Why is America in Trouble?

Loren and Celeste Davis are American missionaries in Africa who have helped build over 200 African Village Churches.
Loren has miraculously survived not 1 but 2 airplane crashes.
I see both of the above as evidence of God’s hand on their lives.

Read what Loren has to say about:

Why is America in Trouble?

And on a different note: 

Yes, I am aware of the letter spread around the Internet about Obama’s Kenyan connections, and the fact that Snopes says those claims are false.

But, given the facts that:

1) The only birth-related document that “Barack Hussein Obama II” has released is a forgery.

2) Snopes didn’t even get that name right (Snopes calls him “Jr.” instead of “II”:

Senator Obama’s full name, according to all available documentation and public records, is Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. not “Barak Hussein Muhammed Obama.”

Snopes is wrong. According to the only “available documentation” the former Senator’s name is “Barack Hussein Obama II” not “Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.”).  Since they didn’t get that right, maybe they are also wrong about the rest…maybe his name really is “Barak Hussein Muhammed Obama”.  Let’s see that vault copy of your Birth Certificate, Barry.

3) Obama’s concept of salvation is completely un-Biblical.

I’m inclined to believe Loren and Celeste Davis over Obama and his minions.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Why is America in Trouble?

  1. Ed Darrell says:

    Of course, the counter-view to Obama’s view of salvation is also unBiblical. Heck, most anti-Obamans I meet don’t think much of Jesus’s view of salvation, either. What’s your point?

    Since the State of Hawaii says the document you claim is a forgery is, instead, the authentic stuff, what is it you have for evidence, again? You’ve got hearsay from a computer programmer who never has bothered to see the real document?

    And you wonder why people keep sending you sales fliers on tinfoil hats?

  2. Ed,

    You twist what the officials in Hawaii have actually said. What they said was highly nuanced. They said they have a long-form Birth Certificate and it is valid. They never said the long-form Birth Certificate says he was born in Hawaii. They never said the short-form Birth Certification matches the long-form Birth Certificate.

    Listen, you probably had to prove your citizenship to get your job. Why shouldn’t Obama be treated any differently from you? Especially when the job he seeks is the most powerful job in the entire world?

    On top of that, you are totally overlooking the fact that the Donofrio case isn’t about Obama being born in Hawaii. It’s about the fact that Obama’s father conferred British citizenship upon him at birth, making him a Natural born subject of the British crown, not a Natural born citizen of the U.S.

    If the “Natural born Citizen” requirement becomes meaningless, then the first amendment also becomes meaningless. Every freedom you currently enjoy would no longer be protected.

    The End of the Constitutional Republic?

  3. Ed Darrell says:

    But of course, it doesn’t matter where Obama was born. Any child born to a U.S. citizen is a “natural born” U.S. citizen. So, apart from snarkiness, there’s no reason to think that the State of Hawaii is lying when they say that Obama was born in Hawaii, and no reason to pursue the issue any further.

    Dual-citizenship cases are not uncommon, and under U.S. law they do not deprive any person of “natural born” status. I’m not overlooking it at all, I’m merely sticking to the law, and common sense, and common decency. This is a bizarre vendetta against Obama, and it’s really very ugly, especially when people make hysterical claims like “the First amendment then becomes meaningless.”

    As a pragmatic matter, Obama’s citizenship has been proven over and over again. As I noted, and you have failed to note, when Obama applied to take the bar exam, he had to provide the records you claim are in error. He had to provide them when he got a passport. Those records were investigated when he was sworn into the U.S. Senate, and we know they were gone over carefully because he’s a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, which is a position in which a senator sees a lot of very sensitive data. Heck, he’s chair of the subcommittee that deals with NATO — you think the FBI and CIA haven’t checked him out? Seriously?

    Were we to succumb to the same level of hysteria the anti-Obama crowd has, we’d point out that this unholy campaign threatens the Constitution, too — especially the rights to privacy in the penumbra of the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments. I’ll see your one amendment and raise you two more.

    Shall we talk about the full faith and credit clause, too?

    I’m not overlooking anything. I’m carefully looking at the evidence available, and I note that there is nothing on the record anywhere that suggests there is a serious legal issue.

    We survived the presidency of Chester Alan Arthur without any of the ill effects you claim could occur, and frankly, there’s a much better case to be made against his citizenship than against Obama’s.

    The entire affair is foolishness that smacks of sour grapes, racism, and an ugly, rather anti-American mob hysteria. That kind of stuff is a much greater threat to the nation and the Constitution. It’s much worse because it’s unwarranted, in my view. My view won’t change without some solid evidence, and there is none.

  4. Truth: Obama’s own “Fight the Smears” web site admits:

    As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

    That means that Barack Hussein Obama II had was a
    British citizen AT BIRTH.

    And that is EXACTLY the type of person our founding fathers intended to make ineligible to hold the office of President of the United States.

    Even if Obama also had U.S. citizenship at birth, no one can deny (and I’m glad you don’t) that Obama had British citizenship at birth. Donofrio’s point is that dual citizenship and “Natural born” citizenship are mutually exclusive. Let the Supreme Court decide.

    If the “Natural born citizen” requirement is not taken seriously (essentially treated as meaningless), then the precedent is set that any other part of the Constitution can not be taken seriously (essentially treated as meaningless).

    That, my friend, would be the death of our Constitutional Republic.

  5. My view won’t change without some solid evidence, and there is none.

    My thoughts exactly.

    It’s not a case of “innocent until proven guilty”.
    It’s a case of “ineligible until proven eligible”.

  6. there’s no reason to think that the State of Hawaii is lying when they say that Obama was born in Hawaii,

    They NEVER said “Obama was born in Hawaii”. Go look at what they said. They left wiggle room to ensure that they didn’t commit perjury.

    and no reason to pursue the issue any further.

    Those who can’t handle the truth try to silence those who speak it.

  7. Ed Darrell says:

    Look at the document. It clearly says the birth was in Honolulu. Honolulu is, as you may know, in Hawaii.

    Funny about that: It’s exactly the same thing the State of Hawaii said in 1961. 47 years of consistency, and the contrary information is . . . where?

  8. Duh. Of course I know Honolulu is in Hawaii.

    My points are that:

    1) The COLB that was posted at DKos and Fight The Smears is fraudulent,

    2) Even a valid COLB doesn’t prove birth in Hawaii, as the laws of Hawaii allowed COLBs to be given to children born elsewhere. Obama’s half-sister was born in Indonesia, yet she was given a COLB in Hawaii. The document experts who have analyzed the forged COLB have found evidence that the “source document” for the forged COLB may have actually been Obama’s half-sister Maya’s valid COLB! A little photoshop action and voila! “Proof” that Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii! (Not proof at all, and the forgery only makes it more likely that Obama was born elsewhere…say, Kenya)

    3) Berg’s case questions the COLB

    4) Donofrio’s case does not question the COLB because his case is built on the fact that Obama’s British citizenship at birth (which is not admitted to by Obama’s own site) disqualifies him from being a “Natural born” citizen, even if he is otherwise a citizen.

  9. Ed Darrell says:

    But a COLB that lists Honolulu as the birthplace, in a non-adoption case, does indicate that Obama was born in Honolulu.

    Donofrio’s case assumes the absurdity that a child might have dangerous “allegiances” with another nation the child has never seen and does not know, because a parent technically was a citizen of the commonwealth of that nation. Apart from the absurdity, it’s not fundamentally different from the case of President Chester Alan Arthur, nor from the case of Vice President Charles Curtis, both of whom served with no great danger to the nation.

    Precedent counts. Now that the Supremes have refused to take the case, as it appears, can we get back to the real problems this nation faces?

  10. But a COLB that lists Honolulu as the birthplace, in a non-adoption case, does indicate that Obama was born in Honolulu.

    Problem is, that COLB is a forgery.

    Donofrio’s case assumes the absurdity that a child might have dangerous “allegiances” with another nation the child has never seen and does not know, because a parent technically was a citizen of the commonwealth of that nation.

    Not absurd at all. That was the reason the founding fathers put the “Natural born” qualification in the Constitution in the first place.

    Apart from the absurdity, it’s not fundamentally different from the case of President Chester Alan Arthur, nor from the case of Vice President Charles Curtis, both of whom served with no great danger to the nation.

    Donofrio’s site discusses the Chester Arthur case. Have you read that yet?

    Precedent counts. Now that the Supremes have refused to take the case, as it appears, can we get back to the real problems this nation faces?

    It is inconclusive at this point what the Supremes will do. Wait and see.

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s