Results 5,401 to 5,410 of 5732
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 4 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 4 guests)
-
10-24-2013, 07:38 PM #5401
RELATED
How Ted Cruz killed the birther movement
10/24/2013 5:55pm by John Aravosis
http://americablog.com/2013/10/ted-c...orn-obama.htmlNO AMNESTY
Don't reward the criminal actions of millions of illegal aliens by giving them citizenship.
Sign in and post comments here.
Please support our fight against illegal immigration by joining ALIPAC's email alerts here https://eepurl.com/cktGTn
-
11-08-2013, 05:44 PM #5402
- Join Date
- Jan 2006
- Location
- tracking the usurper-in-chief and on his trail
- Posts
- 3,207
Friday, November 8, 2013
BREAKING! EXCLUSIVE!
MONUMENTAL BREAKTHROUGH
in Birth Certificate Case!
INVESTIGATION TAKES ASTOUNDING NEW TWIST!
Carl Gallups (founder of PPSIMMONS News and Ministry Network and host of Freedom Friday With Carl Gallups on 1330 WEBY - Gulf Coast Talk Radio) has just released the following statement concerning the White House birth certificate investigation and the ongoing investigation by the [Maricopa Co., Arizona,] Cold Case Posse.
“Many of you have been asking by email, telephone, FB, YT, tweets, and blog posts – “What’s going on with the birth certificate investigation? Why have you gone silent? Is it over? Did you hit a roadblock?”
"While I am not an official spokesperson for Mike Zullo and [Maricopa Co., Arizona,] Sheriff Arpaio - here is what I can tell you at this point: the investigation has never gone silent and it has never stopped. Mike Zullo and I have been telling you (for months) that this investigation took a deeper turn some time back. Well – it not only took a deeper turn – but it has now become much, much deeper! Deeper than you could ever imagine!
"Mike has been traveling around the country the last two weeks as a result of this new branch of investigation. The implications of what has been uncovered (with hard documentation and evidence) are absolutely astounding – it is beyond monumental. As a result - the investigation work has increased 100-fold in intensity. This is why Mike Zullo has made no recent comments. The necessity for absolute 100% confidentiality is too important. I would not expect a detailed comment from Mike Zullo or Sheriff Arpaio for awhile. This is simply too big to let even a hint out about what they now know.
"I can also tell you that – based upon what I know – the birth certificate issue has been 100% settled. I am not at liberty to tell you how we know, but we now know without any argument or even the slightest shade of doubt – the birth certificate posted on the White House website is a 100% fabrication.
"All the talk about the Xerox machine and reproducing certain anomalies found on the White House birth certificate has now been completely, forensically, and in 100% evidentiary fashion – debunked. The entire [portfolio of Obot minutiae] has been completely eviscerated. Their smokescreen has been obliterated. To all of those who have had deep concerns about the matter of the authenticity of the birth certificate – you have been vindicated. You were right! This will eventually come to light. Be patient.
"Again – this entire affair is now much bigger than the birth certificate. As soon as I am at liberty to say more, I will. Until then, America will simply have to be patient, pray, and trust.
"Sheriff Arpaio, Mike Zullo, et al, have not lied to you or misled you in the past. They will not in the future, either. They are working tirelessly as I speak. You will see the results one day in the future – and then you will know.
"Let me add – this is the first time that Mike Zullo hasn’t told me everything that he knows. There is simply too much and it now goes too deep. I know enough to tell you with confidence what I have just told you. Trust me – this is huge… it is so monumentally huge.”
Note: For those of you who are concerned about the safety of those of us who "know" this information - no worries. Every precaution has been taken to completely secure the information and how it can be released. No one person or group of persons becoming the subject of "harm" will stop the release of this history-changing information.
ppsimmons.blogspot.com/2013/11/breaking-exclusive-monumental.htmlLast edited by MinutemanCDC_SC; 11-08-2013 at 05:57 PM.
One man's terrorist is another man's undocumented worker.
Unless we enforce laws against illegal aliens today,
tomorrow WE may wake up as illegals.
The last word: illegal aliens are ILLEGAL!
-
11-09-2013, 12:19 AM #5403
- Join Date
- Jan 2006
- Location
- tracking the usurper-in-chief and on his trail
- Posts
- 3,207
Mia Marie Pope knew Barry Soetoro in prep school as a homosexual, druggie, foreign student
Posted on November 8, 2013 by Dr. Eowyn
Mia Marie Pope knew Obama at their high school in Honolulu, Hawaii, during the late 1970s. She knew him then by the name of Barry Soetoro.
In this interview on October 31, 2013, with the Reverend Dr. James David Manning, the pastor of Atlah World Missionary [Church] in Harlem, New York, Pope says Barry “always portrayed himself as a foreign student” and “very much was within the gay community.” It was “common knowledge” that Barry “wasn’t interested in girls” but “was strictly into men.”
“One of his attributes even then,” as he is now, was that Barry “was a pathological liar even then” of the “self-aggrandizing” sort. He would lie about the most mundane things.
Barry also exploited people, bumming cigarettes off others, then drop them as soon as he got what he wanted.
Barry also bragged about smoking the expensive powder form of cocaine. “He would get with older white guys. That’s how he procured the cocaine, by having sex with these older rich white guys.”
If the video doesn’t work, go to:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uy2K5SIuK2E&list=TL3MXxdVsZeo9OchqeSbY-onH5YL-icS5X
Thank you, Ms. Pope, for having the courage to speak the truth.
May God bless you, and send His mighty angels to spread their wings of protection over you and keep you safe from this evil impostor in the White House.
~Eowyn
Dr. Eowyn is the Editor of Fellowship of the Minds.Last edited by MinutemanCDC_SC; 11-09-2013 at 12:26 AM.
One man's terrorist is another man's undocumented worker.
Unless we enforce laws against illegal aliens today,
tomorrow WE may wake up as illegals.
The last word: illegal aliens are ILLEGAL!
-
11-09-2013, 12:56 AM #5404
- Join Date
- Jan 2006
- Location
- tracking the usurper-in-chief and on his trail
- Posts
- 3,207
[ED.: the following two articles are reposts.]
Why the GOP won’t challenge vote fraud
[It can't.]
Posted on November 15, 2012 by Dr. Eowyn
Friends and Patriots,
It’s major duct tape time ’cause you’ll need it to keep your head from exploding.
Are you ready for this?
Here we go….
There is now compelling and undeniable evidence that MAJOR vote fraud had been perpetrated in the November 2012 Election. See FOTM’s posts chronicling the extensive pervasive fraud by going to our “2012 Election” page below our FOTM masthead, and click on those post links colored dark green.
But our screaming and hollering are to no avail. No one is listening to us. Not even the Republican Party.
Here’s why….
The Republican Party made an agreement 30 years ago with the Democrat Party NOT to ensure voting integrity and NOT to pursue suspected vote fraud.
Yes. You read it correctly.
In fact, legally the GOP cannot ensure voting integrity, nor can it prevent vote fraud.
Here’s the astounding reason, which is kept from the American people.
PolitiJim writes for Gulag Bound, November 13, 2012, that during the weekly True the Vote webcast, Catherine Engelbrecht (see her photo below) related a meeting she had with Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee (RNC), asking what the GOP would do about voter integrity. The answer?
Nothing. They aren’t legally able to.
This all goes back to a lawsuit 31 years ago, in 1981. The following is compiled from an account on The Judicial View, a legal website specializing in court decision research and alerts, and from “Democratic National Committee v Republican National Committee,” Case No. 09-4615.
In 1981, during the gubernatorial election in New Jersey (NJ), a lawsuit was brought against the RNC, the NJ Republican State Committee (RSC), and three individuals (John A. Kelly, Ronald Kaufman, and Alex Hurtado), accusing them of violating the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 1971, 1973, and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
The lawsuit was brought by the Democratic National Committee (DNC), the NJ Democratic State Committee (DSC), and two individuals (Virginia L. Peggins and Lynette Monroe).
The lawsuit alleged that:
- The RNC and RSC targeted minority voters in New Jersey in an effort to intimidate them.
- The RNC created a voter challenge list by mailing sample ballots to individuals in precincts with a high percentage of racial or ethnic minority registered voters. Then the RNC put the names of individuals whose postcards were returned as undeliverable on a list of voters to challenge at the polls.
- The RNC enlisted the help of off-duty sheriffs and police officers with “National Ballot Security Task Force” armbands, to intimidate voters by standing at polling places in minority precincts during voting. Some of the officers allegedly wore firearms in a visible manner.
To settle the lawsuit, in 1982 — while Ronald Reagan was President (1981-1989) — the RNC and RSC entered into an agreement or Consent Decree, which is national in scope, limiting the RNC’s ability to engage or assist in voter fraud prevention unless the RNC obtains the court’s approval in advance. The following is what the RNC and RSC, in the Consent Decree, agreed they would do:
[I]n the future, in all states and territories of the United States:
(a) comply with all applicable state and federal laws protecting the rights of duly qualified citizens to vote for the candidate(s) of their choice;
(b) in the event that they produce or place any signs which are part of ballot security activities, cause said signs to disclose that they are authorized or sponsored by the party committees and any other committees participating with the party committees;
(c) refrain from giving any directions to or permitting their agents or employees to remove or deface any lawfully printed and placed campaign materials or signs;
(d) refrain from giving any directions to or permitting their employees to campaign within restricted polling areas or to interrogate prospective voters as to their qualifications to vote prior to their entry to a polling place;
(e) refrain from undertaking any ballot security activities in polling places or election districts where the racial or ethnic composition of such districts is a factor in the decision to conduct, or the actual conduct of, such activities there and where a purpose or significant effect of such activities is to deter qualified voters from voting; and the conduct of such activities disproportionately in or directed toward districts that have a substantial proportion of racial or ethnic populations shall be considered relevant evidence of the existence of such a factor and purpose;
(f) refrain from having private personnel deputized as law enforcement personnel in connection with ballot security activities.
The RNC also agreed that the RNC, its agents, servants, and employees would be bound by the Decree, “whether acting directly or indirectly through other party committees.”
As modified in 1987, the Consent Decree defined “ballot security activities” to mean “ballot integrity, ballot security or other efforts to prevent or remedy vote fraud.”
Since 1982, that Consent Decree has been renewed every year by the original judge, Carter appointee District Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise, now 88 years old. Long retired, Debevoise comes back yearly for the sole purpose of renewing his 1982 order for another year.
U.S. District Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise
In 2010, the RNC unsuccessfully appealed “to vacate or modify” the Consent Decree in “Democratic National Committee v Republican National Committee,” Case No. 09-4615 (C.A. 3, Mar. 8, 2012). (I paid The Judicial Review $10 for the PDF of Case No. 09-4615 and uploaded the 59-page document to FOTM’s media library. To read Case No. 09-4615, click here!)
This is a summary of the appeals judge’s ruling, filed on March 8, 2012:
In 1982, the Republican National Committee (“RNC”) and the Democratic National Committee (“DNC”) entered into a consent decree (the “Decree” or “Consent Decree”), which is national in scope, limiting the RNC’s ability to engage or assist in voter fraud prevention unless the RNC obtains the court’s approval in advance. The RNC appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey denying, in part, the RNC’s Motion to Vacate or Modify the Consent Decree. Although the District Court declined to vacate the Decree, it did make modifications to the Decree. The RNC argues that the District Court abused its discretion by modifying the Decree as it did and by declining to vacate the Decree. For the following reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment.
Surprise! The judge who denied the RNC’s appeal to “vacate” the 1982 Consent Decree is an Obama appointee, Judge Joseph Greenaway, Jr., of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Judge Joseph Greenaway, Jr.,
U.S. Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit
Guy Benson of Townhall.com points out that in last Tuesday’s election, Obama only won by 406,348 votes in 4 states:
- Florida: 73,858
- Ohio: 103,481
- Virginia: 115,910
- Colorado: 113,099
Those four states, with a collective margin of 406,348 votes for Obama, add up to 69 electoral votes. Had Romney won 407,000 or so additional votes in the right proportion in those states, he would have 275 electoral votes.
All four states showed Romney ahead in the days leading up to the election. But on November 6, Romney lost all four states by a substantial margin, all of which have precincts that inexplicably went 99% for Obama, had voter registrations that exceeded their population, and had experienced problems with voting machines.
This election was stolen by the Democrats via vote fraud. Despite all the evidence of fraud, the Republican Party has been strangely silent about it.
Now you know why.
I’ll leave you with one last, even more disturbing thought:
The RNC and DNC made their Consent Decree 30 years ago, in 1982. The agreement in effect gives a carte blanche to the Democrat Party to commit vote fraud in every voting district across America that has, in the language of the Consent Decree, “a substantial proportion of racial or ethnic populations.” The term “substantial proportion” is not defined.
The Democrat Party knew this 30 years ago, more than enough time to put a plan in place to identify and groom their “perfect candidate” — in the words of Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) in 2008, a “light-skinned” black Democrat who has “no Negro dialect unless he wanted to have one.”
- Being a black Democrat, this perfect candidate would get the support of almost all black Americans (96% in 2008!) and other racial minorities (two-thirds of Hispanics in 2008).
- Being a “light-skinned” black with “no Negro dialect”, this perfect candidate would get the support of white Americans perpetually guilt-ridden about America’s original sin of slavery.
It doesn’t matter if this “perfect candidate” has dubious Constitutional eligibility to be president. They would see to it that his original birth certificate (if there is one) would never see the light of day. The same with his other documents — his passports, school and college records, draft registration, and medical records (so we’ll never know why Obama has that very long scar running from one side of his head, over the crown, to the other side).
Now, we understand the significance of the account Tom Fife wrote during the 2008 presidential campaign. Fife, a U.S. government contractor, claims that in 1992 while he was visiting Moscow, a woman with undying allegiance to Soviet Communism (the Soviet Union had recently collapsed, on December 31, 1991) told him that a black man named Barack, born of a white American woman and an African male, was being groomed by communists to be, and would be elected, President of the United States.
Now, we finally understand the cryptic remark made in May 2010, by Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan: “Obama was selected before he was elected.”
In 2008, this “perfect candidate” won the presidential election. And despite his many failures in his first term, he would be reelected in 2012 for a second term via massive vote fraud. But nothing would be done about the vote fraud, because of that Consent Decree signed by the RNC 30 years ago.
The Republican Party is dead — and with it, the U.S. two-party system as well — and the sooner we voters recognize that the better.
The question that remains is whether the American Republic is also dead.
UPDATE (Nov. 16, 2012):
Since I published this post yesterday, we’ve been asking each other: “What can I/we do about this?” Here are my suggestions:
1. If you are a registered Republican, QUIT! Switch your voter registration ID to non-partisan Independent.
2. Stop donating money, not even one penny, to the GOP. Tell them why.
3. Spread the word. Please send the URL of this post (fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2012/11/15/why-the-gop-will-not-do-anything-about-vote-fraud/) to:
- EVERYONE on your email list.
- Media people for whom you have email addresses.
- Tea Party groups you know.
- Post the link on your Facebook page.
- Post the link as your comment on websites and blogs you visit.
4. Write your state’s attorney general and ask him/her to investigate vote fraud in your state. Click here!
UPDATE (Nov. 21, 2012):
5 days after I’d published this and 7 days after PolitiJim of GulagBound published his account, someone in the conservative establishment media is writing about this — WND’s Bob Unruh. Click here for his article, “GOP Legally Barred From Fighting Vote Fraud” [copied below]. But it’s still the sound of crickets from conservative talk radio, even though I’ve sent my post to Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, and a reader had also sent it to Mark Levin.
Just so you know: It makes no monetary difference to us how many people read this post. Fellowship of the Minds (FOTM) is an ad-free blog. We don’t make even a penny in revenue because we deliberately don’t have ads. In fact, I paid WordPress a $99 annual fee so WordPress can’t insert ads on FOTM either. All of our writers work our b[ehind]s off, for no pay, as a labor of love for our country.
~Eowyn
fellowshipoftheminds.com/2012/11/15/why-the-gop-will-not-do-anything-about-vote-fraud/
__________________________________________________ __
WND EXCLUSIVE
GOP legally barred from fighting vote fraud
30 years later, consent decree violation claims still threaten
Published: 11/20/2012 at 8:01 PM
Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after nearly three decades with the Associated Press, as well as several Upper Midwest newspapers, where he covered everything from legislative battles and sports to tornadoes and homicidal survivalists. He is also a photographer whose scenic work has been used commercially.
Voting machines suspiciously defaulting to Barack Obama? Buses loaded with strangers appearing at polling stations? Even ballots turning out 100 percent for one candidate in precinct reports?
In short, suspicions of vote fraud?
That’s too bad, because a race-based consent decree negotiated by Democrats against the Republican National Committee a generation ago still has tied the RNC’s hands, and GOP officials could be cited for contempt – or worse – if they try to make sure American elections are clean.
Impossible?
No. Fact.
The case is the Democratic National Committee vs. the Republican National Committee, originally from 1982.
Democrats alleged Republicans were trying intimidate minority voters in New Jersey and brought the legal action. The RNC, inexplicably, decided to agree to a consent decree before a Democrat-appointed judge rather than fight the claims.
The judge, Dickinson Debevoise, appointed by Jimmy Carter, later retired but decided he would continue to control the case. The decision requires the RNC – but not the DNC – to “refrain from undertaking any ballot security activities in polling places or election districts where the racial or ethnic composition of such districts is a factor in the decision to conduct, or the actual conduct of, such activities there and where a purpose or significant effect of such activities is to deter qualified voters from voting; and the conduct of such activities disproportionately in or directed toward districts that have a substantial proportion of racial or ethnic populations shall be considered relevant evidence of the existence of such a factor and purpose.”
The rest of the agreement essentially requires the RNC to follow applicable state and federal election laws.
But the section cited above has been used for decades to warn off Republicans from any challenge to evidence of voter fraud in districts with “racial or ethnic populations.”
The law has remained, even though the RNC recently challenged it at the appellate level only to be turned down by Judges Joseph Greenaway Jr., appointed by Bill Clinton; Dolores Sloviter, appointed by Carter; and Walter Stapleton, appointed by Ronald Reagan, in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
It now is pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.
But two election veterans both told WND it still is hurting the fight against voter fraud in the United States.
Attorney James Bopp of the James Madison Center said the threat that the RNC has faced is that someone will allege a violation of the decree, and party officials will be standing in a courtroom on Election Day.
Bopp’s organization was founded to protect the First Amendment right of all citizens of free expression and “to support litigation and public education activities in order to defend the rights of political expression and association by citizens and citizen groups as guaranteed by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.”
Bopp himself has taken part in more than 60 election-related cases, including recounts, redistricting and constitutional law challenges to state and federal election laws.
He said the agreement even today, amid reports of fraud across the country, prevents the RNC from doing any anti-voter fraud activity on Election Day.
“It is way too restrictive,” he said. “It prevents the RNC from working with state parties in conducting voter integrity activities. It has been used by the DNC to harass the leadership of the RNC with false allegations of violations of the consent decree.”
He said the reason why the RNC originally agreed to the decree, rather than fight the allegations, was unclear. But he said he investigated the issue.
“It was very troubling that the RNC’s effort to ensure the integrity of the vote would be undermined,” he told WND.
While there have been periods in U.S. history in which there have been concerns about minority voting, the restrictions today, he said, are “completely unjustified.”
“It’s become absurd,” he said, noting that the GOP has had a black chairman.
Voters, he said, would be best served to have both political parties watching for vote fraud.
Also responding to questions about the issue was Cleta Mitchell of the Washington firm of Foley & Lardner.
Mitchell is on the firm’s political law practice team and has 30 years of experience in law, politics and public policy, advising candidates, campaigns and others on state and federal campaign finance law, election law and compliance issues. She practices before the Federal Election Commission.
“The RNC has been completely prohibited from doing anything in ballot security since 1982,” she told WND. “The Democrats repeatedly over the years have gotten the RNC officers into court on the weekend before the election.
“What it means is that for 30 years there has been no way to institutionalize, to help train state parties, to work with candidates [on vote fraud prevention issues],” she said.
Problems can be caused by malfunctioning equipment, programming errors, or “sheer incompetence” of local elections officials, she said. And sometimes by vote fraud.
“The problem is there’s nothing that the RNC can do in that regard because of that consent degree,” Mitchell said. “A lot of things need to be done to improve state laws. … Democrats are able to be [as] involved as they want to be.”
Republicans have tried to change the decree since 2009, after Obama took office. But Debevoise has ruled that they failed to show that conditions in the U.S. had changed since 1982.
Debevoise said that since most minority voters support Democrats, the RNC still has an incentive to suppress minority votes.
He dismissed the idea of voter fraud and extended his own supervision of the case until 2017.
In March, the 3rd Circuit issued its affirmation of Debevoise’s decision.
WND recently has reported on allegations of voter fraud, including a claim by a poll watcher in Pennsylvania who said votes reverted to Obama by default, no matter who the voter selected.
The incident took place in the state where officials claimed Obama received a total of 19,605 votes in 59 voting divisions to zero for Mitt Romney and not far from the 100 precincts in Ohio in which Obama got 99 percent of the vote.
With evidence mounting that the vote tabulation did not reflect the true choices of voters, talk-radio icon Rush Limbaugh declared: “Third-world, tin-horn dictators don’t get [these percentages]. I mean, the last guy that got this percentage of the vote was Saddam Hussein, and the people that didn’t vote for him got shot. This just doesn’t happen. Even Hugo Chavez [of Venezuela] doesn’t get 100 percent or 99 percent of the vote.”
It was in Upper Macungie Township, near Allentown, Pa., where an auditor, Robert Ashcroft, was dispatched by Republicans to monitor the vote on Election Day. He said the software he observed would “change the selection back to default – to Obama.”
He said that happened in about 5 percent to 10 percent of the votes.
See the BIG LIST of vote fraud reports coming out of the 2012 election.
WND’s newest forum is your opportunity to report voter fraud
Stand up to fight against voter fraud right now!
Here’s the blueprint Obama used to steal the 2012 election.
Sound off on GOP being legally barred from preventing vote fraud.
www.wnd.com/2012/11/gop-legally-barred-from-fighting-vote-fraud/Last edited by MinutemanCDC_SC; 11-09-2013 at 01:24 AM.
One man's terrorist is another man's undocumented worker.
Unless we enforce laws against illegal aliens today,
tomorrow WE may wake up as illegals.
The last word: illegal aliens are ILLEGAL!
-
11-09-2013, 04:39 AM #5405
- Join Date
- May 2007
- Location
- South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
- Posts
- 117,696
Video: Obama Birth Certificate: New Hard Document Evidence ‘It’s Gotten Deeper, Darker than You Can Imagine’
[ Listen: http://goo.gl/B3Rkeh]Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)
-
11-13-2013, 02:54 PM #5406
- Join Date
- Jun 2013
- Posts
- 8,546
BARACK OBAMA: THE GHOST OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY – By Wayne Allyn Root
I just returned from New York, where I attended my 30th Columbia University reunion. I celebrated with my esteemed classmates. Everyone except Barack Obama. As usual- he wasn’t there. Not even a video greeting. Not a personalized letter to his classmates. Nothing. But worse, no one at our 30th reunion ever met him. The President of the United States is the ghost of Columbia University.
I’m certainly no “Johnny come lately.” For five years now (since 2007 when it became clear Barack Obama was running for President), I’ve been quoted in the media as saying that no one I’ve ever met at Columbia can remember ever meeting, or even seeing, our college classmate Barack Obama. Don’t you think the media should be asking questions? Isn’t this a very strange story?
I am a graduate of Columbia University, Class of 1983. That’s the same class Barack Obama claims to have graduated from. We shared the same exact major- Political Science. We were both Pre Law. It was a small class- about 700 students. The Political Science department was even smaller and closer-knit (maybe 150 students). I thought I knew, or met at least once, (or certainly saw in classes) every fellow Poly Sci classmate in my four years at Columbia.
But not Obama. No one ever met him. Even worse, no one even remembers seeing that unique memorable face. Think about this for a minute. Our classmate is President of the United States. Shouldn’t someone remember him? Or at least claim to remember him?
One of the speakers at the 30th reunion should have reminisced about “my days with the future President.” But no one did. You’d think Obama might have sent a video to tell us all how much he enjoyed his time at Columbia. You’d think he’d have sent at least a letter to be read aloud from one of his former college buddies. Right? But he didn’t. Because Obama has no former college buddies. No one that ever met Obama, let alone befriended him, was in attendence at our 30th class reunion.
Now you might argue this is all strange, but it’s possible. Afterall Columbia says he graduated. And I take my college’s word for it. Would one of the world’s greatest Ivy League institutions participate in a coverup, thereby risking their billion dollar reputation? And there is one single article written for the Columbia newspaper with Obama’s name on it. A single photo also exists of Obama in his Manhattan apartment with the man he claims was his college roommate- a Pakistani foreign student. And one single radical leftist Columbia professor who hates Israel also claims he remembers Obama.
That’s the sum total of Obama’s existence at Columbia University, Class of ’83.
So I asked every classmate I met at our 30th reunion, many of them Political Science majors, if they ever met, or saw, or heard of Obama. The answer was a resounding NO from every one of them. I asked if they found this strange, or worried how this was possible? They all answered YES. I asked if they thought it was possible to be a Political Science major and never meet a fellow major in our small classes? They all gave me a very strange look and answered NO. So I asked, “How could this be possible? Can you explain this?” No one had an answer.
Keep in mind these people I spoke to are all- to a man and woman- dedicated liberal Democrats who voted for Obama. I’m guessing 90% are major Democrat contributors. My Columbia classmates are the crème of the crop of American society. Lawyers, doctors, billionaire hedge fund members, stars of the media. They adore Obama. But they all admit they never met him in their four years at Columbia. I am proud of my classmates for their honesty and integrity.
One classmate told me he was present when one of the most honored professors in Columbia University history gave a speech to alumni a couple of years ago. The speech was followed by Q&A. This beloved professor was asked about Obama at Columbia. He said, “I have my doubts about the story.” The crowd was stunned. He immediately went onto the next question and never elaborated. So obviously I’m not the only one with doubts.
So here’s my take on this great mystery. I’ve never said Obama was not registered at Columbia. I’m sure he was. I’ve never said he didn’t graduate. If Columbia says he did, then I’m sure he did. But I’ve always said there is something wrong with the story. It’s rancid. It’s unbelievable. It’s impossible. It’s the story of a Manchurian candidate.
The question isn’t was he ever registered, or did he graduate. And it’s interesting that one photo, one professor, and one newspaper article exists- just enough to provide a thin cover. But the serious question the media should be asking is…What did Obama do for two full years in-between registration and graduation? Did he ever attend a class? Did he ever have a single friend other than a Pakistani national? Why is the only professor to ever come forward and claim he remembers him a radical leftist who hates Israel? What exactly was he doing when no one met him, saw him, or heard of him? Why are his college records sealed? What has he got to hide?
But my educated guess is he can’t, or won’t ever release those records. Because what we’d find would be shocking.
Now I know somewhere in America is an Obama defender that will accuse me of lying. But are all those classmates at our 30th reunion lying too? And if I wanted to lie, wouldn’t I better off saying I knew the future President well? If I wanted to malign the President, shouldn’t I be saying he was my close buddy and I witnessed all kinds of terrible things? But I can’t say that. Because I never witnessed anything. Neither did any of my classmates. We didn’t know him. Never met him. Never saw him. My story is simply the truth- and it’s the same consistent story I’ve told since 2007.
There is something wrong with Obama’s story- that much I know. He is either the ghost of Columbia, or the perfect Manchurian candidate. But something smells rotten at Columbia.
Courtesy of Wayne Allyn Root: Author’s Website
http://freepatriot.org/2013/06/04/ba...duating-class/
-
11-16-2013, 02:42 AM #5407
- Join Date
- Jan 2006
- Location
- tracking the usurper-in-chief and on his trail
- Posts
- 3,207
Wayne Allan Root, CU '83, claims that Barack Obama II did not attend Columbia Univ., and that no one at the 30th reunion of the class of '83 remembers ever meeting Barack Obama. The Rev. James David Manning, who graduated with the class of '83 from Union Theological Seminary in Harlem, across the street from Columbia Univ., maintains that only a handful of African-American students attended either institution then, and that he would have been acquainted with Barack Obama II had Mr. Obama actually been attending Columbia at the same time.
Most people are agreed that Barack Hussein Obama II was indeed awarded a diploma and accredited as graduating from Columbia with the class of '83, as documented in the Columbia College commencement program from May, 1983, and the Columbia University record of 1983 graduates.
htmlimg3.scribdassets.com/97pr2suyyo1r9uwc/images/7-ea08ad93ae.jpg
cdn.breitbart.com/mediaserver/Breitbart/Big-Government/2012/05/18/Obama-Colombia.jpg
Whether Barack Obama II attended Columbia Univ. for two full years (or at all), or whether he then actually was serving the United States (for college credit) as an Arabic-speaking CIA liason in support of the mujahideen in the Hindu Kush, is a U.S. House investigation question for Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was a professor at Columbia at the time.
Zbigniew Brzezinski
Zbigniew Brzezinski, a Harvard Ph.D. on Lenin, Stalin, and the 1917 Soviet Revolution, headed the Institute on Communist Affairs at Columbia University, where he was a professor from 1960 to 1989. A Council on Foreign Relations member and co-founder of the Trilateral Commission with David Rockefeller, he was also the National Security Adviser to Pres. Jimmy Carter until Jan. 20, 1981.
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
"Civilian personnel from the U.S. Department of State and the CIA frequently visited the Afghanistan-Pakistan border area during this time," or,
"No Americans trained or had direct contact with the mujahideen." Which was it?
How about one specific Indonesian or Kenyan CIA operative, Dr. Brzezinski?
Last edited by MinutemanCDC_SC; 11-16-2013 at 06:06 AM.
One man's terrorist is another man's undocumented worker.
Unless we enforce laws against illegal aliens today,
tomorrow WE may wake up as illegals.
The last word: illegal aliens are ILLEGAL!
-
11-18-2013, 12:57 PM #5408working4changeGuest
PLEASE HELP US TODAY! WE NEED EVERYONE TO PICK UP THE PHONE AND TAKE ACTION!
TARGETS
Rep. Gary Miller (R-CA) 202-225-3201
Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA) 202-225-1956
Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-AL) 202-225-4876
Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) 202-225-2331
Rep. Lou Barletta (R-PA) 202-225-6511
Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) 202-225-2002
Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL) 202-225-5755
Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT) 202-225-0453
Rep. Diane Black (R-TN) 202-225-4231
Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) 202-225-2811
http://www.alipac.us/f8/3-day-blitz-...ivists-292326/
-
11-23-2013, 03:28 AM #5409
- Join Date
- Jan 2006
- Location
- tracking the usurper-in-chief and on his trail
- Posts
- 3,207
ED.: Not about Mr. Obama's Constitutional ineligibility to the Presidency, but his Constitutional misconduct is related:
Originally Posted by MuslimLuvChrist, commenting at WesternJournalism.com (edited for grammar)Last edited by MinutemanCDC_SC; 11-23-2013 at 04:12 AM.
One man's terrorist is another man's undocumented worker.
Unless we enforce laws against illegal aliens today,
tomorrow WE may wake up as illegals.
The last word: illegal aliens are ILLEGAL!
-
11-24-2013, 12:33 AM #5410
- Join Date
- Jan 2006
- Location
- tracking the usurper-in-chief and on his trail
- Posts
- 3,207
[ED.: to enslave We the People, DOJ anti-Constitution "lawlessness creep" returns to the bogus "lack of standing" argument the DOJ used to gain dismissal of constitutional ineligibility lawsuits against Mr. Obama. Now, with that bogus "lack of standing" argument ppularized, We the People, the legitimate government of the United States, "have no right to challenge" the Obama Usurpation, the unconstitutional and NOT-legitimate rogue "government" of the U.S.. Give the devil an inch and he'll be your ruler.
Extranjeros, si. Yanquis, non.]
DoJ Lawyers: ["Ordinary"] Americans Have No Right to Challenge NSA Spy Programs
Saturday, Nov. 23, 2013
US District Court Judge William H. Pauley is at the center of the debate over whether or not Americans can request that the National Security Agency (NSA) halt their surveillance programs.
Lawyers for the government stated to Pauley that “ordinary Americans cannot legally challenge it." [So, if - just if - the NSA, the federal government, is conducting unreasonable and unlawful searches without warrants of anyone and everyone accessing U.S. phone networks,,in country or not, and not just suspected tεrrσrists, then the victims of such fishing expeditions have no standing to seek court injunctions and cannot even request that the NSA halt surveiling them? Such actions by the NSA belong in secret police organizations such as the Gestapo and the Stasi, the KGB and the FSB, China's MSS and N. Korea's MSD, Milosevic and Stanisic's DB Secret Police and Ceausescu's Securitate, Idi Amin's SRB and Mugabe's CIO, Saddam's Mukhabarat and Assad's Mukhabarat (4 directorates), the Shah's SAVAT and the Is|amic Republic's MOIS, the Pakistani ISI, the Yemeni SSC, and the Saudi Mabahith.]
Stuart Delery, attorney for the Department of Justice (DoJ) explained that based on Smith v. Maryland (SvM), “ordinary Americans have no standing to challenge the collection of their call records. Americans have no reasonable expectation of privacy for those records, and that only phone companies can challenge their collection.”
Because of this [purported lack of] legal standing, government attorneys are moving for a dismissal of the case.
Delery told the court that the NSA surveillance program was “carefully calibrated to the purpose for which it is being used.”
House Representative James Sensenbrenner, author of the Patriot Act of 2001, wrote an amicus curiae brief to the court.
Sensenbrenner said that he never expected for the federal government to use his legislation for such over-reaching Big Brother surveillance state activities.
Delery suggested that Pauley consult “national security experts” and step down from deciding on whether or not the NSA should continue their spying operations.
The DoJ argued that phone metadata is covered as searchable as stated in the Patriot Act and asserted that access to phone records of customers and siphoning the information “is not a search” and therefore not a violation of the 4th Amendment. [ED.: So calling it "siphoning" makes it "not a search?" If anyone else did it, plundering phone records would be a search, and without a warrant, on non-tεrrσrists, it would be an unlawful invasion of privacy too.]
Jameel Jaffer, deputy director and lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) who initiated the legal battle, commented : “If Pauley were to let the policy — revealed earlier this year by leaker extraordinaire Edward Snowden — remain in place, it could open the door for more intrusive actions by the government. If you accept the government’s theory here, you are creating a dramatic expansion of the government’s investigative power.”
In 2007, the ACLU filed a suit against the NSA that resulted in the decision that the ACLU did not have standing to bring the suit against the NSA, because they could not present evidence that they were the targets of the Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP).
The DoJ argued that the suit be dismissed due to state secrets privilege (SSP) compounded with the plaintiff’s lack of legal standing. [ED.: The "lack of standing" argument worked for Mr. Obama; why not expand it to the whole rogue Executive Branch? / SARC]
The TSP collected information from intercepted international phone conversations and internet communications without warrants. Targets were considered suspected terrorists and therefore outside of the jurisdiction of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA).
[Continued at freedomoutpost.com/2013/11/doj-lawyers-americans-right-challenge-nsa-spy-programs/]
[ED.: Conservative Christians are "tεrrσrists";
Tea Party members are "tεrrσrists";
I'm a "tεrrorist", you're a "tεrrσrist", everybody's a "tεrrσrist".
Everyone except the Tεrrσrist-in-chief, Al Qaεda and
the Mus|im Brσthεrhoσd's man in the White House.]Last edited by MinutemanCDC_SC; 11-27-2013 at 07:50 AM.
One man's terrorist is another man's undocumented worker.
Unless we enforce laws against illegal aliens today,
tomorrow WE may wake up as illegals.
The last word: illegal aliens are ILLEGAL!
Listen to William Gheen on Rense Mar 27, 2024 talking the Most...
03-28-2024, 11:39 AM in ALIPAC In The News