Friday, January 2, 2009

2007 Jefferson Award Winner, African-American Activist Berryhill to Obama "Show Your Vault BC"

From Citizen Berryhill

Diary Entry by Vivian Berryhill

vote nowBuzz up!


1 1 1 View Ratings Rate It

Mr. President-elect, surely you know that there is a 'tempest in the teapot' brewing regarding the vault version of your birth certificate. And, only you, Sir, can bring closure to this issue. Mr. Obama, show your birth certificate for the sake of all the people who supported and voted for you... and, also to quiet (once, and for all) the skeptics, naysayers, and people who deem your Presidency 'illegitimate'


Dear Mr. President-elect Obama,

With out a doubt, your history making ascension to the highest office in the land has brought, and continues to bring, unexplainable pride to millions of people of color, not just in America... but around the globe. People are rooting for you, as they want you to be a good President.

But on the other hand... there are also millions of others who do not like you, respect you, or want to see you confirmed as the 44th President of these United States. Please understand that for some in that category, it's personal. But there are many, who have not accepted your position, operating out of fear because there remain 'questions' about your life that have not been thoroughly answered.

I am writing this open letter to you today on behalf of both sides. Mr. President-elect, surely you know that there is a 'tempest in the teapot' brewing regarding the vault version of your birth certificate. And, only you, Sir, can bring closure to this issue.

For months now across bloggersville, and... now the issue is surfacing in main line media outlets as well, American citizens–– yes, the ones who voted for you... and the ones who did not–– are 'bewildered' that you feel the need to pay money (in the midst of a recession) to three major law firms to make sure that the American people, who you wish to serve, cannot have access to your birth records in Hawaii or your college transcripts. Speculation is running rampant that you received aid as a foreign student. So, instead of relishing in your victory, those who supported you are having to confront these allegations daily...without documentation or ammunition to counter the claims.

Americans believe you when you say you 'love this country'. However, to allow this birth certificate brouhaha to reach the Supreme Court on December 5, causes many to question your love for the country you want to lead. Why would you allow this issue to proceed to the Supreme Court, knowing the national scab has not fully healed from the Bush vs Gore election which was decided at the SCOTUS level? Unfortunately, Mr. President-elect, whichever decision is handed down by the Justices, will not make this issue go away. And, quite frankly, a Constitutional crisis may be imminent... which could further divide an already divided nation.

I know this birth certificate issue may seem trivial in the scheme of things: National Security briefings, world threats, picking a cabinet, an economic crisis looming large... but to many of our fellow Americans, 'nothing' is more important than the Constitution of the United States. Consequently, you Sir, are the only one who can bring closure to the issue at this juncture.

So, please Mr. Obama... for the sake of all the people who supported and voted for you... and, also to quiet (once, and for all) the skeptics, naysayers, and people who already deem your presidency 'illegitimate', do like Senator John McCain did, and present your birth certificate to the American people today.

Our prayer is that you will do the right thing, put an end to this nonsense... so America can come together and tackle the real issues that face this country.

Vivian Berryhill, founder of a national service organization, is a renown speaker and travels extensively throughout the United States and abroad. She has addressed audiences in Thailand, Nigeria, Honduras, Peru, Chile, and has traveled to Kenya, Uganda, Camaroon, Zambia, Rawanda, France and the U.K.

She was selected as one of the premier partners for Walden Media's internationally acclaimed movie: Amazing Grace, and the worldwide movement Amazing Change,, lending her voice and talent, along with Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Right Reverend Patrick 'Donoghue, and other notable world leaders, to end modern day slavery. Mrs. Berryhill, a 2007 Jefferson Public Service Award winner, also received the prestigious Presidential Service Award in 2006. She is married to Rev. C.L. Berryhill, Jr.

More Information for US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, FBI and IRS — According to the Cook County Assessor's website, the Chicago home of four-term Democrat Congressman and likely new White House Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, doesn't exist... there seems to be no public record of Emanuel ever paying property taxes on this home. On 11/07/2008 this post removed due to Cook County Government Intimidation

According to the Cook County Assessor's website, the Chicago home of four-term Democrat Congressman and likely new White House Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, doesn't exist. While the address of 4228 North Hermitage is listed as Emanuel's residence on the Illinois State Board of Elections' website, there seems to be no public record of Emanuel ever paying property taxes on this home.

The Cook County Assessor's and Cook County Treasurer's online records indicate Emanuel's Chicago neighbors pay between $3,500 and $7,000 annually. However, Illinois Review has been unable to locate any evidence that the former Clinton advisor and investment banker is paying his fair share of Cook County's notoriously high tax burden.

Why wouldn't 4228 North Hermitage property owners Rahm Emanuel and wife Amy Rule pay property taxes?

One reason may be because Emanuel and Rule declared their 4228 North Hermitage home as the office location for their personal nonprofit foundation called the "Rahm Emanuel and Amy Rule Charitable Foundation." As the non-profit's headquarters, their home could be exempt from paying property taxes.

In January 2007, USA Today reported on Emanuel's foundation:

The Rahm Emanuel and Amy Rule Charitable Trust was formed in2002, when the Chicago lawmaker was first elected. The former Clinton White House aide and his wife, Amy Rule, are its only donors. Emanuel was an investment banker after serving in the White House.

The trust reported having $2,900 on hand at the end of 2005 after receiving $34,000 from Emanuel and donating more than $31,000.

During the past three years, Emanuel's charity gave nearly $25,000 to the Anshe Emet synagogue and school [a private school that the Rahm/Rule children attend]..., and $15,000 to the foundation run by former president Bill Clinton. It also gave $14,000 to Marwen, a Chicago charity that provides art classes and other educational help to low-income children. Rule is on Marwen's board.

Emanuel's 4228 North Hermitage home is one of the largest in the neighborhood, with a side yard that appears to be a vacant lot, making the Emanuels' property the largest portion on the block.

Other North Hermitage homes on Emanuel's block are valued in the $500,000 plus range. According to Cook County Treasurer's website, the Chicago owners of nearby 118 year old 4222 North Hermitage pay almost $6800 annually. The family at 4224 North Heritage pays $6000 each year in property taxes.

President Elect Obama - himself a connected, Chicago insider who has benefited from questionable land deals - may find it difficult to explain why his very own Chicago-based chief of staff doesn't pay property taxes like the "little guy" he claims to represent. Or perhaps allowing his wealthy friends to avoid taxes is part of Obama's trickle down redistribution economics. It's certainly the kind of "change" we Illinoisans can believe in...since we're quite familiar with it here in the federal indictment land of Daley, Blagojevich, Madigan, Jones, Cellini, Rezko, etc., etc.

More to come...

I Wrote to Chief Justice Roberts: Did You?

I sent off a letter to Chief Justice Roberts of the US Supreme Court, as suggested by Reverend Manning. I asked Roberts to please consider hearing one of these cases before the Court on the Obama Eligibility Controversy. I asked the Court to affirm the definition of the phrase "natural born citizen" and define more clearly what Congress' role is in interpreting or redefining this phrase.

His address is:

Chief Justice Roberts
United States Supreme Court
Defend the Constitution
One First Street, NE
Washington DC 20543

I have also written to "Senator Snopes" (i.e., Senator Jon Kyl) and the other Congressmen and Senators in the Congressional Hall of Shame. Did you?

I have also written repeatedly to Congress and their aides about this matter. Did you?

I have contacted my state and federal elected representatives in writing and by phone repeatedly. Did you?

Join me in making them aware of how important this is. The Congressional January 8th meeting is very soon. The Supreme Court meetings on January 9th and January 16th are all too close.

Let's contact them to let them know we are concerned.

Letter From a Reader Carol

Isturiz is an Afro-American Venezuelan politician with national recognition.


Dr. Orly,

You posted what looks like a Venezuelan driver's license or identity card, and it seemed to have Obama's last name as "Obama Isturiz". Did you notice that?

It has his first name on the next line, "Barack Hussein."

I googled Isturiz, wondering what that word was there for. I found the above link to a well-known Venezuelan politician who is Afro-Amercan. Were they falsifying Barack's last name, making him look connected to a famous politician, to help him move about?

Pretty odd. He now has about 6 aliases.

Your note on the immigration officer who was an eye witness looks promising. Hope you can locate the Immigration office who feels he saw Obama enter as a foreign student, and he could sign a notarized statement, for lawyers to back up their suspicions of Obama as an Indonesian immigrant.

Also, I bet Obama went to high school in Hawaii, then Lolo told him how he went to El Camino HS and maybe Lolo went on to a free education for foreign students at Occidental (the free needs verified, but I read that somewhere), and so Obama enrolled at El Camino as Barry Soetoro (in the alumni yearbook 1980 under that name) and it facilitated his free education at Occidental as an Indonesian. Coming from a Hawaiian high school may have prohibited him. Just a guess.

God bless,


An Article From the New Media Journal.US

Frank Salvato, Managing Editor

Why the POTUS Needs to Be a Natural-Born Citizen

December 3, 2008

The Founders and Framers were incredibly intelligent people. In fact, they operated, intellectually, at a grade 24 level, grade 12 equating to the senior year in high school. Therefore, it shouldn't come as any surprise that each Article and Amendment – each tenet – in The Charters of Freedom was painstakingly examined, debated, reviewed and, finally, included. Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution – the Article that clearly states the qualifications for holding the office of President of the United States – is no different.

To be clear, I have no decided position on whether or not President-Elect Barack Obama is a natural-born citizen or otherwise. I believe that we – as a people – need to base our understanding on any and every issue on the facts. But in the case of Mr. Obama’s status of natural-born citizenship there are too many unanswered questions and not enough transparency where the facts are concerned. For a candidate who ran his presidential campaign on the promise of transparency, Mr. Obama has proven in the earliest moments of his executive tenure that transparency is subjective.

The most troubling of the troublesome questions is why Mr. Obama didn’t immediately release his vaulted, original birth certificate for examination. This act would have not only eliminated a potential stumbling block for his campaign, but it would have certified his eligibility for the office of President of the United States and saved the taxpayers the cost of judicial intervention. Instead, under the pretext of visiting an ailing grandmother in Hawaii just days before the 2008 Presidential Election, Mr. Obama had his vaulted, original birth certificate sealed by Hawaii’s governor, Linda Lingle (R).

On Friday, December 5th, 2008, the full compliment of the United States Supreme Court will hold a Rule of Four Conference hearing on the issue of Donofrio v. Wells; a lawsuit alleging that New Jersey Secretary of State Nina Mitchell Wells was delinquent in disqualifying ineligible candidates for President of the United States from the November 4th, 2008 General Election Ballot. The US Supreme Court Rule of Four states that before a case is put on the docket, four out of the nine Supreme Court justices must agree in conference to hear the case. If four out of the nine Supreme Court Justices agree, Donofrio v. Wells will be heard by the full United States Supreme Court and our nation will stand on the brink of a Constitutional Crisis.

There are many reasons why someone running for the office of President of the United States should be a natural-born citizen but four come to mind as the most immediate: Allegiance, Sovereignty, Foreign Intervention and the safeguarding of The Charters of Freedom.


It is important that anyone aspiring to the office of President of the United States have a steadfast allegiance to The Charters of Freedom and the country, without reserving any allegiance to any foreign power, entity or potentate.

Because the President of the United States serves as Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces it is essential that the person holding this position, and the authority to unleash the power of the US military, not be compromised of allegiance. And because the President is the Chief Executive -- the administrator to all Executive Branch authorities and departments -- it is paramount that this position be limited to those who would dedicate themselves to "country first."

A person holding dual allegiance – or dual citizenship – would be put in the position of having to choose between those allegiances and would, therefore, compromise his oath of preserving, protecting and defending the United States Constitution.


In an age when there exists a substantial number of federally elected officials who believe the United States should take its seat as an equal in a one-world, globalist order, it becomes critical that the person elected to serve as President of the United States have an unwavering dedication to our nation’s sovereignty.

With the advent of organizations such as the “World Court” and an ever-advancing encroachment of United Nations authority upon our sovereignty, it is important that our national sovereignty be protected at all cost. Allowing someone who does not satisfy Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution to ascend to the office of President facilitates an opportunity for globalist ideologues to position themselves to do harm to the Charters of Freedom at the hand of world opinion and at the expense of the Rights as enumerated in The Charters of Freedom.

When one takes into account many of the extreme laws governing free speech, property rights, taxation and personal and religious freedom that exist throughout the world it becomes clear that to bow to the will of the world community, to trade our sovereignty for universal national equality, serves to diminish the freedom and liberty mandated by The Charters of Freedom, liberties and freedoms paid for with the blood and treasure of patriots.

Foreign Intervention

In the youthful existence of the United States of America our nation has come up against many individuals, nations and organizations who would revel in our demise. To permit a non-natural-born citizen to rise to the office of President would be to invite nefarious forces to manufacture a Little Nikita in the hope of bringing about the actualization of Nikita Khrushchev’s declaration that the United States will fall with nary a shot being fired.

To believe that organizations like al Qaeda, ideologues like Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or nation states like Russia or China wouldn’t embrace the chance to – through the legitimate means of our electoral process – install an operative in the Oval Office is to be na├»ve. Each of these entities devote resources to affect the demise of the United States of America including military, economic and ideological (read: propaganda) resources.

Because the President of the United States is entrusted with the execution of authority of all Executive Branch departments and the command of the US military, it is vital that anyone aspiring to the office have a complete appreciation and devotion for the American way of life. Failing to vet those who do not possess natural-born appreciation or our uniquely American philosophy is to invite an ideological siege upon our nation and to compromise the ability to bequeath Americanism to future generations.

Safeguarding of the Charters of Freedom

Chief among every American President’s duties is to safeguard the Charters of Freedom. The Oath of Office of the President of the United States reads:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Some add, “So help me God” to punctuate their commitment.

Without a solid, unwavering dedication to preserving The Charters of Freedom the President of the United States is ill-prepared to advance the freedoms and liberties mandated therein to future generations. Those who would usurp the genius of our Founders and Framers by diminishing the importance of natural born citizenship as a requirement for President do so at the expense of generational safeguards. Those who engage in this national apostasy should be thoroughly scrutinized for any ulterior motive.

Today, as we await the decision of the United States Supreme Court on the issue of President-Elect Obama’s requirement to satisfy Article II, Section 1, our nation stands at a crossroads that runs adjacent to the abyss. Today, there is no provision in the US Constitution for a mechanism to enforce Article II, Section 1 but for US Supreme Court action. On Friday, should the US Supreme Court abdicate its responsibility to the US Constitution, the full Charters of Freedom and the American People, we will stand smaller in the eyes of our Founders and Framers and in the eyes of all who died in pursuit of the preservation of our freedoms and liberty.

While it is true that many who have come to be naturalized American citizens exhibit a deeper love of our country than many who take citizenship for granted, one of the few ways to assure that Americanism and The Charters of Freedom survive for future generations is to stipulate that those aspiring to become President of the United States be American. When we “rationalize” that requirement to the ash heap of history we can all rest assured that our freedom and liberty will soon follow.

FS-1 - Foreign Student Visa and Barack Obama??

From this forum:

“Obama has also failed/refused to release any records pertaining to school, college, and medical. Why? Was he registered as a foreign exchange student at both colleges? A retired INS agent who worked when Obama came into the United States stated he distinctly remembered Obama because of his ‘slick’ manners and speech. The agent says that he went back into the INS files and found the information and that Obama came into the USA on a FS-1 passport/visa. FS-1 is a foreign student visa classification, not a US citizen passport. So, who out there can get into the INS files and find Soreto/Obama’s record of entry into the USA?“

These pictures are of Barack Obama's stepfather who was a student at the El Camino HS in 1963 as an exchange student.

The step-father was going by a couple different names too; Lolo Soetoro, Soetoro Moestabjab, Soetoro Mangunharjo, and his nickname was "Toro"... I guess using the different aliases is a family trait.

University Library California Legal Research Guide: Legislation ... Journal of the Assembly, Legislature of the State of California (Ref KFC14 .C3512), 1942-current. (1989-current in Reference; earlier in the ARS. ...

1 page matching SOETORO MOESTABJAB in this book Page 6488

University Library California Legal Research Guide: Legislation ...

Journal of the Senate, Legislature of the State of California (Ref KFC14 .C3522), 1942-current. (1989-current in Reference; earlier in the ARS.) ...

1 page matching SOETORO MOESTABJAB in this book Page 1052

From the World Library search engine. Here are all the places that carry the Senate version of this book:

And here is the Assembly version:

HatTip to the team at Country First for helping with this

Berg Files a Lawsuit on Behalf of a Retired Colonel - The Lawsuit is an “Interpleader” That Shifts the Burden of Proof to Obama Further "For Immediate Release: - 12/30/08

(Lafayette Hill, PA – 12/30/08) - Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “qualifications” to serve as President of the United States which is pending in the U.S. Supreme Court [Docket No. 08 – 570] with two [2] Conferences scheduled on January 9th and 16th 2009, filed suit against Barry Soetoro a/k/a Obama on behalf of a Retired Military Colonel."

Exactly What Is a Natural Born Citizen?

YouTube - Exactly What IS a Natural Born Citizen?

Broe v. Reed: Reply to SOS, WND Reports

As reported by Stephen Pidgeon, attorney for Plaintiffs James Broe and 12 others in Broe v. Reed, has filed a response to Washington State’s Secretary of State’s original response. In part (the full presser (PDF) follows):

Washington’s Secretary of State claims he has no duty to determine if a presidential candidate is even an American citizen running under his legal name. Yet, there is not a single document in the public record available forinspection that could establishes as a matter of law that Obama is 1)a natural born citizen of the United States; 2) an American citizen; or 3) that his legal name is Barack Obama. …

Obama Cannot Be a “Natural Born Citizen” Under Minor v. Happersett,

Our U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) held that women, while being citizens of the U.S., do not have the right to vote under the Constitution. Of course, we know that this law was later repudiated. In discussing who are citizens of the United States and whether women may be such citizens, the Court explains that we did not need the Fourteenth Amendment to create U.S. citizens. It explains that before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Constitution itself did not prescribe what a citizen was. While the Court does not cite The Law of Nations, the Court goes into concepts which can be found in that treatise. The concepts of "nation," "political community," "association of persons for the promotion of their general welfare," and "member of the nation formed by the association" are all concepts that are found in E. de Vattel’s, The Law of Nations (1758). The Court then says that each person so associated with the community was a member of that community and owed that community his allegiance. The Court says that citizens were then those persons who "associated themselves together to form the nation" and who were later admitted as members of that nation. The Court then explains that an individual's wanting to ban together with others to form the new nation was actually that person's allegiance to the new nation. The Court continues that it was the individual's giving of this allegiance to the cause of creating the new nation that made that individual a citizen of that nation. The Court explains that for his allegiance, the person received the protection of the nation (calling these reciprocal obligations). Finally, the Court comments that any person who participated and helped in politically separating the new nation from Great Britain and in the military cause against that nation became a citizen at the time the Constitution was adopted. The Court explains that anyone who was part of these people at the time of the drafting of the Constitution were the "original citizens" of the U.S.

The Court then says that citizenship would not be limited to only this original category, for the Constitution at Article II provided for allowing more citizens to be created by birth and in the clause giving Congress the power to establish uniform rules of naturalization by naturalization. The Court then tells us that the Constitution does not define what a "natural born Citizen" is. The Court then said the following in explaining what a "natural born Citizen" is:

At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens." Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168.

This test was affirmed in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. 890 (1898).

Article II of the Constitution provides that "[n]o person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President . . . ." From the Minor decision, we learn who the Framers placed in the second category as being eligible to be President. These were the "original citizens," those who were members of and who gave their allegiance to the revolutionary cause that produced the new nation. The Framers grandfathered these individuals to be eligible to be President. There cannot be any doubt that even children who were born on U.S. soil fell into this category simply because they were the first generation of citizens. It is interesting to note that Jane Randolph Jefferson (1720-1776), President Thomas Jefferson’s mother, was born in the Tower Hamlets of Shadwell, a maritime neighborhood of London, England, and came to Virginia when she was young. With the passing of time, no one would be able to benefit from the grandfather clause and then would have to be "natural born Citizens" to be eligible to be President. We learn that "all children born in the country of parents who were its citizens. . . " make up the “natural born Citizen” category. The Court says that there have never been any doubts as to the status of these children. As to children born in the U.S. to parents who were not U.S. citizens at the time of their birth, there have been doubts. In other words, "natural born Citizen" under this formulation requires two generations of U.S. citizens, one generation in the parents and the other in the child himself/herself who also must be born on U.S. soil. It is important to understand that we are focusing on what is a "natural born Citizen" under Article II which specifies the requirements to be President and not on what a "Citizen" is under the 14th Amendment or under some Congressional Act which does not relate to Article II natural born Citizenship.

Obama, while having his mother's U.S. citizenship generation, is missing that of his father's, for his father was a British subject/citizen at the time of his birth. He therefore cannot be a "natural born Citizen," even if he was born in Hawaii.

(c) Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
January 2, 2009

ATI News President O'Leary -"Obama Has Shown a Stunning Lack of Tolerance for Free Speech"

"... ATI-News President Brad O'Leary examined Obama's legal and organizational attempts to silence media detractors during the presidential race and found, "Obama has shown a stunning lack of tolerance for free speech throughout the course of this campaign.""** Obama radio critic finds talk show time slashed

Program host: 'I'm just trying to bring to light what he's said'


Posted: January 01, 2009, 11:50 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh

Politically active Barack Obama supporters in Michigan have tried to silence criticism of the president-elect on a talk program at a community radio station by cutting its air time, the program host says. Officials with radio station WRHC told WND the dispute involved talk show host Martin Dzuris' coverage of local issues as well as national issues. But Dzuris explained in a lengthy interview with WND he attended at least one meeting where radio station officials discussed specifically how to reduce Dzuris' criticism of Obama, which has linked Obama's statements taken directly from his speeches to Marxism. Dzuris said one issue raised was Obama's demand in a Colorado Springs speech for a Civilian National Security Force, an issue on which WND has reported. In that speech, Obama insisted the U.S. "cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set" and needs a "civilian national security force." A video of his comments is here: Dzuris, who spent the first half of his life under communist rule in Czechoslovakia, told WND, that concept isn't new at all. "We called them the 'peoples' militia,' (in Czechoslovakia)" he told WND. He said he's reviewed Obama's speeches in light of his upbringing under a Marxist-type government, and discussed those issues on his program. "I'm just trying to bring to light what he's said," Dzuris told WND. "I'm just taking what he says, his influences, background…," he said. "I lived all those things." [Dzuris] said he was born in Czechslovakia and defected in 1989. Radio station administrator Kim Pruitt confirmed that a number of individuals within the board structure of the 100-watt community station are active campaigners for Obama. But she said a recent decision that sparked Dzuris' outrage to cut his show from two hours to one hour wasn't made on that basis. She said Dzuris show had been extended from one hour to two, months ago in order to allow time for discussion of "local events." She said, however, Dzuris didn't fill the additional time with local issues. "The situation was he actually was not spending very much time on the local events and he was spending time on the national events. Elections were of interest to him," she said. So a decision was made by a programming committee to reduce the program time, she said. Dzuris appealed to the full board of directors for the station, which included some members of the programming committee, and ultimately they compromised and restored another 30 minutes of his program time, Pruitt confirmed, even though there are those in the station's coverage area who would "like to see him off the air." WND e-mails and telephone messages for the chief of the station's board, as well as Obama's transition team, did not generate a response. One board member, Dave Repetto, was contacted by WND but declined to discuss the issue. He referred WND to coverage in the area Three Oaks and New Buffalo newspapers. In the New Buffalo Harbor Country News, Dzuris said, "I was told to tighten up my show, but no help or suggestions were given to me about how to do this, and I feel the real reason my time on the air is being reduced is because of my political views that differ with many people on the board of directors and programming committee." Former station program director Linas Johansonas agreed. "This issue is about content," Johansonas told station committee members, according to the News. "I've had board members tell me that they hate Martin's guts. This decision is political, and I hope you can get past that and see the good Martin does in the community." Dzuris confirmed to WND he attended a program committee meeting where members vocally expressed their opposition to the program's political position including its criticism of Obama. But fellow program host Dennis Snow said that wasn't an issue. "If you want to call Obama a communist on the air, you have a right to do that, and I'll defend to the death your right to do that, even though I don't agree with that," Snow said in the News report. "I know you feel we're all a bunch of liberals here, and that we're ganging up on you by reducing your time on the air, but that's not true. I just really feel your show would be better if it was one hour instead of two hours, that's all." Dzuris said the move to reduce his show time came after Obama volunteers, including some from the station, concluded a round of several thousand telephone calls in the region trying to generate support for the Democrat. People would respond that they weren't voting for Obama and then reveal they got information about Obama's links to unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers, his Saul Alinsky influences and other factors, from Dzuris' program. "On the programming committee, there are people, one that presented the motion, the other seconded the motion to cut my show … many of them were involved as volunteers in our local Obamam campaign," Dzuris told WND. "They've been after my show. Now it came to a head," he said. Many questions about Obama's stated plans for a National Civilian Security Force that is at least as powerful and well-funded as the U.S. military remain unanswered. But Obama's new chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, has said there will be a mandatory "force" for Americans. "If you're worried about, are you going to have to do 50 jumping jacks, the answer is yes," Emanuel told a reporter who was podcasting for the New York Daily News. WND also reported when the official website for Obama,, announced he would "require" all middle school through college students to participate in community service programs. That proposal, however, was changed suddenly after a flurry of blogs protested children being drafted into Obama's proposal. The new wording reads, "President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in under served schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps. WND also previously reported on a video of a marching squad of Obama youth. The apparent censorship also raised questions about the so-called "Fairness Doctrine," which, if re-adopted in Congress, could be used to severely limit conservative talk radio in the United States. If would require broadcasts over the public airwaves to give equal time to opposing political views. For talk radio, which boomed after the law's repeal in 1987 by building an audience devoted to conservative talk, the law's return would decimate the industry's marketability. Many fear the "Fairness Doctrine" would drive talk radio hosts – like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Michael Savage – out of business. As WND reported, ATI-News President Brad O'Leary examined Obama's legal and organizational attempts to silence media detractors during the presidential race and found, "Obama has shown a stunning lack of tolerance for free speech throughout the course of this campaign." Obama's presidency, he said, could "allow the Democrats to snuff out any broadcasters with whom they disagree."

Army Times Poll: Only 25% of Military Voted for Obama, Only 30% Are Optimistic About Him as a Commander in Chief

Troops Cite Inexperience, Iraq Timetable
By Brendan McGarry - Staff writer
Posted : Thursday Jan 1, 2009 11:06:56 EST

When asked how they feel about President-elect Barack Obama as commander in chief, six out of 10 active-duty service members say they are uncertain or pessimistic, according to a Military Times survey. In follow-up interviews, respondents expressed concerns about Obama’s lack of military service and experience leading men and women in uniform. “Being that the Marine Corps can be sent anywhere in the world with the snap of his fingers, nobody has confidence in this guy as commander in chief,” said one lance corporal who asked not to be identified. For eight years, members of the U.S. military have served under a Republican commander in chief who reflected their generally conservative views and led them to war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Now, the troops face change not only at the very top of the chain of command as Obama nears his Jan. 20 inauguration, but perhaps in mission, policy and values.

Underlying much of the uncertainty is Obama’s stated 16-month timetable for pulling combat troops out of Iraq, as well as his calls to end the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy to allow gays to serve openly in the military, according to survey responses and interviews. “How are you going to safely pull combat troops out of Iraq?” said Air Force 1st Lt. Rachel Kleinpeter, an intelligence officer with the 100th Operations Support Squadron at RAF Mildenhall, England. “And if you’re pulling out combat troops, who are you leaving to help support what’s left? What happens if Iraq falls back into chaos? Are we going to be there in five years doing the same thing over again?” When asked who has their best interests at heart — Obama or President George W. Bush — a higher percentage of respondents picked Bush, though Bush has lost ground over time. About half of the respondents said Bush has their best interests at heart this year, the same percentage as last year but a decline from 69 percent in 2004. Nearly one-third of respondents — including eight out of 10 black service members — said they are optimistic about their incoming boss. Even some service members who voted against Obama — only 1 in 4 supported him over Sen. John McCain in a pre-election survey of Military Times subscribers —now express goodwill toward him as their new commander in chief.

“Overall, the prospect of having someone who isn’t necessarily tied to old strategies is a good thing,” said Air Force Master Sgt. David Ortegon, who said he voted for McCain. “Sometimes you need a fresh perspective to be able to handle our military readiness and the needs of the nation.” The findings are part of the sixth annual Military Times survey of subscribers to Army Times, Air Force Times, Navy Times and Marine Corps Times newspapers. This year’s survey, conducted Dec. 1 through Dec. 8, included more than 1,900 active-duty respondents. The responses are not representative of the opinions of the military as a whole. The survey group overall under-represents minorities, women and junior enlisted service members, and over-represents soldiers. But as a snapshot of the professional corps, the responses highlight the challenges Obama faces as he prepares to take command of military careerists with different political and cultural attitudes. In keeping with previous surveys, nearly half of the respondents described their political views as conservative or very conservative. Slightly more than half said they consider themselves Republicans, 22 percent independents and 13 percent Democrats. Peter Feaver, a political science professor at Duke University who has written extensively about civil-military relations, said a degree of uncertainty among service members toward Obama is appropriate, given their questions about how he will govern as commander in chief. “Those numbers don’t convince me he has got a big problem on his hands because what he is seeing is not military hostility, but rather military caution, and caution that is reasonable because he has never been in the position of this office,” Feaver said. “It’s sensible and understandable that they have doubts about him. “They respect the office of the commander in chief,” Feaver said. “As long as he wields that office responsibly, then these numbers need not morph into a problem.”

David Segal, a military sociologist at the University of Maryland, said respondents’ optimism toward Obama can be partially attributed to confidence in his military advisers, including Richard Danzig, former secretary of the Navy, and retired Gen. James Jones Jr., former commandant of the Marine Corps and NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe. On Dec. 1, the day the survey was released, Obama announced his national security team, including Jones as national security adviser and Robert Gates a holdover from the Bush administration, as defense secretary. “There is an understanding that the president doesn’t do all his own paperwork, Segal said. “The quality of any president is going to depend on the quality of the people he,"has around him.” When to leave Iraq While nearly half of the respondents said they disapprove of Obama’s proposal to withdraw combat brigades from Iraq within 16 months of taking office, a slightly higher percentage said they support the Status of Forces Agreement calling for U.S. forces to leave the country by the end of 2011. Army Spc. Robbie Blackford, an infantryman with C Troop, 1-71st Cavalry Regiment, 1st Brigade, 10th Mountain Division, who returned from a 14-month tour in Iraq in late October, said Obama should gradually reduce the number of U.S. service members in Iraq. “In my mind, things were changing to the point where we could get out of there and the Iraqis could take over their own country,” Blackford said. “I think that he should just pull out a little at a time.” Although realistic about the challenges ahead, troops overwhelmingly support the mission in Afghanistan.

Eight out of 10 respondents said the U.S. should have gone to war in Afghanistan. Nearly the same amount support plans to boost the number of troops there by more than 20,000, for a total of more than 50,000. “We just don’t have enough manpower to be out there doing what we need to do winning the hearts and minds and so forth,” said Chief Warrant Officer 4 Jay Brewer, a meteorological and oceanographic officer with Marine Forces Pacific who has twice deployed to Iraq. “In Iraq, when we increased the number of troops, we were able to increase our presence full-time in Certain areas.”

While the majority of respondents expressed some degree of optimism the U.S. will succeed in Afghanistan, 30 percent said troops will need to stay for more than a decade to achieve its goals. The survey results also suggest that despite the military’s efforts to address mental-health issues, such as post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury, stigma associated with the conditions lingers. About 15 percent of active-duty respondents said they are suffering from or have suffered from PTSD, TBI or other mental health issues. Most of those respondents said they sought help with the treatment. But four out of 10 said they believed seeking care for such disabilities would negatively affect their career. Navy Gunner’s Mate 2nd Class William Rioseco, an instructor at Center for Security Forces, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, said mandatory postdeployment screening across all services would help to reduce stigma associated with mental health disorders. “Like PT, it should be mandatory. It doesn’t matter if you’ve been in action or you’re doing support,” he said. “If you’re in a combat zone, you’re subject for mandatory psychoanalysis because people can get affected by different things.”

Letter From a Reader on More Possible Indictments

I got this e-mail from a reader, Carol. Does anybody have more info on these transactions? Can one of you forward this to Patrick Fitzgerald and the rest of the authorities?

Dr. Orly,

This may be old news for you, but I read somewhere that somebody researched Rahm Emmanuel's house and the property taxes related and found his address was listed as a charity, and it turned out that he and his wife turned their home into a nonprofit foundation and they therefore did not have to pay property taxes. I guess their way of
spreading the wealth.

Annual tax records on Obama and Emmanuel might show a lot....if not sealed, of course. Blagovich might be doing something similar with his house.

Wonder if a "Lant Trust" for a historic home pays taxes.

Oh, I also read that Blagovich's wife was a realtor, and was involved in Obama's house....that is not a verified fact, of course, but worth seeing who the realtor was.

God bless,


Thursday, January 1, 2009

More Help in Research is Needed

If you remember a convicted felon Tony Rezko has helped Obama to purchase his house. A deal was made, whereby the house was bought in 2 pieces: Obamas bought the house for 1.6 million or 300k below the asking price and Rezkos bought the backyard as a separate lot for a fee that was much higher then the going rate. Their defense was that somebody else put an offer on the house for less, and Obama's price was the best and, what is more interesting, is that somebody else put an offer on the lot equal to Rezkos, meaning they couldn't buy the lot for less, therefor it wasn't really a bribe to the government official, it was a good real estate deal. This last fact got me thinking. A few years ago I passed the state boards and got a real estate brokers license. I didn't have time to deal with it lately, but I remembered reading at the time about stealth offers.

Can anybody, particularly our friends in Chicago or people dealing with Real Estate currently, check who made those back up offers. Were those real offers from people that were actively looking for properties of this type and actually bought such properties, or were those stealth offers, coming from some of Obama's or Rezko's associates or relatives and were done just to cover somebody's back. I remember that an appraiser from the bank recently sued the bank because he has written a statement that the values of the properties in question were wrong and he was abruptly fired. Can anybody get in touch with this appraiser and his lawyer?


Remove Incumbents

Please Watch This Video and Forward to Everybody

Thursday, January 1, 2009 10:49 AM
From: "Carole Richard" Add sender to Contacts

Another Possible Indictment of Obama and His Team-Norman Hsu Campaign

President-elect's name may emerge in Norman Hsu fraud trial December 31--As if being linked to one high-profile criminal case weren't enough, President-elect Barack Obama's name may soon pop up in another federal prosecution, this one involving a massive Ponzi scheme (no, the other massive Ponzi scheme). In addition to the Rod Blagojevich pay-for-play probe, Obama could figure in the upcoming fraud trial of Norman Hsu, the disgraced Democratic fundraiser who was charged last year with operating a $60 million pyramid scheme.

According to investigators, Hsu, a major Hillary Clinton fundraiser, pressured investors to donate money to political candidates with whom he was aligned. In a letter last week to U.S. District Court Judge Victor Marrero, Hsu's lawyer, Martin Cohen, requested a 60-day delay in the start of Hsu's trial, scheduled to open January 12 (Cohen cited the "extraordinary level of negative publicity" generated by the recent arrest of alleged Ponzi schemer Bernard Madoff). In his December 22 letter, a copy of which you'll find below, Cohen also noted that Hsu was already "notorious for his political activities" and that it was "inevitable" that his client's "connections" to Bill and Hillary Clinton "and other democratic notables--including perhaps the president-elect--will be introduced at trial." Before becoming a key fundraiser for Hillary Clinton's presidential bid, Hsu co-hosted a 2005 California fundraiser for Obama's political action committee and introduced the Illinois Democrat to Marc Gorenberg, a Silicon Valley venture capitalist who later joined the Obama campaign's national finance committee. Prosecutors allege that Hsu directed his investors to donate money to specific candidates, and then reimbursed them in violation of federal campaign laws. Un-swayed by Cohen's argument, Marrero declined to delay the trial, which will begin a week before Obama's inauguration.

(6 pages) (Click on LINK above to see the Letter)

Patrick Fitzgerald Extends Investigation for Two More Months

It was reported yesterday that Patrick Fitzgerald, US attorney for the Northern District of Illinois has extended his investigation of Blagoevich and delayed indictments for 2 more months (90 days
instead of the usual 30 days) and what is more encouraging, is that Blag's attorney is not objecting. Fitzgerald has stated that he received a large amount of information from witnesses that need to be processed, and he needs more time. I believe that this is great news. I've seen some Obots reporting that this means that the deal was made and no indictments are coming against Blag and Obama, that Obama is being protected. I believe, to the contrary, it shows an active, comprehensive investigation that will include a number of members of BO's team and it will end with indictments of a number of people, including BO himself.

Let's look historically. Fitzgerald indicted Rezko. Rezko. was convicted, however, now Rezko is in solitary confinement awaiting sentencing. Sentencing was delayed and Rezko's attorney is not objecting. Why would a person agree to have his sentencing delayed? Maybe a deal was made to cut his time in exchange for singing. By all accounts, Rezko is singing. Who did he and Iraqi businessman Auchi support? Blag and Obama.

Now let's look at Blag. Why isn't his attorney objecting to 60 day extension? The only reasonable explanation is that the deal was made, that if he cooperates and sings about BO and his team, US
attorney's office will go easy on him. Obama's thugs are simply trying to discourage you. Just like a day before the election they came up with this manufactured decision of the Virginia judge, saying that BO's BC is genuine and legal actions about the BC are genuine. You didn't listen to BO's garbage then and filed 31 legal actions all over the country demanding answers and more yet to come.

You should not believe BO's thugs that are saying that Patrick Fitzgerald is on the take like everybody else and nothing will come out of this investigation. No, not everybody is crooked in this country. There are still some decent people in law enforcement and judiciary. Patrick Fitzgerald has asked the public for information and by god you should supply it to him. He would not be going on TV and asking for the help from the public, if he was on the take and was
looking to bury this investigation.

Hundreds of people have reported to me that they mailed and faxed and called Patrick Fitzgerald's office and provided information. A Lieutenant Colonel from Florida has sent a 60 page report to Fitzgerald and hand delivered a copy to the FBI headquarters in Pensacola, Florida. This Lieutenant Colonel should call periodically and check on the progress and handling of this report. Real patriots of this country have submitted info to the US attorney, FBI, Attorney General offices, congressmen, Senators, President Bush. The areas of investigation and possible indictments have extended to dozens of areas. Please, make sure you download on the hard drive and make paper copies of all info gathered on Internet. A number of people have reported to me that material damaging to BO and his thugs are scrubbing the material from the internet.

One thing I know, they can scrub all they want. They are dealing with 320 million decent American citizens. There is an enormous power in this number. 260 million did not vote for Obama. The 60 million that voted for him didn't have information that is being brought to the open now, and many are saying that if they had all of this information, they would not have been voting for Obama and would have been voting for another Democrat, like Hillary or for McCain.

Keep working hard, it is just a matter of time until these people are indicted and convicted. Let's hope that indictments come before January 20th. If not, keep in mind that it took some time to uncover Watergate, but it was uncovered in the end. The end to this nightmare called Obamagate is coming. Just be patient and keep your eyes on the prize.