How Obama Lost America

by Chris Field (Townhall.com Magazine)

The president's agenda, arrogance and attitude have dulled that shiny, gold-plated image so many Americans bought. Now, his hubris and damn-the-voters posture are leading his party to a 2010 disaster.

President George W. Bush was a buoy for Republicans in 2002, the first midterm election of his presidency. Obama, on the other hand, is like an anvil. How did things go so wrong?

His predicament is partly the result of bad luck. Obama did not create the bad economy, even if it helped him get elected. He did not cause the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, even if a majority of Americans now frown upon his response to it. Both circumstances are now exacerbating his current problems, but neither can explain the relatively sudden crackup that polls suggest happened between late 2009 and early 2010.

The simplest explanation for Obama’s demise is ObamaCare, but it’s still not enough just to point to the law itself. Think of the health care debate as the small chip in your windshield, which, though small, compromises its integrity. When your car hits the next big bump, the chip becomes a crack, which then grows and spreads with every little jolt. In similar fashion, Obama’s ruthless push for health care reform—and his failure to heed the public’s negative reaction—created the first cracks in Obama’s administration. They have since widened and multiplied with each new disaster, gaffe and piece of bad economic news.

-----
From the September 2010 cover story of Townhall Magazine. Order your subscription today to ensure you get this powerful issue.

Elitists' deepest, darkest secrets revealed

Book Review and Special Offer

Finally, a crystal-clear explanation of how America is being transformed

Although it's been variously described as "pure evil" and "the best book of the 21st century," one thing's for sure – David Kupelian's new blockbuster is deeply impacting many people, and today only, "How Evil Works" is available – hardcover and autographed – for only $4.95, an amazing $21 discount!

Recently featured on Fox News' "Hannity," CBN's Newswatch and C-SPAN, Kupelian's sequel to his classic culture-war bestseller "The Marketing of Evil" is making waves everywhere. It unmasks everything from Team Obama (Chapter 1: "Why We Elect Liars As Leaders") to radical Islam (Chapter 3: "How Terrorism Really Works") to today's rampant narcissism (Chapter 4: "The Secret Curse of Celebrity") to wholesale rejection of God (Chapter 7: "Why Militant Atheism is Becoming a Badge of Honor") to fighting back effectively and winning (Chapter 11: "Turning the Tables on Evil in America").

* "How Evil Works" is "startlingly insightful," says No. 1 New York Times best-selling author Jerome Corsi. "David Kupelian reveals the hidden mechanisms that allow lies and deception to take root in modern America. A truly important book."

* Radio legend Barry Farber says: "With the unapologetic outrage of a saint and the fearless fury of a General Patton, here comes David Kupelian turning a blowtorch of good upon the putrid cobwebs of evil."

* J. Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel says "'How Evil Works' has the same effect on your brain that yawning has on your ears at high altitude. Things just suddenly pop with crystal clarity."

* And talk radio superstar Sean Hannity calls "How Evil Works" "terrific," telling listeners, "This is a powerful book ... I couldn't put it down."

Until tonight at 10 p.m. Pacific, you can get your copy of this sensational book for only $4.95 – by taking advantage of this special offer, exclusively from WorldNetDaily.

But wait – it gets better. There's another part to this deal. When you order "How Evil Works" for $4.95, we will also send you, FREE, three sizzling issues of WND's critically acclaimed monthly magazine, Whistleblower.

Many readers consider Whistleblower to be simply the world's best newsmagazine. Each issue focuses like a powerful laser on a single topic – from how to survive financial meltdown to understanding the secret agendas of America's establishment elite – explored thoroughly, and with facts and insight such as you've never seen anywhere else. Recent issues include "SHADOW GOVERNMENT: Inside the mad, mad, mad, mad world of Obama's czars," "MEDICAL MURDER: Why Obamacare could result in the early deaths of millions of baby boomers," "THE GREAT AWAKENING: How tea partiers are setting a new course for America," "NARCISSIST IN CHIEF: Experts explain what makes Barack Obama tick" and "BLACK HOLE: The shocking truth about the U.S. economy – and what you can and must do."

So, for $4.95 you get a signed copy of "How Evil Works" by David Kupelian, plus you get three sample issues of Whistleblower – in hopes, of course, that you will do what most people do, which is to become a long-term Whistleblower subscriber.

(This offer does not apply to current Whistleblower subscribers or those living outside the U.S. However, if you are already a Whistleblower subscriber, or if you want to subscribe now, we have an outstanding offer for you to check out!)

Important: For this very special $4.95 offer, you will receive "How Evil Works" as well as three free issues of Whistleblower magazine. Also included with your free issues will be a renewal notice for a one-year Whistleblower subscription. If you wish to renew, do nothing, and your credit or debit card will be charged the discounted annual renewal rate of only $39.95. (There's no risk, because at any time you can cancel your subscription for a full refund on the unused portion.) If you don't want to renew, simply cancel by calling 1-800-4WNDCOM (800-496-3266) or by emailing canceltrial@wnd.com before the charge date printed on the renewal card you'll receive. Either way, the book and the 3 free issues are yours to keep. (Only one copy of "How Evil Works" at this price per household. Offer good only in the U.S.)

Please note: If you like your three free Whistleblower issues and renew, when your Whistleblower subscription eventually expires, you'll receive another renewal notice from us. To keep Whistleblower coming, do nothing and we'll renew your subscription automatically at the low prevailing rate by chargingyour credit or debit card . As always, there's never any risk, as you may cancel at any time for a full refund of the unused portion of your subscription.

"This is an amazing offer, one that sounds almost too good to be true," said WND Editor Joseph Farah. "But it is true – our way of giving loyal WND readers a fantastic bargain, while at the same time introducing them to our monthly magazine."

"I urge readers to take advantage of this special deal now, because it's good for today only," Farah added.

Order your copy of David Kupelian's "How Evil Works" for only $4.95! Special offer ends tonight at 10 p.m. Pacific.

If you prefer to order by phone rather than online, call our toll-free customer-service line at 1-800-4WND-COM (1-800-496-3266) between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. Central.

Glenn Beck: Obama Administration 'Most Corrupt of All Time'

By: David A. Patten

Fox News host Glenn Beck tells Newsmax that President Barack Obama's White House qualifies as the most corrupt administration in U.S. history.

"There are so many things that this administration has done that I think will go down in history as ... it's going to go down in history as the most corrupt administration ever," Beck says in an exclusive Newsmax.TV interview.

Beck's no-holds-barred assessment of the Obama administration's ethics comes as he is promoting an Aug. 28 celebration at the Lincoln Memorial called Restoring Honor.

The remark came as Newsmax.TV sought Beck's reaction to a recent statement that GOP Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl attributed to Obama.

Kyl said he asked Obama to secure the U.S.-Mexico border, but the president refused because it would reduce Republicans' incentive to compromise on immigration reform. The White House denied Kyl's account, but former Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo wrote in op-ed column that Obama's stance "constitutes an impeachable offense."

Asked if he agrees with Tancredo, Beck replies "I'll leave that up to them."

But he goes on to say: "If the story is ever told, if the journalists ever decide to regain their soul to their journalist god – whoever that is, Walter Lippmann or I don't know who – if they ever care to redeem their soul, and actually look into the corruption and things that are going on in this administration, this administration will be exposed as the most corrupt of all time."

The Fox News luminary added that former President George W. Bush also failed in his duty to secure the border.

Beck spoke at length about Restoring Honor, described as a non-political effort to re-establish the values expressed when the nation was created.

"Trying to restore our country," Beck explains, "it's impossible to do it if we don't have honor."

According to the GlennBeck.com/828 website, the Restoring Honor celebration will pay tribute to America's military personnel for their embodiment of the virtue of honor.

The event is free, and all proceeds raised will go to the Special Operations Warrior Foundation, which awards scholarships to the children of special-operations personnel who die in combat or training.

In the interview, Beck points to a recent Gallup poll that shows the 76 percent of Americans have a great deal of confidence in the U.S. military – much higher than the public has in any other institution.

Congress, by comparison, enjoys the confidence of 11 percent. The presidency has the confidence of 36 percent.

Big business and organized labor score 19 percent and 20 percent, respectively.

"I was pondering why [the military], and it's because they're honorable," Becks says. "They'll do the tough things. They'll do them because they're the right things to do. And we still believe in them … generally speaking, they are the only things we still believe in, that and our religious organizations."

Controversy seems to follow Beck around wherever he goes these days, so it's no surprise his foes on the left are planning to hold a demonstration against his Restoring Honor rally. How could an event supporting U.S. war heroes and their families possibly be controversial?

Well, it turns out Aug. 28 happens to be the 47th anniversary of the day Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his historic "I Have a Dream" speech, which also was delivered from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. Beck says the choice of dates was accidental. But a smattering of protesters say they'll also be there on the Mall.

Beck opens up in the interview about the key role faith has played in securing the nation's future. Helping Americans rediscover their true identity, and their most cherished beliefs, is even more important than influencing political outcomes, he says.

"I have news for you," Beck tells Newsmax. "If anybody thinks this is going to be an easy transition, either into socialism, into the slavery of Marxism, or the transition back into our founding principles, it's not going to be an easy ride.

"It's going to get very, very bumpy. We're not at the bottom yet. However, there's one way to make it a lot easier. That is, for us to be the people we truly are, not the people that we've allowed ourselves to become. To reconnect with those inner virtues and values within ourselves.

"We do it naturally at the time of trouble, we did it on 9/12," he adds. "That's who we naturally are. Now let's master that to be able to be that way without the crisis, so we can logically think our way out of the trouble that we're in."

The Fox News host and perennial best-selling author also describes Sarah Palin's role in the event. "She's going to be introducing some of the heroes who will be on stage … amazing, amazing military people," he says. "She'll be introducing them, and talking about the honor and integrity of our military."

Other speakers scheduled to appear at Restoring Honor include Marcus Luttrell, former Navy Seal and author of the best-selling “Lone Survivor”; and Alveda King, the niece of Martin Luther King Jr. Country music artist Jo Dee Messina is expected to perform as well.

During the exclusive interview, Beck reserves his toughest critique for the current administration.

Asked whether a court decision granting the administration the authority require people to buy health insurance would lead to tyranny, Beck says, "Totally. I mean, we're there. If they can do this … It's unconstitutional."

Beck says he won't try to predict how the courts might rule on the state-level challenge to healthcare reform's individual mandate. But he insists his track record for making predictions has been pretty good.

"Everyone who disagreed with me two years ago, said none of these things can happen. … I'd ask them 'Why?' They'd say, 'Well, because, you don't understand politics.' Or 'You don't understand this or you don't understand this.'

"I said, 'You don't understand this: They don't care. Progressives don't care. They're not playing on the same rulebook.

"And now you've taken progressives and added revolutionary right next to them. The game is entirely different. So, predictions: Think the unthinkable," Beck says.

"What you thought couldn't happen a year ago, has. What you think can't happen next year, could."


© Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Shopping mall's speech restrictions torpedoed

FAITH UNDER FIRE

Appeals court affirms right 'to engage in casual conversations'

By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

A court decision written by a candidate for chief justice of the California Supreme Court has torpedoed rules established by a shopping mall to regulate casual conversations among customers.

"The [mall's] rules treat all applicants for noncommercial expressive activity the same way, but the rules are not content neutral because they prohibit or restrict speech unrelated to the mall's interests while permitting speech that is related to the mall's interest. The rules are content based," said the opinion from Associate Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye.

And those rules, the judge explained, are presumptively unconstitutional.

Get "Back Fired," by William J. Federer, which shows how the faith that gave birth to tolerance is no longer tolerated!

According to the Pacific Justice Institute, which represented a youth pastor targeted by mall enforcement of its speech rules, the case arose after a Matthew Snatchko was arrested at the Roseville Galleria Mall in 2007 for striking up a casual conversation with other shoppers about faith.

Although Snatchko had obtained the shoppers' permission to broach the subject, a nearby store employee disapproved and called mall security guards, who arrested Snatchko. Criminal charges were later dropped, but attorneys with Pacific Justice Institute filed suit to challenge the mall's tight restrictions on speech.

Pacific Justice said that under the mall's rules, shoppers are not allowed to engage in conversations about potentially controversial topics such as religion or politics unless they already know the person they are talking to. Another mall rule bans the wearing of any clothing with religious or political messages.

The new ruling from the 3rd District Court of Appeal in Sacramento struck down the mall rules as unconstitutionally vague and restrictive of free speech. The court also awarded costs on appeal to Snatchko and indicated he would be able to collect damages and attorney's fees. The case now heads back to the trial court for implementation of the appellate court's decision.

"We are very pleased with this landmark ruling by the California Court of Appeals that vindicates the right to engage in casual conversations about faith without fear of being arrested," said Brad Dacus, president of PJI. "This is a great victory for free speech and common sense."

"The rules are unconstitutional on their face under article I, section 2 of the California Constitution, the California constitutional provision which guarantees the right to freespeech," the court ruling found.

The court noted the seemingly innocuous behavior that prompted the mall to arrest the youth pastor.

"Hoping for opportunities to share his Christian faith, Matthew Snatchko, a youth pastor, often went to a large regional shopping mall – the Galleria in Roseville, owned, operated and managed by Westfield (hereafter the Galleria or the mall). While he was in the common area of the mall one evening, Snatchko approached three young women in their late teens, asked them if they were willing to talk with him, and upon receiving their consent, engaged them in conversation,which included with their permission his sharing with them principles of his faith. He did not raise his voice or otherwise create a scene. He did not distribute any literature. He did not solicit money or other contributions of any kind. He did not ask them to join his church. He did not block mall patrons," thecourt said.

"Nevertheless, a nearby store employee called the mall's security office and requested they investigate Snatchko's actions. A security officer responded and observed what he believed to be nervous behavior by the young women. Snatchko did not observe any expression or conduct by the women indicating they were nervous or that they did not want to continue the conversation. It appeared to Snatchko that the security officer stopped and listened to his conversation with the women."

The court continued, "The security officer approached and asked Snatchko to stop what he was doing or leave the mall. When Snatchko refused, the security officer called for backup. A senior security officer responded and instructed Snatchko to leave. As Snatchko continued to refuse, the security officers forcibly placed Snatchko under citizen's arrest, handcuffed him and escorted him to the security office where they turned him over to Roseville police."

However, the charges later were dismissed and the Placer County district attorney stipulated that Snatchko was factually innocent of the charges.

Snatchko then filed the court action to challenge the speech rules.

"Westfield's rules burden substantially more speech than is necessary to further its legitimate safety and convenience interests. The rules prohibit strangers from consensually engaging in peaceful spontaneous political or religious discussions even if they do not: converse loudly, attract a crowd, block any ingress/egress to the mall, its tenants or their activities, distribute any literature, hold any signs or placards, request signatures for any petition, solicit any contributions, or compromise any fire or other safety precautions," the court scolded. "In other words, the rules prohibit unplanned classic pure free speech between strangers who mutually agree to converse and who cause no disturbance of the peace or otherwise burden, interfere with, or impose additional risk on the operation or enjoyment of the mall."

Katy Dickey, a Westfield spokeswoman, told the Sacramento Bee, "We are disappointed that the court of appeals determined that the rules in question did not satisfy the required legal standard for reasonable time, place and manner restrictions. We are reviewing the court's decision and will consider our optionsincluding appeal to the California Supreme Court."

Obama Is Demagogue in Chief on Immigration Issue

By: David Limbaugh

As the granddaddy of political demagoguery, President Obama might have outdone himself with his recent admonition to political opponents not to "demagogue" the immigration issue.

A "demagogue" is "a political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument."

"Ah," you say, "Obama is onto something here. Those who oppose his open-border policy are appealing to prejudice against immigrants instead of to rational argument." Wrong.

Rather, those who support defending our borders believe in the rule of law and in law enforcement. The people of the United States — and Arizona in particular — have a rational interest in protecting their borders and in wanting to prevent illegal immigration.

Though we've had immigration laws on the books for years, are Obama's Democrats saying they are irrationally based — that anyone who wants to enforce these laws is prejudiced? That anyone throughout our history who favored controlling immigration was harboring racial prejudice?

It is Obama and many of his supporters who fall into the demagogue category by appealing to prejudices and fears in lieu of rational argument.

Even in his invocation of the term "demagogue" to describe this issue, Obama himself is demagoguing. He must, because he has no reasonable arguments to justify his lawless policy.

Obama is implying — and has been implying for months — that the people of Arizona didn't pass an enforcement law to ensure their own safety or to facilitate legitimate ends of law enforcement authorities, but to discriminate against legal aliens.

Indeed, the thrust of the administration's ill-conceived lawsuit against the state of Arizona and its people is that legal aliens would be targeted by the reach of the new law.

Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder know better, as Arizona officials testified under oath and averred otherwise in court filings, but they choose to persist in this destructive lie anyway because rational arguments fail them.

The law will not be applied to legal aliens, but it doesn't target illegal aliens, either. It merely allows authorities to demand documentation from those who are already detained because of a reasonable suspicion they broke a law.

If they don't put themselves in a position of being under such suspicion, the immigration law is powerless against them.

Being "a political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices," Obama wants to inflame Hispanics into believing the Arizona people and Republicans nationwide are motivated by a prejudice against Mexicans.

Liberals have been hyping this malicious canard for years, suggesting that Republicans and conservatives are nativists and racists.

This is part of a pattern for Obama: to hold himself out as transcending race while exploiting the issue worse than anyone has in the past 50 years.

Whether in his self-indulgent autobiographies or his stump speeches, Obama consistently reveals his deep-seated racial baggage, and he simply will not desist from projecting that baggage onto his political opponents, who oppose him because of his policies. Obama's mentor Saul Alinsky would heartily approve.

In his "bitter clingers" speech, Obama suggested that small-town Americans cling to not only their "guns or religion" — as if that were unhealthy — but also their "antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

"Antipathy to people who aren't like them"? Notice how he unctuously conflates racial prejudice with anti-trade and anti-immigration ideas. He's talking about political conservatives here — Middle America — and implying they're racists.

No mistake about it. Apparently, he can view things only through race-tinted spectacles and insists on forcing those glasses on the rest of us as well.

"High-minded" liberal elites were beside themselves proclaiming that Obama, because of his race, was in a special position to usher in an era of racial harmony.

Well, if we accept the premise that his race should matter on race relations, then it's also fair to say that he has a special responsibility not to exploit the race issue and that he should take extraordinary care not to inflame the already sensitive passions that exist.

It can't reasonably be argued that it's healthy for race relations for Obama to gallivant about suggesting ordinary Americans are routinely prejudiced, whether against blacks, Hispanics, or other "minorities."

Such reckless speech does more to exacerbate racial tensions than his election could ever do to heal them.

Falsely accusing people of racism is essentially the same thing as racism. It's time for Obama and many other liberals to rise above their own categorical prejudice against conservatives and quit slandering them as racists and nativists. Then we can proceed to have a rational discussion on the issue of immigration.

David Limbaugh is a writer, author, and attorney. His new book, "Crimes Against Liberty," will come out in August. To find out more about David Limbaugh, please visit his website.


© Creators Syndicate Inc.

Who Makes The Laws, Anyway?

by Charles Krauthammer

WASHINGTON -- Last week, a draft memo surfaced from the Homeland Security Department suggesting ways to administratively circumvent existing law to allow several categories of illegal immigrants to avoid deportation and, indeed, for some to be granted permanent residency.

Most disturbing was the stated rationale. This was being proposed "in the absence of Comprehensive Immigration Reform." In other words, because Congress refuses to do what these bureaucrats would like to see done, they will legislate it themselves.

Regardless of your feelings on the substance of the immigration issue, this is not how a constitutional democracy should operate. Administrators administer the law, they don't change it. That's the legislators' job.

When questioned, the White House downplayed the toxic memo, leaving the impression that it was nothing more than ruminations emanating from the bowels of Homeland Security. But the administration is engaged in an even more significant power play elsewhere.

A 2007 Supreme Court ruling gave the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate carbon emissions if it could demonstrate that they threaten human health and the environment. The Obama EPA made precisely that finding, thereby granting itself a huge expansion of power and, noted The Washington Post, sending "a message to Congress."

It was not a terribly subtle message: Enact cap-and-trade legislation -- taxing and heavily regulating carbon-based energy -- or the EPA will do so unilaterally. As Frank O'Donnell of Clean Air Watch noted, such a finding "is likely to help light a fire under Congress to get moving."

Well, Congress didn't. Despite the "regulatory cudgel" (to again quote the Post) the administration has been waving, the Senate has repeatedly refused to acquiesce.

Good for the Senate. But what to do when the executive is passively aggressive rather than actively so? Take border security. Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., reports that President Obama told him about pressure from his political left and its concern that if the border is secured, Republicans will have no incentive to support comprehensive reform (i.e., amnesty). Indeed, Homeland Security's abandonment of the "virtual fence" on the southern border, combined with its lack of interest in completing the real fence that today covers only one-third of the border, gives the distinct impression that serious border enforcement is not a high administration priority absent some Republican quid pro quo on comprehensive reform.

But border enforcement is not something to be manipulated in return for legislative favors. It is, as the administration vociferously argued in court in the Arizona case, the federal executive’s constitutional responsibility. Its job is to faithfully execute the laws. Non-execution is a dereliction of duty.

This contagion of executive willfulness is not confined to the federal government or to Democrats. In Virginia, the Republican attorney general has just issued a ruling allowing police to ask about one's immigration status when stopped for some other reason (e.g., a traffic violation). Heretofore, police could inquire only upon arrest and imprisonment.

Whatever your views about the result, the process is suspect. If police latitude regarding the interrogation of possible illegal immigrants is to be expanded, that's an issue for the legislature, not the executive.

How did we get here? I blame Henry Paulson. (Such a versatile sentence.) The gold standard of executive overreach was achieved the day he summoned the heads of the country's nine largest banks and informed them that henceforth the federal government was their business partner. The banks were under no legal obligation to obey. But they know the capacity of the federal government, when crossed, to cause you trouble, endless trouble. They complied.

So did BP when the president summoned its top executives to the White House to demand a $20 billion federally administered escrow fund for damages. Existing law capped damages at $75 million. BP, like the banks, understood the power of the U.S. government. Twenty billion it was.

Again, you can be pleased with the result (I was), and still be troubled by how we got there. Everyone wants energy in the executive (as Alexander Hamilton called it). But not lawlessness. In the modern welfare state, government has the power to regulate your life. That's bad enough. But at least there is one restraint on this bloated power: the separation of powers. Such constraints on your life must first be approved by both houses of Congress.

That's called the consent of the governed. The constitutional order is meant to subject you to the will of the people's representatives, not to the whim of a chief executive or the imagination of a loophole-seeking bureaucrat.

Mr. Krauthammer is a nationally syndicated columnist.

CNN's bad news for Obama: 6 of 10 doubt U.S. birth story

BORN IN THE USA?

Poll numbers for those questioning eligibility status continue to rise

By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

A new poll by CNN, whose editorial commentary largely supports President Obama and his policies, delivered some bad news on his apparent birthday today: 6 of 10 people are uncertain the president was even born in the United States.

The poll was taken July 16-21 of 1,018 adults, including 335 Democrats and 285 Republicans. It has a margin of error of 3 percentage points.

The question was: "Do you think Barack Obama was definitely born in the United States, probably born in the United States, probably born in another country, or definitely born in another country?"

Definitely in the United States got the vote from 42 percent of the respondents and probably in the United States another 29 percent.

But that leaves almost six of 10 Americans uncertain about the president's birth – and therefore his eligibility under the U.S. Constitution to be president.

Sixteen percent said Obama probably was born in another nation, and 11 percent said he definitely was born somewhere other than the U.S.

Breaking it down, 64 percent of Democrats believe he definitely was born in the U.S., leaving more than one in three Democrats not sure. For independents, 37 percent believe he definitely was born in the U.S., leaving some two in three unsure. For membersof the GOP, not even one in four (23 percent) believes Obama definitely was born in the U.S.

Fully 41 percent of the GOP believe he definitely or probably was born outside the United States. That's nearly 30 percent for independents.

"It's surely not what the leader of the free world wants for his birthday. But, for a stubborn group of Americans, conspiracy theories about President Obama's birthplace are the gifts that keep on giving," CNN said.

"Not surprisingly, there are big partisan differences, although a majority of Republicans thinks Obama was definitely or probably born here," CNN Polling Director Keating Holland said in the CNN report.

CNN reported that "Hawaii has released a copy of the president's birth certificate – officially called a 'certificate of live birth.' And in 1961 the hospital where the president was born placed announcements in two Hawaiian newspapers regarding Obama's birth."

However, the online image released by the Obama campaign during his presidential race actually is called a "Certification of Live Birth," and those documents under the rules in the state of Hawaii were available for children not born in the state.

Also, the newspaper notifications were published based on information provided by the state that would have been generated automatically had anyone at that time decided that a United States citizenship was preferable to that of another country and stated that the child was born in Hawaii.

On the CNN forum page, participants suggested many reasons for people to doubt Obama's birth.

"Some poeple (sic) have way too much time on their hands,, (sic) this is a lost cause indicative of terrified Republicans who know they're going to be on the political sidelines for the next decade," said one.

"That's about in line with the percentage of racists in America. The racists will always contend that he is not qualified to be president becasue (sic) he is not a citizen. What a joke," wrote another.

"Wow, the level of ignorance prevelant (sic) in this country is simply staggering," added a third.

WND previously reported when a new "60 Minutes"–Vanity Fair poll revealed that only 39 percent of respondents believe Obama was born in Hawaii as he wrote in his book.

The magazine boasted, "A whopping 63 percent – very nearly two-thirds of us – went out on a limb and stated for the record that we believe in the United States. It's enough to make you proud to be an American – or 63 percent proud, at any rate."

But that included those who say they believe he was born in Kansas or another state, which still would conflict with Obama's narrative.

It was only a month earlier when a WND/Wenzel Poll revealed 55 percent – or almost that same 61 percent of Americans who don't believe Obama's Hawaii birth story – want him to release all records relating to his childhood and his education, including college records, Harvard Law School papers, passport records, travel records and other similar documentation.

Questions about Obama's eligibility to be president, exacerbated by his refusal to answer questions, release ordinary background documentation and his extraordinary legal maneuvers to keep his background hidden, have been on the radar of a number of top-level investigative reporters and news organizations since before his election.

Essentially, while the Constitution requires a president to be a "natural born citizen," which is not the same as a "citizen," none of the questions about Obama's qualifications – or lack thereof – under that requirement have yet been answered.

At the time Fritz Wenzel of Wenzel Strategies said, "Simply put, this question about Obama's legitimacy as president is undermining everything he does in the minds of millions of Americas."

"Asked what should be done should it be found that Obama does not meet the qualifications to be president, 59 percent said he should be removed from office, and 35 percent said all bills signed into law by Obama should be repealed," Wenzel said.

The WND/Wenzel poll said when asked about whether Obama's background documentation – the school records, birth records and others – should be released, the 55 percent who said yes included more than 82 percent of the GOP, 55 percent of independents and nearly 28 percent of Democrats.

Further, another 17.1 percent of Americans said Obama should release some of his documentation, making it nearly three in four Americans who want the president to unlock the steel door on some or all of his background information.

Despite his campaign promises of transparency while in office, there has been no shortage of disputes over secrecy in the Obama administration. He's already argued in court for more secrecy in the White House, claimed his work is "privileged" and apparently got rid of an inspector general who was applying heat to a friend.

The WND/Wenzel poll revealed 52 percent of Americans believe Obama is hiding something and 39 percent suspect he was not born in the U.S., frustrating efforts of the Obama administration to paint so-called "birthers" as a right-wing fringe.

"Even among Democrats, nearly one in four – 22 percent – said they either suspect he was not born in the U.S. or that they are not sure on the question," Wenzel reported.

Last October, a poll revealed three in 10 Americans believe Obama is a "foreigner," and more than a year ago, a poll revealed the ranks of the so-called "birthers" growing.

A recent CBS–New York Times poll found 58 percent of Americans think he was born in the USA.

Left-leaning news reporters linked to Bill Ayers, Dohrn

MEDIA MATTERS

Also tied to Marxist-founded group seeking government-run Internet

By Aaron Klein
© 2010 WorldNetDaily


Among the individuals who were part of the controversial JournoList e-mail group were activists who served on an editorial board alongside Weather Underground terror group founders William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, WND has learned.

Also, it has emerged that other members of JournoList were activists from a far-left think tank with close ties to a Marxist-founded, George Soros-funded group that petitions for more government control of the Internet.

So far, 107 names have been confirmed as part of the JournoList e-mail group of about 400 reporters and activists. The list shut down last month after group members were caught discussing how to minimize negative publicity about Obama's radical associations, such as the politician's long relationship with his former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

The whole story, here and now! Get Aaron Klein's "The Manchurian President" at WND's Superstore.

The names include John B. Judis, senior editor at the New Republic and a contributing editor to the American Prospect. Judis started reporting from Washington in 1982, when he became Washington correspondent for In These Times, a Chicago-based socialist journal.

Also a confirmed JournoList member is Frida Berrigan, contributing editor and a member of the editorial board for In These Times.

As of 2009, both Ayers and Dorhn were on the editorial board of In These Times. The duo became household names after it was exposed they maintained a close relationship for years with Obama.

Yesterday, WND reported that in little-noticed comments, Judis first publicly exposed in 2008 that news media reporters "threw their support" to Barack Obama, then a presidential candidate.

Meanwhile, researcher Trevor Loudon of the New Zeal has identified eight other members of JournoList who currently or recently worked for the New American Foundation, a left-leaning non-profit public policy institute and think tank with offices in Washington, D.C., and Sacramento, Calif.

The chairman of the New American Foundation Board of directors is Eric Schmidt, chairman and CEO of Google. Schmidt is a member of President Obama's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.

A New American Foundation fellow is Tim Wu, a professor at Columbia Law School and the chairman of Free Press, a George Soros-funded, Marxist-founded organization with close ties to the White House.

WND previously reported Free Press published a study advocating the development of a "world class" government-run media system in the U.S.

In May, WND reported Free Press Policy Director Ben Scott was named a policy adviser for innovation at the State Department.

Free Press is a well-known advocate of government intervention in the Internet. The founder of Free Press, Robert W. McChesney, is an avowed Marxist who favors the dismantling of capitalism.

McChesney is a professor at the University of Illinois and former editor of the Marxist journal Monthly Review.

In February 2009, McChesney concluded that capitalism should be dismantled.

"In the end, there is no real answer but to remove brick-by-brick the capitalist system itself, rebuilding the entire society on socialist principles,'" wrote McChesney in a column.

The board of Free Press, meanwhile, has included a slew of radicals, such as Obama's former "green jobs" czar" Van Jones, who resigned after his founding of a communist organization was exposed.

Obama's "Internet czar," Susan P. Crawford, spoke at a Free Press May 14, 2009, "Changing Media" summit in Washington, D.C., revealed the book "The Manchurian President".

Crawford's pet project, OneWebNow, lists as "participating organizations" Free Press and the controversial Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now.

Crawford and Kevin Werbach, who co-directed the Obama transition's Federal Communications Commission Review team, are advisory board members at Public Knowledge, a George-Soros-funded public-interest group.

A Public Knowledge advisory board member is Timothy Wu, who is also chairman of the board for Free Press.

Like Public Knowledge, Free Press also has received funds from Soros' Open Society Institute.