Call Steve King’s office, today, and tell him that a newspaper ad is not sufficient proof of eligibility for a president of the United States. A thorough, honest and complete congressional investigation of his eligibility needs to be started now, not after the election! It is been four long years, already, and they still have not vetted him for eligibility for the office that he holds.
The president is NOT a king and he should provide complete access to documentation of his eligibility for office.
Click here to E-mail Congressman Steve King, if you live in his district.
The Real Roots of Obama’s Rage (Dinesh D’Souza 2016)
Dinesh D’Souza is right that Obama is an anti-colonialist as far as that goes. But it does not go very deeply into Obama’s motivations. Maybe that is necessary in order to reach the most people and sell the most books and movie tickets? There is an overall tendency to not dig too deeply into such topics, probably, because much of the public does not want to deal with the real Obama. It would scare the hell out of them and they would not want to look at it. So, maybe it has to be watered down a little to get the masses to pay a little attention.
In any case, if you are able to stand it, here’s the truth. Black Liberation Theology teaches that America is oppressing the rest of the world (non-white races) and must be destroyed to liberate the world. This can be called anti-colonialism, but the goal is not just to liberate the non-white nations, but to destroy America as we have known it along with white society and the traditional church. It would be absurd to assume that Obama does not know what the doctrine of his church is really about.
Black Liberation Theology was inspired by the doctrine of Nation of Islam, a black nationalist cult and it has a related doctrine. This old documentary produced by Mike Wallace in 1959 — before America became pathologically politically correct — explains what Black Nationalism really is. It shows the real roots of Obama’s rage. It is really “hate,” rather than “rage.”
Black Liberation Theology was formalized by James H. Cone nearly a decade after this documentary was made, but you can hear many aspects of it described in this documentary. Black Liberation Theology teaches that Jesus is black and is opposed to traditional Christianity. It holds, like other Black-Nationalist doctrines, that traditional Christianity was used as a tool to keep blacks in slavery and that it must be destroyed along with white society and America, as we know it, in order to liberate the non-white races and the world.
These religious ideas, on which Black Liberation Theology is based, have existed in certain segments of the black community in America and the Caribbean for 200 years and longer.
Obama Prototype – Ghanan Dictator Nkrumah Seen as Messiah
Kwame Nkrumah was also hailed as a Messiah, like Obama has been, as the article below shows. Nkrumah was the socialist dictator of Ghana, the first African county to win its independence (from the British) after WWII. He was influenced by American Black Nationalists/pan Africanists, W.E.B. Dubois and Marcus Garvey and met with Malcolm X in the 1960’s.
Messiah Nkrumah and the Church
Kwame Nkrumah: A Case Study of Religion and Politics in Ghana
He started a youth organization, the Young Pioneers, that some compared to the Nazi Hitler Youth. This idea of a black messiah, who is like a God, goes back a long way in the history of Black Nationalism in America as well as in Africa. It didn’t start with Obama. Ghana was one of the countries that Obama honored with a visit on his first trip abroad after his inauguration in 2009. There is an old belief that you need dictatorship in order to liberate blacks from American (Western) white oppression.
Click on the image to obtain a larger view.
Obama is a ‘Cultural Muslim’
Below is the definition of “cultural Muslim” given by the Wiki. The term means someone, who identifies with Islamic culture, but does not practice the religion. Obama had a father from an ethnically Muslim family, which he embraced in preference to his extended Christian family.
Jeremiah Wright declared that the God they worship at Trinity UCC (Yahweh) is the same as Allah. See this link for more info. Obama is also overly effusive in his public praise of Islam. For these reasons, it is correct to call Obama a “cultural Muslim” or “ethnic Muslim,” though he may not practice the religion. If you just put the word “cultural” in front of “Muslim,” it will be difficult to argue with that description. It just means he identifies culturally with Islam and is loyal to Islam. This is a rather obvious truth, indicated by his own public statements and his biographical book. It is not necessary to prove that Obama is secretly a Muslim. He has been quite open about his personal affection for Islam. He makes decisions, which puts Islamist (Muslim Brotherhood) interests above American interests. (see Egypt, Libya and Syria.)
However, that is not all he is and the perverse doctrine of his sect in Chicago also deserves to be examined. His supposedly “Christian” church in Chicago, does not have a traditional Christian doctrine, because it denies the unique divinity of Christ, as does Islam, which sees Christ as a prophet, not uniquely God.
Trinity church has a doctrine which did not require Obama to give up his personal Muslim identity. Black Liberation theology is not exclusionary as traditional Christianity is. Traditional Christians believe that Christianity is the only way to salvation. This is not the case with Black Liberation Theology and it is obvious that Obama has no love for the traditional Christian church.
Black Liberation Theology is an accretionary doctrine, which embraces features of many religions, but holds that traditional Christianity (and America) are the tools of the Antichrist. The Antichrist is equated to white society. It is similar to and was inspired by the doctrine of Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam, which is also not orthodox Islam, but a black cult doctrine that poses as Islam, just as Trinity church poses as Christianity.
From the Wiki on the term “cultural Muslim”
Cultural Muslims are religiously unobservant, secular or irreligious individuals who still identify with the Muslim culture due to family background, personal experiences, or the social and cultural environment in which they grew up.
The term is a political neologism paralleling the term “cultural Christian”.
Malise Ruthven (2000) discussed the terms “cultural Muslim” and “nominal Muslim” as follows:
There is, however, a secondary meaning to Muslim which may shade into the first. A Muslim is one born to a Muslim father who takes on his or her parents’ confessional identity without necessarily subscribing to the beliefs and practices associated with the faith, just as a Jew may describe him- or herself as Jewish without observing the Halacha. In non-Muslim societies, such Muslims may subscribe to, and be vested with, secular identities. The Muslims of Bosnia, descendants of Slavs who converted to Islam under Ottoman rule, are not always noted for attendance at prayer, abstention from alcohol, seclusion of women and other social practices associated with believing Muslims in other parts of the world. They were officially designated as Muslims by nationality to distinguish them from Orthodox Serbs and Catholic Croats under the former Yugoslav communist regime. The label Muslim indicates their ethnicity and group allegiance, but not necessarily their religious beliefs. In this limited context (which may apply to other Muslim minorities in Europe and Asia), there may be no contradiction between being Muslim and being atheist or agnostic, just as there are Jewish atheists and Jewish agnostics… It should be noted, however, that this secular definition of Muslim (sometimes the terms cultural Muslim or nominal Muslim are used) is very far from being uncontested.
Would Liberatarian, Gary Johnson, Change the Game?
Gary Johnson, former 2-term Governor of New Mexico, is expected to be on the ballot on all 50 states. He is fiscally conservative, pro-business and socially liberal, in favor of smaller government, upholding the Constitution, eliminating the IRS, withdrawing from the endless foreign wars and ending the war on drugs. Please vote your preference. He would probably draw voters about equally from both parties.
Obama Eligibility – The ‘Dogs’ that did not Bark
Let’s connect the dots on eligibility. In the Sherlock Holmes short story, “Silver Blaze,” by Sir Authur Conan Doyle, the critical clue is that the watch dog did not bark when a race horse is stolen.
Regarding Obama’s eligibility, about 300 Republican dogs are not barking. These dogs are not even making a whimper about it, even though the evidence is being paraded right before their eyes by people like Sheriff Arpaio and attorneys Van Iron and Larry Clayman. Many have been wondering why, absolutely astounded that the Congress refuses to recognize this issue, while Obama has an obviously dodgy birth certificate posted on the White House website, where anyone can verify the problems with it.
In 2008, the Senate had a hearing on the eligibility of John McCain, when the question of his eligibility seemed much less in question. It would have been very embarrassing for the Republicans, if the Democrats had made a big issue of McCain’s eligibility and we know that both parties have desired for years to make an end-run around the Constitution and very much broaden the eligibility requirements for the presidency without bothering with those pesky rules for amending the Constitution.
So, the circumstantial evidence leads one to assume that the congressional Democrats and Republicans made a crooked deal to bypass the Constitutional requirements for eligibility.
If the Democrats would endorse John McCain’s eligibility, the Republicans would ignore any questions about Obama’s eligibility. Both parties will ignore future such eligibility issues for potential candidates, like Republican fair-haired boy, Marco Rubio, and others.
Democrats & Republicans Owned by Same Elites
People need to understand that pretty much the same global financial elites control both parties and the reason nothing can be done about Obama’s corruption and trampling of the Constitution is that the Republican leadership is complicit.
The elites vote with their donations. The little people go to the polls and vote like zombies, pretty much for whichever candidate gets the most contributions from the global elites. Obama is openly having fundraisers in China and Europe now.
The Republicans do not want to do anything about it. They don’t need Harry Reed to investigate Obama in the House. This is likely also the reason that the courts will not do a legitimate investigation of anything that has to do with Obama’s eligibility.
The elites do not want Obama or other corrupt politicians to be severely punished or even embarrassed, because they are doing exactly what they want them to do. They like illegal immigration and the Constitution to be ignored. They want to concentrate power in Washington, D.C., because centralized power is easier to influence with money.
The two parties, with the cooperation of the media, lock out any third parties from being able to compete and spoil the game. Sure, the Democrats and Republicans still feel competitive with each other in elections, but it is like two Rugby teams of the same fraternity competing to win. It makes better theater. These parties are competing for the right to pillage and loot the country for another four years.
It does not have to be a conspiracy. The people with money recognize their common interests and act independently to support those who will help them reach their common goals.
If you think Romney is much different from Obama, you are very much deceiving yourself. Romney will, at best, represent a somewhat slower pace along the road to total control by the oligarchy.
The public is kept polarized, so that they will remain loyal to their respective parties. As long as people keep voting for whomever can raise the most money, this charade is going to continue.
Obama / Romney – Presidents Should not Want to be Gods
The Nazis and the Imperial Japanese, both had I-am-God cult religions that taught that the leader is God and the nation had a divine destiny to be transformed into an Utopia, according to their occult/pagan religious belief system. This is not a new idea, but goes back to the Babylonian and Egyptian mystery religions and even further. The Egyptian pharaohs were held to be the divine sons of God. The idea still exists more than you might think in cult religions and quasi-religious totalitarian political ideologies, today.
The religions of both Obama and Romney teach that man can become a “god” and the fate of the United States is fundamentally linked to their religious doctrines, which both have gnostic occult roots. In the case of Black Liberation Theology the destiny of traditional America is to be destroyed and transformed into an occult Utopia, ruled by the black race.
In Mormonism, America is supposed to become a Mormon theocracy. In both cases the transformation of America is prophesied to transform the world into an millennial kingdom on earth, which will be a real, physical, dictatorial, government lead by a human “messiah.”
It is just not a good idea, in principle, to accept this sort of occult religious idea for a president of the United States, the most powerful nation on earth with a nuclear arsenal that can obliterate the world several times over. Maybe for the president of a small powerless Third World country, say North Korea, it might not be so important, if he has a belief that he is a God.
Neither one of these men should be president, because they may well have a crackpot religious agenda, judging from their backgrounds. The office of the presidency should not be an equal opportunity position for new, home-grown religions, with a belief that leaders should be worshiped as gods.
If you vote for Romney, conservatives are just validating that kind of belief system. The Christianity-hating media wants you to do it and many politicians want you to do it. Two very good reasons to not go along with it. We should never have even let this type of thing get started by putting Obama in office. We certainly should not continue it with Romney.
In the last several decades, there has been a huge growth in occult religious movements the US. There are a lot of Republicans, as well, that have this kind of I-am-God religion and such people would like to see this type of thing made acceptable. That is really why the Republican leadership does not seriously object to Obama. It is also why many attack you so viciously, for things such as opposing Romney. There is an occult religious agenda behind it.
It’s not necessarily a conspiracy, but a very large and broad occult movement. Whether conscious or not, the public has been largely brainwashed by the mass media into rejecting traditional Christianity as bigotry and acceptance of occult religions.
Does Glenn Beck have a Messiah Complex?
Obama and Romney – Boiling the American Frog
There is an old saying that in order to boil a live frog you have to turn up the heat slowly. If you turn up the heat too quickly, the frog will jump out to liberty.
In recent decades international financial interests have become a much more important influence on American politics. Because so much money is necessary to win a presidential campaign, such forces drive both parties and they are to a large extent the same people. This does not have to be a tight conspiracy of a few people. It can be a movement of a large number of wealthy people, who have interests that overlap to a large degree.
The American people are outraged by Obama and are about ready to jump. Romney represents a slight reduction in the heat. He is also a lackey of those anti-American forces that would destroy American sovereignty and concentrate power in the hands of a few lapdogs and quislings, who are willing to kow-tow to these special interests. Election of Romney will just guarantee that this process of the destruction of American sovereignty continues, though at a somewhat reduced pace.
Obama has criminal, traitorous intent. He needs to be exposed and imprisoned. Election of Romney will just save Obama from American justice and they will be ready to do this all over again in four years.
Because there are only two easy choices does not mean that one of them has to be a *good* choice. That is a fallacy of logic that Republican zombies and kool-aid drinkers have been promoting regularly. There may not be an good and easy choice as has been the case several times in American history already. Sometimes Americans have had to bite the bullet and do things that are not easy or risk-free in order to keep their liberty.
Is Obama Literally Hitler? – Use of Hyperbole in Politics
The way commentators get their panties in a twist whenever Obama is compared to Hitler, you would think that no one has ever used hyperbole to make a point before. Wikipedia gives the following definition of “hyperbole.”
Hyperbole is the use of exaggeration as a rhetorical device or figure of speech. It may be used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, but is not meant to be taken literally.
Hitler is an iconic historical figure and Americans use hyperbolic comparisons to Hitler/Nazism every day to make a point, as Hank William’s Jr. did and as many others have done for this or other reasons, such as comedy. (See Jerry Seinfeld’s hilarious “Soup Nazi” skit.)
The comparison is used to mean that someone is extremely strict, inflexible or without empathy for others. Normally, people don’t get upset with this common usage, but somehow they they do become very upset when it is applied to Obama. The issue is not whether Obama is literally “Hitler,” but that there are some parallels to Nazism as a belief system in his background. It may be hyperbole, but it is hyperbole with a valid point. We hope that he does not become another Hitler.
The question is why do people think this commonly-used rhetorical device is okay to use everyday, but is way out of bounds when applied to Obama? It seems that many are so upset, when Obama is compared to Hitler, because they may have to recognize that there is a kernel of truth to the comparison and it makes them extremely uncomfortable to think that the President may somehow be Nazi-like in character.
In Obama’s case, there is more than just a speck of truth to the comparison. He has shown a willingness to use totalitarian methods, trampling on the Constitution and usurping the powers of other branches of Government.
There have always been two branches to the black liberation movement. Obama is not from the non-violent branch represented by Martin Luther King, Jr. and Booker T. Washington. Obama is from the much more racially militant Black Nationalist tradition of Malcolm X, Elijah Muhammad and Louis Farrakhan. After Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated, the more absolutist Black Nationalist branch moved to the fore.
The founder of the black nationalist mass movement in the late 1910’s was Marcus Garvey. Garvey met with the KKK in the 1920’s and began cooperation with them. He mandated that black nationalist groups should emulate white nationalist groups, such as the KKK and the Nazis and wrote that some day the black race would have their own black “Hitler.” (See “Selected Writings of Marcus Garvey,” edited by Bob Blaisdell, Dover Publication, Inc., Mineola, New York (2004), preface viii-x and pages 74-82 entitled “Hon. Marcus Garvey Tells of Interview with the Klu Klux Klan.”)
Since that time there has been a history of meetings and cooperation between black and white nationalists. In a reverse sense, the racial concept of Black Liberation Theology has some striking parallels to the racial concept of Nazism. You can learn more about this history at this link.
Obama and the Black Nazi Movement
Obama may not be responsible for the death of 40-50 million people, but the hyperbolic comparison of Obama to Hitler does have some truth to it. The public needs to be educated about the fact that there are real parallels to Nazism in Obama’s religious background of Black Liberation Theology and Black Nationalism.
That some become angry when this comparison is made is just evidence that use of this so-called rhetorical device is effective. The comparison should be used more until people can no longer deny that there is truth to it. There should be no apologies made for speaking the truth.