I am a Christian Conservative Republican (or was for I am seriously considering leaving the Republican party). Let me make this clear…

There are some of us who followed Obama’s career since Harvard Law Review, where he supported conservative students.

http://boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/01/28/at_harvard_law_a_unifying_voice/

1. I have NEVER supported BERG, a democrat Hillary supporter, calling on WORLD LEADERS to remove BUSH from office regarding 9/11.

http://www.rinf.com/columnists/news/philip-berg-seeking-the-truth-of-911

2. I have never supported BERG’s attempts to used muslim Indonesia laws and Kenyan muslim testimony to “PROVE” Obama’s lack of citizenship!

http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/

3. I have never considered BERG a leader of the Republican party or a Conservative with ETHICS approving.

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1122023117263

4. I have NEVER supported overturning Privacy LAWS in America.

http://www.rbs2.com/privacy.htm

And invite Republicans who have given themselves over to muslim propaganda to search out MCCAIN’s High school records, detailed Academy Records or MCCAIN’s detailed medical records.

There are Patriots in this country who do not support BERG. There are Christians (few) that do NOT support BERG. There are Conservatives who have written BERG off when he called on World LEADER to ARREST BUSH.

The Republican party does look like the party of stupid, as our European Cousins call us, but maybe the Republican party will realize that BERG is not the Leader of the Republican party or even a member. Maybe so-call Christian will disapprove of BERG’s Ethical history. MAYBE those that HAVE a computer will learn what PRIVACY LAWS mean.

The Republican party is starting to look like a party of anti-american leftist spewing fanatics who make it a mission to DIS-RESPECT American LAWS, Statutes, procedures, and Founding Father’s principles.

You must give it to BERG’s muslim propagandists and admit they have done a great job helping Christians and Christian publications DESTROY Republican reputation aboard.

(The DECLINE of the Republican Party)
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12599247

How do explain that? Tell me? Your diatribe (like all the others) was a bunch of hot air.

By Tim Shipman in Washington
Last Updated: 4:04PM GMT 08 Nov 2008

Palin’s tone may have unintentionally encouraged white supremacists Photo: Reuters
The Republican vice presidential candidate attracted criticism for accusing Mr Obama of “palling around with terrorists”, citing his association with the sixties radical William Ayers.

The attacks provoked a near lynch mob atmosphere at her rallies, with supporters yelling “terrorist” and “kill him” until the McCain campaign ordered her to tone down the rhetoric.

But it has now emerged that her demagogic tone may have unintentionally encouraged white supremacists to go even further.

The Secret Service warned the Obama family in mid October that they had seen a dramatic increase in the number of threats against the Democratic candidate, coinciding with Mrs Palin’s attacks.

Michelle Obama, the future First Lady, was so upset that she turned to her friend and campaign adviser Valerie Jarrett and said: “Why would they try to make people hate us?”

The revelations, contained in a Newsweek history of the campaign, are likely to further damage Mrs Palin’s credentials as a future presidential candidate. She is already a frontrunner, with Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, to take on Mr Obama in four years time.

Details of the spike in threats to Mr Obama come as a report last week by security and intelligence analysts Stratfor, warned that he is a high risk target for racist gunmen. It concluded: “Two plots to assassinate Obama were broken up during the campaign season, and several more remain under investigation. We would expect federal authorities to uncover many more plots to attack the president that have been hatched by white supremacist ideologues.”

Irate John McCain aides, who blame Mrs Palin for losing the election, claim Mrs Palin took it upon herself to question Mr Obama’s patriotism, before the line of attack had been cleared by Mr McCain.

That claim is part of a campaign of targeted leaks designed to torpedo her ambitions, with claims that she did not know that Africawas a continent rather than a country.

The advisers have branded her a “diva” and a “whack job” and claimed that she did not know which other countries are in the North American Free Trade Area, (Canada and Mexico). They say she spent more than $150,000 on designer clothes, including $40,000 on her husband Todd and that she refused to prepare for the disastrous series of interviews with CBS’s Katie Couric.

In a bid to salvage her reputation Mrs Palin came out firing in an interview with CNN, dismissing the anonymous leakers in unpresidential language as “jerks” who had taken “questions or comments I made in debate prep out of context.”

She said: “I consider it cowardly. It’s not true. That’s cruel, it’s mean-spirited, it’s immature, it’s unprofessional and those guys are jerks if they came away taking things out of context and then tried to spread something on national news that’s not fair and not right.”

She was not asked about her incendiary rhetoric against Mr Obama. But she did deny the spending spree claims, saying the clothes in question had been returned to the Republican National Committee. “Those are the RNC’s clothes, they’re not my clothes. I asked for anything more than maybe a diet Dr Pepper once in a while. These are false allegations.”

Speaking as she returned to her native Alaska, Mrs Palin claimed to be baffled by what she claims was sexism on the national stage. “Here in Alaska that double standard isn’t applied because these guys know that Alaskan women are pretty tough, on a par with the men in terms of being outdoors, working hard,” she said.

“They’re commercial fishermen, they’re pilots, they’re working up on the North slopein the oil fields. You see equality in Alaska. I think that was a bit of as surprise on the national level.”

No, not patheic. Evil. You people are truly evil because you knowingly spread false rumors.

Fortunately I looks like the True America is not falling for your crap.

To Barack Obama,

I know you are busy running for President of the greatest country in the world, but there are a couple of things about your background and qualifications for the office that concern me and many of my fellow Americans. Never before has a Presidential candidate failed to fully disclose routine information about their background that might help the voters make an informed choice in an election.

It seems that many records concerning your background have either been sealed or are temporarily unavailable for review. I know that any honest person like yourself, who is running for the highest office in the land, would never overtly want to keep such information from public review.

Here’s a partial list:

1. College records from Occidental College, Columbia University and Harvard — Not available and locked down by college administrators.
2. Columbia Thesis paper — not available, locked down by college administrators
3. Certified Copy of original Birth certificate - - Not released (sealed?)
4. Certified Copy of Certification of Live Birth — Not released (sealed?)
5. Birth records from Kenya (sealed by the government of Kenya until after Election Day)

I believe items #3,4 and 5 are the most critical and they concern two issues that are very important to the American people:

1. Are Are you a Natural Born Citizen of the U.S.? and
2. Are you legally qualified to hold the Office of President?

In a recent federal court case in Pennsylvania, an American citizen, Philip Berg, filed a lawsuit claiming you were not a natural born citizen of the United States and therefore not qualified to be President. During that case, you never denied Mr. Berg’s claims, but neither did you provide a valid birth certificate or other proof that you are a natural born citizen of the United States and therefore qualified under the Constitution to be President. Rather, you hid behind technicalities in the law to avoid the issue and the federal judge hearing the case dismissed Mr. Berg’s lawsuit stating that Mr. Berg, acting as a “citizen,” did not have legal standing to make such a challenge. This is a prime example of another outrageous decision by a federal judge to deny the American people their rights clearly outlined in the constitution.

There have been several lawsuits filed, or currently being filed, in 7 or 8 states with various state Boards of Elections, claiming you are ineligible to be on their ballots because you have not produced proof that you are a natural born citizen of the United States.

This past weekend, Hawai’s Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said that there is a valid 1961 Certificate of Live Birth (“COLB”) in the file for Barack Obama. That’s great, but one of the questions that has arisen during the past few months is whether or not the document that appears in the file is authentic, or has is been recently placed in the file. Dr. Fukino issued a very limited opinion based on a review of the supposedly “original” document in the file that may or may not be accurate. As you may recall, there was a COLB for you posted on the internet in the recent past that was reported as an original, but which was later found to be only an abstract of a computer record having no connection to the original 1961 COLB document. The abstract was later taken down.

In an election of a President, where being a “Natural Born Citizen” is a requirement for the position, I believe that the American people have a right to know if the document reviewed by Dr. Fukino is the actual original document and what does it say about the birth? What hospital were you born in? Who was the attending physician? What was the date and time? What names are listed on the COLB? I think the question of your birth is a very important constitutional issue and the issue should be publicly put to rest one way or the other.

Mr Obama, it seems that you are creating needless confusion when you could easily avoid all of this doubt simply by asking for release of your original 1961 document and let it be examined. Why haven’t you done this? and why have you fought against every attempt to produce the document?

Mr. Obama, if you are truly and honorable man and a “Natural Born Citizen of the United States” you can clear up this issue very quickly. Just sign a release to have the full document examined and made available for public scrutiny in any one of the names you have been know by (Barack Obama, Barry Soetoro, Barry Obama, Barack Dunham and Barry Dunham).

Your avoidance of the issue and your subsequent failure to provide proof that you are a “Natural Born Citizen of the United States” is very suspicious and raises a very important constitutional issue that must be addressed before the November 4th election. I am asking you to stop using legal technicalities, record sealing and courtroom maneuvers to avoid the issue. The American people have every constitutional right to know whether or not you are a “Natural Born Citizen” and they will eventually find out.

Let’s put this issue to rest once and for all. Either prove that you are a “Natural Born Citizen of the U.S.” and are legally qualified to hold the Office of President, or withdraw the race.

If you do not provide the necessary proof, or withdraw from the race, and win the election on November 4th, rest assured that the American people, regardless of party affiliation, will stand up for their constitution and remove you from office.

John Wallace
http://www.NYCampaignforLiberty.com

I’ve used that hypnosis to pick-up women and it doesn’t work, if Obama mastered it you think he’d be married?

Come on don’t go off the deep end.

He was a transfer student from Occidental College in LA and may have simply kept a low profile at Columbia, unlike his years at Harvard Law.

Adolf Hitler was well-known to have used hypnosis on crowds to gain power in Germany. (Just Google it if you doubt it.) So why cant this happen in America? It is happening.

Now, this document, An Examination of Obama’s Use of Hidden Hypnosis Techniques in His Speeches is really spreading. Many people, including young people, are starting to wake up.

Young people have come up with a saying, “Don’t drink the kool-aid Obama is pushing on you.”

Obama has no accomplishments, we don’t know him, he wrote a memoir, he has racist connections, he is using hypnosis, and he thinks he’s the Messiah and that he should be in control of the world. We’ve seen this story before in Germany in the 1930’s, haven’t we? We know what happened there.

Obama’s use of hypnosis in speeches is why:
-nothing sticks to him
-the huge crowds
-the huge money contributions
-the mesmerized effect, especially in young people, who, because of their imaginations are more susceptible to hypnosis (read the document)
-the exorbitant election fraud, rule-breaking and bias in the media
-he gets away with changing every position
-people are calling him the “greatest leader of a generation” with no accomplishments

You have to read this document to understand how his hypnosis works. Logically and rationally, why not get to know this guy a little more before handing the world over to him? Why not wait?

An Examination of Obama’s use of Hidden Hypnosis Techniques in His Speeches can be found at
http://www.scribd.com/doc/7470439/Obamas-Use-of-Hidden-Hypnosis-Techniques-in-His-Speeches

The media must feel compelled to cover this information and decide to let informed people decide.

PS - “Dont drink Obama’s Kool-Aid”

CHRISTINE BELL
I shared law lectures at Harvard with a certain presidential candidate, one of the cleverest and most charismatic men I have ever met, writes Christine Bell

SITTING IN my constitutional law class in 1989, little did I think that the young man to my right would likely become America’s first African-American president. From 1989 to 1990, I studied in Harvard Law School. One of my main classes each day was US constitutional law, with Prof Lawrence Tribe, one of America’s most pre-eminent constitutional lawyers. The young man to my right was Barack Obama.

I got some sense of who Obama was. The classes were taught in America’s infamous “Socratic style” - through questions and answers between the lecturer and the students. Harvard lived up to the TV image of lively classroom debate that this method generates.

Obama was a talented student, answering often, and challenging and debating with the professor.

Sometimes class would become a two-person debate between the professor and Obama.

At that time in his early 30s, Obama already had the compelling quality for which he is now so famous. He was the singularly most beautiful man I had ever seen: his looks, his body language and his way of talking were all mesmerising.

When he talked, everyone listened. He exuded a quiet confidence and charisma, rather than the arrogant “cleverness” of TV law student programmes. Obama’s undeniable charm has been challenged as “celebrity”, but what was so compelling was his infectious and intelligent engagement with the issues being discussed.

Obama, then in second year, already had some fame in Harvard Law School mainly because he had just become the first black president of Harvard Law Review , arguably the most prestigious US journal.

Traditionally, the president is one of the highest-scoring students in the School of Law and is often viewed as “the cleverest student”. Yet Obama’s style in class was one of clarity, calmness, poise and open-mindedness - not too often noted student qualities.

I barely remember anyone else in the class, but Obama was unforgettable.

If someone had been able to tell me then that he was to become the first African-American US president, I would have believed - and perhaps taken out citizenship to vote.

The year 1989 to 1990 seemed a remarkable one. I had gone to Harvard funded by the same Harkness Scholarship that had first taken Alistair Cooke to the US. I was to study the civil rights movement, American constitutional law and theories of justice.

But the year became more significant for the events that unfolded around me, both in Harvard Law School and globally. In the spring term, Harvard Law School erupted in protests for greater diversity of the law faculty staff - most were white men - in an ongoing equality battle.

Staff and students together attended rallies and protests demanding more minority and women tenured faculty, and African professor Derek Bell, who supervised my dissertation, left Harvard at the end of the year in protest at the lack of change.

Globally, the world radically changed: Mandela was released, the Berlin wall came down, and the Cold War ended. But the American economy and big financial institutions had also collapsed (deregulation being accused), and would-be lawyers wondered about their future jobs and how they would pay off huge student loans.

I don’t know how Obama was influenced by these events except that it was impossible to avoid the on-campus debate they generated. I imagine that the debates of that year linger with him.

They certainly influenced me to the extent that I still work on equality, conflict resolution and human rights. Interestingly, another colleague that year, studying in another school, was Ed Balls, British education minister and Gordon Brown’s right-hand man when treasurer.

So while the whole world has watched this presidential campaign as never before, I have had my own particular interest.

As I followed Obama’s pursuit of his dream, I hoped for him to stay true to the person he seemed to be then, with his commitment to fairness, open-mindedness and intelligent discussion.

I worried that there was little space for a candidate who based their campaign on these attributes, particularly when that candidate did not fit the normal profile. I worried that the Obama I felt I knew a little would disappear as he was pushed into a narrow mould not meant for him.

But instead, I watched him reclaim progressive liberalism, innovate in how his campaign was funded and struggle to conduct a campaign without negative campaigning.

Even more refreshingly, I watched him persuade people and counter challenges of inexperience with the same commitment to take the complexity of contemporary problems seriously as I had seen in class.

For what it is worth, the Obama I see on television is the same Obama I saw at law school. The values he says he holds, and the space of moderation and thoughtfulness that he occupies politically, I recognise from those days.

His commitment to reflection, humanity, progressive change and the United States are commitments I would have said he had then.

If Americans are searching for someone who is genuine, then Obama holds true to himself and, in my view, would strive to stay true to the American vision of change that he offers.

As I watch him navigating through the narrow political space of a US presidential election campaign, I can’t help thinking that that is pretty much as good as it gets.

Go Barack, go America.

• Christine Bell is professor of international law and co-director of the Transitional Justice Institute at the University of Ulster. Tonight in Dublin, she will deliver the fourth annual Seán Lester Lecture, on the law of peace, at 7.30pm in the Green Hall of the Law Society of Ireland in Blackhall Place, Dublin 7. Admission: €15 (advance online purchase €10)

© 2008 The Irish Times