The People Vs. Barack Obama

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st century.


TC[Ben Shapiro will be speaking at the Freedom Center's Wednesday Morning Club on  Tuesday, July 8, 2014. For more info, click here. To order Ben's new book, "The People Vs. Barack Obama," click here.]

As the first African-American Solicitor General, Thurgood Marshall told a black fraternity, “Neither race nor color nor frustration is an excuse for either lawlessness or anarchy.”

Some five decades later, lawlessness and anarchy have descended on America and on Washington D.C. under the banner of color and frustration. This is no laissez-faire lawlessness, but anarchy toward accountability. Like the rock throwers and Molotov cocktail throwers that Marshall was denouncing, Obama and his people have made their own law out of force while rejecting the rule of law.

Through force they have become the law while disregarding the law. There is a term for that sort of behavior and is it not anarchy. It is crime.

This is the state of affairs that Ben Shapiro describes as “a quasi criminal syndicate” and in his book, The People Vs. Barack Obama: The Criminal Case Against the Obama Administration, he discusses how to fight back against it.

“Consolidated government means consolidated power, consolidated power means consolidated corruption,” Shapiro writes. The old system of checks and balances has been undone. Obama Inc. is an integrated political machine whose appointees serve a common ideological goal and a common purpose. And they control the clockwork machinery of government from the top to the bottom.

There can be no plausible expectation that Attorney General Eric Holder will investigate Obama. Not when Holder is corrupt. As corrupt confederates in crime, Obama protects Holder and Holder protects Obama. Likewise, Obama Inc. is composed of such self-serving mutual pacts forming a system of power that makes up its own laws while refusing to be accountable to the law.

Shapiro’s statement that this amounts to a criminal syndicate is not just rhetoric, it is at the very heart of the legal argument that he makes in The People Vs. Barack Obama.

“The Obama administration has become a full-fledged criminal enterprise,” he writes. “Riddled up and down with executive branch appointees engaged in high crimes and misdemeanors.”

Listing many of the scandals and the violations of the law involved from the Justice Department to the State Department, from the EPA to the NSA, Shapiro argues that they amount to a criminal conspiracy fit for a criminal complaint and that they can be and should be prosecuted under RICO statutes.

“The crime of conspiracy has typically been defined at the state level as the agreement of two or more people to commit a crime. There is little question that some of the crimes of the Obama administration have been coordinated at the highest level, as the evidence will show,” Shapiro argues.

A pattern of criminal conduct can be established for Obama that would make it difficult for him to argue plausible deniability, as he has in virtually every scandal, pretending to be outraged by the scandal he only learned about this morning from the media before shifting gears and calling it a phony scandal.

“RICO provides that any person who is part of an organization that commits any two on a list of crimes can be prosecuted for racketeering,” Shapiro writes. This list becomes the framework around which The People Vs. Barack Obama is built.

Shapiro is of course well aware that Holder is no more likely to hit Obama or his minions with RICO violations than he is to resign in order to pursue his dream of becoming an Olympic skier, but he points out that RICO suits can be pursued as civil suits turning ordinary people into “citizen attorney generals.”

There are two fronts of RICO proposals in The People Vs. Barack Obama. Aside from individual suits, Shapiro proposes that Congress expand the jurisdiction of individuals to file RICO suits against the Executive Branch. Such a move would put Congress on a collision course with Obama’s imperial abuse of executive power, but it would free Congress from having to do the hard work of engaging in prolonged confrontations with Obama; something they have already shown they lack the stomach and spine to do.

Imagine if the family of murdered border patrol agent Brian Terry were to lodge a RICO suit against the Obama administration, Shapiro suggests.

Ben Shapiro argues that the process can begin with targeting lower level officials, much as the FBI begins at the bottom rungs of a criminal enterprise, using confessions and recovered information to begin building a bigger and bigger case against the mastermind of that criminal enterprise.

The pattern of conduct by Obama Inc is that of a criminal enterprise following its corrupt instincts.

“Fast and Furious,” he writes, “sprang from the bowels of the antigun hysteria of the administration… Obama’s quest to weaken America on the international stage found its apex in the death of four Americans… the Obama administration has made a game of revealing self-serving classified information.”

The pattern is that of ideological complicity in nakedly criminal conduct. Each criminal act stems from an ideological motivation and is covered up for ideological reasons. The first motive is ideology, but the final motive is power. Shapiro writes that Obama has made all law dependent on his whim. That has led us to the lawlessness and anarchy, not of the powerless, but of the powerful.

In The People Vs. Barack Obama, Shapiro makes a compelling case for a criminal case against Obama and his subordinates. A graduate of Harvard Law School, he lays out a road map for fighting back against Obama’s lawlessness and restoring the rule of law.

A majority of Americans agree that the country is headed down the wrong path. Many however have despaired of ever putting it on the right path again. In response to a culture of lawlessness inculcated at the very top, Shapiro highlights legally creative and legally aggressive solutions for preventing the left’s organized crime from turning America from a nation of laws into a nation of thugs.

Barack Obama has pitted his power and popularity against the rule of law. Both can be contested by citizens willing to fight for the truth.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  

Subscribe to Frontpage’s TV show, The Glazov Gang, and LIKE it on Facebook.

  • truebearing

    Not being an attorney, I can’t say whether Shapiro’s legal strategy will work, but it is certainly worth trying. It is turning the tables on Obama and the Left, who have used and abused the legal system at every turn to gain power and destroy the basis of the very laws they use for leverage. This is conservative lawfare, and it is a battle the Right needs to join in a big way. The success of groups like Judicial Watch has damaged and slowed down Obama in his reckless lunge for total power. We have laws and a constitution. Let’s weaponize them against those who are trying to destroy this country.

    If the DOJ is renegade, the only option left is the people’s court.

    • http://JudeoChristianAmerica.org Alexander Gofen

      Shapiro’s legal strategy is mostly an invention of a wheel, and a bit too late at that (see my extended comment).

      • carindlee

        my classmate’s
        aunt makes $68 every hour on the computer . She has been fired for 7 months but
        last month her paycheck was $15495 just working on the computer for a few
        hours. visit the site R­e­x­1­0­.­C­O­M­

        • Wolfthatknowsall

          Your classmate’s aunt doesn’t exist. Flagged …

        • tagalog

          I know how she can make a good deal more than $68 an hour. For an appropriate sum, I’ll be happy to tell her how.

      • truebearing

        It’s never too late to fight back. Sometimes an idea is insufficient in its original conception, but in its failure another path becomes clear. The original wheels are hardly the same ones we use today, other than in the most basic way, yet they are obviously indispensible. Conservative lawfare, in any form, will at very least yield damning evidence from the process of discovery. It can also be used to try Obama, and the agenda of the Left, in public, which has vast potential politically.

        You have been involved in trying this very strategy. It may not have worked then, but how does that prove it won’t now? Circumstances change and opportunities that were closed suddenly open. Bitterness about the past won’t save our nation.

        • http://JudeoChristianAmerica.org Alexander Gofen

          It was not my thought as though it is too late to expose and act upon the illegitimacy of this governance. On the contrary, this fight must go and intensify until the time expires. Yet even now Ben Shapiro and Front Page still did not acknowledge the entire scope of the crisis, and yes, for them it is a bit too late to jump into the fry (and still lying by omission). Moreover, this suggestion to the Congress to legislate something is akin to the tale in which mice suggested to attach a ring to the cat. The Congress does not need to legislate anything new. The Congress must at least acknowledge the damning facts at hand.

          You misunderstood what I wrote about the past attempts of judicial prosecution of Obama. It was not that any Jury was on his side. No jury trial has ever happened so far. American Grand Jury is merely an alternative to Grand Jury which issues the initial indictment, which normally goes to prosecution to finalize it in the court. The sabotage of the system consisted in that all American Grand Jury presentments were ignored.

          The trials of Obama that did take place in 2012 (by attorneys Taitz and Klayman) were not jury trials. The judges then however violated all basics of justice adjudicating in favor of the defendant (Obama) who … defaulted (!) or even did not show up (no attorney on his side at all)! Those episodes alone signify the end of justice in this nation.

          Therefore, whichever book activity of Ben Shapiro now, it is definitely too late for him, and the entire standing of the Front Page is utmost hypocritical.

          • truebearing

            My reference to “the jury” was figurative, meaning the people in general. My point, therefore, is that the political headwind is against Obama now, as opposed to before, when most Americans idiotically believed his lies. People are far more inclined to see his faults, lies, and the unexplained discrepancies in his personal history. It is a shame it has taken so long for the majority to begin to see who he is, but better late than never. Now we need to “twist the knife” so to speak.

          • http://JudeoChristianAmerica.org Alexander Gofen

            I hear you and agree with you.

          • tagalog

            Obama will NEVER personally face any judicial tribunal for any conduct like that complained of. As our First Black President, he is exempt from the usual constraints we insist upon for our Presidents. He will not be impeached. He will complete his second term and half of the nation will claim that his administration was a triumph both for him and the for the nation. The other half will grumble and move on.

            The people who are muttering about revolution ought to think twice about that.

          • http://JudeoChristianAmerica.org Alexander Gofen

            Nobody knows the future (even the brightest commentator of all). The future that you predict does not require much of clairvoyance: Just a common defeatism and white towel throwing while the battle is in progress… Yes, it is a plausible scenario that remains of America will remain in the history forever with its indelible dishonor of the last decades: From stained dress of Ms. Lewinsky to soiled pants of the entire nation. For it will be the first time in the history when the greatest treason and dictatorship have succeeded without violence, with the freedom of speech in place, but unused; With the 2nd Amendment still valid, but not one shot fired…

          • tagalog

            I hardly think President Obama’s administration constitutes “the first time in the history (sic) when the greatest treason and dictatorship have succeeded without violence…” But you’ve penned some words all right.

          • 95Theses

            A tyrant by usurpation has illegitimately seized power and, therefore, is a criminal. When there are no other means available of ridding the community of the tyrant, the community may kill him. According to St. Thomas, the legitimate authority may condemn him to death using the normal course of law. However, if the normal course of law is not available (due to the actions of the tyrant), then the legitimate authority can proceed “informally” to condemn the tyrant and even grant individuals a mandate to execute the tyrant. A private citizen who takes the life of a tyrant acts with public authority in the same way that a soldier does in war.
            — Thomas Aquinas
            http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0476.html

          • 95Theses

            Just sayin’.

          • DrMaxHathaway

            Now, if only the secret service agent with integrity (assuming there are any left) could take up this cause and act upon this authority.

          • 95Theses

            A few things that I feel pretty sure of:
            1) Our Tyrant-in-Chief’s closest Secret Service personnel
            have been hand-picked according to how well they score on the Obama BOSS scale (Bootlicking Obsequious Sycophancy Scale) to ensure that the scenario you suggest will never take place. On the other hand, these persons weren’t necessarily hired for their IQ now, were they?
            2) That words like ‘tyrant’ or ‘impeachment’ or the like are being carefully monitored and scrutinized by our kindly, pro-freedom-of-speech (and thought) agents working at the NSA.

            Finally, I would like to bring to your attention words
            written by the honorable Dr. Thomas Sowell – and mind you, this was written back in May of 2007 – long before Obama’s presidency was assured:

            Random thoughts on the passing scene.
            Don’t Get Weak
            2007, May 01 | Thomas Sowell

            … When I see the worsening degeneracy in our politicians, our media, our educators, and our intelligentsia, I can’t help wondering if the day may yet come when the only thing that can save this country is a military coup …
            http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/220788/dont-get-weak/thomas-sowell#

            And — not to sound like bratty children yelling from the backseat during a long trip — but, ARE WE THERE YET?

          • smrstrauss

            One reason that they have not done what you desire is that Obama really was born in Hawaii and really is a Natural Born US citizen.

          • smrstrauss

            Obama really was born in Hawaii and hence really is a Natural Born Citizen and hence eligible to be president. And he really won the election twice, as the UNANIMOUS confirmation of the US Congress makes clear (and that included the votes of Rep. Michele Bachmann and Rep. Ron Paul). So he is not a usurper.

            As for his being a “tyrant.” That is your opinion, but no Congressional committee has been called on the subject of impeachment, so it is not widely shared.

            Re: Aquinas quotation. If a nut takes the life of Obama (1) two little girls would be without their father; (2) it would be murder, and the nut would be tried and convicted for murder; (3) Joe Biden would take over; (4) it would be highly counter-productive for the right wing.

          • Steve

            Are you freakin crazy? Obama has been subjected to the vilest personal and investigative attacks of ANY President in history. You righties cannot accept that a black man won two national elections and are resorting to every imaginable subterfuge to delegitimize his Presidency. History will show Barack Obama as a man of incredible fortitude, intelligence and grace at having steadily guided this government in the face of unprecedented hatred and obstinance from a significant portion of the populace.

          • tagalog

            We righties don’t have to use any subterfuge to delegitimize Obama’s presidency.

            He’s doing a great job blowing his presidency to smithereens right out there in the open.
            Go for it, Barry!

    • Daniel Greenfield

      thank you True

      • monicadashby

        like
        Jacqueline implied I’m taken by surprise that a mom can earn $8130 in 1 month
        on the computer . see post F­i­s­c­a­l­p­o­s­t­.­C­O­M­

        • Wolfthatknowsall

          Flagged …

    • DB1954

      If you were an attorney, you probably wouldn’t have a much better idea as to the feasibility of Shapiro’s strategy because lawyers rarely agree on much. That said, it looks like the best I’ve seen so far.

  • http://JudeoChristianAmerica.org Alexander Gofen

    1) First, the mechanism of people’s indictment similar to the idea of Mr. Shapiro already exists in the Constitution and is called American Grand Jury.

    2) Not only does it exist, but at least two such American Grand Juries were organized already in 2009 and 2010 (I was one of the Jurors), and they worked out the indicting presentments containing about 30 items of accusation ranging from the constitutional illegitimacy to forged documents, perjury and treason of Obama-Soetoro (the name uncertain): All the items substantiated with testimonies of experts. These presentments were hand-delivered to hundreds of government prosecution offices and US Congressmen – all remained ignored.

    3) One particular event in this category was the People’s Trial of Obama organized by a prominent black pastor James Davis Manning of Harlem, New York, in May 2010, which too indicted Obama in the list of crimes ranging from perjury to treason, and whose protocol was hand delivered to government prosecution offices and US Congressmen – all remained ignored.

    What? You have never heard about this activity before? Thank the blog that you are reading now, which sabotaged its journalistic duty and maintained a taboo or disinformation about Obama since day one in 2008.

    4) We can vaguely put into the same category of people’s indictments also thousands of reports sent by citizens and experts into FBI about the laughing forgery of the Obama’s copy of his BC produced in April 2011 on the White House Web page.

    5) Indeed, all that sabotage of FBI, state prosecutors, multiple courts, and the US Congress is covered by one your phrase “Obama has made all law dependent on his whim”.

    6) The culmination of Mr. Shapiro’s lingual elegancy however is achieved in his phrase: … “To free Congress from having to do the hard work of engaging in prolonged confrontations with Obama; Something they have already shown they lack the stomach and spine to do”!

    They have shown betrayal of their oath to uphold and protect the Constitution, Mr. Shapiro, and they are doing this since 2008. The entire Congress is guilty in treason. And one of many factors helping them to keep doing this is Front Page Magazine, Mr. Horowitz, and all his staff of the Freedom Censor which violated their journalistic duty and stayed in cahoots with the treasonous party and Congress since 2008. And after 6 years of this dishonor, why not to capitalize a little on the greatest national infamy by publishing a book (which too fell short of bringing the most grotesque items of indictment of the impostor).

    • Webb

      Thank you for your service, and for this information.

    • JacksonPearson

      ——=====

    • smrstrauss

      Real grand juries are called under the control of real judges and real district attorneys. So called “people’s grand juries” and “people’s trials” are also known as “kangeroo courts.” If they were legal, groups of people with particular interests could just call trials anytime they wanted and convict the people whom they do not like.

      • http://JudeoChristianAmerica.org Alexander Gofen

        1) The (American) grand juries indict, rather than convict. They request an investigation and full fledged trials, and then the trial can convict if such is the outcome.

        2) The American grand juries are envisaged in the Constitution – disregarding whether you like it or not, that “groups of people with particular interests could just call trials anytime”. The Constitution exactly allows “groups of people with particular interests to call trials anytime” – but what is a Constitution after all…

        • smrstrauss

          ALL grand juries indict, rather than convict. But self-appointed “grand juries” can then lead to self-appointed 12-person juries. The only kind of grand jury that is referred to in the US Constitution is the real kind, under the guidance of real judges and real district attorneys.

          The quotation “groups of people with particular interests to call trials anytime” is not in the US Constitution, but birthers do not mind making up things. In this case YOU are inserting words into the US Constitution. How can anyone believe the words of someone who would do that?

          • http://JudeoChristianAmerica.org Alexander Gofen

            The quotation “groups of people with particular interests to call trials anytime” is yours. It is how you interpret the constitutional right of the people to indict.

          • smrstrauss

            Re: “The quotation “groups of people with particular interests to call trials anytime” is yours.

            In fact I said that groups of people with particularly interests did NOT have the right to call trials at any time—or indeed at any time. Only real grand juries, under the control of real judges and real attorneys general, can indict. Not kangaroo courts made up of people who do not like someone.

            So, I said that “groups of people with particular interests do NOT have the right to call trials anytime.” in contrast, you said that “groups of people with particular interests to call trials anytime” was in the US Constitution (there are no such words, of course.)

          • http://JudeoChristianAmerica.org Alexander Gofen

            Don’t confused the readers Mr. Agitator! Indeed, the language of 5th Amendment is merely “… on a presentment or indictment of Grand Jury”, which has been always understood either as people Grand Jury convened by people’s own initiative, or a court Grand Jury convened by the court initiative. Indeed, it was YOUR LANGUAGE which added specifiers like REAL grand juries, “KANGAROO COURTS”, “people with particular interests could just call trials anytime they wanted and convict the people whom they do not like”, and the last but not least – “birther”. I wonder who are they, Mr. Strauss (or whoever)?!!

            By the way, American people have all the rights to don’t like whoever they find appropriate, and then indict that person. There is no supposed injustice or grotesque in this.

          • smrstrauss

            Re: “which has always been understood either..”

            Answer: There’s no “either” in it. It has always been understood to be ONLY a regular official grand jury under the control of real judges and real attorneys general. “Grand Juries” who are composed entirely of people who hate someone (or for that matter who live someone) are obviously not impartial and have never been considered official. They simply are not real grand juries.

            I could put together a group of 24 people who do not like Sheriff Joe or Senator Cruz or the Washington Monument, and with such a group I could “indict” them all, and even “indict” a cucumber sandwich—but it wouldn’t be a real indictment.

  • Realist

    “There can be no plausible expectation that Attorney General Eric Holder will investigate Obama. Not when Holder is corrupt.”

    But the corruption goes waaaaay beyond that, Mr Greenfield. The media is supposed to be another bulwark against the kind of Tammny Hall style corruption we see now throughout the federal government, but the majority of that media is under the control of a very small number of individuals and those individuals themselves have been co-opted and corrupted into believing that they are the new heroic Agents Of Change for our generation, and that they and their progeny will continue to be First Among Equals (our new pseudo-royalty) for the forseeable future. If they stick to the game plan, that is. All they have to do is “stick with the go**amn program” and make sure that the journOlistas and RINOmedia talking heads working for them comport with cult doctrine, and Bobs your uncle!

    Does anyone really believe that the uniform coverage by the “news” media in what report and, even more importantly, what they DO NOT report, is just caused by some random confluence of events that propel that media into a rigid and single-minded uniformity of thought, manicuring away any conflicting viewpoints that could derail the actions of out self-appointed saviors? REALLY?

    Yes, the libcult is both a criminal organization and a cult and those who decide to join the cult – Or as in the case of the so-called “establishment” Republicans have decided to turn the tactics and false premises of the cult to their own selfish purposes – Do so for primarily personal reasons.

    Anyone who would knowingly join a cult must have compelling reasons to do so, wouldn’t you think? A through examination of those benefits is worthy of a book all by itself and would reveal the cult for what it really is.

  • liz

    Sounds like a great plan. I hope proceedings are already underway.

  • Will

    Yeah, big talk without any action! Just like House and Senate. When will someone with money step forward and offer a million to an IRS employee to spill their guts about the lies. When will someone step up and sue Obama?

    • joe dirt

      When pigs fly

  • pfbonney

    “Shapiro proposes that Congress expand the jurisdiction of individuals to file RICO suits against the Executive Branch … [which] would free Congress from having to do the hard work of engaging in prolonged confrontations with Obama; something they have already shown they lack the stomach and spine to do.
    Congress is just about worthless. Making this country more a democracy and less of a republic by doing this certainly has its merits.
    Sure, then Democrats could use this against Republican presidents, too, but then again, Republicans are MUCH more respectful of the law than Democrats, who seem to believe in ruling by gangs and racketeering.

    • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

      Indeed, Democrats filed a RICO suit against Republicans a number of years ago which I think was dismissed. I can’t blame Shapiro for proposing a method of doing that which urgently needs doing and which patriotic Americans desperately want to do – restrain Barry Hussein Obama – but it seems to me that either we can restrain him through regular lawsuits against his minions in the courts or we cannot. If regular lawsuits, such as the one against the Obamacare subsidies that may prove a death blow to the ACA, will do the trick, then they should be employed. And if things are so desperate that Obama cannot be restrained by the courts, then he should be stopped by impeachment. And if the Democrats make that impossible, nationalize every local race against them: “Vote Republican to stop Obama!”.

      And finally, if the Democrats are now so strong nationally that they can in effect institute one-party rule, it’s time to think seriously about secession.

      • pfbonney

        We could undo EVERYTHING he has signed into law, if we ever could prove that he is actually a foreign national.

        Whether this was as a result of where he was born, or by him not re-obtaining his US Citizenship after returning from Indonesia, as some have suggested, where he allegedly used to facilitate entry into one of the Ivy League colleges he attended (since his high school grades were lackluster – much like his presidency, in any positive way), either would serve the purpose.

        I know I’m dreaming. The audacity of hope.

        (Perhaps the next president will unseal his records?)

        • DB1954

          I don’t think that could ever be proven. For one thing, I don’t think it’s true. What is true is that Obama is hiding something about his birth, but in my opinion, it isn’t the place of his birth. That is merely a straw man. What he’s hiding is something else. In my opinion that something else is the identity of his birth father. I say this because I believe that his real father was not Obama Sr., but rather, Frank Marshall Davis, the black racist, communist for whom Barack Obama Jr. bears a striking resemblance. Aside from that, there are many other facts which indicate that FM Davis was his true, biological father.

          • pfbonney

            Interesting. While I’m not technically a “Birther”, it definitely seems Obama is hiding SOMETHING about his birth, particularly pertaining to his birth certificate, and about his university experience. The question is, “What?”.

            And what you suggest could definitely be the thing, or part of it.

          • smrstrauss

            Obama has published his short form and long form birth certificate, and the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii have repeatedly confirmed all the facts on it. ALL of the facts. Repeat ALL the facts are exactly the same as on what they sent to him—so how could Obama be covering up something about his birth?

            Here are the confirmations of Obama’s birth certificate by the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii, repeated confirmations (and by the way, the one to the secretary of state of Arizona, a conservative Republican, was ACCEPTED by the secretary of state of Arizona, who then put Obama on the ballot):

            http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/01/heres-the-birth-certificate/

            Here is the confirmation by the former governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle, a Republican (and a friend of Sarah Palin’s), that says that Obama was born in Hawaii, in Kapiolani Hospital:

            http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/hawaii_gov_lingle_answers_the.html

            Here is the statement of the teacher who wrote home to her father, named Stanley, after being told of birth in Hawaii, in Kapiolani Hospital, of a child to a woman named Stanley:

            http://web.archive.org/web/20110722055908/http://mysite.ncnetwork.net/res10o2yg/obama/Teacher%20from%20Kenmore%20recalls%20Obama%20was%20a%20focused%20student%20%20Don%27t%20Miss%20%20The%20Buffalo%20News.htm

            Here are the birth notices of Obama’s birth in the Hawaii newspapers in 1961:

            http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/obamabirth.php

            (And as you can see the section of the paper is called “Health Bureau Statistics”. Well, as the name indicates, and as both the papers and the DOH confirm, ONLY the DOH could send notices to that section of the paper, and it only did so for births IN Hawaii.)

            Here is the Index Data file:

            http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2011/04/in_hawaii_its_easy_to_get_birt.html

            Re his college experience: Well, the story that he attended college as a foreign student and received financial aid as a foreign student COMES FROM AN APRIL FOOL’S ARTICLE.

            To be sure, Obama did not publish his college grades—-but then neither did John McCain or Mitt Romney or previous presidents and presidential candidates.

          • smrstrauss

            Obama cannot be “hiding” the identity of his birth father since he, like everyone in the world, does not have proof of who his birth father is. A birth certificate does not list a birth father. It lists the legal father. And we KNOW that Davis is not name on Obama’s birth certificate because the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii have stated that ALL the facts on the published copy of Obama’s long-form birth certificate are exactly the same as on what they sent to him, and Obama senior is listed on the published copy, not Davis.

            If you’d like to dream that Davis is Obama’s “real” father—well go right ahead, but there is no evidence for it, and birthers have changed their stories about who the “real” father is repeatedly. First they said Malcolm X was the father, then Davis, then Subud, then Davis again. Oh, and BTW, it is not possible to inherit political leanings through DNA.

          • 95Theses

            Good morning, Ignoramus Gluteus Maximus!
            Did you really think no one would notice that you gave the solitary up vote to your own comment!
            You silly wabbit!

          • smrstrauss

            That is neither illegal, immoral or fattening.

          • Debbie G

            Haha, nice catch 95!

          • smrstrauss

            See below.

          • Dave B.

            Yeah, according to the same wacky guy who brought us the mockumentaries “Paul McCartney Really Is Dead: The Last Testament of George Harrison” and “Elvis Found Alive.”

  • William James Ward

    Considering that Obama & Co. have turned every government agency
    into a criminal activity any and all efforts to bring them into a court
    of law is necessary. My own take on the situation brings to mind that
    States Attorney Generals could issue arrest warrants for Obama and
    his cronies for many charges of theft of taxes for illegal gains, those
    taxes taken by IRS from State Citizens and put into phony schemes
    as in Global warming. Time to put Obama on the hot seat……William

  • tokoloshiman

    The OBAMAFIA needs to be brought down – we need the likes of Elliot Ness to get the job done. Ben and others like Pam Geller Robert Spencer are glimmers of hope for a return to sanity and the rule of law.

  • Habbgun

    This is all backwards. Obama Inc simply mirrors the tried and true methods of the urban Democratic machine operations and hitting some Obama types basically amounts to offing a few cockroaches and leaving the nest.

    Americans must realize that the price of saying “oh its just how Chicago works, “that’s just Albany” or “thats just New Jersey” is that the disease spreads after these parasites have killed the host.

    Americans must realize that these corrupt organizations must be cleaned up once and for all.

    • CapitalistPig

      I think most people who say that–like me–aren’t diminishing the criminality of what they’re doing. I told many of my friends “why are you shocked at Obama & his ilk like Valerie Jarret & Rahm Emmanuel? I’m from the Chicago area originally, that’s how that place is run. That’s what he was raised on & tutored in”.
      It isn’t an acceptance of the corruption–just an explanation.

  • mardabo

    Shapiro makes an intelligent case. I suggest that, with the profits he makes on this book, he spearhead a campaign to do exactly what he advocates.

  • joe dirt

    Talk is cheap at this time

  • Guy

    Another pipe dream. For example, the President does have the Constitutional authority to create a foreign policy aligning our country to support a new Caliphate. He is wrong to do it and even if it were treason, he has the right to conduct a foreign policy. The same is true with Fast and Furious. It could be that the program was ludicrous, or incompetent, or prone to extreme danger if (and when) it failed.

    The only valid charge against the President are crimes and misdemeanors that rise to impeachment. And there is no crime nor misdemeanor for, per see, a constitutional policy no matter how bad it is.

    Other than that its a good idea

    • DB1954

      As Andrew McCarthy has pointed out, the phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” refers to corrupt or incompetent acts. There is no constitutional requirement that the acts of corruption or incompetency constitute violations of statutory laws although they CAN constitute crimes as well as “bad” or “stupid” acts. In other words, impeachment is a political act. That is precisely what the constitutional Framers intended.

  • Leeanne Benson

    African negroid Americans must now be transported back to West Africa, where they’ll be free to implement their wastelands and high crime areas.
    From Hussein and Moomoo on down, the criminal slave class must be eliminated from the territory of the former USA.

    • Wolfthatknowsall

      Does this include conservative pastors and their congregations? Does it include Herman Cain and Dr. Ben Carson? What about Dr. Walter Williams?

      I use a screenie that includes the English rendering of my Comanche name. Most Comanches left the reservations to assimilate and become Americans in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries. Should we be shipped back to the reservations?

      That’s the problem with “one size fits all” solutions. Who are the exceptions?

      As for me, I know a number of black conservative Americans for whom I’d fight, if someone tried to deport them.

      • Well Done

        Nobody mentioned “one size fits all” solution except you.

        • Wolfthatknowsall

          And “African negroid Americans must now be transported back to West Africa” is not a one size fits all solution?

      • Martel

        A number of black conservative Americans.. and it will never be more then that. Good luck fighting for an America in which whites will be a minority just because Americans have been scared to discuss this problem (just wait one more generation), I’m sure it will be the same country you grew up in. Don’t get distracted by all the evidence to the contrary, keep believing!

        • Wolfthatknowsall

          In a poll taken several weeks ago, Dr. Ben Carson would win 40% of the black vote … 40%. And in case you haven’t noticed, whites are a minority only in the DEM-controlled cities.

          • Martel

            Currently 95% of all blacks vote democrat. Even if you should take that poll seriously, and you shouldn’t, it again proves how ethnicity/race determines elections. As it does in all multiracial societies.

            A Caucasian American baby which is born today is already a minority in his age category. The reason is that his parents are too affraid to discuss race openly. Its criminal really.

      • Dave B.

        So that nonsense is all right as long as there are suitable exceptions?

        • Wolfthatknowsall

          And what do your claim is nonsense?

          • Dave B.

            Well, let’s see:
            “African negroid Americans must now be transported back to West Africa, where they’ll be free to implement their wastelands and high crime areas.
            From Hussein and Moomoo on down, the criminal slave class must be eliminated from the territory of the former USA.”
            What part’s nonsense? ALL of it.

  • sendtheclunkerbacktochicago

    Shapiro had a chance to take this Fraud in Chief to the wood shed with enough criminal evidence of FRAUD and chose to do nothing. Folks were willing to give him all the evidence necessary and he refused to even look at it.

    • DB1954

      What are you talking about? Ben Shapiro isn’t a prosecutor. He made no such choice because he had no authority to make such a choice.

  • http://geoffreybritain.wordpress.com/ Geoffrey_Britain

    The problem is NOT Obama. The problem is NOT a corrupt Congress filled with ‘progressive’ ideological traitors and RINO collaborators. They are merely symptoms of the problem.

    The American public which elected these traitors is the problem.

    “The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of
    entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president.

    The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince.

    The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools, such as those who made him their president”. Václav Klaus (former Premier of the Czech Republic)

    While IMO, Obama is far more malicious than merely a fool, Klaus’ larger point remains valid. It is “the vast confederacy of fools” wherein the problem lies. How vast? We know that as well;

    “According to a new Pew Research Center study, only 40 percent of consistently liberal Americans say they often feel proud to be Americans.”

    That finding, along with “just 40% of Solid Liberals, say the phrase “honor and duty are my core values” applies well to them” reveals that 40% of solid liberals are duped and indoctrinated low-info voters… and that, the other 60% of ‘solid liberals’ are Marxist/Progressives.

    65+Million Americans voted for Obama in 2012. 60% of 65 million is 39 Million Americans who are ideologically, Marxist progressives. They are TWANLOC.

    • DB1954

      I’m convinced that most Americans who voted for Obama had no idea who they were voting for. There certainly is a large percentage of leftist lemmings who think it’s a good thing that Obama is taking America over a cliff, but the number and percentage of Americans who still support Obama is dwindling rapidly.

      • knowshistory

        they knew. they just did not care. what is it about “i will side with muslims”, “I will fundamentally transform America”, “my muslim faith”, “no room for those who insult the prophet” that is hard to understand? we knew that he was a traitor, a muslim invader, and an enemy of our nation and our very population, and we voted for him anyway. shame on us!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • guest

      From the pen of Ed Kaitz, the answers you seek were proposed by Plato in The Republic:

      How Democracies Become Tyrannies

      By Ed Kaitz

      Back in 1959 the philosopher Eric Hoffer had this to say about Americans and America:

      For those who want to be left alone to realize their capacities and talents this is an ideal country.

      That was then. This is now. Flash forward fifty years to the election of Barack Obama and a hard left leaning Democrat Congress. What Americans want today, apparently, is a government that has no intention of leaving any of us alone.

      How could Hoffer have been so wrong about America? Why did America change so quickly? Can a free people willingly choose servitude? Is it possible for democracies to become tyrannies? How?

      The answers to these questions were famously addressed in a few pages tucked within the greatest masterpiece of the classical world: Plato’s Republic. On the surface, and to most reviewers of Plato’s writings, the Republic is a dialogue on justice and on what constitutes the just society. But to careful readers the deeper theme of the Republic is the nature of education and the relationship between education and the survival of the state. In fact, the Republic is essentially the story of how a man (Socrates) condemned to death for “corrupting” the youth of Athens gives to posterity the most precious gift of all: the love of wisdom.

      In the Republic, two young men, Glaucon and Adeimantus, accompany the much older Socrates on a journey of discovery into the nature of the individual soul and its connection to the harmony of the state. During the course of their adventure, as the two disciples demonstrate greater maturity and self-control, they are gradually exposed to deeper and more complex teachings regarding the relationship between virtue, self-sufficiency, and happiness. In short, the boys begin to realize that justice and happiness in a community rests upon the moral condition of its citizens. This is what Socrates meant when he said: “The state is man writ large.”

      Near the end of the Republic Socrates decides to drive this point home by showing Adeimantus what happens to a regime when its parents and educators neglect the proper moral education of its children. In the course of this chilling illustration Adeimantus comes to discover a dark and ominous secret: without proper moral conditioning a regime’s “defining principle” will be the source of its ultimate destruction. For democracy, that defining principle is freedom. According to Socrates, freedom makes a democracy but freedom also eventually breaks a democracy.

      For Socrates, democracy’s “insatiable desire for freedom and neglect of other things” end up putting it “in need of a dictatorship.” The short version of his theory is that the combination of freedom and poor education in a democracy render the citizens incapable of mastering their impulses and deferring gratification. The reckless pursuit of freedom leads the citizens to raze moral barriers, deny traditional authority, and abandon established methods of education. Eventually, this uninhibited quest for personal freedom forces the public to welcome the tyrant. Says Socrates: “Extreme freedom can’t be expected to lead to anything but a change to extreme slavery, whether for a private individual or for a city.”

      Adeimantus wants Socrates to explain what kind of man resembles the democratic city. In other words, he wants to know how “democratic man” comes to be and what happens to make this freedom loving man eventually beg for a tyrant. Socrates clarifies that the democratic man starts out as the son of an “oligarchic” father — a father who is thrifty and self-disciplined. The father’s generation is more concerned with wealth than freedom. This first generation saves, invests, and rarely goes in for conspicuous consumption.[i]

      The father’s pursuit of wealth leaves him unwilling and unable to give attention to his son’s moral development. The father focuses on business and finance and ignores the business of family. The son then begins to associate with “wild and dangerous creatures who can provide every variety of multicolored pleasure in every sort of way.” These Athenian precursors of the hippies begin to transform the son’s oligarchic nature into a democratic one. Because the young man has had no moral guidance, his excessive desire for “unnecessary pleasures” undermines “the citadel” of his soul. Because the “guardians” of the son’s inner citadel — truth, restraint, wisdom — are absent, there is nothing within him to defend against the “false and boastful words and beliefs that rush up and occupy this part of him.”

      A 1960s revolution in the son’s soul purges the last remaining guardians of moderation and supplants new meanings to old virtues: “anarchy” replaces freedom, “extravagance” replaces magnificence, and “shamelessness” replaces courage. The young man surrenders rule over himself “to whichever desire comes along, as if it were chosen by lot.” Here Socrates notes the essential problem when a free society becomes detached from any notions of moral virtue or truth: desires are chosen by “lot” instead of by “merit” or “priority.”

      For the son the democratic revolution in his soul is complete. In this stage “there is neither order nor necessity in his life, but he calls it pleasant, free, blessedly happy, and he follows it for as long as he lives.” Socrates gives a brief illustration of the young man’s new democratic life:

      Sometimes he drinks heavily while listening to the flute; at other times he drinks only water and is on a diet; sometimes he goes in for physical training; at other times, he’s idle and neglects everything; and sometimes he even occupies himself with what he takes to be philosophy. He often engages in politics, leaping up from his seat and saying and doing whatever comes into his mind. If he happens to admire soldiers, he’s carried in that direction, if money-makers, in that one.

      In short, the young man has no anchor, no set of guiding principles or convictions other than his thirst for freedom. His life is aimless, superficial, and gratuitous. The spoiled lotus-eaters of his generation have defined themselves simply by mocking all forms of propriety and prudence. What’s worse, as these Athenian baby-boomers exercise their right to vote, they elect “bad cupbearers” as their leaders. The new cupbearers want to stay in office so they give the voters whatever they desire. The public, according to Socrates, “gets drunk by drinking more than it should of the unmixed wine of freedom.” Conservative politicians who attempt to mix the wine of freedom with calls for self-restraint “are punished by the city and accused of being accursed oligarchs.”

      As conservative politicians court suspicion so do conservative teachers and academics who stubbornly hold on to objective measurements of performance: “A teacher in such a community is afraid of his students and flatters them, while the students despise their teachers or tutors.” Conservatism becomes unpopular just about everywhere, to a point at which even the elderly “stoop to the level of the young and are full of play and pleasantry, imitating the young for fear of appearing disagreeable and authoritarian.”

      The explosion of boundaries and limits extends even to national identity itself, so that resident aliens and foreigners “are made equal to a citizen.”

      The citizens’ souls become so infected with freedom that they become excessively paranoid about any hint of slavery. But slavery comes to mean being under any kind of master or limit including the law itself. Says Socrates: “They take no notice of the laws, whether written or unwritten, in order to avoid having any master at all.” That is, any kind of “hierarchy” in a democracy is rejected as “authoritarian.” But this extreme freedom, according to Socrates, eventually enslaves democracy.

      As the progressive politicians and intellectuals come to dominate the democratic city, its “fiercest members do all the talking and acting, while the rest settle near the speakers platform and buzz and refuse to tolerate the opposition of another speaker.” There are “impeachments, judgments and trials on both sides.” The politicians heat up the crowds by vilifying business and wealth and by promising to spread the wealth around. The people then “set up one man as their special champion” and begin “nurturing him and making him great.”

      The people’s “special champion” however transforms from leader to tyrant. He “drops hints about the cancellation of debts and the redistribution of land” and continues to “stir up civil wars against the rich.” All who have reached this stage, says Socrates, “soon discover the famous request of a tyrant, namely, that the people give him a bodyguard to keep their defender safe for them.” The people give him this new national security force, “because they are afraid for his safety but aren’t worried at all about their own.”

      Socrates describes the early weeks of the new leader’s reign:

      “Won’t he smile in welcome at anyone he meets, saying that he’s no tyrant, making all sorts of promises both in public and in private, freeing the people from debt, redistributing land to them, and to his followers, and pretending to be gracious and gentle to all?”

      After a series of unpopular actions, including stirring up a war in order to generate popular support, the leader begins to alienate some of his closest and most ardent advisers who begin to voice their misgivings in private. Following a purge of these advisors the tyrant attracts some of the worst elements of the city to help him rule. As the citizens grow weary of his tenure the tyrant chooses to attract foreigners to resupply his dwindling national bodyguard. The citizens finally decide they’ve had enough and begin to discuss rebellion.

      At this point in the dialogue Adeimantus asks Socrates incredulously: “What do you mean? Will the tyrant dare to use violence against [the people] or to hit [them] if [they] don’t obey? Socrates answers:

      “Yes – once he’s taken away [the people's] weapons.”

      Thus ends Book VIII of Plato’s Republic. I won’t spoil the marvelous ending (Books IX and X) but I would like to spend a few moments drawing some conclusions about the overall message of this fascinating text and its relevance for 21st century Americans.

      First, those of us who are incapable of self-mastery will always shamefully prostrate ourselves before messianic political leaders. The progressive left in America has spent countless generations destroying the guardians of our inner citadel: religion, family, parents, and tradition – in short, conservatism and limits. When we exhaust the financial and moral capital of previous generations (and future ones, as with the current stimulus bill) we will dutifully line up at the public trough, on our knees. Citizens capable of self-mastery will always choose to be left alone. In other words, they’ll always choose limited government.

      Second, freedom without limits paves the way to tyranny by undermining respect for the law. When politicians play fast and loose with the law it becomes easier for them and for the people to see special champions as alternative sources of rule. Today in America the objective basis for law is being attacked on campuses and even in law schools as too authoritarian and too insensitive to the subjective experiences and personal narratives of criminals. The SAT exam has also been under assault for the same reasons. As Socrates warned: extreme freedom will instill a paranoia about any kind of “master” including objective measurements of right and wrong, and of merit based forms of achievement. But when the citizens become enslaved to their vices they’ll dutifully cry out for another kind of master.

      Third, is the crucial role of education, which is the underlying theme of Plato’s Republic. The ethos of American education has been for many decades saturated with a simple mantra: choice. What’s worse, those few remaining educators who chant the old, Socratic mantra of “judgment” are vilified and harassed by the modern day lotus-eaters as hateful conservatives. Socrates predicted that all of this would happen in a democracy. But it is judgment not choice that enables a young person to erect a citadel in the soul. This eliminates the need for tyrants, and for bailouts too.

      Finally, there is a question on the minds of many conservatives today: How does one convince the younger generations of Americans to distrust the growth of the State? Is it possible for Americans to recover the desire to be left alone in order “to realize our capacities and talents” as Eric Hoffer says?

      I’ve read that in Iran, many young people chafe at the pervasive despotism there, but when the burning desire for freedom threatens to boil over, the government in Tehran eases its restrictions on the use of personal satellite dishes. Electronic Soma for the digital age.

  • g..man

    Good article. 6 years into this nothing has been done. We have no pro American voice.

  • Martel

    If Barack Obama would prosecuted for his actions, black America will rise up because they “know” he is prosecuted because of his skin colour. The mestizo’s and their politicians will side with outraged blacks, while hopelessly divided white constituents get their first taste of what life is like as a white minority in a new United States of America.

    • DB1954

      A sitting President of the United Sates cannot be tried in a criminal court. As long as Obama is President, he must first be impeached by the House then tried and removed by the Senate. Only then, when he is no longer President, can he be charged and tried for those crimes.

      • Martel

        It will never happen. Every RINO out there is switching sides because they understand that the trends in the US point to a very different future.

  • DB1954

    Where could these RICO suits be filed? Since the federal courts are filling up with Obama’s appointees, wouldn’t it be better to file them in state courts? I mean, the states also have RICO statutes. Can’t federal officials be charged by the states with state RICO violations?

    • Martel

      I wonder if native Americans also believed that everything would be “same old, same old”when the Europeans were becoming a majority. Did you know that there is no country on earth which underwent such a major demographic change and even remotely remained the same?

      Recently an investigation into corruption was dropped because all suspects where black, therefore the investigation was possibly tainted with “racism”, there was no other argument needed besides the race of the suspects. That is your future.

  • popseal

    A perfect representative of the kind of people that elected him, Obama depends upon their continued ignorance and naivete. Welfare slugs, sanctimonious academics, government dependent bureaucrats, and social engineering perverts are in his symbiotic relationship, not unlike a colon and intestinal parasites.

  • knowshistory

    pipe dream. Obama is above the law.

  • pogeybait

    All this sounds great but the big climax is about to happen in California as protesters in Temecula will be up against ICE and Federal Agents with riot gear and other assorted goodies. I will be taking bets on how long Holder, ICE and Obama will begin arresting citizens while drawing lines in the sand with both words, actions and the media. Shapiro’s strategy may get a boost as the situation escalates against citizens and it will cement the appearance that the administration is in panic, because their policies and actions are based on incompetence, lies and deceit. This is the first time in my memory that an administration has provoked the average citizen to actually promote and take up rebellion.

  • smrstrauss

    (1) Obama has shown both his Hawaii short-form BC (the Certification
    of Live Birth, COLB, which is the OFFICIAL birth certificate of Hawaii,
    used by thousands of people to get their US passports every year), and
    he has shown his long form Hawaii BC.

    (2) the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii have repeatedly confirmed
    that they sent them to him, and that all the facts, repeat ALL the
    facts, are exactly the same, repeat, EXACTLY the same, as what they sent
    to him.

    (3) Obama’s birth in Hawaii in 1961 is also confirmed by the public
    Index Data file and the birth notices sent to the Hawaii newspapers in
    1961 by the DOH of Hawaii (and ONLY the DOH of Hawaii could send birth
    notices to that section of the newspapers, the “Health Bureau
    Statistics” section, where Obama’s birth notice was published, and it
    only did so for births IN Hawaii).

    Oh, and BTW, the CONSERVATIVE secretary of state of Arizona asked the
    officials in Hawaii to confirm that Obama was born there, and when they
    did—and confirmed ALL the facts on Obama’s birth certificate, the
    CONSERVATIVE secretary of state of Arizona accepted that as a fact, and
    he ruled that Obama would be on the ballot in Arizona (as he was in all
    50 states).

    And BTW, there isn’t even evidence that Obama’s mother had a
    passport in 1961—and very very few 18-year-olds had passports at the
    time, and even fewer women traveled abroad late in pregnancy, EXTREMELY
    few, because of the risk of stillbirths. Yet birther sites have
    convinced a few GULLIBLE people that both of those extremely unlikely
    things happened, and that that Obama’s mother gave birth abroad and was
    able to smuggle her child to Hawaii without a passport or a visa (we
    don’t just allow infants to be carried into the country without
    documents, you know) AND that the officials in Hawaii despite that
    alleged foreign birth gave Obama a birth certificate that says on it
    that he was born in Kapiolani Hospital OR that the officials of BOTH
    parties and the index data and the birth notices are lying today. You
    have to be really GULLIBLE to think that all that happened.

    Oh, and the claim that Obama registered in college as a foreign student to get foreign aid comes from AN APRIL FOOL’S ARTICLE.

  • smrstrauss

    Obama’s birth certificate is not fraudulent. That is simply what birthers CLAIM—-but then they would, wouldn’t they?

    They are simply lying, just as they did when they claimed that Obama’s Kenyan grandmother said that he was born in Kenya, when she actually said over and over that he was born IN HAWAII. (Birther sites simply refused to quote her words and cut off the tape recordings on their sites so that people could not hear what she actually did say—-I wonder why they did that???) And, of course, a site that would lie like that would lie about Obama’s birth certificate being forged too, and for the same motive.

    And, Obama’s birth certificate is NOT forged:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/11/blogger-shows-obama-birth-certificate-artifacts-caused-by-xerox-machine-no-joy-in-birtherville/

  • smrstrauss

    Re: “How long must we endure?”

    Until January 20, 2017 at noon.

  • pfbonney

    “None of Obama’s records are “sealed.””

    That may well be true. But I’ll try to remember to check into that and post back here whatever I find.

    I do try to choose my battles and keep my powder dry for when I can fight a battle I can win.

    • smrstrauss

      That IS true, but birther sites do not mind lying about it. In fact Obama’s college records, passport records, etc. etc, are covered under the normal state and federal privacy laws, as are those of Mitt Romney and John McCain, who did not show their college records, passport records, etc. etc. either.

    • smrstrauss

      Three months have passed, and pfbonney has not posted anything on the subject.

      • pfbonney

        Sorry. Good point. I’ll see what I can do.

      • pfbonney

        Are Obama’s early records “sealed”?
        No. Many records that presidential candidates don’t ordinarily release do remain confidential, but they are not “sealed” by a court. The 16 claims in a widely distributed graphic are mostly false or distorted.
        July 31, 2012 — Factcheck.org

        Very good. I’ve now “Liked” Factcheck.org, politifact & Snopes, to help ensure I don’t start fighting losing battles in the future.

        There’s enough legitimate stuff out there to battle-on with.

        All the best..

        • smrstrauss

          Nicely put.

          And in fact the reason that the school records that the presidential candidates did not release remains confidential is of course that there are state and federal privacy laws. BTW, the Federal law barring the disclosure of school and college grades was pushed for by the late senator James Buckley of New York, the brother of the late Bill Buckley, and a conservative Republican.

          Regards

  • cdgeddi

    the fact that Obama, or for that matter anyone, went to Harvard or any other ivy league university only speaks to his education. It says nothing of his ideology or beliefs. Many of the USA’s enemies leaders have been educated here and at prestigious schools. being well educated doesnt make you a good and decent person, The point of the book speaks to his ideology and character. this is extraneous BS that really doesn’t excuse his actions.

    • ellen

      You have the Constitutional right not to like Obama for any reason—one being his schools and colleges, another being his grades (whether you think that they were too low or too high), and millions of people have the same dislike as YOU. But guess what, other people have the right to like him, and that is why he was elected, twice.

      The question answered above was why didn’t Obama show his grades, and it was alleged that they were low. The answer was that he didn’t simply because Mitt Romney and John McCain and previous presidents did not show their grades either.

      Oh, and Obama really was born in Hawaii as his birth certificate and the confirmation of the officials of both parties and the Index Data file and the birth notices all show, and that means that he is a Natural Born US Citizen.

  • Chas Mcarty

    Is this the same Shapiro who fabricated the “Hagel/ Hamas” exposed fake in Breitbart?