return to homepage
return to updates

A Prediction
by Miles Mathis

Today is October 22, so I am not predicting too far into the future: early November. Obama is elected by a wide margin. Not as wide as Reagan, but much wider than Bush 2. Soon afterwards*, Congress convenes and someone formally questions Obama’s citizenship. Obama is then disqualified, either by a vote of Congress or by the Supreme Court. This disqualification will take around two weeks of discovery and argument. Since Obama was never elected, Biden was never elected. This means the Presidency goes to the second-place vote getter, or the only qualified candidate on the ballot, John McCain.

Now, I am not going to tell you why Obama will be disqualified. If you want to know all the facts before they come out in a couple of weeks, you can do your own research on the web, just like I did. The information is not hard to find.

You will think, “No, this can’t happen. If it does, there will be revolution.” But once again they will spin it in the direction they want to go. In short, they will prove that Obama is not a natural born citizen, that he knew he was not, and that the Democratic Party knew or should have known he was not. This will generate a large amount of anger at Obama and the DNC.

We have wondered how the Republicans could “steal” this one, since it has appeared for months that they would have to steal ten or fifteen percentage points. I don’t honestly think that is beyond them, but this method is much superior. It turns the tables on the Democrats. This is perhaps the only way that people could be convinced that the Democrats are just as dishonest as the Republicans. It required a gigantic scandal to help the Democrats catch up, scandal-wise, and this one will certainly qualify.

The only thing they must continue to cover up, after the scandal, is that the Democrats must have been part of the show from the start. None of this could have happened by accident or oversight, or by the cleverness of a few Republican attorneys, although that is what you will be told. If this happens, it will happen only with the cooperation and knowledge beforehand of the Democratic leadership and Obama himself. Yes, I tell you Obama knows this is going to happen. McCain knows this is going to happen. It has been prepared for over a year, maybe longer. I do not know what escape clause Obama has, or thinks he has, but he knows.

I suspect Obama has been told that he will be hidden away in wealth somewhere far away from American eyes, in Africa or South America. To get there, he may have been told there will be a fake assassination. He will appear to be killed, to take all eyes off him permanently. The assassination may then switch, without his knowledge, to real; or he may be saved and sent away, as promised. Either way, his “death” will create race wars in the US.

“Why would both the Republican and Democratic leaders want to foment race wars?” you ask. For the same reason the US foments religious or sectarian violence in Iraq: to re-direct the anger. If the blacks and whites are hating and fighting each other, they forget to fight back against the crypto-fascists running the country. They forget the Republican president who is polling at 19%. They forget the Democratic congress that is polling at 9%. They forget the financiers who are sucking them dry with taxation and inflation and outright robbery from the treasury. They forget the CIA and NSA that are snooping on them constantly. They forget all this to be led off on manufactured battles: race battles and abortion battles and evolution battles and religious battles and gay battles and so on.

Hitler did the same thing. He fomented a race war between the Jews and the Aryans, to keep the Aryans busy so that they wouldn’t have time look closely at his domestic or foreign policies. This policy of misdirection goes back to Rome, and before. Rome used “panem et circenses”, bread and circuses, to misdirect the masses, but it also used manufactured wars at home and abroad for the same purpose. Foreign wars spend taxes and make the rich richer, while violence at home keeps everyone busy sharpening plowshares and looking suspiciously at one another.

A Hillary Clinton supporter, Philip Berg, has sued to bring this information out before the election. He knows that if it comes out before the election, the DNC can nominate Hillary. If it comes out after, it will be too late. As a former attorney general for Pennsylvania, he is now close to making that happen. So close, in fact, that the DNC will not be able to plead ignorance later. The DNC is blocking his lawsuit, when they could just present a valid birth certificate to the judge. This, by itself, is prima facie evidence of prior knowledge and collusion between the Dems and Reps.

Berg has in his possession (and posted on his site) a tape of Obama's grandmother stating that she was present at Obama's birth in Kenya. He has an affadivit of a Kenyan Reverend Shuhubia, who was present at this interview of Obama's grandmother. Reverend Shuhubia also testifies that he obtained oral confirmation of this Kenyan birth from officials in Mombasa, including the official registrar of births. He was told, however, that all records had been classified and were no longer obtainable, due to pressure from the US State Dept. Furthermore, the birth certificate posted on the web has been shown to be a fake and a forgery. Regardless, nationality is not proved on the web by scanned photocopies, it is proved in court with paper documents. Most recently, the mainstream media claimed this question was solved when officials in Hawaii stated they had seen the original birth certificate. However, once again, nationality is not proved--nothing is proved--by officials making unofficial statements for the press. We should not have to take anyone's word for anything. If the original document exists, there is no reason it should not be shown in court. We do not need officials making statements, under oath or not. We need real documents provided to courts. Maybe this Hawaiian birth certificate exists, maybe it doesn't, but I am not going to take an oral statement from an official not under oath as proof of anything. Officials are paid to lie, as everyone should know. It may turn out that this certificate is nothing more than a certificate of naturalization, since Obama's mother was a citizen of Hawaii. You will say, she was a citizen of Hawaii, and therefore the US, so it doesn't matter where Obama was born. But under the law, she could not transfer citizenship to her son if he was born abroad, since she was not old enough to do so on her own (without the father also being a US citizen). The law required five years of citizenship after age 16, and since she was 18, she did not qualify. In this case, Hawaiian officials confirming a paper on file means nothing, since the paper may be in error, and therefore invalid. Only a court can decide that. In other words, the officials at the time may have allowed a paper to go on file, not knowing all the laws that applied to the particular case (since it was, admittedly, complicated). A court should hear this case and all the pertinent documents should be presented. The fact that Obama refuses to present these documents is indication of a cover up. The fact that the mainstream press expects people to be satisfied with webscans and unofficial statements is also indication of a cover up. The fact that the courts will not address the issue here, and continue to stonewall just like the press and the DNC and the Obama campaign, points to a cover up. If the certificate in Hawaii is in order, why not show it to the court and be done with it?

As another example of a cover up, we can look at misdirection from the Chicago Tribune. "The Swamp" (the Tribune's online political mag) brought in Ron Gotcher in 2008 as a legal expert, to put the issue to rest. Gotcher says that the whole issue of Obama's mother's age is moot, since this is a question of jus soli, not jus sanguinis. In other words, it is a question of soil, not blood. It doesn't matter what the citizenship status of Obama's parents were, since he was born on American soil. Of course, in this way, Gotcher takes it as given that Obama was born in Hawaii. He cleverly sidesteps that whole question, as if it is not a question. The Tribune tries to look brave for tackling the legal issue, using all the legal terms, but then it simply ignores the main question. This is misdirection because it doesn't do service to the real argument being made by Berg. Berg's argument is that both things are true: 1) Obama was born in Kenya, negating jus soli, 2) Obama's mother was not of proper legal age, negating jus sanguinis. Therefore, Obama is neither natural born nor naturalized.

For another example of misdirection, go to Snopes is supposed to be a debunking site started by a private couple (the Mikkelsons). Problem is, even Wikipedia admits that the Mikkelsons only owned the site up to 2005. Who owned it after that? Just like Wikipedia, Yahoo, Google, and all the other big sites, Snopes is now controlled: it is an arm of government propaganda and is written by the CIA, NSA, the White House, or the Pentagon. Snopes was probably connected to the CIA from the beginning, but from reading its content, I assume it is now under total control. This is clear simply by reading the two pages on Obama's citizenship and the status of Obama's COLB. In other places we are told we can trust Snopes because it gives footnotes and links, but here, as in many or most cases, no pertinent links are given. Only a poor argument is given. Snopes argument, if we can call it that, is that it is "inherently absurd" to imagine that a Presidential candidate would stoop to such fraud. Yes, politicians are normally so honest. It is outrageous that we should ever doubt them. Then Snopes says, "The certificate is consistent with others issued at the same time and place, and the embossed signature and seal don't show through very well on the scanned front page because they were applied to the back of the original document. Those who have actually touched and examined the original certificate have verified and documented that it bears all the elements of a valid certificate of live birth." The writers and compilers at Snopes obviously have a low opinion of their readers, since these statements are on a par with the previous one about trusting our candidates and politicians. In fact, the certificate is not consistent with others issued at the same time and place, as you can see here. Also, why would any state sign and seal a certificate on the back? Is your birth certificate signed and sealed on the back? How about your diploma? How about any important document you have ever witnessed? How stupid does Snopes think we are to accept a statement like that? Even if the birth certificate were signed and sealed from the back, that would be easy to clear up with a scan of the back. Why not post that scan? But the frosting on the cake is that last sentence. We don't need officials from Hawaii to "verify" or "document" these facts, we need them to testify under oath, or present the original documents. Why should we trust the word of officials? Notice that Snopes entire argument is based on trust. We are supposed to trust Obama to do the right thing. We are supposed to trust minor officials in Hawaii to tell us the truth. And we are supposed to trust Snopes. But if we are going to be that naive and credulous, we might as well not do a search on any of these topics to begin with. We should just sit at home in the nest like baby birds, with our mouths wide open.

Berg is not the only high-profile person formerly in government who has gone on record challenging Obama's citizenship. Alan Keyes, a black man who served as an assistant secretary under Reagan and ran for President as a Republican in 1996, 2000, and 2008, has stated on camera that Obama's qualifications are in question and should be determined by a judge. He has sued in California to prevent the electors from presenting votes to Congress until the question is settled. I am far from being a supporter of Alan Keyes: I mention him only to show that this question is not a question manufactured by Stormfront. It is a question being discussed in private by serious legal scholars, though only candidates as "wild" as Keyes are willing to bring it up on camera during interviews.

This also explains many other things. How could a black man with a name like Barack Hussein Obama have made it this far, in an election cycle where the number one bad guy in the news is still Osama, and in a country where most voters, Blue and Red, still vote based on clichés and manufactured issues? It is simply beyond comprehension, until you realize that he was part of a two-party plan, pushed by the media, and swallowed down whole by the “lefties.” Obama is the patsy candidate, a complete and utter set-up from the beginning. That is why McCain has been easy on him, why McCain talked of suspending his campaign, why McCain felt he could nominate Palin, why McCain even defended Obama to his own voters. This election has looked even more like a show than any of the others, and it is because it was. It was a step less real than any of the others. Both sides have known from the beginning what would happen.

Of course, this requires us to look harder at the elections in 2004 and 2000. In 2000, Gore voted against himself to break the tie in the Senate, confirming the election outcome. In 2004, Kerry refused to join a Senate investigation into vote fraud in Ohio. Both Gore and Kerry acted strangely in many other ways, accepting obvious and egregious vote fraud far too "graciously" far too many times. I would argue that their actions went beyond “cowardly” and into the realm of “suspicious”. But that is the subject of another paper.

Can anything be done? You could vote third party and stall this whole charade right now, but I have no belief that will happen. What must happen is a quick education, before the first violence occurs, and that is why I am writing this. A prediction will be so much more powerful than an after-the-fact request for peace. A prediction is proof positive of being able to see through the veils, and a prognosticator must demand some respect in a situation like this. Blacks and whites must refuse to be drawn into a sectarian war. We should all hate Obama, but as a liar, not as a black man or Muslim or Christian. As a liar, he is not representative of blacks or whites: he is a representative of the politicians and leaders of both parties, all of whom are the tools of greater powers. It is these powers we should resist, not each other.

We should use this opportunity to free ourselves from both parties and their corporate and military backers, from the bankers, multi-nationals, oil companies, Wal-Marts, lobbyists, and hired media whores. We should refuse to be misdirected, to be led away from the evidence. We should form at least two new parties, blacklist all previous leaders, and elect populist representatives. We should nationalize the so-called Federal Reserve, re-regulate all industries, and downsize the military, CIA, and NSA. We should abolish the Department of Homeland Security and strike down the Military Commissions Act and the Patriot Acts. We should outlaw signing statements and cancel all previous ones. We should unseat the Supreme Court and start over from scratch. We should put officials on trial across the board, in every agency. Not only Bush and Cheney, but Generals and Congresspeople of both parties. Thousands of people should be tried for treason, and thousands more for obstruction of justice.

I could easily be wrong, of course (concerning the prediction, not concerning Obama). Predictions are tricky things, even this near to the events. The whole scenario may play out in a different way. But regardless of how the scene is set this time, my recommendations remain the same. Even if nothing scandalous happens for the rest of the year, we still need to do all I have said. The pile of scandals already reaches to the moon. The pile of evidence already reaches to the moon. Only a masochist would really require more. I for one do not need another manufactured show as proof. I am not looking forward to another made-for-TV shock-and-awe entertainment. You should not require it either.

*It appears that January 6 is the day this might happen, since that is the day the electoral votes from each state can be contested.

March 2009 addendum. Congress decided to do nothing, as usual. I forgot to take that into account. But just keep this question somewhere in the back of your mind. It will come up again.

June 2009 Addendum: Attorney General Holder has decided against Philip Berg, despite Berg's complaints of conflict of interest (since Holder was appointed by Obama). Not surprisingly, the Justice Department is declining to investigate its own President. However, Berg still has three outstanding suits which have yet to go to trial.

October 14, 2009 Addendum: The Associated Press has now been caught confirming [in 2004 in a piece syndicated worldwide] that Obama was born in Kenya. The evidence against Obama is mounting.

If this paper was useful to you in any way, please consider donating a dollar (or more) to the SAVE THE ARTISTS FOUNDATION. This will allow me to continue writing these "unpublishable" things. Don't be confused by paying Melisa Smith--that is just one of my many noms de plume. If you are a Paypal user, there is no fee; so it might be worth your while to become one. Otherwise they will rob us 33 cents for each transaction.