Help us fight the

click title for home page
Be a subscribing

The stuff you won't see in the liberal media
Register Calendar Chat

  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 3      1   2   3   Next

Super Moderators
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #1 

It appears as though Breitbart is going to serialize the vetting of Barack Obama.  Please post any "vetting" items in this thread.


Obama teaches constitutional law (Part I)


Ben Shapiro says let's' take a trip via the wayback machine to the hallowed classrooms of the University of Chicago Law School. The year is 1996, and a young lecturer named Barack Obama is teaching constitutional law to a group of students. His first final exam question is about whether homosexuals can be barred from receiving state health care coverage for their infertility treatments.

The question deals with a hypothetical lesbian couple that wants to have a baby. Their state prevents health providers from providing infertility treatments for unwed couples; the couple’s state-provided healthcare therefore refuses them coverage for such procedures.

Obama then presented an analysis of this question. That’s the way it works on law school constitutional law exams: you spot the issues, then offer an analysis of them. They never come down on one side or another. But they can give you important clues as to the way the student (or in this case, the lecturer) thinks. 
Instead of wading through the legal thicket presented by any law school exam, let’s analyze Lecturer Obama’s main take. He makes the following points:

  • “The fundamental right at stake … goes well beyond issues of bodily integrity, but instead involves the broader principle that the government cannot be in the business of deciding who should bear children and who should not – at least without offering up some pretty compelling reasons for doing so.” Obama even compares a state law banning infertility treatment for unwed couples to active sterilization.
  • In a particularly noteworthy comment, Obama writes: “the connection between restricting infertility services to married couples and ‘preserving the integrity of marriage’ is so tenuous that it cannot be considered a narrowly tailored means of serving that interest.” This is arguable at best – of course preventing unmarried couples from receiving infertility treatment would be closely related to upholding the notion of traditional marriage. But this Obama comment gives us a clue as to his real feelings about the institution of marriage: it has nothing to do with bearing and raising children.
  • Obama cannot help himself: in discussing whether “tradition” should play a role in restricting the so-called rights liberals so enjoy, Obama calls such arguments “troubling.”
  • Obama also gets in a slap at judicial originalists – judges who state that the original wording of the constitution must govern – and instead embraces a philosophy called legal realism. Legal realism holds that all judicial decisions are essentially excuses for judges to act out their politics. That’s true for leftists, who write their views into the constitution; it’s not true for conservatives, who abide by the constitution. But that’s not what Obama thinks: “What is safe to say is that the views of particular justices on the desirability of rearing in children [sic] in homosexual households would play a big part in the decision.”

Here’s what we learn from this answer: Obama’s an extreme legal leftist. He thinks that banning infertility treatment for unwed couples is akin to sterilizing them. He thinks that there is no connection between childbearing and childrearing and the integral value of marriage. He thinks that arguments about “tradition” are troubling. And he believes that all judges rule according to their experiences – which goes a long way toward explaining his love for Sonia Sotomayor, whose “wise Latina” experiences may shape her judicial reasoning, according to her own admission.
More to come …

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Posts: 233
Reply with quote  #2 
The International News Media covers the vetting of Obama yet our own Obama controlled U.S. News Media will not touch the story.  Even Pravda has an article about Obama's birth certificate 'issue'.

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 105
Reply with quote  #3 
Discussion of the Pravda article can be seen in this thread

Pravda asks: What happened to American media?

Super Moderators
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #4 

Obama teaches constitutional law (Part II)

Ben Shapiro says in Part I we explored Barack Obama’s teachings at the University of Chicago Law School from 1996. We explored the first question (and answer) of his December 1996 final exam. Today, we move on to the second question.
To recap: question 1 revealed that Barack Obama does not believe that “tradition” is an important justification for laws; that he thinks childbearing and childrearing have almost nothing to do with marriage; and that legal realism is the way judicial decisions get made – i.e. that judges make decisions according to their own politics, rather than based on statute or law.


Question 2 is even more interesting, and sheds light on how deeply Obama was influenced by Derrick Bell's Critical Race Theory.


This question concerns a fictional "Mayor Dudley Duright," the first African-American mayor of Wazoo City. The population of the city is 50 percent black and 50 percent white, and highly segregated.

The Mayor decides to deal with two issues: racial disparities in city contracting, and racial disparities in the city’s Fire Department (foreshadowing the Ricci case, in which Justice Sonia Sotomayor was overruled).

Obama's fictional mayor hits on two solutions. To deal with city contracting, he takes money from Project HOPE (Obama’s already doing the hope thing) and uses it to help firms located principally in the “low-income community,” as a proxy for race.

To deal with the disparity in racial composition of the Fire Department, the Mayor implements a plan wherein everyone takes a basic competence exam, and then a lottery takes place to select firefighters. The firefighters' union in the state of Wazoo quickly launches a referendum to stop the plan, and use one based on merit through testing.

So, are these measures constitutional? Let's look to Obama's answer sheet.

Here’s Obama’s analysis of the contracting plan:

  • The first measure – the affirmative action contracting program – is constitutional, says Obama. Just because the Mayor knew that the plan would disproportionately benefit blacks “does not, by itself, prove invidious intent.” In this case, says Obama, the government is “simply interested in promoting opportunities for residents of poor communities, a disproportionate number of whom happen to be black.”
  • The problem isn’t with the program, Obama says; it’s with white contractors’ “unwillingness to relocate into ‘low-income’ communities or hire ‘low-income workers.’”
  • Overall, says Obama, “it would appear that under current Equal Protection doctrine, white plaintiffs would have a very difficult time proving that the Mayor’s plan is based on an invidious intent to discriminate against whites—a telling example, perhaps, of why an ‘intent’ test is now a particularly fruitful means of analyzing disparate impact claims in a society where the socio-economic disparities between the races are so stark, pervasive, and deeply rooted.” This seems vague, but what it’s saying is pure Critical Race Theory: in evaluating a law, we shouldn’t look to intent but to effect, because the system is simply so corrupt and perverse. This is the same logic underlying the Holder Justice Department’s attempt to shut down the Texas voter ID law: the notion that the system is too corrupt to allow for laws of neutral application to go forward.

And here’s Obama’s analysis of the Fire Department plan:

  • First, he acknowledges that it will be difficult to get the referendum struck down.
  • Then he launches into his real opinion – or what he calls his “more controversial” reading of the case law. The case law, Obama argues, “recognizes that blacks are burdened not only by intentional racism but also by facially neutral processes that nevertheless place blacks in a structurally subordinate position.” Affirmative action programs, Obama says, “help alleviate structural inequality.” While such programs aren’t constitutionally required, to Obama’s obvious chagrin (he scoffs at “the Court’s ‘negative charter of liberties’ reading of the Constitution and theories of judicial restraint”), he says that once implemented, they cannot be overruled. Why? Because the white majority cannot “change the rules of the game so as to make it more difficult for blacks and other minorities to achieve such affirmative programs through the give and take of the democratic process—by resort, for example, to state-wide initiatives and referendums in which minority influence is lessened.” This is a highly radical legal approach. It is based in critical race theory, which states that structural racism is inherent in the system; it is based in an anti-democratic notion that racial minorities must be allowed outsized influence over the process so as to prevent the white majority from reinforcing that structural racism. This is radical stuff.
  • And it gets even more radical. Obama argues that the Mayor could say that “there are no pre-political, non-racial, ‘legitimate ways to select a tire [sic] department or determine ‘merit.’ The Mayor’s plan is ‘racial’ in the sense that it represents an affirmative effort to increase black representation on the police force without resorting to quotas or lowering standards of performance.” In fact, this purely racial program is “no more racial than is the union’s plan to maintain the status quo through a regime of written examinations.” Note the moral relativism here: Obama believes that a battery of non-discriminatory tests is as discriminatory as a clear affirmative action program.
  • And Obama continues along these lines, reiterating his distrust for democracy: “The union is free to debate the pros and cons of the Mayor’s plan in the public square; it can put pressure on the City Council to block the Mayor’s proposal, and can organize to vote the Mayor out of office. What it cannot do is shift decision-making over these racially-charged issues to the state level, where (we assume) blacks have less of [sic] political clout.” In other words, you can vote on it; you can stump against it; what you cannot do is win by taking it to the people more broadly. Obama does admit that this newfangled approach will probably not fly with the Supreme Court.

So here’s what we’ve learned today. Lecturer Obama believed deeply in Critical Race Theory – so much so that he advocated creative legal strategies to argue Critical Race Theory into law. He thought that facially neutral statutes were discriminatory thanks to the racism of the system. He even argued that the people of the states be stripped of their power to change local law, if such changes cut against narrow minority interests.

More to come …


A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Posts: 184
Reply with quote  #5 
I don't want to over-post, or get off topic here, but I feel others will sympathize with my thoughts on this; please tell me you do

Shapiro's line of investigation is admirable and detailed; his intentions are Patriotic. 

However, IMHO the average American voter who is not as engaged as we are on TOF either: 1) Don't give rat's $% about Critical Race theory or 2) Won't take the time to understand it. 

They are much too busy trying to pay the bills and watch American Idol

Hannity has introduced an new segment on his show in which he promises to vet the Usurper. The first segment was with Pollack and Shapiro of Breitbart in which they broadcast the Bell video which was powerful for the Engaged (TOF followers and the like).  But again, will that information reverse or affect the thinking of the AAV? (avg American voter)?

I have not seen all Hannity's shows, but I did watch the other night when the vetting segment was centered on Guantanamo....  Really Shawn? You think the AAV cares in the least about that?? 

Hannity still refuses to even acknowledge Sheriff Arpaio's investigation...really Shawn?

The clock is ticking; 235 days until the election. When will someone with an audience (Rush, Shaw, Mark, Oreilly) take the gloves off?

Forgive my rant, but this is not a game to be played with soft gloves.

"The public cannot be too curious concerning the characters of public men."

Samuel Adams, letter to James Warren, 1775


Avatar / Picture

Posts: 97
Reply with quote  #6 

Breitbart Editor Ben Shapiro: We're Going to Vet Obama Except His Forged Selective Service Card 





Something very FISHY going on at just as I suspected in the days immediately following Mr. Bretbart's untimely death.


Who is actually running the show over at Breitbart now ??


They want to ignore the only issues that could not only end the obama regime but could also erase every bill, treaty and executive order that has been signed by usurper obama.  Instead as Bushido points out, Breitbart only wants to cover issues that most Americans  at best will only yawn at...


Avatar / Picture

Posts: 105
Reply with quote  #7 
DrJim, I tend to agree. The most interesting article on breitbart yesterday was Shapiro's report concerning American catholic bishops strong statement opposing the contraception mandate.

Seems Shapiro lacks Andrew's fortitude.

Posts: 929
Reply with quote  #8 

Guys this is a chess match.  If you ever played chess, everything is strategic.  The election is in November 2012, not in March 2012.  You have to make moves that will allow us to put Obama in a CHECKMATE.  Breitbart is doing that.  Enjoy the ride.


Posts: 184
Reply with quote  #9 
Buck, Lawyer, Dr,

I very much appreciate your take(s) on this course of events. It is becoming clear that few are willing to play offense to win.

My memory is very clear that during the '08 campaign, Hannity did his best to connect the dots, which essentially meant J. Wright and B. Ayers.  In his usual way, he said the same thing every night and was largely ignored.  I am persuaded he has neither the intelligence, gravitas or cahones to make a difference, unless he were to have an epiphany, or get a co-host (Andrew would have been the guy)

The silence on the Arpaio press conference is deafening as we await the next step.

The question for Sheriff Joe whom does he turn?  We cannot lose sight of the fact that barry refers to birthers as "sideshow" "carnival barkers..."  It remains to be seen what the move will be.

I called the largest AM station in Michigan on the day of the press conference and the following morning they interviewed Mr. Zullo, Arpaio's lead investigator. I got lucky with one phone call. I have learned since that the station has been accused of racism, and there has been no follow up to my knowledge. However, over a million listeners heard take a chance and push the message.

Perhaps the movie 2016 with Dinish D'souze as narrator will be a game changer.  Perhaps some tea party congressmen or senators will find their spines.  It is up to us to push them.

As it happens, while I am not a GM, I have a handful of close friends who are Grand Master chess players.  And yes, I agree the game is strategic, but there is more to it than that.

It is said that Kasparov could see as many as 54 moves ahead....he had every move and counter-move programmed and new the exact reply.  Grand Masters also play "blind chess" in which there is no visible board, but they memorize their moves, as well as their opponent's moves as the game is played...only the scorekeeper can see the game on a real mistaken move, and the game is over...Do we have that level of foresight?

The Alinsky crowd is not smarter than us, not braver, or more sophisticated. I would argue many are stupid and lack any real world experience. But they do have one thing: a playbook. Consequently, we are put in a defensive position when we should be focusing on offense. 

The art of chess is to balance offense and defense, to know when to attack and when to retreat, to know when to sacrifice, and to recognize your opponent's weakness and exploit it mercilessly because in chess, most games boil down to one move.

We cannot take anything for granted or simply wait. We are in a position much like our Forefathers were at the time of the American Revolution as is captured below:

 "They tell us Sir, that we are weak -- unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak, if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature has placed in our power."

Patrick Henry


Super Moderators
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #10 

Holder in 1995: We must "brainwash" people on guns

Joel B. Pollak is reporting that has uncovered video from 1995 of then-U.S. Attorney Eric Holder announcing a public campaign to "really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way."
Holder was addressing the Woman's National Democratic Club. In his remarks, broadcast by CSPAN 2, he explained that he intended to use anti-smoking campaigns as his model to "change the hearts and minds of people in Washington, DC" about guns.
"What we need to do is change the way in which people think about guns, especially young people, and make it something that's not cool, that it's not acceptable, it's not hip to carry a gun anymore, in the way in which we changed our attitudes about cigarettes."
Holder added that he had asked advertising agencies in the nation's capital to assist by making anti-gun ads rather than commercials "that make me buy things that I don't really need." He had also approached local newspapers and television stations, he said, asking them to devote prime space and time, respectively, to his anti-gun campaign.
Local political leaders and celebrities, Holder said, including Mayor Marion Barry and Jesse Jackson, had been asked to help. In addition, he reported, he had asked the local school board to make the anti-gun message a part of "every day, every school, and every level."
Despite strict gun control efforts, Washington, DC was and remains one of the nation's most dangerous cities for gun violence, though crime has abated somewhat since the 1990s.
Holder went on to become Deputy Attorney General in the Clinton administration, and currently serves as Attorney General in the Obama Administration.

I'm not sure why Breitbart finds it necessary to embed 30-second commercials in their videos.


A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 65
Reply with quote  #11

what the mailman knows ?

Posts: 42
Reply with quote  #12 

I actually watched this in 1995 and couldn't believe that our Government was heading this way....and thats after Carter in 1976....(for you youngsters) check it out.....still have a bridge!


Posts: 72
Reply with quote  #13 

After reading the mail man article now I know why Obama kneeled before a Saudi King.........


Posts: 929
Reply with quote  #14 
Critical Race Theory - CENTRAL to National Education Report

Check this out on


Or as I can it the "Overseer" mentality to keep us enslaved and Wards of the STATE (or Government)

Even blacks know that the Public School system is full of crap in that more home schooling is taken place.  See  Good for them.

Another reason to get these clowns out of office.

Posts: 233
Reply with quote  #15 
I am not sure where I originally read this article this morning.  It may have been here.  Anyway I copied and emailed it to many family members, friends, and business associates, and asked them to pass it on. 

We just might get some action if all of us contact our Congressmen/women and tell them we will not vote for them or anyone in their party if they do not vet Obama before the fall election.  I sent a letter to my Texas Senator, the Texas Republican Party, and the National Republican Party. 

Our Vote Is The Only Leverage We Have Left 
by Lawrence Sellin, ©2012 (Mar. 16, 2012)


No American should vote for any Presidential candidate, who will not adhere to the Presidential oath of office to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution.


Barack Hussein Obama has not done so from the moment he raised his right hand, placed his left on the Bible and swore that oath on January 20, 2009.


Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the Constitution requires that all candidates for President and Vice President be a “natural born citizen.”

The binding Supreme Court precedent Minor vs. Happersett (1874), which has never been superseded, defines “natural born” as a U.S. born citizen of citizen parents at the time of birth; that is, a second generation American.


Obama is not a natural born citizen and has never been eligible for the Presidency.


In addition, on March 1, 2012, Arizona's Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio presented evidence that Barack Obama's long-form birth certificate released by the White House on April 27, 2011 and his Selective Service registration are forgeries.


Add to that other evidence, which indicates that Obama is using a Social Security Number not issued to him.


Many believe that the Democrats and the mainstream media are totally united behind Obama, are impenetrable to logic or demands for governmental accountability and will use any means necessary to ensure his reelection.


Yet the Republicans, either through fear or complicity, refuse to challenge the obvious inconsistencies in Obama’s personal history, which remain their most potent argument to defeat him.


In Obama’s own words, the Republicans are bringing a knife to a gun fight.


Perhaps it is time for Republicans show some guts, stop running away from a fight and, in fact, “stoop to their level,” because all Obama’s opponents will be labeled “racists” or “extremists” no matter what is said or done.


If the Republicans will not “man up,” then ordinary Americans must encourage them to do so.


All avenues for the redress of our grievances; Congress, the courts, law enforcement and the press, have been intentionally cut off from us in a conspiracy of silence.


Our vote is the only leverage we have left.


The best thing everyone can do now is to contact your local Republican Party and tell them that you will not vote for any Republican candidate until they fully vet Obama before the election. And then tell as many other people as possible to do the same.


Copy and paste the above paragraph and send it to your family and friends.


Spread the word. Working together, we can make a difference.


Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is a retired colonel with 29 years of service in the US Army Reserve and a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq. He receives email at


Super Moderators
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #16 

The vetting: Obama 1995: "Scapegoat" the top 5%

Ben Shapiro's latest blockbuster revelation is that in a newly-uncovered interview from the Hyde Park Citizen newspaper circa December 28, 1995, Barack Obama explains his philosophy on income inequality in the United States, especially in light of economic difficulties:

In an environment of scarcity, where the cost of living is rising, folks begin to get angry and bitter and look for scapegoats. Historically, instead of looking at the top 5% of this country that controls all the wealth, we turn towards each other, and the Republicans have added to the fire.

In that interview, Obama explains that his perspective on the “top 5%” was shaped by his experiences abroad:

It's about power. My travels made me sensitive to the plight of those without power and the issues of class and inequalities as it relates to wealth and power. Anytime you have been overseas in these so-called third world countries, one thing you see is the vast disparity of wealth of those who are part of power structure and those outside of it.

These comments are reminiscent of both the most radical Occupy Wall Street rhetoric and Obama’s infamous comments in San Francisco in April 2008 in which he stated that Americans suffering difficult economic times “get bitter” and “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them.”


Is this guy serious?  This is what Breitbart has on Obama?


Refrains from Peggy Lee's "Is that all there is" are playing in my head.


A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Posts: 96
Reply with quote  #17 
I find it quite hilarious how Obama talks "from experience" when in reality he is merely regurgitating leftist pap from the radicals with whom he has associated all his worthless life.

The continual reference to "my travels" and interactions with "so-called third world countries" boils down to living in Indonesia when he was 5 years old, travelling to Pakistan when he was 20 for a 3 week vacation and 2 maybe 3 visits to Kenya on his honeymoon and/or vacations. He has never, according to his own life story, spent enough time in any foreign land at any age that would influence "his sensitivity" to anyone's plight.

Barack Obama is a Bullshit Artist, plain and simple.


Posts: 929
Reply with quote  #18 

Everybody, you guys know Breitbart has to be careful in the Vetting especially since their leader got killed. 


Posts: 9
Reply with quote  #19 
Originally Posted by lawyer12

Everybody, you guys know Breitbart has to be careful in the Vetting especially since their leader got killed. 

The people at Breitbart should dump everything they have on ovomit all at one time like wiki leaks. Everyone who has anything on ovomit should dump all of it and let the left handle it like ovomit did when he first usurped the WH. The Bills kept coming so fast no one could even figure out what was going on much less do anything about it.


Super Moderators
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #20 

Can we learn something from the Classics about vetting Obama?

Monte Kuligowski says after my last piece on why it's reasonable to authenticate Obama's elusive birth certificate, I received an e-mail from a reader. His name is Bill Meisler, and he is fluent in ancient Greek. Recently, Bill was reading the speeches of Demosthenes.

Bill relayed the following:

In the scholarly notes to the Speech Against Meidias the commentator wrote that before an Athenian could hold any magistracy of the city, he had to undergo what was called a dokimasia, a formal public inquiry into whether the man who wished to hold the magistracy possessed all the necessary criteria needed to prove his Athenian citizenship and thereby be allowed the privilege of holding office. The dokimasia was open to the public and was presided over by the appropriate authorities in the presence of the boule, the democratic council representing the entire citizenry. Witnesses and unequivocal documentation were required, and any citizen could challenge the proceedings of the inquiry.

Though it may seem a little odd to us at first glance, the dokimasia was held after the election. In the book Aspects of Athenian Democracy, by Robert J. Bonner, it's noted that:

... [t]hese disqualifications and restrictions [to holding office] were matters of record or observation[.] But there were other disqualifications that could be discovered only by a judicial investigation involving the production of witnesses. Obviously it would be economical of time and effort to defer this inquiry until after the election[.] This examination was known as the dokimasia.

In contemporary America, the examination of candidates is thought to be done by the free press prior to the election. But when serious vetting of the winning candidate has not occurred, we have a predicament: judges have ruled that citizens have no standing to enforce eligibility requirements becauseof the election.

In such a system, the incalculable power of the unified media to create impressions and manufacture public opinion means that election results may be engineered and shielded from substance and sound judgment.

Unfortunately, with regard to the matter of Barack Obama, as David Kupelian puts it, instead "of vetting him as was their solemn duty, the media lifted him high overhead and giddily raced across the finish line[.]" Excluding those who did independent research, voters knew little on Election Day about the actual substance of the candidate chosen by the JournoLists to "make history."

Many voters, if not most, went to the polls not even knowing the Obama's middle name, or the fact that he attended elementary school in Islamic Indonesia using a completely different name. Was Barry Soetoro adopted by his Muslim stepfather, Lolo Soetoro? No one knows for sure because the press refused to ask questions, let alone demand answers.

Very few knew what Saul Alinsky-type community organizers were really all about. Many viewed a "community organizer" as a sort of idolized Boy Scout who helps neighborhoods by doing good deeds. Few knew that as a community organizer, Obama was creating political "power bases" for "redistributive justice." Most voters did not know of Obama's revolutionary dreams and of his commensurate connections to ACORN, the New Party, and Project Vote. (It was not for nothing that the Communist Party backed Obama.) Mr. Obama's core identity in hard-left Marxist radicalism was ignored or downplayed by the press.

At the pinnacle of the public's concern over Obama's shocking twenty-year church membership under the tutelage of his America-loathing "spiritual advisor," one "journalist" actually declared his early 2008 interview of Obama a "Reverend Wright-free zone."

On the contrary, the historic Republican candidate got no "free zones." Sarah Palin experienced one of the most vicious concerted media attacks in American political history. When John McCain selected Palin as his running mate, she was an admired governor with a remarkable 83% approval rating. After the liberal media were finished with Palin, only 39% of Alaskans were found to hold a positive opinion of the once-widely respected hockey mom.

John McCain was subjected to a Senate Resolution in 2008 to clear up questions relating to his status as a "natural born citizen" under the Constitution. The traditional definition of natural born citizen as one having an unbroken chain of natural allegiance to the United States was implicitly applied to McCain. Since the traditional definition didn't apply to Obama, the question as to whether Obama needed U.S. citizen parents to qualify was completely ignored.

The discussion between Charlie Rose and former NBC news anchor Tom Brokaw just a few days prior to the 2008 presidential election says it all:

Rose: I don't know what Barack Obama's worldview is.

Brokaw: No, I don't either.

Rose: And do we know anything about the people who are advising him?

Brokaw: You know that's an interesting question. ... I don't know what books he's read.

Rose: What do we know about the heroes of Barack Obama?

Brokaw: There's a lot about him we don't know.

Many Americans now know they were hoodwinked by the image of Obama as presented by his campaign and the media (forgive the redundancy). In addition to the known betrayal, the sense that we have been deceived with regard to Obama's natal history remains. Mr. Obama's staunch secrecy in locking down the ordinary records of his past (passport, education, hospital, medical, vital, etc.) has only increased anger and distrust.

The recent findings of Sheriff Joe Arpaio's investigative team have led to the alarming pronouncement that probable cause exists to believe that Obama's belated birth certificate and Selective Service registration are both awkward forgeries.

Should Arpaio's findings be ignored without a hearing? Do we have any options?

Well, at this point, the solution is to have an American dokimasia to settle the matter once and for all. Robert Bonner informs us that during the examination in ancient Athens, the elected official "was required to prove, by witnesses, his citizen descent for three generations, his performance of his duties to his parents and of all military services, the payment of his taxes, the possession of a family tomb, and adherence to the cults of Apollo Patrous and Zeus of the Household."

Bonner continues, "anyone was free to show cause in a court of law why the official-elect should not be confirmed in his office." It's apparent from the examinations of the clients of Lysias that "the loyalty of the prospective officials to democracy was likely to be called in question."

The perfect venue for our Obama dokimasia is the House of Congress. Let's learn once again from the ancient Greeks and have open hearings, complete with witnesses and document production via the congressional power of the subpoena.

The principles our founders incorporated into our Constitution from Athenian democracy should continue in perpetuity. We may not require proof of citizen descent for three generations, but one generation should not be too much to ask. We may not require a generational family mausoleum, but adherence to the cult of American liberty with the traditional values of our founding -- God-given rights independent of government; limited, enumerated central power; etc. -- via fidelity to our Constitution should also be revived as a normative requirement.

The Athenian model of complete transparency is a refreshing idea in context of the exhausted secrecy of Barack Hussein Obama II.

From the classics we can learn that transparency at the most fundamental level equates to trust at all other levels.


Crossposted . . .

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Posts: 1,222
Reply with quote  #21 

but..... HOW do we make our House Of Representatives DO THIS??  Especially with a WIMP like Boehner at the Speakership??


Super Moderators
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #22 

Obama: I am my brother’s keeper -- just not my real brother

Ben Shapiro says in a campaign speech on Friday in Vermont, Barack Obama ripped into “you’re-on-your-own-economics” and actually suggested that hard work and personal responsibility were not supreme Biblical values. Instead, he suggested, “Hard work, personal responsibility -- those are values. But looking out for one another. That’s a value. The idea that we’re all in this together. I am my brother’s keeper. I am my sister’s keeper. That’s a value.”
Apparently, being his brother’s keeper does not actually mean his brother’s keeper -- Barack Obama’s half-brother lives on less than a dollar per month. “I have seen two of my friends killed,” says George Obama. “I have scars from defending myself with my fists. I am good with my fists.”
Beyond the obvious, Obama’s interpretation of Biblical stories leaves something to be desired. In the story of Cain and Abel, Abel offers a sacrifice and so does Cain; God is pleased with Abel’s and not with Cain’s. In a fit of jealousy, Cain kills Abel. When God asks Cain about it, Cain replies, “Am I my brother’s keeper?”
The moral of the story isn’t that Cain ought to redistribute his wealth -- in fact, Cain is the proletariat character in the story. The moral is that Cain shouldn’t have killed his brother out of wealth spite. Or, precisely the opposite of the message Obama is fond of promoting. Leave it to Obama to completely misinterpret a Biblical passage to back his own agenda. After all, it took God six days to complete the world; according to Obama’s supporters, it only took Barack Obama one day to fundamentally transform it with his election.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 1,060
Reply with quote  #23 

The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet: 'Born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii'

Breitbart News has obtained a promotional booklet produced in 1991 by Barack Obama's then-literary agency, Acton & Dystel, which touts Obama as "born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii." 

The booklet, which was distributed to "business colleagues" in the publishing industry, includes a brief biography of Obama among the biographies of eighty-nine other authors represented by Acton & Dystel. 

It also promotes Obama's anticipated first book, Journeys in Black and White--which Obama abandoned, later publishing Dreams from My Father instead.

Obama’s biography in the booklet is as follows (image and text below):

Barack Obama, the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review, was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii.  The son of an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister, he attended Columbia University and worked as a financial journalist and editor for Business International Corporation.   He served as project coordinator in Harlem for the New York Public Interest Research Group, and was Executive Director of the Developing Communities Project in Chicago’s South Side. His commitment to social and racial issues will be evident in his first book, Journeys in Black and White.
and's disclosure...

Note from Senior Management:

Andrew Breitbart was never a "Birther," and Breitbart News is a site that has never advocated the narrative of "Birtherism." In fact, Andrew believed, as we do, that President Barack Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, on August 4, 1961.

Yet Andrew also believed that the complicit mainstream media had refused to examine President Obama's ideological past, or the carefully crafted persona he and his advisers had constructed for him.

It is for that reason that we launched "The Vetting," an ongoing series in which we explore the ideological background of President Obama (and other presidential candidates)--not to re-litigate 2008, but because ideas and actions have consequences.

It is also in that spirit that we discovered, and now present, the booklet described below--one that includes a marketing pitch for a forthcoming book by a then-young, otherwise unknown former president of the Harvard Law Review

It is evidence--not of the President's foreign origin, but that Barack Obama's public persona has perhaps been presented differently at different times.

There's a bit more there...

"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson

Super Moderators
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #24 

You know . . .


Obama's publisher had to get that information somewhere -- my guess is they got it from Obama. 


In 1992 he had no idea where he was heading, and he just told the publisher one of his tall tales.


And don't forget all of these reports of Obama's Kenyan roots from extremely reliable sources.  They came from somewhere.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Posts: 929
Reply with quote  #25 

Obama is a liar, that is a fact.  Up is down and Down is up. Gay is normal and foreign born is an American natural born citizen in his world.

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Help fight the

The United States Library of Congress
has selected for inclusion
in its historic collection of Internet materials

Be a subscribing

© Copyright  Beckwith  2011 - 2016
All rights reserved