What’s Wrong with Our President?

When Barack Hussein Obama was Democrat Party presidential nominee in the 2008 national election, he presented himself to the American public as a sort of New Messiah of “Hope and Change,” the new god of “Yes We Can!” (whatever these vaporous, vacuous statements could actually mean).

He probably garnered the vote of every passionate ignoramus in the land. Moreover, there was evidence of irregularities in polling procedures in certain jurisdictions. Few people bother to investigate such matters these days, and certainly not the Dept. of Justice. In the end, with the help of union and left-progressive interest money and the ever-enabling (for left-progressive causes) MSM, Barack Obama/Barry Soetoro managed to get himself elected to the Office of the President of the United States.

Now, after much economic and institutional turmoil and destruction — largely orchestrated by himself and his Administration — Obama’s message seems to have gone 180-degrees the other way. Now the motivating mantra is: “Shared Sacrifice.”

This is an interesting shift, to say the least. What is truly amazing is that the disciples of Obama didn’t miss a beat. They go wherever he points without complaint, let alone thought or reflection.

As for the rest of us, we are left in a quandary: “Hopey-Change” to “Shared Sacrifice” is a breathtaking shift in only two-and-a-half years.

Meanwhile, President Obama is running for office. Indeed, he has never stopped running for office. That seems to be all he ever does.

And meanwhile, our national interests and alliances, foreign and domestic, are going to hell in a handbasket. Objectively, realistically speaking.

So, who is this guy? Why does he always seem to do the “wrong thing” where American national interests — foreign and domestic — are at stake? How do we find out?

But that’s the problem: You can’t find out anything: All his public records, from whatever jurisdiction generated, are under court seal.

That means all we have to go on to get a sense of this person is what he chooses to tell us in his two books: Tales from My Father and The Audacity of Hope. The first is alleged to have been ghost written by Obama’s non-friend, former Weatherman bomber Bill Ayers. Where the second came from, I cannot say.

Of course, such material does not address much of anything of concern relating to Obama’s vital public history. Little things like —

I won’t belabor the point about the controversial lack of evidence regarding (1). To me, it doesn’t matter where Obama was born. If his father was not a citizen of the United States, either natural-born or naturalized, then Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the United States — one of the three constitutional qualifications for any elected occupant of the Office of President.

Donald Trump has tossed out a red herring: “Natural born” does not mean “native born.” A natural-born citizen is a person born to two American parents regardless of the geographical place of nativity. On this basis, clearly Obama is not the offspring of two American-citizen parents. Thus he is not a natural-born citizen of the United States.

Then again, if Obama should ever decide to “show proof” on this question (highly doubtful proposition there), maybe it would turn out that he is the natural child of Jimi Hendrix or some other bona-fide American citizen father, whatever. In which case he would be a natural-born citizen of the United States — assuming his mother, a minor at the time of his birth, would have opted for self-identification as a citizen of the United States and allegiance thereto upon attaining the age of majority (18).

But given her history, why should anybody suppose that Stanley Anne Dunham, who seemed to have had a passion for third-world radical “men of color,” would have given any such assent? What is on record is that she had the habit of marrying them: supposedly first the Kenyan (British subject), Obama senior; and then the Indonesian Lolo Soetoro The first sired him; the second adopted him. Or so the story goes. Basic questions of American nationality are raised here, but hardly answered.

Case in point: Indonesia does not recognize dual citizenship among its citizens. Which brings us to Obama’s college history.

There is circumstantial evidence that Obama enrolled at Occidental University in Washington State — under the name Barry Soetoro — as a foreign exchange student from Indonesia. Presumably, an entering Indonesian foreign-exchange student would have been required to produce a valid Indonesian passport somewhere along the enrollment process, especially in cases where a U.S.-taxpayer subsidy is involved, as seems likely to have been the case.

And it seems Obama/Soetoro had one: His Indonesian stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, legally adopted “Barry.” And instantly, that would have made the boy a citizen of Indonesia (a country that does not recognize dual citizenship).

Obama/Soetoro did not complete his degree program at Occidental. There are rumors — urban legends? — that he flunked out of school owing to drug addiction problems; and moreover was then engaging in an active gay lifestyle with a long-time companion who has now, many years hence, run into legal difficulties involving criminal law; which the press is largely not covering.

On the basis of the story Obama has released, he next turns up at Ivy League Columbia University as a “transfer student” majoring in International Relations, Class of 1982.

The funny thing is, however, not a single International Relations major in the Class of 1982 has yet been found who remembers seeing Obama around at that time — and surely, they must all have been taking classes together. How did they miss seeing this tall, skinny, half-and-half guy with big ears for over two years?

And then Obama goes on to Harvard Law School. Rumor has it he attended with Saudi financial aid. He is named editor of the prestigious Harvard Law Review — and yet during his tenure does not publish a single word under his own name. Very strange.

He received his law degree. Shortly after Obama’s departure from Harvard, the Saudi government made a multimillion-dollar bequest to Harvard University. Go figure.

Then he heads to Chicago, to become a community organizer/”activist” lawyer. He applies to the Illinois Bar as Barack Hussein Obama in order to receive his license to practice law. One of the questions asked is about whether the applicant/candidate has ever used or been known by any other name than the one stated on the Bar application. Obama seems to have recorded his answer as “No.”

If he did, that would certainly explain why he voluntarily resigned his law license in Illinois. As the theory goes, Obama had been notified of an investigation into the matter of whether he committed perjury in his Bar application; i.e., that he had not told the truth about using or being known by any former names. Rather than be subject to this investigation, he resigned from the Illinois Bar.

One last anecdotal story before closing, the matter of the Social Security number the President is now using. Investigators report that this particular number was issued to a resident of Connecticut — a state with which Obama has no known personal connection whatsoever — who, if still living, would be around 112 years old today. There is some evidence that this transaction was conducted from a U.S. Post Office Box — not a street address — in Connecticut.

There is also the suggestion that the Social Security number the President is now using is not the only Social Security number he has used in the past….

If these reports are true, then we would have to say the current Occupant of the Oval Office is not only ineligible to serve as President of the United States, but has committed criminal acts in the past — including perjury, identity theft, and mail fraud.

And we have entrusted him with the duties of the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the United States????

The problem is, the original records necessary to test and validate the evidence are now either under court seal, or have magically been erased through other means.

And I don’t mean just Obama’s personal records, but the personal records of his known associates, including his white grandparents, the Dunhams, as well.

Yet there he is still, every day, arrogantly, narcissistically confronting and offending us with brazen assaults on anything pertaining to the historic American idea of strictly limited government and individual Liberty under the protection of just and equal laws.

Methinks our ersatz-President is a crook and a thug, and should be given “the hook” as soon as possible.

“The hook” is an old vaudeville term for the sudden, complete removal of a performer on-stage whose act just entirely “stinks.”

With $5-a-gallon gas plus a legion of other miseries weighing us down — all in accord with deliberate policy of this Administration — may the booing begin and reach a tremendous crescendo soonest.

...excellent points (that keep getting made...but NOT answered).

I've noticed that too.

Perhaps people are just overwhelmed by the enormity of it all. I read the following today, in an article by JOHN F. GASKI posted yesterday at Investors Business Daily —

...The fact that [Obama] has been serving in that office would then be not only the most audacious hoax in world history — at least since the Trojan Horse. It also creates a constitutional crisis of the first magnitude that will take decades to straighten out.

A staggering prospect that perhaps people would prefer not to face; maybe it can be "rationalized" away.

Be sure that our nominal POTUS will be glad to help us do that. I.e., to explain away all problems so to persuade us to consent to live in the Happy-Hopey fairy tale of his new and improved human society. Which leads straight to a Third-World, Left progressive, post-Colonialist Never-Neverland.

And nobody seems to object, or only a few in public. Thus he keeps on going, just like the Energizer Bunny, taking a wrecking ball to American national interests foreign and domestic, and American national institutions, every day like clockwork.... And apparently with impunity.

In the face of all this, I think the American people are simply at a loss about what to do about the situation. So, people keep silent.

Thank you so much for your kind words of support, VirginiaMom!

More on this "windmill":

The thought occurred to me that the sources you advert to for reliable information on Freemasonry must have had sources themselves. And I suspect the sources in question have been drawn from the records of the brutal suppression of the Order of the Knights Templar by Philip IV of France in 1307 — in particular, the "testimonies," "evidence" elicited under conditions of horrific torture.... Which of course, were written down by the Dominicans conducting such witness "interrogations."

It is true that many contemporary Masons believe the history and fate of the Knights Templars is firmly within their tradition, which dates back to Hiram, architect of the Second Temple in Jerusalem, who was murdered by an underling....

Anyhoot, the Templars were the only religious order of their day that swore direct allegiance to the Pope. They had fought in the Crusades, and were said to have enriched themselves gloriously thereby. I do not know the truth of that allegation. What is known is the Order pioneered the modern international banking system: They issued loans, letters of credit, secure repositories for client deposits, etc.

Unfortunately, one of their biggest debtors at the turn of the 14th century was Philip the Fair of France: He was up to his eyeballs in debt to the Templars in order to finance his wars and his lavish lifestyle. He literally installed a Pope — Clement V — to help him "get rid of" these overbearing creditors; plus he lusted for the Templar wealth. When Clement — a real toady of a pope — failed to act, Philip did:

Philip had long coveted the wealth of the Knights Templar. In 1305, when his acquaintence, the Spanish mystic and evangelist to Muslims, Ramon Lull published his Liber de fine, he favored the proposal, contained in that text, for the combination of the Templars with the Hospitallers under the authority of a king, or of the son of a king. Philip saw himself in this role, which would give him control of the wealth of both orders. The same year, he applied for membership of the Templars but was refused. Although discussed, Lull's proposal did not attract enough support. Philip then adopted a different strategy and informed Clement that the Templars were guilty of all sorts of heretical beliefs and practices. When Clement did not move against the Order, he did so himself. On Friday, October 13, 1307, hundreds of Knights Templar in France were simultaneously arrested by his agents, to be later tortured into admitting heresy in the Order. (This is one of the reasons why Friday the 13th is seen as unlucky.) The Knights Templar were a 200-year-old military order, supposedly answerable only to the Pope. Philip accused them of defiling the crucifix by urinating on it, calling Jesus a false prophet, of sodomy, of worshipping a cat, as well as of practicing magic. Philip used his influence over Clement V, who was largely his pawn, to disband the order and remove its ecclesiastical status and protection in order to plunder it.
A modern historical view is that Philip seized the considerable Templar treasury and broke up the Templar monastic banking system. In 1314, he had the last Grand Master of the Templars, Jacques de Molay, burnt at the stake in Paris. According to legend, de Molay cursed both Philip and Clement V from the flames, saying that he would summon them before God's Tribunal within a year; as it turned out, both King and Pope died within the next year.

Just thought you might appreciate such details, dear brother in Christ!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.