Tuesday, July 3, 2012

It Is Our Time

“So he's not legit. What are we supposed to do? What is the proper response?”  These questions were asked of me in response to my Dems Admit Obama’s Not Eligible post.  I have thought about these questions quite a bit.  While thinking, two developments have happened.  First, Judge Terry Lewis of Florida punted.  He issued a deeply flawed ruling stating that since Mr. Barry S. B. H. Obama was “born in the United States” he is a natural born citizen.  That assumption is huge since B.S.B.H.O. refuses to present creditable evidence of the simple fact of his birth.   The second event is, of course, is the copout of Mr. John (Love Me Please) Roberts and the rest of the Supreme Court on the healthcare debacle.  The writing is on the wall in giant spray painted graffiti in the colorful style of the deepest Chicago ghetto.  The socialist and the communist have our beloved country by the throat like a coiling snake and they ain’t gonna let go ‘till she is dead.  The rule of law has passed and we are now in the every man for himself mode.

Our proper response?  We embrace this cross as one we deserve.  We fall back upon the two greatest commandments, to love God with your whole heart, mind and being, and to love your neighbor as yourself.  The future will be hard.  Expect a significant and very noticeable lowering of our standard of living.  Expect government goons to intrude into your private affairs with the tact and compassion of a schoolyard bully.  Expect shortages, higher taxes and fees on everything (Thanks a lot Roberts!).  Expect the currency to collapse and inflation to roar through our economy like a wildfire.  Through it all, love God.  Thank Him for this time to truly demonstrate your love of Him with patient suffering.  Share in your scarcity, help others and never lose sight of the goal: To be in heaven with God.  Many of us are not going to survive the coming times with our bodies but we will, by this very gift of times, survive our passage through the world.  Many will not.  They, who have placed their hearts on the treasures of the world, will despair.  I can already hear the screams of the future when all those 401ks vaporize.

This is the time of Catholic mettle.  This is the time when the shallowness of protestant theology will be exposed as insignificant.  This is the time when we will guide so many back to the Barque of Peter.  This is the time we were born for!  Vive Christo Rey!


  1. He is legit.

    He has provided proof. He has shown the short form birth certificate and the long form birth certificate of Hawaii. He has shown both the images of those documents and the actual physical copies to the press. Officials of both parties in Hawaii have confirmed the facts on the birth certificate repeatedly. They are further confirmed by the Index Data http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2011/04/in_hawaii_its_easy_to_get_birt.html. And the fact that Obama was born in Hawaii is still further confirmed by the birth notices that appeared in the Health Bureau Statistics section of the newspapers in Hawaii in August 1961. As the name shows, and as confirmed by the newspapers, the notices in the Health Bureau Statistics section came to the papers ONLY from the DOH of Hawaii, and the DOH only sent out those notices for births IN Hawaii.

    There is also no evidence that Obama was born in any other country than the USA. No, Obama's Kenyan grandmother never said that he was born in Kenya. She said repeatedly that he was born in Hawaii, and in another interview she said that the first that her family had heard of Obama's birth was IN A LETTER FROM HAWAII.

    Mitt Romney has only shown an image of a black and white photostat of his alleged Michigan birth certificate. The seal is not visible. It is a short form birth certificate, not showing the name of the hospital or the delivery doctor. It has not been confirmed by the officials of the state or by Index Data or even by birth notices in the newspapers, and Detroit is a lot closer to a foreign country (Canada) than Hawaii is to any foreign country.

  2. Public records are “public” for serious reasons. Specifically, the records maintained in county courthouses insure that the public has access to information which helps us to maintain order in daily activities. If I wish to sell my house, the buyer should check the deed records to insure himself that he is dealing with the true owner of the property. If a young lady wishes to marry a certain gentleman, she should insure that he is not already married. Death notices, birth notices, court judgments, all of these are for our individual review for public reasons. I'll admit, when this “birther” thing first came up, I thought it would be squelched right away as anyone could simply go the the Honolulu Courthouse and look it up. Whaaa!? There is a rule in Hawaii that declares these records private and inaccessible to the public? I have never heard of such a thing. OK, OK, maybe Hawaii is different. Maybe there is a privacy protection there. However, I would still assume that the person for whom the birth certificate was prepared could order a certified copy as he needs. B.S.B.H. Obama has not done this. The long form that he turned over last year is a plain forgery. In each of those several court challenges he has pleaded other arguments, mostly claiming that the plaintiffs have no standing, rather than simply producing a certified copy of his certificate. When the attorney general of Arizona turned up the heat on Hawaii, all he got was an assurance that they had the record.

    Time will tell. Truth will come out. If I am wrong on this I'll be the first to apologize. But from where I'm standing it looks bad. But, I'll do everyone a favor. I'll quit worrying about it and get on with surviving in the times to come. May God protect us all.

  3. Re: "Death notices, birth notices, court judgments, all of these are for our individual review for public reasons."

    You are in error about birth records. Some states regard them as private documents, and Hawaii is one of them. So is Michigan (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/w2w/Michigan.htm---and see the far left hand column where it says that they are available only to eligible individuals).

    Re: "There is a rule in Hawaii that declares these records private and inaccessible to the public? I have never heard of such a thing. OK, OK, maybe Hawaii is different. Maybe there is a privacy protection there. "

    Answer. Yes there is, and in Michigan, and in Texas ("For more recent records, you must be an immediate family member or requesting your own birth certificate." http://birth.recordsproject.com/texas.asp.) However, it is true that they are public in SOME states, such as California.

    Re: "However, I would still assume that the person for whom the birth certificate was prepared could order a certified copy as he needs. B.S.B.H. Obama has not done this."

    Actually, he has. He has done it both for the short-form birth certificate and the long-form birth certificate, and he has shown both the images on the Web and the actual physical copies of both of them, and the officials of both parties in Hawaii have confirmed the facts on them, and they are further confirmed by the Index Data (a public record of the birth certificates on file that shows one for Obama filed in 1961) and by the birth notices in the Hawaii newspapers in 1961.

    Re "plan forgery." Only "birther experts"---who have not proven that they are experts, and who certainly have not shown that they are fair and impartial---have claimed this. There is a reason why Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly and the National Review do not believe them.

    And I can show about five real experts who have looked closely at Obama's birth certificate, including a member of the Tea Party, who say that the birther "experts" are lying, and that there is nothing wrong with Obama's birth certificate.

  4. Re: "When the attorney general of Arizona turned up the heat on Hawaii, all he got was an assurance that they had the record."

    That is also not true. Where do you get your dreams from?

    This site shows an image of the answer from Hawaii: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/05/bennett-satisfied-birthers-cry-foul/

    If you read it, you will see that it answers all of Bennett's questions, that there is a birth certificate on file, that the hospital that Obama was born at was Kapiolani, etc---all the 12 questions asked. Then there is the bottom line, the last line on the document, and it says: "Additionally, I verify that the information in the copy of the certificate of live birth that you attached with your request matches the original record in our files."

    That means that every word on the birth certificate that Bennett sent (which is the birth certificate from the White House web site) is exactly the same---I repeat, exactly the same---as the word in the files.

    If at this point you say "Hawaii could be lying"---the obvious answer is that Michigan could be lying about Mitt Romney's birth certificate, but it isn't---and neither is Hawaii.

    There is a slight difference. Detroit Michigan is fairly close to a foreign country, Canada. Hawaii is thousands of miles from any foreign country, and such long distance international travel was very rare late in pregnancy in 1961. And, if Obama's mother had traveled outside the USA (which she didn't) she would have had to have made that trip ALONE. That is because WND has proven with a FOI Act request that Obama senior was in Hawaii on August 4, 1961.

  5. Thanks for some interesting reading. I still have my sincere doubts, but will keep my mouth shut on the matter. As Will Rogers always said, "All I know is what I read in the papers."

  6. Re: "I still have my sincere doubts..."

    Do you still have sincere doubts that the earth is round?

    What has created your "sincere doubts?"

    The notion that Obama's mother might really have gone ten thousand mile to Kenya without her husband coming on the trip? The notion that the officials of both parties in Hawaii are LYING? The dream that the notices of birth in the Health Bureau Records section of the newspapers did not come from the DOH? The dream that the DOH would send out a notice to the newspapers for a child not born in Hawaii?

    The notion that Obama could have been carried into the USA without his parents showing a US visa or a US passport or his entry on a US passport to the INS at the time? The dream that if such a document were issued, it has been lost or stolen, and that the Bush Administration would not have found it if it existed?

    Oh, and perhaps you have not seen this:


  7. My sincere doubts arise from the mysterious attitudes of the Hawaii officials and the way it seems to take an act of congress to get a lousy certified copy of the “long form” certificate. Let’s assume that it is all true. He was born there and Hawaii has the original certificate. Mr. Brokaw asks the president about his birth certificate and his answer is, “Oh, you have doubts? I’ll have one sent to you.” A week later Mr. Brokaw gets a Certified Copy from Hawaii dated xx/xx/2011. A law suit is filed in Georgia. Obama’s lawyers file for a summary dismissal attaching a Certified Copy from Hawaii dated yy/yy/2012. Same with Alabama…Certified Copy dated zz/zz/2012. Arizona…here’s yours dated aa/aa/2012. We could do this all year folks! Nope. Not once did they argue using a Certified Copy. They always argued that the plaintiffs had no standing…the candidate wasn’t official yet…there was no damage…blah…blah…blah.
    When we did get a “long form” it was with the dramatic act of Obama’s lawyer flying halfway around the world to get it and bring it back like it was the original Declaration of Independence. I admit I looked at the site you provided and saw the Hawaii certification. Check. I can’t argue that one. You win the point. But it isn’t passing the smell test.
    Oh look…what’s this? Now we have a suit filed in Ohio wanting answers on his Connecticut Social Security Number. Interesting.

    1. Obama has shown a CERTIFIED copy of his long form birth certificate. (Actually, he also showed a CERTIFIED copy of his short form birth certificate too.)

      He has shown it online, and he has shown a physical copy of it that was passed around in the White House press room. One reporter even photographed it.

      In their two latest confirmations of Obama's birth certificate, the officials in Hawaii stated that the facts on the image that the White House published are exactly the same, that they MATCH (and that was the word used) the facts on the birth certificate in the files. The Conservative Secretary of State of Arizona accepted the confirmation of Hawaii.

      In contrast to this, Mitt Romney has shown only an image of a black-and-white photocopy of his short-form birth certificate from Michigan. That does not show the name of the hospital or the name of the doctor, and it does not show the official seal. It has not been confirmed by officials, or by Index Data, or by the notices in the newspapers sent to the papers by the DOH of the state (which was what the DOH did for births in Hawaii in 1961). Yet you have no doubts about Romney and "sincere doubts" about Obama.

      Re Social Security: Did birther sites tell you about the millions of errors in Social Security files caused mainly by data entry errors by Social Security Administration clerks? Probably not.

      The Connecticut SS number was caused by a data entry error. SS numbers were generated by the zip code of the applicant’s address. Obama’s address in Hawaii was in zip code 96814, and the zip code for Danbury, CT. is 06814.

      Millions of people have multiple social security numbers caused mainly by data entry errors:




      You might well ask why, if there is evidence that Obama has multiple SS numbers and that one of them came from Connecticut that NO committee in Congress wants to investigate? Why not?

      Because it is not illegal to have mistakes in your SS files, and lots of people do. And there is no evidence that this is other than a mistake, or a lot of mistakes. Republicans would be GLAD to hold a hearing to show that there was a crime involved with Obama's SS number. But they KNOW that there is no evidence.

  8. Obama, whose birth certificate is not a fraud and who was born in Hawaii, not in Kenya or any foreign country, and who is a Natural Born Citizen because the US Supreme Court ruled that NBC status refers to the place of birth in the Wong Kim Ark case---and who has errors in his Social Security files like millions of other Americans---was re-elected President of the United States on November 6. He won both the popular vote majority—by more than two and a half million votes—and significantly more than a majority of the Electoral College votes.

    1. I concede one fact in that statement...he was elected. His election does not ratify his eligibility nor some collective wisdom of the electorate in choosing the better leader. But, on this subject I have been silent ever since you shouted me down, yet you return to gloat. However, since we are both in for the ride over the next four years I can only wish you peace...though I do not expect either of us to have it.

    2. Obama is eligible. His birth in Hawaii has been proven overwhelmingly by (1) the birth certificate of Hawaii, (2) the repeated confirmation of the officials of both parties in Hawaii; (3) the Index Data file; (4) the birth notices sent to the newspapers by the DOH of Hawaii in 1961 (and ONLY the DOH could sent birth notices to the Health Bureau Statistics section of the papers, and it only sent out those notices for children born in Hawaii).

      And the US Supreme Court ruled in the Wong Kim Ark case, which btw was after Minor v. Happersett, that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth, and that EVERY child born in the USA (including Rubio, Jindal and, yes, Obama) is a Natural Born Citizen except for the children of foreign diplomats.

  9. I do not return to gloat but to provide evidence of how few share the birther theories.

    TODAY the votes of the Electoral College were counted by the US Congress.

    Obama won every single one of the 332 Electoral Votes that he won in the general election. Not one single elector changed her or his vote from Obama to Romney. Not one single elector refused to vote or voted for a candidate other than Obama and Romney. The same thing in fact happened in 2008 and in 2012. Not one single elector in the 532 electors in the country in either 2008 or 2012 changed her or his vote because of the claims of birthers.

    The reason is that (1) not one of them believes the nutty idea that Obama was born in a foreign country; and (2) not one of them believe the crazy birther theory that two citizen parents are required to make a Natural Born US Citizen since the US Supreme Court ruled in the Wong Kim Ark case that the meaning comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth.

    These views are, btw, shared by such conservative leaders as Paul Ryan, Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck and the National Review. None of these people or institutions believe that Obama’s birth certificate was forged, and none believe that the officials in Hawaii of BOTH parties (including the former Republican governor) are lying when they say that they sent the short form and long form birth certificates to Obama and that the original birth certificate exists in the files of the DOH and that it shows that Obama was born in Hawaii.