Two More Articles From Africa Claim Obama was Kenyan Born

By now, you have probably seen the archived version of an article published in 2004 which stated that Obama was Kenyan born.

Well, one could say that that was just an anomaly; however, JusticeSeeker93 posted a link on Free Republic a few hours ago in which an AllAfrica.com article from 20 August, 2009 mentioned that Obama was Kenyan born (CLICK HERE for that article.  The Kenyan born Obama is mentioned in the 10th paragraph):

You can also click on the following screen capture to read the pertinent section.

—A big tip of my hat goes out to Red Steel for providing the screen captures.

AllAfrica_Nigeria_Kenyan

Anyway, while I was there at AllAfrica.com, I decided to browse their archives.  To my surprise, I discovered that they had also mentioned that Obama was Kenyan born in an article published way back on 16 February, 2008 during the Primaries (CLICK HERE for that article):

[Click on image to enlarge. (see anything hilariously ironic, here?  )]

AllAfrica_Nigeria_2Feb_Kenyan

Now, I would like to be able to tell you all that this is just some sort of odd, psychic delusion brought about by suggestion or hypnosis—after all, I had kind of dismissed all that “Kenyan Born” stuff, since I’m more concerned with Obama’s claim of dual citizenship—-but, since we Americans haven’t actually been able to see Obama’s long form birth certificate, your guess is as good as mine.  It certainly raises enough doubts in my mind to where I’m sitting here asking myself, “Where’s the Birth Certificate?”

Explore posts in the same categories: Obama Sucks, Orwellian, politics

29 Comments on “Two More Articles From Africa Claim Obama was Kenyan Born”

  1. Gramfan Says:

    Incredible stuff, Doc.
    BTW I sent the earlier piece to Sheik Yer Ma’mi,,,and had/have mentioned I got it from here.He has a post on it today.

    I am sure he would like to see this as well.

    • Solkhar Says:

      It would be Werner Reimann – or should I call him Sheik YerMami who would love to feed off and believe this cr*p.

      This is just total BS, different groups wishing for something so hard that they feed off each other rumours and impossibilities and frankly speaking makes you all look rather naive and stupid.

      Stick to real and more important issues, if you do not support nor like the guy, then pick on sustainable and credible facts and not on wannabe-hopefully-please-let-it-be dreams that belongs on some UFO & crop-circle magazine


      • Solkhar,

        Like many, you are completely wrong and mislead by the Lame Stream Media.

        This is not about a hatred of Obama; it is a Constitutional issue. And, it is VERY DAMN IMPORTANT to Americans! It illustrates that our government has disregarded the Constitution in that they have not properly insured that an elected official meets the requirements as spelled out in the U.S. Constitution, nor have they made any real attempt at reassuring the public that an elected official meets the requirements. To the contrary, they have lied on numerous occasions—they constantly change their stories when their lies don’t stand up to public scrutiny; becoming obvious to even the most ignorant—and have spent millions of dollars in legal fees to keep an elected official’s documents under lock and key and then attacked the rightfully curious Americans with accusations of lunacy.

        But, I don’t expect you to understand. Just understand that We the People take our U.S. Constitution very seriously and many are sworn to defend it against enemies both foreign and domestic.

        If you keep that in mind when trying to understand the motivations, mindsets, and actions of traditional Americans, you will have done yourself a great favor.

        Cheers

        • Solkhar Says:

          Doc, with all due respect I question your comment below that the Administration “has disregarded the Constitution in that they have not properly insured that an elected official meets the requirements as spelled out in the U.S. Constitution, nor have they made any real attempt at reassuring the public that an elected official meets the requirements.”

          I would say that the latter has not been done – the fact is you do not have the knowledge at all if he meets the constitutional requirements. That is a point that is very important. I still rais the question – do you actually believe that the Supreme Court, the Senate and the Congress would not have first checked that out? There are not just so much at stake, but simply a hungry media and so many wannabe candidates that are ruthless enough to have made sure.

          I agree that question and demand the assurance that the blocking of details is for justifiable reasons, but that is the only leg you have to stand on.


          • “the fact is you do not have the knowledge at all if he meets the constitutional requirements”

            Yes I do, my friend, and I don’t need to see his long form birth certificate to know that he doesn’t meet the constitutional requirements.

            After many half-truths and denials, Obama was forced to admit that he was born with Dual Citizenship. That is absolutely unconstitutional.

            Cheers


      • Dominic,

        Sorry to get your attention this way, my friend, but I thought it important to make an impression for effect:

        I know that you and Sheikyermami have no love for each other, and I don’t have any problems with that, but please refrain from mentioning his real name on our website.

        The pseudonyms are there not to protect bloggers so much as they are there to protect loved ones. I respect that.

        There are nutjobs out there who have issued death threats against many bloggers and their families and would love nothing more than someone to hand them personal information on a silver platter so that they may make good on their threats.

        And, should something bad happen, I would hate to think that our website might have contributed in some way. Okay?

        Cheers

        • Mullah Lodabullah Says:

          Sound advice, which Solkhar and his various alter egos might take to heart.

          I would suggest that he remove references to Sheik Yermami from his blog, and refrain from “outing” him here and elsewhere, as not all muslims are “moderate”, and some are quite “extreme”,
          and take the words of the “prophet” literally.

          • Solkhar Says:

            A final note that will not be made by me anymore on this subject as a matter of respect to the blog-owner.

            I have a big issue with two types of bloggers. The first those that work for a particilar agenda. In the case of the person you refer to, he is a Kahane supporter who denigrates Islam in all matters possible for the single purpose of justifying the expansion of the State of Israel into the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. That he supports and has that view is not the issue, everyone is allowed thier views and opinions – the point is that he is putting BS, obvious lies, disgusting and childish taunts etc for an agenda is what makes it simply – sick. For this I condemn and I expose such dirt on my own blog.

            The second type are those that prosthelitize on one hand and denigrate and attack on the other. I condemn all who do that, including those of my own religion.

            I rather enjoy this particular blog, it has obvious strong conseravative/right leanings and that is fine – it is after all the opinion of the blog-owners and most who write on it. What earns this blog respect is that subjects can be discussed, debated and aired without hypocritical, agenda-based and frankly speaking childish attacks.

        • Solkhar Says:

          I will not refer to that agenda-driven kahanist on your blog anymore to make it simple.

          • Mullah Lodabullah Says:

            Dom, I am suggesting that you remove references to Sheik Yermami’s identity on your blog and elsewhere, as identity can be interesting to study, and may involve use of multiple identities.

            It might be a good idea to apologise to the Sheik for “outing” him here, on your blog, and elsewhere. Just a passing thought.

          • Mullah Lodabullah Says:

            Solkhar, you might like to ponder your own views on “properly exposed”
            and consider if they contain any food for thought for others in a similar situation …

            “Perhaps knowing he has been properly exposed …”

            Is it necessary to “properly expose” someone, and perhaps place them and their loved ones in danger as you have done?

  2. smrstrauss Says:

    Why believe African newspapers (which, if they were serious about reporting that Obama was born there would cite something such as a document or a source) and not believe the Wall Street Journal, which concluded:

    “Obama has already provided a legal birth certificate demonstrating that he was born in Hawaii. No one has produced any serious evidence to the contrary. Absent such evidence, it is unreasonable to deny that Obama has met the burden of proof. We know that he was born in Honolulu as surely as we know that Bill Clinton was born in Hope, Ark., or George W. Bush in New Haven, Conn.” (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574320190095246658.html)

    In other words, these newspapers made mistakes. Big deal. If even one of them had been serious about reporting news that the paper had found out that Obama was born in Kenya, it would have said “we know that he was born in Kenya because we found X document or Y source said it.” But it wasn’t doing reporting, it was just saying that it knew that there was a Kenya relationship with Obama, and it didn’t have tough editors or fact-checkers.

    IF Obama had been born in Kenya there would at least be a Kenyan document showing that his mother arrived in Kenya in 1961. No such document has been found, and the explanation that the Kenyan government has sealed the files is weak, since if the Kenyan government had sealed any files it would have been reported by respected news agencies (NOT WND).

    IF Obama had been born in Kenya, he would have needed a US travel document to get to the USA, such as a US visa on a British passport or a change to his mother’s passport to include him, and that would have had to have been issued in Kenya. Either of those documents would still be on file at the US State Department, if they existed, and they would have been found, if they existed. But no such document has turned up.

    Also, it is absurd to believe that Obama’s mother traveled from Hawaii to Kenya while she was pregnant. Pregnant women rarely traveled long distances in 1961 because of fear of miscarriages, and there were no direct flights in those days, so she would have had to have made four or five stops along the way to Kenya and back, on poorly pressurized planes, and with long-distance airline tickets costing relatively more (compared to average earnings) in those days than now. And you had to get a Yellow Fever shot to go to Africa in those days, which is bad during pregnancy.

    And, Obama’s Kenyan grandmother never said that Obama was born in Kenya. She said that he was born in Hawaii. This can be clearly heard if you listen to the complete recording of the tape, which is on Berg’s site. The complete recording includes a question asking “Whereabouts was he born?” And her answer was: “America, Hawaii.”

    Here is the complete recording on Berg’s site. Be sure to listen for at least five minutes until the question is asked. (http://obamacrimes.com/Telephone_Interview_with_Sarah_Hussein_Obama_10-16-08.mp3)

    If it is too difficult to listen to the complete tape, here is a transcript (http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/obamatranscriptlulu109.pdf).

    All the allegations of Obama’s birth abroad were checked out by the McCain campaign, and they found that there were no facts. No facts at all. (http://washingtonindependent.com/52474/mccain-campaign-investigated-dismissed-obama-citizenship-rumors)

    Of the myth that Obama was born in Kenya, the National Review commented: “The theory that Obama was born in Kenya, that he was smuggled into the U.S., and that his parents somehow hoodwinked Hawaiian authorities into falsely certifying his birth in Oahu, is crazy stuff.”

    http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZmJhMzlmZWFhOTQ3YjUxMDE2YWY4ZDMzZjZlYTVmZmU=&w=MA


    • Blah, blah, blah.

      Prove it. Show me Obama’s long form birth certificate.

      That’s all I’m asking.

      BTW – You, of all who read this blog, should know that I don’t think Obama was born in Kenya. But, that is just my “opinion,” as are ALL of the articles you cite.

      And, you know what they say about opinions.

      • tgusa Says:

        Born in Kenya or born in Hawaii in 1961. That is 1961 America a very different America than today. A black man and a white girl would have been completely rejected and shunned by whites, blacks and native Hawaiians. I am trying to figure out how a 17 year old white girl and a 20 something black college student get together. Where did they meet, where did they go for their romantic encounters?

        One thing is consistent with Obama and that is communism. 1961 Hawaii was a hotbed of cold war communist activity. Being born in Hawaii at that time was as close as you could get to being born in Moscow. It makes perfect sense from a red perspective, Hawaii just becoming a state, the jackpot for cold war reds wanting to infiltrate the USA. Those kind of opportunities don’t come around everyday. Where were you born appears to be the proverbial tip of the iceberg.


        • “Where did they meet”

          In a Russian Language class.

          “where did they go for their romantic encounters”

          Communist meetings and rallies… Obama’s mom was what some might call “a slut,” so I doubt they went out on formal dates…

          Cheers

          • tgusa Says:

            On August 4th 1961 Obamas birthday we were not yet in full cold war mode. But they were, August 12th 1961 the reds stunned the west by beginning construction on none other than the Berlin Wall.

          • tgusa Says:

            Communist meetings and rallies…

            And here I thought it was the Bush’s, well isn’t that what he always blames?


          • Yeah, no doubt Obama Sr. denied he was the father and blamed it all on that little Bush kid…

            Probably said something like:

            “Look, let me be perfectly clear, here, I, uh, uhm, I don’t know why you are blaming me for this mess. I-I-I, uh, I inherited this failed economic pregnancy from your previous lover…”

  3. tgusa Says:

    Obama’s mother and father acted stupidly. They did not heed the warning from JJ of, get out the bushes.

  4. Gramfan Says:

    I am still fascinated by the fact that Obama’s lawyers have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on this whole issue, but that isn’t all.

    It isn’t just the birth certificate: where is all the other evidence of everything he has claimed to have done?

    I’m also curious why we haven’t seen any pictures of his graduation, no comments from old mates at school or anything like that. Why?

  5. Solkhar Says:

    Doc, you said,

    “After many half-truths and denials, Obama was forced to admit that he was born with Dual Citizenship. That is absolutely unconstitutional. ”

    What I understand from US law is that a dual-national must renounce his non-American citizenship to become president, so were is the “unconstitutional” factor.

    Probably he was considered under Kenyan law automatically Kenyan. Many countries do that, particularly to sons of sons – Dutch law was like that. It had to do in case of war and conscription. Thus, when Obama was told that “by the way your considered a Kenyan citizen” and he ran from office he had to send a letter of renouncing to both the Kenyan embassy and your immigration service.

    I am both Dutch and French and though I could technically become an EU Commissioner I could not become a Dutch PM unless I drop the French – or visa versa but Sarkozy would think me a challenger…..lol.


    • “What I understand from US law is that a dual-national must renounce his non-American citizenship to become president, so were is the “unconstitutional” factor.”

      Show me the law. I’ll wait.

      Also, I would love to see you provide the official documentation in which Obama renounced his non-American citizenship.

      While your at it, you might want to consider the term, “Natural Born,” with the emphasis on the word, “born.”

      “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; […]”

      You see, even if Obama had renounced his British citizenship, he would still not be a “Natural Born” citizen; he would just be a “citizen.” You will note that the Founding Fathers were part of the British colonies in America and were born with dual citizenship—American and British. That is why they have included a grandfather clause in the requirements for the U.S. Presidency: “or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution.” Since Obama was NOT born before the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, he does NOT fall into the protection of the grandfather clause. (Well…I don’t think he was born before then, but I haven’t been able to see his long-form Birth Certificate, so I’m just going to speculate that he isn’t over 220 years old).

      If our founding fathers (who actually wrote the U.S. Constitution, mind you) couldn’t even manage to legally change their dual citizenship status given them at birth—prompting them to insert a grandfather clause to cover them under the Constitutional requirements—what makes you think there is some law that magically changes the nature of ones birth?

      Cheers

      • Solkhar Says:

        Intersting topic Doc. I hope you realise that I am questioning more for anything to simply understand and learn.

        Just looking up on the subject of “naturally born” that :

        “The US Constitution (Article II, Section 1, Subsection 4) says: “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.”

        The term “natural born citizen” is not used anywhere else in the Constitution, and it has never been the subject of any federal court ruling. Hence, its exact meaning could be subject to controversy.

        While some have suggested that perhaps a “natural born citizen” must have been born on US territory (i.e., in keeping with the definition of a citizen given in the 14th Amendment) — and news reports dealing with presidential eligibility almost invariably misstate the rule in this manner — the majority opinion of legal experts seems to be that the term refers to anyone who has US citizenship from the moment of his or her birth — i.e., someone who did not have to be “naturalized” because he/she was born “natural” (i.e., born a citizen).

        The first Congress enacted a citizenship law which stated that “the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens”. [Act of Mar. 26, 1790, ch. 3, 1 Stat. 104.] This strongly suggests that the phrase was understood by the framers of the Constitution to refer to citizenship by birth. ”

        Interestingly Chester Arthur and Buchannon had non-American parents – (both Irish and never changed), John McCain was also not born in the US but in Panama.

        I still find no argument that is substantive to say that Obama has not been scrutinized by the courts and the US Congress/Senate and that the only case here is that he has not shown his documents to the public.

        By all points, his birth in Hawaii makes him very much a US natural-born citizen.

        Kenyan media made understandable mistakes that are not all suprising and that under Kenyan law he was automatically considered a “Kenyan national” that certainly he had never had intentions or perhaps knowledge about until much later in life.

        What proof do you have that he is not a citizen? Being born in Kenya is just as much heresay as Hawaii without documented proof.

        In fact I see reasoning for his holding back the documents, but after the fact is making more damage, that being “black”, having a non-American father and all the media-hype was justification at the time for having the entire material locked away.

        Cheers


  6. Solkhar,

    You are certainly not the first, nor will you be the last person who I have debated this issue ad nauseam, my friend. I’ve been studying and debating this subject, as it relates to Obama, for almost two years now. Not only that, but I have picked up a pretty solid education in Constitutional law over my many, many years. There is NOTHING that has convinced me that my old university professors who taught me Constitutional law, and all my textbooks and history books were wrong when it comes to this subject—A dual citizenship at birth automatically disqualifies one from becoming a U.S. President!

    What you are witnessing on the web is an active instance of revisionist history in an attempt to obfuscate what the Founding Fathers’ original intent was when writing the requirements for President—coincidentally enough, all of this seems to have started about the time that Obama came on the scene…

    That being said, let us take a look at your research:

    The source of the information you quote comes from Rich Wales. He is a System Analyst for Stanford University. He is also a Liberal; he very much so wants to believe that Obama is a Natural Born citizen and his objectivity is clouded by his desire.

    He is in obvious error.

    First things first: Experience has shown us Conservatives that whenever a Liberal says something like, “the majority opinion of experts is XXX,” you KNOW they are lying through their teeth. Why, because they ALWAYS throw that line out there in an attempt to de-legitimize the opposition, belittle anyone who thinks otherwise, and shut down the debate.

    Now, ask yourself; who is this majority of these legal experts? Are they fellow communists like Obama’s professors in college? Do they have reason to be biased in any way? Are they racially motivated?

    But, more importantly, WHERE can we find this poll? And, if there is such a poll (WHICH THERE IS NOT IN THIS CASE BECAUSE I HAVE CHECKED), who is the organization which conducted this poll and determined that the majority of “experts” said XXXXX ?

    Did you even notice that Rich Wales played a word game on you by saying, “the majority opinion of legal experts seems to be that…” —In other words, he is just guessing and this has nothing to do with reality.

    Do you see how silly Rich Wales looks when he throws out a deceptive statement, trying to pass it off as a fact, only to have it fall apart when one actually takes the time to carefully think about it and parse the statement?

    Heck, anyone can throw out a statement and attribute it to experts. For instance:

    “The majority of experts seem to agree that the Earth is flat.”

    Now it is up to you to prove that I’m wrong. Where are you to begin? What resources are you going to assign in disproving this statement, er, poll of experts?

    After you have finished digging around and collecting 3-dimensional photographs of the Earth as viewed from space and what-not, what if I had a moment of graciousness and told you that that particular poll was taken around 1000 B.C? Was the poll wrong then? Certainly not. But, does that make these “experts” right? Certainly not! So, it is pure speciousness to say, “the majority of experts…” without any supporting, non-biased, documentation. Nor, is it factual proof as to the validity of the conclusions reached by these supposed experts!

    Have you noticed all the flak you receive whenever you, yourself, state a nebulous statistic as fact when it comes from the Lamestream Media? (the “BBC/Al-Jazeera says 12 percent….” debacle comes immediately to my mind).

    The reason everyone hit on you about all of that is because we ALL KNOW that the Liberals/Commies in the media just love to throw out unverifiable statistics as fact in an effort to belittle and shut down opposition.

    But, I digress. Back to the subject of “Natural Born.”

    “The first Congress enacted a citizenship law which stated that “the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens”. [Act of Mar. 26, 1790, ch. 3, 1 Stat. 104.] This strongly suggests that the phrase was understood by the framers of the Constitution to refer to citizenship by birth. ””

    Unfortunately, Rich Wales fails to mention, as do many others, that this act was specifically repealed in 1795 and replaced with the same exact clause as written above EXCEPT the words “natural born” have been deleted leaving only the word “citizens.”

    (CLICK HERE to see the relevant section).

    Now, why would they have repealed the Act and changed “Natural Born” to only a “Citizen” if it was not an important distinction that they wished to impart? The repealing of the Act and replacing the word “Natural Born” with the word “Citizen” is even a stronger argument for what the Framers of the Constitution understood “Natural Born” to mean, else they would NOT have been so specific in correcting the Act to impart only a “citizenship” status.

    Also, even if Obama was born in 1792 while the first version of this Act was in effect, he STILL wouldn’t be considered a “Natural Born” citizen if he was born abroad!

    You will note that the word “citizens” is plural, i.e. – BOTH parents must be U.S. citizens. If the framers of this Act had intended that only one American parent was necessary to impart “Natural Born” status to a child born abroad, then they would have written it in the singular, “the children of a United States citizen, that may be born…”

    Remember, they had two chances to impart citizenship via a singular U.S. parent, and yet they decided to leave that particular phrasing the way it was—in its plural form. BTW – You will note that they use the plural form “children” so that there is no ambiguity as to if only one child is imparted citizenship while the other children are not; plural usage imparts citizenship to ALL children born of two U.S. parents.

    Also, this section of the Act says nothing to address Obama’s dual citizenship status. Ergo, you have been following a red herring.

    “Interestingly Chester Arthur and Buchannon had non-American parents – (both Irish and never changed), John McCain was also not born in the US but in Panama.”

    I’m glad you brought that up!!! That actually helps prove my point that Obama has NOT been properly vetted by the government!

    But, first, let us look at James Buchanan:

    Prior to the ratification of the Constitution, James Buchanan’s parents lived in Pennsylvania. It should be noted that James Buchanan Sr. had emigrated from Ireland in 1783 and his mother, Elizabeth Speer, was born in Pennsylvania with dual citizenship, as was everyone who was born in the colonies.

    Now, one of the interesting little things about the U.S. Constitution is that when it was ratified in 1788, it AUTOMATICALLY made ALL residents of the 13 colonies U.S. Citizens—without any formal naturalization process! James Buchanan Sr. was a resident of Pennsylvania (one of the 13 Colonies) at that time, and so he was automatically a legal U.S. Citizen.

    Ergo, when James Buchanan, Jr. was born in 1791 (in Pennsylvania), he was considered a natural born citizen; because, he was born on American soil and BOTH of his parents were legally U.S. citizens by way of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution three years prior to his birth.

    2) Chester Arthur became President when President Garfield was assassinated. Chester Arthure was NOT a natural born citizen! That was his BIG secret. In fact, you can find many instances where others accused him of not being a natural born citizen, but were silenced by the “elites” (much like today).

    Chester Arthur lied through his teeth about his family history. These lies are well documented in a book called, “Gentleman Boss: The life of Chester Alan Arthur,” published in 1975.

    However, no one could quite figure out why Chester Arthur told so many lies about his family history. It wasn’t until about almost a year ago, when a lawyer, Donofrio, who was working with historian Greg Dehler, finally found a microfiche copy of Chester Arthur’s father’s naturalization paperwork that showed he had not been naturalized until AFTER Chester Arthur had been born!

    Now, it makes sense as to why Chester Arthur was so cagey about his family history—he KNEW that, even though he was born on U.S. soil, he was NOT a Natural Born citizen because his father had not been a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth!

    In fact, there is a great article written by Donofrio which covers this discovery in depth. CLICK HERE for that article.

    Now, it should be pointed out that you assert that there is some sort of vetting process that weeds out these ineligible candidates, well, this is ACTUAL PROOF that that does not always work! And, the vetting process is only as legitimate as the members on the committee are honest, as well as the honesty of the candidates themselves.

    3) John McCain. You see, there is another interesting candidate who may or may not be eligible for the Presidency! Yes, I know that congress held hearings and everything to pawn him off as legitimate, but that was just a big show and the Constitutionality of the final verdict is still questionable. Had he become President, you can sure bet that he would also be under the same scrutiny as Obama.

    And, don’t you find it interesting that a Democrat controlled Congress chose to focus on a Republican candidate’s birth status, just because he was born on a U.S. military base in Panama, while completely ignoring a candidate born with dual citizenship and a questionable place of birth who never showed them his long-form Birth Certificate and who just happened to be running as a fellow Democrat? I smell a rat.

    But, be that as it may, NONE of these instances can be used in some way to validate Obama. There is NO precedence to be claimed here because anyone who became a President who was not a Natural Born citizen, and yet, somehow managed to hide it, is a usurper of the Presidency and is guilty of fraud, and is therefore a criminal.

    Did you know that the Democratic National Committee (who was responsible for vetting Obama) did NOT certify Obama as Constitutionally eligible in 49 of 50 states?

    CLICK HERE and HERE for the articles and documentation from the DNC.

    That is because they KNOW that Obama is NOT a Natural Born citizen!

    Well, I better stop while I have the chance. This is one of my favorite subject to debate, as you probably have guessed by now, and sometimes I just don’t know when to pause and let the information sink in.

    🙂

    Cheers

    • Gramfan Says:

      I really enjoyed reading that piece, Doc.
      You went to a lot of trouble and I appreciate it all the info you posted. Thanks!

    • Solkhar Says:

      Very well written and brings a lot to think about which I will have to take some time to disgest, I appreciate the effort.

      It goes to show not being a part of the society and history how much is involved.

      (Just to the side, imagine how all this is bascially unknown to non-Americans then how much is not-known, misunderstood and confused over such issues as what is the motives, legitimacy etc on what is Islamic, Muslim, political etc.)

  7. islams not for me Says:

    solkhar

    We have been watching your blog and in exposing the Anti islam crowd you also can be exposed and your life turned upside down.

    If you really are serious about exposing ‘fanatics’ you should do more the very ones who are turning your beloved islam into a bloodbath.

    • Solkhar Says:

      There is enough effort exposing all the horrors of the radicals, extremists, maniacs and backwards thugs that infest my religion.

      It is the radicals, extremists, maniacs and backward thugs that are attacking Islam for reasons other than fear and concern that I am interested in.

      As for me personally, I do my little bit against one of the worse elements and without sounding off as arrogant, I am very pleased and rather proud of the success it has achieved.

      I can sleep at night (if my left-kidney and gaul-bladder lets me).


  8. Good post. I be taught something more difficult on completely different blogs everyday. It will all the time be stimulating to learn content from different writers and apply a little bit one thing from their store. I’d choose to make use of some with the content material on my blog whether you don’t mind. Natually I’ll give you a link in your web blog. Thanks for sharing.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: