OVERWHELMING Lies To America By Obama - Thanks IJ
from The Betrayal by David-Crockett
rense
FrontPageMag.com
1-22-10
The accumulated weight of Obama’s deceit is overwhelming…
* During his campaign for the presidency and since, Obama repeatedly assured us that he would protect Medicare against cuts; but he now presses for passage of bills that include savage cuts in Medicare.
* To obtain passage of his first stimulus bill, Obama assured us that 90% of the jobs created would be in the private sector; but as he well knew, most of them were to be in the p! ublic sector.
* Early in the health care debate, Obama assured us that he had not said that he favored a single payer system; but he was on record as having said exactly that.
* Obama gave primary voters a firm assurance that if he became the nominee of the Democratic party he would (unlike Hillary Clinton) abide by the campaign finance limits of public funding; but as soon as he became the party’s nominee, he reneged on that pledge.
* During the presidential campaign Obama criticized the presence of former lobbyists in the Bush administration and solemnly assured us that he would appoint no lobbyists to his administration; but once elected he proceeded to appoint even more lobbyists than his predecessors.
* Obama criticized the size of George Bush’s deficit and promised to stop deficit spending if elected; but he has already quadrupled the size of the deficit he objected to and recklessly continues new federal spending in the trillions.
!
* When campaigning Obama criticized bills before the congr! ess that were too long for anyone to be able to read and promised to stop that; but the bills he has been backing throughout his first year are infinitely longer (2000+ pages) than the ones he criticized.
* Candidate Obama promised an end to the corruption of earmarks and pork, but in the bills he has supported this year there have been more and bigger earmarks than ever before.
* Candidate Obama promised us that CIA personnel involved in the interrogation of terrorists would not be prosecuted; but his administration is now doing exactly that.
* Obama assured a joint session of Congress that the health bill he supported (pre-Stupak) would not provide public funding for abortions; but bitter resistance on the part of House Democrats to inclusion of language to that effect soon proved that it did.
* Candidate Obama promised that he would make sure that there was always enough time for the public to read legislation before it was enacted; but he has done! exactly the opposite, repeatedly pressing for even faster passage of even longer bills.
* Candidate Obama met fears that he would be a tax and spend liberal by promising, emphatically and repeatedly, that those earning under $200,000 would see no increase in their taxes of any kind; but he now urges passage of a healthcare bill that breaks that pledge in many different ways, and his unrestrained increase in federal spending makes more tax increases inevitable.
* Candidate Obama promised bipartisanship and an end to partisan bickering; but in a display of especially ruthless partisanship his allies have shut Republicans out of all key meetings on his health care initiative, with the unprecedented result that domestic legislation of historic importance garnered not a single Republican vote in the Senate.
* Candidate Obama criticized his opponent’s plan to tax employer paid healthcare benefits, and promised he would not tax them; but the bill he now ba! cks will do just that.
* Obama had promised that he wo! uld not sign a healthcare bill that would add one dime to the federal deficit; but the bill he now backs adds trillions in new federal spending, offset only by new sources of revenue that are both uncertain and more properly seen as offsetting the already existing deficit.
* Obama coerced congress into passing his stimulus bill by promising that if it were passed unemployment could go no higher then 8%; but unemployment is now at 10%, and he could not possibly have had good reason to exclude that possibility.
* Obama promised that his cap and trade legislation will create jobs; but its massive tax increases will certainly hobble the economy and destroy jobs, while green jobs in significant numbers can at best be hoped for, but never promised.
* Obama has repeatedly assured the American people that if they like their current health plan they can keep it; but the House bill which he supported created huge incentives for employers to drop their coverage and shif! t their members to a public option.
* Obama has just as often assured the public that under his health plan everyone will be able to keep their current doctor; but many are certain to lose their doctors when ObamaCare’s large cuts in Medicare funding induce more doctors to withdraw from Medicare coverage, as they also would were employers to transfer patients to a public option to save money.
* Obama assured a joint session of Congress that his health plan would not fund illegal aliens; but his allies had been busy voting down amendments to that effect. (This was the point of Joe Wilson’s outburst.)
* Obama claimed that John Deere’s CEO had told him that Deere would begin hiring again as a result of the stimulus bill; but that individual immediately announced that he had said no such thing, and that Deere would in fact be laying off more workers.
* Candidate Obama promised that Guantanamo would be closed by January 1, 2010; but it is still op! en.
* Candidate Obama promised that his administration! (unlike his predecessor’s) would be so transparent that TV cameras (C-Span) would be there for key deliberations; but an unprecedented level of secrecy prevails as the final stages of Obamacare are negotiated behind closed doors and kept so secret that even the Senate majority whip admitted that he had no idea what was going on. Requests for Obama to honor the promise of C-Span cameras are being ignored.
* To gain traction for his attempt to return a would-be socialist dictator in Honduras to power, Obama claimed that he had been overthrown in an illegal coup; but the congressional research service pointed out correctly that ex-President Zelaya had been removed for constitutionally sufficient cause by legal and constitutional means.
* Obama claims that he wants a public option only to increase choice and competition; but the House bill would clearly reduce choice both by squeezing unsubsidized private health plans out of the market, and by setting rigid conditions o! n acceptable plans that would narrow available options.
* Candidate Obama claimed that violent radical Bill Ayers was just another guy in his neighborhood; but the record shows that the two had worked closely together (…and most probably still do).
* Obama assured us that his stimulus bill would create or save a million jobs; but he was claiming as fact what could never have been more than a wild (and highly improbable) guess, and his more recent attempts to justify that guess have been fraudulent.
* Obama assured us that his health plan would never ration care, or “pull the plug” on grandma; but the legislation he backs sets up panels to make crucial decisions on when to withhold care, and it makes such deep cuts in Medicare that rationing is inevitable.
* Obama now assures us that health insurance premiums will not go up if ObamaCare becomes law, insisting indignantly that people who say this have not read the bill; but the legislation forces insurers to cover preexisti! ng conditions, which will compel them to raise premiums substa! ntially.
http://www.AmericanCrisis.us/Article.php?ID=66865&
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
There is nothing Normal...
Keeping awake while Obama sings his Marxist Lullabye
from The Betrayal by David-Crockett
CFP
Distressing as the latest news of McCain’s co-opting Senator Scott Brown and even Sarah Palin into Amnesty is, the biggest danger for America is allowing Obama to “normalize” his obsessive agenda for the United States of America.
There is nothing “normal” about wanting to transform America into a Socialist state.
There is nothing “normal” about community organizer Chicago street activists shutting the door on American sovereignty as soon as they arrived at the White House as President and First Lady.
There is nothing “normal” about a president and First Lady who hate America.
There is nothing “normal” about people who go so far out of their way to hide their pasts.
Obama is trying to distract patriots when he compares what happened Tuesday night in Massachusetts to his own election on Nov. 4, 2008.
Both before and after Lt. Col. Scott Brown’s arrival in Washington, Obama was bad news in action for the United States of America and what is left of the Free World.
To be clear Barack Hussein Obama is not just another Jimmy Carter, he is an unflinching ideologue who will use anything at his disposal to get what he wants: a broken America forced to worship at the hideous altar of Socialism.
Marxists seethe on the inside and show a deceitful charm to those who stand in their way long enough to get their way!
There is a warning in the reply to the comment of a Michigan woman included in the comments of former Marine and Canada Free Press (CFP) columnist Jerry McConnell today: “The Scott Brown victory was a very needed boost to the morale of those who love America and want to keep her free! God should get the glory, he heard our prayers,” the Michigan commenter wrote.
“Like you I thought the Scott Brown victory was a prayer answered, and really it was; but two days later I wondered if he was all that I thought him to be,” McConnell responded. “He has sided with the RINO John McCain and is now going soft on amnesty; I’m sure at McCain’s urging.
“But even more discouraging news came from Sarah Palin yesterday when even SHE agreed to campaign for RINO McCain and said she supported McCain’s views on amnesty for the illegal aliens.
“McCain sweet-talks people telling them how beneficial “bipartisanship” is for the country; and in reality, if it could be done I would have to agree. But to the liberal Democrats the word bipartisanship means only: “Do it my way” and if you disagree with what they want, you are not being “bipartisan”. What a bunch of baloney.
“So those two revelations in addition to an earlier report that Rupert Murdoch, the Fox News biggie, is about to enter into an agreement with one of the Saudi princes that can only mean more concessions to radical Islamism.
“What promised to be a week of big celebrations has turned into a depressing turn of events. I am hoping that the Tea Partiers can come up with something to counteract all these bad news items. I guess I’ll have to pray a little harder from now on.”
While praying, we should all keep our eye on The One who, just as Saul Alinsky advises, works so hard to keep us all demoralized and distracted.
What could be better for a deceitful Marxist than patriots let down by their own folk hero leaders?
As some of our “conservatives” put their egos ahead of the people, it will be more important than ever to remember that it was the independents more than the card-carrying Repubs (RINOS) who gave us proof in the Massachusetts Miracle that main-street America rejects Obama.
from The Betrayal by David-Crockett
CFP
Distressing as the latest news of McCain’s co-opting Senator Scott Brown and even Sarah Palin into Amnesty is, the biggest danger for America is allowing Obama to “normalize” his obsessive agenda for the United States of America.
There is nothing “normal” about wanting to transform America into a Socialist state.
There is nothing “normal” about community organizer Chicago street activists shutting the door on American sovereignty as soon as they arrived at the White House as President and First Lady.
There is nothing “normal” about a president and First Lady who hate America.
There is nothing “normal” about people who go so far out of their way to hide their pasts.
Obama is trying to distract patriots when he compares what happened Tuesday night in Massachusetts to his own election on Nov. 4, 2008.
Both before and after Lt. Col. Scott Brown’s arrival in Washington, Obama was bad news in action for the United States of America and what is left of the Free World.
To be clear Barack Hussein Obama is not just another Jimmy Carter, he is an unflinching ideologue who will use anything at his disposal to get what he wants: a broken America forced to worship at the hideous altar of Socialism.
Marxists seethe on the inside and show a deceitful charm to those who stand in their way long enough to get their way!
There is a warning in the reply to the comment of a Michigan woman included in the comments of former Marine and Canada Free Press (CFP) columnist Jerry McConnell today: “The Scott Brown victory was a very needed boost to the morale of those who love America and want to keep her free! God should get the glory, he heard our prayers,” the Michigan commenter wrote.
“Like you I thought the Scott Brown victory was a prayer answered, and really it was; but two days later I wondered if he was all that I thought him to be,” McConnell responded. “He has sided with the RINO John McCain and is now going soft on amnesty; I’m sure at McCain’s urging.
“But even more discouraging news came from Sarah Palin yesterday when even SHE agreed to campaign for RINO McCain and said she supported McCain’s views on amnesty for the illegal aliens.
“McCain sweet-talks people telling them how beneficial “bipartisanship” is for the country; and in reality, if it could be done I would have to agree. But to the liberal Democrats the word bipartisanship means only: “Do it my way” and if you disagree with what they want, you are not being “bipartisan”. What a bunch of baloney.
“So those two revelations in addition to an earlier report that Rupert Murdoch, the Fox News biggie, is about to enter into an agreement with one of the Saudi princes that can only mean more concessions to radical Islamism.
“What promised to be a week of big celebrations has turned into a depressing turn of events. I am hoping that the Tea Partiers can come up with something to counteract all these bad news items. I guess I’ll have to pray a little harder from now on.”
While praying, we should all keep our eye on The One who, just as Saul Alinsky advises, works so hard to keep us all demoralized and distracted.
What could be better for a deceitful Marxist than patriots let down by their own folk hero leaders?
As some of our “conservatives” put their egos ahead of the people, it will be more important than ever to remember that it was the independents more than the card-carrying Repubs (RINOS) who gave us proof in the Massachusetts Miracle that main-street America rejects Obama.
Obama's Eligibility Questioned
While numerous opposition commenters here at The Right Side of Life like to continually pronounce the continued questions of Mr. Obama’s eligibility as dead, the Democrats continue to bring up the “birthers” as a means to… score political points?
Prof. Jacobson at LegalInsurrection points out that it’s not working:
What would one call a political strategy which depended upon portraying the majority of Americans as crazy extremists? The answer is: The current Democratic Party strategy which ignores the meaning of the Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts races, and focuses on smearing opponents as extremists and “Birthers.”
We saw this template throughout the summer as the public protested against the Democratic health care plans. Peaceful protesters were called terrorists and facists, and falsely accused of fomenting violence.
We saw this template again in the Scott Brown campaign, when prominent left-wing bloggers such as Steve Benen pushed the demonstrably false story that Scott Brown was a “Birther.”
Now Benen is pushing hard for this sort of rhetoric to become a focus of Democratic efforts to stem the tide of electoral upsets. …
Commenter “Sallyven” posted the following exquisite synopsis of exactly where many of us logically go with the questions brought up by this President’s shrouded past:
There are many “birthers” who aren’t even questioning whether or not Obama was born in Hawaii, and don’t care whether the long-form certificate is released or not.
There is no “conspiracy” theory, rather they are “originalists” or “Constitutionalists” in that they believe that the “natural born citizen” clause of Article 2 of the Constitution means a pure, naturally-attained citizenship, which would preclude dual citizenship.
Obama’s father was not an immigrant. He was never a US citizen. He was Kenyan and a British citizen, and Obama’s own Fight the Smears campaign website admitted that Obama junior was also a British citizen when he was born. He did not have “pure US Citizenship” at birth.
Without even going into the various documents and cases that support a definition of “natural born citizen” meaning born in the country to US citizen parents, it would be hard to imagine that the founding fathers would ever have thought that a British citizen (other than themselves, who actually fought in the Revolution, and were “grandfathered” in the clause in Article 2) would ever be allowed to hold the title of Commander in Chief. I imagine they are now rolling in their graves.
It is also interesting to note that those who questioned McCain’s natural born citizenship (because he was born in Panama, even though to two US citizen parents), were not labeled as “birthers.” Only those who question whether Obama, who although born on US soil, had a foreign father, lived abroad for a number of years, and perhaps traveled with a foreign passport, combined with the knowledge that we have never had a US President (knowingly, that is—Chester Arthur was recently discovered to be an exception), who was not “grandfathered” or born on US soil, to two parents who were US citizens at the time of his birth.
To label these “birthers” as extremists is quite a stretch. Personally, I would consider those who desire to closely follow the Constitution, “patriots.”
Prof. Jacobson at LegalInsurrection points out that it’s not working:
What would one call a political strategy which depended upon portraying the majority of Americans as crazy extremists? The answer is: The current Democratic Party strategy which ignores the meaning of the Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts races, and focuses on smearing opponents as extremists and “Birthers.”
We saw this template throughout the summer as the public protested against the Democratic health care plans. Peaceful protesters were called terrorists and facists, and falsely accused of fomenting violence.
We saw this template again in the Scott Brown campaign, when prominent left-wing bloggers such as Steve Benen pushed the demonstrably false story that Scott Brown was a “Birther.”
Now Benen is pushing hard for this sort of rhetoric to become a focus of Democratic efforts to stem the tide of electoral upsets. …
Commenter “Sallyven” posted the following exquisite synopsis of exactly where many of us logically go with the questions brought up by this President’s shrouded past:
There are many “birthers” who aren’t even questioning whether or not Obama was born in Hawaii, and don’t care whether the long-form certificate is released or not.
There is no “conspiracy” theory, rather they are “originalists” or “Constitutionalists” in that they believe that the “natural born citizen” clause of Article 2 of the Constitution means a pure, naturally-attained citizenship, which would preclude dual citizenship.
Obama’s father was not an immigrant. He was never a US citizen. He was Kenyan and a British citizen, and Obama’s own Fight the Smears campaign website admitted that Obama junior was also a British citizen when he was born. He did not have “pure US Citizenship” at birth.
Without even going into the various documents and cases that support a definition of “natural born citizen” meaning born in the country to US citizen parents, it would be hard to imagine that the founding fathers would ever have thought that a British citizen (other than themselves, who actually fought in the Revolution, and were “grandfathered” in the clause in Article 2) would ever be allowed to hold the title of Commander in Chief. I imagine they are now rolling in their graves.
It is also interesting to note that those who questioned McCain’s natural born citizenship (because he was born in Panama, even though to two US citizen parents), were not labeled as “birthers.” Only those who question whether Obama, who although born on US soil, had a foreign father, lived abroad for a number of years, and perhaps traveled with a foreign passport, combined with the knowledge that we have never had a US President (knowingly, that is—Chester Arthur was recently discovered to be an exception), who was not “grandfathered” or born on US soil, to two parents who were US citizens at the time of his birth.
To label these “birthers” as extremists is quite a stretch. Personally, I would consider those who desire to closely follow the Constitution, “patriots.”
The Real Conspiracy is the one they won’t talk about
from The Betrayal by David-Crockett
The Post & Email
THERE IS MUCH EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT AN AGREEMENT WAS MADE TO PUSH OBAMA AND IGNORE THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN REQUIREMENT
By Charles F. Kerchner, Jr. , Commander USNR (Retired)
Lead Plaintiff , Kerchner v Obama & Congress
© 2009/2010
I Believe The Fix Was In for the 2008 Election and The Cover Up is Still Going Strong!
Constitution(Jan. 24, 2010) — I believe that the RNC and DNC at the highest levels in 2008 were both complicit in shutting down all discussion of Obama’s eligibility issue in the Congress, Main Stream Media, Print Press, and in the leading conservative Talk Show radio stations. I believe that the RNC and the DNC were complicit in subverting Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of our Constitution as to the eligibility requirements for the Office of the President, i.e., the person eligible for that office must be a “natural born Citizen“, i.e., one born in the country to parents who are both citizens of the country such that the child born has singular and sole allegiance at birth to the USA and no citizenship at birth with any other country via his parents or due to the place or location of birth.
A natural born Citizen needs no law or resolution of Congress to give or clarify citizenship status. Natural born Citizenship status can only be obtained by the facts of nature at the child’s birth. This is natural law. This is what the founders and framers of our Constitution required for the singular and most powerful office of the President and Commander in Chief of the military.
John Jay and George Washington put that requirement into the Constitution for exactly the reason that the person serving in that office would have no foreign influences on him/her at birth due to the facts and circumstances of his/her citizenship at birth. Only “natural born Citizenship” in the USA per natural law guarantees no other allegiance or citizenship claims by an another country at birth. If you are born on the U.S. soil of parents who are both citizens, no other country can claim you as a Citizen of their country and you are only governed by the laws of the USA at your birth.
This is natural law as written by Vattel in 1758 in his legal book, “The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law“. The 1775 edition of this legal book was used as a reference by Benjamin Franklin and other founders to set up our new nation in 1776 in the writing of the Declaration of Independence and also in drafting the new form of federal government in 1789 and the writing of our Constitution, the fundamental law of our nation. Obama was born British. How can a person be born a British Subject be considered to be a “natural born Citizen” of the USA, to constitutional standards? He cannot. Our founders must be rolling over in their graves witnessing what transpired in the 2008 election cycle.
Both parties put up questionable candidates in 2008 as to their birth citizenship, Obama was born as a British Subject and McCain was born in Panama, and then they proceeded to cover up for each other and helped shut down the media and talk radio totally via their respective high contacts in the media industry and elected officials within the sitting Bush administration and in Congress as well as within their own respective presidential campaign organizations. No one in either political party wanted a free and open debate in the media as to the true historical, constitutional, and Supreme Court common law cases mentioning Vattel and his words on the meaning of “natural born Citizen”. No one in either political party wanted a full Congressional hearing about the true meaning of Article II of the U.S. Constitution concerning and who is eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the military, especially in the case of Obama whose father was not even an immigrant to this country, let alone a citizen.
We are a nation of immigrants. But Obama’s father was never one. The political parties and powers in DC wanted to hide this issue from the American people for the political ambition and power of both political parties to run the candidate of their choice irrespective of Constitutional issues. They did not want to hear from the People about this. So the cover up began to squelch all discussion of it to keep as many people in the dark as possible. “Thou shalt not talk about the presidential constitutional Article II eligibility issues ” was the word put out by all the powers to be in Washington DC and the USA media. It was reported that even outright threats were made to certain conservative talk show radio hosts in the last quarter of 2008.
And it continues to this day, imo, and is most obvious with the stone silence and “cone of silence” and occasional mocking comments made by the talk show hosts about the eligibility issue questions if mentioned briefly by a guest now and then on Fox News. The approach on Fox News is to ban the topic.
Other networks such as MSNBC simply mock the movement continually using Saul Alinsky’s tactics from Rules for Radicals rule number 5, ridicule, to stifle all open, serious, and public debate on the issue and to scare off any one in political power from broaching the subject. Anyone even just mentioning this issue is pounced on for the ridicule treatment by the press.
This shut down of a free and full “on air” debate of the Obama eligibility issue with serious scholars and legal experts representing each side (such as my attorney, Mario Apuzzo) being allowed on the air together with someone from the Obot side to debate this issue openly is being orchestrated at the highest levels of the RNC and DNC and their elected official type contacts in various powerful positions both today and back in Dec 2008 and early Jan 2009. Whispers in the hallways allude to grave consequences if one breaches this subject seriously on the air ways.
The RNC silenced opposition in the conservative talk show radio and elsewhere in late 2008 which has enabled Obama to take power virtually unopposed as to addressing his constitutional eligibility in any serious manner in public debate via the national media. The leadership of the RNC at the highest levels, imo, shut down members of their own political party in Congress and via using their contacts in the highest levels of government, they helped shut down conservative talk radio and TV hosts with innuendos and and whispers of the consequences if this subject surfaced for discussion in a major way on their shows. They were told to keep the eligibility issue and the so called “Birthers” banned on their callers list with special instructions to the call screeners to keep them off the air. The RNC powers to be and their political connections used their power to do this to cover up their own subverting of Article II of the Constitution via putting up a candidate of their own with questionable natural born Citizenship status as their candidate for President. The big liberal media anointed Obama (a hard core progressive and Socialist) and then anointed McCain (a progressive light) because they knew McCain had a citizenship issue of his own and thus would keep him silent about Obama’s. And it worked. A “cone of silence” was dropped on the eligibility issue in the DC media and Congress and elsewhere in American to cover up for what both parties were doing, subverting Article II of the U.S. Constitution in the 2008 election. Listen to this radio show interview for more details.
Atty Apuzzo & CDR Kerchner on Andrea Shea King Radio Show hosted by Andrea Shea King – Friday, 22 Jan 2010, 9 p.m. EST: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/askshow/2010/01/23/the-andrea-shea-king-show
Imo, when this subversion of our Constitution in the 2008 election cycle and the massive cover up by people in the highest levels of the RNC and DNC and their elected official contacts, and our government is exposed, this will be a far worse scandal than Watergate. It will be the worst scandal & political crisis and constitutional crisis in America since the Civil War. Who will win the Pulitzer Prize for exposing this travesty to the Constitution, liberty, and justice in America.
I believe this is what has happened in America and the reason for the cone of silence about Obama’s citizenship issues since the start of the 2008 election cycle and it continues to this day. It is a national disgrace and a threat to our freedom and liberty and the survival of our Constitution and Republic. We do not know Obama’s true legal identity. He has hidden and sealed all his early life records. What is he hiding? How can we trust this man usurping the Oval Office to protect America from foreign influence at the highest levels. He bows to Saudi Kings! He backs far-left dictators in Central America like Castro and Hugo Chavez in stifling freedom and Constitutional government in Honduras. Maybe he saw what could happen to him in the Constitutional crisis down there. Who is Obama loyal too? We do not know who he really is. The eligibility issue must be fully and openly discussed in the Main Stream Media, the Congress, and in our Courts. Our liberty and freedom is in the balance.
God bless and protect America in the coming test this year of our fundamental core constitutional rights and our very freedom as this cover up is further exposed.
Signed,
Charles F. Kerchner, Jr. , Commander USNR (Retired)
Lead Plaintiff , Kerchner v Obama & Congress
For more information on the lawsuit: http://puzo1.blogspot.com
To help the cause, please visit: http://protectourliberty.org
© 2010, The Post & Email. All rights reserved internationally, unless otherwise specified.
from The Betrayal by David-Crockett
The Post & Email
THERE IS MUCH EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT AN AGREEMENT WAS MADE TO PUSH OBAMA AND IGNORE THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN REQUIREMENT
By Charles F. Kerchner, Jr. , Commander USNR (Retired)
Lead Plaintiff , Kerchner v Obama & Congress
© 2009/2010
I Believe The Fix Was In for the 2008 Election and The Cover Up is Still Going Strong!
Constitution(Jan. 24, 2010) — I believe that the RNC and DNC at the highest levels in 2008 were both complicit in shutting down all discussion of Obama’s eligibility issue in the Congress, Main Stream Media, Print Press, and in the leading conservative Talk Show radio stations. I believe that the RNC and the DNC were complicit in subverting Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of our Constitution as to the eligibility requirements for the Office of the President, i.e., the person eligible for that office must be a “natural born Citizen“, i.e., one born in the country to parents who are both citizens of the country such that the child born has singular and sole allegiance at birth to the USA and no citizenship at birth with any other country via his parents or due to the place or location of birth.
A natural born Citizen needs no law or resolution of Congress to give or clarify citizenship status. Natural born Citizenship status can only be obtained by the facts of nature at the child’s birth. This is natural law. This is what the founders and framers of our Constitution required for the singular and most powerful office of the President and Commander in Chief of the military.
John Jay and George Washington put that requirement into the Constitution for exactly the reason that the person serving in that office would have no foreign influences on him/her at birth due to the facts and circumstances of his/her citizenship at birth. Only “natural born Citizenship” in the USA per natural law guarantees no other allegiance or citizenship claims by an another country at birth. If you are born on the U.S. soil of parents who are both citizens, no other country can claim you as a Citizen of their country and you are only governed by the laws of the USA at your birth.
This is natural law as written by Vattel in 1758 in his legal book, “The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law“. The 1775 edition of this legal book was used as a reference by Benjamin Franklin and other founders to set up our new nation in 1776 in the writing of the Declaration of Independence and also in drafting the new form of federal government in 1789 and the writing of our Constitution, the fundamental law of our nation. Obama was born British. How can a person be born a British Subject be considered to be a “natural born Citizen” of the USA, to constitutional standards? He cannot. Our founders must be rolling over in their graves witnessing what transpired in the 2008 election cycle.
Both parties put up questionable candidates in 2008 as to their birth citizenship, Obama was born as a British Subject and McCain was born in Panama, and then they proceeded to cover up for each other and helped shut down the media and talk radio totally via their respective high contacts in the media industry and elected officials within the sitting Bush administration and in Congress as well as within their own respective presidential campaign organizations. No one in either political party wanted a free and open debate in the media as to the true historical, constitutional, and Supreme Court common law cases mentioning Vattel and his words on the meaning of “natural born Citizen”. No one in either political party wanted a full Congressional hearing about the true meaning of Article II of the U.S. Constitution concerning and who is eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the military, especially in the case of Obama whose father was not even an immigrant to this country, let alone a citizen.
We are a nation of immigrants. But Obama’s father was never one. The political parties and powers in DC wanted to hide this issue from the American people for the political ambition and power of both political parties to run the candidate of their choice irrespective of Constitutional issues. They did not want to hear from the People about this. So the cover up began to squelch all discussion of it to keep as many people in the dark as possible. “Thou shalt not talk about the presidential constitutional Article II eligibility issues ” was the word put out by all the powers to be in Washington DC and the USA media. It was reported that even outright threats were made to certain conservative talk show radio hosts in the last quarter of 2008.
And it continues to this day, imo, and is most obvious with the stone silence and “cone of silence” and occasional mocking comments made by the talk show hosts about the eligibility issue questions if mentioned briefly by a guest now and then on Fox News. The approach on Fox News is to ban the topic.
Other networks such as MSNBC simply mock the movement continually using Saul Alinsky’s tactics from Rules for Radicals rule number 5, ridicule, to stifle all open, serious, and public debate on the issue and to scare off any one in political power from broaching the subject. Anyone even just mentioning this issue is pounced on for the ridicule treatment by the press.
This shut down of a free and full “on air” debate of the Obama eligibility issue with serious scholars and legal experts representing each side (such as my attorney, Mario Apuzzo) being allowed on the air together with someone from the Obot side to debate this issue openly is being orchestrated at the highest levels of the RNC and DNC and their elected official type contacts in various powerful positions both today and back in Dec 2008 and early Jan 2009. Whispers in the hallways allude to grave consequences if one breaches this subject seriously on the air ways.
The RNC silenced opposition in the conservative talk show radio and elsewhere in late 2008 which has enabled Obama to take power virtually unopposed as to addressing his constitutional eligibility in any serious manner in public debate via the national media. The leadership of the RNC at the highest levels, imo, shut down members of their own political party in Congress and via using their contacts in the highest levels of government, they helped shut down conservative talk radio and TV hosts with innuendos and and whispers of the consequences if this subject surfaced for discussion in a major way on their shows. They were told to keep the eligibility issue and the so called “Birthers” banned on their callers list with special instructions to the call screeners to keep them off the air. The RNC powers to be and their political connections used their power to do this to cover up their own subverting of Article II of the Constitution via putting up a candidate of their own with questionable natural born Citizenship status as their candidate for President. The big liberal media anointed Obama (a hard core progressive and Socialist) and then anointed McCain (a progressive light) because they knew McCain had a citizenship issue of his own and thus would keep him silent about Obama’s. And it worked. A “cone of silence” was dropped on the eligibility issue in the DC media and Congress and elsewhere in American to cover up for what both parties were doing, subverting Article II of the U.S. Constitution in the 2008 election. Listen to this radio show interview for more details.
Atty Apuzzo & CDR Kerchner on Andrea Shea King Radio Show hosted by Andrea Shea King – Friday, 22 Jan 2010, 9 p.m. EST: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/askshow/2010/01/23/the-andrea-shea-king-show
Imo, when this subversion of our Constitution in the 2008 election cycle and the massive cover up by people in the highest levels of the RNC and DNC and their elected official contacts, and our government is exposed, this will be a far worse scandal than Watergate. It will be the worst scandal & political crisis and constitutional crisis in America since the Civil War. Who will win the Pulitzer Prize for exposing this travesty to the Constitution, liberty, and justice in America.
I believe this is what has happened in America and the reason for the cone of silence about Obama’s citizenship issues since the start of the 2008 election cycle and it continues to this day. It is a national disgrace and a threat to our freedom and liberty and the survival of our Constitution and Republic. We do not know Obama’s true legal identity. He has hidden and sealed all his early life records. What is he hiding? How can we trust this man usurping the Oval Office to protect America from foreign influence at the highest levels. He bows to Saudi Kings! He backs far-left dictators in Central America like Castro and Hugo Chavez in stifling freedom and Constitutional government in Honduras. Maybe he saw what could happen to him in the Constitutional crisis down there. Who is Obama loyal too? We do not know who he really is. The eligibility issue must be fully and openly discussed in the Main Stream Media, the Congress, and in our Courts. Our liberty and freedom is in the balance.
God bless and protect America in the coming test this year of our fundamental core constitutional rights and our very freedom as this cover up is further exposed.
Signed,
Charles F. Kerchner, Jr. , Commander USNR (Retired)
Lead Plaintiff , Kerchner v Obama & Congress
For more information on the lawsuit: http://puzo1.blogspot.com
To help the cause, please visit: http://protectourliberty.org
© 2010, The Post & Email. All rights reserved internationally, unless otherwise specified.
Hawaii launches defense to Obama birth queries
from The Betrayal by David-Crockett
wnd logo
Posts ‘vital records’ Web page saying responses ‘not’ required
By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
It could be that the state of Hawaii is overwhelmed by – or is just annoyed at – the number of inquiries about the birth records of President Obama.
The state has launched a new Web page with the information it wants the public to know about its Obama records, including the fact that state law does not “require agencies to respond to all questions asked of the agency.”
After all, a new poll confirms just 51 percent of Americans believe Obama eligible for the office he now holds.
The recent WND/Wenzel Poll indicated 32.6 percent of Americans said they do not consider Obama a “legitimate” president and another 15.8 percent said they were unsure. The poll updated a survey six months ago in which most Americans said they were aware of the dispute.
The Hawaiian records make up the core of the issue over challenges to Obama’s eligibility, since an original long-form birth certificate including the name of the doctor, the hospital and other details, presumably could document whether he qualifies to occupy the Oval Office under the U.S. Constitution’s requirement the president be a “natural born citizen.”
See the movie Obama does not want you to see: Own the DVD that probes this unprecedented presidential eligibility mystery.
WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama’s status as a “natural born citizen.” The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, 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.
Complicating the situation is Obama’s decision to spend sums estimated over $1 million to avoid releasing an original long-form state birth certificate that would put to rest the questions.
WND also has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes 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.
Hawaii’s new web page states state law requires government records to be open to public inspection “unless access is restricted or closed by law.”
“The [Uniform Information Practices Act] does not require an agency to provide access to government records that state law protects from disclosure … nor does it require to respond to all questions asked of the agency.”
The Web page also issues several warnings. “Unless a request for DOH records is specific enough to be understood, the request cannot be responded to by the DOH,” it states.
Further, “The DOH may not have a record which is responsive to a request. The UIPA does not require an agency to compile or create information to respond to a request,” it says.
State officials did not respond to WND questions about the information on the page.
But it appears unlikely a website statement will defuse the controversy.
At the time of the election, the state’s director of health, Chiyome Fukino, said:
“There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law (Hawaii Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record.
“Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai’i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.
“No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawaii.”
Months later she added another comment:
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”
But even those statements have since been cited as a reason that state officials owe the public more information.
At one point, Leo Donofrio, who brought one of the first legal challenges to Obama’s eligibility to be president and unsuccessfully tried to get the U.S. Supreme Court to get involved at the time of the election, said Hawaii’s laws require disclosure of information “collected and maintained for the purpose of making information available to the general public.”
He and several other Obama critics raised the suggestion that if a birth certificate was used to support Fukino’s statements, the record itself should be public.
The Hawaiian web page primarily links to the rules and regulations the state is using in defense of its decision not to release definitive information.
Under the state’s law addressing records, exceptions are made for government records that would “constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” Also exempted are various records regarding prosecutions and certain court papers.
But the page explains any disclosure “shall not constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal private if the public interest in disclosure outweighs the privacy interests of the individual.”
Department spokesman Janice Okubo previously told WND the laws have been interpreted to leave birth documentation exempted from public disclosure. But she admitted the law allows a challenge to such decisions in the courts.
In fact, the law states, “A person aggrieved by a denial of access to a government record may bring an action against the agency at any time within two years after the agency denial to compel disclosure. … The circuit court may examine the government record at issue, in camera, to assist in determining whether it, or any part of it, may be withheld.”
WND also has reported suggestions from Hawaii state Sen. Will Espero, a Democrat, that legislation could be adopted to release Obama’s birth records and satisfy critics.
Espero told WND at the time his idea would be aimed at “giving citizens access to birth records” under a standard of government transparency which would permit journalists to request in writing the public disclosure of vital birth records, including long-form birth certificates of all persons born in Hawaii.
“My decision to file the legislation was primarily a result of the fuss over President Obama’s birth records and the lingering questions,” Espero said.
Espero told WND he believes President Obama was born in Hawaii.
“My motivation is strictly to promote transparency,” he said. “When I found out that Hawaii birth records were not available to the public my first thought was, ‘Why wouldn’t they be available to the public?’ As far as I am concerned, records regarding whether a person was born here or not should be in the public domain.”
Another major question remaining is why a birth location for the president hasn’t yet been celebrated.
WND founder and editor Joseph Farah has offered a $15,000 donation to the hospital listed on Obama’s long-form birth certificate.
“All he or the hospital or the state of Hawaii would have to do to claim the prize is show the American public the document that should have been produced long ago to claim the presidency as a natural born citizen,” he wrote earlier this month.
“Think about it. Obama claims to have been born in Honolulu Aug. 4, 1961. His entire constitutional claim to the presidency rests on this premise. Yet, he refuses to release a copy of his long-form birth certificate – the only document that could possibly corroborate his claim. Instead, he has released to select news organizations and posted on the Internet a document that could never serve as proof he was born in the United States – a so-called ‘certification of live birth,’ a digital document that could, can and has been obtained by people who were actually born outside the country. The American people can never be certain their president is legitimate constitutionally without proof,” he continued.
Continue reading at WND
from The Betrayal by David-Crockett
wnd logo
Posts ‘vital records’ Web page saying responses ‘not’ required
By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
It could be that the state of Hawaii is overwhelmed by – or is just annoyed at – the number of inquiries about the birth records of President Obama.
The state has launched a new Web page with the information it wants the public to know about its Obama records, including the fact that state law does not “require agencies to respond to all questions asked of the agency.”
After all, a new poll confirms just 51 percent of Americans believe Obama eligible for the office he now holds.
The recent WND/Wenzel Poll indicated 32.6 percent of Americans said they do not consider Obama a “legitimate” president and another 15.8 percent said they were unsure. The poll updated a survey six months ago in which most Americans said they were aware of the dispute.
The Hawaiian records make up the core of the issue over challenges to Obama’s eligibility, since an original long-form birth certificate including the name of the doctor, the hospital and other details, presumably could document whether he qualifies to occupy the Oval Office under the U.S. Constitution’s requirement the president be a “natural born citizen.”
See the movie Obama does not want you to see: Own the DVD that probes this unprecedented presidential eligibility mystery.
WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama’s status as a “natural born citizen.” The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, 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.
Complicating the situation is Obama’s decision to spend sums estimated over $1 million to avoid releasing an original long-form state birth certificate that would put to rest the questions.
WND also has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes 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.
Hawaii’s new web page states state law requires government records to be open to public inspection “unless access is restricted or closed by law.”
“The [Uniform Information Practices Act] does not require an agency to provide access to government records that state law protects from disclosure … nor does it require to respond to all questions asked of the agency.”
The Web page also issues several warnings. “Unless a request for DOH records is specific enough to be understood, the request cannot be responded to by the DOH,” it states.
Further, “The DOH may not have a record which is responsive to a request. The UIPA does not require an agency to compile or create information to respond to a request,” it says.
State officials did not respond to WND questions about the information on the page.
But it appears unlikely a website statement will defuse the controversy.
At the time of the election, the state’s director of health, Chiyome Fukino, said:
“There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law (Hawaii Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record.
“Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai’i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.
“No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawaii.”
Months later she added another comment:
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”
But even those statements have since been cited as a reason that state officials owe the public more information.
At one point, Leo Donofrio, who brought one of the first legal challenges to Obama’s eligibility to be president and unsuccessfully tried to get the U.S. Supreme Court to get involved at the time of the election, said Hawaii’s laws require disclosure of information “collected and maintained for the purpose of making information available to the general public.”
He and several other Obama critics raised the suggestion that if a birth certificate was used to support Fukino’s statements, the record itself should be public.
The Hawaiian web page primarily links to the rules and regulations the state is using in defense of its decision not to release definitive information.
Under the state’s law addressing records, exceptions are made for government records that would “constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” Also exempted are various records regarding prosecutions and certain court papers.
But the page explains any disclosure “shall not constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal private if the public interest in disclosure outweighs the privacy interests of the individual.”
Department spokesman Janice Okubo previously told WND the laws have been interpreted to leave birth documentation exempted from public disclosure. But she admitted the law allows a challenge to such decisions in the courts.
In fact, the law states, “A person aggrieved by a denial of access to a government record may bring an action against the agency at any time within two years after the agency denial to compel disclosure. … The circuit court may examine the government record at issue, in camera, to assist in determining whether it, or any part of it, may be withheld.”
WND also has reported suggestions from Hawaii state Sen. Will Espero, a Democrat, that legislation could be adopted to release Obama’s birth records and satisfy critics.
Espero told WND at the time his idea would be aimed at “giving citizens access to birth records” under a standard of government transparency which would permit journalists to request in writing the public disclosure of vital birth records, including long-form birth certificates of all persons born in Hawaii.
“My decision to file the legislation was primarily a result of the fuss over President Obama’s birth records and the lingering questions,” Espero said.
Espero told WND he believes President Obama was born in Hawaii.
“My motivation is strictly to promote transparency,” he said. “When I found out that Hawaii birth records were not available to the public my first thought was, ‘Why wouldn’t they be available to the public?’ As far as I am concerned, records regarding whether a person was born here or not should be in the public domain.”
Another major question remaining is why a birth location for the president hasn’t yet been celebrated.
WND founder and editor Joseph Farah has offered a $15,000 donation to the hospital listed on Obama’s long-form birth certificate.
“All he or the hospital or the state of Hawaii would have to do to claim the prize is show the American public the document that should have been produced long ago to claim the presidency as a natural born citizen,” he wrote earlier this month.
“Think about it. Obama claims to have been born in Honolulu Aug. 4, 1961. His entire constitutional claim to the presidency rests on this premise. Yet, he refuses to release a copy of his long-form birth certificate – the only document that could possibly corroborate his claim. Instead, he has released to select news organizations and posted on the Internet a document that could never serve as proof he was born in the United States – a so-called ‘certification of live birth,’ a digital document that could, can and has been obtained by people who were actually born outside the country. The American people can never be certain their president is legitimate constitutionally without proof,” he continued.
Continue reading at WND
Why O’Reilly, Beck, etal. ridicule “the Birthers”
from The Betrayal by David-Crockett
The Post & Email
IT’S THE “RIDICULE RULE” OF SAUL DAVID ALINKSY
Political Analysis by Neil Sankey, © 2010
(Jan 24, 2010) — First let’s consider some quotes to understand better relevance of Alinsky in contemporary Politics.
Rules for Radicals, Saul David Alinsky, 1971: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also, it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.”
Letter from L. David Alinsky, son of Neo-Marxist Saul Alinsky: “Obama learned his lesson well. I am proud to see that my father’s model for organizing is being applied successfully beyond local community organizing to affect the Democratic campaign in 2008. It is a fine tribute to Saul Alinsky as we approach his 100th birthday.”
Hillary, Obama and the Cult of Alinsky: “True revolutionaries do not flaunt their radicalism, Alinsky taught. They cut their hair, put on suits and infiltrate the system from within. Alinsky viewed revolution as a slow, patient process. The trick was to penetrate existing institutions such as churches, unions and political parties…. Many leftists view Hillary as a sell-out because she claims to hold moderate views on some issues. However, Hillary is simply following Alinsky’s counsel to do and say whatever it takes to gain power.
Richard Poe (11-27-07): “Barack Obama is also an Alinskyite…. Obama spent years teaching workshops on the Alinsky method. In 1985 he began a four-year stint as a community organizer in Chicago, working for an Alinskyite group called the Developing Communities Project…. Camouflage is key to Alinsky-style organizing. While trying to build coalitions of black churches in Chicago, Obama caught flak for not attending church himself. He became an instant churchgoer.”
Let us try to understand what went wrong here. I am daily struggling with facts that are very apparent, yet amazing and very hard to believe. It is very difficult to believe that you have been duped and misled for most of your adult life, and yet that is one of the basic facts that many people of the world, especially the USA and the United Kingdom will have to come to terms with, if they are to maintain or regain their respective identities.
Our good nature, our generosity and our love of freedom has been hi-jacked and subverted by the Communist / Marxist / extremist thirst for total power and world domination. And we were fooled, totally taken in, duped and subverted, both true Democrats and Republicans alike. We see examples of this indoctrination on Television daily.
Bill O’Reilly, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Anne Coulter, the list goes on. Conservative, Republicans, Independents? debatable, but one thing is certain, if you mention the “Birthers” or “Eligibility,” they will burst into uncontrollable laughter and derision, getting off the subject just as soon as they are able. “Why, aren’t we all on the same side?” you ask. The answer is simple: It is because these well known media pundits have allowed themselves to become, despite their “Right wing” reputations, Marxist puppets, responding as they (we) have been conditioned, for most of our lives, to respond.
O’Reilly and Beck, etc., “MARXIST PUPPETS?
How ridiculous”? But, these pundits, these same TV personalities have done us, the public, a major disservice in not keeping up, not reading and educating themselves enough to recognize the traps that had been set for them, and which they willingly tumbled into at Obama’s behest. They have allowed themselves to be used, intending to defeat the Birthers. Just like the Press!
Yes, what you have seen and heard hundreds of times in the past couple of years is nothing more than Pundits and the people reacting how they have been trained and conditioned to react by the students of Saul David Alinsky. Alinsky, the man and the name, is barely known to the greater majority of Americans. This man must now be exposed for what he was, if America is to survive. It is important now to be able to recognize and identify his methods and principles if we are to negate those methods and understand the pressures being thrust upon us.
You may deride the “Birthers,” but one thing is certain, if we were able to remove the person who purports to be President, and negate the almost irreparable damage he has wrought on our Country, we would all breathe a collective sigh of relief and at least have the opportunity to “Get it right next time.” His “Eligibility” could arguably offer such an opportunity, it could very well save America as we know it.
The Long Term Strategy of Alinsky
First we must understand how we got in this mess. To do that, we have to know the man and be aware of the strategies of Saul David Alinsky.
Through the machinations of Barack Hussein Obama and his “friends”, Alinsky’s methods are currently dangerously close to changing America for ever. Alinsky did not invent the “Dogma”, he strategized it, he “Organized” it. However, in the Alinsky model it is important to remember that “Organizing” is a euphemism for “REVOLUTION”
Saul David Alinsky was born to Benjamin and Sarah (Tannenbaum) Alinsky on January 30, 1909 in Chicago. His parents were Russian-Jewish immigrants. When Alinsky was 13 years of age, his parents were divorced. After his parents split up, Alinsky went to Los Angles with his father and lived there. Later, he came back to Chicago and pursued his studies at the University of Chicago. He went on to acquire a doctorate in archeology from the university in 1930. Archeology was not needed in Chicago in those days and he became involved with the study of Criminology. In 1931 he went to work as a sociologist for the Illinois Division of Juvenile Research while also serving at the Institute for Criminal Research and the Illinois Prison Board. In 1936 Alinsky left his positions with the state agencies to cofound the Back-of-the-Yards Neighborhood Council. This was his first effort to build a neighborhood citizen reform group, a form of activity which would earn Alinsky a reputation as a radical reformer. Known as a “Fellow-Traveler” (Communist), he always insisted that he never did became a member of the Communist Party, but he did develop the tactics of “Confrontation and Infiltration” and began to develop his radical rules for “Community Organizing” He also, interestingly became close friends with many prominent leaders of the Chicago Mob, particularly Al Capone and his gang. A close friend, who he admitted, “Taught him much”, was Frank Nitti, Capone’s second in command. (Chicago machine? – all too familiar!)
Alinsky went on to establish his very specific set of rules which his followers could adopt to gain power over the masses. These “Rules” are now readily recognizable in American behavior, particularly in Politics, over the past two or three years. These rules are described, as follows, in an excellent article entitled Saul Alinsky and DNC Corruption, written and published in 2003 by Diane Alden.
Alinsky’s rules
* “Wherever possible go outside the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear and retreat.”
* “Make the enemy live up to his/her own book of rules. You can kill them with this. They can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”
* Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also, it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.”
* “The threat is generally more terrifying than the thing itself.”
* “In a fight almost anything goes. It almost reaches the point where you stop to apologize if a chance blow lands above the belt.”
* “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it.” (Think Gingrich, Lott and the success of name-calling used by the likes of Bill Clinton, Paul Begala, James Carville, Maxine Waters and others against conservatives and Republicans.
* “One of the criteria for picking the target is the target’s vulnerability … the other important point in the choosing of a target is that it must be a personification, not something general and abstract.” (Trent Lott comes to mind. Meanwhile, a former Klansman by the name of Sen. Robert Byrd got away with saying “nigger” on Fox News at least three times, and he still maintains his Senate seat and power.)
* “The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength.”
For instance, Democrats imply conservatives are racists or that Republicans want to kill senior citizens by limiting the growth of the Medicare system, they imply Republicans want to deny kids lunch money without offering real proof. These red-herring tactics work.
The revolution has not been dramatic, or swift, but has followed many, many years of careful preparation, infiltration and penetration of Churches, Unions, Judiciary and of course the Press and Media. They have subtly and surely drained the power and authority from the decision making processes by corrupting those entities. These are precisely the tactics advocated by Lenin and Stalin.
In 1971 Alinsky published his third book, Rules for Radicals: A Political Primer for Practical Radicals, in which set out his basic ideas concerning neighborhood reform. A year later, on June 12, 1972, he died of a heart attack near his home in Carmel, California.
There is no doubt that Alinsky was a devoted and dangerous Marxist, he was described as “Charming and self absorbed, always the center of attraction, narcissistic and maintaining a scholarly, academic appearance. ” (Remind you of anyone?)
© 2010, The Post & Email. All rights reserved internationally, unless otherwise specified.
from The Betrayal by David-Crockett
The Post & Email
IT’S THE “RIDICULE RULE” OF SAUL DAVID ALINKSY
Political Analysis by Neil Sankey, © 2010
(Jan 24, 2010) — First let’s consider some quotes to understand better relevance of Alinsky in contemporary Politics.
Rules for Radicals, Saul David Alinsky, 1971: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also, it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.”
Letter from L. David Alinsky, son of Neo-Marxist Saul Alinsky: “Obama learned his lesson well. I am proud to see that my father’s model for organizing is being applied successfully beyond local community organizing to affect the Democratic campaign in 2008. It is a fine tribute to Saul Alinsky as we approach his 100th birthday.”
Hillary, Obama and the Cult of Alinsky: “True revolutionaries do not flaunt their radicalism, Alinsky taught. They cut their hair, put on suits and infiltrate the system from within. Alinsky viewed revolution as a slow, patient process. The trick was to penetrate existing institutions such as churches, unions and political parties…. Many leftists view Hillary as a sell-out because she claims to hold moderate views on some issues. However, Hillary is simply following Alinsky’s counsel to do and say whatever it takes to gain power.
Richard Poe (11-27-07): “Barack Obama is also an Alinskyite…. Obama spent years teaching workshops on the Alinsky method. In 1985 he began a four-year stint as a community organizer in Chicago, working for an Alinskyite group called the Developing Communities Project…. Camouflage is key to Alinsky-style organizing. While trying to build coalitions of black churches in Chicago, Obama caught flak for not attending church himself. He became an instant churchgoer.”
Let us try to understand what went wrong here. I am daily struggling with facts that are very apparent, yet amazing and very hard to believe. It is very difficult to believe that you have been duped and misled for most of your adult life, and yet that is one of the basic facts that many people of the world, especially the USA and the United Kingdom will have to come to terms with, if they are to maintain or regain their respective identities.
Our good nature, our generosity and our love of freedom has been hi-jacked and subverted by the Communist / Marxist / extremist thirst for total power and world domination. And we were fooled, totally taken in, duped and subverted, both true Democrats and Republicans alike. We see examples of this indoctrination on Television daily.
Bill O’Reilly, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Anne Coulter, the list goes on. Conservative, Republicans, Independents? debatable, but one thing is certain, if you mention the “Birthers” or “Eligibility,” they will burst into uncontrollable laughter and derision, getting off the subject just as soon as they are able. “Why, aren’t we all on the same side?” you ask. The answer is simple: It is because these well known media pundits have allowed themselves to become, despite their “Right wing” reputations, Marxist puppets, responding as they (we) have been conditioned, for most of our lives, to respond.
O’Reilly and Beck, etc., “MARXIST PUPPETS?
How ridiculous”? But, these pundits, these same TV personalities have done us, the public, a major disservice in not keeping up, not reading and educating themselves enough to recognize the traps that had been set for them, and which they willingly tumbled into at Obama’s behest. They have allowed themselves to be used, intending to defeat the Birthers. Just like the Press!
Yes, what you have seen and heard hundreds of times in the past couple of years is nothing more than Pundits and the people reacting how they have been trained and conditioned to react by the students of Saul David Alinsky. Alinsky, the man and the name, is barely known to the greater majority of Americans. This man must now be exposed for what he was, if America is to survive. It is important now to be able to recognize and identify his methods and principles if we are to negate those methods and understand the pressures being thrust upon us.
You may deride the “Birthers,” but one thing is certain, if we were able to remove the person who purports to be President, and negate the almost irreparable damage he has wrought on our Country, we would all breathe a collective sigh of relief and at least have the opportunity to “Get it right next time.” His “Eligibility” could arguably offer such an opportunity, it could very well save America as we know it.
The Long Term Strategy of Alinsky
First we must understand how we got in this mess. To do that, we have to know the man and be aware of the strategies of Saul David Alinsky.
Through the machinations of Barack Hussein Obama and his “friends”, Alinsky’s methods are currently dangerously close to changing America for ever. Alinsky did not invent the “Dogma”, he strategized it, he “Organized” it. However, in the Alinsky model it is important to remember that “Organizing” is a euphemism for “REVOLUTION”
Saul David Alinsky was born to Benjamin and Sarah (Tannenbaum) Alinsky on January 30, 1909 in Chicago. His parents were Russian-Jewish immigrants. When Alinsky was 13 years of age, his parents were divorced. After his parents split up, Alinsky went to Los Angles with his father and lived there. Later, he came back to Chicago and pursued his studies at the University of Chicago. He went on to acquire a doctorate in archeology from the university in 1930. Archeology was not needed in Chicago in those days and he became involved with the study of Criminology. In 1931 he went to work as a sociologist for the Illinois Division of Juvenile Research while also serving at the Institute for Criminal Research and the Illinois Prison Board. In 1936 Alinsky left his positions with the state agencies to cofound the Back-of-the-Yards Neighborhood Council. This was his first effort to build a neighborhood citizen reform group, a form of activity which would earn Alinsky a reputation as a radical reformer. Known as a “Fellow-Traveler” (Communist), he always insisted that he never did became a member of the Communist Party, but he did develop the tactics of “Confrontation and Infiltration” and began to develop his radical rules for “Community Organizing” He also, interestingly became close friends with many prominent leaders of the Chicago Mob, particularly Al Capone and his gang. A close friend, who he admitted, “Taught him much”, was Frank Nitti, Capone’s second in command. (Chicago machine? – all too familiar!)
Alinsky went on to establish his very specific set of rules which his followers could adopt to gain power over the masses. These “Rules” are now readily recognizable in American behavior, particularly in Politics, over the past two or three years. These rules are described, as follows, in an excellent article entitled Saul Alinsky and DNC Corruption, written and published in 2003 by Diane Alden.
Alinsky’s rules
* “Wherever possible go outside the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear and retreat.”
* “Make the enemy live up to his/her own book of rules. You can kill them with this. They can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”
* Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also, it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.”
* “The threat is generally more terrifying than the thing itself.”
* “In a fight almost anything goes. It almost reaches the point where you stop to apologize if a chance blow lands above the belt.”
* “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it.” (Think Gingrich, Lott and the success of name-calling used by the likes of Bill Clinton, Paul Begala, James Carville, Maxine Waters and others against conservatives and Republicans.
* “One of the criteria for picking the target is the target’s vulnerability … the other important point in the choosing of a target is that it must be a personification, not something general and abstract.” (Trent Lott comes to mind. Meanwhile, a former Klansman by the name of Sen. Robert Byrd got away with saying “nigger” on Fox News at least three times, and he still maintains his Senate seat and power.)
* “The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength.”
For instance, Democrats imply conservatives are racists or that Republicans want to kill senior citizens by limiting the growth of the Medicare system, they imply Republicans want to deny kids lunch money without offering real proof. These red-herring tactics work.
The revolution has not been dramatic, or swift, but has followed many, many years of careful preparation, infiltration and penetration of Churches, Unions, Judiciary and of course the Press and Media. They have subtly and surely drained the power and authority from the decision making processes by corrupting those entities. These are precisely the tactics advocated by Lenin and Stalin.
In 1971 Alinsky published his third book, Rules for Radicals: A Political Primer for Practical Radicals, in which set out his basic ideas concerning neighborhood reform. A year later, on June 12, 1972, he died of a heart attack near his home in Carmel, California.
There is no doubt that Alinsky was a devoted and dangerous Marxist, he was described as “Charming and self absorbed, always the center of attraction, narcissistic and maintaining a scholarly, academic appearance. ” (Remind you of anyone?)
© 2010, The Post & Email. All rights reserved internationally, unless otherwise specified.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)