"You can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people
some of the time, but you can’t fool
all of the people all of the time”. ~
Abraham Lincoln . . . on May 29, 1849.
Direct
Business Advertising, is
not a tax deductible
charity.
Title
47 CFR is where the law places the responsibility for all Direct
Broadcast Satellite "DBS" licence holders who accept payment for
advertising to Legally Quilifing canidates for all public office.
Nothing is more essential to Islam’s credibilitythan Muhammad’s version of Abraham. Islam
must prove thathe was a
Muslim,
his God was Allah, Who is ~
Lucifer andhe
worshiped Lucifer in Mexico.
Geert Wilders with German founder of Die Frieheit Party
Rene Stadtkewitz
The following is the English text of Geert Wilders speech delivered in
Berlin days before his trial. As Baron Bodissey at the Gates of
Vienna blognotes the occasion was a gathering of European anti-islamic
political leaders and the formation of a new German political party, Die Freiheit,
(Freedom) led by former Christian Democratic Union politician
René Stadtkewitz.
Wilders will shortly face his own trial on Monday in The Netherlands on
trumped charges of ‘hate speech’. His presence in Berlin – the
capital of a reunified Germany - marks the anniversary of the Day
of Unity and the collapse of the infamous Berlin Wall in 1989.
Wilders uses to good effect the famed remarks of President Reagan’s
speech with its entreaty to former Russian Communist
leader, Mikhail Gorbechev to “tear down this wall”.
Wilders speech is a clarion call of resistance against the remarks by
German Chancellor Merkel that the “Islamizationof Germany is
inevitable”. The focus of the Berlin speech is on the
dangers of appeasment of of islamic doctrine; sacralized
totalitarianism and its modern parallels National Socialism and
Communism. Wilders recounts the history of the rise of Islam
under Muhammed, the crushing of the Jewish oasis town of Yathrib and
renaming as Medina and the compulsion of his followers to commit jihad
until the kufirs- the unbelievers are killed, converted or live in
perpetual dhimmitude as third class citizens paying the jizya- hush
money to spare their lives.
Wilders cites several 20th century authors of note who support his
thesis that Islamic doctrine especially Sharia, is
totalitarianism. Further, that appeasement of
political Islam is tantamount to abdication of Judeo Christian
values of freedom, liberty and free discourse. Among those
Wilders cites are the British scholar J.M. Roberts,
colleague and Canadian Iranian apostate from Islam, Ali Sina, American
Mark Alexander who cites the common features of political islam,
National socialism and Communism. He inveighs the instructive
parallels between Islam and Communism ironically published in an essay
on the topic in 1954 by Princeton Emeritus Professror Bernard
Lewis recently uncovered by NER Contributor and colleague Dr.
Andrew Bostom.
Wilders entreats his Berlin audience to stand firm in the mold of
President Reagan:
He showed that there is no need to despair. Never! Just do your duty.
Be not afraid. Speak the truth. Defend Freedom. Together we can
preserve freedom, together we must preserve freedom, and together, my
friends, we will be able to preserve freedom.
This parallels my remarks to a Nashville audience on September
15th about my experiences on 9/11 in Manhattan nine years ago
when Islamic terror struck America murdering 3000 innocents. I reminded
the audience of Ha Shem’s instructions to Joshua and the Israelites
about to pass over the Jordan and enter the Holy Land : “Hazak v
Amatz” Be strong and of good courage.
The following is Wilders’ Berlin Speech in English from the PVV
(Freedom Party) website;
Speech: Geert Wilders Berlin (Engels)
Dear Friends,
I am very happy to be here in Berlin today. As you know, the invitation
which my friend René Stadtkewitz extended to me, has cost him his
membership of the CDU group in the Berlin Parliament. René, however,
did not give in to the pressure. He did not betray his convictions. His
dismissal prompted René to start a new political party. I wish him all
the best. As you may have heard, the past weeks were extremely busy for
me. Earlier this week we succeeded in forging a minority government of
the Liberals and the Christian-Democrats which will be supported by my
party. This is an historic event for the Netherlands. I am very proud
of having helped to achieve this. At this very moment the
Christian-Democrat Party conference is deciding whether or not to
approves this coalition. If they do, we will be able to rebuild our
country, preserve our national identity and offer our children a better
future.
Despite my busy schedule at home, however, I insisted on coming to
Berlin, because Germany, too, needs a political movement to defend
German identity and to oppose the Islamization of Germany. Chancellor
Angela Merkel says that the Islamization of Germany is inevitable. She
conveys the message that citizens have to be prepared for more changes
as a result of immigration. She wants the Germans to adapt to this
situation. The Christian-Democrat leader said: “More than before
mosques will be an integral part of our cities.”
My friends, we should not accept the unacceptable as inevitable without
trying to turn the tide. It is our duty as politicians to preserve our
nations for our children. I hope that René’s movement will be as
successful as my own Partij voor de Vrijheid, as Oskar Freysinger’s
Schweizerische Volkspartei in Switzerland, as Pia Kjaersgaard’s Dansk
Folkeparti in Denmark, and similar movements elsewhere.
My good friend Pia recently spoke in Sweden at the invitation of the
Sverigedemokraterna. She said: “I have not come to mingle in Swedish
domestic politics because that is for the Swedish people to be
concerned with. No, I have come because in spite of certain differences
the Swedish debate in many ways reminds me of the Danish debate 10-15
years ago. And I have come to Sweden because it is also a concern to
Denmark. We cannot sit with our hands in our lap and be silent
witnesses to the political development in Sweden.”
The same applies for me as a Dutchman with respect to Germany. I am
here because Germany matters to the Netherlands and the rest of the
world, and because we cannot establish an International Freedom
Alliance without a strong German partner.
Dear friends, tomorrow is the Day of German Unity. Tomorrow exactly
twenty years ago, your great nation was reunified after the collapse of
the totalitarian Communist ideology. The Day of German Unity is an
important day for the whole of Europe. Germany is the largest democracy
in Europe. Germany is Europe’s economic powerhouse. The wellbeing and
prosperity of Germany is a benefit to all of us, because the wellbeing
and prosperity of Germany is a prerequisite for the wellbeing and
prosperity of Europe.
Today I am here, however, to warn you for looming disunity. Germany’s
national identity, its democracy and economic prosperity, is being
threatened by the political ideology of Islam. In 1848, Karl Marx began
his Communist Manifesto with the famous words: “A specter is haunting
Europe – the specter of communism.” Today, another specter is haunting
Europe. It is the specter of Islam. This danger, too, is political.
Islam is not merely a religion, as many people seem to think: Islam is
mainly a political ideology.
This insight is not new.
I quote from the bestselling book and BBC television series The Triumph
of the West which the renowned Oxford historian J.M. Roberts wrote in
1985: “Although we carelessly speak of Islam as a ‘religion’; that word
carries many overtones of the special history of western Europe. The
Muslim is primarily a member of a community, the follower of a certain
way, an adherent to a system of law, rather than someone holding
particular theological views.” The Flemish Professor Urbain Vermeulen,
the former president of the European Union of Arabists and Islamicists,
too, points out that “Islam is primarily a legal system, a law,” rather
than a religion.
The American political scientist Mark Alexander writes that “One of our
greatest mistakes is to think of Islam as just another one of the
world’s great religions. We shouldn’t. Islam is politics or it is
nothing at all, but, of course, it is politics with a spiritual
dimension, … which will stop at nothing until the West is no more,
until the West has … been well and truly Islamized.”
These are not just statements by opponents of Islam.
Islamic scholars say the same thing. There cannot be any doubt about
the nature of Islam to those who have read the Koran, the Sira and the
Hadith. Abul Ala Maududi, the influential 20th century Pakistani
Islamic thinker, wrote – I quote, emphasizing that these are not my
words but those of a leading Islamic scholar – “Islam is not merely a
religious creed [but] a revolutionary ideology and jihad refers to that
revolutionary struggle … to destroy all states and governments anywhere
on the face of the earth, which are opposed to the ideology and program
of Islam.”
Ali Sina, an Iranian Islamic apostate who lives in Canada, points out
that there is one golden rule that lies at the heart of every religion
– that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. In Islam,
this rule only applies to fellow believers, but not to Infidels. Ali
Sina says “The reason I am against Islam is not because it is a
religion, but because it is a political ideology of imperialism and
domination in the guise of religion. Because Islam does not follow the
Golden Rule, it attracts violent people.”
A dispassionate study of the beginnings of Islamic history reveals
clearly that Muhammad’s objective was first to conquer his own people,
the Arabs, and to unify them under his rule, and then to conquer and
rule the world. That was the original cause; it was obviously political
and was backed by military force. “I was ordered to fight all men until
they say ‘There is no god but Allah,’” Muhammad said in his final
address. He did so in accordance with the Koranic command in sura 8:39:
“Fight them until there is no more dissension and the religion is
entirely Allah’s.”
According to the mythology, Muhammad founded Islam in Mecca after the
Angel Gabriel visited him for the first time in the year 610. The first
twelve years of Islam, when Islam was religious rather than political,
were not a success. In 622, Muhammad emigrated to Yathrib, a
predominantly Jewish oasis, with his small band of 150 followers. There
he established the first mosque in history, took over political power,
gave Yathrib the name of Medina, which means the “City of the Prophet,”
and began his career as a military and a political leader who conquered
all of Arabia. Tellingly, the Islamic calendar starts with the hijra,
the migration to Medina – the moment when Islam became a political
movement.
After Muhammad’s death, based upon his words and deeds, Islam developed
Sharia, an elaborate legal system which justified the repressive
governance of the world by divine right – including rules for jihad and
for the absolute control of believers and non-believers. Sharia is the
law of Saudi Arabia and Iran, among other Islamic states. It is also
central to the Organization of the Islamic Conference, which in article
24 of its Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam, proclaims that
“all rights and freedoms are subject to the Islamic Sharia.” The OIC is
not a religious institution; it is a political body. It constitutes the
largest voting block in the United Nations and writes reports on
so-called “Islamophobia” in Western Countries which accuse us of human
rights violations. To speak in biblical terms: They look for a speck in
our eye, but deny the beam in their own.
Under Sharia law people in the conquered territories have no legal
rights, not even the right to life and to own property, unless they
convert to Islam.
Before I continue, and in order to avoid any misunderstandings, I want
to emphasize that I am talking about Islam, not about Muslims. I always
make a clear distinction between the people and the ideology, between
Muslims and Islam. There are many moderate Muslims, but the political
ideology of Islam is not moderate and has global ambitions. It aims to
impose Islamic law or Sharia upon the whole world. The way to achieve
this is through jihad. The good news is that millions of Muslims around
the world – including many in Germany and the Netherlands – do not
follow the directives of Sharia, let alone engage in jihad. The bad
news, however, is that those who do are prepared to use all available
means to achieve their ideological, revolutionary goal.
In 1954, in his essay Communism and Islam, Professor Bernard Lewis
spoke of “the totalitarianism, of the Islamic political tradition.”
Professor Lewis said that “The traditional Islamic division of the
world into the House of Islam and the House of War, … has obvious
parallels in the Communist view of world affairs. … The aggressive
fanaticism of the believer is the same.”
The American political scientist Mark Alexander states that the nature
of Islam differs very little – and only in detail rather than style –
from despicable and totalitarian political ideologies such as
National-Socialism and Communism. He lists the following
characteristics for these three ideologies.
* They use political purges to “cleanse” society of what they considere
undesirable;
* They tolerate only a single political party. Where Islam allows more
parties, it insists that all parties be Islamic ones;
* They coerce the people along the road that it must follow;
* They obliterate the liberal distinction between areas of private
judgment and of public control;
* They turn the educational system into an apparatus for the purpose of
universal indoctrination;
* They lay down rules for art, for literature, for science and for
religion;
* They subdue people who are given second class status;
* They induce a frame of mind akin to fascism. Adjustment takes place
by struggle and dominance;
* They are abusive to their opponents and regard any concession on
their own part as a temporary expedient and on a rival’s part as a sign
of weakness;
* They regard politics as an expression of power;
* They are anti-Semitic.
There is one more striking parallel, but this is not a characteristic
of the three political ideologies, but one of the West. It is the
apparent inability of the West to see the danger. The prerequisite to
understanding political danger, is a willingness to see the truth, even
if it is unpleasant. Unfortunately, modern Western politicians seem to
have lost this capacity. Our inability leads us to reject the logical
and historical conclusions to be drawn from the facts, though we could,
and should know better. What is wrong with modern Western man that we
make the same mistake over and over again?
There is no better place to ponder this question than
here in Berlin, the former capital of the evil empire of Nazi Germany
and a city which was held captive by the so-called German “Democratic”
Republic for over forty years.
When the citizens of Eastern Europe rejected Communism in 1989, they
were inspired by dissidents such as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Václav
Havel, Vladimir Bukovsky, and others, who told them that people have a
right, but also an obligation, to “live within the truth.” Freedom
requires eternal vigilance; so it is with truth. Solzhenitsyn added,
however, that “truth is seldom sweet; it is almost invariably bitter.”
Let us face the bitter truth: We have lost our capacity to see the
danger and understand the truth because we no longer value freedom.
Politicians from almost all establishment politicians today are
facilitating Islamization. They are cheering for every new Islamic
school, Islamic bank, Islamic court. They regard Islam as being equal
to our own culture. Islam or freedom? It does not really matter to
them. But it does matter to us. The entire establisment elite –
universities, churches, trade unions, the media, politicians – are
putting our hard-earned liberties at risk. They talk about equality,
but amazingly fail to see how in Islam women have fewer rights than men
and infidels have fewer rights than adherents of Islam.
Are we about to repeat the fatal mistake of the Weimar Republic? Are we
succumbing to Islam because our commitment to freedom is already dead?
No, it will not happen. We are not like Frau Merkel. We do not accept
Islamization as inevitable. We have to keep freedom alive. And, to the
extent that we have already lost it, we must reclaim it in our
democratic elections. That is why we need political parties that defend
freedom. To support such parties I have established the International
Freedom Alliance.
As you know, I am standing trial in the Netherlands. On Monday, I have
to go to court again and I will have to spend most of the coming month
there. I have been brought to court because of my opinions on Islam and
because I have voiced these opinions in speeches, articles and in my
documentary film Fitna. I live under constant police protection because
Islamic extremists want to assassinate me, and I am in court because
the Dutch establishment – most of them non-Muslims – wants to silence
me.
I have been dragged to court because in my country freedom can no
longer be fully enjoyed. Unlike America, we do not have a First
Amendment which guarantees people the freedom to express their opinions
and foster public debate by doing so. Unlike America, in Europe the
national state, and increasingly the European Union, prescribes how
citizens – including democratically elected politicians such as myself
– should think and what we are allowed to say.
One of the things we are no longer allowed to say is that our culture
is superior to certain other cultures. This is seen as a discriminatory
statement – a statement of hatred even. We are indoctrinated on a daily
basis, in the schools and through the media, with the message that all
cultures are equal and that, if one culture is worse than all the rest,
it is our own. We are inundated with feelings of guilt and shame about
our own identity and what we stand for. We are exhorted to respect
everyone and everything, except ourselves. That is the message of the
Left and the politically-correct ruling establishment. They want us to
feel so ashamed about our own identity that we refuse to fight for it.
The detrimental obsession of our cultural and political elites with
Western guilt reinforces the view which Islam has of us. The Koran says
that non-Muslims are kuffar (the plural of kafir), which literally
means “rejecters” or “ingrates.” Hence, infidels are “guilty.” Islam
teaches that in our natural state we have all been born as believers.
Islam teaches that if we are not believers today this is by our own or
by our forefathers’ fault. Subsequently, we are always kafir – guilty –
because either we or our fathers are apostates. And, hence, according
to some, we deserve subjugation.
Our contemporary leftist intellectuals are blind to the dangers of
Islam.
Former Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky argues that after the fall of
communism, the West failed to expose those who had collaborated with
the Communists by advocating policies of détente, improved relations,
relaxation of international tension, peaceful coexistence. He points
out that the Cold War was “a war we never won. We never even fought it.
… Most of the time the West engaged in a policy of appeasement toward
the Soviet bloc – and appeasers don’t win wars.”
Islam is the Communism of today. But, because of our failure to come
clean with Communism, we are unable to deal with it, trapped as we are
in the old Communist habit of deceit and double-speak that used to
haunt the countries in the East and that now haunts all of us. Because
of this failure, the same leftist people who turned a blind eye to
Communism then, turn a blind eye to Islam today. They are using exactly
the same arguments in favor of détente, improved relations, and
appeasement as before. They argue that our enemy is as peace-loving as
we are, that if we meet him half-way he will do the same, that he only
asks respect and that if we respect him he will respect us. We even
hear a repetition of the old moral equivalence mantra. They used to say
that Western “imperialism” was as bad as Soviet imperialism; they are
now saying that Western “imperialism” is as bad as Islamic terrorism.
In my speech near Ground Zero in New York on September 11, I emphasized
that we must stop the “Blame the West, Blame America”-game which
Islamic spokesmen are playing with us. And we must stop playing this
game ourselves. I have the same message for you. It is an insult to
tell us that we are guilty and deserve what is happening to us. We do
not deserve becoming strangers in our own land. We should not accept
such insults. First of all, Western civilization is the freest and most
prosperous on earth, which is why so many immigrants are moving here,
instead of Westerners moving there. And secondly, there is no such
thing as collective guilt. Free individuals are free moral agents who
are responsible for their own deeds only.
I am very happy to be here in Berlin today to give this message which
is extremely important, especially in Germany. Whatever happened in
your country in the past, the present generation is not responsible for
it. Whatever happened in the past, it is no excuse for punishing the
Germans today. But it is also no excuse for you to refuse to fight for
your own identity. Your only responsibility is to avoid the mistakes of
the past. It is your duty to stand with those threatened by the
ideology of Islam, such as the State of Israel and your Jewish
compatriots. The Weimar Republic refused to fight for freedom and was
overrun by a totalitarian ideology, with catastrophic consequences for
Germany, the rest of Europe and the world. Do not fail to fight for
your freedom today.
I am happy to be in your midst today because it seems that twenty years
after German reunification, a new generation no longer feels guilty for
being German. The current and very intense debate about Thilo
Sarrazin’s recent book is an indication of the fact that Germany is
coming to terms with itself.
I have not yet read Dr. Sarrazin’s book myself, but I understand that
while the ruling politically-correct establishment is almost
unanimously critical of his thesis and he lost his job, a large
majority of Germans acknowledges that Dr. Sarrazin is addressing
important and pressing issues. “Germany is abolishing itself,” warns
Sarrazin, and he calls on the Germans to halt this process. The
enormous impact of his book indicates that many Germans feel the same
way. The people of Germany do not want Germany to be abolished, despite
all the political indoctrination they have been subjected to. Germany
is no longer ashamed to assert its national pride.
In these difficult times, where our national identity is under threat,
we must stop feeling guilty about who we are. We are not “kafir,” we
are not guilty. Like other peoples, Germans have the right to remain
who they are. Germans must not become French, nor Dutch, nor Americans,
nor Turks. They should remain Germans. When the Turkish Prime Minister
Erdogan visited your country in 2008, he told the Turks living here
that they had to remain Turks. He literally said that “assimilation is
a crime against humanity.” Erdogan would have been right if he had been
addressing the Turks in Turkey. However, Germany is the land of the
Germans. Hence, the Germans have a right to demand that those who come
to live in Germany assimilate; they have the right – no they have a
duty to their children – to demand that newcomers respect the German
identity of the German nation and Germany’s right to preserve its
identity.
We must realize that Islam expands in two ways. Since it is not a
religion, conversion is only a marginal phenomenon. Historically, Islam
expanded either by military conquest or by using the weapon of hijra,
immigration. Muhammad conquered Medina through immigration. Hijra is
also what we are experiencing today. The Islamization of Europe
continues all the time. But the West has no strategy for dealing with
the Islamic ideology, because our elites say that we must adapt to them
rather than the other way round.
There is a lesson which we can learn in this regard
from America, the freest nation on earth. Americans are proud of their
nation, its achievements and its flag. We, too, should be proud of our
nation. The United States has always been a nation of immigrants. U.S.
President Theodore Roosevelt was very clear about the duty of
immigrants. Here is what he said: “We should insist that if the
immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and
assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality
with everyone else … But this is predicated upon the man’s becoming in
very fact an American, and nothing but an American. … There can be no
divided allegiance here. … We have room for but one sole loyalty and
that is a loyalty to the American people.”
It is not up to me to define what Germany’s national identity consists
of. That is entirely up to you. I do know, however, that German
culture, like that of neighboring countries, such as my own, is rooted
in judeo-christian and humanist values. Every responsible politician
has a political obligation to preserve these values against ideologies
which threaten them. A Germany full of mosques and veiled women is no
longer the Germany of Goethe, Schiller and Heine, Bach and Mendelssohn.
It will be a loss to us all. It is important that you cherish and
preserve your roots as a nation. Otherwise you will not be able to
safeguard your identity; you will be abolished as a people, and you
will lose your freedom. And the rest of Europe will lose its freedom
with you.
My friends, when Ronald Reagan came to a divided Berlin 23 years ago he
uttered the historic words ,Mister Gorbachev, tear down this wall.“
President Reagan was not an appeaser, but a man who spoke the truth
because he loved freedom. Today, we, too, must tear down a wall. It is
not a wall of concrete, but of denial and ignorance about the real
nature of Islam. The International Freedom Alliance aims to coordinate
and stimulate these efforts.
Because we speak the truth, voters have given my party, the Partij voor
de Vrijheid, and other parties, such as the Dansk Folkeparti and the
Schweizerische Volkspartei, the power to influence the political
decision process, whether that be in opposition or in government or by
supporting a minority government – as we want to do in the Netherlands.
President Reagan showed that by speaking the truth one can change the
course of history. He showed that there is no need to despair. Never!
Just do your duty. Be not afraid. Speak the truth. Defend Freedom.
Together we can preserve freedom, together we must preserve freedom,
and together, my friends, we will be able to preserve freedom.
Thank you.
Federal Election
Commission,
This letter is to serve as my official complaint with regards to
what I believe in good faith is an egregious violation of the Federal
Election Laws by the personage of Barack Hussein Obama and those
directly involved in his campaign for the Presidency of the United
States. The circumstances regarding this are easily verifiable.
Whereas it was of importance to the success of the Campaign of Mr.
Obama to demonstrate to the American People that he had the popular
support of a foreign populace to effect his pledge to redeem a
purported tarnished image of America; he intentionally solicited the
help of, conspired, colluded or consorted with a known Socialist member
of foreign Government with the intent to deceive the American People. I
summarize:
1. Mr. Obama during his Campaign repeatedly stated that he, more than
his opposition, had the power to change the tarnished image of America
in the eyes of the world brought about by the Bush administration.
2. Mr. Obama then offered as “proof” video of his public speech at the
Brandenburg Gate in Berlin Germany. Review of the
footage aired on National television shows a large crowd of cheering
people. I
took special note that those in the front had and were waving American
flags to improve the impression of support. Who supplied these
flags?
3. Mr. Obama either arranged for this public address in blatant
disregard of the wishes of the Chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel or
proceeded to solicit for this opportunity without her knowledge.
4. In spite of her objections or without her express approval Mr.Obama
was able to accomplish this by conspiring, colluding or consorting with
the Mayor of Berlin, Herr Klaus Wowereit, a known Socialist who
approved this public address and likely assisted Barak Obama. His
public address then occurred on 24 July, 2008 during a free rock
concert with over 200,000 attendees by reasonable estimates.
5. Chancellor Merkels protest is a matter of public record in the
German press. To my recollection she stated or her spokesman stated on
her behalf, Barack Obamas appearance at the Brandenburg Gate was in
effect inappropriate for an individual in the midst of a Political
Campaign.
6. The media footage of this event was then presented to the American
People, with no mention by the Obama Campaign, that the Germans had
primarily assembled there for a free Rock Concert. Instead
the Campaign allowed the American People to erroneously assume, and
even purported that the attendees had specifically gathered there to see
and support the Candidacy of Barack Hussein Obama for the Presidency of
the United States. Although, no doubt to quell some anger and division
in the German Government over this event and perhaps to dispel any
adverse events back home, Barack Obama stated he was not there as
a Presidential Candidate but as a US Citizen and Citizen of the
World. This is absurd and blatantly disingenuous because at the
time of his Brandenburg address he was heavily involved in his Campaign.
7. While the above demonstrates a total lack of honesty on the part of
Barack Obama and his Campaign, it also demonstrates the
willingness of Mr. Obama to conspire, collude and consort with a known
foreign Socialist Government official, to deceive the American people
in order to bring about his desire to occupy the office of the
President of the
United States of America. I gained personal knowledge of the above
events only when I traveled to Germany to visit late last year.
8. Although I was initially appalled that a Presidential candidate
would behave with such disregard for the Chancellor of Germany and the
good faith of the American People, it was only 2 days ago that I
realized the potential legal ramifications of his actions with regard
to the conduct of a Presidential election.
9. It is reasonable to conclude that some expenses from this effort
were incurred by the City of Berlin and/or its elected officials
and in fact constitute a contribution from a foreign source to the
Presidential Campaign of Barack Obama.
Questions have been raised by citizens regarding how Mr. Obama was able
to draw such a large gathering in Germany when he still was
relative unknown to many here in America as this Prima Fascia seems to
defy logic. This is what led to my initial inquiries.
Although not necessarily a violation of law it is noteworthy that the
Annenberg Foundations Factcheck.org on their web site attempted to
refute questions from concerned citizens that Obama was not the “Main
Attraction” at the Brandenburg gate, is the same and only source
to “verify” the authenticity of his Certificate of Live Birth from
Hawaii. The same Annenberg Foundation in Chicago which Obama has/had
ties to. While perhaps not germane to my complaint, such a coincidence
I find disturbing.
I can not accept that Mr. Obama actions are not a willful disregard for
the intent of Laws or established laws governing the conduct of a
Presidential election. He solicited and received concessions from the
Mayor of Berlin which contributed directly to his success in winning
the general election. I respectfully request the Commission to consider
my complaint and act appropriately regardless of potential civil
consequences
to rectify this. To do anything less risks the disenfranchisement of
the American people in the election process, potentially damages the
credibility of any and all future elections to include the credibility
of the
Federal Election Commission itself when this becomes public knowledge.
I should
also inform you I have taken the liberty to inform my Attorney,
Representative to Congress and my Senator as I believe that bringing
this forward is at
some personal risk.
Fax-815-301-8380
