Can Obama legally serve as U.S. President?

National News, Studies, Analysis & Opinions, Congress

Jim Bramlett
Jun 26, 2008
Dear friends:

At this stage of the game, it seems like a ludicrous question, but it is a legitimate one: Can Obama legally serve as U.S. President?

To serve in that office, one must be a natural-born citizen. Obama claims that he is but the certificate that his campaign has provided to prove it appears to be a forgery, produced by Photoshop. This is according to Israel's Daily News Magazine, israelinsider, at
http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12939.htm. The article explains in great detail and even offers photos of Obama's claimed birth certificate compared with real ones. They say, "It is now a certainty that the 'birth certificate' claimed by the Barack Obama campaign as authentic is a photoshopped fake."

With Obama's certificate, the certificate number has been blackened out, plus the required state seal is missing. What has been presented by his campaign is an invalid birth certificate. There is no reason why any such certificate should be missing either number or seal.

Is Obama a real natural-born citizen, or he trying to fake his way into the White House? He can easily answer that by requesting a certified birth certificate from the state of Hawaii, and revealing it. This can be easily resolved.

Will he do so? If not, why not? Will the Republicans press the issue? Probably not, for fear of backlash. Will the mainstream media press the issue? Probably not, because Obama is their man.

Important questions are raised:

1. Why would Obama provide us with a fake birth certificate?
2. Is he a real natural-born citizen?
3. If not, what is he doing trying to be an illegal President?
4. Could it be that our worst fears are valid -- that he is a Muslim plant?

If this is pursued and Obama cannot, or will not, produce a valid birth certificate, this may produce the greatest political crisis in American history, and he will have to withdraw, causing rioting in the streets. There is only one worse possible political outcome -- that an illegal candidate, with a Muslim name and with a Muslim background, is elected President of the United States during the war against Muslim terror.

Watch this one.

Jim

N.Y. Times Names Names, Jeopardizes Safety — Again

National News, Intelligence Community, Islamic-Fascist (Enemy & Their Supporters), Studies, Analysis & Opinions

By: Ronald Kessler -- With its recent story naming a CIA analyst who interrogated Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, The New York Times has once again undermined our safety.

Fearing retribution, the agency asked the paper not to name the CIA analyst. The paper ran his name anyway, saying it generally withholds names only in the case of “victims of sexual assault or intelligence officers operating undercover.”

While the operative was not serving undercover, the fact that he interrogated the architect of the 9/11 plot was classified. Naming him added nothing to the Times story. But it will make him a possible target of al-Qaida and will make other CIA officers wonder if they want to risk being involved in any sensitive intelligence operations if their identity may be publicly disclosed, jeopardizing their safety and the safety of their families.

The case for withholding his name was thus even more compelling than not running the name of Valerie Plame, who was technically undercover but not in any danger. Yet the Times has run 521 stories suggesting it was wrong for the White House, and specifically Karl Rove, to divulge her name. Only 27 of the articles mentioned the person who actually leaked her name to columnist Robert Novak, former State Department official Richard Armitage, who ironically has been critical of the Bush administration.

The New York Times previously disclosed the existence of the Bush administration’s secret National Security Agency program for intercepting calls of suspected terrorists when one leg of the call is in the U.S. It also disclosed the administration’s SWIFT program for tracking the worldwide financial transactions of terrorists.

In both cases, the disclosures warned terrorists that their communication channels were being intercepted, so they began using other methods, thus undercutting our safety and making another successful 9/11 attack more likely.

In neither case was any abuse — meaning an illegal act for political or otherwise improper purposes — involved. In the case of the phone and e-mail intercepts, Bush disclosed the program at its inception to key members of Congress, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court, and the NSA inspector general. Congress has since endorsed the program with legislation.

Calling the leaks “devastating,” Fran Townsend told me, when she was the chief of counterterrorism in the White House, “It’s not just a question of you're putting individuals at risk. The real risk is to the lives of Americans who may suffer an attack because we couldn’t stop it, because the source was taken out.”

Besides its rule on naming subjects of stories, The New York Times withholds people’s names for one other reason: In its June 22 article, the paper said most of the sources for the article could not be named because they were speaking about a highly classified program.

When it helps The New York Times get a story, names are withheld. When it helps our national security, they are not. And when the next attack comes — as it surely will — The New York Times will be the first to blame President Bush. ...

The Mahdi Army: New Tactics for a New Stage

Studies, Analysis & Opinions

Iraqi radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has issued a statement describing a new strategy for attacking Coalition forces (alkufanews.com, June 13). The statement follows a year of intense military pressure against his Jaysh al-Mahdi (JAM) militia and a series of confusing and sometimes contradictory decisions. The hard-line cleric, who has not been seen in public for months, issued orders to reorganize his militia into a civilian branch and a small but select armed wing commissioned to fight Coalition forces. Only three months earlier al-Sadr had announced his retirement and admitted failure in his efforts at “liberating Iraq” ...

Is There a Nexus between Torture and Radicalization?

Studies, Analysis & Opinions

A great deal of debate surrounds the factors driving the brand of radical Islam in the Middle East that inspires some individuals to commit acts of violence. A recurring theme in extremist discourse is opposition to incumbent authoritarian regimes in the Middle East. For radical Islamist groups such as al-Qaeda, unwavering U.S. support for the autocracies that rule Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the region tops a list of grievances toward what amounts to pillars of U.S. foreign policy in the region. In addition to al-Qaeda, however, most Muslims in the Middle East also see these regimes as oppressive, corrupt and illegitimate. Authoritarian regimes in the region are also widely viewed as compliant agents of a U.S.-led neo-colonial order as opposed to being accountable to their own people. ...