Monthly Archives: March 2008

Barack Obama, The View, ABC, April 11 2007, MSM, main stream media, Imus fired comment, hypocrisy

On March 27, 2008 I posted an article about Barack Obama’s response on April 11, 2007 to the Don Imus comment, “nappy headed hos.” Obama called for Imus to be fired and made the following comment:
“And the notion that somehow it’s cute or amusing, or a useful diversion, I think, is something that all of us have to recognize is just not the case. We all have First Amendment rights. And I am a constitutional lawyer and strongly believe in free speech, but as a culture, we really have to do some soul-searching to think about what kind of toxic information are we feeding our kids,”

This reaction by Obama came almost a year before he was forced by political circumstances to denounce the racist, hate filled comments by Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s long time minister and mentor. I was surprised to find out that The View on ABC on March 28, 2008 had Obama on the show and actually asked him about his comments regarding Don Imus in 2007 and his lack of response to Jeremiah Wright then. That is the good news. The bad news always seems to be the same. Obama did not answer the question. He went on a long soliloquy and spoke in generalties. Obama was never pressed to answer the question. I was pleased that the questions were posed, but it came across as a setup to make it appear he had addressed the issues. Here is a video of the segment where Obama was asked the questions:

One of the Jeremiah Wright quotes referred to on the show is the following:

“The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing ‘God Bless America.’ No, no, no, God damn America, that’s in the Bible for killing innocent people,” he said in a 2003 sermon. “God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme.”

Obama responded:

“I never heard him say some of the things that have people upset,”

“I’m not vetting my pastor,”  “I didn’t have a research team during the course of 20 years to go pull every sermon he’s given and see if there’s something offensive that he’s said.”

An article on ABC about the show can be viewed here:


April 11, 2007, Barack Obama, First Amendment rights, constitutional lawyer, toxic information, feeding our kids, useful diversion, Don Imus, Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan

The main stream media appears to be giving Barack Obama a free ride. After Obama has apparently lied about not knowing about the hate sermons of pastor Jeremiah Wright and after his 20 year association with pastor Wright in the same church attended by Louis Farrakhan, Barack Obama had the audacity to make the following statement about Don Imus on April 11, 2007:
“And the notion that somehow it’s cute or amusing, or a useful diversion, I think, is something that all of us have to recognize is just not the case. We all have First Amendment rights. And I am a constitutional lawyer and strongly believe in free speech, but as a culture, we really have to do some soul-searching to think about what kind of toxic information are we feeding our kids,”

Think of what his children and others were subjected to in his church and community. To read the rest of the hypocritical comments from Barack Obama, read my earlier post on the subject.

Barack Obama, human race, Americans, Nazi Germany, why I research, love the sinner, hate the sin

I knew little of Barack Obama a few months ago. As the 2008 primaries progressed and Obama increasingly became a presidential candidate choice, I began to hear more about his past and his past became a very important concern.

I am a member of the human race and an American citizen. When I research Obama’s past, I do it not as a so called white person (there are no white and black people), but as a concerned American citizen. Anyone running for president must be carefully scrutinized. All the history and facts regarding a presidential candidate need to be evaluated in terms of what is good for the country and all citizens.

Fellow citizens, let’s stick with the facts. When most people delve into the past of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John McCain, they are doing so because they care. Challenging statements made by Obama or his past associations does not make one racist. No one should vote for someone because they are “black” or because they are “white”.

I have listened to statements made by pastor Jeremiah Wright and by pastor James Manning. Jeremiah Wright is wrong when he spews racist, anti semitic hate filled messages. James Manning is wrong when he uses derogatory terms for Obama. When criticizing a candidate, we should stick with the facts and not hate the person but just their sins. What any other pastor or person has said or done is irrelevant to what has been said by these two pastors. Each person is accountable for their own actions. We need more accountability in this country.

The 2008 presidential election is too important to trivialize. We should all try to pick the best person irrespective of race and gender. Character does matter. Whom one has associated with in the past matters. We are all products of our environments. All of the candidates are accountable for their own individual actions and associations.

The more I have examined Barack Obama the more concerned I am. Many red flags have been raised that have prompted me to do many hours of research. When I have posted, I have indicated facts as facts and allegations as allegations. When I first heard the Larry Sinclair allegations I was skeptical. I began researching and found out that Obama was not present on November 4, 1999 in the Illinois Senate. This was the first session after the summer break and Obama had his name on two bills mentioned. Larry Sinclair gave a range of November 3 – 8 for his alleged encounter with Obama. If Barack Obama has proof of his whereabouts during this time, I would love to see it and will post it. This still concerns me. There are many more facts and allegations about Obama that concern me. I hope that the allegations are wrong.

I soon will post the information I have collected about Barack Obama. I just wanted to say where I am coming from. I am a student of history and am fairly well read. Much of what I am witnessing about Barack Obama reminds me of the period between World War I and World War II in Germany. People were ready for change. Unlike here, conditions were really bad. Adolf Hitler began speaking about his vision for Germany. He also spewed racist, hate messages and blamed the jews for all of their ills. Obama speaks of change and many of those around him spew the racist, hate filled messages. This is too much deja vu for me.

I wrote this at 3:30 AM EST. I awoke and had to say this. God bless us all and this country.

Pastor James Manning, Obama, trashy pimp, liar, trashy white women, mack daddy, nappy headed people, YouTube

Below are some comments from Pastor James Manning about Barack Obama. After the comments, you can listen to the YouTube video of Pastor Manning calling Obama a trashy pimp and a liar:

“His African-in-heat father went a-whoring after a trashy white woman,”

“[Obama] was born trash.”

“He got started — you didn’t notice him ’til he brought out those big-chested white women with their tight T-shirts and their short pants,”

“That’s what a pimp does He’s a mack daddy.  He pimps white women and black women.  Obama is a long-legged mack daddy.”

“I told you about Bill Clinton, a man that has built your home the way this home is built,”

“Now you are trashing him and his wife, after he’s given you all that he’s given to you, from a man you have no idea what he’s going to do, and the reason why you’re doing it is not because of honor and integrity, but simply because he got a black face?  But I told you, he also got a white mama!  You hypocrites, you.”

“The future of you African and African-American people is in my mouth,”

 “It’s not in your hand; it’s in my mouth!  And I don’t have to compromise with not one of you nappy-head people.”

Here is the YouTube video of Pastor James Manning:

Obama a trashy pimp, Pastor James Manning, Obama lies, liar

There is a new YouTube video of Pastor James Manning. Pastor Manning calls Obama a trashy pimp and a liar. Here is the YouTube video. What is your response?

Robert Johnson, Obama comments, January 2008, something in the neighborhood, said it in his book, drug use, Clintons, black issues

I have revisited the comment made by BET founder and Hillary Clinton supporter, Robert Johnson. Johnson made the comment at a campaign rally in Columbia, South Carolina in January 2008. The apparent reference in the comment was drug use by Obama (mentioned in Obama’s book) and the inference that Obama may still be doing something in the neighborhood. Below are the quote by Robert Johnson, his apology and explanation and a rebuttal by Obama spokesman Bill Burton:
“I am frankly insulted,” Johnson declared, “that the Obama campaign would imply that we are so stupid that we would think Hillary and Bill Clinton, who have been deeply and emotionally involved in black issues since Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood -­ and I won’t say what he was doing, but he said it in the book -­ when they have been involved.”

Robert Johnson’s apology:
“My comments today were referring to Barack Obama’s time spent as a community organizer, and nothing else. Any other suggestion is simply irresponsible and incorrect,”

Obama spokesman Bill Burton:

“His tortured explanation doesn’t hold up against his original statement. And it’s troubling that neither the campaign nor Senator Clinton — who was there as the remark was made – is willing to condemn it as they did when another prominent supporter recently said a similar thing.”

I did not give Johnson’s comment much thought when I first heard it. Now, with all the other pieces of the puzzle forming a disturbing picture of the real Obama, Johnson’s comment has more significance for me. What has been going on in the neighborhood?

Barack Obama, First Amendment Rights, free speech, ABC News, April 11 2007, toxic information, feeding our kids, Jeremiah Wright

This quote by Barack Obama is worth highlighting. Obama made this statement in response to Don Imus making the remark, “nappy headed hos.” Obama’s response to Don Imus was reported by ABC News on April 11, 2007. Read Obama’s statement carefully. Compare what Don Imus said one time to the hate filled, anti semitic statements made by Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan over many years.
“And the notion that somehow it’s cute or amusing, or a useful diversion, I think, is something that all of us have to recognize is just not the case. We all have First Amendment rights. And I am a constitutional lawyer and strongly believe in free speech, but as a culture, we really have to do some soul-searching to think about what kind of toxic information are we feeding our kids,”

Read the rest of the April 11 2007 ABC News report here:

Obama Breaking News, smoking gun, Obama hypocrite, Obama lies, Jeremiah Wright and Don Imus

Another smoking gun concerning Barack Obama and his lies and hypocrisy. How did I miss this one. It is documented by ABC news by Jake Tapper April 11, 2007. We know that Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama’s pastor and mentor for 20 years is a racist, anti semite and fomentor of inflammatory hate filled messages. Obama chose to associate with Jeremiah Wright for 20 years. Obama chose to attend the same church as Louis Farrakhan, an even more racist,  and anti semite. Compare the “nappy headed ho” comment of Don Imus that got him fired last year. Now, Don Imus was certainly wrong to say what he said. But compare that to what Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan have consistently said over many years. Read the following quotes from Barack Obama as recorded by ABC news April 11, 2007:

“I understand MSNBC has suspended Mr. Imus, but I would also say that there’s nobody on my staff who would still be working for me if they made a comment like that about anybody of any ethnic group. And I would hope that NBC ends up having that same attitude.” 

“He didn’t just cross the line. He fed into some of the worst stereotypes that my two young daughters are having to deal with today in America. The notions that as young African-American women — who I hope will be athletes — that that somehow makes them less beautiful or less important. It was a degrading comment. It’s one that I’m not interested in supporting.”

“What we’ve been seeing around this country is this constant ratcheting up of a coarsening of the culture that all of have to think about,”

 “Insults, humor that degrades women, humor that is based in racism and racial stereotypes isn’t fun,”

“And the notion that somehow it’s cute or amusing, or a useful diversion, I think, is something that all of us have to recognize is just not the case. We all have First Amendment rights. And I am a constitutional lawyer and strongly believe in free speech, but as a culture, we really have to do some soul-searching to think about what kind of toxic information are we feeding our kids,”

The last paragraph says it all. Still think that Barack Obama is not a hypocrite? Still think that Barack Obama is not a liar? Still think that Jeremiah Wright is not a problem?

Read the article from ABC News here:

Obama, Larry Sinclair, limousine, P Multani, cocaine, gay sex, illegal aliens

To read the limo driver story questions and answers between
Citizen Wells and Larry Sinclair, click here:



Larry Sinclair has made allegations that he had multiple encounters with Barack Obama from November 3 through November 8 1999. One of the encounters was alleged to be in a limousine from 5 Star Limousine Service in Chicago. Sinclair states that the limousine driver’s name is P Multani. Sinclair has also stated that in the past he has helped illegal aliens. There was a Paramjit Singh Multani, from India, in this country illegally and he was in Chicago around the time of the alleged limousine encounter. Is Larry Sinclair using information he had about an illegal alien and Barack Obama’s schedule to fabricate this story or is this story real.

Below is a petition involving a P Multani. Is this the man Larry Sinclair is referring to and did he drive a limousine?

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Argued January 25, 2006

Decided July 28, 2006


Hon. RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge

Hon. DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge

Hon. DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge

No. 05-1732





General of the United States,


Petition for Review of an order of

the Board of Immigration Appeals

No. A29 396 661


This petition for review requires us to untangle a snarl of procedural steps that

the petitioner, Paramjit Singh Multani, has created for us and the immigration

authorities. Multani would like his removal proceedings stayed or administratively

closed while his wife appeals from the revocation of the approval of her I-130 petition,

which entitled Multani to a visa based on his marriage to a U.S. citizen. Relying on

Multani’s record of “flouting” the immigration laws in various ways, the IJ denied this

request; indeed, he went further and ordered that Multani be deported to India.

Multani petitioned for review. We conclude that we have jurisdiction over this petition.

Notwithstanding the fact that the Board of Immigration Appeals has, since argument

in this case, vacated the revocation of the I-130 petition and remanded for further


Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53

No. 05-1732 Page 2

proceedings on the bona fides of the marriage, we see nothing in the decision of the IJ

or the BIA before us that would justify granting the petition for review. Multani must

therefore seek whatever further relief may be available to him from the BIA or the

appropriate agency within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).


Multani, a citizen of India, first entered the United States illegally in 1987. He

was arrested by immigration officials in Florida in 1991, at which time the former

Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC)

charging him with deportability for illegally entering the United States. Multani failed

to appear at his hearing and was ordered deported in absentia. In 1996, he turned up

in California, where he applied for asylum. In that application (in which Multani used

a shortened version of his name, Paramjit Singh), he claimed that he was tortured and

beaten in India in 1993, and that he first entered the United States in 1994. He made

no mention of his prior immigration proceedings. The application was denied and

Multani received another OSC, based on illegal entry. Once again, Multani failed to

attend his deportation hearing, and once again, he was ordered deported in absentia.

Then in 1998, Multani was again found in the United States and charged with

deportability for entering the country illegally. This time, a warrant for his deportation

was issued, but in February 1999 he sent a letter to the INS, notifying it that he had

“self-deported” to Canada and that the INS was “not to bother” him at his new address.

Apparently Canada was not to his liking, because he illegally reentered the

United States eight months later. The INS caught up with him quickly and charged

him with removability for the illegal reentry. Multani denied that he was removable

and requested an opportunity to apply for adjustment of status. His case was

transferred to Chicago, and in October 2000, the IJ ordered him deported to India.

Multani then filed a motion to reopen his case, arguing that he was denied an

opportunity to apply to have his status adjusted to that of a lawful permanent resident,

based on an approved I-130 petition filed by his wife, who was a U.S. citizen. Multani

concurrently applied to adjust his status, but his application falsely claimed that he

had never previously been deported. At the same time, Multani appealed the IJ’s

October 2000 decision to the BIA, which remanded his case so that the IJ could

consider his application for adjustment of status.

At the hearing on Multani’s application to adjust his status, the IJ informed him

that because of his “self-deportation” in 1999, he was ineligible to adjust status and

become a permanent resident. Multani’s attorney, however, then informed the IJ that

four days earlier, he had filed an I-212 application on Multani’s behalf, requesting

permission for Multani to reapply for admission to the United States after deportation.

The IJ decided to continue the hearing. Before it resumed, the United States

Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) (a bureau of DHS) revoked the I-130 visa

petition that Multani’s wife had filed. When the status adjustment hearing resumed,

No. 05-1732 Page 3

Multani requested that the IJ continue his case, pending resolution of an appeal of the

visa revocation. As we noted above, on April 7, 2006, the BIA ruled favorably on

Multani’s appeal, ordering “the District Director to provide the petitioner an additional

opportunity to submit evidence in support of the bona fides of the marriage.” The BIA’s

order does not comment on any other aspect of the case, although it includes a footnote

detailing the various names that DHS asserts Multani has used. Interestingly, the

BIA’s order of April 7 identifies him as “Paramjit Singh,” not as Multani. We think it

is fair to conclude, from counsel’s submission of the Board’s April 7 order, that he

concedes that he has used both names.

Back in 2003, however, the IJ refused Multani’s request to continue the case or

to adjust his status; instead, he issued an order dated June 18, 2004, that concluded

with the following language: “IT IS ORDERED that respondent’s request for acontinuance be denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the respondent be deported from

the United States to India on the charge contained in the Notice to Appear.” The IJ

explained in the order that Multani’s record was “replete with misrepresentations,

deceptions, and utter disregard for the laws of the United States.” The IJ recognized

that he had discretion whether to grant Multani’s request for a continuance, but that

given Multani’s history, this relief was not warranted, nor was any further delay in

resolving the case as a whole.

Multani appealed to the BIA, arguing that the IJ had violated his due process

rights by not acting impartially, and that the IJ abused his discretion by denying a

continuance knowing that Multani’s visa had been “revoked in violation of the law.”

Unmoved, the BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision. Foreshadowing its later ruling in the visa

appeal, it expressed concern about the revocation of Multani’s marriage visa, noting

that the only apparent basis for that action was that Multani was “the kind of person

who would enter into a sham marriage.” This, it concluded, would be an improper

reason for such an action. Nevertheless, the BIA found that Multani did not merit

discretionary relief, because he “flout[ed] immigration laws” by making

misrepresentations in his application, failing to appear for prior hearings, and twice

ignoring deportation orders. The BIA’s order concludes with the statement

“[a]ccordingly, the appeal is dismissed.”


The government argues that this court lacks jurisdiction to consider Multani’s

challenge to the IJ’s denial of his request for a continuance pending his appeal of the

revocation of the marriage visa. It argues further that we lack jurisdiction to review

the IJ’s decision to deny Multani’s application for adjustment of status. It is true that

the governing statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), which is entitled “denials of

discretionary relief” says that “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law … and

except as provided in subparagraph (D), … no court shall have jurisdiction to review…

(ii) any other decision or action of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland

No. 05-1732 Page 4

Security the authority for which is specified under this subchapter to be in the

discretion of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security….” See

Subhan v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 591, 595 (7th Cir. 2004) (stating in dicta that ordinary

denials of continuances are covered by the statutory ban on judicial review); Yerkovich

v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 990, 995 (10th Cir. 2004); but see Zafar v. U.S. Attorney General,

426 F.3d 1330, 1334-35 (11th Cir. 2005) (holding that the authority for an IJ to grant

a continuance is derived solely from regulations promulgated by the INS, and thus the

ban on judicial review does not extend to rulings on motions for continuances). In some

situations, however, the denial of a continuance is functionally the final substantive

order in the case. See Subhan, 383 F.3d at 595-96; see also Benslimane v. Gonzales,

430 F.3d 828, 832 (7th Cir. 2005). In those situations, we have held that substance

should prevail over form, and that we have the power to review the ultimate decision

in the case.

In its zeal to protect the Attorney General’s discretion, however, the government

has overlooked the fact that, in the final analysis, this is not a petition for review of the

denial of a continuance. It is a petition from the final order commanding that Multani

be deported to India. As is often the case, Multani is complaining that various

procedural steps along the way to that outcome require reversal. But that does not

mean that this court lacks jurisdiction to review the deportation order, as we normally

do under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). See Hamdan v. Gonzales, 425 F.3d 1051, 1057 (7th Cir.

2005) (noting that scope of appellate review now includes review of constitutional

claims and questions of law). Our jurisdiction over this petition is secure, even though

there may be particular rulings that receive special deference.

Unfortunately for Multani, however, this procedural victory is of little avail. His

protestations about his inability to gather together all of his prior records ring hollow,

especially since he has now conceded the fact that “Paramjit Singh Multani” (whose

case was docketed as A29 396 661 by DHS) and “Paramjit Singh (whose case was

docketed as A75 019 376 by DHS) are one and the same person. The IJ did not abuse

his discretion when he found that Multani did not merit either a continuance or any

other kind of discretionary relief. We have no reason to second-guess the IJ’s finding

that Multani’s “record is replete with misrepresentations, deceptions, and utter

disregard for the laws of the United States.” Finally, we reject Multani’s claim that the

proceedings before the IJ infringed his due process rights. Among other problems with

this argument is the fact that an alien’s right to due process does not extend to

proceedings that provide only discretionary relief. See Cevilla v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d658, 662 (7th Cir. 2006); Hamdan, 425 F.3d at 1060-61. In addition, Multani has given

us no reason to think that the IJ and the BIA were anything but impartial and


The petition for review is DENIED.


Obama absent from November 4 1999 Illinois Senate, Larry Sinclair cocaine allegations, Larry Sinclair lawsuit

Larry Sinclair has alleged that he and Barack Obama used cocaine in his rented limousine in Chicago during the period of November 3 – 8 1999. Sinclair also alleges a homosexual act was performed and that they had an encounter 2 days later. The record of the Illinois Senate for November 4 1999 indicates Barack Obama was absent for personal reasons. Where was Barack Obama on November 4, 1999? Below is a copy of the lawsuit Larry Sinclair filed in Minnesota against Barack Obama.