Obama’s Birth Certificate A Forgery

That’s according to document expert “Techdude,” posting at Atlas Shrugs.

Advertisements

18 responses to “Obama’s Birth Certificate A Forgery

  1. So…why does Barack have a forged birth certificate? Tsk tsk…

  2. Okay, I found a possible motive for having a forged birth certificate. The Constitution states that a President must be a natural-born citizen of the United States. Interestingly enough, if either Obama or McCain won he would be the first president to not be born in the mainland US.

  3. What exactly is the story about BHO Birth Certifacate. Is he a legitamate citizen eligable to be president? Is Hillary Clinton talking to Super Delegates about this in hopes of getting the nomination during roll call at the DNC Convention? Why dont they talk about this on Fox? I am all in favor of doing what ever we can to discredtit Obama.

  4. It’s possible that Fox didn’t know that BHO’s Birth Certificate could have been forged. If Techdude is right, we will have to wonder if he was really born in the United States, just like you said, Ken.

  5. The reason I question the birth certificate posted on the kos site is that it uses the terms “Caucasian” and “African” to refer to the races of Obama’s parents. Wouldn’t the terms in 1961 have been “white” and “Negro”? Can we find some other Hawaiian birth certificates from 1961 that would confirm that?

  6. I am definitely in sync with the authors of this Blog. I have written a 60-odd page treatise on my belief that Obama may well be the Manchurian Candidate. He is admittedly anti-Israel, and I think pro-Iran, and also pro the Muslim and Islamic world who I believe are pulling his chain.
    I’m afraid my treatise is too long to copy into this Comment space, but I wish you could read it. I think I have nailed him (at least I have convinced myself).
    I have tabulated everything that a Manchurian candidate would do if the radical Middle East were pulling his chain, and he fits every one of them.
    As just one example, he says he is adamantly opposed to our missile defense system, and wants to de-fund it entirely; just at the time that we believe that Iran is planning such an attack and has done tests in the Caspian Sea that are consistent with such a plan. What more could Iran want of its Manchurian candidate? I have a dozen others in my treatise.
    Good Luck Israel, I will be supporting you all the way.

  7. PapaJack, do you have a blog where you post your findings? It’s very easy to set one up on Blogger or WordPress.com. Why don’t you start one, and I’ll link to you.

  8. To Jtfdotorg: I don’t have a blog. I tried that and was not able to perfect it like I wanted to. Furthermore I found that to do it right would take far too much of my time anyway.
    Another thought: This blog has my new email address and dutifully protects its privacy for me which I appreciate. Before I changed it I was getting over 100 a day, now I am down to about a dozen. If this blog would email me I could reply with my treatise, which is on Word, as an attachment.
    Since my previous email I have read Techdude and I am convinced that he did what he said. I added his explanation at the end of my treatise. If I can get it to this blog, be aware that I cut some of what I thought was surplusage in order to shorten it. For instance, he goes to great lengths to guide others through the steps of doing at home what he did in his lab. I shortened that to simply show what he did and how he did it. I could follow him fairly well but could not duplicate it in a hundred years. He knew what to look for at every step and what to then do — I would not.
    What we need to do is persuade Congress to call for a hearing on this important matter and call Techdude as the primary witness.
    That should make things even more interesting.
    GOOD LUCK, BE HAPPY, STAY WELL, PAPAJACK

  9. To Jtfdotorg: I will try copying portions of my treatise into these comments, one at a time. It will take time, and will be a bit disjointed but I will try that:
    FIRST:
    As Democrats and Independents weigh who they will support and vote for this Fall for President, they should ask themselves these questions:
    Can you support a candidate who is friends with terrorist? Can you support a candidate who accepts monetary campaign contributions from terrorists? If not, then if Obama is your man you have some problems right there.
    But that is not the end of story. What if he is the Manchurian Candidate backed by the radical and extremist Muslim / Islamist movement which promotes terrorism and whose sole purpose in life is to destroy this country and the rest of the Western world?
    If you do not think he is that, then what if his every move is a move that a Manchurian Candidate backed by the radical Middle East Muslims and Islamists would make in their best interest? Would that change your mind? If not, could you really afford to chance being wrong? I.e., can you really CHANCE putting someone in office whose purpose MIGHT be to bring down this country for and on behalf of those radical extremists and terrorists?
    NEXT I WILL IDENTIFY THE TERRORISTS THAT HE IS FRIENDLY WITH
    AND WHO HAVE NOT ONLY SUPPORTED HIS CAMPAIGNS BY FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS, BUT THEY HAVE BEEN VERY INSTRUMENTAL IN HIS RISE POLITICALLY. THEN I WILL TRY TO TABLULATE ONE BY ONE THE THINGS THAT HE DOES THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE THINGS THAT A MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE, BACKED BY THE RADICAL EXTREMIST TERRORISTS OF THE MIDDLE EAST, WOULD DO.

  10. Bloomberg News has dropped this bombshell: Obama could face questions about his relationship with William Ayers, an admitted American terrorist who has admitted to being a former member of the radical group, the Weather Underground and to participating in their bombings in this country of the Pentagon and other Federal Buildings in the early 1970’s. He has admitted this to the New York Times (see below). Ayers has contributed to Obama’s campaigns a small amount, but nevertheless a supporting donation indicating a connection between the two).
    He and Obama also served together, from 1999 to 2002, on the board of the ultra liberal Woods Fund. Did Obama and Ayers do more than simply sit side-by-side? Did they steer money to favored groups as has been suggested? Those are questions that journalists not bowing at the feet of the Obama god need to ask.
    In 2001, while serving in a paid position as director for said Woods Fund, that organization issued a grant to the Arab American Action Network, a group that has ties to various elements of the Muslim / Islamic world, including the PLO. Perhaps the first indication of Obama’s known leanings in favor of Palestine and against Israel.
    As noted above, the Weather Underground carried out a series of terrorist bombings in this Country in the early 1970s — the subjects of these bombings included the U.S. Capitol and the Pentagon. While Ayers was never prosecuted for those attacks, due to a stupid goof-up in the early stages of the investigation, Ayers told the New York Times in an interview published Sept. 11, 2001, that “I don’t regret setting bombs. I only wish I could have done more.”
    Remember, this is a friend of Obama’s.

  11. To Summarize the facts which are quite clear:
    1.William Ayers conducted terrorist attacks inside the United States and against the U.S. Government. He admits conducting these terrorist attacks and that makes him a terrorist. Enough said.
    2.Barack Obama has had a long standing relationship with Ayers after being quite knowledgeable of his terrorist acts.
    3.Barack and Ayers served together on the Wood Fund. It is said, but has not yet been confirmed, that together they steered money to an individual who was then under Federal indictment. If that is true, then Obama’s “qualification” (if any) for being President gets a real kick in the teeth.
    4.William Ayers made financial contributions to Obama’s campaigns(small but you can’t be just a little bit pregnant). This will, or should be used by Republicans against Obama in the Fall campaign. How do you explain to Joe or Jane America that Ayers, an admitted terrorist who has described U.S. Marines as terrorists not only gave you money but was also instrumenntal in your fast rise politically, and also helped raise money for your campaigns? Americans will surely not shrug this off and say “No big deal.”
    Surely the Republicans will create a TV ad to be aired this Fall and that opens with dead Marines in Vietnam and Beirut, fade to William Ayers calling them terrorists, fade to Obama and Ayers as friends on the same board of directors, show that it is said that they conspired together to steer money to an individual then under indictment, then fade to Ayers as a contributor to and fund raiser for Obama.
    MORE TO FOLLOW IF BLOG READERS ARE INTERESTED.

  12. Obama is friends with the terrorist, William Ayers, and with Bernardine Dohrn, another of the Weather Underground terrorists of the 1960’s.
    XxxxxTHE ALICE PALMER MEETINGxxxxx
    In 1995, Illinois State Senator Alice Palmer introduced her chosen successor, Barack Obama, to a few of the district’s influential liberals at the home of two well known figures on the local left: William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, the Weather Underground terrorists of the 1960’s.
    Of this meeting, Dr. Quentin Young, a prominent Chicago physician, said: I can remember being one of a small group of people who came to Bill Ayers house to learn that Alice Palmer was stepping down from the Illinois Senate and running for Congress, and that Palmer identified Obama as her successor. Obama and Palmer were both there, he said.
    XxxxxTHE ALICE PALMER MEETINGxxxxx
    Dr. Young and another guest, Maria Warren, described it similarly: as an introduction to Hyde Park liberals of the handpicked successor to Palmer, a well-regarded figure on the left.
    “When I first met Barack Obama, he was giving a standard, innocuous little talk in the living room of those two legends-in-their-own-minds, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn,” Warren wrote in 2005. “They were launching him — introducing him to the Hyde Park community as the best thing since sliced bread.”
    ==============
    Obama’s connections to Ayers and Dorhn have been noted in some fleeting news coverage in the past. But the visit by Obama to their home as part of a campaign courtship reflects more extensive interaction than had been previously reported.
    As noted above, Ayers and Dorhn are extremist radicals and terrorists from the 1960’s anti-war terrorist group the Weather Underground, and they are unrepentant in the bombings they were a part of. They disappeared in 1970 after a bomb designed to kill army officers in New Jersey accidentally destroyed a Greenwich Village townhouse. They turned themselves over to authorities in 1980. While the Weather Underground claimed 25 bombings, these characters were never prosecuted. Charges were dropped due to improper FBI surveillance.
    Even today they remain proud of their violent past. As noted above, Ayers told the New York Times in 2001: “I don’t regret setting bombs; I feel we didn’t do enough.”
    Obama does some nice double talk trying to show a condemnation of the actions of the Weather Underground, however he remains good friends with Ayers and Dorhn who remain unrepentant for their actions. And note that they helped launch his political career.
    There were other relationships between Ayers and Obama over the years. It is a fact that Ayers, Dohrn, and Obama have appeared together at a number of gatherings and academic events. In November 1997, Ayers and Obama participated in a panel at the University of Chicago entitled “Should a child ever be called a super predator?” It was a debate on the merits of the juvenile justice system. In April 2002, Ayers, Dohrn, and Obama, by then an Illinois State Senator, participated together at a conference entitled “Intellectuals: Who Needs Them?” sponsored by The Center for Public Intellectuals and the University of Illinois-Chicago. Ayers and Obama were two of the six members of the Intellectuals in Times of Crisis panel.
    LET ME KNOW IF YOU WANT ME TO CONTINUE; I WILL QUIT UNLESS YOU WANT MORE.

  13. PapaJack, why don’t you sign up on our forum, and post this stuff, and include links to where you found your information? It will be easier to read that way, as opposed to posting long comments.

    Thanks.

  14. Re: JTF… comment 13
    All of my information was researched on Google — searching “Obama the Manchurian Candidate” then checking out what came up and the links that they referred me to. I have been at this about six months now. I was surprised that so many people had come up with the same thought that I did. I did not get my idea from anywhere but me, and THEN I found that lots of others thought the same thing.
    As I said in my last email to you, what I post will be easily readable if you copy it into a Word program, the set the Font to Times New Roman, size 14, Bold.

  15. In my next comment, I am going to try sending the condensed but lenthy remainder of the facts leading me to conclude that Obama may well be the Manchurian Candidate, then I will be through. Hope it is interesting to you and not too long, though it is very long.

  16. William Ayers is also linked to bombings of the Harry S. Truman Building, home of the United States Department of State, along with a series of courthouses, jails, banks, and prison administrative offices. He, along with other members of the Weather Underground, turned themselves in to the police after a series of official acts of misconduct on behalf of law enforcement officials ensured that they could never be brought to trial for their activities.
    Dohrn, however, was jailed for less than a year for refusing to testify before a grand jury investigating other Weather Underground members’ robbery of a Brinks truck, in which a guard and two New York State Troopers were killed.
    Obama’s church (for at least 20 years) published a very pro-Hamas newsletter, and the church has ties to the Nation of Islam. The church’s pastor, Jeremiah Wright was an avowed fan of Louis Farrakhan and Libya’s Kaddafi, who he made a special trip to meet with.
    When Obama said publicly that he’d meet with leaders of rogue terrorist nations like Iran, you probably figured he was just really naive. However, after reading this treatise, you may have to wonder if perhaps Obama thought it would just be fun to hang out with his future pals like that,
    As would be expected, Obama’s campaign tries unrealistically to dismiss the notion that his relationship with Ayers should be seen through the lens of the latter’s violent past, or his present lack of regret for the bombings.
    Another ridiculous Obama position: “Sen. Obama strongly condemns the violent actions of the Weathermen group, as he does all acts of violence,” said Obama’s press secretary,
    Bill Burton “But he was an 8-year-old child when Ayers and the Weathermen were active, and any attempt to connect Obama with events of almost 40 years ago is ridiculous.
    The really ridiculous thing here is that last statement. No-one is trying to “connect” Obama with those events; instead, what we do charge him with is the fact that once he became a grown man and with full knowledge of the facts of the past, he nevertheless found it OK to be friends with two known terrorists, who probably would do it again if they thought they could get by with it, having said that they do not regret what they did and wish they could have done more (good translation being “we would like to do so again if we could get by with it).

    Obama’s anti-Israel friends:

    Ali Abunimah is a well-known Chicago-based activist for Palestinian causes. He has a harshly anti-Israel attitude. He has also written that he has met Obama about half a dozen times at various Palestinian and Arab-American events, including a May 1998 community fundraiser at which the late Edward Said was the keynote speaker (there is a photo of Said with Senator Obama and his wife).
    Edward Said was a severe critic of Israel. He developed a school of study about the Middle East based on denunciation of so-called “Orientalism” that has influenced many Middle Eastern professors to take an anti-Israel view. The entire field of Middle Eastern studies has been so corrupted that Congress has raised an alarm about federal funding going to professors with an anti-American, anti-Israel agenda. These are the ideological heirs of Edward Said.
    Abunimah recently wrote an article critical of Obama’s very recent and somewhat lukewarm outreach to the Israel’s supporters. He wrote that years ago Obama had been forthright in his criticism of American foreign policy and had called for an even-handed approach to the Palestinian-Israel conflict. But Abunimah wrote that he detected a change as Obama began his Senate run. He met with Obama at an event that occurred in the midst of the Senator’s primary campaign for Senate. Abunimah writes that Obama said to him:
    “Hey, I’m sorry I haven’t said more about Palestine
    right now, but we are in a tough primary race.
    I’m hoping when things calm down I can be more up front”
    THINK OBAMA IS NOT TWO FACED THEN READ THE ABOVE AGAIN!

    Concerning columns, critical of Israeli and U.S. policies, being then published in the Chicago Tribune, Obama wrote to the author (according to the author): “Keep up the good work!”
    ANY DOUBT IN YOUR MIND ABOUT WHERE OBAMA’S LOYALTY LIES? THEN READ THE NEXT ABOVE PARAGRAPH AGAIN!!

    ===================
    Most Congressmen have a solid legislative voting record as to bills considered important to the American-Israel relationship. After all, most Americans have a very favorable view towards Israel. Obama’s record on these votes leaves a lot to be desired for those who support this Country’s relationship with Israel.
    As many have commented, including Democrats Martin Peretz and Lanny Davis, it is the radically extreme left wing of the Democrat Party, with which Obama is allied, that has been increasingly corrupted by anti-Israel and anti-Semitic activists (apparently including Obama).
    =======================
    To go back a bit in search of what Obama’s views really are in general, what about his record as a State Senator? His views as shown by his voting record as State Senator are quiet troublesome to say the least. He took a very decidedly soft approach to bills dealing with drug control, and with gang and gun control issues.
    A man who takes a soft approach towards crime and criminals, which he has done, and condones and is friends with known terrorists, should give all of us qualms as to how he would deal with those who commit terrorist and other criminal acts. Especially those who would try to justify their terrorist or criminal acts as acts of “liberation.”
    ====================
    He gave an interview prior to the U.S. Senate primary election (which the Chicago Jewish News published in March 2004). When asked in that interview about the Israeli security fence, Obama replied:
    “The creation of a wall dividing the two nations is yet
    another example of the neglect of this Administration
    in brokering peace.”

    First, there is a security fence, not a wall. There is a very short wall in a very small part of the entire length of the fence.
    He totally ignored the fact that the security fence has been a life saving success. I.e., the security fence has saved the lives of many innocent Israelis, and terror attacks against Israelis have plummeted. After suffering waves of suicide bombings at the hands of the Palestinians, and losing more than 900 people and suffering thousands of casualties, Israel learned that indeed
    “fences can make good neighbors.”

    In his defense of Palestine, Senator Obama completely ignores the tremendous toll that the endless wave of Palestinian terror has had on the Israeli people (men, women and children) who had to suffer it.
    Furthermore, this is not a fence or a wall “dividing two nations”; there is no Palestinian nation, and never has been.
    =====================
    Ben Shapiro of The Conservative Voice observed something else rather disturbing and indicative of Obama’s fundamental attitude toward the handling of terrorists:

    In his foreword to “Dreams From My Father,” Obama writes: “I know, I have seen the desperation and disorder of the powerless: how it twists the lives of children on the streets of Jakarta or Nairobi — how easily they slip into violence and despair.
    “I know that the response of the powerful to this disorder alternating as it does between a dull complacency and,when the disorder spills out of its proscribed confines,a steady, unthinking application of force, of more sophisticated military hardware, is inadequate to the task.”

    This drivel is the theory of appeasement, stated clearly and succinctly. I.e., don’t fight the poor terrorists, just talk to them and make them happy and they will be good boys. Just exactly what he proposes in his reaching out to talk to the rogue terrorist nations today.

    BY THE WAY, “DREAMS FROM MY FATHER??” HE COULD NEVER REALLY HAVE KNOWN HIS FATHER WHO DIVORCED HIS MOTHER AND WENT BACK TO AFRICA WHEN OBAMA WAS BUT TWO YEARS OLD. ANOTHER PIECE OF EVIDENCE OF OBAMA BEING A PURE PHONY.

    One other aspect of Obama’s supporters that is cause for some discomfort as to his true feeling about Israel is the fact that he has the seal of approval from Jimmy Carter and billionaire George Soros. Both of whom are influential and powerful people who take an unseemly glee in trying to undermine the American-Israel alliance and relationship.

    We should also be concerned that Congressman Neil Abercrombie, who has one of the worst anti-Israel records in Congress, even to the extent of refusing to support Israel’s efforts to defend itself from Hezbollah, was close friends with Obama’s father and has been a lifelong friend and supporter of Obama!

    Should Obama be judged by the company he keeps? I say YES when he constantly surrounds himself with friends that are terrorists, anti-American, anti-Israel, and anti everything else that true and loyal Americans stand for. It is also significant that those people not only contribute to his campaigns, but have also been instrumental in his fastpaced rise politically.

    The beginning of the Manchurian Candidate facts and conclusions:
    On October 2, 2002, Obama gave a speech categorically opposing an invasion of Iraq.
    Note that at that time he was in the Illinois State Senate. How unusual that a State Senator would take that kind of stance with respect to a matter resting solely with President Bush and the U.S. Congress, and why would he take such a position as a State Senator if the FOLLOWING were not true?
    He was not yet their Manchurian Candidate but he was then and still is supportive of the Rogue Nations of the Middle East, and they recognized that and found that they could pull his strings to their advantage. That is when they thus first began to recognize him as a potential Manchurian Candidate that they could control, and thus the beginning of that movement.
    They were no doubt the authors of the following statement by him, designed to stop our invasion of Iraq which was clearly in our best interest, but not in the best interest of the rogue Muslim and Islamist regimes from which the message obviously came to Obama, and told him what position to take, which was against the war, and which he dutifully did. It was not successful but solidified his relationship with those Rogue Middle East Nations, and there is where it all started.
    Obama thus announced the following, apparently dictated by those Middle East Rogue Nations that were pulling his strings now:
    “I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.
    “I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

    “So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.
    That did not work. We did attack Iraq, and successfully, capturing Saddam.
    “But on April 5, 2004, Barack Obama significantly altered his position on Iraq. A YouTube video of Obama shows the incredulity on the interviewer’s face as Obama unexpectedly sounded almost like President Bush on the subject of retaining troops in Iraq.”
    Interviewer: “But you said that troops should be withdrawn.”
    Obama: “No, no. I’ve never said that troops should be withdrawn (another blatant lie). What I’ve said is that we’ve got to make sure that we secure and execute the rebuilding and reconstruction process effectively and properly and I don’t think we should have an artificial deadline when to do that (another blatant lie). What’s important is that we have a long-term plan in process and short-term security strategy.”
    Why did those terrorist nations who were pulling his chain send him this message to reverse position? Simple. By that time we were suffering large losses and things did not look all that good. Therefore, the Rogues thought they had us whipped and were looking forward to the slaughter. In fact, it so happens that April 2004 was the bloodiest month in the Iraq campaign up until that time and the Sunni insurgency and Moqtada al-Sadr’s uprising was beginning. On March 31, 2004, Iraqi insurgents in Fallujah ambushed a Blackwater convoy and hung the mutilated bodies of the Americans on the bridge. But just as Japan had done half a century earlier, they underestimated the resolve of this country and our troops, and we have now turned the tide to the point that they are now on the run and we are whipping their behinds, and will continue to do so until we have destroyed all of them that are foolish enough to show themselves.
    AND THIS EXPLAINS HIS CURRENT REVERSAL AGAIN, GETTING BACK TO THE WITHDRAWAL OF TROOPS; I.E., WE ARE NOW WHIPPING THEIR BUTTS AND THEY NOW WANT US GONE TO STOP OUR SLAUHTER OF THEM, AND SO THEY CAN THEN TAKE OVER IRAQ FOR THEIR OWN PURPOSES.
    Obama’s change of tune in 2004 was so noticeable that Howard Kurtz couldn’t help but notice how strikingly different the Illinois senator’s position was in mid-2004.
    Obama was quoted as saying: “There’s not that much difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who’s in a position to execute.”
    That was truly a strange statement considering that he was still in the Illinois Senate and certainly in no position to execute anything concerning the War in Iraq. That is, unless he was unwittingly letting the cat out of the bag in that he could execute things by and through those terrorist nations that were pulling his chain. What in the world else could he possibly have meant by suggesting that he was in position to execute, but Bush was not,and he was still but a State Senator?
    Meantime, a blog following the trial of the Chicago political operative and Obama’s close friend and contributor Tony Rezko, remembered that something else significant took place in April 2004. That is, Obama was at a Tony Rezko party in Chicago on April 3 (two days before he made the above strange statement concerning his power to execute) with Nadhmi Auchi, a London-based Iraqi billionaire who was also at that Tony Rezko party.
    The Chicago Tribune covered Obama’s recollection of the party in depth, saying: “Late last week, Senator Barack Obama said he didn’t recall meeting a controversial Iraqi-born billionaire at a party held at the home of his former friend and fundraiser, Antoin “Tony” Rezko, on April 3, 2004, because it was in the midst of his campaign for the U.S. Senate seat from Illinois.
    But an examination of the Senator’s calendar showed that he had no campaign activities on the day of the party.
    The Chicago Sun-Times slso reported that despite Obama’s inability to recall meeting Mr. Auchi, two sources said the Senator was present at the party.
    The meeting with Auchi takes on a special significance and suspicion in light of later revelations that Rezko planned to build a $150 million Chamchamal Power Plant in Kurdish Iraq despite the fact he had no resources to do it with.
    According to John Batchelor, the fact that Rezko, Obama’s friend and supporter, was in strained financial circumstances at the time he was bidding for the project, came up during the discovery proceedings at his then recent trial:
    January 16, 2007, ex parte proceedings before Federal District Judge Amy J. St. Eve, in the case of the United States v. Antoin Rezko, in the discovery of Mr. Rezko’s resources in order to set his bail awaiting trial. The judge asked about Mr. Rezko’s creation, Rezmar International LLC.

    Mr. Rezko answered, “Rezmar International entered into a contract with the Ministry of Electricity in — of — Iraq, to build a power plant and sell power to the government. And we were negotiating for over, now, I guess, two years.” Mr. Rezko added that the deal, for the never-built, $150 million Chamchamal power plant in Kurdistan Region, Iraq, was finally canceled November 6 or 7, 2006.
    When the judge pressed for details Mr. Joseph Duffy, of Stetler & Duffy, spoke for his client, “there was a request for purchase by the Iraqi government. Mr. Rezko and an engineering firm here in the state of Illinois put together a bid, along with other entities; and they won the bid for the contract. The company had no assets. They were just going to — if the contract was given, as I understand it, the financing was going to be a letter of credit from the Iraqi government and other financing; and then they were going to put together someone to build and supply the electricity.”
    QUESTION HERE: WHO HAD ENOUGH INFLUENCE OVER IRAQ TO GET THAT LETTER OF CREDIT? WAS IT OBAMA? AT THIS POINT I DON’T KNOW. THE “OTHER FINANCING” WAS APPARENTLY TO COME FROM NAHDMI AUCHI A KNOWN ASSOCIATE OF OBAMA. WAS OBAMA’S PART IN THIS GAME TO INFLUENCE AUCHI TO PROVIDE THE OTHER FINANCING FOR REZKO? THAT DOESN’T MAKE MUCH SENSE BECAUSE THE CONNECTION BETWEEN REZKO AND AUCHI WAS APPARENTLY CLOSER THAN THAT BETWEEN AUCHI AND OBAMA. THERE IS HOWEVER APPARENTLY SOME OBAMA CONNECTION HERE AS DISCLOSED BY THE MEETING BETWEEN AUCHI AND EMIL JONES, THE PRESIDENT OF THE ILLINOIS STATE SENATE, AN ALLY OF MR. OBAMA. TO SAY THE LEAST OBAMA IS AT LEAST ENTWINED IN THIS CRAP.

    AND THIS IS ALL I HAVE ON THIS SUBJECT.

    THERE IS HOWEVER ANOTHER SUBJECT THAT IS GETTING HOTTER AND HOTTER FOR OBAMA, AND THAT IS WHETHER HE WAS REALLY BORN IN HAWAII AS HE CLAIMS, AND IF NOT IS HE QUALIFIED TO BE PRESIDENT. AN EXPERT IN THE FIELD HAS EXAMINED THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE THAT HAS BEEN POSTED ON OBAMA’S WEBSITE, AND OTHER OBAMA SYMPATHETIC WEBSITES, IS A FORGERY.
    MORE ON THAT IS SURELY TO COME.

    THE END. WHAT DO YOU THINK??

  17. I did not intend to dominate this Blog with these long comments, but some have requested to see what I have and there it is.

    I will now fade out and listen for your comments, if any.

    This is important, so thanks for your interest and attention. Goodbye. PapaJack

  18. anybody interested?

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

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