Obama Lied No One Died, Yet

TexasDarlin says:

Summary of Obama’s Deception
Barack Obama has misled and deceived the American public about his dual identity, dual citizenship, religious background, and birth records.
He was, and possibly still is, a citizen of Indonesia.
Contrary to Obama’s public statements that he’s “always been a Christian” Obama was at one time a Muslim.
His Hawaiian Birth Certificate reveals the legal name Barry Soetoro. His original Birth Certificate, with the name Barack H. Obama, was sealed.
That is why the Birth Certificate published on his campaign website “FightTheSmears” is fake. Barack Obama does not want you to know about his Soetoro identity.
Obama’s Deception: The Details
The Fake Birth Certificate:The Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) published on the Obama Campaign’s website “FightTheSmears” has been falsified. Two experts with combined experience of more than 60 years in document analysis and computer forensics are willing to testify if necessary. I have seen their professional qualifications; trust me, they would pass the “expert witness” test with flying colors. Their latest reports are provided below.
Indonesian Citizenship:Obama acquired Indonesian citizenship when he was adopted by Lolo Soetoro, his step-father. He may still have Indonesian citizenship.
When was Obama going to disclose his Indonesian identity to the American electorate? The legal issues related to dual citizenship can be reasonably argued, and possibly will be.
But the immediate problem at this time, on the eve of the Democratic Convention, is that the “presumed nominee” has lied to the American public by intentionally withholding key information about his background and identity.
Religious Background:Obama underestimated the tolerance of Americans to accept his Muslim background. As Lolo Soetoro’s son, Barry Soetoro was a Muslim in Indonesia. But Obama has publicly proclaimed that he’s “never been a Muslim.” This claim is highlighted on his “FightTheSmears” website.
Obama has flat-out lied about this part of his life.
Will we hold him accountable for these deceptions?
Dual Citizenship Could Disqualify Obama from the Presidency
Obama has hidden the truth about his Indonesian identity and citizenship because it could disqualify him under Article II of the Constitution. So he thought he’d just ignore it.
Again, the legal issues can be reasonably argued, but when was Obama planning to tell the truth?
For a comprehensive analysis of the legal issues, see Judah Benjamin’s articles (links below). He lays out a strong argument that Obama is ineligible based on Art. II.
New Theory of Birth Certificate Events
Based on Judah Benjamin’s research, backed up by Polarik’s and Techdude’s analyses, I published my new theory of events on Wednesday in Birth Certificate: Obama, Soetoro, or Dunham?
Theory of Birth Certificate Events:1. Obama was born in Hawaii on Aug. 4, 1961, with the legal name Barack Hussein Obama II, and Barack H. Obama Sr. was identified as his legal father. [NOTE: an alternative theory, that Obama was born in Canada, is still being researched.]
2. Obama was adopted by Lolo Soetoro in Hawaii sometime around 1965-1966.
3. As part of the adoption procedure, pursuant to Hawaiian law, Obama’s original Birth Certificate (BC) was sealed, and a new Birth Certificate was issued with his new name, Barry Soetoro, and the name of his new father, Lolo Soetoro.
4. Mother and son joined Soetoro in Indonesia, where Barry Soetoro was registered in school as Lolo’s son, a Muslim, and a citizen of Indonesia.
5. After approximately 4 years, Barry Soetoro returned to Hawaii as a U.S. citizen to live with his grandparents, the Dunhams, and attend private school.
6. At some point before his 18th birthday, he most likely changed his legal name back to Barack Hussein Obama, but his Birth Certificate would not have been modified again unless there was another adoption (by the Dunhams, for example).
Among the questions asked therein:If any or all of these hypothesized facts are TRUE, why has Senator Obama deceived the American public, and will the public hold him accountable for the deceptions?
CONCLUSION
It is theorized that:
Barack Obama has misled the American people about his background and his identity. The deception involves an intentional initiative to conceal records related to his birth and his childhood. These records would demonstrate that he acquired Indonesian citizenship when his step-father, Lolo Soetoro, adopted him; he was a Muslim; his Birth Certificate is in the legal name of Barry Soetoro; and he may still hold Indonesian citizenship today.
Barack Obama has undertaken a concerted and systematic effort to alter, delete, or hide records about his personal and professional life. His secrecy is unprecedented among presidential candidates in American History.
What will our Democratic Party leadership do to ensure that a vetted candidate is nominated for President?
Links

To fully understand the basis of the assertions herein, the following articles should be read in full:
Birth Certificate: Obama, Soetoro, or Dunham by TexasDarlin
The Paper Trail: Obama’s Indonesia Background by Judah Benjamin
Obama the Indonesian: ‘Citizen of the World’? by TexasDarlin
Divided Loyalties: Obama’s Eligibility Problem, Part 2 by Judah Benjamin
Divided Loyalties: Obama’s Eligibility Problem, Part 1 by Judah Benjamin
Obama’s Birth — Questions Remain by TexasDarlin
Obama was likely born in Hawaii — does that mean he’s Eligible? by TexasDarlin
Barack was Born in Two Hospitals, Sister Maya was Born Twice! by Texas Darlin
Forensics Expert: COLB is a Forgery by Techdude
Polarik’s Analysis of Forgery– assorted posts at Polarik’s blog
Other background articles can be read at TexasDarlin
DISCLAIMER/COPYRIGHT: This article presents draft and preliminary viewpoints and information, all of which is subject to change. It is intended to be strictly theoretical and hypothetical, in an effort to examine and vet the background, qualifications, and eligibility for U.S. President of a serious candidate and public figure who is standing for that office. The assertions made herein are believed to be true by the author based on good-faith efforts to research the facts related to a public figure running for public office. In the event that documentation deemed to be reliable by the author comes to the author’s attention disproving one or more of the assertions made herein, corrections will be published.
Nothing herein should be quoted, cited, copied, or otherwise used or shared in whole or part without providing a link to the original source on the TexasDarlin blog, and acknowledging the author, TexasDarlin, which is a pseudonym. Nothing in this article should be used in a way that misrepresents the author’s meanings.

Rally Posters From The Messiah World Tour

Does anyone else find this disturbing on any level?



Rally poster promoting the Messiah's speech in Berlin:

Now compare the poster above to this one:

Do the people who organize these rallies understand the signifigance of using these distubingly similar images?

Another 1st Person Report on the Messiah World Tour

From Blackfive
Last paragraph of the email posted by Blackfive. (Fixed the link and added a few more paragraph from the original email)

This oped is of course subjective and limited, but I will try to present the facts as I saw them. I wasn't able to see much, which makes a point all by itself.

When his plane arrived (also containing Senators Reed and Hagel, but the news has hardly mentioned them), there was a "ramp freeze." This means if you are on the flight line, and not directly involved with the event in question, you stay where you are and don't move. For a combat flight arriving or departing, this takes about ten minutes, and involves the active runway and crossing taxiways only. For Obama's flight, this took 90 minutes, during which time a variety of military missions came grinding to a halt. Obviously, this visit was important, right?

95% of base wanted nothing to do with him. I have met three troops who support him, and literally hundreds who regard him as a buffoon, a charlatan, a hindrance to their mission or a flat out enemy of progress. Even when the rumors were publicly admitted, almost no one left their duty sections to try to see him, unless they were officers whose presence was officially required.

Mister Obama's motorcade drove up from the flight line and entered the dining hall toward the end of lunch time. Diners were chased out and told to make other arrangements for food, in the middle of the duty day.

Obama clearly doesn't care about the troops, doesn't care about America, doesn't care about anything except hearing his own voice and the chance to sit at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue…From where he'll bring us the proven Democratic wartime leadership of Bosnia and the Balkans (US forces still there), Somalia (US forces prevailed despite being ill equipped by executive order, and taking heavy casualties), Haiti (what were we doing there again?), Desert One (oops?), Vietnam (where we snatched defeat from the jaws of victory), Korea (still there), WWI, and the fluke success of WWII won by such wonderful liberal notions as concentration camps for Japanese Americans, nukes, FBI investigations of waitresses who dated soldiers in case they were "morally corrupt" and the (valid) occupation of and continued presence in Italy, Japan and Germany for 60 years, which they are conveniently pretending won't happen with Iraq.
That's not "change." That's "failure we can do without."

First it was a congressional delegation, then it was a campaign tour. He ignored the soldiers, airmen and Marines. As a sitting US Senator he has a moral obligation to at least attempt to find and visit with soldiers from his state, especially if they have been wounded.

Elect this empty suit elitist with socialist ideals and zero experience (and if vote 3rd party, you will elect him) and you can kiss America good-bye.

HE Won't Say Win

The Chosen One is in Iraq on a "fact-finding" election campaign. Lets face it, this is a campagin tour. No one with any sense doubts that for a moment. You have fawning MSM anchors practically kissing the ground and Katie Couric ready to climax over this wet-behind the ears socialist who has ZERO foreign policy and military experience.

He keeps saying we need to end the war. Not WIN the war, END the war. So what is his problem? Is victory such a bad thing? Has some playground incident in his past jaded him against winning? We all know the politically correct crowd on the left has problems with competitive sports. They've succeeded in banning dodge ball, t-ball, and spelling bees, because someone has to win and someone has to lose, and we all know thats bad for self-esteem. Teachers can no longer use red ink to mark wrong answers on tests or grade term papers. God forbid they tell a student to re-write a sentence that doesn't make any sense.

If the messiah is so dead set against giving the Iraqis the same chance for self-determination we have, then why not just say so? That would be a refreshing change.

It's OK to win. It really is. No seriously. The men and women doing the work in Iraq and Afghanistan, taking the rounds, enduring the heat, the seperation from family, would certainly benefit from being told they are winners, because, when it all comes down to where the metal meets the meat, they are winners.
Every one of them.

Couple of Things

First, Headquarters Marine Corps has issued a statement regarding the HBO mini-series Generation Kill. It states:

From: Acting Director, Division of Public Affairs, Headquarters Marine Corps
The recent airing of the first episode of HBO's "Generation Kill" has generated numerous inquiries regarding Marine Corps support of the series. The Marine Corps did not provide any official support to the filmmakers. The series is based on the book by the same title by Evan Wright, a former Rolling Stone magazine reporter who was embedded with 1st Reconnaissance Battalion at the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom. While there are certainly aspects of the film that are accurate, it is at its
heart a commercial production. It's raw and has elements that are very much out of synch with the core values our nation rightly expects of its Marines. Viewed as a whole, in my estimation, it does not accurately portray the honor and professionalism of our Corps of Marines.

Semper Fidelis,
Major David Romley
Director, Community Relations Headquarters,
U.S. Marine Corps

There are some comments at my vox site from someone who has seen the first two episodes.

Second, my friend Matt over at Wolking's World sent me a video today. It was shot in Santa Barbara California back in March, while we were in DC holding the IVAW to a higher standard in their Winter Soldier II hearings. You will not like it. You can view it here or here. Moonbats being stupid.

Third, I got a phone call today from one of my favorite columnists. I was surprised to say the least. She only calls to taunt me with her intelligence and incredible good looks. She refuses to leave her husband and run away with me. Go figure. Anyway, she has a column coming out Tuesday at Human Events regarding the naming of the high school in Texas for EllTee Vandegrift. I know it will be great.

I know I said a couple of things, but this will most likely, probably, in all likelyhood, I hope be the last one:
Kos lied and a rabbit died. See the post for the context. Someone was upset.
Obamamessiah's birth certificate has been proven to be a forgery thanks to some hard work by some dedicated people. Pam Geller at Atlas Shrugs has a post up. It's long, technical and full of graphics, but the bottom line is, the birth certificate posted by the krazies at Kos is a forgery or a fake. In either case, it's not genuine. Now we just need to figure out why. Hmm why would a lunatic left wing extremist website post a birth certificate of a candidate for President knowing it was a forgery?

The Media Still Lies When It Suits Their Agenda

Ignore The Media: Al-Maliki Did Not Embrace Obama's Withdrawal Plan
Patrick Casey
It's an established fact that the drive-by media is supporting Barack Obama's candidacy this election cycle (just ask previous media fave Hillary Clinton). But in the last few weeks, as Obama attempts to redefine himself before the voting masses begin to pay attention in September, the media has gone from being merely biased to advancing false propaganda on behalf of the Obama campaign.
The latest incident has to do with the apparently fictional article published in yesterday's Der Spiegel magazine in Germany: Iraq Leader Maliki Supports Obama's Withdrawal Plans. The piece, released to coincide with Obama's trip to Iraq, purported to 'quote' Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki as saying that he supported Barack Obama's plan to withdraw troops from Iraq within 16 months after Obama assumes office. In addition, al-Maliki was 'quoted' as saying that he "apparently" opposed John McCain's "open ended" Iraq policy. The article goes on to claim that al-Maliki complained about President Bush's reluctance to agree to a withdrawal timeline, and also points out that the comments allegedly said by al-Maliki come immediately after the two countries released a statement Friday agreeing on a "general time-horizon" for removing troops from Iraq - thus suggesting that even the Bush Administration has seen the error of its ways and is beginning to see the world through Obama's majestic eyes.
As soon as the Der Spiegel article hit our shores, it was the top news story on all the news outlets. This morning, predictably, reports on the article made it onto the front pages of newspapers around the country: New York Times - Maliki Backs Obama's Troop Withdrawal Plan, Chicago Tribune - Maliki backs Obama troop pullout plan, Los Angeles Times - Iraq President Maliki embraces Obama withdrawal plan. Notice anything similar about the headlines, although all of the articles are by different reporters?
Then something remarkable happened. The Iraqi government came out Sunday morning, after the Sunday newspapers were printed and delivered, and issued a statement of their own announcing that the Der Spiegel article and its allegations about statements made by the Iraqi Prime Minister were false. Not that it matters much - in general, American news consumers remember the first, original news accounts, especially those concerning a story as topical as this. Unless readers are intimately involved in the subject matter, most such news consumers aren't even aware of subsequent corrections to a false story, unless the media gives those corrections as wide a play as the original report. With something like this, where the original story was so obviously beneficial to Barack Obama, this entire affair will probably vanish by Monday morning.
This incident is virtually a duplicate of another that happened a little more than a week ago, after the drive-by media breathlessly reported that the Iraqi Prime Minister was demanding that any bilateral security agreement between Iraq and the United States include a firm date for withdrawal: NPR - Al-Maliki Demands Timetable For Iraq Withdrawal. The only problem with that story was that it was false, as well. The BBC's Baghdad bureau reported that when they listened to their recording of what al-Maliki actually said, they discovered that he never mentioned withdrawal at all - and that all subsequent reports in the Western media were based on a "mistranslation".
The drive-by media in the United States didn't think that such a mistake on their part was worth a correction - they just ignored the new development from the BBC calling their original reporting (and methods of verification) into question. The equation for the drive-by media was simple. Original story = benefit for Obama. Correction = benefit for McCain (and President Bush). Therefore, no widespread dispersal of a correction is warranted.
Even though the domestic media didn't correct their accounts on the al-Maliki withdrawal mistranslation, as the primary correction of the story was put out by the liberal BBC, I'm certain that American journalists were well aware of it. With that in mind, I'm stunned that the US media wasn't more careful about going with yesterday's reports of the de facto endorsement of Obama (or at least of his plans) by the Iraqi Prime Minister. Two simple and basic facts should have given the media ample reason to pause - first, that there was a translation error less than two weeks earlier, and second, the fact that Der Spiegel, a virulently anti-Bush and anti-Iraq War publication, didn't link to or provide either a transcript of the interview with al-Maliki or - taking into consideration how the original "mistranslation" was discovered - a recording of the interview. At the very least, other media outlets should have verified the substance of the report with the Iraqi Prime Minister or his office before going with the story at the top of the news. The media, however, saw this story as a perfect accompaniment to Barack Obama's Middle East Victory Tour - so they went with it before checking it out, again.
It appears as if another reliably liberal media outlet, CNN, was the first to report on the problems with the Der Spiegel article: Iraqi PM disputes report on withdrawal plan. Ironically, that should lend credibility to the correction, since Obama supporters and the left will not be able to claim that this latest "mistranslation" incident is another right-wing plot by Fox News:
A German magazine quoted Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki as saying that he backed a proposal by presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq within 16 months...But a spokesman for al-Maliki said his remarks "were misunderstood, mistranslated and not conveyed accurately."Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said the possibility of troop withdrawal was based on the continuance of security improvements, echoing statements that the White House made Friday after a meeting between al-Maliki and U.S. President Bush.
Surprisingly, CNN does not acknowledge that this is the second serious problem with a mistranslation of remarks made by the Iraqi Prime Minister appearing in the Western media over the past few weeks. But as both mistranslations obviously benefited Barack Obama and his campaign, perhaps CNN doesn't really want to point that out at this time.
For the record, here is an excerpt from the official statement from the White House, released jointly by Iraq and the United States on Friday, concerning points in the bilateral security agreement between the countries that have already been settled:
In the context of these improving political, economic, and security conditions, the President and the Prime Minister discussed the ongoing negotiations to establish a normalized bilateral relationship between Iraq and the United States. The leaders agreed on a common way forward to conclude these negotiations as soon as possible, and noted in particular the progress made toward completing a broad strategic framework agreement that will build on the Declaration of Principles signed last November, and include areas of cooperation across many fields, including economics, diplomacy, health, culture, education, and security.
In the area of security cooperation, the President and the Prime Minister agreed that improving conditions should allow for the agreements now under negotiation to include a general time horizon for meeting aspirational goals -- such as the resumption of Iraqi security control in their cities and provinces and the further reduction of U.S. combat forces from Iraq. The President and Prime Minister agreed that the goals would be based on continued improving conditions on the ground and not an arbitrary date for withdrawal. The two leaders welcomed in this regard the return of the final surge brigade to the United States this month, and the ongoing transition from a primary combat role for U.S. forces to an overwatch role, which focuses on training and advising Iraqi forces, and conducting counter-terror operations in support of those forces.
This transition and the subsequent reduction in U.S. forces from Iraq is a testament to the improving capacity of Iraq's Security Forces and the success of joint operations that were initiated under the new strategy put in place by the President and the Prime Minister in January 2007.
Pay careful attention to the highlighted sentence above. The drive-by media also attempted to claim (before the Der Spiegel story hit the wires yesterday) that since Friday's official White House statement included the words "time horizon", it meant that President Bush had flip-flopped on his long-term position on troop withdrawals from Iraq. Obviously, the subsequent line destroys that line of reasoning by the media. The position of both President Bush and Senator John McCain has remained the same throughout this entire war. Reduction of our troop presence, including that of combat troops, is predicated on the improving security situation on the ground. And Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki agrees with that, no matter what propaganda the media distributes suggesting otherwise.
In fact, we've always had "time horizons" in Iraq - we just completed one involving thedrawdown of the surge forces that was originally planned and shown to Congress (in an easy-to-read slide format!) by General Petraeus back on September 11th, 2007. We were able to complete that drawdown within the "time horizon" plan from ten months ago because the security conditions on the ground created by our new strategy - a strategy promoted by President Bush and Senator McCain but opposed by Senator Obama - permitted it. If the security situation hadn't improved, the drawdown would not have been completed as planned, as it just was.
The media should be ashamed of itself. They won't be.

What HAS Obama Done?

Found this on Modern Conservative.
Chris really does a great job finding good stuff. You should make it a daily read.
Charles Krauthammer wrote this on Friday.

Americans are beginning to notice Obama's elevated opinion of himself.
There's nothing new about narcissism in politics. Every senator looks in the mirror and sees a president. Nonetheless, has there ever been a presidential nominee with a wider gap between his estimation of himself and the sum total of his lifetime achievements?
Obama is a three-year senator without a single important legislative achievement to his name, a former Illinois state senator who voted "present" nearly 130 times. As president of the Harvard Law Review, as law professor and as legislator, has he ever produced a single notable piece of scholarship? Written a single memorable article? His most memorable work is a biography of his favorite subject: himself.
It is a subject upon which he can dilate effortlessly. In his victory speech upon winning the nomination, Obama declared it a great turning point in history -- "generations from now we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment" -- when, among other wonders, "the rise of the oceans began to slow." As Hudson Institute economist Irwin Stelzer noted in his London Daily Telegraph column, "Moses made the waters recede, but he had help." Obama apparently works alone.
Obama may think he's King Canute, but the good king ordered the tides to halt precisely to refute sycophantic aides who suggested that he had such power. Obama has no such modesty.
After all, in the words of his own slogan, "we are the ones we've been waiting for," which, translating the royal "we," means: " I am the one we've been waiting for." Amazingly, he had a quasi-presidential seal with its own Latin inscription affixed to his lectern, until general ridicule -- it was pointed out that he was not yet president -- induced him to take it down.
He lectures us that instead of worrying about immigrants learning English, "you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish" -- a language Obama does not speak. He further admonishes us on how "embarrassing" it is that Europeans are multilingual but "we go over to Europe, and all we can say is 'merci beaucoup.' " Obama speaks no French. His fluent English does, however, feature many such admonitions, instructions and improvements. His wife assures us that President Obama will be a stern taskmaster: Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism . . . that you come out of your isolation. . . . Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed."

For the first few months of the campaign, the question about Obama was: Who is he? The question now is: Who does he think he is?
We are getting to know. Redeemer of our uninvolved, uninformed lives. Lord of the seas. And more. As he said on victory night, his rise marks the moment when "our planet began to heal." As I recall -- I'm no expert on this -- Jesus practiced his healing just on the sick. Obama operates on a larger canvas.

The Obama Youth Movement Update

My bud Snooper has some updated info on this monstrous tax liability proposed by the messiah.

Good links at the bottom of the post.

[...] The entire plan is breathtaking in its scope. But it does not, as at least one internet writer has suggested, portend a "giant police force." It would be easier to rebut if it did. As it is, it's silly stuff born of naively fanciful dreams.

Senator Obama aims to tap into the already active volunteerism of millions of Americans and recruit them to become cogs in a gigantic government machine grinding out his social re-engineering agenda. It's Orwellian-like, with a novice social activist's mentality at the helm. ...
[...]

To me, these two paragraphs contradict. It may be my imagination running away with myself but I don't think so. The "silly stuff born of naively fanciful dreams" in one paragraph followed by "It's Orwellian-like, with a novice social activist's mentality at the helm" statement is a portent in and of itself.

Either way, whether it be a Civilian National Security Force equipped, just as powerful, just as strong and just as well funded as the United States Armed Forces or a gigantic play-pen for young people, the tax burden will be astronomical in scope. Both scenarios should be bringing down the roofs across America with a hearty "WHAT THE HELL IS HE TALKING ABOUT NOW!" sentiment.