By: Guest Authors

By: Barry Lubotta

An admirable attribute of Americas political past was that despite heated conversation leading up to Presidential elections, the country always found a way to come together afterwards and move forward with a united voice.

Yet two years after President Obamas historic election, the consensus seems to be that the United States remains a divided country, if not a fractured one. Regardless of which side of the political spectrum you reside in, it would be a stretch to view the nations polarization ending anytime soon.

My lack of optimism stems from the fact that President Obama has made no serious attempt to win over millions of suspicious and hostile Americans who distrust his agenda and question his legitimacy as President.

Mr. Obama could break down the walls of discord with little effort by stating clearly what he truly stands for and by proving conclusively that he is legally entitled to hold the nations highest office. A few simple steps might finally earn him that elusive yet most important commodity, Presidential trust.

Since no clarification has been forthcoming, a sizeable segment of the country will not accept anything this President has to offer and remain deeply skeptical, with the result being that Mr. Obama appears to be governing not by consensus but by Presidential decree. Despite promises of a transparent four years before he was elected, the nations chief executive has simply not lived up to his word and people have not forgotten.

If the President truly desires to mend the political divide, he needs to begin with himself. He needs to be seen as available to talk about his birth certificate and where he was born (including the hospital), his early education living abroad, his religious beliefs and past associations with Bill Ayers and Reverend Wright, and even who paid for his university education at Harvard. He needs to set the record straight on each of these issues and others, in the sincere hope that those who have rejected him as their President may have a change of heart and be more open to his message.

While such a candid vulnerability would be admirable, it would be fraught with political downside. Scores would question the Presidents version of the truth or dismiss it outright. There have been just too many controversial moments and red flags in Mr. Obamas personal and political life for him to win over formidable numbers of new supporters.

It is not partisan politics to note that more controversial stories exist related to this President than any other. Each of those stories is a red flag unto itself, but when grouped together they add up to a sequence of misgivings never before observed in a sitting US President.

How many are aware that the very first Executive Order, enacted at 12:01am on January 20, 2009, was the Administrations passage of a law that forbid the release of Obamas lifelong medical, school and travel records without his permission? How many know that reportedly millions of dollars have gone to top international law firm Perkins Coie so that they might legally threaten anyone trying to discover what those records reveal? What could he possibly say to defend either of those actions that would mollify those who already foster a deep resentment of the man and his motives. Red flag!

The first hint that Mr. Obama might be less than the perfect President so many hoped for was the 2005 Rezko land deal, about which the Washington Times later quoted real estate specialist Kenneth J. Conner, “Rezko paid the asking price on the same day Obama paid $300,000 less than the asking price to the same seller for his adjacent mansion. This begs the question of payoff, bribe, kickback.” Red Flag!

There was his twenty year association with Reverend Jeremiah Wright who has made unapologetic anti-American and anti-Semitic remarks. Mr. Obama defended Mr. Wright until it was no longer politically advantageous to do so and they remain on good terms. Red flag!

There was his longstanding association with Bill Ayers and his wife Bernadette Dorn who were former leaders of the notorious Weather Underground. This violent 1970’s radical group, in its day, was the greatest perceived internal threat to America until Al-Qaeda came along. Big red flag!!

The White House log of visitors shows that both these men have been official visitors on several occasions over the past two years, as have leftist Michael Moore (8x) and anti-American financier George Soros (4x), and Andrew Stern, head of Acorn affiliated union SIEU. Code Pink founder Jody Evans, a hardcore Taliban and Hamas sympathizer, whose White House photo-op with Obama shows him smiling warmly with his arm draped over her shoulder was also an invited guest of the White House. Red flag!

Americans interested in keeping tabs on such visits can rest easy however, since official records of such questionable judgment likely won’t be made public in the future. The Obama Administration now wants the logs to show only those names that the administration deems acceptable. The public may no longer be able to see who visits the White House and how often under the guise of security issues. Red flag!

And then there’s the still lingering issue of Obamas Constitutional eligibility to be President, a matter which could be forever be put to rest if he were to make available his long form birth certificate. This story has been subjected to unrelenting mainstream media derision yet lingers in the consciousness of 58% of the American public. Red flag!

The 19th century German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer wrote? “All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; Second, it is violently opposed; Third, it is accepted as self-evident.”

What we know for certain is that significant numbers of people feel that President Obama may have pulled off the most outrageous scam of the past 100 years. The story is stuck in the mud for now because while no one can prove the foreign birth story to be true, the President has not made the relevant documents available to prove otherwise.

We know that “birthers” have been made a mockery of even though the more credible ones have not accused the President of anything more than not providing a long form birth certificate. That would be the first stage, ridicule.

The mainstream media, Obamas personal lawyers Perkins Coie and even the US government have at some point aggressively accosted, legally threatened or verbally abused anyone digging for more information on Obama’s sealed records. Could that be the second stage of “violent opposition”?

Will we ever see the third stage? Given enough time, an undisputed truth will hopefully see the light of day. It is in the nation’s interest that this happens sooner than later, whichever side on which the ball lands.

Two years into his Presidency there remains the possibility, however remote, that Mr. Obama consciously made a dash for the Presidency knowing full well he didn’t meet Constitutional criteria. If one believes there is even a ten percent chance that he is a usurper and a fake, then we must also believe there is a ten percent chance this mans character is seriously flawed, making him a potential danger to the country. This is a red flag until proved otherwise and it would be so simple if he just supplied the necessary documents.

Many people assume the birth issue is no more than an insignificant legal technicality whereas it should be viewed as an all encompassing, the ultimate “fit for office” issue. The fact that Obama was voted in by the majority of voters would mean little if it turns out the American people were deceived about something of this importance.

Barack Obama could gain much needed credibility by releasing his long form birth certificate that was signed by the attending physician. He could authorize the state of Hawaii to release his records to the American people as a goodwill gesture. In fact, Hawaii’s new governor, Neil Abercrombie, 72 and a former member of the U.S. House, has recently suggested that he might release Obamas records on his own accord in order to prove that Obama was born in Hawaii. However, after suggesting just that to the media, Mr. Abercrombie has suddenly gone silent and is no longer talking. Co-incidentally, there has been recent mention of his past ties to ultra socialist groups.

Far too many have dismissed this story without possessing enough knowledge. The online news website World Net Daily has compiled an impressive archive of articles related to the birth issue here.

At last count there are well over 500 articles connected to this link, starting with the most recent and working backwards. Some are short and humorous while others go into the real nitty gritty. Only the most dedicated investigative mind will read through the entire archive but such a person will be well rewarded. There is an abundance of information available for anyone interested in getting to the bottom of the story. It stretches the imagination to believe that a rational person would not have questions of their own once they delved deeply into this issue with the respect it deserves. Red Flag!

Even partisan supporters of Obama readily admit that they don’t know much about his background. So who amongst us can be certain that he did not knowingly make an illegal bid for the Presidency? The country can ill afford the luxury of its current Presidents character being broken.

Let’s revisit the Bernie Madoff affair. Well before Madoff was discovered to have stolen sixty-five billion dollars from clients and friends, there was eccentric financial fraud investigator Harry Markopolos. Harry had been assigned a job by a rival firm to discover how or why Bernie was doing as well as he purportedly was. In short order, Harry suspected that Bernie was a fraud and in 1999 reported his findings to the Security and Exchange Commission. He stated that he was shocked at their “investigative ineptitude and financial illiteracy” and that in fact, they “investigated nothing”. In hindsight, we know the tremendous pain caused by those extra ten years of illegal activity.

Imagine if the Security and Exchange Commission had done their due diligence and stopped the fraud when the first red flag appeared. Shouldn’t we expect that when suspicions arise in important matters, those with the power will be counted on to mount a thorough investigation?

Several US citizens have launched court actions to try and force the President into discovery. What is interesting is that all cases have been dismissed on procedural grounds rather than through contradictory courtroom evidence. Not a single judge has allowed discovery to take place. Perhaps, it is said, they are just protecting the President from nuisance suits and harassment. Nonetheless, questions remain unanswered and that constitutes a red flag!

So where does one go to find below the radar information on the 44th President? Should we be relying on the old standbys, such as The New York Times, Newsweek and Time Magazine? No. These once prestigious organizations now lean dramatically left, acting more as cheerleaders rather than news gatherers, and can no longer be trusted as credible sources. They, along with much of the mainstream press, tend to give the President a pass on any controversial personal issue.

It is clear that Mr. Obama is more than a President. In fact, early on in his role as Presidential candidate, he became a celebrity, and the best place to learn what celebrities are up to is in the pages of gossip magazines such as The Enquirer and The Globe. For some these publications carry the stigma of low credibility, and let’s face it, now my own is now at risk just for bringing their names up. Still, given their vast readership and power to shape public opinion, both of these weeklies should be looked at more closely.

It was The Enquirer that broke the John Edwards baby scandal that derailed his presidential ambition and The Enquirer that broke the Tiger Woods sex scandal that fascinated the nation. No mainstream news organization touched these stories until the enlightened and continuous reporting by a gossip magazine ensured they could no longer be ignored.

The Globe has for some time focused numerous humiliating cover stories on Obama, beginning with the Larry Sinclair tale. You may recall that Mr. Sinclair swore under oath that he and Obama used cocaine together and had a homosexual liaison in the back of a limousine, not all that long before the Presidential primaries. He then went on to write a book, “Barack Obama and Larry Sinclair – cocaine, sex, lies and murder”. It is interesting to note that of thirty- eight reviews on, twenty- seven gave the book a five star rating. Regardless of one’s personal viewpoint, the incident remains a red flag!

Here’s a group of other cover story headlines from The Globe, none of which to my knowledge have ever been denounced or denied by The White House.

• “Obama Blows A Fortune” (living like royalty on taxpayers
• “Obama Is A Muslim – his stunning confession to top
government official” (as stated by the Egyptian foreign
affairs minister, Ahmed Aboul Gheit),
• “Obama’s Gay Lover Works In White House”,
• “Obama Gay Bathhouse Scandal – secrets he’s hiding from
• “Obamas Secret Life Exposed – phony social security number,
African family he’s hiding”,
• “William Insults Obamas! Why he banned them from Royals
big day”

and the most shocking of all, covered by both The Enquirer and The Globe,

•“Obama Gay Murder Cover-Up!”

The Globe reports that Donald Young was a black, openly homosexual choir director at Obamas Trinity Church of Christ in Chicago. He was gunned down in 2007 during the period that Obama and Hillary Clinton were running neck and neck for the Democratic Party nomination and no one has ever been charged with the crime. Young’s mother Norma, a former Chicago Police Department employee according to the story, was quoted as saying “What was the cause of my sons death? I’m very suspicious that it may have been related to Obama. Donald and Obama were close friends.” Paste the link below into your browser for more information.

It’s not hard to imagine why many distrust the President. He has been linked with too many events in which the truth is clouded over and possibly covered up. Whether you believe The Globe/Enquirer or not, it’s still prudent to say these stories are worthy of a red flag!

Obama has told the nation that he is Christian, but since his father was Muslim, he too must be Muslim as Islam uses male heritage for its sole criteria in determining the religion of a child. The Koran explicitly states that no one can leave Islam, that those who attempt to must be killed. Isn’t all this just a bit confusing?

As an intelligent observer of the sitting US President, you too may be able to come up with red flags of your own – it’s really not that difficult. From sending back Englands gift of a Winston Churchill bust that had been in the Oval Office to bowing to foreign leaders, from the appointment of unelected radical Czars to high government positions, well, you get the idea. This is a game where you might never run out of red flags.

What’s been presented here is a lot of smoke and no fire. Yet given the numerous red flags surrounding their President, would it not be in the American peoples best interest to set aside whatever time and effort necessary to thoroughly vet Barack Obama once and for all?

The entire premise of this article would disappear if Obama preemptively discussed all the questions surrounding the rumors and scandals in his life. The fact that almost no one believes this will happen, and that you dear reader, were able to roll your eyes, swallow your tongue and suppress a deep belly laugh whilst reading this, speaks volumes.

“There may be times when we are powerless to prevent injustice, but there must never be a time when we fail to protest”
(Elie Wiesel)

post script: It is now shortly after the Tucson shootings and President Obama is being hailed for the uplifting speech he gave the nation in an attempt to reconcile Americas sense of grief. While his spoken words took advantage of the countrys raw nerve and contained hints of reconciliation, there is no reason to believe that this will prove to be a noteworthy moment of fence mending.

While soft on the overtly political and theatrical, neither can be judged as entirely absent. For example, “we cannot and will not be passive in the face of such violence. We should be willing to challenge old assumptions in order to lessen the prospects of such violence in the future”. Does that mean possible gun control? Or perhaps the first step in changing the way talk radio is conducted given that this medium was initially blamed as to why the shooter went berserk?

All we know at this time is that the killer appears to not have been overly political and that one of the contributing factors towards his erratic behavior was copious usage of pot. Given that medical doctors have been warning us for years that young people in particular are in danger of becoming psychotic when smoking large amounts of pot, should this not be where the investigation leads until other contributing factors are discovered?

No Comments

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.