Skip to main content


Look in The Electric Mirror to Find the Ark of the Covenant
Contact Us
About Us
Member Login
Site Map






Governor Abercrombie and Mike Evans say there is absolutely no proof Obama was born in Hawaii





Since 2008, the “Birthers” or “Constitutionalists” (who believe Obama was born in Kenya instead of Hawaii and thus is ineligible to be president) have been requesting information from the state of Hawaii about his birth certificate.
In December of 2010, the requests increased substantially.  And posted on December 25, 2010 on the Web, under an article in the Honolulu Star Advertiser titled “Requests increase for Obama birth proof,” Rob Shikina reported:
Three weeks into his term, newly elected Gov. Neil Abercrombie told The New York Times that with regard to the birthers, he is “going to take care of that.”
He said he is talking with the state attorney general's office and the director of the Health Department to see how he can release more information about the president's birth. The confidentiality of birth records is protected by state law.
“It's an insult to his mother and to his father, and I knew his mother and father; they were my friends, and I have an emotional interest in that,” Abercrombie told the Times. “It's an emotional insult. It is disrespectful to the president; it is disrespectful to the office.”
Abercombie [sic] was quoted by the Chicago Tribune as saying, “What bothers me is that some people who should know better are trying to use this for political reasons,” he said. “Maybe I'm the only one in the country that could look you right in the eye right now and tell you, ‘I was here when that baby was born.’



Governor Abercrombie may indeed have been in Hawaii when Obama was born in Kenya, and he would not be lying.  So what does his last statement prove?—absolutely nothing!


And even if Abercrombie did “release more information about Obama’s birth,” it would probably be as fraudulent as the computer-generated document (below) previously posted on the Internet.
Remember, in an interview in WorldNetDaily and later Globe, Tim Adams—who should certainly know—avowed that Obama was NOT born in Hawaii.  For those who can't read his testimony on the page above, the former Hawaii election official states:
“It was my job to verify the voters’ identity, and in my professional opinion, Obama definitely was NOT born in Hawaii.”



“I can say that without a shadow of a doubt because there is no legal record of him being born there.”
“And the things I have said, I don't mind testifying about in court.”
Since his initial promise to release more information on Obama's Hawaiian birth certificate, Governor Abercrombie has apparently confirmed Tim Adams astounding revelation above.   According to a January 20th, 2011 report on 92 KQRS from the governor’s old friend Mike Evans—that after a search of the Hawaiian hospital records and elsewhere, Abercrombie has discovered to his dismay that “there is no Barack Obama birth certificate in Hawaii.”
Evans' report on Minnesota's KQRS began with following words:
“Good Morning.  Good Morning.  This next item, no show business, but I have a personal interest so I thought I would share it with you.  Former US Congressman from Hawaii Neil Abercrombie has been a friend of mine for decades.  In fact, when I first met Neil, he was driving a cab in Honolulu.
“Well, Neil and I spent a lot time together in Washington DC during Obama’s inauguration.  Neil told me then that he was going to run for Governor of Hawaii, that he had enough of being a US Congressman.
“He also told me a story that he had told me many times after Barack had became famous that when he was in college going to the University of Hawaii he was friend of Barack Obama’s dad, and he remembers Barack Obama as a little kid, he used to call him ‘Barry.’
“In fact, I did a TV interview with Abercrombie at C-SPAN the day after the inauguration, and he had to stop twice because he referred to the President as Barry, which he, after he did it, he said, ‘I can’t do it, I gotta call him Mr. President.’
“Well, Neil promised me that when he became Governor that he was going to cut through all the red tape, he was going to get Obama’s birth certificate, once and for all and end this stupid controversy that he was not born in the United States.
“Yesterday, talking to Neil’s office, Neil saysthat he searched everywhere using his power as Governor, at the Kapi’olani Women ’s and Children’s Hospital and Queens hospital, the only places kids were born in Hawaii back when Barack was born.
There is no Barack Obama birth certificate in Hawaii.  Absolutely no proof at all that he was born in Hawaii.
“Now, he went out, he loved Obama, I mean he purposely did this to get rid of that question, now, got some egg in his face, I mean now he admits publicly that there is no birth certificate . . . .”  Click the picture below for the whole the story:



Speaking to Fox News about his report above, on Minneapolis’ KQRS, celebrity journalist Mike Evans denied that he personally spoke to Hawaii Governor Neil Abercrombie—but the hospital instead:  “I was on 34 radio stations that morning. That was the only station where I said, instead of saying, ‘The hospital said there's no birth certificate,’ I misspoke and said, ‘Neil said that.’”
This is obviously a lie!  Evans said that he spoke to only one radio station indicating he spoke directly to Governor Neil Abercrombie’s about the Governor admitting that Barack Obama has no birth certificate in Hawaii—but in fact—Evans repeated his story that indicates he spoke directly to Neil on other radio stations.



The audio cuts below were posted on Peter Boyles’ KHOW Web page in Denver, Colorado on the 27th of January.   Peter was the announcer, along with WND’s Jerome Corsi, who interviewed Mike Evans on the 26th, when Evans apparently first began denying that he spoke directly  to Neil Abercrombie, and changed his story to “with the hospital” (sometimes “with the office”) instead.  Fox News apparently got Evans’ recantation at some time thereafter.
These are two short excerpts from two of the sound cuts Peter obtained from two other stations that Evans spoke over on the 2oth of January, 2011:
Speaking more explicitly on KLBJ in Austin, Texas on its morning “News on the News” program, Evans said, “Yesterday, I talked to Neil, said that he searched everywhere using all his power as Governor, looking at Kapi’olani Women’s and Children’s Hospital and Queens Medical Center where children were born back in that day, and he said, ‘Mike, there is no Barack Obama birth certificate.’
With slightly different words on KOOL-FM-94.5 in Phoenix, Arizona, Evans said:  “Yesterday, I talked to Neil, says that he had searched everywhere, using his power as Governor, at Kapi’olani Women’s and Children’s Hospital and Queens Medical Center, the two places where children were born back when Barack was born.  There is no Barack Obama birth certificate.”
How many more of the 34 radio stations that Evans is syndicated on that received similar statements is unknown at this point.  But enough has been said here to prove that Evans was lying to Fox News about speaking on only one radio station about Abercrombie personally speaking to him about there being no birth certificate in Hawaii for Barack Obama.
Obama's thugs must have visited the video owner, but you realize it clearly spelled out the historic truth from the Congressional Record if you had the chance to listen to it before it disappeared.  Perhaps this will make up for it:


Congressional records reveal a viral premeditation within the liberal ranks of our government to alter fundamental Constitutional eligibility protections in order to covertly assist an ineligible Obama candidacy and his usurpation of America’s executive power.
by Penbrook Johannson
Editor of The Daily Pen

Some diseases are so viral, so invasive, so insidious, so contagious…that they eventually infect what most would believe is the most sanitary part of any body. Even the once honored sovereignty of America’s highest legislative body is now coming under the attack of the disease of multi-culturalism and liberal extremism.

Congressional records show that on eight separate occasions over six years, between 2003 and 2008, legislators attempted to eliminate or change the definition of the “Natural Born” eligibility clause of Article 2 of the Constitution in order to remove restrictions and, thereby, create legal justifications supporting Obama’s unlawful candidacy for President.

We now know what members of congress knew about Obama’s ineligibility, and when they knew it.

In a recently produced documentary, Carl Gallups, a senior pastor at Hickory Hammock Baptist Church for more than two decades with a ten year professional background in law enforcement, presents documented evidence showing that members of congress submitted repetitive, coordinated proposals to alter the 'natural-born' eligibility clause.

Gallups also serves on the board of regents at the University of Mobile and hosts several weekly radio programs in the northwest Florida region.

Gallups’ documentary shows that between June 11, 2003 until Feb. 28, 2008, there were eight attempts to circumvent the Natural-born eligibility clause of the U.S. Constitution.

1. On June 11, 2003, Rep. Vic Snyder, D-Arkansas, introduced House Joint Resolution 59 (HJR 59) which attempted to Constitutionally change the understood historical definition of a ‘natural-born’ eligibility for the U.S. Presidency in order to "permit persons who are not natural born citizens of the United States, but who have been citizens of the United States for at least 35 years, to be eligible to hold the offices of president and vice president.” The resolution did not make it to a senate vote at that time.

2. Then, on Sept. 3, 2003, Rep. John Conyers, D-Michigan, introduced HJR67, which would have defined presidential eligibility the same as Snyder's proposal, only the requirement to be a citizen in Conyers’ bill was actually lowered to 20 years, not the more stringent 35 years. Conyers’ bill was also rebuffed prior to an official vote. However, the introduction of two such proposals within a mere four month period reveals that Congressional leadership was conscious of the issue of Presidential eligibility prior to Obama’s candidacy. Whether these acts were put into motion at this time specifically for the benefit of Obama, exclusively, is unclear, but highly suspicious.

3. Then, in an attempt to contend with the obvious attack against the natural born citizenship clause, on Feb. 25, 2004, Sen. Don Nickles, R-Oklahoma, introduced Senate Bill 2128 which also failed to hit the eligibility requirement target. It defined a ‘natural-born citizen’ as someone who was born in and is subject to the United States.” This was not the understanding of the framers of the Constitution. Exhibiting the same ignorance as other legislators, Nickles failed to acknowledge that the intended purpose of the natural-born eligibility clause was to ensure that the sovereignty, identity and loyalty of a presidential candidate was measured by not only a geographic birth under the protection of the U.S. Constitution but also the possession of natural natal biology afforded by birth to TWO parents who are U.S. citizens at the time of conception AND the preservation of the continuity of that citizenship status until election.

Five months later, on July 27, 2004, Barack Obama delivered his keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention which essentially and suddenly made America aware of him at a national level.

4. Then, just two months later, on Sept. 15, 2004, House Representative Dana Rohrabacher, R-California, submitted HJR 104, which audaciously attempted "to make eligible for the office of president a person who is not a natural born citizen of the United States but has been a United States citizen for at least 20 years." Rohrabacher’s fallow resolution attempted to completely ignore the Constitution’s requirement that a president had to be a natural born citizen. The resolution was rejected on its face.

5. Four months later, on Jan. 4, 2005, Conyers pushed yet another unwanted attempt to change the definition of ‘natural born citizen’ in HJR 02, which was the exact same as Rohrabacher's.

6. Just one month later, on Feb. 1, 2005, Rohrabacher submitted a revised version of her previous resolution in HJR 15 which would require only 20 years of citizenship to be eligible for the office of president.

7. Two months later, on April 14, 2005, Snyder resubmitted his bill under another proposal, HJR42, requiring 35 years of U.S. citizenship to be eligible. Interestingly, it has long since been established that Barack Obama’s return to the U.S. from Indonesia took place in approximately 1970-1971. At that time, if Obama had re-naturalized as a U.S. Citizen, this resolution would have made him just eligible in 2005.
Barack Obama announced his candidacy for the U.S. presidency on February 10, 2007.
The Iowa Caucus is held on January 3, 2008.

8. Finally, in Feb. 28, 2008, after seven failures to change the natural-born eligibility requirement, Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., attempted to parasite SB 2678 with the Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act, an amendment clarifying what "natural-born citizen" includes. Obama and Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., were sponsors of this bill.

Liberal democrats in Congress were in an obvious array to push against this long-standing Constitutional mandate at the time, coincidentally, when the first unnatural born presidential candidate, Barack Obama, began his political career at the national level. Why? Who or what was pulling their strings?

As reported by Bob Unruh of World Net Daily, Gallups’ documentary then demonstrates that “..on April 10, 2008, being "unable to alter or remove" the natural-born eligibility requirement for Barack Obama..", the Senate engaged an active deception by distracting the growing consciousness of Obama’s ineligibility by introducing Senate Resolution 511, which addressed Sen. John McCain's qualifications as a ‘natural-born citizen.’

Overcompensating for their failure to validate Obama, the Senate feigned generosity for McCain in hopes of making his eligibility the target of attention, but not criticism, by declaring him eligible as a “natural born citizen”. Senate leadership desired to avoid making McCain's eligibility the subject of criticism because they knew that if McCain was not eligible, Barack Obama was certainly not eligible. The weight of scrutiny against a worthier McCain would have caused Obama's campaign to fail, politically, if not legally.

However, in what can only be described as complete legislative incompetence, SR511 writers and sponsors specifically stated McCain was eligible because he was "...born in a territory under treaty with the U.S." and, therefore, under the protection of the U.S. Constitution and, most importantly, "because he was the son of TWO U.S. citizen parents." The language of Resolution 511 actually and explicitly commits McCain to presidential eligibility because of the citizenship of his parentage. Both of McCain's parents were U.S. citizens. This is a qualification which Barack Obama does not possess.

Shockingly, Obama voted in favor of Resolution 511 knowing he, himself, was not eligible under these same metrics. Barack Obama voted in favor of a formal resolution stating that a presidential candidate was Constitutionally eligible because the candidate was defined as being ‘natural born’ by the fact that the candidate’s birth was, in fact, to TWO U.S. citizen parent. Obama’s father was never a U.S. citizen and his mother was only 18 at the time of his birth which disqualified transfer of citizenship if the birth occurred outside the U.S.
Obama's qualifications were never reviewed or conferred upon under any similar resolution, nor were his qualifications to be president ever vetted by any federal authority, legislative body or formal inquiry, as were John McCain’s. Not ever.

Unruh continues:
“After his election, Gallups points out, Obama held a secret meeting with eight of the nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court – from which no public information was released. The meeting was held even though there were legal challenges in which Obama was a defendant pending before the Supreme Court at the time. The attorneys for the plaintiffs never were told of the meeting or invited to participate in what critics have described as extrajudicial contact between the court and a defendant.”

Consider this very carefully, sons and daughters of vintage America. Barack Obama, an illegally appointed president under suspicion of violating the U.S. Constitution, actually engaged personal contact with eight sitting supreme court judges who were actively considering pending cases regarding his ineligibility as president, in covert meetings, without the presence of any opposing legal representation. The suspect was allowed to meet alone with very authorities who were presiding in law suits against him, who have the supreme legal power to dismiss, overrule or uphold these lawsuits with binding jurisdictions, without any record of the content or accounting of attendance of those meetings, and without any representation of those filing complaints against him.  This level of corruption and judicial tampering is unprecedented in American history.

Ironically, only Justice Scalia, the longest serving conservatively oriented judge, appointed by Republican President, Ronald Reagan, in 1986, was absent from this secret meeting. Scalia has often been hailed as the "conservative intellectual anchor" of the supreme court. If any one of the nine supreme court justices would have held opposition to Obama's illegal presidency, Scalia would be the first. He was either not allowed in the meeting, or recused himself for reasons of deniability about the subject.

Unruh continues, “WND previously reported on another link between Obama and a campaign to change the constitutional provision. It came from an associate lawyer in a Chicago-based firm whose partner served on a finance committee for then-Sen. Barack Obama. She advocated for the elimination of the U.S. Constitution's requirement that a president be a "natural-born" citizen, calling the requirement "stupid" and asserting it discriminates, is outdated and undemocratic."

The paper was written in 2006 by Sarah Herlihy, just two years after Obama had won a landslide election in Illinois to the U.S. Senate. Herlihy was listed as an associate at the Chicago firm of Kirkland & Ellis. A partner in the same firm, Bruce I. Ettelson, cited his membership on the finance committees for both Obama and Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., on the corporate website.

The article by Herlihy was available online under law review articles from Kent University when it originally was the subject of reports but later was removed.

Herlihy's published paper reveals that the requirement likely was considered in a negative light by organizations linked to Obama in the months before he announced in 2007 his candidacy for the presidency.

The natural born citizen requirement in Article II of the United States Constitution has been called the "stupidest provision" in the Constitution, "undecidedly un-American," "blatantly discriminatory" and the "Constitution's worst provision," Herlihy begins in her introduction to the paper titled "Amending the Natural Born Citizen Requirement: Globalization as the Impetus and the Obstacle."

She concludes that the "emotional" reasons to oppose changing the Constitution will prevail over the "rational" reasons demanding a change.

The current American perceptions about the effects of globalization and the misunderstanding about what globalization actually is will result in Americans deciding that naturalized citizens should not be president because this would, in effect, be promoting globalization, Herlihy wrote.

"Although this argument is admittedly circular, because globalization is the thing that makes the need to abolish the requirement more and more persuasive, Americans' subsequent perceptions about globalization are the very things that will prevent Americans from embracing the idea of eliminating the natural born requirement.
"Logical Americans are looking for a reason to ignore the rational reasons promoted by globalization so that they may vote based on their own emotions and instincts," she wrote.

In the body of her argument, Herlihy said the constitutional provision simply is outdated.

"Considering that the Founding Fathers presumably included the natural born citizen clause in the Constitution partly out of fear of foreign subversion, the current stability of the American government and the intense media scrutiny of presidential candidates virtually eliminates the possibility of a 'foreigner' coming to America, becoming a naturalized citizen, generating enough public support to become president, and somehow using the presidency to directly benefit his homeland," she wrote.

"The natural born citizen clause of the United States Constitution should be repealed for numerous reasons. Limiting presidential eligibility to natural born citizens discriminates against naturalized citizens, is outdated and undemocratic, and incorrectly assumes that birthplace is a proxy for loyalty," she wrote.

Many of the reasons for keeping the limit, she wrote, "are based primarily on emotion."

Or, Ms. Herlihy, perhaps you must be forced to accept that it was simply a wise measure correctly foreseen as necessary to prevent a lying, criminal usurper, perhaps like Barack Obama, from assuming power over the value, work and lives of the greatest people in world history. There is nothing outdated in any doctrine devised to preserve that.

Is there no limit to the degeneracy of this current political roster into which they will descend in order to acheive their psychotic agenda and control over the blood-ransomed freedom, value and power of the only true decent and prosperous people of humanity?

Wake up, vintage America. Your nation is under attack from within. Liars and deceivers are stealing your daily lives, creeping closer into your personal boundaries and mocking the screaming blood of your pristine warriors.

It is time all who consider themselves decent and sovereign to reject Barack Obama as the criminal usurper that he is."


In a patriotic letter to the Editor of The Post & Email, dated July 23, 2011, titled “The Coup d’etat on January 21, 2009 AND WHY DOES CONGRESS STAND BY AND DO NOTHING?” Gary Stevens announced on:
(Jul. 23, 2011) — No battle was fought. No guns were fired. No bullets or bombs were involved. In the smooth movement of a pen over a previously-prepared document, the overthrow of the United States of America took place. The coup d’etat, still in its progressive movement of deconstructing America, was achieved without Congressional debate. No voice of argument. Less than 24 hours into office, the putative President of the United States, Barry Soetero (aka Barack Obama), signed Executive Order #13489.
Filed on January 23, 2009 at 8:45 a.m., the occupant of the Oval office sealed his records containing past names, student status, foreign travels, passport information, Selective Service registration and all educational transcripts. The historical footprint of Barry Soetero (his last legal name since adoption) was wiped away in the swoosh signature of a pen on a document prepared by Robert Bauer. No fanfare. No major media paid attention. For the first time in the Republic’s history an unknown, undocumented, and non-vetted candidate took the highest office of the land. Through the cheers, the tears, and the exuberance of those who voted for this unknown mystery, many failed to note what really happened.
The HUGE fact that a previous document (the Constitution) required that the office of President and Vice President be eligible as to age, country of residence and a “natural born Citizen” was disregarded in the election of 2008. The distinction of “natural born” in Article II, Section 1 was deliberately articulated by the founders for these two offices. Why? So that no foreign loyalties could hamper or compromise the Republic. We as a nation have been compromised. All the awareness of terrorism in our day from without is but a distraction of the real threat we have within the White House. A person would have to be blind and not know Braille to see the fabric of complicity among the ranks in government.
Why has there NOT been discovery allowed in every court case filed regarding Barry’s real ID? Why is the FBI NOT investigating the now-proven fraudulent birth certificate? Why is Congress NOT interested in the fraudulent use of Barry’s Social Security number? Why is the only person who peeked into the passport records of Barry shot dead? Why is it okay to have seventy (70) known documented National Socialist members in Congress? Why is the majority of Barry’s administration all linked to Soros or the SEIU or communist organizations? Is there even a hint maybe something is amiss with the incompetence of the impostor?
The Congress is negotiating the economic future of America with an illegal president.
The ALARMING INSANITY:  the liar-in-chief commands our military.
The ASTOUNDING INSANITY:  the Director of Homeland Security has a boss that is “THE” breach of all security.
The ASTRONOMICAL INSANITY:  he is still in office with no disclosure of who he really is !
The coup d’etat from January 21, 2009 continues.
I received this article—well worth reading—in an email on June 8th, 2012:
What to Do About Obama?
by Paul R. Hollrah

In a July 25, 1787 letter to George Washington, the Presiding Officer of the Constitutional Convention, John Jay wrote as follows: “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American Army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

Alexander Hamilton shared the future Chief Justice’s concerns.  In Federalist No. 68 he wrote: “These most deadly adversaries of republican government (cabal, intrigue, etc.) might actually have expected to make their approach from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.  How could they better gratify this than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union?”

So is it even remotely conceivable that, just five years and eleven months after the British surrendered at Yorktown, the Founders would have produced a constitution for ratification by the states that would allow an individual with divided loyalties… i.e., an individual with dual US-British citizenship… to serve as president of the United States and commander in chief of the Army and the Navy?  Absolutely not.  To believe that they would have done so requires a willing suspension of reason.

Accordingly, to prevent any person with divided loyalties from ever serving as president of the United States, the founders specified in Article II, Section 1 that every person who would serve in that office must be, not just a “citizen,” but a “natural born” citizen of the United States.

If we are to accept Barack Obama’s word that his father was Barack Obama, Sr., a citizen of Kenya, a British crown colony, he cannot lay claim to being a “natural born” citizen because, under Part 2, Section 5(1) of the British Nationality Act of 1948, he was born with dual US-British citizenship.  He held dual US-British citizenship from August 4, 1961 until December 12, 1963 (the day on which Kenya won its independence from Great Britain); he held dual US-Kenyan citizenship from December 12, 1963 until August 4, 1984, his twenty-third birthday (see Chapter VI, Section 87[3] of the 1983 Kenyan Constitution); and he has been a “citizen of Kenya by birth” from August 4, 2010 until today (see Chapter 3, Section 14 of the current Kenyan constitution, adopted by national plebiscite on August 4, 2010).

In December 2008, as Democratic electors were casting their votes for Barack Obama, Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D., one of the country’s foremost constitutional scholars, had this to say:

“If Obama is not a ‘natural born Citizen’ or has renounced such citizenship, he is simply not eligible for the Office of President…   If, nonetheless, the voters, the Electors, or the members of the House purport to ‘elect’ Obama, he will be nothing but a usurper because the Constitution defines him as such.  And he can never become anything else because a usurper cannot gain legitimacy even if all of the country aids, abets, accedes to, or acquiesces in his usurpation.

“If Obama dares to take the Presidential ‘Oath or Affirmation’ of office, knowing that he is not a ‘natural born Citizen,’ he will commit the crime of perjury or false swearing (Article II, Section 1, Clause 8).  For, being ineligible for ‘the Office of President,’ he cannot ‘faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States,’ or even execute it at all, to any degree.  Thus, his very act of taking the ‘Oath or Affirmation’ will be a violation thereof.  So, even if the chief justice of the Supreme Court himself looks the other way and administers the ‘Oath or Affirmation’ (as Chief Justice John Roberts did on January 20, 2009, and again on January 21, 2009), Obama will derive no authority whatsoever from it… (H)is purported ‘Oath or Affirmation’ being perjured from the beginning, Obama’s every subsequent act in the usurped ‘Office of President’ will be a criminal offense under Title 18, United States Code, Section 242…”

As a man who advertised himself as a “constitutional law professor,” Obama knew that he was ineligible to serve as president of the United States.  It is also clear that Nancy Pelosi and Alice Travis Germond, the chairman and secretary of the 2008 Democratic National Convention, respectively, also knew that he was ineligible to serve.  Why else would they have deleted from 49 of the 50 certifications sent to state election boards, the phrase, “… and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution?”  Why were those words included only in the certification sent to the State of Hawaii which requires an unambiguous certification of eligibility under Hawaii Revised Statutes §11-113?

One might also question why, as the Illinois State Senator’s rising star appeared on the horizon, congressional Democrats made two attempts in 2003 and two attempts in 2005 to amend the U.S. Constitution to eliminate the “natural born Citizen” requirement.  And why did each and every Democratic member of the 2008 Electoral College, having been forewarned that he was not a “natural born” citizen, ignore their constitutional responsibilities and proceed to elect him?

In terms of personal honor, their failure to do what was right and honorable was in stark contrast to the dedication to duty demonstrated by the 271 Republican electors who voted to elect George W. Bush and Dick Cheney in 2000.  Given the closeness of that race, all Democrats had to do was to convince just three Republican electors to change their votes and the Electoral College vote would have ended in a slim 270-268 victory for Al Gore and Joe Lieberman.
When the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of Republican electors were published on the Internet, the death threats and the bribery offers began immediately.  Any three of the 271 Republican electors could have had $5 million deposited in Swiss bank accounts simply by entering the names Al Gore and Joe Lieberman on their ballots and paying a small fine for being “faithless” electors.  But that’s not what happened.  Every one of the 271 Republican electors did exactly as they had sworn to do; not a single one of the 271 electors yielded to the temptation.  (As a first-time elector in 2000, my first bribery offer came by telephone from London.)

So what do we do about Obama the Usurper, the perpetrator of what has been the most brazen (bloodless) coup in history?  As a nation, we are in a bit of a “pickle.”  We have a man sitting in the Oval Office with his finger on the nuclear button and his hand in the national cookie jar who has no right to be there.  Yet, those of us who insist on being on the right side of history… no matter how hopeless our cause or how slim our chances for success… cannot let the matter die.  We owe that not only to our children and grandchildren and to future generations, but to those who pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to the success of this greatest of all experiments in self-government.  Can we demand any less of ourselves?

When it is finally proven that he and his political handlers have used the nation’s most sensitive secrets to enhance his chances of reelection, will it be left to citizen grand juries to hear the charges against him and indict him?  And when he has been indicted on numerous charges, who will place him under arrest?  Obama will expect to have lifetime Secret Service protection, but Secret Service protection is made available only to legitimate former presidents, not to usurpers.

The task of bringing Obama to justice has little chance of success so long as he maintains the ability to manipulate public opinion through the mainstream media.  However, that support is beginning to show signs of strain as liberal thought leaders such as Maureen Dowd, of the New York Times, and Chris Matthews, of MSNBC, have become bitingly critical.

In recent weeks he has alienated Roman Catholics and independents over the religious freedom issue; he has alienated a large portion of his black base over the same-sex marriage issue; he has alienated miners in the coal producing states by seeking to bankrupt coal producers and coal-fired power plants; he has alienated blue-collar workers in states from North Dakota to Texas over the XL Keystone Pipeline issue; he has alienated union bosses by failing to support their ill-conceived recall effort in Wisconsin; he has alienated motorists and truckers everywhere over high fuel costs; and he has alienated the military over politically-motivated security leaks and his insistence upon choosing battlefield targets from the safety of his White House “bunker.”

As the months pass and his defeat becomes a foregone conclusion, his former media apologists may begin to distance themselves from him; those he’s used and “thrown under the bus” will turn their backs on him; the late night comics will begin to use him as the butt of jokes; and it will become fashionable in the ritzy salons of New York and Hollywood to say really unkind things about him… proving once again that the sort of people who put him in the White House in 2008 are the sort of people who, once they’ve tasted their victim’s “blood,” will show him no mercy in 2012.  If and when that scenario is set in motion, we may yet bring him to justice.

In a 2010 speech to agency employees, EPA Region 6 Administrator Al Armendariz described his approach to regulating major oil companies.  He said. “It was kind of like how the Romans used to, you know, conquer villages in the Mediterranean.  They’d go into a little Turkish town somewhere, they’d find the first five guys they saw and they’d crucify them.  Then, you know, that town was really easy to manage for the next few years.”

When the day of justice arrives for Obama and his Chicago political thugs, those who enter the White House to administer justice will have far more than five miscreants to choose from and the political left will be far easier to manage during our years of political and economic revival.


Meanwhile, the United States continues to be ruled with no legitimate proof Obama was born in Hawaii. 





Here is a little more history inside pictures to try to digest:














Dr. Keyes holds the distinction of being the only person ever to run against Barack Obama in a truly contested election—one featuring authentic Declaration-based moral conservatism vs. progressive liberalism—when they challenged each other for the open U.S. Senate seat from Illinois in 2004.  Below is a pictorial link to the news interview—well worth watching for additional reasons—wherein he frankly refuses to call Obama President.
















Douglas Vogt REALLY knows what he is talking about when it comes to digital documents and scanning.   He has also become conversant in some of the applicable laws of forgery and treason, although obviously not an attorney.





He was one of the first to debunk the forged birth certificate and has produced evidence, affidavits and done testimony on it. Obots became frantic trying to discredit him, unsuccessfully.















This page was last modified on Monday, February 19, 2018