The Origins Of Barry Soetoro

Here is evidence that annuls Obama’s presidency. Obama’s college transcripts regarding his application for and receiving of foreign student aid.  Obama’s college transcripts from Occidental College indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate at the school. 

Barry Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship (scholarship) from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program – an international educational exchange program sponsored by the U.S. government.  

LoLo Soetoro was not Jr.'s father, he was tasked with bringing Barack to Islam

Barack Obama Sr.

Grants are available for U.S. citizens to go abroad and for non-U.S. citizens with no U.S. permanent residence to come to the U.S.  To qualify, for the non-US citizen scholarship to study in the U.S., a student applicant must claim and provide proof of foreign citizenship. 

This document seems to provide absolute proof that many of Obama’s detractors have been seeking.  The United States Constitution requires that Presidents (and Vice Presidents) of the United States be natural born citizens of the United States.

Article 2, Section 1, Paragraph 5 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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

Obama hasn’t met and doesn’t meet the basic qualifications for the presidency – must be a natural born citizen.

Obama has been named in dozens of civil lawsuits alleging he is not eligible to be president, with many filing a criminal complaint alleging the commander-in-chief is a fraud.

U.S. soldiers including a general refuse to recognize Obama as their Commander in Chief since he is not a U.S. citizen. The soldiers have challenged Obama’s legitimacy by filing federal lawsuits against Obama.

Stefan Frederick Cook

On such soldier was U.S. Army Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook who was given orders to deploy to Afghanistan. Cook refused to deploy stating that he shouldn’t have to go because Obama is not a U.S. citizen and therefore not legally President and Commander in Chief.  The military revoked the orders with no reason given.  Speculation is that Obama would rather not see this thing go to court before a judge!

“In the 20-page document — filed with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia — the California-based Taitz asks the court to consider granting his client’s request based upon Cook’s belief that Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the United States and is therefore ineligible to serve as commander-in-chief of the U.S. Armed Forces,” the Ledger-Enquirer reported.

Cook “would be acting in violation of international law by engaging in military actions outside the United States under this President’s command. … simultaneously subjecting himself to possible prosecution as a war criminal by the faithful execution of these duties,” Taitz stated.

Obama says he was born in Hawaii in 1961, just two years after it became a state, now ask yourself, Why would he apply for and receive financial aid for foreign students? He is at least guilty of fraud and at the worst the spire head of an attack on America. 

Barack Obama        and Daddy   Mohammad (Pak) Subud

Could this be Barack's real father? Let examine some of this evidence. While conducting a search of Obama's lineage I came across some very interesting evidence that suggest he's really from Indonesia. The idea being promoted is that  Mohammad Subud, the founder of the Subud cult, is Obama’s real father.Obama’s “mother” Stanly Ann Dunham and this Subud spiritual cult are veritably linked through documentation.

Now I've found another birth certificate from Indonesia that has his name as Barry Soetoro, but there's something wrong with the fathers name, Lolo Soetoro is listed as the step father, here, look for yourselves. 

There are many lawsuits and claims that Barack Obama was never eligible to be president because he wasn’t born in the United States. And there is credible evidence that suggests he is not legally eligible to serve as President of the United States.

Numerous official government documents records Obama being legally registered as Barry Soetoro. School registries shows the registration of Barack Obama under the name Barry Soetoro. During his Occidental College days he is registered as Barry Soetoro. 

An entry in the journal of the California assembly in reference to grants given to foreign exchange students (this official government document lists Obama as a foreigner not a US citizen. A US citizen wouldn’t qualify for foreign exchange student funding) states Obama as Barry Soetoro from Indonesia.

The first name of a child is always the same from birth. If throughout his childhood Obama went by the first name of Barry then legally his birth name would have to be Barry. In order to register any child for school an official birth certificate must be presented. To receive a government grant proof of citizenship and birth must also be submitted. All of the evidence is stating that Barack Obama’s legal first name is Barry not Barrack.

It wasn’t until he met a girl by the name of Regina that Obama started using the name Barack.  Regina was the first to start calling him Barack.  There seems to be no record of Obama legally changing his first name from Barry to Barack.

While being sworn in as an attorney in the State of Illinois, Mr Obama had to provide his personal information under oath. He was asked, if he had any other names, he responded none. In reality, he used the name Barry Soetoro in an entry in the journal of the California assembly in reference to grants given to foreign exchange students. 

Mr. Soetoro/Obama clearly defrauded the State Bar of Illinois and perjured himself while concealing his identity. Anybody else would’ve been disbarred for this and the matter would’ve been forwarded to the district attorney for prosecution for perjury and fraud, however nothing was done to Mr. Obama. More importantly, why did he conceal his identity? I'd say, Absolutly.

If Obama didn’t legally have his name changed from Barry to Barack then the birth certificate he passed to Congress is a fake, a forgery.  If his name was registered as Barry Soetoro even though Obama claims his real name is Barack Obama then Obama defrauded the state of California in order to receive college funding.  Obama knowingly presented a false document to the state wherein he claimed to be a foreign student in order to illegally acquire financial aid.

U.S. Code
TITLE 18; PART I; CHAPTER 47—FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS

§ 1015. Naturalization, citizenship or alien registry
(a) Whoever knowingly makes any false statement under oath, in any case, proceeding, or matter relating to, or under, or by virtue of any law of the United States relating to naturalization, citizenship, or registry of aliens; or

(b) Whoever knowingly, with intent to avoid any duty or liability imposed or required by law, denies that he has been naturalized or admitted to be a citizen, after having been so naturalized or admitted; or

(c) Whoever uses or attempts to use any certificate of arrival, declaration of intention, certificate of naturalization, certificate of citizenship or other documentary evidence of naturalization or of citizenship, or any duplicate or copy thereof, knowing the same to have been procured by fraud or false evidence or without required appearance or hearing of the applicant in court or otherwise unlawfully obtained; or

(d) Whoever knowingly makes any false certificate, acknowledgment or statement concerning the appearance before him or the taking of an oath or affirmation or the signature, attestation or execution by any person with respect to any application, declaration, petition, affidavit, deposition, certificate of naturalization, certificate of citizenship or other paper or writing required or authorized by the laws relating to immigration, naturalization, citizenship, or registry of aliens; or

(e) Whoever knowingly makes any false statement or claim that he is, or at any time has been, a citizen or national of the United States, with the intent to obtain on behalf of himself, or any other person, any Federal or State benefit or service, or to engage unlawfully in employment in the United States; or

(f) Whoever knowingly makes any false statement or claim that he is a citizen of the United States in order to register to vote or to vote in any Federal, State, or local election (including an initiative, recall, or referendum)

This story doesn't just end here, someone had to okay this false document, so lets look again at that Adobe 10 document of his birth certificate, and remember that NO physical hard copy is currently in existance:

The Hawaiian health official who verified the authenticity of President Obama's birth certificate died in a small plane crash.

Loretta Fuddy

The plane, carrying a pilot and eight passengers, went down in the water a half mile off the Hawaiian island of Molokai, the Maui Fire Department said. The lone fatality was Loretta Fuddy, who has served as state health director since January 2011 and documents verify that she was also linked to the Subud cult and went by the Subud name of “Deliana” Fuddy. Tom Matsuda, the interim executive director of Hawaii's health insurance exchange, confirmed Fuddy's death.

Fuddy, 65, made national news in April 2011 when she verified the authenticity of certified copies of President Obama's birth certificate. Obama had requested the release to curb claims by so-called "birthers" and Donald Trump that he was born in Kenya and not eligible to be president.

Makani Kai Air President Richard Schuman told Honolulu-based KITV that he spoke with the pilot of the single-engine turboprop Cessna Grand Caravan after the crash.

"What he reported is after takeoff ... there was catastrophic engine failure," Schuman said. "He did the best he could do to bring the aircraft down safely and he got everybody out of the aircraft."

Schuman said the cause of the engine failure had not yet been determined. The National Transportation Safety Board was investigating the crash; NTSB spokesman Eric Weiss said that based on the location of the crash it was unlikely the plane will be recovered, Naturally.  

Now in a symbolic move showing support for his own law Obama signed up for Obamacare but the healthcare.gov system couldn't verify his identity, so his staff had to sign him up in person. 

The reason is that Obama's personal information is not in any particular government data bases, not even in the social security system... Odd.

Like some Americans, the complicated nature of the president’s case required an in-person sign-up,” the official said. “As you’d expect, the president’s personal information is not readily available in the variety of government databases HealthCare.gov uses to verify identities, but it can find everyone else, Why not him if he's an American?

Granted, he waited until the very last second to do it despite pleading with people for months not to wait, okay, his special status allowed him to bypass the website and delegate to his subordinates the aggravation of enrollment, unlike the millions of poor saps who had to be patient and keep trying during the Great 404 Meltdown of 2013.

Of course, Obama will still get his health care from the military, since he is the Commander-in-Chief, so the move was symbolic in nature and had no real meaning, which means that he's sucking you in to completely collapse the economy.

Now lets take a look at some other factors that play in Barry's ascension to the white house,,, Like where did the money come from?
For that bit of information we'll move to Iran and Valerie Jarrett.

The Obama administration’s outreach to Iran has been unmasked, and it’s Valerie Jarrett.

OBAMA'S TROUBLING INTERNET FUND RAISING 

Certainly the most interesting and potentially devastating phone call I have received during this election cycle came this week from one of the Obama's campaign internet geeks. These are the staffers who devised Obama's internet fund raising campaign which raised in the neighborhood of $200 million so far. That is more then twice the total funds raised by any candidate in history — and this was all from the internet campaign. 

What I learned from this insider was shocking but I guess we shouldn't be surprised that when it comes to fund raising there simply are no rules that can't be broken and no ethics that prevail. 

Obama's internet campaign started out innocently enough with basic e-mail networking, lists saved from previous party campaigns and from supporters who visited any of the Obama campaign web sites. Small contributions came in from these sources and the internet campaign staff were more than pleased by the results. 

Then, about two months into the campaign the daily contribution intake multiplied. Where was it coming from? One of the web site security monitors began to notice the bulk of the contributions were clearly coming in from overseas internet service providers and at the rate and frequency of transmission it was clear these donations were "programmed" by a very sophisticated user.

While the security people were not able to track most of the sources due to firewalls and other blocking devices put on these contributions they were able to collate the number of contributions that were coming in seemingly from individuals but the funds were from only a few credit card accounts and bank electronic funds transfers. The internet service providers (ISP) they were able to trace were from Saudi Arabia, Iran, and other Middle Eastern countries. One of the banks used for fund transfers was also located in Saudi Arabia. 

Another concentrated group of donations was traced to a Chinese ISP with a similar pattern of limited credit card charges. 

It became clear that these donations were very likely coming from sources other than American voters. This was discussed at length within the campaign and the decision was made that none of these donations violated campaign financing laws. 

It was also decided that it was not the responsibility of the campaign to audit these millions of contributions as to the actual source (specific credit card number or bank transfer account numbers) to insure that none of these internet contributors exceeded the legal maximum donation on a cumulative basis of many small donations. They also found the record keeping was not complete enough to do it anyway. 

This is a shocking revelation. 

We have been concerned about the legality of "bundling" contributions after the recent exposure of illegal bundlers but now it appears we may have an even greater problem. 

I guess we should have been somewhat suspicious when the numbers started to come out. We were told (no proof offered) that the Obama internet contributions were from $10.00 to $25.00 or so. 

If the $200,000,000 is right, and the average contribution was $15.00, that would mean over 13 million individuals made contributions? That would also be 13 million contributions would need to be processed. How did all that happen? 

I believe the Obama campaign's internet fund raising needs a serious, in depth investigation and audit. It also appears the whole question of internet fund raising needs investigation by the legislature and perhaps new laws to insure it complies not only with the letter of these laws but the spirit as well.

Jarrett’s status as a White House confidante and major figure has been well-known for some time, but this bit of news marks her first foray into being an official foreign policy surrogate. 

Why would Muslim oil billionaires finance and develop controlling relationships with black college students? Well, like anyone else, they would do it for self-interest. And what would their self-interest be? We all know the top two answers to that question: 1. a Palestinian state and 2. the advancement of Islam in America. 

The idea then was to advance blacks who would facilitate these two goals to positions of power in the Federal government, preferably, of course, the Presidency. And why would the Arabs target blacks in particular for this job? Well, for the same reason the early communists chose them as their vanguard for revolution (which literally means “change”) in America. 

Please, allow me to quote Trotsky, in 1939: “The American Negroes, for centuries the most oppressed section of American society and the most discriminated against, are potentially the most revolutionary element of the population. They are designated by their historical past to be, under adequate leadership, the very vanguard of the proletarian revolution.” Substitute the word “Islam” for the words “the proletarian revolution,” and you most clearly get the picture, as Islam is a revolutionary movement just like communism is. 

(Trivia: it is from this very quote that communist Van Jones takes his name. Van is short for vanguard. He was born “Anthony”). In addition, long before 1979, blacks had become the vanguard of the spread of Islam in America, especially in prisons. 

Valerie Jarrett has an unusual amount of influence over Obama (along with personal security that may be even better than his, another unusual and intriguing bit of business here). And equally interesting is that Obama, who may have been a beneficiary of this Muslim money, and may now be in this Muslim debt, has aggressively pursued both of the Muslim agendas I cited above. And, also equally interesting, is that Obama has paid a king’s ransom for court ordered seals of any such records of this potential financing of his college education, and perhaps, of other of his expenses.

Khalid al-Mansour

It’s very important to note that Khalid Mansour, “the same lawyer who allegedly helped arrange for the entrance of Barack Obama into Harvard Law School in 1988.” (Valerie Jarrett, by the way, was born in Iran. The one country protected by Obama from the sweep of the Arab Spring.) Now all of this may seem sensational, but let’s face facts. What makes it most disturbing is that not only is it all logical, but it suddenly makes a lot of previously confusing things make perfect sense. 

Though by no means definitive, it provides an interesting insight, at least, into how Chicago politics intersected with the black power movement and Middle Eastern money at a certain point in time. Whether it has any greater relevance in the 2012 presidential campaign, I will allow YOU the reader to decide. 

Who's Side Is He On?

When it comes to the issue of terrorism and Barack Hussein Obama, it's impossible to gather which side of the issue he stands on, just look at how he's handling the actions of the most violent and radical group to have ever came to be, "ISIS", when he says we must contain them when he should be saying that we must eradicate them.

With every Islamic Terrorist attack Obama says that the perpetrators do not represent the true world of real Islam. Obama calls them extremists, radicals, militants who have hi-jacked Islam and twisted it from it's true meaning. Obama even  insists this while claiming that America is no longer a Christian nation and with his every word and deed attacks Christianity, Christians, Israel and Jews, then on the other hand he lauds the many contributions of Islam to America's founding heritage and culture.

I do remember all the churches, Christian schools and seminaries from the Pilgrims onward, but I don't recall one instance of where Islam, Muslims or a Mosque  ever had a positive influence on America. To be true, Islam's (wretched and depraved) influence on America is relatively new, not beginning until after WWII around  1948... Hmmm, and that "influence has not been good nor productive.

So while Obama panders to the most vile, violent, evil, and demonic cult like worldview that passes its self off as a religion, Islam, the truth is much, much  different than he portrays.

The Taliban murder, rape and kill in Afghanistan and Pakistan? Obama says they do not represent true Islam.

Al Qaeda flies jets into the World Trade Center and Pentagon? Obama says they were "radicals" who are not representative of "true Islam".

Boko Haram

Boko Haram kidnaps some 300  Christian  girls from the ages of 6 to 18 and sells them as sex slaves to Muslims and kills hundreds of Christians? "They are not an accurate portrayal of real Islam" says Obama.

Al Qaeda and The Muslim Brotherhood overrun Libya, Egypt and Syria murdering thousands and thousands of Christians, Jews, and other non-Muslims? Obama calls them freedom fighters. He arms them to the teeth, funds them, and supplies them with weaponry including hundreds of tanks and fighter jets.

Hamas and Hezbollah fire and average of 170 rockets or missiles a day into Israel? "They are fighting against  oppression of  their   lands" Obama says, blaming Israel for defending itself.

ISIS, "The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria", sweep through Iraq and Syria murdering and raping countless thousands of Christians, Jews and other not radical enough Muslims? Obama says that ISIS "does not speak for Islam".

Well, Barack, you lying ass Muslim buffoon, who does speak for real and true Islam?

Readers, please DO NOT forgive my disdain for political correctness because sometimes the truth must be delivered in a manner in which it is best absorbed.

America has had to fight Islam since it's earliest days-

John Adams

Terrorism and the New American Republic In 1786, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson met with Arab diplomats from Tunis, who were conducting terror raids and piracy against American ships. History records them as the Barbary Pirates. In fact, they were blackmailing terrorists hiding behind a self-serving interpretation of their Islamic faith by embracing select tracts and ignoring others.  Borrowing from the Christian Crusades of centuries past, they used history as a mandate for doing the western world one better. 

The quisling European powers had been buying them off for years.

On March 28, 1786 Jefferson and Adams detailed what they saw as the main issue:“We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the grounds of their pretensions to make war upon a nation who had done them no injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation. The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Muslim man who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.

Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson wanted a military solution, but decades of blackmailing the American Republic and enslaving its citizens would continue until the new American nation realized that the only answer to terrorism was force. There's a temptation to view all of our problems as unprecedented and all of our threats as new and novel, says George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley. Shortly after the terror attacks of Sept. 11, Turley advised some members of Congress who were considering a formal declaration of war against the suspected perpetrators. He invoked the precedent of the Barbary pirates, saying America had every right to attack and destroy the terrorist leadership without declaring war.

"Congress did not actually declare war on the pirates," Turley wrote in a memo, but authorized the use of force against the regencies after our bribes and ransoms were having no effect. This may have been due to an appreciation that a declaration of war on such petty tyrants would have elevated their status. Accordingly, they were treated as pirates and, after a disgraceful period of accommodation, we hunted them down as pirates.

Because of their outlaw conduct, pirates -- and modern-day terrorists -- put themselves outside protection of the law, according to military strategy expert Dave McIntyre, a former dean at the National War College. "On the high seas if you saw a pirate, you sank the bastard," he says. "You assault pirates, you don't arrest pirates."

Osama bin Laden

Shoot first, ask questions later. Wanted: Dead or alive. Such is our official policy regarding Osama bin Laden, the most infamous outlaw of the era.

One of the enduring lessons of the Barbary campaigns was to never give in to outlaws whether you call them pirates or terrorists. In the late 1700's, America paid significant blackmail for peace -- shelling out $990,000 to the Algerians alone at a time when national revenues totaled just $7 million"Too many concessions have been made to Algiers," U.S. consul William Eaton wrote to the Secretary of State in 1799. "There is but one language which can be held to these people and this is terror.

So, are we to believe all of history, reality and the current events of the last 6 decades...or Obama, The Democrat Party and the MSM?

So we've looked at Islam's bloody, vile and violent history...can we depend on our President to protect us? Here is what Obama himself said,  his every word and deed since then bears out that he really means this-"I will stand with Islam should the political winds shift in an ugly direction," (page 261 of his book Audacity Of Hope).

The Quran: 

Quran (2:191-193) And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah  killing..

but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful.   And fight them until there is no more Fitnah  worship is for Allah alone.  But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" the  Noble Quran)  The  historical context  of this passage is  not  defensive warfare since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were  not  under attack by their Meccan adversaries.  In fact, the verses urge  offensive  warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city which they later did).  The use of the word "persecution" by some Muslim translators is thus disingenuous (the actual Muslim words for persecution -"idtihad" - and oppression - a variation of "z-l-m" - do not appear in the verse).  The actual Arabic comes from "fitna" which can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation.  Taken as a whole, the context makes clear that violence is being authorized until "religion is for Allah"  - ie unbelievers desist in their unbelief.

Quran (2:244) Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things."

Quran (2:216)  - Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time.  From the Hadith, we know that this verse was narrated at a time that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into  raiding merchant caravans  for loot.

Quran (3:56)- As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."

The Destroyer

Now Playing In Our Nations Capital

I dearly wish that our political leaders would combine their observations with insight and season them liberally with understanding.  I also wish that they would learn the lessons of history so they would be less inclined to repeat past mistakes.

Maybe we should think about our communication style with these people.  Could we pattern our approach with the insight and understanding of where they came from and how they grew up? 

How can we make the national defense issue“up close and personal” to a people who are more prone to run away from responsibility than face it squarely and deal with it effectively? 

An attitude adjustment requires disposition.  How do we help lawmakers and US voters become disposed to listen and be open to ideas that are different from their own?

72% of the house of representatives and 78% of the Senate was made up of lawmakers who served in the armed forces some 40 years ago. Today just 20% of House members and 18% of Senators have served.

Those who have served in the military have a better understanding and a deeper comprehension of issues involving national security, armed services and veteran issues – issues that if not more important now, are just as critical as they were 40 years ago.

“40 years ago” equates to the early 1970's or about 25 years or so after WW-II.  I remember that we had mandatory military service (the Draft Law) in the 1950's.  This also was about the timeframe that the news media started branding people with names like “Hippies”, “Yuppies”, “Flower Children”, and “Generation-X” just to name a few.  Their parents were labeled “baby boomers.” 

Our nation was in a turmoil of clashing value systems and ideological rebellion.  No wonder the US House and Senate was packed with Military veterans back in that day. That also might explain why many present US politicians in office now are allergic to anything military.

The Republicans basically respect their oath of office and want to pattern the present government on the mandates outlined in the US Constitution.  They want to restore the three-leg stool that supports the US Constitution:

1. Separation of power.
2. Balance of power and
3. Limitation of power.

They argue that the US Government is NOT a democracy now, and never was.  Instead, it is a Representative Republic bound by a confederation of member states. On the other hand, the Democrats consider the US Constitution an obsolete document urgently in need of revision or outright replacement. 

Meanwhile, they ignore its original concepts and substitute an informal replacement that they call their “living constitution.”  They advocate a parliamentarian republic modeled after Canada and the European nations.

Their principles and foundation are reflected in the Obama campaign flag that he wanted to fly in all government buildings in 2010 instead of the official American flag we use today to identify ourselves to the rest of the planet. This is a variation of the campaign logo, represented by the blue and white symbol in the upper left corner The three curved blue stripes represent Canada, the (about to be former) United States and Mexico.   The rising sun represents the future America with three provinces.   The outer circle represents a one-world government.

As Obama said, “There are no States but the United States.” His vision involves the dissolution of a confederation of States. Are those red stripes blood?  If so, whose blood? 

My source for its symbolism is The Post American World.  This book was in the President’s hand as he prepared to board the Presidential Helicopter in 2009.

Veterans pledged a solemn oath when we joined the US Military.  That oath had no expiration date or terms for dissolution. Our nation is in peril of destruction from within.  This is one of those times in our history when we face a determined enemy from within our nation that threatens the survival of our nation even more than our foreign enemies. 

I cannot remember a time when our mission to change the minds and spirit of our nation’s lawmakers and citizens is more important than now.

Placation and appeasement are not and never were viable options.  Ever try to appease a tiger?  We do not look like a worthy opponent; we look like lunch.

Barack Obama: The Anti-Truth

Is It True, You Can Tell When I'm Lying?

Barack Obama, as a world-class liar, has come to the top in the list of the greatest lies ever told. Move over such old staples as, “Your check is in the mail,” and “I’m from the government and I’m here to help you.

The lies bursting forth from one of the great world-class liars are so numerous and extraordinary that it is impossible to rank the top ten or twenty. They all deserve first place recognition. This op-ed will discussed some of the more noteworthy Obama lies, such as the first few listed among the long list of the greatest lies ever told.

William Ayres [the unrepentant terrorist] was only a guy in the neighborhood.” Ayres it turns out was in fact a close collaborator, friend, and associate. But that should surprise no one as Obama seems to have attracted a list of friends, associates and collaborators that come closer to the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted List than to what you would expect a candidate for president to be running with.

Rev. Jeremiah Wright

Or how about Obama’s claim that he didn’t know what Rev. Jeremiah “God Damn America” Wright stood for. When it comes to lies this has to be almost first place among equals. Obama sat in Wright’s church for 20 years, sought him out because he was a political activist, worked with him, and took the title of his book from one of his sermons, and on and on. If that doesn’t prove Obama’s a liar and can’t be trusted, I don’t know what will.

One of Obama’s signature lines is that ninety-five percent of Americans will cut tax cuts or at least avoid tax increases. That means if your income is less than $250,000 a year you’re in good shape. But now we’ve  heard Joe Biden that the figure is $150,000 and on occasions Obama's people have used $200,000. You can be sure this is a lie, as the Obama people know you can’t pay for the $700 million bailout, tack on another trillion dollars in new spending, give everybody health care, and adopt all kinds of other new spending programs, and still cut all those tax rates. It sounds too good to be true, and it is too good to be true. It is a lie, pure and simple, and all too typical of the campaign. Before believing that lie, consider his record.

He's stated and voted in favor of raising taxes on those with income as low as $42,000. There’s another reason Obama knows it won’t work, he wants to “soak the rich” and “spread the wealth around.” That’s his terminology for taxing small business, big business, investors and entrepreneurs out of existence. They are the engines of prosperity and job creation. When you start raising the capital gains tax rate, the dividend tax rate, and the rates on small business entrepreneurs and when you insist on a corporate tax rate that is now the highest in the world, and then slap on windfall taxes, higher payroll taxes for some, and other taxes, you kill the goose that lays the golden egg. When you make the risk benefit ratio look much less attractive, when the benefits go down as the tax rate goes up, business can't afford to play the game.

 Whether you call this socialism, Marxism, or something else, the button line is the same: Our engine of job growth and prosperity slows down big time under the Obama tax plan, and we all pay the big time price tax for such reckless policies, made all the more reckless by their application in bad economic times. You learn in Economics 101 not to raise taxes in an economic turn down. So, of course, Obama wants to raise taxes in the teeth of a recession.

Here’s another slick Obama lie. It is slick as it seems to be truthful, but it carries a message Obama and his campaign know to be false. He says 98 percent of small businesses make less than $250,000 and so his tax plan won’t adversely impact small business. The lie is in the details. Twenty-one of the 27 million small businesses don’t even have employees. But when you take the small businesses with income of over $250,000 you’re talking about 70 percent of all small business income. So his tax plan, despite the misleading and meaningless statistic relied on, will severely impact Joe “The Plumber” and most small businesses that provide the jobs and economic prosperity we need. Because of this ill-conceived tax, small business will raise prices, cut back on employment, or not create new jobs.

Here’s the all-time Obama foreign policy lie: Iran is just a tiny country and not a real threat. Well, maybe that’s not a lie. Maybe it’s just an untrue statement that Obama actually believes. But if that’s the case, it’s an even more damning indictment of the foreign policy views of Obama. His advisors eventually told him his statement was ridiculous and he retracted it. But a president can’t take two or three passes to get it right. On foreign policy, Obama (when without his teleprompter and 200 foreign policy advisors), gets it wrong the first or second time around, and then eventually gets it right.






Another signature line is that Obama will bring change, change you can believe in, and all that shit. Obama represents and has always been an extremist, radical, left-wing liberal Democrat and would revive all the rejected and failed policies of the Democratic Party, most notably more taxes, more spending, bigger government, more onerous regulation, and a weaker military and timid and ineffectual foreign policy. That’s not change. It just the same old Democratic stuff repackaged with fancy rhetoric.

Here’s an Obama lie that has to be considered one of the biggest if not the biggest lies of the campaign. That lie is that George W. Bush and the Republican Party are responsible for the present financial crisis because of their stance on deregulation. In fact, Bush and the Republican Party wanted to put an end to the abuses at Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, which were making unsound mortgages in an ill-founded and dangerous plan to make housing affordable for even the credit unworthy. Bush issued warnings and proposed remedial legislation. Who told us all was well and went along with the status quo that was heading toward catastrophe: The Democratic Party, spearheaded by Senator Chris Dodd (who took a sweetheart loan from one of the mortgage companies in on the gravy, that some might view as a bribe), and Rep. Barney Frank who reassured everyone as recently as June 2008 that all was well at Fannie and Freddy. And what was Senator Barack Obama’s role? He was raking in political contributions from those connected with Fannie and Freddy. In fact, he was second only to Chris Dodd, but in terms of contributions per year he got more tainted money from Fannie and Freddy connections than anyone in the Senate. The irony and tragedy is that the Republicans and Bush are being blamed for the financial meltdown that was brought upon us by the improper, shortsighted, unethical activity of the Democratic Party, and Democratic legislators such as Dodd, Frank and Obama.

Another classic lie is that Obama is a centrist. He tries to portray himself as a moderate and a great compromiser. In fact, he is an extremist, a radical, a socialist, a Marxist, and a highly partisan legislator. His proposals are to the far left. His voting is to the far left. And his administration will be to the far left. He is the most liberal member of the Senate, followed by socialist Bernie Sanders in second place on the most liberal list, and then followed by Senator Biden in third place. This is probably the most liberal ticket in the history of presidential politics.

Still another classic lie is that he is non-partisan. He has never reached across the aisle and worked with the other party on any issue of real significance. He is and has always been a hardline, leftist, extremist, and radical. There isn’t a non-partisan bone in his record. That quality is reserved for speeches only.

Obama constantly harps he wants to help the middle class. That’s his rhetoric but his record turns that statement into a lie. That’s because he’s never done anything for the middle class but talk.

One of his most vicious lies was made right after Russia launched its illegal aggression against neighboring Georgia. Obama’s comment included a statement that we’d have more credibility in such matters if we “set a better example.” This suggested that our internationally sanctioned liberation of Iraq from Saddam Hussein was somehow a bad example, and that detracted from our ability to protest Russia’s aggression against Georgia. Obama knows better. America has set the best example in the history of the world for using its treasure and blood to help others, to free others, and to fight for the rights and freedom of others. We saved Europe and the world from Nazism, communism, and Japanese imperialism. We rebuilt our defeated enemies after World War II. We have sent endless aid to other nations and regions after national disasters. We are responsible for one of the great humanitarian projects to fight the AIDS epidemic in Africa. We have given the whole world the benefit of our endless inventions to improve the health and welfare of all from medical advances of all kinds to the invention of all kinds of technology. We are indeed the golden city on the hill that pours forth the endless benefits of our system of freedom and liberty to all of our citizens and the rest of the world. So where does Barack Obama who has had every advantage of our system, come to complain about the example we set?

public financing 

One of Obama’s biggest lies is his pledge and promise to take public financing of elections. He broke his promise in a minute, as soon as he saw that private rather than public financing would bring his campaign more money. McCain kept his promise. Obama’s promise breaking is especially significant for several reasons. First, he is breaking his promises even before the election. WOW, after the election he’ll break them even faster. Second, public financing was one of his key tenets, but it went under the bus as soon as Obama saw it wasn’t expedient at the moment. Third, he went into his usual disingenuous spin to try to excuse himself and lie himself out of it, suggesting that his version of private financing was in effect public financing because so many contributions came from small donors. He breaks his promise and then tells a ridiculous lie to excuse his breaking that promise. How good is his promise to hold the line on taxes of everyone making less than $250,000? What are any of his promises worth?

Rashid Khalidi and Obama 

Obama claims he is a friend of Israel. Yet he honors and gets grant money for Rashid Khalidi and his organization, knowing that Khalidi is a virulently anti-Israel operative with links to terrorist organizations. He attended a going-away party for Khalidi, an Arafat associate, along with unrepentant terrorist William Ayres and pays tribute to Khalidi. At that party, Obama sits around and listens to all kinds of anti-Israel speeches. Khalidi also held a fund-raiser for Obama and was often his dinner companion. Investor’s Business Daily on its web site, www.ibdeditorials.com (October 27, 2008) concluded, “This should be enough for Obama supporters who stand behind Israel to rethink their vote. Those concerned about honesty and integrity should do the same, since Obama has sworn to be a friend of Israel.” When confronted with this, Obama will probably say (as he did in the case of terrorist Ayers) that he is just a guy in the neighborhood. Incidentally, the Los Angeles Times has a tape of the Khalidi going away party, an Israel-bashing session in which Obama participated. The Times has refused to release the tape, in keeping with the mainstream media’s campaign to sell Obama and keep the truth from the public. For that reason, you can be sure Obama is a hundred times more dangerous and unqualified than portrayed by the mainstream media. Obama also attended Rev. Jeremiah “God Damn America” Wright’s church. Wright was and is well known for his speaking and writing was often laced with anti-Israel commentary. Obama says he’s a friend of Israel, but if he were would he be supporting, working with, and praising a stable of anti-Israel, anti-Semitic friends?

One of the cruelest lies of the Obama campaign was the claim that McCain is out of touch because he doesn’t make a lot of use of the computer. He doesn’t because of war injuries.

There are many other Obama campaign spots that depend on lies. For example, one suggested that McCain was willing to stay and fight in Iraq for 100 years. McCain had simply made the point that, as for example, in Germany we still have troops there over 60 years after the end of World War II. So that’s entirely different than fighting a 60 year or a 100 year war.

Joe Biden 

I won’t even get into the whopping lies from Joe Biden, as that would require a 30-volume encyclopedia. I will mention that he said in the now famous Florida satellite interview that Obama didn’t say he wants to “spread the wealth around.” He did say that and he said much worse in the now famous 2001 interview in which he says one of the great failures of the civil rights movement was its failure to get more redistributive justice, i.e., spreading the wealth around.

I could go on, but remember this is only a small sample of Obama lies proving his basic dishonesty and proving he is unfit for high office. Remember also that he has not been vetted by the mainstream media, and even when it made feeble attempts to do so he usually stonewalled or brushed aside the questions. We don’t know enough about him to even consider him seriously a second go around?


 But we do know enough about him to compel a vote against him.