Game changer....

Here ya go!--> :banghead: October 11, 2008
This could be the game changer (updated)
By Thomas Lifson

Someone with the unlikely name of Molotov Mitchell has produced a 10 minute and 52 second video [watch it below] that could well change the terms of the election -- if enough people watch it. Illuminati Productions has posted it to YouTube. They have provided the voting public a very professionally and engagingly done video generation equivalent of a long detailed article in a place like American Thinker.


It makes accessible to the general public some of the serious questions about Obama's citizenship status that have been vetted almost exclusively in the conservative web world. You can't get most voters to focus on print media in order to entertain a series of hard questions on what seems like a far-fetched notion. Especially those voters who rely on the Big Media. They figure that if this were true, they would have heard about it from the old familiar faces.

But you can get people to watch 11 minutes of interesting video raising a slew of questions for Obama, in fact cornering him, on the question of his birth, citizenship, and eligibility for office as POTUS under the Constitution. Especially if people start talking about the video. It's called viral distribution. A friend emails an Obama-supporting friend and dares him or her to watch.


A lifelong Democrat who has held political office and been a committeeman, Philip Berg, has brought suit over the real questions raised by the absence of a valid Obama birth certificate. His narrative of the various questions Obama has refused to answer is devastating. Graphics and sound are well-deployed to avoid tedium as factual data is conveyed in a way that allows viewers to absorb it. When he contrasts Obama's behavior when challenged (use perfectly valid legal technicalities to delay) with John McCain's full disclosure of all documentary evidence under a similar challenge (remember the flap over his birth in the Panama Canal Zone? -- who raised those questions, anyway?), there is no doubt in a viewer's mind that there is something seriously wrong here.


We are talking about the Presidency and this guy stonewalls?


The only way Obama can satisfactorily respond is to release his suposed Hawaiian birth certificate. If he has it, why hasn't he released it? If he does release it, game over. So why drag this out on technical grounds? It doesn't make sense.

If this video gets widely viewed and discussed, Obama's support will crumble in the face of continued stonewalling.


I am grateful for the efforts of the people who put this op together. It is brilliantly timed. I do know that there are one or more smart Democrats who haven't forgiven Obama and who don't want to see him elected. They know how to design and implement really effective plans to get things done.

They might even want to get Obama thrown off the ballot and replaced by the second place finisher before Election Day. Or, if the Democratic Party stonewalls and the court delays, pick up the pieces.

Watch it and see what you think. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gA6_k3NtXZs&eurl (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gA6_k3NtXZs&eurl)





Thomas Lifson is editor and publisher of American Thinker.

Update: All the filings to date in the court actions of Philip Berg are available here... http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-paedce/case_no-2:2008cv04083/case_id-2815 73/ (http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-paedce/case_no-2:2008cv04083/case_id-281573/)

Update: Based on comments and email, it is evidently necessary to point out that Berg may or may not be correct in the factual assertions claimed in this video and, more importantly, in his court filings. Determining the factual basis is the responsibility of the court, based on filings provided by both parties. I have no way of knowing whether Berg is a kook on this issue or not.

The important point is that the Obama campaign has not chosen to confront Berg's claims in a straightforward manner. That is a fact. Posting two different electronic images of an alleged birth certificate does not carry weight in court. Nor do the opinions of organizations like factcheck.org or snopes.com. The only version of a birth certificate that would matter is one submitted to court and attested to as valid, under penalty of perjury, and subject to forensic examination.

It may be the case that Berg is completely wrong. If so, the Obama campaign could have submitted documentation to the court quashing this case. Instead, it has chosen to engage in a legal strategy of delay. Why would they do this if Obama's documentation were in order? Why would they only provide electronic (so far as I know) copies to friendly sources? Perhaps someone can explain that satisfactorily, but I cannot.

in case you missed it, nothing in that video is proof of anything.

Diplomatic Warning

Britain's ambassador to Washington has called Barack Obama "uninspiring" and "decidedly liberal."

The Daily Telegraph newspaper reports Sir Nigel Sheinwald wrote Prime Minister Gordon Brown a seven-page letter in July shortly before Obama's visit to London. The letter was leaked to the press reading, "He can talk too dispassionately... about issues which touch people personally, for example his notorious San Francisco comments about small town Pennsylvania 'clinging' to guns and religion."

Sheinwald also expressed concern about Obama's stance on Iran, saying, "We will need to consider with him the articulation between (a) his desire for 'unconditional' dialogue with Iran and (b) our and the United Nations Security Council's requirement of prior suspension of enrichment before the nuclear negotiations proper can begin."

There are now calls for Sheinwald to resign. The British embassy is trying to limit any damage, saying, "We are totally neutral as far as the American elections are concerned."

Maximus, you might need to take a crash course in how to make a proper thread.

For one, you could have easily combined all of your posts in this thread into one post. For two you already started a thread on the topic which was closed - and so this one is now too.

here read this: http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=675792 - This thread is stickied to the top of the forum and titled Warning: Please Read! because people who use this forum are supposed to read it.

You may also want to try to find credible sources to back up your opinons, instead of MS paint image macros. If you can find credible sources, and cite them - feel free to contribute to this forum. But don't clutter up the forum with post whoring.

Britain's ambassador to Washington has called Barack Obama "uninspiring" and "decidedly liberal."

The Daily Telegraph newspaper reports Sir Nigel Sheinwald wrote Prime Minister Gordon Brown a seven-page letter in July shortly before Obama's visit to London.


Did you actually read the whole article or did you just pick the bits that you deemed interesting? In the real world we call that tunnel vision. The letter was the ambassador giving his most honest opinion of the man before the meeting with Gordon Brown which would naturally include things that the UK government should question and ask for clarification for its own benefit.

From the same article:
But Sir Nigel - who described the Iraq war as "the Iraq expedition" and "Bush's Iraq adventure" - briefed that Mr Obama's Iraq policy gelled with Britain's.

"Whatever the detail, our own proposed transition in south-east Iraq would be consistent with Obama's likely approach. Obama's ideas on a more expansive regional framework for Iraq would also fit well with our thinking."

He wrote approvingly of Mr Obama's "mainstream team of youthful economic advisers, with strong credentials [who] approach policy with refreshingly few prescriptions", his "progressive position on climate change" and his 'pragmatic realism" and "balanced approach to the big security issues".

and

the picture Sir Nigel paints is a highly complimentary one - Mr Obama's speeches are "elegant" and "mesmerising", he is "highly intelligent"


How about something that lends doubt to McCain's ability to run your country?
He has no idea (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14430.html) about economic policies.

Still don't see any proof of any of the things you stated before.