Obama Born In Kenya? His Grandmother Says Yes.

(Compiler's note: OK, here is your October Surprise !!! If true, per the U.S. Constitution, Obama can NOT be President of the United States if he was not born in the good ole USA. This is a must read article -- at least watch the video. Lets get this right people!! According to legal investigation confirmed by SNOOPS, Obama is not a US Citizen and he refuses to release any of his records. He is hijacking our constitution and committing mass fraud with his ACORN Group, buying votes and illegal registrations. Again proved and admitted by ACORN members. rca)

by 13 Tishrei 5769

Someone is lying. According to Obama's Kenyan (paternal) grandmother, as well as his half-brother and half-sister, Barack Hussein Obama was born in Kenya, not in Hawaii as the Democratic candidate for president claims. His grandmother bragged that her grandson is about to be President of the United States and is so proud because she was present DURING HIS BIRTH IN KENYA, in the delivery room. -This, according to several news sites and Pennsylvania attorney Philip J. Berg (see video below) who is, surprisingly, a life long democrat himself. Berg is the former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania, and he has an impressive background in his activities as a democrat, but his support for the party seemingly stops when it comes to his trust in Barack Hussein Obama.

Many U.S. voters are suspicious of the Democratic candidate's past, and Berg filed a lawsuit to force Barack Hussein Obama to produce a certified copy of his original birth certificate to prove that he can run for the office of President of the United States. However, he is being fought. The DNC On Sept. 24 filed a motion to dismiss the Berg action. Why? What is there to hide? Why not produce the original birth certificate and be done with all the suspicions against Barack Hussein Obama?

A few months back, a birth certificate WAS posted on the internet which shows that Obama was born in Hawaii. Yet some say this birth certificate is a forgery and again, his grandmother states that she was present at the birth, in Kenya. So what is the truth?

One explanation is that Obama's mother Ann Dunham, flew to Kenya in 1961 with Obama's father to meet his family. According to some news reports, Ann Dunham, was not accepted well by her husband's family because she was white:

"Obama's family did not take to Stanley Ann Dunham Obama very well, because she was white, according to Sarah Obama. Shortly after she arrived in Kenya Stanley Ann decided to return to Hawaii because she later said, she did not like how Muslim men treated their wives in Kenya. However, because she was near term the airline would not let her fly until after the birth of her baby. Obama's grandmother said the baby—Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.—was born in Kenya and that shortly after he was born, Stanley Ann returned to Hawaii."

However, by the time she wanted to leave Kenya, it was during the late stages of her pregnancy. She was not able to board a plane because the airlines wouldn't allow women so close to birth to fly. It is instead believed, that Barack Hussein Obama was born in Kenya as his grandmother apparently stated. Then, after he was born, his mother returned with him to Hawaii where his birth was REGISTERED on or about August 8th, 1961, in the public records office in Hawaii.

There is also a discrepancy in what hospital Barack Hussein Obama was born in, even if he was born in Hawaii. Reports by his own sister in two separate interviews state that he was born at two different hospitals -- Kapiolani Hospital and Queens Hospital--in Honolulu.

The Times Herald even reports: "the senator's grandmother, brother and sister, who live in Kenya, believe they were present during Obama's birth in the African country." Here, the Times Herald uses the word that his family 'believe' he was born in Kenya (perhaps to avoid possible law suits by Obama's Truth Squad?).

Watch this interesting and important video clip.

I myself, not wanting to believe what I see, did some searching around, and this is what I came up with:

Obama was born on August 4, 1961, at the Kapiolani Medical Center.

and here it says:

Barack Obama was born at the Queen's Medical Center on 4 August 1961.

So which hospital was it, or was he really born in Kenya? And why is this simple matter so confusing and disturbing? Do the search your self and plug in these key words:

Obama born Queen's Medical Center and then Obama born Kapiolani Medical Center in a Google search. You will see he is reported to be born in two diferent hospitals. A miracle! Maybe he IS the Messiah (grin).

What's so hard about knowing something so simple as which hospital or country someone was born in? And if it is simple, then why doesn't Barack Hussein Obama just present the court with his original birth certificate to be analysed and proven? The onus of proof is on him, not the American public of which he wants their trust in him to be their leader.

So, who is lying? Barack? His grandmother? His sister? Someone is.

p.s. Dr. Jerome Corsi will be on my show today (Sunday) where I will be interviewing him about his recent trip to Kenya to promote his new book, The Obama Nation... * Dr. Corsi was not on my show Sunday, his publicist asked to re-schedule.

UK: Poll reveals a significant number of Muslims support suicide bombings

from Jihad Watch

After all, 23% of the world's Muslims believe 9/11 was legitimate, from an Islamic point of view.

"Young Midland Muslims support suicide bombings new poll reveals," from the Sunday Mercury, October 17:

ALMOST a quarter of young Muslims support suicide bombings, according to a shock new poll on an internet website.

Radicalised youths from the Midlands are among those to have posted messages backing terrorists on the www.ummah.com forum.

One member had started the survey by asking users: “Do you agree with suicide bombings?”

Of those who responded, an alarming 24 per cent said they supported suicide attacks like the 7/7 tube bombings in London and the 9/11 atrocity in America.

One posting on the poll said: “I agree with suicide bombers. They should target Muslims too. They should also target those coward sleeping Muslims.”

Apparently a reference to "moderate" Muslims -- that is, those Muslims playing the waiting game.

Another, calling himself Abu Mubarak, wrote: “I don’t particularly subscribe to the suicide bombings myself, if I were to go into battle, I would want to die in a blaze of gunfire, not by pushing a button.

"Traditionalist."

“I will not say it is suicide, nor condemn them, or say they are cowards, or the rest of that nonsense, because it is NOT suicide, it is a form of fighting that instils a great terror into the hearts of the koffar (non-believers).”

Others argued that suicide bombings were unacceptable, with one contributor saying: “I don’t regard people who blow themselves up in market places packed with non-combatants as legitimate Mujahideen...

Study: Airport Security Badges Need Improved Tracking

The government has not been able to keep track of all the airport security uniforms and badges it issues, which makes secure areas in airports vulnerable to terrorists posing as authorized officials, according to an internal review released Friday.

The Homeland Security Department’s inspector general looked at five airports across the country from October 2006 through June 2007. The IG found major deficiencies in the Transportation Security Administration’s ability to keep track of uniforms, particularly after an employee leaves the job.

Many details in the report were redacted for security reasons, such as which five airports the inspector general audited. The IG found there were four instances where TSA did not report to the badge office that a screener had been fired from the agency. These former screeners had active badges for up to 212 days until the inspector general notified officials about the problem.

Five other screeners had active badges from 97 to 827 days after they no longer needed to access secure areas, the report found. In 63 other instances reviewed by the inspector general, TSA had not immediately told badge offices to deactivate the badges when the employees left the agency.

Responding to the report, TSA spokesman Christopher White said the agency made changes to increase oversight of uniforms, badges and identification in April, particularly with the badges allowing access to the most secure parts of an airport. Currently an employee with access to these secure areas must relinquish his badge as part of his exit clearance, White said. If the employee does not comply, the employee could face civil penalties.

A veiled threat from a "moderate Muslim"

by Robert Spencer

Those of you who read the comments here may be familiar with a commenter named "Abdullah Mikail," who is an American convert to Islam. This delightful gentleman sends me emails from time to time, in which more than once he has issued veiled threats to this site. And why not? How do you attempt to "strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of Allah" (Qur'an 8:60) while sitting comfortably behind a computer screen? Abdullah, bless his little heart, is doing his level best to find a viable answer to that question, and he at least deserves points for effort.

After railing against FrontPage Magazine for awhile, he added this:

...another blog I know of will go down rather suddenly.

Uh, gosh, which one, Abdullah? He himself kindly provides the answer in an earlier email:

Jihad Watch...clock's ticking, games almost up, what to do when the curtain comes down?...one does wonder?

Apparently our friend has forgotten that it is Muslim women, not men, who wear veils (unless, of course, we're talking about cowards who don burqas to flee the cops or noble mujahedin putting in practice Muhammad's timeless dictum, "war is deceit"). But anyway, is Abdullah threatening a cyber attack (which, after all, has just been given sanction by some of the foremost scholars in Sunni Islam) or some frivolous legal action? Another veiled threat he sent hinted at the latter:

I only question you. Have you followed all the rules? The wonderful thing about law, Robert, is that it is written down and anyone with a mind and reason can understand them if one applies ones self to the matter. So I ask, have you followed all the rules...every single one them...to the last nuance of the letter and intent of the law? And I am speaking of US law. Hind sight is 20/20. Some day, and maybe soon, you may remember that comment of mine and then understanding will dawn like a new day for you, although I feel your face will not shine then, yet only frown.

Uh, have I broken any laws, Abdullah? Well, if the Organization of the Islamic Conference gets its way and criminalizes all criticism of Islam, including examination of how jihadists use Islamic teachings to justify their action and gain recruits, then you can have me hauled off to jail. But until then, the answer is no.

But anyway, if Jihad Watch suddenly disappears, folks, for information look for our friend the "moderate" threat-issuer Abdullah Mikail. He'll be the one in the burqa.

A Liberal Supermajority

From the Wall Street Journal

If the current polls hold, Barack Obama will win the White House on November 4 and Democrats will consolidate their Congressional majorities, probably with a filibuster-proof Senate or very close to it. Without the ability to filibuster, the Senate would become like the House, able to pass whatever the majority wants.

AP

Though we doubt most Americans realize it, this would be one of the most profound political and ideological shifts in U.S. history. Liberals would dominate the entire government in a way they haven't since 1965, or 1933. In other words, the election would mark the restoration of the activist government that fell out of public favor in the 1970s. If the U.S. really is entering a period of unchecked left-wing ascendancy, Americans at least ought to understand what they will be getting, especially with the media cheering it all on.

The nearby table shows the major bills that passed the House this year or last before being stopped by the Senate minority. Keep in mind that the most important power of the filibuster is to shape legislation, not merely to block it. The threat of 41 committed Senators can cause the House to modify its desires even before legislation comes to a vote. Without that restraining power, all of the following have very good chances of becoming law in 2009 or 2010.

- Medicare for all. When HillaryCare cratered in 1994, the Democrats concluded they had overreached, so they carved up the old agenda into smaller incremental steps, such as Schip for children. A strongly Democratic Congress is now likely to lay the final flagstones on the path to government-run health insurance from cradle to grave.

Mr. Obama wants to build a public insurance program, modeled after Medicare and open to everyone of any income. According to the Lewin Group, the gold standard of health policy analysis, the Obama plan would shift between 32 million and 52 million from private coverage to the huge new entitlement. Like Medicare or the Canadian system, this would never be repealed.

The commitments would start slow, so as not to cause immediate alarm. But as U.S. health-care spending flowed into the default government options, taxes would have to rise or services would be rationed, or both. Single payer is the inevitable next step, as Mr. Obama has already said is his ultimate ideal.

- The business climate. "We have some harsh decisions to make," Speaker Nancy Pelosi warned recently, speaking about retribution for the financial panic. Look for a replay of the Pecora hearings of the 1930s, with Henry Waxman, John Conyers and Ed Markey sponsoring ritual hangings to further their agenda to control more of the private economy. The financial industry will get an overhaul in any case, but telecom, biotech and drug makers, among many others, can expect to be investigated and face new, more onerous rules. See the "Issues and Legislation" tab on Mr. Waxman's Web site for a not-so-brief target list.

The danger is that Democrats could cause the economic downturn to last longer than it otherwise will by enacting regulatory overkill like Sarbanes-Oxley. Something more punitive is likely as well, for instance a windfall profits tax on oil, and maybe other industries.

- Union supremacy. One program certain to be given right of way is "card check." Unions have been in decline for decades, now claiming only 7.4% of the private-sector work force, so Big Labor wants to trash the secret-ballot elections that have been in place since the 1930s. The "Employee Free Choice Act" would convert workplaces into union shops merely by gathering signatures from a majority of employees, which means organizers could strongarm those who opposed such a petition.

The bill also imposes a compulsory arbitration regime that results in an automatic two-year union "contract" after 130 days of failed negotiation. The point is to force businesses to recognize a union whether the workers support it or not. This would be the biggest pro-union shift in the balance of labor-management power since the Wagner Act of 1935.

- Taxes. Taxes will rise substantially, the only question being how high. Mr. Obama would raise the top income, dividend and capital-gains rates for "the rich," substantially increasing the cost of new investment in the U.S. More radically, he wants to lift or eliminate the cap on income subject to payroll taxes that fund Medicare and Social Security. This would convert what was meant to be a pension insurance program into an overt income redistribution program. It would also impose a probably unrepealable increase in marginal tax rates, and a permanent shift upward in the federal tax share of GDP.

- The green revolution. A tax-and-regulation scheme in the name of climate change is a top left-wing priority. Cap and trade would hand Congress trillions of dollars in new spending from the auction of carbon credits, which it would use to pick winners and losers in the energy business and across the economy. Huge chunks of GDP and millions of jobs would be at the mercy of Congress and a vast new global-warming bureaucracy. Without the GOP votes to help stage a filibuster, Senators from carbon-intensive states would have less ability to temper coastal liberals who answer to the green elites.

- Free speech and voting rights. A liberal supermajority would move quickly to impose procedural advantages that could cement Democratic rule for years to come. One early effort would be national, election-day voter registration. This is a long-time goal of Acorn and others on the "community organizer" left and would make it far easier to stack the voter rolls. The District of Columbia would also get votes in Congress -- Democratic, naturally.

Felons may also get the right to vote nationwide, while the Fairness Doctrine is likely to be reimposed either by Congress or the Obama FCC. A major goal of the supermajority left would be to shut down talk radio and other voices of political opposition.

- Special-interest potpourri. Look for the watering down of No Child Left Behind testing standards, as a favor to the National Education Association. The tort bar's ship would also come in, including limits on arbitration to settle disputes and watering down the 1995 law limiting strike suits. New causes of legal action would be sprinkled throughout most legislation. The anti-antiterror lobby would be rewarded with the end of Guantanamo and military commissions, which probably means trying terrorists in civilian courts. Google and MoveOn.org would get "net neutrality" rules, subjecting the Internet to intrusive regulation for the first time.

It's always possible that events -- such as a recession -- would temper some of these ambitions. Republicans also feared the worst in 1993 when Democrats ran the entire government, but it didn't turn out that way. On the other hand, Bob Dole then had 43 GOP Senators to support a filibuster, and the entire Democratic Party has since moved sharply to the left. Mr. Obama's agenda is far more liberal than Bill Clinton's was in 1992, and the Southern Democrats who killed Al Gore's BTU tax and modified liberal ambitions are long gone.

In both 1933 and 1965, liberal majorities imposed vast expansions of government that have never been repealed, and the current financial panic may give today's left another pretext to return to those heydays of welfare-state liberalism. Americans voting for "change" should know they may get far more than they ever imagined.

Plague Vaccine

by: Gwyn Bevel

IT CAUSED ONE OF THE DEADLIEST PANDEMICS IN HUMAN HISTORY AND HAS KILLED MORE THAN 200-MILLION PEOPLE WORLDWIDE. GWYN JOINS US NOW WITH MORE. DOUG THE BUBONIC PLAGUE MAY BE SOMETHING YOU'VE READ ABOUT IN HISTORY BOOKS... BUT TODAY, THE THREAT OF ANOTHER OUTBREAK IS AS REAL AS EVER. SOON, RESEARCHERS SAY A PILL COULD BE YOUR BEST PROTECTION.

TONIGHT'S HEALTHCAST EXPLAINS. IN THE MID-FOURTEENTH CENTURY, THE BUBONIC PLAGUE TORE THROUGH ASIA, INDIA AND EUROPE, KILLING A QUARTER OF THE WORLD'S POPULATION. "I just kind of look back on history and things happen and you just kind of move on from it. I don't want to live my life worrying about it all the time." BUT THE PLAGUE MAY NOT BE HISTORY. THE CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL LISTS THE BUBONIC PLAGUE AS ONE OF THE TOP BIOTERRORISM THREATS. "We could take out all the bioterrorism weapons one by one by immunizing the population."

MOLECULAR BIOLOGIST HENRY DANIELL CREATED A VACCINE BY INJECTING GENES FROM YERSINIA PESTIS -- THE BACTERIUM THAT CAUSES THE BUBONIC PLAGUE -- INTO PLANT CELLS, WHICH ARE THEN PUT INTO CAPSULES. THE HOPE -- THE BODY WILL DEVELOP IMMUNITY TO THE PLAGUE. "So this is a very sophisticated way of delivering a vaccine, where you could never get the disease." THE VACCINE WAS TESTED IN RATS EXPOSED TO 50 BILLION SPORES OF THE PLAGUE -- AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT DANIELL SAYS HUMANS WOULD NEVER FACE. WITHIN THREE DAYS, ALL OF THE UNVACCINATED RATS AND THREE-QUARTERS OF THOSE GIVEN THE INJECTABLE VACCINE DIED. BUT EVERY RAT GIVEN THE ORAL VACCINE SURVIVED -- WITH NO TRACES OF THE PLAGUE LEFT IN THEIR BODIES. ("These are the genetically modified plants.")

BECAUSE IT DOESN'T REQUIRE AN INJECTION, THE VACCINE COULD BE EASILY DISTRIBUTED TO THE PUBLIC. "Plague epidemics can happen anytime." BUT NOW, RESEARCHERS HOPE THEY CAN KEEP HISTORY FROM REPEATING. DOCTOR DANIELL SAYS THE NEW ORAL WAY OF DELIVERING VACCINES MAY BE THE WAVE OF THE FUTURE, MEANING NO MORE PAINFUL NEEDLES. HE EXPECTS THE CAPSULES FOR THE PLAGUE TO BE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC IN IS AS LITTLE AS TWO YEARS.