THE SAGA OF BARACK OBAMA'S ORIGINS CONTINUESby Emanuel A. Winston, Middle East Analyst & Commentator
The saga of Obama's origins continues to grow as you will read in the following by Joseph Farah in WorldNetDaily.(1) As you will note, a certain group of Obama supporters/collaborators ginned up a challenge to John McCain during the last Presidential election as to whether McCain was a legitimate American citizen, born off-shore to American parents. Their contention was that he was NOT qualified to run for and to be President of the United States under Constitutional Law. That was investigated but, it was ruled that he was, indeed an American citizen.
As you will see in Farah's analysis, Obama was 'somehow' spared rigorous vetting by judicial inquiry and still refuses to confirm his place of birth, in addition to proving up his parentage to prove that he is a legitimate American naturally born citizen - as is specified in the Constitution. While the search goes on and despite firewalls erected every inch of the way, it is those firewalls and who erected them that are of equal interest.
Barack Obama was a lowly, first term junior Senator from Illinois, not known for bringing important pieces of legislation to the floor of the Senate, with most of his voting record stating he voted: "Present" on most legislative votes. That means he didn't vote Yes; he didn't vote No; he merely voted that he was Present - with no opinion.
So how did this relatively unknown in America become the selected candidate of the Democratic Party to run for President?
Who, by name, were the people who not only selected Obama but also knew about his "blank background"? We already know about some of his close and unsavory friends, advisors and funders. Syrian-born Antoine (Tony) Rezko now sits in Federal Prison for all sorts of political bribery in Chicago.
Was Barack Hussein Obama a "Mansourian" Candidate? A black radical convert to Islam, Dr. Kalid Abdullah Tariq al-Mansour, (aka Donald Warden) was reportedly a conduit for Saudi funds for Obama's University education at Harvard and possibly some of his campaign monies which were bestowed upon Barack Obama (and other political figures yet to be identified). This speaks to a related story of how many hand-picked Muslims were to be funded so they could climb to high positions in the American political system.
The deeper and darker side of the Obama story is: Who were the unseen backers who wanted a man they could control or manipulate well beyond the constraints of the Constitution?
These questions grow exponentially and should be addressed seriously, to be answered - despite the possibility of Obama's ejection from office as an imposter representing an agenda of those who may have conducted what history might label a "Presidential Coup d'etat".Who were the specific Congressmen who knew or suspected Obama's possible ineligibility?
Who in the Intelligence Community (the Clandestine Services) wanted a change in Government and colluded to shield Obama so they could have their obedient man in Government?
Who in the Judiciary worked so diligently to keep the investigation of Obama's qualifications smothered with rulings that dismissed innumerable charges and suits to force disclosure of Obama's legitimacy?
Who really checked the extraordinary amount of overseas funding, much of which was funded through Muslims in America in increments small enough to qualify for non-disclosure by the Obama election campaign?
How did ACORN, a well-known associate of Obama manage to get millions of American tax-payers' dollars to work almost exclusively for Obama in getting out the vote for Obama? ACORN is now under investigation in most U.S. states for fraud but, even those investigations are mysteriously going very slowly.
What about the U.S. Supreme Court which simply seems to be artfully disinterested in bring the question before their bar? One Supreme Court Justice said he would look into the matter. Now, the question is: Will the Supreme Court actually probe in depth with all its power or will it be a sham investigation and perceived as irrelevant?
However, Barack Hussein Obama could not on his own be the master-mind who constructed this virtual "coup d'etat" against the American Constitution should be investigated and, if found guilty of fraud, should be removed from office.
There must have been an assemblage of powerful figures who would have had to conspire to achieve the goals of virtually overthrowing the U.S. Government in what would seem to be a bloodless "coup d'etat".
One cannot help but notice the take over of banks, insurance companies, industries - especially the Big Three Auto giants - with controlling "Czars" who act on the orders of the Obama Regime.
We observe the willingness of the President to bond with or simply ignore some of the world's most deadly terror-driven regimes and tyrants in the Islamic world. This again brings up the matter of Obama's origins having been born a Muslim and later adopting Christian 'persona' which met the criteria of Chicago politics. (Tony Rezko did the same by adopting an Italian name although he was born in Syria.)
Now there is the critical matter of one man literally owning or, at least, controlling the finances of the American nation. Obama borrows and prints trillions of dollars which puts the nation and her future into a position of being an unrecoverable debtor nation.
Some will note that this borrowed money seems to be scheduled to be dumped into the market at a time approximately 1 to 1½ years prior to the next Presidential election. It looks as if Obama and his clever gang of manipulators plan to take the money forcibly borrowed from the American tax-payers and then use it to stimulate the economy, by giving some back with the image of the unemployed breaking up streets and highways as well as other make-work projects so Obama can claim he has lessened unemployment which he created. Rahm Emanuel and Timothy Geithner could tell us a lot about the scheme under subpoena from the witness stand IF they were put in the dock.
A lot of money came in to make Obama President and his advisors virtually controllers of America.
I recall that Adolph Hitler also had his Czars or area leaders called "Gauleiters", although there were other titles. It not only divided responsibility but gave ultimate control to the High Command and, of course, Hitler himself. I am speaking generally of dictatorial methods and planning when a nation and her people become subservient to the "Dear Leader". This includes all Media who carry the information or dis-information to the people at large. When you see a leader on most TV News networks and his face is splashed so frequently on news magazines you can safely assume the publishers, editors, journalists and news anchors are "in the bag".
So, have Americans been had? That can only be determined by conscientious Judges on America's Supreme Court.
To view this item online, visit http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=101162
BETWEEN THE LINES
Why Obama wants to hide birth certificateBy Joseph Farah
Exclusive: Joseph Farah explains how words of Barack himself belie natural born citizenship
Posted: June 16, 2009 1:00 am Eastern
Since I began my quixotic campaign to uncover Barack Obama's birth certificate, many have asked me about the president's possible motives for hiding it with such tenacity and diligence.
I think there are many plausible motives:
* Perhaps something in that birth certificate, if it indeed exists, would contradict assertions Obama has made about his life's story. These might even involve his true parental heritage. Without a real birth certificate, no one really knows who his parents were. So it is ridiculous even to speculate about whether citizenship could be conferred upon him by his mother, when we don't know for sure who his mother is.
* Perhaps it reveals a foreign birth, as Hawaii allowed for in 1961 while still issuing the
"certification of live birth" we have seen posted on his website.
* Or perhaps it will show just what Obama has claimed all along – a birth in Hawaii to two officially non-citizen parents, for the purpose of establishing "natural born citizenship" under the Constitution.
What do I mean by that last possibility?
Well, as you know, in 2008, the Senate of the United States held hearings to determine if one of the presidential candidates fulfilled the requirement of being a "natural born citizen." It wasn't Barack Obama. It was John McCain, who was born on a U.S. military base overseas to two U.S. citizens.
Start your own eligibility billboard campaign in your neighborhood with WND's new yard signs, asking: "Where's the Birth Certificate?"
On April 10 of last year, two senators, both Democrats, Patrick Leahy of Vermont and Claire McCaskill of Missouri, introduced a resolution into upper house expressing a sense of the Senate that McCain was indeed a "natural born citizen."
It's interesting what Leahy had to say on the subject: "Because he was born to American citizens (emphasis added), there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen. I expect that this will be a unanimous resolution of the U.S. Senate."
And, indeed it was. It was also, interestingly, the only such hearing held by the Congress on the subject of "natural born citizenship" and its application to the 2008 presidential race. Why was that interesting? Because everyone involved in this process knew – or should have known – that the life story told by Barack Obama would raise far more doubts about his eligibility than McCain's.
Notice Leahy did not say one parent citizen would qualify a child for "natural born citizenship." He indicated it would take two to tango.
He did so again at a Judiciary Committee hearing April 3, when he asked then-Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, a former federal judge, if he had any doubts about McCain's eligibility to serve as president.
"My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen,"Chertoff responded – again underlining the fact that both parents would need to be citizens.
And what did Leahy say to that? "That is mine, too."
By the way, Obama voted for this resolution, so he obviously agrees with the definition of what constitutes a "natural born citizen" – the offspring of two U.S. citizens.
Now, I don't know who Barack Obama's parents are, because I have never seen his birth certificate. All I've seen is a facsimile of a "certification of live birth" on the Internet. That document, even if genuine, proves nothing about Obama's birth in Hawaii or who his parents were. Hawaii had a very slipshod practice in 1961 of issuing these documents to babies born outside the country and listing parents who may not have been the parents at all.
But I do know who Barack Obama claims his parents were. According to him, neither one of them was an American citizen able to confer natural born citizenship on a child. One, Barack Obama Sr., was a foreign national from Kenya, and the other, Stanley Ann Dunham, was too young to have qualified under the law for bestowing that privilege on her son, even if the father had been a citizen and even in the unlikely event Obama was actually born in Hawaii!
So, if we are to take Obama at his word, he is not a natural born citizen and not eligible to serve as president.
If he is to be judged by the same standard as his opponent in the race, there is no way he qualifies. That's what Leahy said. That's what Chertoff said. That's what the law says.
A logical question naturally follows: Why didn't the Congress of the United States hold hearings on Obama's eligibility when they did so on McCain's eligibility?
I'm still trying to figure that one out. Maybe the answer is this simple: Because there's no way Obama would have qualified.
Another logical question follows: Why is this man still serving in the White House and turning the country upside down when he is not even constitutionally eligible?
That's the heart and soul of the campaign I've been running.
By the way, further establishing that it was impossible for Obama to have been a "natural born citizen" are some astonishing words found on his own campaign website. They indicate that Obama was "at birth" a citizen of Kenya and a subject of Great Britain. Why did the founders insist upon a "natural born citizen" clause in the Constitution? To avoid questions of divided loyalties. (Just scroll down the webpage and read the FactCheck.org excerpt to see this amazing admission for yourself.)
So, again, I ask: Why doesn't Obama want to reveal his real birth certificate? Because he wants this discussion of eligibility to go away – once and for all. It is a vulnerability he cannot explain away. So he would rather not discuss it at all.
But let me remind you all, in case you hadn't considered this: Obama plans to run for re-election in 2012. And that's why we can never, ever let this matter rest.