by Arthur R. Thompson, CEO
There is an issue raging among American patriots concerning President Barack Obama’s citizenship status.
Some of our members have asked us to get involved, but we have remained on the sidelines of this issue for reasons we shall now delineate.
There are obviously many questions regarding Obama’s citizenship, not only concerning where he was born, but the possibility that whatever citizenship he may have had was renounced by his parents in order for him to be educated in Indonesian government schools when his family lived in Indonesia during his youth.
Most of the requests that come to us are in the nature of proving that Obama is not a U.S. citizen and then publishing our findings.
The supposed lack of Obama’s U.S. citizenship is the problem, but what is the solution? That, as they say, is the rub. If it could be established beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is not a citizen, therefore disqualified from holding the office of president, what then?
Would V.P. Joseph Biden become president, or would his election also be called fraudulent? Would Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi become president? Would a new election be called? If so, when? Would this all play out before the next regular election?
We are unsure of the answers since the questions raise issues that have never been in public debate before.
I don’t think that Biden or Pelosi would make a better president. From all indications, they would probably be even more audacious in their actions, striving to fulfill a set agenda.
We also fail to remember in the heat of this topic one important fact: While Obama may sit in the chair, he is no more President of the United States, in the real sense, than would John McCain have been. These men are surrounded and controlled by the Insiders. It does not matter who holds the office under the current state of affairs. Obama is nothing more than a mouthpiece for the agenda set by the Insiders. The situation would be different if Obama was our problem, but he isn’t. It is the Insiders he represents who are the problem.
The Electoral College was established to solve problems such as this one, but only up to the moment of its vote and the subsequent inauguration. This marvelous part of our Constitution was established to take care of problems of corruption, death before inauguration, qualification of candidates, or any number of other unforeseen glitches that might occur in addition to reinforcing a representative form of government.
In fact, the Electoral College system was set up to prevent the election of a flawed person. Our Founders did not believe that it was possible for the average citizen to trust someone they were far removed from and had never met. They did not trust the press to tell the truth any more than we trust the press today. The elector was meant to be someone the local citizens knew from their community, a peer whom they could trust to make the wisest choice for president, just as they did regarding their choice of representative in Congress.
Until recent years, some states still carried the name of the electoral candidate rather than the presidential candidate on the ballot. This system has been steadily eroded, making it appear faulty with the solution being its abolishment. The real solution is to return to the system in its original intent at the time of its implementation, and separate the matter from partisan politics.
After inauguration, the impeachment process should be used to address presidential problems. There is scant reason in today’s world that the matter of natural birth would be acceptable grounds for Congress to impeach. Disqualification would be the sensible way to proceed. If Obama were impeached, tried and found guilty, would we be more comfortable with Biden rather than Obama? There is less ability to impeach Biden although he has violated his oath by advocating the New World Order.
Since at least 1992 Biden has worked to establish a New World Order — his own words — as he has written on the subject several times. He has been part of the problem much longer than Obama has. And his temper and vindictiveness are apparently far worse than Obama’s.
If the charges concerning Obama’s U.S. citizenship are factual, it is the court of public opinion that will prompt removal through the government’s leaders themselves. But would they do their duty? Given the current congressional leadership and members that outcome would be doubtful.
Some advocate the removal of Obama through the courts. Again, given the court system today that includes judges who forbid prayer in the schools, demand removal of the Ten Commandments from public venues, allow government seizure of private property under an expanded eminent domain for the benefit of developers, invalidate a variety of votes by the people, and have personal backgrounds of socialist activism, the best place to make it appear as though one is trying to do something, but instead getting it bogged down, is in the courts.
Well-placed individuals within the court system have long held sway over what comes before a court, who presides, etc. There is evidence that Elena Kagan’s appointment to the Supreme Court may be a reward for such activity, especially in regard to cases involving Obama’s qualifications. However, the courts cannot be changed until we change the Senate.
There is also the danger of a ruling that the plaintiff has no standing, or that the evidence lacks substance. Such rulings could stop the campaign to expose the potential invalidity of Obama’s citizenship in its tracks by convincing people that there is no substance to the charges and that those who bring the charges are, in a word, nuts.
The system today drags on and on and is a lawyer’s delight, especially if he is only interested in fame and fortune no matter the outcome.
Enter Philip J. Berg. Much of the leadership in the “Birther” movement is suspect, particularly Mr. Berg. He is but one example of new leaders that seemingly come from nowhere to lead the rise of opposition to Obama, and the direction of the Americanist movement as well. In many cases the issues they place themselves as experts at the head of, are mere cul-de-sacs designed to lead nowhere. Meanwhile issues of great import are neglected because they do not generate as much excitement due to the diffusion of resources needed to deal with them and the fact that most issues of any value demand work by many in order to be successful.
Philip Berg is a former deputy attorney general of Pennsylvania. We invite you to go to Wikipedia online to view a rundown on his activism. One thing they fail to mention is his advocacy of Hillary Clinton in the 2008 election cycle and that his involvement concerning Obama’s citizenship is at least in part due to that support; one fails to see much of a difference between Obama, Biden, Pelosi, or Hillary Clinton.
In 2005 Berg was in the courts concerning the 9/11 attack on the Twin Towers in New York City, claiming that the official story of the event was a massive cover up. OK so far, but he participated in a conference called the Axis for Peace, held in France under the auspices of the Voltaire Network. The Network is the brainchild of the Frenchman Thierry Meyssan, a homosexual leftist who wrote one of the first books challenging the official story of what happened on 9/11.
Some members of the Axis in attendance at this gathering included General Leonid Ivashov, former Chief of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of Russia; Webster G. Tarpley, American historian who at one time was part of the U.S. Labor Party of Lyndon LaRouche; the wife of Lynden LaRouche, Helga Zepp-LaRouche; and assorted leftists from such countries as Cuba, Venezuela, Iraq, and Syria.
The conference issued credentials to a limited number of media including the state-funded Russia Today, Al Jazeera, American Free Press and some Muslim media outlets. Several panels consisted of the aforementioned participants plus a large assortment of communists and socialists from Latin America, Europe, and various Muslim countries.
Among the main speakers were James Petras, Marxist professor from New York State University; John D. Anthony, member of the Council on Foreign Relations; and Philip Berg.
Other similar examples could be given, linking marxists, socialists and communists to the Birther and 9/11 movements, precisely what makes these situations problematic. There are legitimate journalists such as Jerome Corsi and a few others who are reporting documented findings, but this information does little to lessen the overall confusion, or promote a practical solution.
It should be noted that the Insiders made a mistake in attempting to cover up the larger conspiracy involved in blowing up the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City. That mistake consisted in not closing all the loops that would eventually lead back to the various personnel involved. Even so they were able to stop any comprehensive investigation by almost all (except The John Birch Society), issuing a report which said that the only persons involved were Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols.
At that point, just about everyone stopped looking into the bombing, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that the official story just didn’t add up. Many members and friends in OKC provided the means for our friend, William F. Jasper, Senior Editor of The New American and a committed investigative journalist, to put a good deal of time and energy into a serious investigation.
The stories that were published by Mr. Jasper in The New American were revealing and comprehensive. The evidence showed that not only were these two men not acting alone, there were a large number of people involved. The New American named them, and proved that various government officials knew in advance that the building was going to be blown up and did nothing to stop it. In fact there was more to the operation than just the truck bomb outside the building. Additional explosives were planted inside the building; some of them detonated, while others did not and were removed by disposal units after the initial blast.
Had we the use of the Internet then as we do today, perhaps others would have joined in and investigated these matters — but almost universally they did not, including many who are screaming about 9/11 today, and who use the evidence of OKC to build speculation for a similar situation regarding Building No. 7 of the Twin Towers complex.
It has to be noted that few, if any, give credit to William Jasper and The New American for all the hard work and documentation. And it was hard evidence, not the “perhaps,” “maybe,” “could be,” “doesn’t seem right,” or “studies prove,” kind. It was evidence that could have been admissible in a court had it reached that point. While the official 9/11 cover story is riddled with problems, including massive cover-ups, the 9/11 truth movement, unfortunately, is rampant with speculation and appears to be driven by not only good Americans and reasonable facts, but with a sprinkling of fallacies that cloud the issue.
Once again, the mistake the conspiracy behind the Murrah Building attack made, we believe, is that they assumed no one would take the time and energy to look beyond the story given out by the federal government. Since we proved them wrong, in any future crisis they would have to plan for control of the opposition.
There are two means for doing so: cloud the evidence, and provide leadership for the movement to “expose” the crime. Regarding the Birther and 9/11 movements, they have done both. By this means they marginalize the facts by the inclusion of falsehoods and marginalize the whole movement by leading as many people as possible down alleys that lead to ineffective action. As a result, the vast number of opinion molders look askance at both movements, ignore them, and even support the wrong side as a result.
One of the axioms of the Conspiracy has always been to “control your opposition, and where none exists, create it.” This has become an even greater necessity than in the past due to the use and growth of the Internet. The OKC bombing was on April 19, 1995. In the past 15 years, the growth of the Internet has been substantial.
In 1995 the main method of disseminating information outside the mainstream media by an organization was the printed word. There were talk radio personalities but no national radio personalities to rely on. The Internet was important but comparatively limited in scope.
Today the situation is far different and between an aggressive public relations initiative and the Internet, any information regarding an event such as the OKC bombing would have the possibility to go viral overnight, reaching millions of people. This is the reason the Insiders must have agents in place, organizations ready to provide disinformation and sow disorganization among patriots so that the truth is obfuscated with lies designed to titillate the average patriot into believing some point or even swallowing whole a scenario in order to sidetrack any real investigation, and worse, make patriotic Americans appear ridiculous.
But let’s return to the Axis for Peace. With people as strategically placed as a former Chief of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of Russia, do you not think that maybe, just maybe, FSB intelligence and disinformation officials might be involved in this process, from the 9/11 attack to the Truther movement?
We have shown over and over for decades that Muslim terrorism is in reality Russian-led terrorism. We have no doubt that the terrorists who were involved in 9/11 were state-sponsored and were helped, but which government, or combination of government intelligence services are responsible?
There are plenty of problems in both the Birther and Truther movements. They have risen to the point where it is difficult to discern the truth on either side. As well, Obama’s real or imaginary citizenship is a problem from many different angles. Let us speculate for a moment that Obama is not a citizen. What then is the solution? After all, tackling a problem is of little value unless a solution can be arrived at.
Let us point something out at this juncture that most have not considered and do so by asking the question: If Obama is not a citizen, does it not make sense that the Insiders behind Obama knew that and took it into consideration before they promoted his meteoric rise, and that they knew it would come out at some time, in fact preparing the ground for the exposure of this fact?
There are some possible scenarios where they would welcome the exposure for the chaos that it could produce, both in government and in the streets.
There can be little question that allowing a person to occupy any office while ignoring, nay, completely disregarding, the constitutional requirements for that office, is absolutely wrong. It would certainly set a terrible precedent and move us another step away from adherence to the Constitution in other ways.
Our founder, Robert Welch, had an indication that before running for the office, a previous president had renounced his citizenship while living overseas. Mr. Welch felt that it was not worth the time, effort, or expense to try and prove it, particularly since it was after the fact and so very few had any inkling of the situation; a real investigation would have only opened up a can of worms that no one could do anything about anyway.
More importantly, if it was true that a previous president had not been fully qualified to hold the office, it would serve as precedent for future presidents, perhaps even creating the necessary conditions for everyone to ignore what would be seen as a trifle. Stranger things have happened.
Many people are not able to extend the lines and see what the results of their actions could be. The Birther movement is a case in point. The only benefit to a court case might be that it could slow down the Insider agenda because of the lack of congressional support for Obama. It would not promote understanding, however, of the overall problem of government either in Congress or among the people.
On the other hand, if the impeachment process was used, how would it be moved forward without a massive campaign that would take everyone’s eyes off more important agenda items that must be stopped? The Clinton impeachment was originally started to expose treason in high places, not to expose a titillating scandal involving an intern. It had the benefit of educating Americans as to the problem of people in government helping communism with weaponry. The Insiders could not stop the impeachment process and so diverted the citizens’ attention from treason to a scandal that would not scuttle the Insider’s agenda.
An impeachment of Obama would be simply due to his citizenship status and there would be little opportunity to educate the public on the real issues since it would be off point.
What would be the results of getting Obama out of the presidency prior to any election?
One, there would be no change in the direction of our government, especially under Biden or Pelosi, and it could actually move the country down the path to socialism even more quickly. This would be especially true in light of the “sympathy” the media would generate for Obama’s successor coming in behind a “tragedy.” It would be Lyndon Johnson all over again.
Two, in order to accomplish his removal, a lot of time, energy, and resources would be used to the detriment of other vital agenda items, thereby preventing success in at least some of the agenda.
Three, at best, it would set back race relations years. At worst, and most probably, it would lead to violence in the streets. It would be difficult to imagine that the communists would not use the occasion to precipitate rioting in the streets that would make the heyday of the civil rights rioting in the 1960s look like child’s play.
It is shortsighted to think that Obama would not put up some sort of fight that would exacerbate the above either for personal reasons or to serve the orders of the Insiders. Let us not forget that for his entire life he has been surrounded by friends who embraced communist and terrorist-style philosophies.
There are other possible scenarios, but the point is that the unforeseen circumstances of our actions can make matters worse. We should always do what we can without making things worse, or untenable. Likewise, we should not expend time, energy, and resources on a course of action that will not change anything.
Getting involved in the Birther movement will take away from our complete agenda. It will only convince people who don’t like Obama. And it will also convince those who do support Obama, that it is mean-spirited, thereby creating greater political rifts in the country. It will mean linking arms with some very suspicious people and at the least giving these people credibility that they can use against the movement in the future by building up their seeming leadership. And, it will not change the direction of the country since it is based on eligibility requirements and not a basic principle or issue that would help build understanding of the overall problems we face. It will only change the personality in the White House.
There is no “quick fix.” It is the desire to find one that helps drive this initiative.
What do we do? We stick to matters that will make a difference in the long run. This may bother some since they are incensed at the injustice of the situation. However, when your forces are not yet adequate to achieve victory, you have to choose your battles. This is a battle that will not lead us to overall victory even if we succeed.