Three websites will give you the basics on the forensic details of the document. Check them out
here, here and here. The evidence is so overwhelming that the Birth Certificate is a fake, it is as if he is toying with us. Obama seems to be daring anyone to verify the document and apply it to a Constitutional standard. It’s like, “Yeah, it’s fake. What are you going to do about it?” His intent is obviously to stir up infighting between his opponents and throw them off track.

Assuming the Birth Certificate was real, another issue regarding his constitutionality to be president that is often overlooked is the definition of a natural born citizen. Until 2008, the common understanding of a natural born citizen was that all persons born within the U.S., of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, were natural born citizens. Obama’s father (being Kenyan and in 1961 being a subject of the British Crown) would by this definition exclude Obama as a natural born citizen. He would be classified a naturalized citizen.

If this case ever came in front of the Supreme Court, however, it is likely the court would disregard all previous definitions and rule that Obama is a natural born citizen. They would likely disregard any evidence of a fake Birth Certificate as well. Obama was sworn in as president two years ago, and they would not have the nerve to remove him from office after all this time.

More details about his Birth Certificate will surely come out over time. There are many things about his past, school records, a Connecticut Social Security Number, and passport records (to name a few) that are unexplained or hidden from public view. Most of his life before 2004 has been covered up. In time, probably after he leaves office, it will all come out. It always does.

There is no political advantage for Republicans to pursue the false Birth Certificate. That should have been done in 2008. To do so now, in fact, would be a disservice to their efforts to defeat him politically. Obama is just a figurehead for the Progressive movement, and the GOP will need to defeat him on the issues or their calls for a return to conservatism won’t really matter anyway. If Obama’s opponents try to impeach him or litigate this issue in court, Obama knows it will go nowhere. History and the court of public opinion will be the ultimate judge of President Barack Obama.

We know that the biggest threat to our way of life today is our growing debt. Yet progressives in government and in the media disrespect us. They label us extremists and racists when all we are calling for is a responsible government that controls its spending.

Federal spending is up 108 percent from what it was 10 years ago. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the deficit this fiscal year will be nearly $1.6 trillion, the largest in peacetime history. The government borrows 40 cents of every dollar they spend. As the deficit reaches 10 percent of our annual GDP, the debt is now equal to it.

By the submission of his budget, President Obama tacitly admits that he is not serious about addressing the problem. His budget will more than double the deficit in the next few years. And within five years, the debt will grow to $21 trillion. By then, interest payments on our debt will be nearly half of federal tax receipts, and inflation will run wild. This is a mathematical certainty unless great change comes to Washington very soon.

And with the stimulus money soon running out, the bailouts of state and local governments will end. Across the country, they have already started cutting police, firefighters, emergency medical, and teachers. The protests in Wisconsin are just the beginning. In Illinois, tens of thousands of people had been waiting for their checks for months until state officials finally punted by raising taxes and borrowing more money. Dozens of other states have similar horror stories.

We cannot believe half of what our government tells us, and nobody in the media even bothers to cover it. A decade ago, we were running surpluses. What few people knew was that Social Security withholdings gave the federal government its artificial surplus. But now, with our aging population, Social Security is already operating in the red and requires tax general revenue to meet its commitments. And then they tell us unemployment is 9.4 percent when the true number of people seeking work is closer to 20 percent. You see, it is all in how they define unemployment.

But their misleading statements are catching up with them. While the government reported inflation to be only 1.5 percent for 2010, the U.S. already has inflationary problems with food, energy, clothing, and other necessities. The CRB food index was up 36 percent over the past year, and raw materials were up 23 percent. The government can also define inflation in a non-threatening way, but it is already causing anxiety around the world and riots in the Middle East. It is sure to be higher in 2011 and beyond. Much higher.

With the dollar as the world’s Reserve Currency, the U.S. is the only country that pays for its imports in its own currency. As a result, our government can just print more money to pay for anything. So now we are seeing China, Japan, OPEC countries, and others are moving to end usage of the dollar in their transactions for oil, moving instead to a basket of currencies. The dollar could lose its Reserve Currency status. When that happens, the price of gasoline and other imports here will skyrocket, inflation will soar, and the economy will tank. Just imagine what happens when China quits buying up our debt.

Saying that we are losing our prosperity is an understatement. We are at the edge of an abyss, and it is mostly a problem of our own making. The time to reduce spending is now. We must press lawmakers for every budgetary cut from wherever it can be found. Last week, they passed a bill to cut $61 billion. These cuts are only a beginning. There will need to be many more.

Unfortunately, we cannot fully reverse the tide of red ink without gaining control of the Senate and the White House in 2012. Assuming that happens, lawmakers will then be able to do what is necessary to balance the budget, including reform of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Of course, ObamaCare must be repealed. The Department of Education, Department of Energy, and even the Department of Commerce should all be severely cut back — or better yet — eliminated. We need lower corporate tax rates. We need a roll back in regulations. And we need a Balanced Budget Amendment.

The seriousness of this crisis, however, will not stop the Left from demagoging every cut in every way possible. We must be able to refute their exaggerations.

It is too easy for Washington to return to its old ways. Our task is to elect a governing body of conservatives to go against what is normal in Washington. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker is a good example of an elected leader who has stood up well against the onslaught. We need many more like him in 2012.

There is no way to exaggerate the importance of the debt crisis. Now is the time for all constitutionally minded Americans to get busy, to plug into the tea party and other grass roots activist groups, and to carry the budget reform message forward. And we cannot let up. This is a crusade, and it will go on for years. The debit crisis is a defining issue of our generation.

Are we willing to do what it takes America to remain an exceptional nation? We do not have much time to answer that question. We must hold our elected officials accountable, and press them relentlessly for budget reform. We literally cannot afford to lose this battle.

Beijing has established, over the years, an integrated economy with surrounding Asian nations equal in size to that of the United States. They have the technological and financial advantages of a modern economy, and with their huge population, the cost advantages of a developing one.

But China has problems too. Part of their insecurity stems from a dependence on foreign sources for raw materials. China imports about half its oil, for example, and the vast majority of that comes from tankers that pass through the strategic chokepoint at Strait of Malacca near Singapore. And to reach Africa or the Persian Gulf, they must cross a vast Indian Ocean heavily patrolled by the U.S. and Indian warships.

And then there is the one-child policy adopted in the 1970s. The policy has resulted in an inherently unstable demographic of 125 men for every 100 women of childbearing age. Moreover, China is aging faster than almost any country on Earth. By 2030, about the time China’s economy is projected to surpass the U.S., their population will begin to decline.

A massive wealth disparity also exists between China’s coastal populations and its poorer interior regions. With the vast majority of China’s population living in the eastern-third of the country near the coast, the other two-thirds of the country is relatively unpopulated.

About 17 million people annually migrate from the country to the cities. Beijing is hoping to limit that flow by taxing and shifting resources away from wealthier coastal regions and giving it to the interior regions without meeting great resistance from either.

When economic growth inevitably slows, however, conflicts will arise and competing factions could emerge with some calling for a strong central government that imposes a heavy-handed order, and others calling for a more free decentralized government. How this struggle will play out is uncertain. In the end, China may remain formally united, but its power could be distributed among its regions much as it was before Mao.

China’s immediate problem, however, is inflation. A succession of wage increases has occurred this past year for factory workers. That, along with a rise in commodity prices, could bring a spiraling inflation where higher wages and prices feed off each other. The threat of inflation is forcing their central bank to begin cooling the economy. Beijing is already contemplating price controls for some consumer staples, and particularly for food items. The Wall Street Journal recently reported that China’s “consumer price index’s spike to 4.4% on-year in October was mostly due to a 10.1% on-year rise in food prices.”

By keeping the yuan artificially weak against other currencies, Beijing may have allowed its economy to overheat, and has contributed to trade imbalances and global recession. The fading value of the euro has compounded the problem. In preventing the yuan from fully appreciating, China has accumulated $2.6 trillion in foreign-currency reserves, mostly in dollar-denominated assets.

Although Beijing has recently decided to allow the yuan to strengthen, it has much further to go to reach fair value with the dollar. Ending trade and monetary imbalances, and the global recession, is unlikely unless the yuan is allowed to rise freely. Allowing the yuan to rise, however, would slow China’s economy still further. Such a policy would be mostly for the benefit of other nations, and is therefore very improbable.

History suggests that China will continue to act in its own best interest by maintaining trade advantages. This, in turn, allows them to keep their people employed, and to grow their economy and their military. They have little for error. With 1.3 billion mouths to feed, and food prices rising, no one knows when some chance incident might trigger another Tiananmen Square type bloodletting, a Chinese selloff in the U.S. Bond market, or a showdown over Taiwan.

We cannot assume Chinese and American interests are the same. For policy makers in Washington, China’s ravenous appetite for raw materials and our growing indebtedness to them are worrisome. We must be open to the possibility that our current approach is not working, and is strengthening a regime that represses its people and threatens other nations.

In a world of sovereign debt defaults, currency devaluations and quantitative easing, China’s goal is to protect its economy. In doing so, however, they could be destabilizing the world economy, and causing an aggressive competition for resources. We too will feel the economic effects of their actions. It is inescapable.

The United States must undoubtedly begin the difficult process of reducing its budget and foreign trade deficits. So far, few in Washington have shown a genuine will to address these issues. That must change. With China’s inherent instability, a wise and measured policy approach by Washington will be required for the good of both nations. No easy answers exist for either country.

Every great moment in this country, when real progress is made, there was a spiritual awakening. The Restoring Honor Rally in Washington D.C. on August 28 may be the one of those moments. The rally’s organizer is radio and television personality Glenn Beck. Beck says that our country’s troubles cannot be solved by the same methods that got us into this mess. Like an old time revivalist, he says “We must call upon God, and He will see us through.”

The message is resonating. As many as a million people could attend the rally. Beck and his audience generally agree that this is a country of divine providence, a country of American exceptionalism, and that God has a special purpose for this land. And like the Founders, we too can call upon divine providence to overcome our nation’s troubles.

The Founders were all people of great faith who saw America as a new promised land. The popular myth is that they were not religious is not true. They believed in divine providence, and that if they relied upon God, then God would set things right.

The Founders knew that besting the most powerful army in the world in battle did not happen by accident. Nor was it an accident that they came together with like mind to agree to a lasting foundation of governance in the U.S. Constitution.

There have been major periods of revival, or Great Awakenings, in American history. The first occurred in the quest for independence. The Declaration of Independence and other founding documents frequently refer to freedom and divine providence. The Founders saw the two concepts as interrelated. Another Great Awakening began in the early 1800s, and reached its climax with the Civil War and the abolition of slavery.

Visiting America in the 1830s, Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville was surprised by the religious atmosphere and noted that, “Freedom sees religion as the companion of its struggles and triumphs, the cradle of its infancy, and the divine source of its rights.” Tocqueville’s observation was simply that, for America, tyranny may be able to do without faith, but liberty cannot. This point is as timely today as ever.

These days, faith in God as the Provider of all human rights is an alien concept to many of our fellow citizens. Many think their rights come from government. Our Constitution is ignored as something that is quaintly out of date and can be rhetorically contorted to fit any political purpose.

Could it be that only after a calamity of such unspeakable proportions that enough people will adjust their attitude toward faith and the founding principles that a renewal can take place? We may soon find out.

With the economy as bad as it is, imagine what happens when Baby Boomers begin retiring as the Social Security and Medicare systems simultaneously go broke. This looming financial crisis, among many others, threatens the everyday freedoms we take for granted.

Our government spends trillions it does not have. When hyperinflation turns our dollars into Monopoly money, the resulting civil disorder could be unimaginable. Savings accounts will be wiped out, commerce could break down, and within a short time there could be anarchy in the streets. In their shortsightedness, “compassionate” politicians will probably then step in with price controls to “protect the people against greedy businessmen.” The resulting shortages on the store shelves could then reduce the lives of many people into a desperate search for such basic items as food and water.

There are no easy answers to what lies ahead. Life as we know it could be dangling by a thread. People already sense trouble and are starting to pay attention. They are beginning to realize we don’t need a transformed nation, we need a restored nation. And that only happens by a transformation of individual attitudes and beliefs.

Perhaps we should heed the words of 2 Chronicles 7:14: “If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.”

Beck, who is Mormon, is calling people across all religious denominations to participate in an American revival. Like the Founders, we can differ theologically and still agree in the common cause of liberty.

Beck prompts his audience daily: “We must begin by seeking God… The Hand of God will save this country… We must choose today how we are going to live… To be a free people implies we must be a responsible people… We must be involved… We lose freedom by not valuing it as a gift from God… If America perishes, where will the world run? Who stand against tyranny when we are gone? A new dark age will come.”

If the message of American renewal speaks to you, come join us at the steps of the Lincoln Memorial on August 28, and be a part of “Restoring Honor” to our nation.

Dear Florida Friend,

It is critically important that Bill McCollum win the Florida Republican primary for Governor.

Rick Scott’s record of constant and continuing involvement with the worst kind of Medicaid fraud makes it almost impossible for him to win the governorship should he win the primary. And, if the Florida governorship goes to the Democrats, it means a decade of Democratic Congressmen from Florida when the state’s new Congressional lines are drawn in 2011.

Scott has, literally, made $300 million from his company’s golden parachute and is now using this money to pay for his campaign ads trying to induce us to trust him as our Governor. And, ongoing court records indicate that he is at it again in his new company.

I have personally examined these records and can tell you that Scott’s conduct is horrific.

Bill McCollum will be a true Republican governor, unlike Crist, and can win in November. He is a straight out fiscal conservative who won’t raise taxes and who is determined to bring the Arizona anti-immigration law to Florida.

With voting starting now, it is crucial that we all support McCollum!

Thanks for your help.

Dick Morris

Morris nails it. While he was not charged with criminal activity, Scott made his millions by bonuses his company made while defrauding taxpayers. Even if he is elected governor, this scandal will follow him around forever. At the very least, he should have returned the bonus money, but instead he kept it. Where do think the money came from to pay for all those slick television ads? Those ads are all most voters even know about this guy. Shame on us. This is the kind of stuff Democrats are known for. As Republicans, we should have a higher standard than what Scott offers.

Wake up people! Bill McCollum is our guy.

Of course, our inquiring media has not mentioned any of this. Leave it to the UK’s Telegraph to uncover it. According to the Telegraph, Manning has an extensive history of campaigning for gay activism, and sources say he may have even been considering a sex change when he leaked military secrets on the Internet. Moreover, Manning got away with “flaunting” his sexuality when DADT policy was still in effect.

Journalist Cliff Kincaid subsequently reports:

The riveting Telegraph account of Manning’s growing rage and anger raises serious questions of how the soldier was able to flaunt his homosexuality despite the fact that the Pentagon still officially has a policy in place of excluding open homosexuals from military service.

In a clear indication that the law was being ignored by the Obama Administration, the evidence demonstrates that Manning was continuing to serve after openly flaunting his homosexuality, including on Facebook.

The revelations of Manning’s openly pro-homosexual conduct suggest that a more liberal Department of Defense policy, in deference to the wishes of the Commander-in-Chief, had already been in effect and has now backfired in a big way. The result could be not only the loss of the lives of U.S. soldiers, as a result of the enemy understanding U.S. intelligence sources and methods, but damaged relations with Afghanistan and Pakistan and a possible U.S. military defeat in the region as a whole.

PFC Manning’s betrayal confirms that an open homosexual lifestyle is not conducive to military readiness. One also wonders whether there was any officer oversight over this individual, or were they too politically correct to question a gay soldier about his activities on or off duty? By forcing the gay and lesbian agenda on our military, the White House is jeopardizing our national security. With this horrendous treasonous activity as Exhibit A, Congress should maintain DADT as our national armed services policy.

The following was Released from the Family Research Council:

Why One Gay Soldier Compromised America’s Mission

Asked what grade he would give his administration after 18 months in office, the President responded, “Incomplete.” Whether it’s overturning the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) or flooding the military with open homosexuals, this President has a lot more on his social “to do” list than most of us can stomach. For the last several months, his vision of turning the military into a sexual playground was within grasp. I say “was,” because a shocking story of treason may force Congress to rethink the wisdom of revoking the 1993 law against homosexuality in the military.

In May, when U.S. authorities arrested Army Private Bradley Manning for leaking classified information to WikiLeaks.org, there were whispers that he was politically motivated. It turns out that Manning is an extreme homosexual activist, whose fury over the services’ homosexual policy may have led him to publicize highly classified documents about the wars. According to the U.K.’s Telegraph, Manning has an extensive history of campaigning for gay, lesbian, and transgendered causes and sources say he may have even been considering a sex change when he leaked military secrets on the Internet.

Although the U.S. press is relatively mum on his personal life, the British paper questions how Manning got away with “flaunting” his sexuality when DADT is still in effect. “Was Manning given a pass because his ‘lifestyle’ was…acceptable under the Obama administration?” Cliff Kincaid asks. If so, then Manning’s sedition may have given opponents of the repeal all the ammunition they need to kill the idea. Obviously, the Pentagon’s “relaxed enforcement” of DADT is putting the entire United States military is at risk of losing thousands of lives and the war. “The revelations of Manning’s openly pro-homosexual conduct suggest that a more liberal Department of Defense policy, in deference to the wishes of the Commander-in-Chief, had already been in effect and has now backfired in a big way,” Kincaid writes.

Now that the enemy has access to American intelligence, our mission in the Middle East may be irreparably harmed–all because President Obama is less concerned with winning the war than he is with winning the far-Left’s approval. Unfortunately for all of us, Manning’s betrayal painfully confirms what groups like FRC have argued all along: the instability of the homosexual lifestyle is a detriment to military readiness. By foisting this agenda on our soldiers, the White House is not only jeopardizing the future of national security but compromising its present.

Of course, our inquiring media has not mentioned any of this. Leave it to the UK Telegraph to uncover it. In the days of yore, this guy would be shot for treason, but in this day he will probably be defended by a platoon of ACLU lawyers and then be released. Welcome to the obamanation folks.

I want to vote on the man’s record and McCollum has one I can respect. Yes, McCollum has been around a long time but this time it is actually a plus. The illegal immigration and other accusations by Scott against him are groundless. McCollum first caught my eye in 1998 when he had the fortitude to be the lead spokesperson for the House in the Senate impeachment proceedings against Bill Clinton. He may win some and he may lose some, but he still has his honor and as someone going to the 8/28 Restoring Honor Rally, this is important to me. He is a competent leader and after this long time, there are no scandals following him around. Not so with Scott who has never even held office.

I could be wrong, but with Scott I just see another Charlie Crist who will say anything to fit the situation. Scott may be a good and innovative man, but doesn’t have to be our governor. If he is our nominee, then I will vote for him over Alex Sink.

1. Racial strife
2. An overextension of the US military deployed around the world
3. Revolt in the streets
4. Worldwide financial collapse
5. The total control of one of the American political parties

The plan bears a remarkable similarity to the game plan now being employed by the Obama Administration. With Obama’s longstanding relationship with Bill Ayres, this is not surprising. It was Ayres who launched Obama’s political career in Chicago and wrote his book, Dreams from My Father. Why Ayres never went to jail for the Pentagon bombing in 1970, I will never know. More ominously, the plan’s final solution is for a One World communist government. Pretty shocking stuff. At least we now know why Obama is deliberately trying to destroy our country.

Hat tip: Glenn Beck

Barack Obama’s meteoric rise to power has been truly remarkable. He served a mere 143 days in the U.S. Senate prior to forming an exploratory committee for his presidential candidacy in 2007. He has risen from obscurity to celebrity status in a very short time.

With the multitude of mysteries that surround him, it is a wonder why there has not been the interest in investigating his personal history and nefarious connections at, say, a fraction of the interest of what followed John F. Kennedy’s assassination.

The decades of controversy that followed the JFK assassination amounted to nothing more than a misfit named Lee Harvey Oswald acting alone to kill the president. That’s it. There was nothing more to it. No grassy knoll snipers, no mob connection, no Castro connection, no KGB connection, no CIA connection, nothing.

In the end, the investigations into the conspiracies about the JFK assassination were much ado about nothing. The Warren Commission had it right from the beginning. With the multitude of conspiracies pertaining to Obama, however, it is more aptly described as nothing ado about much. Where is Oliver Stone when you need him?

Is Barack Obama some sort of 21st Century Manchurian Candidate writ large? What do we really know about him? Let us start at the beginning.

The Early Years

Barack Obama is alleged to be born in both Hawaii and Kenya. His mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, was a student attending the University of Hawaii when she met Barack Obama, Sr., a foreign student from Kenya, in 1960. Obama’s mother and father were married on February 2, 1961. She would later learn that the father was already married, and they separated in 1963.

Barack Obama claims to be born on August 4, 1961 in Hawaii as a natural born citizen and is therefore eligible to be president. His grandmother, Sarah Obama, says she witnessed his birth in Kenya. Even if this is not true, his father was a British citizen making his son a dual, or “naturalized” citizen. The U.S. Constitution reads that a presidential candidate must be “a natural born,” not just a “naturalized” citizen. The Certificate of Live Birth Obama released appears to have been photoshopped, and nonetheless is not an official birth certificate.

In 1967, Anna married Lolo Soetoro, a Malaysian oilman, and moved from Hawaii to Indonesia. Young Obama was enrolled in preschool in Jakarta under the name “Barry Soetoro” and was registered as a citizen of Indonesia and his religion as Islam. Obama’s stepfather was a Muslim, and Indonesia law requires all children to be citizens (or renounce prior citizenship) to attend school. Obama’s mother Anna left him and he never saw her again after 1979.

From 1970 to 1979, Obama attended a private school in Hawaii. During these years, Obama was mentored by Frank Marshall Davis, his grandfather’s friend. Davis has even been rumored to be Obama’s father. Davis wrote for the Honolulu Record (a Communist newspaper) and was a member of the Communist Party USA.

In 1979, Obama was admitted to Occidental College in Los Angeles, most likely as a foreign exchange student. By this time, he was already moving down the path to becoming a socialist activist. At Occidental, he was a member of the radical socialist organization Students for Economic Democracy until he transferred to Columbia University in 1981.

There are many unanswered questions about the Obama’s early years. Columnist Diana West and attorney John L. Work compiled a list of undisclosed documents on Obama’s background that we, as an open society, have a right to know about the man who currently occupies the White House.

1) The original, long-form 1961 Hawaiian birth certificate.
2) Marriage license between Obama’s father (Barack Sr.) and mother (Stanley Ann Dunham) — not found, not released
3) Obama’s baptism records — sealed
4) Obama’s adoption records — sealed
5) Records of Obama’s and his mother’s repatriation as US citizens on return from Indonesia — not found, not released
6) Name change (Barry Soetero to Barack Hussein Obama) records — not found, not released
7) Noelani Elementary School (Hawaii) — not released
Punahou School financial aid or school records — not released
9) Occidental College financial aid records — not released. (These records were, however, subpoenaed but Obama lawyers succeeded in quashing the subpoena in court. No other Occidental records have been released.)
10) Columbia College records — not released
11) Columbia senior thesis — not released
12) Harvard Law School records (not mentioned below, but not released)
13) Obama’s law client list — sealed
14) Obama’s files from career as an Illinois State Senator — sealed
15) Obama’s record with Illinois State Bar Association — sealed
16) Obama’s medical records — not released
17) Obama’s passport records — not released

And I will add two more . . .

18) Obama’s 1979 Selective Service Registration.
19) Obama’s true Social Security Number. He is alleged to have more than one.

The Road to the Presidency

In 1983, Obama moved to Chicago where he became Director of the Developing Communities Project where he honed his community organizing skills. In the mid-1980s, Obama was the attorney for ACORN and was a trainer at their annual conferences.

Obama first met William Ayres in 1988. Soon afterwards, Obama returns east to attend Harvard Law School. A wealthy Saudi prince is rumored to have funded his tuition. Obama then became the first black president of the Harvard Law Review. For such an ordinary writer, this is amazing too. Other than an unremarkable article published in the Columbia student newspaper, we don’t find anything he has written up to this time, including in the Harvard Law Review.

Obama returned to Chicago to intern at a law firm in 1989 where he met Michelle Robinson. Following graduation, he and Michelle were married in 1992 by Rev. Jeremiah Wright at the Trinity United Church of Christ.

In 1995, Dreams from My Father was published. Jack Cashill has analyzed the writing style of the book and concluded that it is remarkably similar to other books written by William Ayers. Apparently, Ayres made the effort to ghostwrite the book in 1995 because he and his contacts already had Obama on the fast track to run for high office, and through him advance their radical agenda.

And where else would that be possible but in the machine politics of Chicago? Obama and Ayers served alongside each other on a $100 million education foundation called the “Chicago Annenberg Challenge” from 1995 to 2000. When Obama launched his political career in 1995, the setting for his first fundraiser was the Chicago apartment of Ayers. Obama was the winning candidate for the Illinois 13th District in 1996.

In 2004, Obama ran for and won the U.S. Senate seat for Illinois after his GOP opponent was exposed in a sex scandal. On February 10, 2007, the young Senator announced his presidential candidacy. Senator Obama voted the liberal line on 65 of 66 key votes and he was ranked as “the most liberal Senator of 2007” by the National Journal.

Obama lived by the Alinsky rule that said radicals should cut their hair and put on suits so as not to scare off the middle class. This approach served Obama well through the 2008 “Change We Can Believe In” campaign. And during that campaign, he took down the Clinton machine, which in itself was no small feat. A messianic quality soon surrounded Obama as a fawning media gushed over the spectacle of the first black man seriously contending for the presidency.

As a citizen of the world and a candidate for the presidency, Obama gave a landmark speech in Berlin where he promised to not leave “our children a world where the oceans rise and famine spreads and terrible storms devastate our lands.” Even by Obama’s inflated rhetorical standards, this was over the top.

Six weeks before the election, the subprime mortgage crisis forced Lehman Brothers into bankruptcy, and the stock market subsequently lost 25% of its value over the next month. It has never been determined whether Obama’s backers, such as George Soros, were complicit in the market crash in 2008. But it all fits together so nicely by their profiting while short selling the market and panicking the public to the point that they would consider an unknown leftist Senator for the highest office in the land. The crash essentially handed the presidency to Barack Obama.

The Unfolding Truth

Imagine if it were ever proven that Obama is ineligible to be president. A Constitutional crisis would surely erupt. The validity of every law and Executive Order signed while Obama was acting as president could be invalidated.

Every day we witness another assault by Team Obama to alter our country and grow a culture of dependency. From coercing corporations into adopting progressive policies, to politicizing the census, to seeking to make millions of illegal aliens into voting citizens, to establishing an Internet Kill Switch, to abolishing talk radio, to Cap and Trade, to ObamaCare, the list goes on. The implications of these schemes are grave for freedom loving people everywhere. In Obama’s Alinksyite world, the end always justifies the means. It just comes with an alibi and a smile.

Obama’s runaway spending and anti-business policies could be to purposely driving the nation into bankruptcy. The U.S. economy is already staggering under a mountain of debt and unfunded liabilities. Could Obama’s end game be to sabotage the U.S. and world economies in order to collapse them and create the New World Order that progressives have long sought? We may soon find out. There is already talk of a single world currency as the value of the dollar erodes.

In summary, Barack Obama played down his radical past to appear moderate. Everything the man stands for and has ever done, however, is some deception or lie. He promised to transform our nation with a fresh start. In the time since we have known this man, however, it is clear that his only answer to anything is more government control. He will say or pretend anything to advance that goal.

The president and his socialist brethren are intent on undermining our allegiance to the U.S. Constitution. In 2008, the people were duped into voting for a con man for their president. Now, our very way of life is at risk and the time to correct this deception grows short. We need to expose the truth behind the Obama Administration and its backers before it is too late.

RELATED LINKS:
The Obama Timeline, by Don Fredrick.
Beyond Coincidence, By Lynn M. Stuter.

Here is my crazy thought on all this. Obama’s Afghan timeline to exit Afghanistan has got to go to have any chance of success. McChrystal is a smart guy and he knew the war with a timeline was unwinnable. He was unable to convince Obama to change his mind on that, so he staged this Rolling Stone thing to get his attention knowing he would be replaced. McChrystal is a warrior to the core and to him the mission comes first no matter if he has to be the sacrificial lamb. With McChrystal gone, Obama would then be forced to listen to his successor. The fact that Petraeus is now that person makes it nearly impossible for Obama to say no to him when he demands the timeline be dropped. End result, the timeline is removed and we actually have a chance to win that war.

I hear McChrystal will stay in the Army. If this is true, I’ll bet we will be seeing more from him in the future.

In a recent commentary, Sen. Jim DeMint reported:

“Four years ago, legislation to build 700-miles of double-layer border fence along the Southern border was supported by then-Sen. Barack Obama and signed into law by President Bush. Yet, only a fraction of that fencing is in place today.”

“According to staff at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), only 34.3 miles double-layer fencing has been completed along the Southern border.”

“The lack of double-layer fencing can be traced to a 2007 amendment that eliminated the double-fencing requirement and allowed the DHS the option to put other types of less effective fencing in its place. It was lumped into a massive, omnibus-spending bill that President Bush signed into law on December 26, 2007.”

Since President Obama took office, construction on the fence has halted. Apparently the solution then was to use a “virtual fence” by way of drones and sensors. DeMint goes on to say U.S. Customs and Border Patrol Chief Alan Bersin dashed any hopes left for the virtual fence when he called it a “complete failure” during a recent Senate hearing.

Almost everyone supports legal immigration where we gradually assimilate newcomers into the population. No previous group, however, has had such a large inflow or ease of access to their home country as Mexican immigrants have today. That’s because no previous wave of immigrants could walk right into the country. Earlier groups crossed oceans to come here and were assimilated into the culture in measured way.

The income gap between the U.S. and Mexico is the largest between any two neighboring countries in the world. The Mexican economy does not provide living wages for its growing population, and their solution is to export their poor to our country.

Most Americans clearly want the federal government to get tougher on illegal immigration. While politicians pander for cheap labor and cheap votes, we the taxpayers pick up the tab for their emergency room visits, education, and other social services. When we factor in the increased taxpayer expense and the fraying of the social fabric of our nation, cheap labor is not so cheap after all.

Moreover, today’s illegals do not conduct themselves like immigrants of the past. Certainly, many are hard workers. However, they are here against our laws and have little or no interest in learning English or the ways of our culture. Illegals generally come here to find a job, not necessarily to become citizens.

And now, they are protesting our generosity in the streets while Mexican President Felipe Calderon denounces Arizona’s enforcement of federal law to standing ovations in Congress. While Washington plays politics with border security, their inaction is leading to increased drug trafficking, human trafficking, and gang activity in the border states.

These brazen attitudes and behaviors are offensive to Americans, and are why we need the border controlled. This is not about racism. It is about an abuse of our laws and social norms that appalls every ethnic group, especially those waiting in line legally to become citizens.

So far, all efforts to secure the border have failed. Calling up National Guard troops is only a stopgap measure. The Guardsmen will eventually go home. Whatever funding provided this year for border protection may be cut next year, and then we could be right back where we started. We need something tangible. A fence is permanent, and we need to build it.

Other actions need to be taken to control illegal immigration such as a foolproof, biometric identity card to for employment, and stiff penalties against companies who hire undocumented workers. But those actions can wait. The main solution to our illegal immigration problem begins with controlling the border, and controlling the border starts with building a fence. Sen. DeMint’s efforts to finish the fence should be applauded.

Once a fence is in place and we restore order on the border, our ability to handle guest worker programs and related issues becomes possible. Only when the border is truly secure will Americans trust Washington to pass a comprehensive immigration system that works.

We have a proud history of accepting the world’s poor in a system designed to provide gradual assimilation of new citizens into our language and culture. We need to control our border and allow that process to happen properly.

The week of Sept. 15, 2008, was a debacle of huge proportions. On Monday, Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy while other lending institutions lined up like dominoes teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. But the week was hardly over. On Thursday, an electronic run on the banks occurred. In an unprecedented move, the Treasury and the Federal Reserve had to act together to stop what had become a full-fledged panic. On Saturday, Sept. 20, The Wall Street Journal recounted events of that previous Thursday:

“Instead of lining up at bank windows, investors were unloading financial assets on their PCs. Credit markets had seized up, to the point that even routine daily settlements had stopped until banks had the actual securities or cash in hand.”

“Investors were rushing out of these [Treasury and Federal Reserve] funds — $105 billion out of $1.8 trillion on Thursday alone — which in turn caused the funds to redeem their commercial paper investments.”

“Issuers of that paper then had to find new funders, which in a pinch are banks. But jittery banks were refusing to accept paper from even worthy companies amid the panic, creating a larger credit breakdown. In response, Treasury will now insure nonbank money-market fund deposits for the next year, to slow money-fund redemptions.”

For such a large and coordinated exodus of funds to occur in U.S. markets, something more than individual “investors” at their PCs had to be in play. Large and well-managed hedge and mutual funds were undoubtedly behind much of the move.

A few months later on a C-Span interview, Rep. Paul Kanjorski, House Capital Markets Subcommittee Chair, described that day:

“On Thursday at about 11 o’clock in the morning the Federal Reserve noticed a tremendous drawdown of money market accounts in the United States, to the tune of $550 billion was being drawn out in a matter of an hour or two. The Treasury opened up its window to help. It pumped $105 billion in the system and quickly realized that they could not stem the tide; we were having an electronic run on the banks. They decided to close the operation, close down the money accounts and announce a guarantee of $250,000 per account so there wouldn’t be further panic out there.”

The $550 Billion withdrawn in an hour or two that Rep. Kanjorski refers to in his statement has never been independently confirmed or refuted.

In mid-September, John McCain was ahead of Barack Obama in some polls by about 3 percent. By Oct. 10, the S&P 500 Index had lost 25% of its value from what it had been a month before. The crash was a major calamity for the McCain Campaign. And now, with Obama in the White House, it has become a calamity for us all.

The fact remains that the identities of those who withdrew their money that week were never disclosed. And, knowingly or not, they created a panic that altered the course of the election. One can only wonder whether something more than normal market forces was at work.

Courtesy of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, the crisis came about by the uncertain value of subprime securities held by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, banks, saving and loans, and other lending institutions. A declining market in itself is not noteworthy, but to induce a panic in the midst of a presidential campaign, if ever proven, would be reprehensible and an outrage to the American electorate.

While the stock market collapse was a disaster for your average IRA or 401(k) account, some investors benefited handsomely. It is widely agreed that hedge funds profited by selling short the collapsing market in 2008, and chief among them was Soros’ fund. Soros may have personally had the motivation, method, and opportunity to trigger the crash.

Soros’ overseas-based hedge fund evades much scrutiny, and its activities that week left almost no trail. Could Soros and his hedge fund be behind many of the withdrawals of that week, and particularly on that Thursday? We need to know. The massive outflow of U.S. funds to offshore accounts that critical week during the campaign could be a coincidence, but it is doubtful.

Soros is a multi-billionaire answerable to no one. Hastening a market meltdown to give the election to Barack Obama would fit his pattern of profiting while destroying the social order of his target country. Triggering a crash in 2008 would also serve his political investments.

Soros is obsessed with power. He wants a One World Government, redistribution of wealth, open borders, and universal health care. He is determined to change America forever by deconstructing its sovereignty and ability to defend itself. Soros was a huge backer of Barack Obama, and now his anointed president is determined to change America to their mutual view.

Soros made his fortune by short selling currencies and then pouring substantial amounts of his private wealth into organizations to subvert various nations. He nearly bankrupted the Bank of England by shorting the pound in 1992. He wrecked the Malaysian economy in 1998, and subsequently that of Indonesia as well. He is responsible for stirring-up instability in Africa, the Balkans, Eastern Europe, and the former Soviet republics.

Over the years, Soros has positioned himself to take control of the Democrat Party through the hundreds of 527 organizations he has helped financed. These organizations have become a “Shadow Party” unto themselves, and manipulate public opinion for their own end.

Among them: the National Education Association, ACORN, AFL-CIO, American Federation of Teachers, The Media Fund, the Open Society Institute, Planned Parenthood League, the Sierra Club, America Coming Together, the Huffington Post, Moveon.org. If a left-wing organization is in the news, it has probably received money from George Soros.

Why have the identities never been reported of those who withdrew funds that week? Shouldn’t there be even some curiosity about an event that wiped out the jobs and life savings of so many people? And why has there been no follow-up inquiry by into Rep. Kanjorski’s statement? There needs to be a public investigation concerning the amounts and offshore destinations of the funds withdrawn from U.S. markets that precipitated the crash.

Did an unwritten partnership exist between George Soros and Barack Obama? Could Soros, through Obama, be seeking a “velvet revolution” in the dismantling of our nation as he has done elsewhere? These questions need further investigation. With the Alinskyite tactics employed by Team Obama, none of this is beyond the realm of possibility.

Americans recoil at the thought of having their elections manipulated by outsiders. As long as Democrats control Congress, there surely will never be an effective inquiry into this affair. Perhaps a GOP victory this November will allow a thorough examination finally to begin. Add this to the many investigations the GOP will need to make when they finally take back Congress.

There is no constitutional right to serve in the Armed Forces. For readiness reasons, the military is selective about who serves based on age, weight, education, family status, physical fitness, and drug usage. Extensive training, good order, and discipline are required. Compromise any of these elements and our casualties on the battlefield will be higher, and our chances for success will be reduced.

‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ (DADT) works, and overturning it is not a change the public is desperately seeking. It is not a change servicemen and women are clamoring for either. A recent survey by the Army Times found that 51% of solders oppose gays serving openly, with only 30% in favor.

As Congress noted in 1993 when the policy was adopted, active gays would pose “an unacceptable risk to the armed forces’ high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.”

Enter Barack Obama and the splintering coalition that got him elected in 2008. In his State of the Union speech, Obama offered his moderate supporters a partial spending freeze and promises of nuclear power, clean coal, and offshore drilling. Progressives, however, are his base and are disillusioned with his failure to pass a health care plan or Cap and Trade. No president can be reelected without his base.

Obama is therefore compelled to appeal to progressives by the elimination of DADT, and for open homosexuality within the military. Politically, he has little to lose. Everyone knows he has no allegiance to the military. All should understand that this issue is a political calculation for him, and nothing more.

Obama’s only explanation for his proposal is that, “It’s the right thing to do.” Military effectiveness is not his utmost priority. When Bill Clinton raised this issue in 1993, a firestorm erupted. The DADT policy forged at that time, however, has worked well over the years with readiness maintained with fewer gays involuntarily discharged than before.

Nobody says that gays cannot fight. There are many examples through history where they have done so effectively. The real question is what impact openly homosexual soldiers will have on other soldiers.

As it is today, peers of a gay soldier who “minds his own business” often know about his status and choose to ignore it, unless the gay soldier gets pushy or gets someone angry with him. Straight soldiers knowing, but not caring, about a gay soldier, if he does his job, suggest this issue is less about being gay and more about the individual and the way he handles himself.

Current DADT policy allows room for interpretation by commanders at all levels, which could lead to inconsistencies. Perhaps a review board could be established for such cases and thereby reduce the number of separations rather than leaving the decision up to a commanding officer, as is current policy. There is a big difference, however, between fine-tuning existing DADT policy to see that fewer gay discharges occur, and declaring that open homosexuality acceptable within the ranks.

Military life, especially on deployment or in a combat environment, is marked by a forced intimacy that is not found in civilian life. No one goes home at night to his private life. This 24/7 ‘Band of Brothers’ type intimacy does not always function perfectly even in the best of circumstances. Allowing openly gay soldiers into this environment would be tenuous at best.

Such exclusionary attitudes may seem old-fashioned, but no amount of political correctness will change them when the bullets start to fly. When a soldier’s life is on the line, little else matters to him but success and survival. It is tight unit cohesion that saves lives and carries the day on the field of battle. Lessen it in any way, and we invite calamity.

Once gays are allowed to serve openly, we can soon expect dependent benefits and military housing for a domestic partner, and to bring that partner to unit family functions. This is all very normal in the civilian world, but it would still be a bit shocking in today’s military culture.

And once the legal precedent of DADT is removed, we can’t be surprised when an operative from the gay and lesbian movement enlists in the military with the deliberate motive to force the gay agenda on the military, and have a platoon of ACLU lawyers at the ready when someone objects. The military could lose control to the courts with commanders becoming afraid to risk their careers for something as intangible as unit cohesion. In the end, it would be America who loses by way of a degraded military.

If allowing gays to serve outside ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ lessens the ability of the military to perform its function — to fight and win wars — then it is wrong. While some further accommodation with gays may be possible, military policy should not increase the inherent risk facing those who do the fighting.

George Orwell’s “Nineteen Eighty-Four” tells of an advanced world where there are no individual freedoms, and the state uses fear to manipulate and control people to conform to a prescribed belief. In the book, the Party maintains absolute power, and power has become an end to itself. His book is as relevant today as ever. In the age of Obama, the freedoms that define American life are slipping away and being replaced with ever more state control.

In Orwell’s book, the Party constantly rewrites history and rewrites the language to restrict the true meaning of words and the ideas behind them. They eliminate words to reduce vocabulary and thereby reduce uncontrolled thoughts. Doublespeak makes people believe what they would otherwise know to be false, and is encapsulated by the phrase: “War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength.” Orwell defined doublethink as, “The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.”

In the book, the Party rewrites historical documents to match an evolving propaganda line, which changes daily. They amend newspaper articles, destroy evidence, and delete the existence of people identified as “unpersons.”

More than any other facet of the novel, political rhetoric today is designed to shape the thoughts of people toward the party line. While we all accept that thievery is wrong in our personal lives, the government makes thievery by taxes a great virtue for “the public good.” Global warming advocates claim to be “saving the planet” when in fact they have no evidence their polices will do anything of the sort. Those who doubt their claims are called “deniers.” And while jihadists are still killing our soldiers, we now call the global war on terror an “Overseas Contingency Operation.” The list is virtually endless.

Similar to Orwell’s 1984, our personal possessions today are fast becoming only what the state allows us to have. Employment is found ever more within government. The Party (you know which one) is gaining control our health care, our cars, our insurance companies, our schools, and our banks. Let’s just say they are gaining ever more control or our lives.

Democrats draw their support from the ignorance and complacency of their electorate: the Proles, as Orwell would say. People fear that if they oppose this mad dash toward collectivism, they may be stripped of what few gifts the government allows them to have. Big Brother may be watching.

Intentional or not, rational discussions on issues are increasingly harder to achieve. Try having a coherent debate with a committed Leftist and it will often break down to emotional appeals, unsupported accusations, and outright name-calling. And as for our Big Brother, whose cool demeanor precludes such behavior, the tactic is more like, “Are you talking to me?” Question his policies and you quickly become an unperson.

Barack Obama utters soothing tones that seem comforting on the surface, but his policies only prescribe more misery, and in the end only strengthen the state. His apparent contempt for the Constitution, the rule of law, and Founder’s intent can be waved off with the flicker of his hand, and a bit more empathy on the Supreme Court. Individuals who think independently are a threat to him, and the last thing he wants is to be held accountable for what he says. With the aid of the adoring media, so far he hasn’t had to.

Today’s media is almost as one-sided as Orwell’s Ministry of Truth. Their cheering on Obama is as close to groupthink as anyone has ever seen. Most news coverage is all Obama all the time, and news shows are even broadcast from inside the White House. They have lowered journalistic standards to the point where they allow very little discussion of dissenting opinion.

In Orwell’s 1984, telescreens announce economic production figures that are grossly overstated, or simply invented, to show an ever-rising economy when there is actually decline. In our case, no matter how robust the economy has been in recent years, the talking heads have always warned of looming recession. Now that economic hardship has arrived, mostly by the hand of an intrusive government, they vilify the free market and encourage ever more state control.

Unlike the book, our government does not torture people. Instead, they confiscate personal possessions through taxes and wantonly squander it. It is not the physical torture of people they cause, but their financial ruin and dependency.

Consider a government-run health system where individual choices are removed, and the patient — faced with a major illness — is left to the mercy of faceless government officials to decide whether he or she lives or dies. Could we become a nation where the old and infirm become too costly to care for? In the name or progress, rationed care could replace the most advanced health care system in the world.

A state-controlled health system could easily become an avenue by which all food perceived as high fat, high sodium or otherwise unhealthy is prohibited, taxed and strictly controlled to save money for the state. By way of new regulations that we cannot yet imagine, the authority of the state over the individual could easily reach far beyond issues of health with a single-payer health system.

The American way of life has never been about fear of our own government. We have always been a nation where each person is unique and worthy of respect. If we wish to remain a self-sufficient people where the rule of law provides a governing framework for our way of life, we need to take steps to preserve it.

We are nowhere near the level of tyranny found in Orwell’s 1984, but we move closer to it each day. The state seizes ever more power over the individual simply because it can. Orwell warned that no one ever seized power with the intention of relinquishing it. This is the nature of the state, and is why the Founders created a government with divided and enumerated powers. It is also why we all need to oppose the growing threat to our freedoms posed by Barack Obama and his statist allies on the Left.

Jeff Lukens is a columnist who lives in Florida.