JAMES DAVID MANNING VERSUS BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA AND BILL O'REILLY

Image deleted at the request of the photographer: http://www.realliberalchristianchurch.org/2009/08/05/james-david-manning-versus-barack-hussein-obama-and-bill-oreilly.html#comment-8743
—>

Concerning James David Manning, he has Black-nationalist overtones and definitely hedges but with irreconcilable language. He's a constitutionalist, which is not a Christian position. He's a double talker. He says Bill O'Reilly is complicit in the anti-Birther movement and that Bill O'Reilly has been impeached by O'Reilly's own words while he also says that he respects Bill O'Reilly and will continue to watch his show, etc.

This is a very strange position. It is very strange talk. It is not consistent with Christianity. Manning is referring to Bill O'Reilly saying on air that he, Bill O'Reilly, has seen the documentation that shows that the questions surrounding Barack Obama's birth certificate are bogus. Manning says that Bill O'Reilly doesn't have the documents or would have put copies up on his, Bill O'Reilly's, website and shown them on his TV program.

Well, I've seen the documents, not firsthand but as image copies on the Internet, which James David Manning is insisting be done for the public. Why is James David Manning not aware that these images are posted on the Internet? They were posted not long after the issue surfaced during the campaign.

When I saw them, I posted about it and do so again, below. I also said that it wouldn't be sufficient to put the issue to rest and suggested that it would rise to the level of the U.S. Supreme Court having to wade in. It should have been handled by the U.S. Supreme Court the moment it came up. It still has not, and the manner in which the State of Hawaii has handled it and that the White House has played along is very poor.

Now to the Birthers (those who are attempting to force this issue to a conclusion where Obama is either exonerated or removed),

Here's what I wrote back in November 1, 2008:

Barack Obama's Birth Certificate

[UPDATE: There's a new link at the end of this section.]

I think it is heading in the right direction that there is an image of a certificate here. However, is there a legal requirement that the number be blacked out? Well regardless, this won't satisfy everyone, nor should it have to [emphasis added] on the mundane level, frankly.

There are pending suits regarding this matter, and the only right thing for Barack to do is to supply the court with a certified copy of his Birth Certificate with nothing blacked out. If he can't do that, something is really wrong and he should not be allowed to assume the office.

As for the debate about the meaning in the U.S. Constitution of "natural-born," if the mother is pregnant and a U.S. citizen and has the baby outside the U.S., what's the law? The Naturalization Act of 1795 says that to be "natural-born," one must be born in the United States. Barack Obama needs to have been born in the U.S. to be allowed to be President.

John McCain, for instance, was not born in the United States. He was born in Panama.

The Supreme Court has apparently dismissed several of the lawsuits concerning this issue on the grounds that U.S. citizens don't have legal standing to bring such a suit. However, every U.S. citizen has the legal standing to challenge whether or not someone seeking the Office of the President is a natural-born citizen. Otherwise, anyone could make the claim of being a natural-born citizen and no U.S. citizen or group of citizens could demand proof. Who has standing to enforce the U.S. Constitution if the people do not? The Supreme Court is corrupt.

This is the best thing I could find on the subject: "Born in the U.S.A." Fact Check. August 21, 2008. Updated: November 1, 2008

It doesn't satisfy everyone though.

I'm satisfied in the mundane with the proviso that it needs to be verified in Hawaii by officers of the court. [U.S. Supreme Court] [emphasis added] This issue needs to be put to rest. In fact, it would make perfect sense to me if Chief Justice Roberts would go personally to do just that with the blessing of the other justices. Perhaps he could take the most "liberal" associate justice with him. Otherwise, this issue will just continue adding to the poison.

Oh, the system is so wrong. It will never work.

New Link:

Change They Can Litigate
The fringe movement to keep Barack Obama from becoming president.
By David Weigel
Posted Thursday, Dec. 4, 2008, at 4:25 PM ET

Now, I want to be clear here. I am no fan of Barack Obama. I said he was tricking the people, especially the youth, right from the start. He was as vague as can be while still running with any possibility of winning. The plutocrats who own the mainstream media anointed him. He had no intention of being a peace candidate, and why the youth didn't pay attention when Obama promised to accelerate the war on the Pashtuns of Afghanistan and Pakistan by conflating them with the Taliban and conflating the Taliban with al Qaeda says a great deal about the lack of depth and serious thinking and concern on the part of the youth of today. They have been mesmerized and twisted by violent video games such that their ranks are over in the Middle East and elsewhere enjoying the murder of innocents. Other of their ranks sit right here in the U.S. playing life and death over real people via video-game-controlled predator drones firing indiscriminate Hellfire missiles that blow babies to pieces (baby killers) along with the maybe suspected (not proven guilty) freedom fighters, as they would be called in the U.S. were the tables turned and Americans fighting against an imperial-, military-superpower invader from Afghanistan.

Let me also clarify that I do not vote, am not registered, and do not campaign for anyone for any secular office. The only thing I do is work to bring forth as much truth as I can. I don't hold with the secular. I state quite clearly that everyone has, and states, partial-truths. There are those within secular government who care more about truth than do others. Unfortunately even for those who care the most within that system, they are all compromised. Just being on this plane of existence compromises one who isn't God proper and able to avoid all temptations.

I have sympathy for every human being no matter how degenerated. I truly believe that everyone in a degenerated state, and everyone is to some degree or another in a degenerated state until perfected (regenerated) by God, is degenerated on account of abuse and carelessness by one and all whether witting or unwitting.

There are many books on this site, meaning the contents of this site could fill many volumes. It is pointless for me to try to impart everything in one post. However, I can do it provided readers and visitors will take the time and trouble (should be no trouble but rather a pleasure to seek truth) to delve in to scour the site for answers to whatever questions arise. The summation is the New Commandment that may be understood only within its own full context. It is not a common understanding.

Lastly, how could Barack Obama manage to get his birth notices printed in the Honolulu Advertiser and the Honolulu Star-Bulletin upon his birth 48 years ago? It appears that he was born in Hawaii and that his mother was a natural-born American citizen. I don't understand people attacking him on this front. There are enough real problems not to have to make something up or not to have checked into it enough before speaking as if it's a done deal that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. The burden of proof is really on those who say he was not born in the U.S. They have to show how the birth notices in the papers at the time could have been faked and why. Was it a conspiracy of the plutocrats started before Obama was born to have him become the president of the United States? Why wouldn't those most powerful people simply have had Obama born in the U.S. for real? I'm not against conspiracy theories, but this one is stupid. There just isn't enough to back it up.

Why is Lou Dobbs pushing it? Ordinarily, he's appeared more sensible than this (not sensible enough, but at least more sensible than this).

Donate


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe


  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
    • Geoffrey Grady

      I was rather offended by the video game playing youth comment, being that I'm a youth. I just want to know who you would have voted for If you could vote and since you don't vote, why do you even care about this controversy.

      • Violent video games

        Robots at war: will humans stay in the loop?
        By by Dan De Luce - Sun Aug 16, 2009

        Your question is illogical. I would have voted for someone had it been right to do so.

        As for why I even care about the controversy, if I can shed light on it, that's that.

        Why are you offended? Just being a youth doesn't answer it. Not all youths are offended at anti-violence.

        Peace

    • Tom Budal

      The fraudulant document put up by Obamas team was just that...A Fake. It's NOT a long form birth certificate. Which are very different. A birth certificate has attending physician, etc. But the document that was revealed was not from 1961. The type put up was not issued until over 25 yrs later. Furthermore not only his birth certificate but ALL educational records are SEALED and one cannot even get his Kindergarten records...WHY? Over a million dollars has been spent to date to cover up what John Mcain offered for ALL TO SEE. Of course now we discover that NOT 1 HOSPITAL (in Hawaii) WILL VERIFY HE WAS BORN THERE. But they sure will in KENYA!!! Get your info 1st hand instead of simply repeating what somebody else says...after all you are 'Supposed' to be a reporter? Sadly even in that field today in USA FEW qualify for that title. Have a good day.

      • Hello Tom Budal,

        This is in response to your first comment above.

        First of all, you have zero proof that the document shown is fraudulent. Just because there are different types of birth certificates one may obtain from the issuing state does not render the shorter or even non-sealed version a fraud. You should qualify your statement with "maybe."

        Second, did you read what I wrote: "I also said that it wouldn't be sufficient to put the issue to rest."

        Do you see the word "wouldn't" there?

        Did you see that I wrote, "...this [the certificate shown] won't satisfy everyone, nor should it have to"?

        I said, "...it needs to be verified in Hawaii by officers of the court."

        Now I've added emphasis above on account of your commentary. I didn't have to do that, but I want to make sure you get it.

        Third, you didn't address the question: "...how could Barack Obama manage to get his birth notices printed in the Honolulu Advertiser and the Honolulu Star-Bulletin upon his birth 48 years ago?"

        I don't know why Barack Obama is ignoring this whole issue. Perhaps he doesn't want to "dignify" it.

        Jesus says that everything will come abroad. Even he went to Jerusalem alone so as to not be noticed entering. Reconcile those two things.

        As I said, I'm satisfied with the actual newspaper clippings of the day. I'm sure they'd pass dating tests, etc. Again though, I have said that Obama should open up on the issue. Just saying that there are newspaper clippings and having witnesses attest to it in other news sources is not sufficient under the mundane law though, and I understand why.

        Fourth, Kenyan hospitals have not produced documents proving he was born there, have they? The country doesn't have official records of his birth there, does it? Have those documents been released and verified? If so, point me to the sources. Perhaps I've missed something.

        Fifth, as for the hospital in Hawaii not releasing information, there are laws precluding such in the various states. Perhaps Hawaiian law forbids it. Have you checked? I have assumed they do, else that slant would have been hammered on by the Birthers. If there's no legal reason not to, the hospital in question would have no solid footing not to release the records on the matter.

        Sixth, your admonition that I get my "info 1st hand instead of simply repeating what somebody else says" reflects back upon you, as you have possibly not obtained your "information" firsthand. Is everything you've said here simply echoing the work of others? What here is original with you? Have you traveled to Kenya and interviewed everyone? Have you gone to the Kenyan hospital and looked upon the birth records they have of Barack Obama? Even if you have, and at this point I don't think you have, it wouldn't apply to me nor should it. It would be a very stupid world where everyone must learn firsthand only. You should not tell others that they must obtain information firsthand. Even Jesus Christ knew when to trust the words and reports of others. He also knew when not to. I don't trust you right now as a source and for good and obvious reasons.

        On the contrary, I have seen nowhere else and certainly not before I wrote it, the suggestion that Chief Justice Roberts go to Hawaii to make a firsthand determination concerning the highest records available and take a "liberal" justice with him. Two witnesses.... That is original with me.

        Seventh, when you apply the label "reporter" to me, if you are suggesting that I am holding myself out as some investigative journalist, such as John Pilger, then you haven't a clue and didn't bother looking around this site or can't think straight about it. I am reporting what and how I am reporting. I am not a "professional journalist."

        I am a Christian reporter/journalist in the sense that I do practice freedom of the press. I do publish news. It is political speech. It is protected under the U.S. Constitution regarding free speech and the free press. I am not required to divulge sources on both religious and journalistic grounds — regardless of incorrect constitutional interpretations of the U.S. Supreme Court. I answer to a much higher authority: the Highest.

        Eighth, you've stated nothing here that has informed me of anything new, and you have not furthered your position but rather weakened it. The reason for that is because you were not careful at all in reading my post and addressing yourself to the points in it. It is as if you blew in, assumed the content, raced to find the comment box, pasted in a canned comment, hit the submit button, and flew on. Now, you may not have done all of that, but your comment does show a major lack of careful response to my post.

        This may leave you upset with me. If so, I recommend that you not take that approach but rather take it that one of your fellow human beings has simply given you sound advice to slow down at least enough to greatly lessen the likelihood for misunderstanding.

        Peace to you, Tom,

        Tom

    • Tom Budal

      Furthermore the burden of proof is on him to provide this info BEFORE he was vetted for office. By his own words his natural father was not an American citizen. Therefore he is not "natural born". Soon all will see that this man in white house is there enemy. He is Islamic/Muslim. This has serious complications as they are sworn to kill us "infidels" unless we convert. I stand vindicated by his actions to date. He is dismantling our nation from within. He's done away with our "defense" system. Whats wrong with missile defense? It's for protection. He's delaying on finishing the job in Afghanistan, printing money like it's nothing. By 2012 we wont have a country. And that you can take to the bank sir.

      • Tom,

        This is in response to your second comment.

        Any American may file to run for the Office of President of the United States of America. He did that. People raised issues against him. The court ruled that those people did not have legal standing. I disagree.

        Regardless, between the two of us, you must address the newspaper articles at the time announcing his birth in Hawaii. Explain to me how the conspirators made those announcements show up in every resource where they are now available (every microfiche at every library and university in the world were they are now available).

        Unless you can do that, why should the common people follow you and make a huge stink out of this issue?

        Cite and quote verbatim the applicable words of the law that says his father must have been an American. I'm prepared to learn if you have anything to teach worth learning; otherwise, I suggest you hold your peace on the issue here and elsewhere forever. I further suggest you openly repent. If I'm proven wrong, and as it stands, I left room for learning new things, I will gladly say so.

        Barack Obama is not a Muslim. A Muslim acts like a Muslim. Barack Obama bombs Muslims including innocent babies.

        Are you a natural born American?

        He's done away with our "defense" system.

        Where are you getting this? The defense budget is up!

        Since you've raised his religion, what's yours?

        Whats wrong with missile defense?

        You're on a total pacifist's site asking that? What's wrong with you?

        He's delaying on finishing the job in Afghanistan

        You're a war-monger and come across as an Internet troll.

        Also, America will be standing after 2012. You and the 2012 crowd, learn to read the signs of the times better. Where are you getting your info, from ancient Mayan calendars revved up by con artists to sell books? They don't know anymore than those who were hysterical over Y2K about which I said, I'll wake up the day after to still find everything functioning pretty much as before. The same will apply to 2012.

        Dramatic change won't be because of anything the Mayans were given to see way out into the future down to the exact day.

        As for taking things to the bank, the sooner we do away with the evil that is mammon and the wickedness that is usury the better. Now, if you don't hold with all the Mayan hogwash, then don't take what I just wrote about it as applying to you.

        Again, peace to you,

        Tom

    • Tom,

      I landed here after following some strange stats from my flickr photo of the birther billboard.

      I read the article, and I was pleasantly surprised. I agree with many of your sentiments regarding the birthers, the Afghanistan war, and whether Obama is a muslim.

      Then I read your standing comment about homosexuality... I will not allow my photo to be displayed on this site. Please remove it today.

      In the future, read the Creative Commons Rights on each photo you wish to use - most require attribution which you failed to include.

      Peace, and LOVE.

      Ryan

      • Ryan Ludwig,

        Ryan is in error, but I'm not going to keep his photo http://(http://www.flickr.com/photos/51248567@N00/3899684438)" target="_blank">(http://www.flickr.com/photos/51248567@N00/3899684438) on the site since he came here and made a point of complaining about my standing comment (which I have planned to edit anyway since it's becoming stale so to speak).

        Here's the link to the Creative Commons — Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/...

        It says:

        You are free:
        to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work
        Under the following conditions:

        Attribution — You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).

        As of Ryan's comment and more importantly, when the post was made and the image first appeared here, Ryan's Flickr page said only "License Some rights reserved." It did not, and does not now (as of the time stamp of this comment), specify how to attribute the work.

        Noncommercial — You may not use this work for commercial purposes.

        No Derivative Works — You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work.
        With the understanding that:
        Waiver — Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder.
        Public Domain — Where the work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the license.
        Other Rights — In no way are any of the following rights affected by the license:
        Your fair dealing or fair use rights, or other applicable copyright exceptions and limitations;
        The author's moral rights;

        In addition to the right of licensors to request removal of their name from the work when used in a derivative or collective they don't like, copyright laws in most jurisdictions around the world (with the notable exception of the US except in very limited circumstances) grant creators "moral rights" which may provide some redress if a derivative work represents a "derogatory treatment" of the licensor's work.

        Of course, I did nothing to alter the work or use it in any "derogatory treatment." As you can readily read for yourself, Ryan didn't suggest otherwise.

        Rights other persons may have either in the work itself or in how the work is used, such as publicity or privacy rights.
        Notice — For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work. The best way to do this is with a link to this web page.

        A new version of this license is available. You should use it for new works, and you may want to relicense existing works under it. No works are automatically put under the new license, however.

        I also read the full version here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/...

        There's also this and the answer that follows it. http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequently_Asked_...
        Nothing there applies to my having placed Ryan's image at the top of this post. I altered nothing about the image, and it is not in a "collective" for purposes of the copyright agreement.

        There is nothing there that suggests Ryan even has a right to request that the image be removed.

        I reserve the right not to do this again for any other Creative Commons image on this site. This is not a waiver of the RLCC's rights under any Creative Commons Copyright.

        I must say that Ryan fits the reason for the standing comment. He has a problem with people who don't agree that homosexuality is just fine.

        That's very immature of you, Ryan. I suggest you stop trying to be so bossy too. I could have blown off your request. You don't have the authority to retract the Creative Commons rights.

        Furthermore, the image itself was hot-linked to the Creative Commons — Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/... which hot-linking by me more than satisfied the requirements of that agreement.

        So, Ryan, since you are pro-homosexuality, unless you repent of it, I won't be seeing you in Heaven. I would like to hear that God blesses you with the truth that homosexuality is always a choice and always harmful. I certainly hope you aren't one who makes the false claims that Jesus condones it or is himself a homosexual.

        Tom

    • Tom,

      I've never changed any of my image licencing. You simply failed to read it.

      Ryan

      • I didn't say you changed anything, and I didn't fail to read it.

        Look, Ryan, it's better that you not comment here again. All you've done by commenting so far is dig your hole deeper.

    • Tom,

      Attribution means that you write the photographer's name near the photo. You did not follow that step, so yes, I have the right to tell you to remove the image from your site. Pretty simple.

      If I hadn't read the homophobic rant above your comment stream, I would have just requested that you put a text link.

      I suggest you read the new testament again. You're just making yourself look like a bigot.

      • Look, Ryan, what are you, a total airhead? Read the agreement. It is your responsibility to state the form of attribution you want. You stated nothing. Therefore, I had no requirement to place your name or a link. Ask your copyright attorney.

        I already made this clear, but you're too busy being all puffed up with your pro-sin attitude.

        I could have left the image and told you to go play with your homosexual friends who might talk you into taking it up your rear end if you aren't doing that already. You obviously have no problem with that since homosex is just fine and dandy with you.

        As for the term homophobic, you can't define that right now to save your soul.

        The same goes for bigot, or haven't you realized you're Christ-phobic and a bigot against Christians?

        The truth of the matter is that you hate Jesus Christ because you can't stand the idea of doing what he tells you to do.

        Anyway, you and I are done here. Don't comment again unless it's to stop, turn, repent, and atone about your sexual harmfulness and selfishness.