Friday, December 05, 2008


Not quite sure how I missed the following "The Trojan Horse" post back in September. I found it and read it today while reading Stand By Me over at Texas Darlin's blog.

Perhaps I missed it because the writers at the TD blog were originally Hillary supporters. Nonetheless, EVERY AMERICAN NEEDS TO READ IT NOW!

There is SO MUCH AT STAKE in the Donofrio vs. Wells case, it's become astounding to me. NIGHTMARISH, IN FACT!

However, we must not let our hearts be troubled...YET!

It just might turn out that the "natural born citizen" clause of Article II in our beloved U.S. Constitution WILL SAVE US - and, may keep us from inaugurating a usurper-in-chief - a Trojan Horse kind of candidate with the worst anti-American, Marxist/Communist worldview that we could ever have imagined!


After I posted these two links, I continued to read "The Trojan Horse" post. The following is just a brief snippet of the article (yes- it is long and detailed BUT WELL WORTH YOUR TIME TO READ IT ALL!). I think that this portion exposes A LOT about Obama and his radical associations and worldview.

Excerpt from "The Trojan Horse" article:

Alinsky’s book Rules for Radicals further specifies the role of community organizer:

It was Alinsky for whom ‘change’ was his mantra. And by ‘change’, he meant a Marxist revolution achieved by slow, incremental, Machiavellian means which turned society inside out. This had to be done through systematic deception, winning the trust of the naively idealistic middle class by using the language of morality to conceal an agenda designed to destroy it. And the way to do this, he said, was through ‘people’s organisations’. Community organisers would mobilise direct action by the oppressed masses against their capitalist oppressors.

Obama must have shown promise as a potential “stealth candidate” who could infiltrate the “march of institutions” to “capture the culture”, and “turn it inside out”. For the purpose of overturning western society. For in 1988, Bill Ayers began raising funds for his law school education, likely through his contacts and Khalid Al-Mansour whom he had befriended in his association with the Black Panthers. It was reported then that Percy Sutton was approached by Al-Mansour seeking a letter of entry to Harvard on behalf of Barack Obama . I believe some serious strings were pulled to achieve Obama’s entry into Harvard .

In 1989, Bill Ayers and his father Tom Ayers got Obama a summer job at Sidley & Austin , where he met Michelle Robinson . Recall that Bill Ayer ’s wife, Bernette Dohrn , also worked at Sidley & Austin and was the one who hired Michelle . Recall that Michelle could be considered a black separatist radical in her own right from college days!

It was during this time that Barack Obama was introduced to Reverend Wright and the theology of black liberation. Obama is likely to have at least studied or been introduced to black separatism, black nationalism, and black liberation theology in New York . James Cone is commonly cited as the founder of black liberation theology:

“The black theologian must reject any conception of God which stifles black self-determination by picturing God as a God of all peoples. Either God is identified with the oppressed to the point that their experience becomes God’s experience, or God is a God of racism…The blackness of God means that God has made the oppressed condition God’s own condition. This is the essence of the Biblical revelation. By electing Israelite slaves as the people of God and by becoming the Oppressed One in Jesus Christ , the human race is made to understand that God is known where human beings experience humiliation and suffering…Liberation is not an afterthought, but the very essence of divine activity.” [A Black Theology of Liberation, pp. 63-64]

“Black theology cannot accept a view of God which does not represent God as being for oppressed blacks and thus against white oppressors. Living in a world of white oppressors, blacks have no time for a neutral God. The brutalities are too great and the pain too severe, and this means we must know where God is and what God is doing in the revolution. There is no use for a God who loves white oppressors the same as oppressed blacks. We have had too much of white love, the love that tells blacks to turn the other cheek and go the second mile. What we need is the divine love as expressed in black power, which is the power of blacks to destroy their oppressors, here and now, by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject God’s love.” [A Black Theology of Liberation, p. 70]

In 1993 Ayers appointed Obama to the Woods Foundation, and in 1995 to the Chicago Annenburg Challenge. In 1995 Ayers and Dohrn hosted a coffee klatch for Obama’s political debut. By 1995, Obama has written his first book, Dreams, and in 2006 published Audacity of Hope , whose title he gained from a sermon by Reverend Wright . Obama served in the Illinois Senate until 2003, and then was elected to the US Senate in 2004.

Much can–and I hope will–be written about the funding and techniques employed in Obama’s various campaigns, including the use of ACORN, CPUSA, and the Annenburg Challenge funds; how he was funded to complete his books, especially Dreams, and the role of Dreams in creating a “storybook” candidate which has now been marketed to the public. Notice how Obama, Axelrod , the Democrats, and the obots can’t stand challenges to the story of Obama.

Revolution You Can Believe In

Well if you’ve read this far, I first thank you. Second, you know that even this lengthy article just begins to scratch the surface of some very serious concerns that should be raising eyebrows among elected officials and the public. We have not, for example discussed the incredible symbology being created for a world audience as Obama’s elaborate trips and stage craft are implemented. For example, Obama’s campaign logo can be seen also to reflect the two most common symbols of Islam–the crescent and the sword…the logo contains a crescent with the stripe representing an Islamic scimitar. The “rising sun over the west” –another significant symbol–is shown in Obama’s logo as the rising sun over the lands of America .

What started out as a simple observation–Obama’s lack of respect for America and American symbols–led to connecting the dots on Obama’s background, motivations and backers. And I see incredible stealth in his campaign.

Sometimes things seem just so obvious that we are lulled into complacent denial, thinking that it couldn’t be true– “Obama is too smart, he’s a U.S. Senator, he’s so nice, no that can’t be true!!”

To openly discuss his communist and revolutionary mentors with such intensity and focus lays open the charge of “McCarthy” tactics, “racism”, “red scare”, or “red baiting”, or “doubting Obama’s patriotism”. How convient that the Obama campaign has the race, class, gender, education, age, and the ” McCarthy ” cards to obfuscate and distract from any serious examination of Obama’s motivation for seeking POTUS. In my view, Obama is a perfect tool, agent, or mole to use in advancing an agenda that lies entirely hidden from the public. His ego and insecurity can be manipulated for other goals.

In his run for the Presidency, Obama has structured his campaign as small offices all over the country, something no other Presidential candidate has done. Interesting that Howard Dean ’s so called “50-state strategy” served as a perfect cover for Obama to move in and take over the apparatus of the democratic party. This kind of strategy is very much in line with Alinsky’s approach and the Marxist concept of revolutionary change.

Alinsky viewed as supremely important the role of the organizer, or master manipulator, whose guidance was responsible for setting the agendas of the People’s Organization…

Alinsky laid out a set of basic principles to guide the actions and decisions of radical organizers and the People’s Organizations they established. The organizer, he said, ‘must first rub raw the resentments of the people; fan the latent hostilities to the point of overt expression. He must search out controversy and issues, rather than avoid them, for unless there is controversy people are not concerned enough to act.’ The organizer’s function, he added, was ‘to agitate to the point of conflict’and ‘to maneuver and bait the establishment so that it will publicly attack him as a “dangerous enemy.” ‘The word ‘enemy,’ said Alinsky, ‘is sufficient to put the organizer on the side of the people’; i.e., to convince members of the community that he is so eager to advocate on their behalf, that he has willingly opened himself up to condemnation and derision.

Bill Ayers is a proponent of locally based revolutionary tactics. Ayers’ playbook is Mao Tse-Tung ’s handbook. And Obama’s campaign structure follows Ayers’ matrix. A nationwide network of “ Camp Obamas ” controlled from Chicago has been established to train volunteers in some of the Alinsky techniques.

In particular, Alinsky advocates “in your face” techniques wherein the ends justify the means. Didn’t we just hear Obama call for his supporters to “get up in your neighbor’s face,” and argue with them?

What of Obama’s control over destruction of the Democratic party? Quite simple: according to Marxist revolutionary thought, a vanguard must be created which serves as the “point” of leadership for the communist-style revolution to come. Remember Brazile told us to stay home? That is so the new democratic party–the vanguard led by Obama as trojan horse can begin the process of radical change in America .

Add to this mix Soros, the mainstream media, the Democratic Party, voting integrity, an Alinsky-style field operation and it makes me think that we are in serious trouble.

Obama is not stupid. He is a bright man, very talented, very personable, and until recently, a man without much of a personal history. But there is a shiftless, searching side to Obama’s personality. Due to childhood neglect and abuse, he is a man without a conscience. He was and remains the perfect front for Ayer’s –or any other revolutionary ideology–ongoing revolutionary campaign to subvert and subdue the United States of America .



HUGE HAT TIP: Dr. Kate at Texas Darlin blog

Update at 1:20 p.m. PT:

The Relevant Obama Admission


At Barack Obama’s web site, the following admission:

“ Clarifies Barack’s Citizenship

‘When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children…’ “

Read that last line again.

That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children…”

That’s an admission that Great Britain “governed the status” of Barack Obama, Jr. Brack Obama has chosen to highlight this on his own volition.

And this leads to the relevant question:


A natural born citizen’s status should only be governed by the United States. This is the core issue before the Supreme Court of the United States.



spud tooley said...


uh, i think i'm going to throw up...

remember when i asked awhile back if all of you would follow my lead and promise support of the other's candidate should he win the election? and then gary said that you all had never intended to do otherwise?

was that a part of the 'mass deception' you're talking about?...


christine, we'd become a nation of illiterates if every american read every post to which you've attached that tag line.

i certainly can't say you aren't persistent.

you aren't rational, of course, but no way are you not persistent.


Rebecca said...

Saul Alinsky makes me PUKE! The whole criminal gang of CHICAGO and WILMINGTON needs to be indicted, impeached, tried, and convicted for the TREASONOUS ANTIGOD behavior.

NEVER AMERICA TO THE DEMOCRATS! We will fight and we will prevale!

jeleasure said...

Due to childhood neglect and abuse, he is a man without a conscience

This of course would be why he sees no problem with partial birth abortion.

Christinewjc said...


Your ideology is preventing you from seeing the REAL issue and the BIG picture that it involves.

If I'm so "irrational," then why are you reading this blog?

The author of that article DID do a brilliant job of journalism - not the kind of blithering idiot crap that is being spewed from the likes of Chris Matthews or Keith Olberdummy.

Just because you refuse to accept what was written - doesn't mean it's not true or does not have merit.

You may never reach the point where you will realize that Obama is a Trojan Horse candidate.

So be it.

But I'm not about to change my mind to please anyone - especially you - just because you are of the opinion that I'm irrational.

Take a hard look in the mirror...notice that blue tinge around your lips? You have swallowed the blue pill.

Christinewjc said...


How true. I just can't believe that people were duped into voting for Obama.

The entire bunch of associates surrounding Obama are part of a criminal Chicago gang.


Makes me sick...

Christinewjc said...

Good point, Jim.

A man without a conscience as president.

Truly frightening...

spud tooley said...

christine, far be it from me to leave someone without help in the time of aid. so let me help you see your stupidity... :)

in a nutshell, you're arguing that your actions are in defense of the constitution, which provides the means to determine the answers to the question or questions that your investigation is raising, to determine whether or not the document serving as the answer to the question being raised is being followed. yet when the document is followed through the avenues it prescribes to answer questions of this type, you deny that it has found the 'right' answer - i.e., your a priori answer that you had in hand even before the question was raised.

in other words, you are defending a document that prescribes a process that you now say is not a valid process even when the process has arrived at an answer for a question asked in the sole intent of determining the validity of something the document has an answer for.

in the end, then, do we really even need a constitution? what i'm hearing you say is that the only valid answers are coming from you and a bunch of petulant bloggers.

your actions to defend the very document you claim to defend reveal your true position: that the constitution is completely irrelevant to you and your obsession with slandering the man that God decided should win the election.

if you can read through what i wrote and NOT see your irrationality, then you have in essence proved my point completely.

further, it is not my lips that are blue, but the faces of you and your 3rd and 4th grade friends that have gotten that way since you all started your i'm-holding-my-breath tantrums and having fits on the floor in aisle 4...


Christinewjc said...


Are you blind as well as ignorant?


You come here and try to make it appear that I am the only one concerned about this issue. There are hundreds of thousands who are concerned! Once the media does its job and gets the word out (properly - I hope) - there will be millions concerned about Obama's eligibility under the U.S. Constitution.

There are three provisions for POTUS in the Constitution, one of which is "must be a natural born citizen."

What part of this are you not getting?

John McCain is also named in the Donofrio vs. Wells lawsuit. Did you know that? Even though McCain lost the election, the fact that he was on the ballot (and perhaps should not have been like Obama and the Nicaraguan guy) proves Donofrio's point that the Secretary of State - Wells - didn't do her job to make sure that the candidates on the NJ ballot were eligible!

What this raises is the very important point of the absolute provision to uphold the Constitution when it comes to electing POTUS.

There is a poll up at WND. Go read the answers.

Here is one comment that I thought was really good, too:

To Uphold the constitution
Posted by JohnMcF on Dec 05, 2008 23:16

If a man being sworn to uphold the constition of these United States by that very swearing into office is breaking the very constitution he is swearing to uphold, how will he treat the rest of the constitution that protects us from dictatorship rule? Since they knew this before 2006, I believe his supporters and himself are chipping away at the very stone that has held this country together. It was written by God fearing men that knew what is in the heart of man; therefore, checks and balances were put in to protect us from ourselves. If I run a race but cheat to win, have I run the race well? Have I really won? If the leader of our nation does not follow the rules, how will you ever be able to teach your children to follow the laws of this land. Is this the time for the lawless?

P.S. If I recall correctly, it has been proven that McCain was eligible for POTUS. I need to go back and search for the reasoning behind this conclusion. From what I can recall - it has something to do with the fact that both his parents were U.S. natural born citizens themselves and his father was serving in the military located at the Panama Canal zone - where John was born. So, by virtue of both his parents being U.S. natural born citizens and loyal only to one nation (the U.S.), any child born to them would also qualify as "natural born." That is just a brief summary from memory. When I find the actual documentation I will post it.

It has to do with parentage - not just location.

In Obama's case, he has already admitted that his father was a British Citizen (when Kenya was under British control); therefore, no matter where Obama was born - even if it was in Hawaii (which is doubtful because Obama's spending a million dollars to prevent release of his vault-length COLB) his father's parentage of him makes Obama a British citizen at birth, too. In addition, dual citizenship is not allowed under the "natural born citizen" clause of the Constitution.

The Framers of our Constitution were very wise men. Their "natural born citizen" provision in the Constitution is not "garbage" - like the Obama campaign claims. That provision may just save America from this attempt of Obama to be a usurper in chief.

spud tooley said...

so two things are going to happen:

a) the supreme court decides not to hear the case; or,

b) the supreme court hears the case and determines that proper avenues have ALREADY BEEN FOLLOWED to conclude the birth certificate is valid.

option c, which is yours, is most likely not going to happen:

c) the supreme court, not liking the decision that has already been made, decides that obama has to show his birth to certificate to that noted birth certificate expert, christine, who writes a blog that daily quotes a host of other bloggers who, oddly enough, are ALL birth certificate experts, too, and who have all concluded that the birth certificate already examined is a forgery - either that, or the hawaiian government is part of a vast conspiracy of left-wing people marching in lock-step to whatever george soros or the homosexual lobby tells them to do.

i hate to break it to you, but the line of people is almost endless who are going to step up and give you the answer that 'the birth certificate is valid.' all of these people are going to be well-dressed, educated, law-abiding citizens following the law as it has been laid down. YOU'RE going to say, 'BUT THE ONLY ONE WHO REALLY KNOWS IS A VOODOO-DOLL HOLDING OLD LADY IN KENYA!!!!!' WE HAVE TO TAKE HER WORD OVER THEIRS!!!!!'.

now, far be it from me to put my well-earned name on the line and say that all of these suit-wearing, well-shaven people with greasy hair and even greasier smiles are telling the honest-to-God truth. as a matter of fact, right now i am having $600-$900 thousand dollars stolen from me by a high-tech company's board of directors and management who are taking a currently publicly-held company private, screwing the long-suffering shareholders out of the financial rewards that are now ready to be realized. i can connect all the dots and the average person of intelligence can say, 'what these guys are doing is outrageous! this shouldn't be legal!' - but the sad fact is that the class action lawsuit i'm only a minor-shareholding piece of is not going to do anything but cut my nest egg in half and leave me with the other half of the egg on my face, while the previously mentioned BOD and mgmt take their well-paid positions within the new company AND reap the rewards of ill-gotten and completely undeserved option grants that will pay them no less than what i'm getting in the unfairly-priced buyout.

there - are you happy? life sucks all around.

but there are a few silver linings, if we look for them:

a) i will cash in my stock without too serious losses and have some cash to go into the collapsed market that our current present is leaving us with as he rides off into the sunset, where i can buy solid companies like GE for deeply-discounted prices, much as the greedy banks are doing with taxpayer dollars in scarfing up other banks that are failing because they haven't bought their own treasury secretary;

b) you will begin four years as a citizen of a country having inteligent, pragmatic leadership for the first time in nearly a decade.

let's both count our blessings and move on with our lives, christine. you have some good work to do here at your blog - work you alluded to in a few posts of late, until you decided you preferred the shortly-lived (but much more intense) high that comes with partaking of highly-proofed (but never-in-million-years proven) rumors and accusations.

get back to work, christine.

this is the end times, remember?


(no, this comment was so well written i have to put my real sig so people can say, 'this guy is nuts - does he have a blog?...':)

mike rucker
fairburn, georgia, usa

Christinewjc said...

spud wrote: "so two things are going to happen"

Er...ummm....Don't you mean "one of two things" will happen?

Then - you added option "c" - (btw, which, isn't the main subject of the Donofrio vs. Wells case anyway.)

You call me "irrational."

Then you sign off with:

(no, this comment was so well written i have to put my real sig so people can say, 'this guy is nuts - does he have a blog?...':)

You said it...I didn't.

Open mouth - spud inserts foot. Good job there tooley boy!

P.S. Sorry to hear about your money problems. You can blame the Democrats in Congress for that.

spud tooley said...


love ya, christine.

have a good day. and weekend.

and don't post any of gary's comments...

(and if he tries to use my 'if you can't beat 'em, delete 'em' line in response to what i just wrote, remind him that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery...)



John said...

"You can blame the Democrats in Congress for that."

What a ridiculous statement...although true to form.
I suppose the WPE (Worst President Ever...Google it!!)
and his Congress of 6 years had absolutley nothing to do with the current financial sitution?

And who's drinking the kool-aid?

That's why this is a comedy blog.

jeleasure said...

You hit it dead on. Your answer to not believing that all of those persons voted for Obama lies in the blue pill.

jeleasure said...

To John, the unlinked.

Bush may be the "worst President ever". Though, our Constituntion remains sovereign for a while longer while "The worst President ever" is still in The White House!

Without the the Constitution, nothing else really matters for the future of this country. Because, an Obama administration found to be illegal and unconstitutional would, at the end of his term mean no law or treaty he has signed will be upheld by the Constitution. This era will be counted to history as 'The age The United States of America had no leadership'.