VERY QUIETLY OBAMA'S CITIZENSHIP CASE REACHES THE SUPREME COURT

I received this in an email today and felt it was too important to simply pass it on to the folks on my mailing list.

I've been concerned about this for quite some time and have been told by several individuals not to waste my time on it. The Office of the President of the United States is too strong to allow an honest investigation to take place. Well folks, it looks like it's going to happen and these people bringing the case to the Supreme Court of our land appear to be loaded for bear. This could end up being the biggest scam our country has ever seen and it's not just an affront to the people on the right, it's an affront to every single American citizen...

Here's what I just received:

VERY QUIETLY OBAMA'S CITIZENSHIP CASE REACHES THE SUPREME COURT.

Hawaii has until August 8, 2011, to produce documents and open the books for a full investigation. This order was delivered on July 5, 2011, under a direct order of the Supreme Court.

AP - WASHINGTON D.C. –

In a move certain to fuel the debate over Obama's qualifications for the presidency, the group "Americans for Freedom of Information" has Released copies of President Obama's college transcripts from Occidental College...
Released today, the transcript school indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate.

The transcript was released by Occidental College in compliance with a court order in a suit brought by the group in the Superior Court of California. The transcript shows that Obama (Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship for foreign students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program. To qualify, for the scholarship, a student must claim foreign citizenship.

This document would seem to provide the smoking gun that many of Obama's detractors have been seeking. Along with the evidence that he was first born in Kenya and there is no record of him ever applying for US citizenship, this is looking pretty grim. The news has created a firestorm at the White House as the release casts increasing doubt about Obama's legitimacy and qualification to serve as President article titled, "Obama Eligibility Questioned", leading some to speculate that the story may overshadow economic issues on Obama's first official visit to the U.K. In a related matter, under growing pressure from several groups, Justice Antonin Scalia announced that the Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to hear arguments concerning Obama's legal eligibility to serve as President in a case brought by Leo Donofrio of New Jersey. This lawsuit claims Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. Donofrio's case is just one of 18 suits brought by citizens demanding proof of Obama's citizenship or qualification to serve as president.

Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation has released the results of their investigation of Obama's campaign spending.

This study estimates that Obama has spent upwards of $950,000 in campaign funds in the past year with eleven law firms in 12 states for legal resources to block disclosure of any of his personal records. Mr. Kreep indicated that the investigation is still ongoing but that the final report will be provided to the U.S. Attorney general, Eric Holder. Mr. Holder has refused to comment on the matter...

LET OTHER FOLKS KNOW THIS NEWS, THE MEDIA WON'T!

Subject: RE: Issue of Passport?

While I've little interest in getting in the middle of the Obama birth issue, Paul Hollrah over at FSM did so yesterday and believes the issue can be resolved by Obama answering one simple question: What passport did he use when he was shuttling between New York , Jakarta , and Karachi ?

So how did a young man who arrived in New York in early June 1981, without the price of a hotel room in his pocket, suddenly come up with the price of a round-the-world trip just a month later? And once he was on a plane, shuttling between New York, Jakarta, and Karachi, what passport was he offering when he passed through Customs and Immigration?

The American people not only deserve to have answers to these questions, they must have answers. It makes the debate over Obama's citizenship a rather short and simple one.

Q: Did he travel to Pakistan in 1981, at age 20?

A : Yes, by his own admission.

Q: What passport did he travel under?

A: There are only three possibilities.

1) He traveled with a U.S. Passport, 2) He traveled with a British passport, or 3) He traveled with an Indonesia passport.

Q: Is it possible that Obama traveled with a U.S. Passport in 1981?

A: No. It is not possible. Pakistan was on the U.S. State Department's "no travel" list in 1981.

Conclusion: When Obama went to Pakistan in 1981, he was traveling either with a British passport or an Indonesian passport. If he were traveling with a British passport, that would provide proof that he was born in Kenya on August 4, 1961, not in Hawaii as he claims. And if he were traveling with an Indonesian passport, that would tend to prove that he relinquished whatever previous citizenship he held, British or American, prior to being adopted by his Indonesian step-father in 1967.

Whatever the truth of the matter, the American people need to know how he managed to become a "natural born" American citizen between 1981 and 2008.

Given the destructive nature of his plans for America, as illustrated by his speech before Congress and the disastrous spending plan he has presented to Congress, the sooner we learn the truth of all this, the better.

****************************************************************************

If you don't care that your President is not a natural born Citizen and in violation of the Constitution, then forget about it and then lower your American Flag to half-staff, because the U.S. Constitution is already on life-support, and won't survive much longer.

If you do care, forward this to as many patriotic Americans as you can, because our country is being looted and ransacked!

For The Good of Our Country

It’s really difficult for me when I see what is happening in Afghanistan and Iraq. Do you realize our troops have been over there now for 10 years? For those of us old enough to remember the demise of the Soviet Union do you remember what the Soviet leadership was doing just before that momentous event? They were squandering their nation’s people and wealth in a long civil war struggle in Afghanistan. Our leader at that time, President Reagan supported the Afghan rebels with weapons and money. Little did we know at the time these freedom fighters would turn out to ultimately be the Taliban and Al Qaeda. The real problem being that once the Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan, our leaders withdrew America’s influence from the region as well. Then came Sadam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait and the first gulf war.

Our forces spearheaded the effort against the Iraqis and once again our leaders pulled out of the region without finishing the job. It’s hard to say where we would be today if we had stayed the course over there and helped those people. Maybe we might have never heard of the Taliban or Al Qaeda and there certainly wouldn’t have been a second gulf war. There are so many maybes when you consider it, but those aren’t the cards we’ve been dealt.

Today, with our country’s economy on life-support, we continue to maintain armies of our fine young men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan. More recently we’ve supported a multi-nation effort to aid the rebels in Libya’s civil war while we continue to maintain a military presence all over the world at an astronomical cost to our citizens.

So, the question comes to mind: What exactly is our strategy? What would we face down the road if we withdrew from the Iraqi and Afghanistan killing fields? And, conversely, what could happen if we attempt to maintain our presence in those countries? There are two scenarios that recent history points to. If we continue our military presence in the Middle East, there’s the Soviet model of a collapsed economy leading to civil unrest within our country that in turn could change how we govern ourselves. On the other hand there’s the alternative of pulling out our forces, attempting to heal our economic woes at home and risk the rise of an even greater threat possibly led by Iran’s fundamentalist leaders or some other radical Muslim government or sect. Looking at our situation, I’ve got to believe there’s only one course to follow and that’s the military withdrawal from the Middle East. Let’s face it; if our country totally falls apart economically we won’t be in a position to maintain our military presence anywhere, let alone in the Middle East. Withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan at least gives us a fighting chance to get our own house in order. Whether our current President would attempt to get our economy rolling is another question as he seems intent on overseeing the demise of our nation for whatever his reasons may be.

The terrible news of 30 U.S. special force personnel being killed in Afghanistan has brought these questions to the forefront. For the good of our country, take our forces out of the Middle East and pray that a greater threat doesn’t come about. We simply must get our economy on the road to recovery. If we can do that, then we will be better prepared to face what may come next…

Cavemen: The New Republican Moniker

The nation’s headlines have recently centered on the supposed battle over the budget going on between the House and Senate Republicans and President Obama. Initially the Republicans presented a plan that would lead to a 4 trillion dollar reduction in our government’s deficit across a ten year period without the need of tax increases. That reduction amounts to less than 30% of the nation’s total deficit. Where they ever came up with that number is a good question, but isn’t it on the low side? I think this is especially true when considering our deficit currently stands at over 14.4 trillion dollars and this cure is to be spread out across a ten year period.

Once President Obama finally got involved in the budget discussion the Republicans reverted to their back peddling ways in the face of Obama’s attacks and I for one am ashamed of these spineless people caving in. Don’t they have a clue? How in the world did we get in this situation in the first place? It was by kowtowing to the liberal agenda. So here we go again. Now they’re not only talking about lowering the amount of deficit reduction but they’re also considering raising taxes again to get it done. What in the world is wrong with spending cuts? On our present course the interest rate on all our borrowed money will soon eat us alive! Today every man, woman and child in our country owes over $11,000 each in just the Federal debt interest and its growing at a staggering rate!

There are two ways to solve our deficit problem. The common sense approach is to hold the line on any tax increases and cut spending. By not raising taxes stability will be added to the economy and business owners will finally feel a measure of security and begin looking to the future with some amount of optimism. Stimulating private sector business is the other means of solving our fiscal problems. This in turn creates jobs, putting our people back to work and causing tax revenue to the government to go up, thus reducing the deficit. If these people in elected positions can just reduce the ever increasing waste of our wealth the problem will be solved. Where do they start? How about across the board. End the squabbling about who has to take the cuts and let the whole government downsize.

One overbearing question comes to mind at the heart of the matter. Are we really to the point where the working people in our country are outnumbered by people who, one way or another, are on the government payroll?


As it stands right now the only option we as voters have is to keep a close watch on who has turned into cave dwellers (those who cave in to the socialist policies currently being forced upon us) and vote them out of office in 2012. Then the problem becomes who do we vote for? Are there no patriot politicians anymore? Are they all in it to simply become rich and to hell with our country?

Be vigilant! Our way of life depends on each and every one of us putting aside thoughts of personal gain and working for the good of America. If we can’t bring ourselves to do this the people of our generation will have the dubious honor of allowing the greatest champion of personal freedom the world has ever known to fall…

Who are those guys?

I keep thinking about the 2004 Presidential election that pitted the incumbent, George W. Bush, against John Kerry. The mantra in those days was "Which devil do you want? The one you know or the one you don't..." Well we took the one we knew and although I admit that I was happy at the time, it certainly didn't work out well, but that’s something we’re dealing with today in terms of a terrible economy and a new President that seemingly is intent on making things worse instead of better. But back to the subject at hand…
Today we are faced with a similar scenario when considering all the ruckus emanating from the Arab world in particular and the Muslim world in general. For many years our country’s foreign policy in the Arab and South Asia regions has supported monarchies, military governments and out and out dictators as they strong armed their people and maintained some semblance of normalcy in those volatile areas.

Egypt is in the midst of a basically non-violent change in its leadership and now we are witnessing the bloody overthrow of yet another Arab despot in Libya only a few years removed from our country's military taking down two separate governments and here, while our economy struggles along, we are once again taking an active role. In addition, Yemen appears to be going through a change as well and there have been violent government reactions to demonstrators wanting leadership change in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Syria. We are hearing rumblings out of Iran that there have been demonstrations against their government too, but reliable news is being suppressed. Pakistan’s general population seems intent on opposing their military government and there’s always the chance of conflict between Pakistan and India. So if you count Iraq and Afghanistan, the whole region is facing upheaval… Just who are these people attempting to overthrow their governments? Our government is downplaying the likelihood that the terrorist organizations have anything to do with it, but I have to say this is the sort of thing they seem geared toward. Will Taliban type ruling bodies soon take over all these countries?

One look at a map of the Muslim World yields a sobering look at where Israel fits into the scheme of things. Five million Jews surrounded by 300 million Muslims that may suddenly be united in one common cause…

If you’re familiar with the Bible Code then you should know that in the third volume published last October, the code tells us Al Qaeda not only has nuclear weapons, it also tells us where they are stored and yet for some reason the site hasn’t been looked at, almost as if nobody believes the code even though it has correctly told us of all the major world events and leaders since the Jewish Old Testaments were written. If the code is correct, before the end of this year we may be faced with the ultimate act of terrorism, a nuclear weapon being set off most likely within Israel’s borders, an act that could send the world into another world war; a war that will change everything.

So while the demonstrators go about changing Arab governments, who exactly are we supporting?

Is Going Green The Right Thing To Do?

Using 15% ethanol fuel in NASCAR certainly appears to be the thing to do in this day and age. The initial thought being “Anything we can do to be proactive in the public’s eye concerning ending our country’s dependency on foreign oil.” And yes, up front, NASCAR has scored some points with the “Go Green” crowd, but is this really the right way to go? This line of reasoning can run in many directions and I don’t want to get too political here so I’ll look at one angle in particular. As many of you know, I was a farmer most of my life. Here are a couple of facts concerning America’s growing reliance on corn based ethanol as a fuel additive:

1. Growing a good corn crop takes lots of nutrients from the soil. Good farmers are concerned about the make-up of their soil. They want a soil that features a balanced range of elements, both of the macro variety like nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium, and of the micro variety like calcium, zinc, sulfur and so on and they know growing corn depletes their property’s soil of nutrients. For this reason, Midwest corn farmers have rotated crops from year to year to sustain the soil on their farms. They would grow the soil deleting corn one year and a legume crop such as soy beans the next since legumes actually add to the soil’s nutrients rather than depleting them. With the cost of foreign oil moving upward at an alarming rate due to political unrest in the Middle East, our country’s reliance on American ethanol is steadily rising. Estimates in 2007 pegged 30% of our nation’s corn crop to be used for ethanol five years later in 2012 while we are already surpassing 40% in 2011. Suddenly our farmers are feeling pressure to grow corn year after year on the same ground, and with a bullish corn market the temptation to neglect good farming practices has gone up.

2. So, by potentially being forced to grow corn year in and year out on the same piece of ground, farmers will now be faced with adding more fertilizer to maintain a vigorous corn planting that produces many bushels per acre. The problem here is that it takes around 125 pounds of nitrogen per acre to grow that vigorous corn crop and cost conscious farmers know the cost of nitrogen is significantly less when products such as Ammonium Nitrate or Urea are used instead of the mixed nutrient fertilizers that may be better for the soil. These cheaper (per pound of nitrogen) high nitrogen fertilizers contain nitrate nitrogen that is easily leached (moved by water and gravity) through the soil. This process can taint groundwater. Today we’re finding farmers in areas that have grown other types of crops, specifically the cotton growing region of the Mississippi River Valley, now growing corn to take advantage of the excellent price. Cotton, the crop traditionally grown in the south, has a much lower need for nitrogen fertilizer. Fertilizing corn in this region will result in large amounts of nitrate nitrogen being leached into the ground water. This could be a deadly combination for the Gulf of Mexico. Over time, the nitrate nitrogen will eventually find its way into the Gulf creating an anaerobic environment that will kill sea life. I wonder what the environmentalists will think of this… Problems with nitrate nitrogen tainted ground water already exist in California’s Horns of Plenty: the San Joaquin, Salinas and Imperial Valleys.

Beyond these concerns, the higher price of oil is now being felt in everyone’s costs for food. Have you thought how much of that is directly attributable to the higher corn price due to its use in ethanol production? Corn is used in so many of our foods, everything from cereal and sugar to meat prices come into play…

So I ask you, which is worse, limiting our use of foreign oil by continuing this new reliance on corn ethanol or finding other means of fueling our nation’s economy? It’s said that our country sits on some of the largest untapped oil and natural gas reserves in the world up in North Dakota, Montana and Wyoming and yet the environmentalists fight every attempt to extract those resources in an effort to put an end to our use of fossil fuels when our most precious natural resource, fresh, clean water is being threatened.

And suddenly, here is NASCAR trying to shine their star in the eyes of the nation by using 15% ethanol…

The Day of Reckoning

The Republican majority in the state senate of Wisconsin finally pulled together their collective courage and took care of some long overdue business today. This while fourteen Democratic senators weren’t taking care of the jobs they were elected to perform; in fact they were residing beyond the Wisconsin state border in neighboring Illinois in what was nothing but a contemptuous grandstanding maneuver designed to win the approval of their union bosses. After almost three weeks of absence, all in an effort to thwart Wisconsin’s senate from voting on their Republican Governor’s “Budget Repair” bill that addresses Wisconsin’s growing mountain of red ink, the senate Republicans separated out the portion of the bill that would strip the state government employees' of their collective bargaining rights and voted on it. That portion of the legislation didn’t concern state spending and consequently didn’t require a quorum for a vote. The anti-state employee union bill was passed on an 18-1 vote.

The "Wisconsin Fourteen"

The Democrat’s move was simply their means of delaying the inevitable. Now that the union backed liberal’s worst fears have been realized it’s time for the good people of Wisconsin to batten down the hatches and hunker down while they are served an overwhelming helping of Liberal vitriol.

This is a test of will and I’m happy to say that reality has set in, at least in Wisconsin. Next up, what do the state elected officials in California, New York, Illinois, and on and on, plan to do about their states' debt crises?