Mombasa's north beach, not far from the Obama birthplaceJudge for yourself:
Where is the representation of the young people who voted him in on the change platform - just asking?
By the way:
* Hillary Clinton is only the biggest name in what has become the second coming of the Clintonites and other old, familiar faces to Washington.
* Obama's new chief of staff Rahm Emanuel was an insider in the Clinton White House.
* So was Susan Rice, who will serve as UN ambassador.
* Attorney general-designate Eric Holder and homeland security secretary nominee Janet Napolitano were both in the Clinton era justice department.
* Bill Richardson, who will become commerce secretary, was energy secretary in the 90s.
* Housing and Human Services nominee Tom Daschle is a long-time member of the Washington 'good-old-boys' network.
* Lawrence Summers, Obama's new top economic adviser, was Clinton's treasury secretary.
* Obama opted to keep a Bush administration appointment, Robert Gates, in charge of the Pentagon, and to appoint a jut-jawed retired general, Jim Jones, as his national security adviser.
* Both men opposed Obama's single most important military and foreign policy promise, to set a timetable for pulling US troops out of Iraq.
* Jones backed McCain in the election and Gates is as Republican-establishment as it gets.
* Including Joe Biden, the vice-president elect, all of the incoming president's core foreign policy team backed the ill-fated invasion of Iraq in 2003.
* The chairman of Obama's economic advisory council, Paul Volcker, isn't from the Clinton era - he is of an even earlier vintage, having served as Federal Reserve chairman under Jimmy Carter three decades ago.
Where is the representation of the young people who voted him in on the change platform - just asking?
By the way:
I asked Ms. Obama specifically, “Were you present when your grandson Barack Obama was born in Kenya?” this was asked to her in translation twice, and both times she specifically replied, “Yes! Yes she was! She was present when Obama was born.”
Though, some few younger relatives, including Mr. Ogombe, have obviously been versed to counter such facts with the common purported information from the American news media that Obama was born in Hawaii, Ms. Sarah Hussein Obama was very adamant that her grandson, Senator Barack Hussein Obama, was born in Kenya, and that she was present and witnessed his birth in Kenya, not the United States.
When Mr. Ogombe attempted to counter Sarah Obama’ clear responses to the question, verifying the birth of Senator Barack Obama in Kenya, I asked Mr. Ogombe, how she could be present at Barack Obama’s birth if the Senator was born in Hawaii, but Ogombe would not answer the question, instead he repeatedly tried to insert that, “No, No, No, He was born in the United States!”
But during the conversation, Ms. Sarah Hussein Obama never changed her reply that she was in deed present when Senator Barack Obama was born in Kenya.
No surprises here. I just lost all my bookmarks the other night so I apologize if in the coming weeks I will not be coming by as often as I want. It's going to be an interesting four years with the second non-citizen being President of the United States.
ReplyDeleteJames, when the minister (Rob McRae) called Obama's grandmother, two translators were on the line when McRae asked if the elder Obama was "present" when the president-elect was born. One of the translators says "yes." McRae contacted Berg (the guy who's still pursuing a legal case in the U.S. courts challenging Obama's eligibility) and gave him a partial transcript of the call with a signed affidavit.
ReplyDeleteHe opted not to include the rest of the call, in which he asks the question more directly—"Was he born in Mombassa?"—and the translators, finally understanding him, tell him repeatedly that the president-elect was born in Hawaii.
The Supreme Court refused to even hear the most recent challenge to his eligibility, because it's a giant waste of time--The FBI, under section GS-SF-86, has verified that Obama is qualified to hold the office of president and the Supreme Court knows this. All presidential and vice presidential nominees are required to have the full disclosure background check (GS-SF-86) to ensure that they candidates are qualified to hold office. The Supreme Court know this because they, too, have to go through the same background check before being sworn in as Supreme Court Judges.
Berg is nutcase being funded by Weekly World News, the magazine that claims Bush was responsible for 9-11, Big Foot is real and our government is keeping aliens alive in Area 51.
Listen, there are a lot of reasons for disliking Obama. There are a lot of things I'm not thrilled with about him.
But there's no question he was born in Hawaii. Unless you seriously believe that the FBI, the state of Hawaii, the Honolulu Adviser, and the U.S. Supreme Court are all complicit in an elaborate and bizarrely premeditated scheme to fake evidence of Obama's American birth, this is a moot point.
There are really much, much more interesting and important things to take issue with--this is a red herring, and not even a good one.
1. Ruthie, do you or do you not accept that Souter issued an order on Obama to produce his vault copy by December 1? Yes or no?
ReplyDelete2. Did he do that? Yes or no?
3. Do you accept that if he did that, it would resolve the whole issue for once and for all and that all assertions about nutcases etc. falls away at that point? Yes or no?
That is the whole issue.
Further to this, from the Washington Times:
ReplyDeleteThe Burden of proof is on Obama to prove he is qualified and not on the people.
Obama put the burden of proof on himself when he posted his Certifcation of Live Birth on the internet for the whole world to see. The image does not prove that Obama is qualified as a Natural Born citizen and anyone who argues that it does simply has their head in the sand.
If anyone who thinks the Berg case has no standing, you should do some research instead of simply presuming that he does not have standing.
In This BergvsObama case, there is a motion to file a brief amicus curiae on behalf of Bill Anderson.
In this brief, Anderson demonstrates that this is not a case of constitutional standing but that of prudential consideration.
You can find the entire brief of amicus on the posted link.
http://wthrockmorton.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/joyce_anderson-amicus-final.pdf
Here was a comment on the turning down:
ReplyDeleteThe Times, although they are doing 'better' than most MSM at this, is not portraying the situation accurately. The Wrotnowski case is essentially the same as Donofrio, except that it lacks the lower court problems. In other words, SCOTUS will be looking at practically the same thing on Friday the 12th that they turned down today. SCOTUS had both cases last week and COULD have turned them both down at the same time. WHY did they wait until this week for Wrotnowski and WHY did they not just turn them both down today?
In any case, both Donofrio and Wrotnowsky will be available to the press at the Supreme Court Tuesday Dec 9 at 11 am. BE THERE OR BE SQUARE!
Souter did not issue an order for Obama to "produce a copy." Rather, December 1 was the deadline to respond to the writ. "Respond" does not mean "produce birth certificate."
ReplyDeleteBerg's original case was dismissed by a lower court, and a petition for writ of certiorari is only a request for the Supreme Court to review the issue of whether the original suit was correctly handled as far as standing (the right to file the suit to begin with).
The question before the Supreme Court is not about Obama's birth certificate. Phillip Berg's question is whether a lower court was acting in due process when they tossed out his case.
Yes, the Supreme Court did refuse to hear the case I was talking about (and you can access the docket online directly):
“The court did not comment on its order Monday rejecting the call by Leo Donofrio of East Brunswick, N.J., to intervene in the presidential election.”
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-obama-birth-certificate1dec08,0,7258812.story
I live in the U.S., as you know, and please believe me when I assure you that Americans, on the whole, are not concerned about this. A tiny, fringe minority is keeping this alive on the Internet--even well-known conservatives have called this "embarrassing."
David Horowitz, in the National Review:
“The continuing efforts of a fringe group of conservatives to deny Obama his victory and to lay the basis for the claim that he is not a legitimate president are embarrassing and destructive. ... It is not conservatism; it is sore loserism and quite radical in its intent.”
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjQyOTgxM2M0YWMxOTdhZDcwMzlmMDU1ZGYxNzFkMmQ=
My criticisms of the people filing these suits are not ad hominem attacks; they are simple, verifiable fact--anyone with two brain cells who's ever read the Weekly World News wouldn't take it seriously as a paragon of fine journalism--and yet the people who are keeping this silly story alive are taking Berg and face value and dismissing the supposed vast conspiracy of the "mainstream media," all of whom are (I guess?) in bed with Obama here...
As an American journalist I don't think I have to tell you how offensive that is to me personally. There is no vast conspiracy among journalists to subvert truth and justice.
The FBI, CIA, NSA, Homeland Security would have 'outed' Obama long ago if there had a been even a shred of credibility to this. Hillary Clinton would never have passed up such a cut-and-dried opportunity to discredit her opponent and secure the nomination.
If the provided document is forged, a U.S. Senator, his parents, and his presidential campaign have perpetrated a vast, long-term fraud. They have done it with conspiring officials at the Hawaii Department of Health, the Cook County (ILL.) Bureau of Vital Statistics, the Illinois Secretary of State's office, the Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois, the FBI and the CIA. His parents would have had to have had the foresight, in the 1960s, to place a fraudulent notice of birth in a Hawaii newspaper.
And all this on the CHANCE that he might become president
I really don't want to prolong this; I'm not interested in getting in a long argument over it, and I hate bickering over this sort of thing. I think you know where I stand on this--I'm a lot more interested in, say, his voting record or his experience than wildly improbable conspiracy theories--and I'll agree to disagree and get back to my vast mountains of work that I'm attempting to do for finals week.
James
ReplyDeleteI seem to remember that Dubya did much the same thing, stacking his cabinet with Nixon, Reagan, Bush relics.
Where else do you get the kind of experience needed for some of these roles other than in government.
Early days yet. People didn't get mad at Clinton for the first six months.
"A tiny, fringe minority is keeping this alive on the Internet"
ReplyDelete60 000 petition to the Supreme Court. Hmmm.
You still haven't answered the one central question - if he has nothing to hide, then produce the vault copy and stop all this.
"The FBI, CIA, NSA, Homeland Security would have 'outed' Obama long ago if there had a been even a shred of credibility to this."
Ruthie, I don't blame you for not getting this thing. Most Americans believe their system ... well ... as you say, let's not you and I get into a long drawn out argument - it's not our doing.
"If the provided document is forged, a U.S. Senator, his parents, and his presidential campaign have perpetrated a vast, long-term fraud."
Well?
That's why, Ruthie and all Americans, this thing can be killed off in one fell swoop. Berg can be seen for the crank he is, the right wingnuts can be too and Obama comes out shining.
I'll admit I'm wrong here and I'll be far more careful in future. All of this will happen the moment:
...Obama submits the vault copy to SCOTUS, as ordered [and he was ordered by Souter, tacked on to the end of the answer to Berg]...
That's all he has to do.
That's all.
I'm off to bed now [sick as a dog.] :)
Sorry, boys:
ReplyDeleteMatt, Colin - good points.
Of course, Gov't agencies would close ranks and all sing from the same hymn sheet. You can't have abuse of power without the power.
ReplyDeletePeople still believe Oswald killed Kennedy and that Monroe's death was suicide, don't they?
If we knew even a fraction of the corruption at such high levels we would be too terrifid to sleep.
If any gov't administration can blatantly disregard the U.N and Geneva Convention to wage an illegal war on Iraq,illegally deny their own peoples' guaranteed constitutional rights, enter another country and KIDNAP their leader then they are not beyond asserting presure on their media and jointly concealing facts over Obama's nationality/birth cerificate.
ReplyDeleteIf Americans want to be this blind then I would say they get what they deserve, but for the fact it effects the whole world.
"If any gov't administration can blatantly disregard the U.N and Geneva Convention to wage an illegal war on Iraq,illegally deny their own peoples' guaranteed constitutional rights, enter another country and KIDNAP their leader then they are not beyond asserting presure on their media and jointly concealing facts over Obama's nationality/birth cerificate."
ReplyDeleteUber: state facts please. What part of the Geneva conention did we disregard? What part of the UN (btw the UN does not control the world) did we disregard? What rights are/were denied? Who was kidnapped?
Please provide links, thanks.
James: Yes it should/would be easy for BO to produce the document; that doesn't actually change anything though. You are too caught up in the one world order business to even think of looking at this objectively. Ruthie pretty much put it out there for you and you dismissed her completely.
Lord N- I don't have to provide these links as they are common knowledge and I am far too lazy.
ReplyDelete1/ Geneva Convention states that if one country intends to wage a 'legal' war on another nation they have to follow a rigid set of rules- the most basic being that the aggresssor must give adequate notice of their intend of aggression.
To not do so, re-classifies it's status from war to illegal surprise attack;an invasion.They also broke other Geneva Convention laws like televising the dead bodies of Saddam's sons.
2.The U.N denied permission for the U.S. to invade Iraq.The U.N mandate was ignored.
Whilst the U.N do not 'control the world' the members are expected to follow their decisions/rules.Continued membership is reliant on that.Yet, no sanctions.
3.The U.S denied it's people their Constitutional rights governing free assembly when they peacably protested the war in Iraq, yet countless protesters were arrested. One man was even arrested walking in a mall for wearing a -shirt which had an anti-war slogan.
They further denied the rights of the U.S citizens when the Bush administration, without a court order,took it upon themselves to wire tap the phones of whomever they wanted without instituting the American equivelent of Canada's War Measures Act, which is the only time some Constitutional Rights can be temporarily disregarded.
4.The Bush Administration kidnapped many 'suspected' terrorists when they, without auhority and through force, removed foreign nationals from their homelands and flew them to Guantanamo Bay.
They obviously assaulted,kidnapped and illegally held Saddam Hussein ;a recognized head of state,the president no less, in his OWN country which they were illegally invading,occupying and bombing at the time.
Do you think the world would allow America to treat a head of state like that in the western world?
They wouldn't even attempt it!
We could do with 'regime change' in the U.K now AND we have WMD.
Until America can find the cajones or competence to ascertain your future president's identity, nationality and immigration staus maybe they should keep their bumbling,fat nose out of the rest of the world's politics.
If you don't provide facts (whether lazy or not) then you provide onpinion...
ReplyDeleteEveryone has one, you have to prove yours is correct.
Protestors get arrested all the time, in every administration/city, etc. Usually becaus they do something illegal (funny how that works); illegality is not a right.
The UN authorized force against Iraq. Iraq disregarded the cease-fire they signed with the US after the first Gulf War, thus there was enough justification for hostilities without even any of the other. The Geneva coventions were indeed followed, the complaint with the conventions stems from the terrorists captured after the war with Saddam had ended.
The 'wiretap' was not on 'anyone they chose', do a little reading, at least get an idea on what the program was.
I love the 'illegally held' Saddam; do you know what a war is Uber? Saddam was the purpose of the war, his capture was part of the war; he was held because of the war. He was tried and executed by the people that he had been terrorizing and killing during his entire reign.
And I love your last position. The world would fall faster than you think without the US in it. I dislike severly what BO stands for, what I fear he will do to the economy, the laws and this land; but I do not put any stock into the convuluted conspiracy theories surrounding his birth.
Sorry, that was me. My 'T' key is broken so created some typos.
ReplyDeleteNo, Lord N- you do not know your facts, nor clearly what war is as opposed to their so called 'pre-emptive strike'.
1. Bush Snr. gave adequate notice and was supported by the U.N.in '91That was not open-ended and certainly did not extend to his son's mis-administration.
2. It was not a war as they did not follow the Geneva Convention, so their 'pre-emptive strike' and all occupation and actions were not legal acts of war.
3. The Bush Admin certainly DID reserve the right to wire tap, without court order , anyone they 'suspected' of engaging in terrorist activity.
That's McCarthyism.
4.The purpose of the 'war' was to disarm Saddam of his WMD,until all evidence suggested that he didn't have any-then it was 'regime change'... The purpose of the 'war' was $$$$$$$$$$$.
YOU do some reading. Blair, recall him?, refused to allow a vote on whether or not we assisted in the 'war', alleging that if Saddam had any notice of their covert, night air raid, Saddam could & would wipe out Britain in 15 minutes.
Really, Blair knew he would not get consent, given the U.N REFUSAL of permission to launch an air attack on Iraq.FACT
Thus - no notice- no 'war'. It was a massacre.
I don't see America bombing countries that actually HAVE WMD like Korea. Nor do I see their forced DEMOCRACY in countries with no oil,where the crimes against humanity are wider spread and overt.
Besides, who says what Saddam did or didn't do? No doubt, the majoriy of that was propaganda,created by idiots to convince idiots the illegalities committed were justified. Altruistic, even, as America is so benevolent, don't ya know!
As to the whole world collapsing if America never existed...your country's entire lifespan,to date, would not surpass the NHS waiting list for an knee surgery.
And may I remind you that Canada's biggest export is processed foods, it's biggest importer America.
I think if not for Canada, America would collapse.
The rest of the'old world' managed just fine ,for quite a spell without America, remember?
Of course,anyone who says such things about America are just jealous that they are not Americans , right?
Well, guess what!
I AM American.As it so happens, I was born there, coincidentally, in Hawaii.
Just don't ask to see my birth certificate,m'kay? :)
And innocent protesters of the war, not engaging in any illegal activity whatsoever, were arrested.
ReplyDeleteIn fact,the man who wore an anti-war slogan on his t-shirt was threatened that he could be charged under treason laws. No such charges were laid however, when it emerged that he was a lawyer.
He was not even protesting,he was walking through a mall.
How many citizens does your government kill every day, with the death penalty? How well do you treat your citizens?Would that justify a pre emptive strike /kidnapping of your leader because another country didn't agree with American law/regime/lifestyles?
Lord Nazh, let me say, up front and you know it's true - that I am not in the least anti-American, anti-British or anti-any nation.
ReplyDeleteI'm partial to the French and Russians.
I wouldn't want anyone to confuse my views with those of commenters who come to the site. Now your words:
"If you don't provide facts (whether lazy or not) then you provide onpinion..."
Precisely. Looking at the Obama issue only - yes, they do need to provide facts. We've asked for them. They need to provide them.
I'm not anti-Amrican either,per se.
ReplyDelete