networks were in existence in the same two places that would provide the backdrop for Obama’s upbringing and political career.  It could very well be the case that one network was connected in some way with the other.  But more investigation needs to be done in this regard.

Significantly, the basic facts of the Obama-Davis relationship were originally disclosed by Professor Gerald Home, a contributing editor of the Communist Party journal Political Affairs, who talked about Obama coming under the influence of Davis during a speech at the reception of the Communist Party USA archives at the Tamiment Library at New York University.  The remarks were posted online under the headline, “Rethinking the History and Future of the Communist Party.”

Home, a history professor at the University of Houston, noted that Davis, who had moved to Honolulu from Kansas in 1948 “at the suggestion of his good friend Paul Robeson,” came into contact with Obama and his family.  As Home describes it, Davis “befriended” a “Euro-American family” that had “migrated to Hawaii from Kansas and a young woman from this family eventually had a child with a young student from Kenya East Africa who goes by the name of Barack Obama, who retracing the steps of Davis eventually decamped to Chicago.”

From Hawaii, Obama would first go to Occidental College in Los Angeles, then to Columbia University and Harvard Law School, and finally Chicago, where he would start his political career.  Occidental College might have been well-known to Davis because in 1948 it offered to host another balck poet. Langston Hughes, who was to speak on a poem of his entitled, “Goodbye Christ.”   It declared:

“Goodbye,

Christ Jesus Lord Jehovah,

Beat it on away from here now.

Make way for a new guy with no religion at all—

A real guy named Marx Communist Lenin Peasant Stalin worker ME….”

The California Legislature’s Fourth Report of the Senate Fact-finding Committee on Un-American Activities, dated 1948 and covering “Communist Front Organizations,” described Hughes as someone “said to rate Paul Robeson” as a notorious black communist.  It called the “Goodbye Christ” poem blasphemous.  However, conservative opposition forced Occidental to cancel the event.  Hughes later broke with the communists.

It could be said that Obama didn’t choose to be associated with Davis.  He was young and Davis was much older.  On the other hand, Romerstein closes his report with a quotation from Obama’s own book, Dreams From My Father, in which he talks about how he chose his own associates and friends, and that they were among the most radical.  These decisions may have reflected Davis’s influence over him.

It was at Occidental College that Obama says he came into contact with the “more politically active black students,” foreign students, the Chicanos, the “Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets.”  He chose these people to associate with, Obama says, because he wanted to avoid being perceived as a “sell-out.”  At night, he said, “we discussed neocolonialism.”

The Marxist influence continued when he went to Columbia University.  The intense political discussions he had at Occidental, he wrote, “came to take on the flavor of the socialist conferences I sometimes attended at Cooper Union or African cultural fairs that took place in Harlem and Brooklyn during the summers…”

But it all started with Davis.  Romerstein describes Davis as a key member of a communist network sponsored by Moscow in Hawaii that included Robeson and Bridges.  He describes this network and its objectives in detail.  The influence of this network was the subject of hearings by official government bodies because it was perceived to be a major threat to U.S. national security.  Some of these hearings concerned “The Scope of Soviet Activity in the United States.”

Romerstein also explains that, after the CPUSA collapsed, Davis continued in Hawaii promoting communist propaganda and influencing people like a young Barack Obama.  That si why it is so important to get to the bottom of what kind of relationship they had.

Curiously, Obama himself tried to obscure the identity of “Frank” in his book, Dreams From My Father, by concealing his middle and last names.  Still, he acknowledges (page 22) that he came to respect “Frank” and other black men he knew “for struggles they went through, recognizing then as my own…”  Obama wrote about “a poet named Frank,” who visited them in Hawaii, read poetry, and was full of “hard-earned knowledge” and advice.  Obama also wrote about “Frank” having “some modest notoriety once” and being “a contemporary of Richard Wright and Langston Hughes during his years in Chicago..” Obama said that “Frank” was “pushing eighty” and giving him advice before he left for Occidental College in 1979 at the age of 18.  Obama refers to “Frank” and his old Black Power dashiki self.”

Interestingly, Obama displays some awareness of Davis and his significance.  But as Romerstein notes, Davis called Wright’s decision to expose the CPUSA after leaving the party an “act of treason.”  Davis said Wright had “aided only the racists who were constantly seeking any means to destroy cooperation between Reds and blacks” and had “damaged our battle.”

Was Obama aware of Wright’s break with the CPUSA and Davis’s decision to stay with it?  What knowledge, in fact, does Obama have of Communist efforts to exploit blacks?

The continuing influence of Davis’s communist views over Obama could help explain why, when he went to college, he selected Marxist professors among his friends and admittedly attended socialist conferences.  It could also help explain why, when he arrived in Chicago to pursue a political career, he came into contact with individuals associated with socialist and communist activities, such as Bill Ayers and Quentin Young.  (These connections are explained at length in the second report in this series, Communism in Chicago and the Obama Connection: http://www.usasurvival.org/docs/chicago-obama.pdf)  Links between the Hawaii and Chicago networks should be actively investigated.

Home is not the only significant figure to talk about influence of “Frank” on Obama.  Dr. Kathryn Takara of the University of Hawaii, who knew and interviewed Davis and wrote a disscertation on his life and career, confirmed to me that the “Frank” is in fact, Frank Marshall Davis.

Takara confirmed that Davis was a significant influence over Obama during the three or four years that he attended the Punahou prep school.  These would have been the years 1975-1979.  She said Obama had been introduced to Davis by his grandfather, Stanley Dunham, who considered Davis a “strong black male figure” and thought he exerted a “positive” influence over the young man in his high-school years.  “His grandfather was one of Frank’s closest friends,” she said.  “They played chess or cards together.”

Takara, an Obama supporter, thinks the influence of Davis was positive as well and considered Davis a “loving man” who “did not have a hateful bone in his body.”  She said Davis was a black role model for Obama and gave him a sense of democracy, equal opportunity and justice.  She said Davis gave him “a sense of believing that change can happen “living in a diverse world.”

Asked why she thought Obama didn’t identify Davis in his book by his full name, she replied, “Maybe he didn’t want people delving into it.”  She said that this could have had something to do with Davis’s lifestyle, rather than his politics.  “Frank’s was a place where you could have drinks,” she said.  Yet, Obama has been open about some things—such as his past drug use.  It is difficult to understand why he would not name “Frank” as Frank Marshall Davis simply because “Frank” drank or hosted people who did.

Regarding his political views, Takara said of Davis that, “He studied democracy.  He knew democracy.  He knew the value of democracy.  And yet he was a critic.”  She added that Davis “had a sense of who he was” and a “sense of self-esteem.”

The record shows, of course, that Davis was so much of a critic of the U.S. that he joined the CPUSA, which was a wholly owned subsidiary of the old Soviet Union.  Takara disputes this, saying she didn’t think his CPUSA membership had been proven.  But a congressional committee identified him as a party member (See Exhibits 1A and 2A) and John Edgar Tidwell, a professor at the University of Kansas and expert on Davis’s writings and career, has confirmed that Davis joined the Communist Party but publicly tried to deny his communist affiliations.

“Sometime during the middle of the war, he (Davis) joined the Communist Party,” Tidwell writes in his book about Davis’s poems.  Tidwell says that Davis “felt betrayed” when Soviet dictator Stalin signed the 1939 nonaggression pact with Nazi Germany, which triggered World War II, but that Stalin’s eventual decision to join the U.S. and its allies in a war on the Axis powers “restored a measure of Davis’s confidence in the USSR.”

Similarly, The New Red Negro, by James Edward Smethurst, says that while Davis had said he was disturbed by the Hitler-Stalin pact, he did not break his alliance with the CPUSA over it.

Max Friedman, a longtime writer and researcher on internal security affaris, discovered that Davis testified in 1956 before the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee (SISS) and took the Fifth Amendment on the Communist Party membership.  (See Exhibit 3A).

William Rusher, who served as associate counsel to the SISS in 1956-1957, has written that “it is hard for most people to imagine the influence that even a relatively small number of dedicated people can have, but CPUSA exerted significant power in its heyday—a heyday, be it remembered, in which the Soviet Union impressed many people as the wave of the future, destined to overwhelm a weak and fading West, including the United States.

Most telling, as noted by Romerstein, is the eyewitness account of how “Comrade Davis” came into a meeting of the NAACP and tried to maneuver it into support of “the Stalinist line.” (See Exhibit 4A).

This pro-Communist view was the mindset of Frank Marshall Davis, who spent many hours advising and reading poetry to a young Barack Obama.

Takara admits that Davis was accused of being a communist and that the FBI investigated him but she tried to insist that any black activist at this time faced such a charge.  “Any group that was progressive was considered communist,” she said.  “So I have never found yet that Frank was actually a communist.  He certainly associated with people that were communists.  But he certainly associated with people that were not communists.”

In fact, however, as Romerstein documents, responsible black and progressive groups viewed the communists, and Davis in particular, as agitators who hurt and damaged the cause of legitimate black rights.

Takara insists that Davis “loved America.”  But the tone of his poem, Smash on, victory-eating Red Army,” could give people the opposite impression.  It goes beyond hoping for the communists to beat the Nazis in World War II and hails the Soviet revolution:

“Show the marveling multitudes

Americans, British, all your allied brothers

How strong you are

How great your are

How your young tree of new unity

Planted twenty-five years ago

Bears today the golden fruit of victory!”

Takara commented, “That’s not untypical of that time.  Remember many black intellectuals in the 40s went to Russia.  He didn’t go to Russia.  But many of them went to Russia.  All of them were very disillusioned after the war about their treatment – to go and fight fascism abroad and come back and get lynched and not be able to vote.”  In reference to another poem, “Christ is a Dixie Nigger,” Takara said that she believed that Davis was an atheist or agnostic who came to appreciate religion only later in his life when he was approaching death (he died in 1987).  Religion she said, was a major reason why most blacks did not go into CPUSA, which was officially atheistic.

The poem dismisses Christ as “another New White Hope” and declares:

“Remember this, you wise guys

Your tales about Jesus of Nazareth are no-go with me

I’ve got a dozen Christs in Dixie all bloody and black…”

One Davis poem, “onward Christian Soldiers,” mocks the Christian hymn by the same name.  It talks of Africans being killed with a “Christian gun” instead of a spear by the missionaries following “the religion of Sweet Jesus.”  Another Davis poem refers to Christians “who buy righteousness like groceries.”

“I would say that Davis was more atheistic or agnostioc and I think that that follows kind of the tradition of some of the black intellectuals of that period who really didn’t understand if there was a God, how he could be so unjust,” Takara explained.

Obama writes in Dreams From My Father that he saw “Frank” only a few days before he left Hawaii for college, and that Davis seemed just as radical as ever.  Davis called college “An advanced degree in compromise” and warned Obama not to forget his “people” and not to “start believing what they tell you about equal opportunity and the American way and all that shit.”

Asked to interpret this advice, Takara said that Davis was trying to tell Obama that while college does teach people to assimilate into the society, “institutional racism is still around.”  She explained, “You can learn a lot but you can lose a lot.  I think Frank was giving him some practical advice.  Frank was reminding Obama not to forget his people and who are his people?  Mixed race.  For me, that’s the exciting thing about Obama.  He has a sense of black people and black people’s problems but he has also a sense of the white (people).  He has a sense of other minority groups.”

Obama was the child of a white mother and black father.  Davis, who was black, had married a white woman in Chicago.

Alluding to the absence of his father from his life, Obama has said, “I was raised in a setting with my grandparents who grew up in small town Kansas where, you know, the dinner table would have been very familiar to anybody here in Indiana – a lot of pot roast and potatoes and Jell-O molds.

On January 29, 2008, Obama had been in El Dorado, Kansas, where his grandfather attended high school.  Governor Kathleen Sebelius declared that Obama had inherited the “Midwestern values” imported to Kansas voters.  “He got them from his grandparents and his mother,” Sebelius said in a speech that gave him her endorsement.  “He will lead with those values.”  But those are not the values held by Frank Marshall Davis.  And Obama has not spoken publicly about the influence of his childhood mentor.  The public deserves the truth.”

Note: The following is a video discussion between Cliff Kincaid, President of America’s Survival and Trevor Loudon, an investigative blogger  from New Zealand:

http://www.usasurvival.org/loudon.video.html

This video contains a one-hour discussion between Cliff Kincaid and New Zealand investigative blogger Trevor Loudon, who broke communist influence scandals involving Barack Obama and his inner circle. Trevor talks with Mr. Kincaid about the following topics:

  • Obama’s communist mentor Frank Marshall Davis.
  • Ousted White House “green jobs” czar Van Jones.
  • The role of White House adviser Valerie Jarrett in hiring Jones.
  • How Obama, Jones and White House director of political affairs Patrick Gaspard, a former official of the Service Employees International Union, came to the White House out of the same communist networks.
  • The role of the George Soros-funded Center for American Progress as a “shadow government” in supplying Marxist radicals to the Obama Administration.
  • The failure of the Obama Justice Department to prosecute the Weather Underground terrorists who murdered San Francisco Police Sergeant Brian V. McDonnell.
  • The Justice Department decision to promote the “medical marijuana” scam, and the role of dangerous mind-altering drugs in controlling people.
  • The role of a communist, Harry Hay, in founding the modern “gay rights” movement.
  • The Obama appointment of Harry Hay supporter, Kevin Jennings, to a high post in the federal Department of Education.

Note: These recent articles and/or blog posts support this report/video-You Decide:

Homeland Security Launches Investigation of Dr. Manning:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2TvtLMLOic&feature=player_embedded

MARXISM COMES TO AMERICA:

http://www.newswithviews.com/Walter/paul101.htm

NO JOY IN MUDVILLE (U.S.A.):

http://www.newswithviews.com/Schwiesow/jim158.htm

THE REPUBLIC IS DEAD; WE ARE READY TO FIGHT, NOW WHAT?

http://www.newswithviews.com/Evensen/greg145.htm

Note: This report overwhelmingly supports my other blog posts relating to this issue-You Decide:

Revolutionary Communist Party!

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2009/05/07/revolutionary-communist-party/

The Audacity of Socialism:

http://WeroInNM.blogtownhall.com/2009/02/06/the_audacity_of_socialism.thtml

The Russian View of What Has Been Happening In America!

http://weroinnm.wordpress.com/2009/05/23/the-russian-view-of-what-has-been-happening-in-america/

“Food For Thought”

“God Bless & Keep Our USA Safe”

Semper Fi!

Older Posts »