S?bado, 30 de abril de 2011

Share on Facebook

Jana Winter and Fox intentionally misleading Americans?, Obama birth certificate analysis, OCR software, Data integrity vs character?translation

Jana Winter and Fox intentionally misleading Americans?, Obama birth certificate analysis, OCR software, Data integrity vs character translation

?Why has Obama, after using private and taxpayer funded attorneys for years to keep his birth certificate and college records hidden, placed a computer generated birth certificate and not a certified original copy on WhiteHouse.gov???Citizen Wells

?And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed
?if all records told the same tale?then the lie passed into
history and became truth. ?Who controls the past,? ran the
Party slogan, ?controls the future: who controls the present
controls the past.??George Orwell, ?1984″

?Garbage in, Garbage out.??Computer Science Axiom

I am a computer and business systems expert. Of the many aspects of computer systems and data I was involved in, I worked for a software company in the early 1980′s that dealt with OCR software and readers. I provided my analysis of the document placed on WhiteHouse.gov yesterday.

?When you view the document placed on WhiteHouse.gov remember it was computer generated. It is not an image file of a complete original birth certificate. It is a composite of data entered into a database(s) in the Hawaii computer systems. The data is as good as the source and the procedures and personnel who controlled the entry and maintained the integrity. From a legal standpoint it proves, if authenticated as having come from the state of Hawaii, that Obama is a US Citizen. It does not prove that he is a natural born citizen.?

Read more:

http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2011/04/29/obama-birth-certificate-update-liar-scoreboard-jana-winter-fox-alvin-onaka-story-who-is-lying/

Jana Winter of Fox news presented this article on April 29, 2011.

?Expert: No Doubt Obama?s Birth Certificate Is Legit?

?The White House has released President Obama?s long-form birth certificate, saying the document is ?proof positive? the president was born in Hawaii.

It didn?t take long for some of President Obama?s doubters to claim the long-awaited birth certificate posted online by the White House on Wednesday had been altered or might be a fake.

But a leading software expert says there?s no doubt about its authenticity, and he dismisses claims of fraud as flat-out wrong.

The doubters have latched onto the idea that Adobe Illustrator ? the premier program for computer graphic artists ? ?reveals? evidence of document manipulation in the Obama birth certificate. They note Illustrator reveals nine separate layers of the document, and claim it?s ?proof? the file has been altered.

But that?s not so, says Jean-Claude Tremblay, a leading software trainer and Adobe-certified expert, who has years of experience working with and teaching Adobe Illustrator.?

Read more:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/29/expert-says-obamas-birth-certificate-legit/

First of all, I have not questioned whether or not this document actually came from the State of Hawaii or not or whether or not the the document was ?photoshopped.? It was not the core issue for me.

The article heading is at least misleading or an outright lie.

?Expert: No Doubt Obama?s Birth Certificate Is Legit?

  • Jean-Claude Tremblay ia a?Adobe-certified expert. He only addressed the issue of document manipulation.
  • No mention was made of whether or not Tremblay was a birth certificate expert.
  • Tremblay has not been given access to an original birth certificate.
  • Tremblay did not say that the document was an authenticate presentation of Obama?s original birth certificate.

Why does the article contain these statements?

?Expert: No Doubt Obama?s Birth Certificate Is Legit?

?But a leading software expert says there?s no doubt about its authenticity, and he dismisses claims of fraud as flat-out wrong.?

A disturbing trend has developed at Fox. Bill O?Reilly misled the American people for several years by stating that he had done research and that Obama was born in Hawaii. We recently got confirmation that he relied on the birth announcements. Now Jana Winter misrepresents what the Adobe software expert has said.

Did Fox make a deal with the devil?

Jana Winter or Fox, contact me. I am not just a Adobe or OCR expert, I have expertise over a broad area in IT for over 30 years. I also am an expert on the Obama birth certificate and eligibility controversies as well as the Rezko and Chicago corruption ties.

Fox, can you handle the truth?

---------------------------------------------------------



Publicado por Corazon7 @ 14:15
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Share on Facebook

http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/04/30/how-to-stop-obama-in-the-next-election/

How to Stop Obama in the Next Election

CAN THE FEDERAL ELECTIONS COMMISSION KEEP OBAMA OFF THE BALLOT FOR 2012?

by Jedi Pauly, ?2011

?

If the FEC allows Obama to run again, it is committing a crime against the Citizens?

(Apr. 30, 2011) ? Dear Readers of the Post and Email News and fellow Patriots:

I have written up the legal proof of the Natural Law Theory that clearly shows all of the correct law regarding the true meaning and definition of Article II ?natural born Citizen? (called the Natural Law Theory) that shows that nbC is only defined by the Laws of Nature as a natural unalienable political right that comes from, and is secured by, being born to a citizen father.

It is essential that you read and comprehend this legal research and forward it to your State Attorney General who is responsible for seeing to it that the Federal Constitutional mandate of a ?natural born Citizen?, meaning one who is born to a citizen FATHER, is enforced at the federal level during the next election in order to protect the sovereign political status of State citizens?who are born to citizen fathers.

The State has an obligation to protect the sovereignty of its citizens from unlawful federal elections conducted by fellow States who will put Obama on the ballot in the next election, and in effect concoct a treasonous federal election with the outcome being the overthrow of the sovereign rights of the States and People.? It is the Federal Elections Commission who must be mandated by the States to instruct all the States not to put Obama on the ballots, so that the citizens of one State will not be voting in an election for a non-natural born Citizen candidate who cannot represent those of us who are born to citizen fathers in other States.

Those who are not born to citizen fathers have representation in Congress and in the Office of President, since Obama only represents the political class of those who are not born to citizen fathers.? The citizens who are born to citizen fathers have lost, and will lose, the recognition of their sovereign political status and rights and any and all representation, if Obama is permitted to continue in Office or run for re-election.? It is the duty and obligation of the State Attorneys General of the States to protect their citizens and to bring a suit against the Federal Elections Commission and against those other States that are going to put Obama on the ballot in the next election.

I am imploring you to please forward this Natural Law Theory ?on which I have worked hard?to?show the conclusive proof that one must be born to a citizen father? to your State Attorney General, along with a letter demanding that your State protect your sovereignty and political status as a sovereign person of the State by mandating that the Article II provisions of nbC be enforced.? Notify your State Attorney General that your State will be engaged in an unlawful treasonous election if your State puts Obama on any election ballot for President.? Put your State Attorney General on notice and demand that he protect your sovereign political status by obtaining a court order that mandates the Federal Election Commission to instruct the States to refuse Obama on any federal election for the Office of President.? If he will not do this, then he has committed a dereliction of duty and is guilty of sedition and or treason and conspiracy to deprive you of your Constitutional protections of your political status and rights, and then we must sue the State Attorney Generals and Federal Election Commission for failure to seek enforcement of the Constitution and laws, and for failing to protect the citizens of the States from the loss of their representative government.

Their refusal to act on your behalf constitutes a criminal fraudulent conspiracy to deprive those of us who are born to citizen fathers of our political rights, in favor of a privileged class who are not born to citizen fathers.? Those who are born to citizen fathers have their political rights guaranteed by the Laws of Nature as a natural right of inheritance, not a PRIVILEGE or legal right.? This Natural Right is meant to be protected by the Positive Law, which is why it is declared in Article II nbC of the Constitution.? Those citizens who are not born to citizen fathers, or the defectors who cross over and vote for a candidate who is not born to a citizen father, are a special privileged class that the law does not recognize as having a superior right, or any right, to vote for a candidate who only can represent those not born to citizen fathers.? There is no right of any citizen to vote for a candidate for President who is not born to a citizen father.? Those who would attempt to vote for Obama are unlawfully depriving those of us who are born to citizen fathers who have the right to vote only for a member of our political class.? You would have an absolute right to physically prevent those people from voting for Obama in the next election.

For the reasons above, it is imperative and mandatory that your State Attorney General sues the Federal Election Commission on your behalf, and on behalf of the State if you are born to a citizen father.? I am from Indiana and this is what I am trying to do in my State.? I am only one person.? I cannot do this in all of the States.? You must take the responsibility in your State.? I have pointed the way and provided you with the weapon and ammunition (Natural Law Theory ? Go to http://www.jedipauly.com and read the Summary and Detailed Proof of the Natural Law Theory of ?natural born Citizen?.)? Please report back to me your efforts and results.

Fighting to save the Republic,

Jedi Pauly

?

? 2011, The Post & Email. All rights reserved internationally, unless otherwise specified. To read more on our copyright restrictions, see our Copyright notice on the subheader of every page, along the left margin.


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 13:23
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Share on Facebook

http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2011/04/28/wayne-madsen-foreign-intelligence-agencies-say-obama-birth-certificate-is-fake/

?

World intelligence agencies: Obama?s long form birth certificate a rank forger

By Wayne Madsen ? April 28, 2011

From intelligence agencies around the world, the verdict on President Obama?s newly-released certificate of live birth from Hawaii is in: the certificate is a rank forgery on the same level as the Niger ?yellow cake? uranium and Iraq Oil Ministry forged documents. Intelligence and law enforcement services are experts on fake documents since they have to deal with large numbers of counterfeit documents, such as birth certificates, passports, identity cards and driver?s licenses, as well as currency. Intelligence agencies are also experts at forging their own documents for their clandestine agents.

Within 24-hours of the release of the long form Certificate of Live Birth on April 27, intelligence agencies from Britain and China to Germany and Russia examined the document and concluded it was a forgery based on the fact that Barack H. Obama Sr.?s race, listed as ?African,? was a monumental error, considering that not only the United States, but other English-speaking nations described Africans and those of African descent as either ?Negroes? or ?blacks? in 1961.

In 1961, the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare classified non-Whites, who were not Asian, Eskimo, Aleut, Hawaiian, part-Hawaiian, or other ?non-White,? as ?Negro.? The U.S. Census Bureau also used the term ?Asian and other Pacific Islander? in 1961, which included Filipino, Hawaiian, and part-Hawaiian. The Census Bureau, like HEW, used the term ?Negro? to describe blacks and those of black descent. The term ?mulatto,? used to describe those of mixed white and black ancestry, ceased being used by the U.S. Census Bureau in 1918.

1961 Vital Statistics of the United States;
U. S. Dept. of Health Education, and Welfare;
Public Health Service;
National Center for Health Statistics;
National Vital Statistics Division;

Race and color

Births in the United States in 1961 are classified for vital statistics into white, Negro, American Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Aleut, Eskimo, Hawaiian and Part-Hawaiian (combined), and ?other nonwhite.?

The category ?white? includes, in addition to persons reported as ?white,? those reported as Mexican or Puerto Rican. With one exception, a reported mixture of Negro with any other race is included in the Negro group; other mixed parentage is classified according to the race of the nonwhite parent and mixtures of nonwhite races to the race of the father. The exception refers to a mixture of Hawaiian and any other race, which is classified as Part-Hawaiian. In most tables a less detailed classification of ?white? and ?nonwhite? is used.

In the United Kingdom, the terms ?black? and ?Asian? were used in the 1961 census to describe those who were ?non-white British? nationals. Barack Obama, Sr., as a citizen of the British Colony of Kenya, would have known that his British racial designation was ?black? in 1961. The term ?African? was not used as a racial designation in either the colony of Kenya or on the British mainland. In South Africa and other British colonies in Africa, ?Coloured? was used to describe those of mixed white-black descent.

The consensus among intelligence agency experts is that the Obama long form Certificate of Live Birth was hastily manufactured by an amateur who never thought of using the standard race designation of Negro in Barack Obama, Sr.?s racial designation block on the form either due to ignorance or an attempt to be politically correct in 2011 by refusing to use an accepted term from 1961.

The past decade has seen the use of crude forgeries to propel the United States into a war in Iraq (the bogus Niger ?yellow cake? uranium documents) and to try to indict various U.S. and foreign politicians and businessmen (the fake Iraq Oil Ministry ?Oil-for-Food? documents). The Obama forged Certificate of Live Birth represents yet another attempt to perpetuate a fraud on a grand scale.


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 11:44
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Share on Facebook

Obama's birther blunder
Birth certificate questions abound
By Dr. Grace Vuoto

?
On April 27 President Barack Obama issued a copy of his long-form birth certificate and declared, ?We do not have time for this kind of silliness.? He said "We?ve got better stuff to do. I?ve got better stuff to do.? Indeed, the American people have better things to do and we are wondering why it has taken the president so long to comply with this basic constitutional requirement.

Many in the media, including leftists like MSNBC?S Chris Matthews, have called on the president to reveal the long-form certificate, as the birthers have demanded, rather than only the certificate of live birth that he provided. It was ultimately a media campaign spearheaded by Donald Trump that led to the White House disclosure.

Yet, it is unlikely the birth certificate controversy will now come to an end. The Internet is a-buzz with claims by bloggers that the document is a forgery. Regardless of whether this proves to be the case, the president?s actions have raised more questions than they have answered. Even if we accept his narrative and consider this document to be authentic, (which is still open to further inquiry until experts have fully vetted the certificate provided), Mr. Obama?s behavior has been highly irresponsible.

In the first place, if we all have better things to do, why did he pay thousands of dollars in legal fees in several court cases where the request for his certificate was made? Why was even a team of government lawyers used, at public expense?

In addition, this birther controversy has been a public relations disaster for Mr. Obama. On the one hand, the president insisted for years that he would not release the long-form birth certificate. And then, he suddenly did so because of mounting public pressure. This makes the commander-in-chief appear to be whimsical, an incompetent buffoon?not a man of gravitas. Either there was some matter of principle he was standing for by not disclosing the document or there was not. But to invest time and energy taking a stand on this, only to ultimately cave, makes the president look weak and inconsistent. It is he who looks like the maker of the silly season, not those who made the simple request for more information.

Furthermore, the president?s intransigence has caused real harm. Consider the case of Lt. Col. Terry Lakin. He has been in prison for six months at Ft. Leavenworth in Kansas. The decorated army doctor refused to deploy to Afghanistan unless the president, who is at the top of his chain of command, revealed his eligibility for office and displayed his long-form birth certificate. The doctor?s case made national headlines. Why did Mr. Obama allow this man to suffer the indignity of a court martial and a prison term if revealing the long-form birth certificate was no big deal after all?

Mr. Obama?s intransigence allowed the controversy to mushroom. And by doing so, he cast doubt on his own legitimacy. "If [Obama] is ineligible, then indeed, all orders are illegal because all orders have the origin with the commander in chief," said Col. Lakin in defending his actions. "Seeking out public office, especially the highest in our land, means you must uphold the Constitution, Mr. President and confirm your eligibility," said Col. Lakin in a YouTube video.

If the president did not care about one man in the chain of command, he should nonetheless have cared about the message he was sending to the troops. Instead, he remained aloof, causing doubt and division in the armed forces?when he should have immediately responded and asserted his legitimacy. A vital part of his role as wartime leader is to maintain high troop morale. To have allowed this type of controversy to possibly infest the military at a time of war was grossly negligent of his duties. This is leadership101.

Moreover, rather than nipping this story in the bud, the president allowed it to fester, giving rise to more and more concerns about his legitimacy among the public at large. An April 20-23 USA TODAY poll revealed that only 38 percent of respondents said Mr. Obama definitely was born in the USA, 18 percent said he probably was. Fifteen percent said he probably was born in another country, and 9 percent said he definitely was born in another country. How could the president be effective?that is, bring about dramatic change, end the gridlock, solve the nation?s problems? with so much doubt about whether he was even allowed to be in office?

Finally, Mr. Obama?s actions in not being immediately forthcoming were selfish, to say the least. As one whose 2008 election marked a national watershed?the first African American president in this nation?s history?he should have abhorred even the slightest whiff of illegitimacy so as not to tarnish in any way his stunning achievement. If not for the sake of his detractors, then for the sake of his most ardent fans and supporters he should have addressed the issue immediately. Why allow, for example, an African-American little boy or little girl to wonder for even a split second: ?Is it not really so? Might our great victory not be legitimate after all??

In short, the president?s actions make little sense. One can respect Mr. Obama more, ironically, if the certificate really had something on it that was worth hiding. In that case, his intransigence would at least be rational. Yet if the document the president released on April 27 is legitimate, his behavior has been sloppy and foolhardy. The birther controversy has exposed the cardinal limitations of a man who should not have been elected to the highest office in the land, whether or not he was born in the U.S.A.

-Dr. Grace Vuoto is the Executive Director of the Edmund Burke Institute for American Renewal.


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 10:27
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Share on Facebook

Friday, April 29, 2011

Washington Times: Congress & FBI Need To Investigate Obama's New Forged Birth Certificate

?


Video: In an exclusive April 29, 2011 interview on ExopoliticsTV with Alfred Lambremont Webre, Robert Stanley, weekly correspondent for the Washington Times investigative radio, has stated after a clear on-camera demonstration that purported certificate of live birth released by U.S. President Barack H. Obama on April 27, 2011 is a forensic forgery.

Mr. Stanley had earlier on April 29, 2011 reported this breaking news on Washington Times investigative radio while being interviewed by reporters John McCaslin and Amy Holmes, also a correspondent for CNN. -Text via 68Truthseeker. Hat tip to Commander Kerchner.



Confirmed: Democratic Party of Hawaii would not certify in 2008 that Obama was constitutionally and legally eligible for the Office of President -Details here.?

Notre Dame Professor Charles Rice: Obama's eligibility could be biggest political fraud in the history of the world; time for a new approach -Details here.?

Attorney Mario Apuzzo: All presidents born after 1787, except for Chester Arthur and Barack Obama, met the ?natural born Citizen? criteria. -Details here.?

Commander Charles Kerchner: List of U.S. Presidents - Eligibility under Article II Grandfather Clause (GFC) or Natural Born Citizen (NBC) Clause or Seated due to Election Fraud -Details here.?

Jack Cashill Discusses Obama's Fraudulent Social Security Number Reserved for Connecticut Applicants -Video here.?

Detailed reports on Obama's SS# can be found here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. Visit the Birther Vault for the long list of evidence against Hawaii officials and all of the people questioning Obama's eligibility; [http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/08/video-ltc-terry-lakins-attorney-on-cnn.html].
Whose CT SSN is President Barack Hussein Soetoro Obama Using? Wash Times Natl Wkly 25 Apr 2011 pg 5
Obama Is a Usurper - Illegal President - 20100802 Issue Wash Times Natl Wkly - pg 5

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 10:12
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Viernes, 29 de abril de 2011

Share on Facebook



WND Exclusive
BORN IN THE USA?

9th Circuit will hear

eligibility arguments

But attorneys say dispute

involves much more than

birth certificate


Posted: April 29, 2011
8:30 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
??2011?WorldNetDaily

?


Only days after the White House released a copy of Barack Obama's "Certificate of Live Birth" from Hawaii, claiming to have put to rest the dispute over his eligibility to hold the office, attorneys will argue on Monday before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that the requirements of the U.S. Constitution simply are too important to ignore for the sake of political expediency, even when they involve a sitting president.

The case has been pending since the 2008 election. The plaintiffs alleged that Obama's qualifications were not checked properly, and that has resulted in a violation of the U.S. Constitution, a man occupying the Oval Office who does not meet the requirements that only a "natural born Citizen" can hold the office.

California attorney Orly Taitz told WND today that her hope is for a decision that will return the case to the district court for proceedings, which could include a discovery process through which a large number of Obama's life documents could be obtained.

Be the first to get the new eligibility book signed by Jerome Corsi and help get TV commercials on the air to bust this issue wide open!

Another set of plaintiffs is being represented by Attorney Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation.

?"What I hope comes out of the case is that the 9th Circuit will remand to the trial court for further proceedings, allow us to take depositions, subpoena witnesses and evidence to find out the truth," Kreep told WND.

"Let's assume the [White House-released birth] document is the real thing, that it's an actual copy of the birth certificate. There's still the issue of his half-sister [Maya Soetoro-Ng] who reported him being adopted by the Indonesia stepfather [Lolo Soetoro]. That raises legal questions. Maybe he lost his citizenship. There's also the issue of him traveling to Pakistan?"

"There's even the question of whether he was a dual citizen," he said. "That raises all sorts of different questions."

Also, "if the document that the White House released is accurate and is what it appears ?. That still doesn't resolve all the issues, and perhaps the most important question is why spend all this private money and taxpayer money to keep it from being revealed?"

Since his election, sometimes using private attorneys and sometimes using taxpayer-funded legal teams, Obama has battled almost six dozen lawsuits across the country, including several that reached the U.S. Supreme Court, in order to keep his records concealed from the public.

He even withheld the document he has released now when a career Army doctor, Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, was court-martialed and imprisoned for asking for verification that the commander-in-chief was legitimate.

"Why didn't he just released it in 2008 when he was running, or when Hillary Clinton asked for it? Why cause all the mistrust?" Kreep asked.

And far from putting the issue to rest as Obama had stated he wanted, the interest continues to surge. Two networks that largely had ignored the case for the first several years of its arguments now have asked the federal court for permission to broadcast the Monday proceedings, officials confirmed.

A team of U.S. attorneys based in California earlier argued in pleadings that there essentially is nothing the American public can do to determine if Obama is qualified under the U.S. Constitution's demand for a "natural-born citizen" in the Oval Office, and if they are injured, at least they are all injured alike.

The case arguments were presented in a brief submitted by U.S. Attorney Andre Birotte Jr. and his assistants Roger West and David DeJute in defense of Obama.

The plaintiffs had warned that allowing the district court's dismissal of the case to stand would strip minorities in the United States of "all political power" and leave laws to be based "upon the whims of the majority."

That earlier brief was filed by Kreep, who is representing Wiley S. Drake, a vice-presidential candidate on the 2008 ballot in California, and Markham Robinson, an elector from the state.

The case challenges Obama's eligibility to be president, citing a lack of documentation, and was the subject of hearings at the lower court level, where Judge David Carter heard arguments.

However, Carter dismissed the case, ruling that the plaintiffs suffered no injury ? they didn't have "standing" ? and that the law left it to Congress to sort out eligibility issues instead of a court.

Government attorneys defending Obama's position said those who brought the case cannot "demonstrate a particularized injury-in-fact traceable to defendants' conduct as would be necessary to establish standing."

The attorneys brushed off concerns that a violation of the Constitution was a serious matter and caused any injury to the plaintiffs, saying, "To put it another way, the relief sought by appellants, consisting of a determination by the court of the eligibility of the president to hold office, and, possibly, his removal from office, would have 'no more directly and tangibly benefitted [them] than ? the public at large.'"

Further, the U.S. attorneys argued that a possible violation of the Constitution is a political issue, not judicial.

"Even assuming arguendo, that some of the purported 'injuries' alleged by appellants satisfied the Article III requirement of 'injury-in-fact,' the district court correctly held that no appellant could demonstrate that any injury complained of could be redressed by a court," they continued. "The political question doctrine precludes redress to any appellant, because such redress would improperly arrogate to this court jurisdiction over political questions as to the eligibility of the president which the Constitution entrusts exclusively to the House and Senate.

"The political question doctrine serves to 'restrain the judiciary from inappropriate interference in the business of the other branches of government' by prohibiting the courts from deciding issues that properly rest within the province of the political branches," they said.

The documentation from the government in the case was unresponsive to the issue raised by the plaintiffs that courts have authority to remove an elected chief executive officer should he be documented as ineligible.

The plaintiffs' brief had cited the removal of Thomas H. Moodie from the office of governor in North Dakota in the 1930s as proof that a government's chief officer can be removed from office by the courts ? even after an election and inauguration. Moodie had failed to meet a state residency requirement to be governor. But he was elected anyway and installed, and ultimately removed from office by the court over that failure.

The plaintiffs also cite an earlier California case in which a candidate for president was removed from the ballot by state officials because he failed to qualify for the office under the Constitution's age requirements.

But the tax-paid U.S. attorneys said in defense of Obama that "disputes involving political questions lie outside of the Article III jurisdiction of federal courts."

"The issues sought to be raised by appellants herein, regarding both whether President Obama is a 'natural born citizen of the United States' and therefore eligible to be president as well as any purported claims raised by any criminal statutes ? are to be judged, according to the text of the Constitution, by the legislative branch of the government, and not the judicial," they said.

They argued it is "preposterous" for the plaintiffs to seek a ruling that Obama is not eligible and therefore "should be removed from office."

The plaintiffs had argued that the Constitution was too important to ignore.

"A provision of the Constitution may not be disregarded by means of a popular vote of the people," the plaintiffs' earlier brief said, "as there are specific guidelines for amending the Constitution of the United States ? Even if the people of the United States voted to elect as president a candidate who did not qualify for the position, that vote would not be sufficient to overcome the constitutional requirements for office and make that candidate eligible.

"Here, the underlying issue is one arising under the Art. 2, Paragraph 1 of the United States Constitution, whether Obama meets the eligibility requirements ? As established above, plaintiffs have standing to bring this action as they have suffered a concrete injury in fact, caused by Obama's ineligibility for the office of United States president, for which the court has a remedy."

The issue stems from the constitutional demand that the president ? unlike others in the federal government ? must be a "natural born citizen." WND has covered numerous challenges and lawsuits over Obama's eligibility. Some have alleged that he was not born in Hawaii in 1961 as he has written, or that the framers of the Constitution specifically excluded dual citizens ? Obama's father was a subject of the British crown at Obama's birth ? from being eligible for the office.

Even though Obama's "Certificate of Live Birth" was released by the Whtie House, still-withheld documentation for him includes kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and his adoption records.

The justices on the Supreme Court repeatedly have refused to address the constitutional questions involved. In fact, that the justices are "avoiding" the Obama issue already apparently has been confirmed by one member of the court. Last year, Justice Clarence Thomas appeared before a U.S. House subcommittee when the issue arose. Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y., raised the question amid a discussion on racial diversity in the judiciary.

"I'm still waiting for the [court decision] on whether or not a Puerto Rican can run for president of the United States," said Serrano, who was born in the island territory. "That's another issue."

Yet after Serrano questioned him on whether or not the land's highest court would be well-served by a justice who had never been a judge, Thomas not only answered in the affirmative but also hinted that Serrano would be better off seeking a seat in the Supreme Court than a chair in the Oval Office.

"I'm glad to hear that you don't think there has to be a judge on the court," said Serrano, "because I'm not a judge; I've never been a judge."

"And you don't have to be born in the United States," said Thomas, referring to the Constitution, which requires the president to be a natural-born citizen but has no such requirement for a Supreme Court justice, "so you never have to answer that question."

"Oh really?" asked Serrano. "So you haven't answered the one about whether I can serve as president, but you answer this one?"

"We're evading that one," answered Thomas, referring to questions of presidential eligibility and prompting laughter in the chamber. "We're giving you another option."

The video:

?

?

The most recent case to go to the high court was brought by attorney John Hemenway on behalf of retired Col. Greg Hollister.

When the justices refused to listen to the concerns, Laurence Elgin, one of the experts working with the Constitutional Rule of Law Fund and website and monitoring the case, said, "Their defiance of the court cases, their attitude they don't really need to adhere to the law, is really unparalleled.

"The public is going to grow increasingly concerned about Obama and the failure of the courts to deal with these concerns," he told WND.

When the appeal first was denied without comment in January, the attorneys submitted a petition for rehearing, because the two court members who owe their lifetime appointments and significant income to Obama's appointments ? Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan ? apparently participated.

The two justices apparently took part even though there was a pending motion for them to recuse themselves from the case. The Supreme Court then granted the request for a rehearing on the issue. But the latest notice turning away the case again not only did not address the motion to recuse, it also did not include a notation ? present in other cases when court members did not participate ? on whether Sotomayor and Kagan sounded off on the eligibility of their benefactor.


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 22:48
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Share on Facebook

?

Are "we the people" being set up for something?

Some Questions about the Obama Birth Certificate


By Jim O'Neill??Friday, April 29, 2011

After researching the new Obama long form COLB (Certificate Of Live Birth), I?m left with three questions: Are they really that stupid? Do they think that ?we the people? are that stupid? Are ?we the people? being set up for something?


Progressives, besides being cunning, sly, and manipulative, also tend (at least the elites) to be well educated, well versed in Newspeak (political correctness), and intelligent. Consequently, I hesitate to think that they are so dumb as to try to palm off such an obvious patch-work forgery as a legitimate COLB. It is hard to imagine such an obvious fake as being anything but a ploy. Link

I suspect that they are either (1) desperate, or (2) putting out an obvious forgery in hopes of instigating something. But desperate people often make dumb mistakes, so I?m not ruling out their own stupidity as the answer to my questions. Link?

Watching the way the lapdog press has unquestioningly accepted the new COLB is sickening. They have not only meekly accepted it as being akin to something Moses might have brought down from the mountain, but they are praising it, crowing about it, and lauding it, like some religious zealots with a holy relic?this, after insisting for years that they had all already seen Obama?s birth certificate. How can they have seen it a couple of years ago, and now be wetting their pants over its recent release? Curiouser and curiouser. Obviously these folks suffer from short-term memory loss, and are easily excited (and/or snookered). Link Link?

The Republican wastes-of-space who are in on the fix, are not much better than the Demorats, or the media?s Obama sycophants. Recently frightened by Trump?s jump in the polls, Progressive Republicans now feel that they can relax once more back into their lame ?business as usual? BS. Wrong. Faux conservative Republicans may be salivating at the thought of having a seat at the NWO banquet feast, but ?we the people? are not about to content ourselves with crumbs off their table?let alone allow ourselves to be served up as the main course. Link?

Granted, a large percentage of ?we the people? are still deplorably uninformed, misinformed, and apathetic, but the percentage of us who realize that we are in a fight for the survival of the US as a free republic, is ever-growing, and ever-more determined to fight for the American Dream, and our children?s future.? Link?

On the legal front, Cmdr. Kerchner, Mario Apuzzo, and others who are using the Vattel argument against Obama should now, (even using the patch-work forgery), have enough ammo to successfully argue their case. ?Kenya,? after all, is a much more specific term to work with than ?African? (which unless I?m mistaken, is used in reference to a geographic location, and not a racial subset?but you might want to ask one of the millions of Caucasian South Africans about that). Link

Contrary to Mr. Trump?s opinion, the release next month of LTC Lakin from Ft. Leavenworth prison, the publication of Dr. Jerome Corsi?s book ?Where?s the Birth Certificate? in a couple of weeks, and letters sent to the FBI and two Tennessee grand juries, charging Obama with treason, may have had as much to do with the release of Obama?s new bogus COLB, than Trump?s bringing the eligibility issue to the nation?s awareness. Still, kudos to The Donald for bringing national attention to the question of Obama?s fitness to be POTUS. Link

In any event, the birth certificate is only one of many hidden, missing, or fictitious elements in Obama?s past. Who is this Commander in Chief who allows one of his finest soldiers to go to prison rather than show his long form COLB?bogus or not? Who is this POTUS who bows before the leaders of other countries, praises Islam, and apologizes for the United States? Who is this community organizer who surrounds himself with anti-American globalists, Far Left ideologues, crony-capitalist scum, greedy banking parasites, and union thugs? Who is this guy?really?

Laus Deo.

Author
Jim O'Neill ?Bio

Jim O'Neill Most recent columns

Born in June of 1951 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Jim O?Neill proudly served in the U.S. Navy from 1970-1974 in both UDT-21 (Underwater Demolition Team) and SEAL Team Two.? A member of MENSA, he worked as a commercial diver in the waters off Scotland, India, and the United States. In 1998 while attending the University of South Florida as a journalism student, O?Neill won ?First Place? in the ?Carol Burnett/University of Hawaii AEJMC Research in Journalism Ethics Award.?? The annual contest was set up by Carol Burnett with the money she won from successfully suing the National Enquirer for libel.

Jim can be reached at: [email protected]


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 11:41
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Share on Facebook


?

WND Exclusive

A tale of two birth

certificates

'Rosetta Stone' documents

provide comparison


Posted: April 28, 2011
10:17 pm Eastern

By Jerome R. Corsi
??2011?WorldNetDaily

?

That Obama's birth certificate lists a registrar that appears remarkably like a forger's signature joke on the word "ukulele" is not the only peculiarity observed in comparing the president's record with other long-form Hawaiian birth certificates that have been fully authenticated.

The question is whether the Obama birth record the White House released Wednesday is an authentic photocopy of an original 1961 vital record or a modern-day forgery.


Image released by the White House April 27, 2011

The Rosetta Stone for determining the authenticity of the Obama birth document is the long-form birth certificates for the Nordyke twins, which WND discovered and authenticated in July 2009.


Birth certificate of Gretchen Nordyke, one of two twin sisters born at what was known in 1961 as the Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii.

A side-by-side comparison of the Nordyke twins' birth certificates with the Obama birth certificate the White House released yesterday reveals many differences, some with regard to content, others to format.

  • In the Nordyke twins' birth certificate, in Box 20, "Date Accepted by Local Reg." and Box 22, "Date Accepted by Reg. General," the date is stamped "AUG 11 1961," while the date is stamped on Obama's birth certificate as "AUG -8 1961," with a dash before the middle number designating the day.

  • The Nordyke twins' birth certificates lists in Box 7c the mother's residence as located in Honolulu, Oahu, while Obama's in Box 7c lists the mother's residence as Honolulu, Hawaii.

  • In the Nordyke twins' birth certificates, the type in Box 8, "Name of the Father" lines up to the right margin with the typing in the next three boxes below, while in the Obama birth certificate, the typing in Box 10, "Age of Father," and Box 15, "Age of Mother," are indented below the "R" in "Barack" in Box 8.

  • In the Nordyke twins's birth certificate, the type in Box 9, "Race of Father," Box 12b, "Kind of Business or Industry," and Box 14, "Race of Mother," line up to the left margin of the box (in all three boxes for Susan Elizabeth Nordyke and in two of the three boxes for Gretchen Carter Nordyke), while in the Obama birth certificate, the type in each of these three boxes is indented from the right box margin, with varying indent spacing in each line.

  • In Box 16, "Birthplace of Mother," in the Nordyke twins' birth certificate, the letters of "Los Angeles, California," are aligned at the bottom margin, while in the Obama birth certificate, the "K" in Kansas rides up and appears only partially struck at the top.

  • The left-margin alignment in the boxes throughout the Nordyke twins' birth certificates suggest a typewriter was set up to fill in information by tabbing through the document, as compared to the more irregular content of the information filled in the boxes on the Obama birth certificate.

  • The typed letters in the Nordyke twins' birth certificates appear irregularly spaced, often run together, as in the capital letters of the boxes stating the name of the father and mother, while the typed letters in the Obama birth certificate appear evenly spaced, not run together, not even with the capital letters in the boxes stating the name of the father and the mother Boxes 8 and 13). Again, the differences more strongly suggest the Nordyke twins' birth certificates were prepared on a manual typewriter.

  • In Box 3, "This Birth," the "X" marking "Twins" in the Nordyke twins' birth certificates strikes the box upper left, as is the case with Box 4, "If Twin or Triple, Was Child Born," while Box 3 in Obama's is struck top right.

  • Similar differences in how the "X" strikes the boxes can be seen in Box 6d and 7e where the "X" on Obama's birth certificate fits squarely into the box, drifting toward the top, and the "X" in the Nordyke twins' birth certificates fall high and to the right in the boxes provided.

  • The Nordyke twins' birth certificates in Box 5a lists the birthdate as Aug. 5, 1961, with the month abbreviated, while Obama's in Box 5a lists the birthdate as August 4, 1961, with the month spelled out.

  • In the Nordyke twins' birth certificates the "H" in "Honolulu" in Boxes 7a and 7c drifts high above the horizontal of the other typed letters, while in Obama's birth certificate the "H" in "Honolulu" is consistently on line with the other letters in the word.

  • The dates stamped in the Nordyke twins birth certificates in Boxes 20 and 22 appear irregularly stamped, at an angle, while the date stamps in the Obama birth certificate appear more evenly on line, at the center of the boxes, even if a bit high in the box.

  • The local registrar in the Nordyke twins' birth certificate, Box 21, is different than the local registrar who signed the Obama birth certificate. Was there more than one local registrar operating to process birth certificates from Kapiolani hospital at this time?

  • The Nordyke twins' birth certificate at the bottom have the printed signature of the director of health and the registrar general, along with the date the copies were issued, "5-5-1966," while the Obama birth certificate has no similar official designations indicating the date on which the copy was issued or that the copy was certified by the director of health and the registrar general to be a "true and correct copy" of the original record on file in the Research, Planning and Statistics Office of the Hawaii State Department of Health.

  • The Norydke twins' birth certificates appear white against black, in the format typical of 1960s Photostats, while the Obama birth certificate appears to be a machine copy printed on hash-marked Department of Health paper; yet in Obama's modern photocopy, a black space at the top appears created by the fold of the paper at the top left corner into the binder and no similar indentation is seen in the Nordyke twins's photostatic copy.

Some of these differences may be explained by different people preparing the documents on different typewriters, yet how two different formats appear in the date stamp used in Boxes 20 and 22 is more difficult to explain if the Obama birth certificate is legitimate.

Both the Nordyke twins' birth certificates and the Obama birth certificate identify the birth hospital as Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital, even though there has been considerable Internet discussion that that was not the official name of the hospital in 1961.

After Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie dismissed Dr. Neil Palafox from being appointed director of health, there may have been no one heading the Hawaiian Department of Health to sign off on the authenticity of the Obama birth document.

Still, it remains remarkable that the Hawaii Department of Health and the White House released the Obama birth certificate without the type of authenticating information that appears at the bottom of the Nordyke twins' birth certificates.

The SmokingGun.com website notes several additional irregularities with the Obama birth certificate that do not appear on the Nordyke twin's birth certificates:

  • In Box 3, "This Birth," there are two "Xs" above "Twin" and "Triplet" ? why are these "Xs" here and what do they signify?


  • What is the meaning of the smudges in the Obama birth certificate in the box containing the name of the attending physician?


  • What is the significance of the numbers, seen vertically, on the right side of the Obama birth certificate?

WND has previously reported on information discrepancies between the birth dates, certificate numbers and registration numbers in comparing the Nordyke twins' birth certificates to the Obama birth certificate:

  • As WND reported, the numbers on the long-form birth certificates issued by Kapi'olani to the Nordyke twins are lower than the number given President Obama, even though the president's birth certificate was accepted by the registrar general and stamped with a certificate number three days earlier.

  • Susan Nordyke, the first twin, was born at 2:12 p.m. Hawaii time on Aug. 5, 1961, and was given Certificate No. 151 ? 61 ? 10637, which was filed with the Hawaii registrar Aug. 11, 1961.

  • Gretchen Nordyke, the second twin, was born at 2:17 p.m. Hawaii time Aug. 5, 1961, and was given Certificate No. 151 ? 61 ? 10638, which was also filed with the Hawaii registrar Aug. 11, 1961.

  • Yet, according to the Certification of Live Birth released by FactCheck.org during the 2008 presidential campaign ? and now according to the long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate the White House released yesterday ? Barack Obama was given a higher certificate number than the Nordyke twins.

  • Barack Obama was given Certificate No. 151 ? 1961 ? 10641, even though he was born Aug. 4, 1961, the day before the Nordyke twins, and his birth was registered with the Hawaii Department of Health registrar three days earlier, on Aug. 8, 1961.

WND has previously reported on information discrepancies between the birth dates, certificate numbers and registration numbers in comparing the Nordyke twins' birth certificates to the Obama birth certificate:

In 1961, the birth certificate numbers were not assigned by the hospitals.

Instead, the numbers were stamped to the birth record by the Hawaii Department of Health at the main office in Honolulu.

This is the only place birth certificate numbers were assigned.

At the last step of the process, the documents were accepted by the registrar general, with the date of registration filled into box No. 22 on the lower right hand corner of the long-form birth certificate.

The date the birth document was accepted by the registrar general was the same date the birth certificate number was stamped on the birth record.

The birth certificate number was stamped on the form by a rubber stamp that automatically increased the birth certificate number by one each time the birth certificate was stamped.

The question is, in 1961, how was it possible that the Nordyke twins had their birth certificates accepted by the registrar general in Hawaii three days later than the registrar gneral accepted Obama's birth certificate, when their birth certificate numbers are lower than Obama's number?

At the time the Nordyke twins' birth certificates were discovered, WND displayed copies of the two documents to make clear the limited information contained in the short-form Certification of Live Birth that Obama supporters at that time were claiming was the only Obama birth record needed to prove a Hawaiian birth.

In a recorded interview with WND, Eleanor Nordyke said she had no recollection of Ann Dunham having been in the hospital at the same time she delivered her twin daughters.

"I was in such pain delivering the twins," Mrs. Nordyke said, "that I have very little recollection of the experience at all, except for the pain."

Neither the White House nor the Hawaii Department of Health has yet provided an original copy of the Obama birth certificate for forensic examination.


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 11:00
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Share on Facebook

Thursday, April 28, 2011

Obama Releases His Alleged Long Form Certificate of Live Birth But He?s Still Not a Natural Born Citizen

?
Obama Releases His Alleged Long Form Certificate of Live Birth But He?s Still Not a Natural Born Citizen

?
By: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
April 28, 2011

On December 20, 2008, I published an essay entitled, The Two Constitutional Obstacles that Obama Has to Overcome to Be President, accessed at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2008/12/two-constitutional-obstacles-obama-has.html.? I explained that Obama has to first conclusively show that he was born in Hawaii. Having done that, he must still show that he is an Article II ?natural born Citizen? which is a child born in the country to citizen parents. I also explained that Obama may be able at some point to show that he was born in Hawaii, which would make him a ?citizen? under the Fourteenth Amendment, but that he would not be able to show that he is an Article II ?natural born Citizen.?

On April 27, 2011, putative President, Barack Obama, released to the public a digital image on the White House web site of his alleged long form Certificate of Live Birth. A majority of Americans have wanted Obama to confirm that he was in fact born in Hawaii. Yet, Obama refers to these concerned Americans as ?sideshows and carnival barkers.? But worst than that, the document that Obama has released raises some very serious issues and confirms a critical piece of information.

The document published on the White House web site (
whitehouse.gov) is not a scan of a paper document but rather was built with computer programming by using many electronic layers. A scanned document only has one layer of information. This document has various electronic layers which raises the serious question of whether the document was obviously forged. A must-see video by infowars.com in which Alex Jones explains how in his opinion this document has been forged may be viewed at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3g30VCl_cgk&feature=youtu.be. A big question that the video raises is that this document is so obviously a fake that one wonders whether those who did it are that highly incompetent or did they fake it so badly so as to want to get caught so as to draw attention to it and away from the real issue. For more information on the ?document? being nothing more than an electronic manipulation, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7s9StxsFllY ; The Market Ticker at http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=185094; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eOfYwYyS_c (Karl Denninger shows that the Obama BC image is not a scan and concludes the image is a forgery); http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/04/28/dr-ron-polland-evaluates-obamas-birth-certificate/ (Post & Email interview of Dr. Ron Polland); http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pgev9a7VDxY&feature=player_embedded.

Another possible reason for the obvious forgery is that the creators of the forgery unknown to?Obama want Obama to get caught at his big game of deceit.

Finally, another possibility for creating such an easily detected forgery is that Obama has the real birth certificate that provides the same information as this forgery. After all, Obama was sure to release to the public correspondence showing how two certified copies of the birth certificate were personally picked up by his personal attorney who flew to Hawaii to get them, paying $10.00 for the first one and $4.00 for the second. This correspondence is also careful to explain how the certificates were obtained from the Hawaii Department of Health. The letter from Loretta J. Fuddy, the Director of the Hawaii Health Department, states: ?I have witnessed the copying of the certificate and attest to the authenticity of these copies.? So, they created this forgery to mislead people in thinking that Obama does not have the real birth certificate and to keep the ?birthers? screaming for the real document. In the end, he will just show the world that he does have the document and that he was telling the truth all along.

But regardless of whatever game Obama is playing, as we shall see below, the real issue is that Obama?s father was not a U.S. citizen and so Obama is not and cannot be a ?
natural born Citizen.? This is the issue from which Obama cannot hide behind some manipulated computer images.

Regardless of whatever Obama is up to with his new-found long form birth certificate, this new document confirms that Obama is not a ?natural born Citizen.? A ?natural born Citizen? is a child born in the U.S. to a U.S. citizen father and mother. While place of birth is a necessary element of being a ?natural born Citizen,? let us not lose sight of the other necessarily element, i.e., a U.S. citizen father and mother at the time of birth. Even assuming this new long form Certificate of Live Birth to be genuine, what is important to understand about this document is that it confirms who Obama?s father is, a fact that has been debated for quite some time. The document shows that his father is Barack Obama Sr., who we know was a British citizen and never became a U.S. citizen. Hence, the document confirms that Obama is not an
Article II ?natural born Citizen? and is therefore not eligible to be President. Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Sec. 212-217 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758); David Ramsay, ?A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen? (1789); The Venus (1814) (Marshall, C.J., concurring and dissenting for other reasons); Inglis v. Sailors? Snug Harbor (1830); Dredd Scott v. Sandford (1857) (Daniels, J., concurring); Slaughter-House Cases (1872); Minor v. Happersett (1875); Elk v. Wilkins (1884); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). No amount of computer manipulation or photoshopping can mislead?concerned Americans on this score.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
April 28, 2011
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####

Copyright ? 2011
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 10:36
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Jueves, 28 de abril de 2011

Share on Facebook

?

Natural born citizens, Political Elites, Main Stream Media, Obama?s eligibility

Obama has declared war on the Constitution


By Lawrence Sellin??Thursday, April 28, 2011

It is now the patriotic duty of individual states to rescue the United States.

Before the 2012 election, we must push our state legislatures to pass laws requiring Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates to prove that they are natural born citizens i.e. born in the United States, of citizen parents at the time of birth, in order for them to appear on the state ballot.


By publicly releasing his long-form birth certificate, Obama has officially announced that he is not a natural born citizen and is arrogantly challenging the legitimacy of the Constitution.

Not surprisingly, the political elites and the main stream media (MSM) seemed unanimously elated after the release of his alleged long-form Certificate of Live Birth.

I imagine that they all had tingles running up their legs.

Both the Republicans and Democrats in Washington, D.C. insist that we should put the issue of Obama?s eligibility behind us, so they may focus on the ?more serious? issues facing the country.

First, there is no more important issue for the country than the integrity of the Constitution. Without it, the federal government is null and void and the rule of law is undermined.

Second, the political elites want to move on because they have been complicit in a flagrant contravention of the Constitution, the Founders intent and judicial precedence by substituting political fiat for the legal processes involved in amending the Constitution.

The political elites and the MSM have always known that they were promoting an infringement of the Constitution by protecting Obama.

Facts are stubborn things.

For the first time in US history, an individual, who is not a natural born citizen, was knowingly elected President of the United States.

Sadly, I do not remember a time when there has been such a collection of fools and scoundrels populating the federal government and the MSM as there has been in recent years.

In my opinion, it is useless to petition Congress about Obama?s ineligibility. They have dishonored their oaths of office to support and defend the Constitution. They are frightened and they will do nothing because they all share the blame for the Constitutional crisis in which we now find ourselves.

Article II, Section I of the Constitution requires that a person be a natural born citizen to be eligible for the Presidency.

The Constitution does not say ?citizen?, but specifically combines the legal concepts of jus soli (right of the soil) and of citizen parents, jus sanguinis (right of blood). It was intentionally designed by the Framers to prevent a President from having dual allegiance.

The authors of the Constitution no doubt based their understanding of the term ?natural born citizen,? on the 1758 book ?The Law of Nations? by Emerich de Vattel, who wrote:

?? natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. ? children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. ? The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children??

The narrative of the 14th Amendment is also consistent with the Framers intent regarding dual allegiance and natural born citizenship.

Representative John Bingham, author of the 14th Amendment, defined natural born citizenship:

?It means every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of our Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.?

The underlying issues within those Congressional debates were hotly contested. Yet Bingham?s definition of natural born citizen was never challenged on the floor of the House of Representatives.

Supreme Court cases supporting the natural born citizen definition of born in the US of citizen parents include:

  • The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
  • Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
  • Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
  • United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
  • Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968)

In September 2008, Lawrence B. Solum, the John E. Cribbet Professor of Law at the University of Illinois College of Law, published an article in the Michigan Law Review entitled ?Originalism and the Natural Born Citizen Clause?, which stated:

?What was the original public meaning of the phrase that establishes the eligibility for the office of President of the United States? There is general agreement on the core of its meaning. Anyone born on American soil whose parents are citizens of the United States is a natural born citizen.?

Despite the intentional distortions continuously disgorged by the MSM and the willful ignorance displayed by the political elites, there is no ambiguity. Obama is not eligible for the Presidency.

Stand your ground, if he means to have a war, let it begin now.

Author
Lawrence Sellin ?Bio

Lawrence Sellin Most recent columns

? Canada Free Press 2011

Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is a recently retired colonel with 29 years of service in the US Army Reserve. He is a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. receives hate mail at [email protected]


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 19:58
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Dr. Ron Polland Evaluates Obama?s ?Birth Certificate?

?
??

?

?THEY FORGOT TO FLATTEN LAYERS?

Introduction by Sharon Rondeau

Is this document an abstract of what was shown yesterday? Is either of them authentic?

(Apr. 28, 2011) ? On April 27, 2011, The Post & Email contacted Dr. Ron Polland, whose work we have cited here before, about the Certificate of Live Birth released by the White House online.

Last July we published a full-length interview in which Dr. Polland detailed why he was positive that the Certification of Live Birth posted online by Factcheck.org in 2008 and pictured at right was a forgery.

Dr. Polland was kind enough to respond to our inquiry on his opinion of the image presented to the public yesterday which we reported here.

Dr. Polland?s Analysis of the Certificate of Live Birth Released on April 27, 2011

The morons forget to flatten the layers! You should see what this looks like in Photoshop?or?any other Adobe program that reads PDF?s and works with layers.

The overlay tat was placed on top of this has a shadow on its left side ? and is curved as well ? from?a previous scan of a BC form.

This BC form looks?a lot like the B&W one we saw with Madeline Dunham?s fake signature on it.

A year ago, I proved to the world ? <a href=?http://www.youtube.com/TheDrRJP?>albeit via YouTube</a> ? that Obama?s COLB ?scan? is a fake: a composite image fabricated from dozens of individual image layers from within Photoshop.

This time out, whoever made this piece of junk forgot to flatten the layers!!!

Select the image in the PDF file, right-click and select copy, or press Control-C. Open a blank Word document and paste it in (right-click Paste or Control-V). Look at what you see:

?

Image which Dr. Ron Polland provided to us after providing his analysis of its composition

Now, my book will have yet another update after Donald Trump came along and flushed out all of the rats behind the conspiracy to forge it. I already went on record as saying that Chiyome Fukino lied through her teeth about Obama (?Obama Bombshell,? aka ?Blue Hawaii?), but I had no idea just how much and how far she would go on lying until she gave an interview with an MSNBC reporter.

This forgery is a sick joke, but I have no doubt the Obama freaks will hail it as being real.

For three years, this forged, one-sided image has been passed off as a ?digital scan? of Obama?s birth certificate.?

I have seen this ?new? ?long-form? image before ? and so has the P&E ? as a black and white typed version with Madeline Dunham as the signatory, not Ann Dunham Obama.

Without looking at what the White House released, I know it is also a forgery.? Right off the bat, Ann?s signature is forged.

The original COLB image that was posted by the Obama Campaign on the evening of June 12, 2008 was not produced by the Obama Campaign.

Let me repeat that:? the ?digital scan of ?Obama?s birth certificate? that was posted on the Obama Campaign website was not made by the Obama Campaign. In fact, the Campaign NEVER said they made it, so they have plausible deniability on it.

In the early morning of June 12, 2008, Markos Mousaltsis posted on his Daily Kos blog, for the first time anywhere, a COLB image alleged to be ?Obama?s birth certificate.? He refused to say from whom or from where he got it ? despite being asked directly by his ?Kossacks.?

He did say that he trimmed it.? Trimmed it from what, though?

His trimmed COLB measured 2427 x 2369 pixels and was saved at 44% quality in an unidentified image editor. The Photoshop header in the image?s Exif data was still there, as most image editors will not remove it automatically, but leave it up to the user to decide.

The first image also originated as a PDF posted on Obama?s My.BarackObama.com website as confirmed by Karen Tumulty of TIME Magazine and by the copy I downloaded at the same time. I and extracted the PDF image and saved it as a JPG before the Campaign swapped replaced the PDF with a JPG image when they realized that a PDF cannot be viewed without a standalone reader or browser plug-in, like those made by Adobe.

This 1000 x 1024 JPG copy came from the Kos JPG image but was resaved in a common image editor at 100% quality and @100DPI.

The quality settings, being approximations, are pretty much irrelevant for direct comparisons. What is important here is the chain of custody established by the editors used to make a 3rd generation copy of an unknown source image.

Confused yet? Wait, there?s more.

It was on June 13, the following day, that FightTheSmears.com was launched ? not with the same image posted the night before but with a more disproportionate reduction and resaved under different conditions ? this time with Photoshop, @100DPI and Save for Web 30.

I have saved every copy of the Obama COLB image ever posted on the Internet, whether publicly displayed or kept on soomeone?s server, as Politifact did.

That first JPG image posted by the Obama Campaign on the evening of June 12, was 1000 x 1024 pixels and was a direct copy and 42% reduction of the Kos image made AFTER Markos had trimmed and re-saved his image at 44% quality using an image editor that is found only on Macs. That 1000 x 1024 image was resaved at 100% quality, @300DPI, using any one of dozens of popular image editors including Photoshop 7.0. The Exif information in this copy had been removed.

The Photoshop Exif information in the Kos image is what led people to think that it was created (or at least resaved) in Photoshop CS3 for the Mac. Only two other image copies have that same Photoshop header: the untrimmed copy (2550 x 3300) on Factcheck.org saved in Photoshop with quality setting, Save at 8, and another direct reduction of the Kos image (800 x 781 pixels or 33% of the Kos image) posted on the Chicago Tribune and LA Times that was also resaved in Photoshop (version unknown) with quality setting, Saved for Web 60.

How many different copies of the one-sided COLB image have been made and found on the Internet?

The St. Petersburg Times/Politifact has 20 different copies alone. They are a veritable COLB factory ? and the ones who forged the original source image and who distributed the copies to everyone ? not the Obama Campaign.

All of this will come out in my book TBR any day now (barring other surprises).

Dr. Ron Polland

? 2011, The Post & Email. All rights reserved internationally, unless otherwise specified. To read more on our copyright restrictions, see our Copyright notice on the subheader of every page, along the left margin.




Publicado por Corazon7 @ 16:28
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Share on Facebook

http://iowntheworld.com/blog/?p=73096

I Can Emphatically Tell You That The Document Posted On White House.gov Has Been Either Pasted Together, Or For Some Reason, Taken Apart

Home - by BigFurHat - April 27, 2011 - 19:24 America/New_York - 108 Comments

People have been asking me to weigh in on the veracity of the newly released white house COLB because they know that in ?real life? I?m a graphic designer.

I can emphatically tell you that this document is not merely a scan of a document that has been uploaded to the internet. This is a document that has been either put together or taken apart prior to the upload, and even Charles Johnson would have to admit that.

After downloading the document that Whitehouse.gov made available to the public I opened the file in illustrator and the file is indeed in layers, which cannot happen unless the document was edited.

Furthermore, what is layered and the method of the layering is peculiar.

We see a grouping that contains only a portion of the background. We see groupings on key elements below the main body of the document. But the strangest anomaly is seen when we move these groupings.

Notice that the type is on its own layer, and when moved it reveals that the background was placed around the type and is absent behind it. This indicates that this document was most likely at some time worked on in photoshop. Without giving a full tutorial, this is achieved by pasting in a background while the type is selected in the inverse mode. The background would not appear behind the text. This is what has happened here.

Also notice that not all the text moves. Some text stays in place. This, one would assume, is text that would be part of the ?starting document? that someone would use to create a new document. It?s text that they didn?t need to scrub because it is text that is supposed to be on their new forgery.

Also notice that when the text is moved it goes behind the outer border that is supposed to be part of a solid document. Obviously this is not a solid document, but something pieced together.

The burning question is, why would the person who created this thing leave it editable before uploading? When you save a document in illustrator you have to proactively check a box that tells the program you want it left editable.

The government, even if they?re uploading documents that are expected to have been put together, should never offer it online as editable. That would be like uploading currency in layers so that a forger has a great template to work from.

Even on that level this is the gang that can?t shoot straight.

I was never an ardent ?birther? before, but I think I am now. This must be explained? (frankly, I don?t think it can be) and I would expect that progressives with an ounce of integrity would want the same.

UPDATE: NRO is reporting that this anomaly was the result of being scanned with Optical Character Recognition. It?s possible. But that explanation doesn?t account for how the outer frame of this document is sliced cleanly on a separate layer. OCR would not do that. The grouping would be jagged. It doesn?t account for how a perfect one inch square of the background was chosen as a separate layer. It also doesn?t account for what was left on the document ?untouched? as opposed to what was extracted.

To be fair, the most compelling part of NRO?s theory is that it would account for what I maintained was truly bizarre ? that the background would not appear below the text when the layers were shifted.

The question is, how have we come to this point of questioning every move Obama makes? The left will tell you it?s because the right is either crazy or racist, or both. That?s preposterous. Obama has been making his own bed. He delayed releasing what the Clinton campaign asked for over 2 years ago. He still hasn?t released his education or medical records. When a guy says he?s going to fundamentally transform America remove conservative principles from the American landscape, it matters little that he?s black. And you don?t have to be crazy, if you?re a conservative, to want him out of office.

------------------------------------------------



Publicado por Corazon7 @ 12:06
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Share on Facebook

http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2011/04/critics-obamas-latest-long-form-birth-certificate-is-a-fake/

Critics: Obama?s Latest Long-Form Birth Certificate Is a Fake ?Update: More Expert Opinion

Posted by Jim Hoft on Wednesday, April 27, 2011, 7:31 PM


Long-form pdf link.

Photoshop expert and author of more than 17 books on computer graphics Mara Z. sent this in:
This is so maddening to listen to the media on this recent revelation? it?s such an obvious fake.

(Click on image for larger view)

Look at the attached JPG? (which shows what you will see when opening the PDF in Illustrator and how to get there)? but to recap? if you open the PDF in Illustrator (instead of Photoshop) ? Select the entire document and go to the Object menu and choose Clipping Mask > Release. Repeat as necessary until all clipping masks are released. Also open the Layer and turn off the visibility of each clipping group and you can see all the numerous places in which information was added (edited) into the form.

Lastly, look at the attached 1961 sample image found on the Internet of a legitimate 1961 Hawaii Birth Certificate (which someone posted to show what a real certificate would look like from that year in Hawaii)? look at the marks on this Internet version and you can see this was the template for Obama?s BC handiwork. The handwriting is exactly the same between posted Internet image and Obama?s fake version ? the placement of boxes and marks are in the exact same position, dates are where the modified clipping masks occur to adjust dates to fit for Obama, but the handwriting of dates match (except for the clipping mask changes). Even the Cert. number is only off by the last two digits (which?you guessed it? happens to be a clipping mask layer).

Finally, also wanted to make the point that regardless of where Obama is born, he?s still not a Natural Born Citizen since both parents were not born on U.S. soil but I won?t hold my breath waiting for the media to educate the public on this fact.

More doubt? Another graphics designer reported it was a fake.

?

UPDATE: Another expert John G. sent in these comments and this image:
(Click to Enlarge)

I have been using Adobe Illustrator since the original version (Illustrator 88) came out in 1988.
I have attached a few Illustrator files that I believe will provide evidence that I am indeed an illustrator expert. I can send out the original files if you wish.

The comments made by Mara Z are very interesting. The first question is ? what was the source of this pdf file? If the pdf file came from Obama?s people, the claims that this document was ?doctored? may indeed be of merit. The first question is, why are there any layers on this document at all? It was clearly created in Photoshop, which is always used for image processing.

The second question is, if you look at the file I have sent as Obama Certificate Actions 01, you can see in the actions palette that there were 24 actions performed on this file before it was made into a pdf. Many of the actions are not Illustrator functions, but are Photoshop actions. Thus, this file was created in Photoshop, and exported as Photoshop 5 (why, that?s a very old version?) and it was next saved for the web (a Photoshop action) three times.

Again, first, we need to ascertain where this file came from.


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 11:59
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Mi?rcoles, 27 de abril de 2011

Share on Facebook

Wednesday, April 27, 2011

Org. For Obama's Political Prisoner Terry Lakin: Obama Document Must Be Submitted For Forensics Testing To Determine Authenticity

?


Response to the Release of the Barack Obama Birth Certificate from the Terry Lakin Action Fund

Press Release: April, 27, 2011


For Immediate Release
Baltimore, MD

The Terry Lakin Action fund is relieved that Barack Obama has begun the resolution of this longstanding and important Constitutional issue.

Obama's actions are not surprising. The pressure was increasing as greater numbers of Americans began to question Obama's birth narrative. The controversy arose back in 2008 when an online document was widely portrayed as an original birth certificate. Only more recently were Americans informed by the Hawaiian Attorney General's office that Obama could not obtain a copy of his long form birth certificate.

Then today, Mr. Obama produces yet another online document, a long form birth certificate. After more than two years of concealment and obfuscation, this document must be submitted for forensics testing to determine its authenticity. Similarly, the Kenyan birth certificate that has been widely circulating on the internet and on Capitol Hill-- should be tested.

Had the Obama administration agreed to allow the document unveiled today and other related documents as requested for discovery in Terry Lakin's first pre-trial hearing, the matter would have been resolved and soldiers assured their military orders were lawful, given by a lawful Commander-in-Chief.

A good soldier, having played his part in this issue, would have returned enthusiastically to the service for which he is so ably trained.

Instead, all discovery was denied for two pre-trials and the court martial itself. This document which was so casually dropped on the news corps could just have easily been provided twelve months ago or two years ago. Even six months ago, it would have prevented LTC Lakin being manacled and hauled away to Fort Leavenworth prison for standing up for the Constitution, consistent with the oath he took as an officer, and the rule of law.

We encourage the Obama administration to continue to be forthcoming with documents and other confirmations of the high standards for Constitutional eligibility. This document, and other ones which remain concealed, could have been presented last year.

The Terry Lakin Action Fund is calling for a full and complete presidential pardon for LTC Terry Lakin including restoration of pay, benefits, and service. Terry holds no malice towards Barack Obama nor did he when he chose to bring the issue to a court martial. Terry simply wanted confirmation of Obama's eligibility, a process that has finally begun in earnest.

For additional information contact the Terry Lakin Action fund at http://www.terrylakinactionfund.com/contact.html



Attorney Mario Apuzzo: All presidents born after 1787, except for Chester Arthur and Barack Obama, met the ?natural born Citizen? criteria. -Details here.?

Commander Charles Kerchner: List of U.S. Presidents - Eligibility under Article II Grandfather Clause (GFC) or Natural Born Citizen (NBC) Clause or Seated due to Election Fraud -Details here.?

Jack Cashill Discusses Obama's Fraudulent Social Security Number Reserved for Connecticut Applicants -Video here.?

Detailed reports on Obama's SS# can be found here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. Visit the Birther Vault for the long list of evidence against Hawaii officials and all of the people questioning Obama's eligibility; [http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/08/video-ltc-terry-lakins-attorney-on-cnn.html].
Obama Ineligible/Support LTC Terry Lakin - Wash Times Natl Wkly 2011-01-10 2 Pg Ctr Fold-pgs 20&21

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 17:40
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Share on Facebook

http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2011/04/27/the-smoking-gun-certer-snark-asm-is-it-real/

'Security can only be achieved through constant change, through discarding old ideas that have outlived their usefulness and adapting others to current facts.' -- William O. Douglas



Certifigate: TSG ?Certer Snark-asm,? Nordyke Cert, Donofrio Responds, Illustrator Analysis

04.27.2011 ? Posted in Activism, Eligibility, POTUS

The push-back on the alleged image the White House produced this morning has begun in earnest, this time in ?snarky? form from TheSmokingGun.com.

Here are the key ?snark-astic? questions the site poses:

? If the original document was in a bound volume (as reflected by the curvature of the left hand side of the certificate), how can the?green patterned background of the document?s safety paper be so seamless?

? Why, if Obama was born on August 4, 1961, was the??Date Accepted by Local Reg.? four days later on August 8, 1961?

? What is the significance of the?smudges in the box containing the name of the reported attendant in box 19a?

? In the ?This Birth? box there are two?mysterious Xs above ?Twin? and ?Triplet.? Is there a sibling or two unaccounted for?

? What is the significance of the?mysterious numbers, seen vertically, on the document?s right side?

? Finally, the??Signature of Local Registrar? in box 21 may be a desperate attempt at establishing the document?s Hawaiian authenticity. Note to forgers, however, it is spelled ?Ukulele.?

The site is apparently trying to get ?ahead of the game? in terms of the scrutiny that this new online image will obviously produce.

But what about Susan Nordyke?s certificate, born one day after Mr. Obama? One can clearly see differences (click image for larger picture):

?

Susan Nordyke's birth certificate

?

Bryan Keith Nixon, an associate creative director for an Atlanta-based advertising agency, pulled up the White House-released image in Adobe Illustrator. This is what he found (click on image for larger view):

?

The layers that compose the White House-released PDF of Mr. Obama's birth certificate (Bryan Keith Nixon)

And attorney Leo Donofrio responded to today?s news by saying that his prediction of a long-form birth certificate has been fulfilled to the potential detriment of certain legal questions, such as parental citizenship (last three paragraphs):

They simply played a better game of chess. And due to this sick game, Obama now sets a precedent that anyone who hates this country, from Osama Bin Laden to Kim Jong Il, can have a child with an American woman and that child can be President. Obama?s defeat of the dual nationality issue, in both the courts and the media, means that the President?s parents do not have to be US citizens. If that is true, then the natural born citizen requirement in Article 2 Section 1 of the Constitution is basically rendered meaningless.

If a person born with dual allegiance can be President, then I don?t see the difference between a citizen and a natural born citizen. To become naturalized as a US citizen, one must at least swear an oath of allegiance to the US by renouncing all other allegiances. But a person such as Obama, who was born with dual allegiance is apparently not even required to renounce all previous allegiances under oath.

The BC was a conspiracy theory. The dual nationality issue is a legal question. Obama always controlled the issue of whether or not he would produce the BC. But the legal issue was never under his control. So he exercised as much control over it as possible by allowing the birth certificate to fester casting a huge shadow over his dual allegiance. Well played, sir.

-Phil

twitter.com/trsol

phil [at] therightsideoflife [dot] com


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 13:43
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Share on Facebook

Bon Appetit Birth?Certificate?

I predicted multiple times that President Obama would produce the original long form birth certificate when it best served him to do so. Today that prophecy was fulfilled. I have always maintained that the birth certificate issue was a red herring smoke screen protecting Obama from facing the true issue of his ineligibility ? dual nationality.

Like Chester Arthur before him, Obama was protected from genuine questions regarding his birth status having been governed, as he admits, by the United Kingdom via the faux BC issue until October 27, 2008 when I instituted my law suit against the New Jersey Secretary of State alleging that neither Obama nor McCain were eligible.

I predicted over and again that when it served Obama best, he would feed you an original birth certificate on national TV. Bon appetit to those who allowed this conspiracy theory to take precedence over the genuine legal issue: how a person born owing certain allegiance to a foreign nation can be a natural born citizen of the United States?. Since the BC was played so perfectly by the Obama team, the genuine legal issue will now be more marginalized than ever.

They simply played a better game of chess. And due to this sick game, Obama now sets a precedent that anyone who hates this country, from Osama Bin Laden to Kim Jong Il, can have a child with an American woman and that child can be President. Obama?s defeat of the dual nationality issue, in both the courts and the media, means that the President?s parents do not have to be US citizens. If that is true, then the natural born citizen requirement in Article 2 Section 1 of the Constitution is basically rendered meaningless.

If a person born with dual allegiance can be President, then I don?t see the difference between a citizen and a natural born citizen. To become naturalized as a US citizen, one must at least swear an oath of allegiance to the US by renouncing all other allegiances. But a person such as Obama, who was born with dual allegiance is apparently not even required to renounce all previous allegiances under oath.

The BC was a conspiracy theory. The dual nationality issue is a legal question. Obama always controlled the issue of whether or not he would produce the BC. But the legal issue was never under his control. So he exercised as much control over it as possible by allowing the birth certificate to fester casting a huge shadow over his dual allegiance. Well played, sir.

by Leo Donofrio, Esq.


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 13:19
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Share on Facebook

Has the White House Has Released Obama?s Long-From Birth Certificate?

Posted By Sharon Rondeau On Wednesday, April 27, 2011 @ 8:27 AM In National | 49 Comments

IS IT THE REAL THING?

by Sharon Rondeau

[1]

How did Obama obtain his long-form birth certificate if the Hawaii Health Department said he couldn't have it?

(Apr. 27, 2011) ? The Drudge Report [2] has posted what it states is an official White House release of Obama?s long-form birth certificate, even though an official from the Hawaii attorney general?s office, Joshua Wisch, stated [3] on April 11, 2011, that it could not be released to him.

Recently the Hawaii Department of Health has refused [4] requests from those born in Hawaii a copy of the long-form version of the document.? Mark Niesse of the Associated Press had reiterated [4] that position.

Donald Trump is on Fox News Channel giving a press conference right now, 9:30 a.m. EDT.

So far, only half of the document is being shown on Fox News and at Drudge.

A fuller version is available here [5].

One man born in Hawaii had the following to say regarding this new development:

I think that, assuming the certificate is genuine, by confirming that the father is an African born in Kenya (and unless their next plan is to disclose proof (assuming that too is not counterfeit) that the father really was a naturalized U.S. citizen prior to 8/4/61, we now have proof that the president is not eligible under the Constitution.

I also note that, after all the folderol about no one being any longer able to get copies of their original birth certificates, this one was certified-stamped by Onaka last Monday, 4/25/11.

Interesting.

Donald Trump had very recently told CNN?s Anderson Cooper that he had been told [6] that Obama?s long-form birth certificate had been ?missing? or ?doesn?t exist.?

During a press conference earlier today, Obama called the speculation about his birth ?silliness.?? There have been questions [7] as to which hospital in Hawaii Obama was born, and neither has confirmed the birth.

There does not appear to be a raised seal on the document.

Commentary from Miki Booth, who has released [8] long-form birth certificates from Hawaii in recent days, states:

This is a forgery.

Is David A. Sinclair alive? ?NO

Sinclair delivered Alan on Nov. 24, 1981. He was my OB/GYN.

Also why isn?t it like Nordyke?s black with white? Microfische. They are implying it is in a bound book.

His obituary [9] from the Honolulu Star-Bulletin reads:

Dr. David A. Sinclair, 81, of Honolulu , a retired physician, died Aug. 20, 2003, at home. He was born in Portland , Ore. He is survived by wife Ivalee; sons David, Karl and Brian; daughters Margaret Peterson, Rebekah Luke and Ruth and Katherine Sinclair; 11 grandchildren; and one great-grandchild. Services: 5:30 p.m. Wednesday at Central Union Church Atherton Chapel. Call after 4:30 p.m. Aloha attire. No flowers. Donations suggested to Alzheimer?s Association of Hawaii.

If the original document has been available for the ?three years? which Obama cited it has been an issue, why was a decorated U.S. Army medical doctor [10] sentenced to six months at Ft. Leavenworth, forfeiture of pay, and expected discharge from the Army for asking the same question as everyone else?

The document released today bears the certificate number 151 61 10641 and can be found on the White House website here. [11]

The COLB presented by Factcheck.org inn 2008 shows only a close-up [12] of the number which cannot be confirmed as belonging to the paper document.? That number is 151 1961-010641.

?

? 2011, The Post & Email [13]. All rights reserved internationally, unless otherwise specified. To read more on our copyright restrictions, see our Copyright notice on the subheader of every page, along the left margin.


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 12:01
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Share on Facebook

?





WND
BORN IN THE USA?

White House releases Obama

'birth certificate'

Cites Kapiolani as location, father's

race as 'African'


Posted: April 27, 2011
9:23 am Eastern

By Bob Unruh
??2011?WorldNetDaily

?

The White House today released a copy of President Obama's "Certificate of Live Birth," a document that for the first time claims Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital as the president's birth place.


Released by the White House

The White House confirmed the document as "proof positive" the president was born in Hawaii.

According to White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer, Obama decided the full document was needed because of the growing questions about the president's birth.

He described how there had been concern about the Internet "chatter" that had grown into a national political debate.

He said the president thought it was becoming a "distraction" from the issues that face the nation.

Real estate entrepreneur Donald Trump, a possible GOP Republican candidate in 2012, has been asking questions about Obama's documentation for several weeks now.

"First we have to look at the certificate," he said. "I want to look at it, but I hope it's true, so we can get to more important national issues."

"Why he didn't do it when the Clintons asked for it. Why he didn't do it when everyone else was asking about it, I don't know," he said.


President Barack Obama in the Oval Office April 4, 2011

"You're going to have many people looking at it ?. It's amazing that all of a sudden it materializes. Experts will look at it ? and I'm very proud that I was able to bring this to a point."

The issue has been dogging Obama since before his election, and WND has reported on the multitude of lawsuits and other challenges to the president's tenure in the Oval Office. They center on his status as a "natural born citizen."

The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."

If the document proves valid, it could answer the questions raised by those who have alleged he was not actually born in Hawaii. But it also could prove his ineligibility because of its references to his father. Some of the cases challenging Obama have explained that he was a dual citizen through his father at his birth, and they contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born citizens.

Joseph Farah, editor and chief executive officer of WND, the only news agency that has waged a relentless investigative campaign on questions swirling around the Obama?s eligibility for nearly three years, was elated at the turn of events.

"We're gratified that our work has begun to pay off," he said. "The certificate of live birth is an absolutely vital foundation for determining constitutional eligibility of any president. We look forward to reviewing it like so many other Americans do at this late date. But it is important to remember there are still dozens of other questions concerning this question of eligibility that need to be resolved to assure what has become a very skeptical public concerning Barack Obama?s parentage, his adoption, his citizenship status throughout his life and why he continues to cultivate a culture of secrecy around his life."

?

Obama, addressing the White House press corps, said, "Normally, I would not comment on something like this."

"We do not have time for this kind of silliness ? I've better stuff to do," he said.

"We posted the certificate that is given by the state of Hawaii on the Internet for everybody to see. Provided an affidavit that they have seen it. Yet this thing just keeps on going."

He boasted of giving a speech about the budget and the nation's debt, but lamented, "during that entire week, the dominant news story wasn't about these huge monumental choices we have to make as a nation, it was about my birth certificate."

He said the nation can't solve problems if "we spend time vilifying each other ? if we just make stuff up and pretend facts are not facts ? if we get distracted by side shows and carnival barkers."

"The news media and the political establishment were quick to rush to judgment regarding Obama's eligibility in 2008, without any basis. It would be a big mistake for everyone to jump to a conclusion now based on the release of this document, which raises as many questions as it answers," Farah added.

Read more: White House releases Obama 'birth certificate' http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=292165#ixzz1Kjq4CBeR


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 11:50
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Martes, 26 de abril de 2011

Share on Facebook

FIRST CASE TO BE HEARD ON MAY 2, 2011 IN CALIFORNIA
?
Arguments in one of the lawsuits challenging Barack Obama?s eligibility to be President of the United States has finally worked its way through the California court system and will be heard by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on May 2.
?
?I can?t believe it, but after two years of Obama litigation, for the first time the court of appeals scheduled oral argument in [the] Obama case,? said Orly Taitz, a California attorney who has litigated a number of challenges to Obama.
??
?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SECOND CASE TO BE HEARD IN NEW ORLEANS ON MAY 11,2011
?
Please read case is in New Orleans, Eastern District of Louisiana, 500 Poydras str. Room C-151, New Orleans, LA 70130., May 11, 2011, 11:00 AM
?
?
?
the veracity of all the claims and allegations in the articles.

Hornbeck Offshore Services, LLC v. Kenneth Lee ?Ken? Salazar Motion to Intervene by Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ

Posted on | April 26, 2011 | No Comments

?

was granted oral argument in yet another case, in New Orleans. If you are my supporter in LA or neighboring state, call me at 949-683-5411

Posted on | April 26, 2011 | No Comments

Great news !!! I was granted oral argument in a second case. I?kept it under wraps for as long as I could, but Obama supporters already got wind of this and posted the pleadings, so I can ?announce it.

As you know, First argument is in Pasadena, ca,May 2, 2011,?9 am 9th Circuit court of Appeals Courtroom 1, ?125 South Grant Street, Pasadena CA?. This is a case,where I represent former U.N. ambassador Alan Keyes, 10 state representatives and 30 members of US military

Second case is in New Orleans, Eastern District of Louisiana, 500 Poydras str. Room C-151, New Orleans, LA 70130., May 11, 2011, 11:00 AM

?I was granted an oral argument on my motion for a leave of court to join an ongoing case HornBeck v Salazar. This case revolves around Obama administration?s capricious?actions in imposing moratorium on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, and after the District Judge ordered to lift the moratorium, Obama regime is de facto refusing to comply with the order by refusing to grant drilling permits.

My argument is, that there is a common thread?in this case ?and my cases, as all of the anti-American actions are coming from one individual, who is not legitimate in the White House,?and who is sitting there without a valid long form birth certificate and without a valid Social Security number of his own.??

If you are my supporter and able to come to the oral argument in Pasadena CA on May 2nd or New Orleans, LA, May 11, please come to support me. As?I travel a lot around the country and airfair in not cheap, I would greatly appreciate if you can help with frequent flyer miles or hotel?frequent visitor credits or donations. ?As the hearing is on?May 11 th,?I will need to fly on the 10th.?

Keep in mind, there are no guarantees in anything, but?the fact of the matter is, that the courts refused to grant any oral arguments?for 2 years. Just getting an oral argument and being able to air these issues in open court is an achievement in? itself. ?I can?t guarantee that my appeal in the 9th circuit will be granted, I can?t guarantee that my motion in Louisina will be granted, but these are very important steps in today?s environment, when oil prices are skyrocketing and americans are?burried in mounting debt. I can guarantee?one thing- I will keep fighting, until I will win, until this complete fraud and illegitimkate usurper is kicked out of the White House and until he and his accomplices are criminally prosecuted for this unprecedented Social Security fraud, elections fraud and treason against the people of the United States of America. Please, spread the word and support my effords

PS. Full?motion with exhibits is about 50 pages, Mr. Murray will post the pdf ?later today or tomorrow.?

Dr. Orly Taitz ESQ
29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy ste 100
Rancho Santa Margarita Ca 92688
ph. 949-683-5411
fax 949-766-7603
orlytaitzesq.com
drtaitz.com
taitzofficesuites.com

------------------------------------------------


__._,_.___

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 17:04
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Share on Facebook

?
Why does Congress feign ignorance, continue a conspiracy of silence and display blatant cowardice in regard to this issue?

Obama?s ineligibility: Congress is both guilty and gutless


?
?- Lawrence Sellin??Monday, April 25, 2011

To the US Congress ? Is there not even one among you, who will stand by your oath of office and state unequivocally that Barack Hussein Obama is not a natural born citizen and is, therefore, ineligible for the office of President of the United States?

It serves no purpose here for me to present arguments supporting a case against Obama?s eligibility or recite the background and intent of the natural born clause of the Constitution. That information is already available, for example, in the brilliant and exhaustive documentation provided by Stephen Tonchen from whom I liberally pilfer.


Why does Congress feign ignorance, continue a conspiracy of silence and display blatant cowardice in regard to this issue? Is it that members of Congress are too politically correct, too complicit in a cover-up and are just stalling in the desperate hope that Obama is not re-elected?

What happens then, if through some tragic mistake of history, Obama is re-elected? Congress could find themselves, not only in dereliction of their duty, but potentially contributing to the destruction of our republic.

Edwin Vieira, a leading Constitutional scholar, warns that Obama?squestionable eligibility, if left unresolved, could become precedent and justification for both continuing the erosion of the Constitution and abolishing the rights it provides to all Americans:

?If Obama turns out to be nothing more than an usurper who has fraudulently seized control of the Presidency, not only will the Constitution have been egregiously flouted, but also this whole country could be, likely will be, destroyed as a consequence. And if this country is even credibly threatened with destruction, every American will be harmed?irretrievably, should the threat become actuality?including those who voted or intend to vote for Obama, who are also part of We the People. Therefore, in this situation, any and every American must have ?standing? to demand?and must demand, both in judicial fora and in the fora of public opinion that Obama immediately and conclusively prove himself eligible for ?the Office of President.?

Not anything about Obama?s ineligibility is either a surprise or an accident.

As it turned out, Senator John McCain was the perfect Republican opponent for Obama. Although the argument is now moot, McCain also had questionable eligibility under the natural born citizen clause of the Constitution.

The controversy surrounding McCain?s eligibility was perfectly exploited by Obama?s allies in the main stream media and by liberal legal scholars both of whom feigned sincerity in their quest to interpret correctly the text and the intent of the Constitution.

The charade continued on the floor of the Senate, where Republicans and Democrats colluded by passing the non-binding and phony Senate Resolution 511 declaring John McCain a natural born citizen and, thereby, providing Obama the smokescreen he needed to circumvent the Constitution.

So when SR 511 was passed in a non-recorded vote on April 30, 2008, the fix was in and Congress lowered an iron curtain of silence about Obama?s ineligibility, which has continued to this day.

Every U.S. president who was born after 1787, except Barack Obama and Chester A. Arthur, was born in the United States, of parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of the candidate?s birth i.e. a natural born citizen.

It seems that Obama is using the same playbook that Chester Arthur did.

In 1880, Chester Arthur was elected Vice President, but voters seemed unaware that, when he was born, his father had not yet become a naturalized U.S. citizen and, therefore, Chester Arthur was not eligible to be Vice President. Arthur assumed the Presidency on September 19, 1881 after the assassination of President James Garfield.

While running for Vice President, Chester Arthur told outright lies and later burned nearly all of his family records thereby obscuring the fact that, when he was born, his father was a British subject and not a U.S. citizen.

Chester Arthur knew he was ineligible and acted accordingly. Likewise, Congress can claim neither ignorance nor honesty.

For the first time in US history, a post-1787-born individual, who was born of a non-U.S.-citizen parent and received, at birth, foreign nationality (British) from that parent, was knowingly elected President.

Perhaps Congress fears the turmoil, which will undoubtedly occur if Obama is removed from office. We cannot, however, expect to rely on the rule of law in the future by violating it today.

That type of threat evokes another historical anecdote. Prior to America?s entry into World War I, a German diplomat warned US Ambassador James Gerard that if America entered the war against Germany, 500,000 German-Americans stood ready to rise up against their adopted country.

In that case, Gerard responded, the U.S. had 500,000 lampposts from which to hang them.



Lawrence Sellin

Lawrence Sellin
Most recent columns

? Canada Free Press 2011

Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is a recently retired colonel with 29 years of service in the US Army Reserve. He is a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. receives hate mail at [email protected]




Publicado por Corazon7 @ 11:39
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Share on Facebook

Obama Says It Will Take More Than One Term to Destroy the USA

AND NOT ONE MEMBER OF CONGRESS WILL STOP HIM?

by Sher Zieve, ?2011

Why is this anti-American usurper being allowed to do what he is doing to America?

(Apr. 25, 2011) ? As Obama and his Leninists continue to denigrate and rule over the USA and the American people, the Republican latent-integrity ?go along to get along? electees?led by chief lame-pony John Boehner?continue to protect the Usurper-and-Dictator-in-Chief.? After pretense upon pretense of shock as to how far the Obama syndicate has already taken the country into ruin, the wimpy ?I sold my soul, how about you?? And how much did you charge?? crowd of faux GOP-ers continue to vote with and for the tyrant.? The bogus budget battle was the strongest clue that the GOP joined the Marxist Party in no longer being in favor of continuing the United States of America as a free and solvent country.? That which was a big disappointment at $38.5 Billions cut in spending turned into a slap in the face when it was realized that the number had been faked and the real ?cuts? dropped to $14.7 in discretionary spending, and some reports are that they were barely over $300 millions.? In other words, no one in Congress had any intention of doing any spending cuts at all.

Our gas prices are currently over $4.00/gallon nationally and there is every indication (due to Obama?s intentions) that they will be at between $5-7.00/gallon soon.? The tyrant is, also, still trying to find loopholes in order to saddle us with electric energy prices that ?will necessarily skyrocket? as he promised us they would.

Obama is still convinced it will take him another term to complete his planned but still unfulfilled chaos amidst the American public so that their lives, homes, work, God, country and all else they hold dear will be completely and utterly destroyed?with no chance of ever returning.? If it were not so, we would be drilling for oil in our own country and not funding Brazil and other countries? drilling programs.? If it were not so, we would not be experiencing the worst power grab in our history by the now-rulers of what was once We-the-People?s country.? And, if it was a lie, we would not be losing multiple freedoms on an almost daily basis.

Prior to the 2008 general election, I wrote a column titled ?Is the USA Ready for an American Stalin??? Tragically, it was far more prescient that I had thought.? Each day under Obama and his go along to get along Congress brings us closer and closer to the old USSR, A USSR that had Stalin destroying food so that people would starve to death and the population would be reduced.? People stood in line for hours and sometimes days for a loaf of bread.? A smaller population is easier to suppress.? The Russian people were virtual prisoners within the USSR and completely at the mercy of the Communist rulers who lived large and well while the people starved or froze to death.? An immobile population is easier to contain.

For those of you too young to remember, the above actually happened in old Soviet Russia?the by-design plan for the creation of the elite ?haves? and the peasant (proletariat) ?have-nots.?? And, it is beginning to happen here in the United States of America.? As instructed by his mentors, Saul Alinsky and George Soros, Obama is working very hard every day to wipe out the middle-class in America.? Traditionally, the middle-class in the USA has been better educated and had a sizable amount of ?disposable? wealth.? However, over the last few decades, the Left has decimated our once-model educational system and replaced it with indoctrination and ?feel-good? non-academics.? And Obama has now destroyed more jobs in his first two years in office than even his dyed-in-the-wool Communist and radical Islamist supporters could have possibly dreamt.? Destruction of the free market is his intention and he has already?with virtually not a peep from Congress?seized business after business under the guise of ?saving them?.?? Obama now plans to go after American citizens? money and, via his Socialist agenda, plans to take over all private IRA and retirement programs.? With no one in Congress sounding like even a faint whisper of a leader, we?re on our own.

Given even half a chance, Obama WILL destroy the USA so that it has no chance of ever returning as a free nation.? It is what he was hired to do; not by us but, by others.? We are being destroyed from within by treason and Obama has already completed almost ? of his mission.? Are there any leaders out there willing to step forward to help We-the-People save their and our country and loved ones?? Any?

If you haven?t already begun, now might be the right time to begin holding real survival-for-ourselves-and-our-country meetings within your neighborhoods.? Planning sessions as to ?who will do what? in specific instances are strongly recommended.? As We-the-People were in 1776, we are today?on our own.

?

? 2011, The Post & Email. All rights reserved internationally, unless otherwise specified. To read more on our copyright restrictions, see our Copyright notice on the subheader of every page, along the left margin.


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 10:40
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Lunes, 25 de abril de 2011

Share on Facebook

Monday, April 25, 2011

Video: Obama Speaking In Kenya With Mass Murderer Raila Odinga: I Am So Proud To Come Back Home; Michelle Obama Agrees...

?


Video Flashback: Barack Obama Speaking In Western Kenya With Mass Murderer Raila Odinga: "I Am So Proud To Come Back Home..." - August 26, 2006 - Hat tip to RS. Clip embedded below...

ITNsource.com: U.S. Senator Barack Obama arrived in western Kenya on Saturday (August 26) to a welcome from thousands of cheering well-wishers, there to greet the rising political star of the America's Democratic Party as a native son. Obama flew into Kisumu, on the shores of Lake Victoria, on the way to his Kenyan father's village for the highly anticipated climax of his two-week African tour.... -Source.



2007: Michelle Obama declares Obama is Kenyan and America is mean - 2:00 min mark:



2008: Michelle Obama declares Barack Obama's Home country is Kenya:



Notre Dame Professor Charles Rice: Obama's eligibility could be biggest political fraud in the history of the world; time for a new approach -Details here.?

Attorney Mario Apuzzo: All presidents born after 1787, except for Chester Arthur and Barack Obama, met the ?natural born Citizen? criteria. -Details here.?

Commander Charles Kerchner: List of U.S. Presidents - Eligibility under Article II Grandfather Clause (GFC) or Natural Born Citizen (NBC) Clause or Seated due to Election Fraud -Details here.?

Jack Cashill Discusses Obama's Fraudulent Social Security Number Reserved for Connecticut Applicants -Video here.?

Detailed reports on Obama's SS# can be found here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. Visit the Birther Vault for the long list of evidence against Hawaii officials and all of the people questioning Obama's eligibility; [http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/08/video-ltc-terry-lakins-attorney-on-cnn.html].?
What U.S. President in History Has Multiple Sources in a Foreign Country Saying He Was Born There?

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 19:11
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Share on Facebook

?
Challenge to President Obama's Eligibility to be Heard by 9th Circuit Court |?Print?|
Written by Joe Wolverton, II ??
Monday, 25 April 2011 09:42
?
?
?

?

Arguments in one of the lawsuits challenging Barack Obama?s eligibility to be President of the United States has finally worked its way through the California court system and will be heard by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on May 2.
?I can?t believe it, but after two years of Obama litigation, for the first time the court of appeals scheduled oral argument in [the] Obama case,? said Orly Taitz, a California attorney who has litigated a number of challenges to Obama.
?
In this complaint, Taitz represents co-plaintiffs, who include former Ambassador and presidential candidate Alan Keyes, 10 state Representatives, and 30 members of the military.
?
An attorney representing another group of plaintiffs in a case that was joined to the Taitz case expressed joy at the circuit court?s announcement, saying he was ?pleased we?re going to have a chance to argue this issue before the 9th Circuit. We hope they see the merit in the constitutional arguments.?
?
Attorneys for the defense aver that the plaintiffs lack standing: If anyone has suffered damages from President Obama?s alleged ineligibility due to his not being a ?natural born citizen? per Article II of the Constitution, it is the nation at large and not the named plaintiffs. They argue that the plaintiffs failed to ?demonstrate a particularized injury-in-fact traceable to defendants? conduct as would be necessary to establish standing.?
?
Later in their brief, defense counsel addresses the critical constitutional issue at the heart of the case soon to be heard by the judges of the 9th Circuit Court:
?
Even assuming arguendo, that some of the purported "injuries" alleged by appellants satisfied the Article III requirement of "injury-in-fact," the district court correctly held that no appellant could demonstrate that any injury complained of could be redressed by a court. The political question doctrine precludes redress to any appellant, because such redress would improperly arrogate to this court jurisdiction over political questions as to the eligibility of the president which the Constitution entrusts exclusively to the House and Senate.
?
The political question doctrine serves to "restrain the judiciary from inappropriate interference in the business of the other branches of government" by prohibiting the courts from deciding issues that properly rest within the province of the political branches.
?
They continue:
?
The issues sought to be raised by appellants herein, regarding both whether President Obama is a "natural born citizen of the United States" and therefore eligible to be president as well as any purported claims raised by any criminal statutes ? are to be judged, according to the text of the Constitution, by the legislative branch of the government, and not the judicial.
?
The brief of the defense?s case was submitted by U.S. Attorney Andr? Birotte, Jr. and his assistants Roger West and David DeJute.
?
The principal allegations made in the case question Barack Obama?s eligibility to be President, citing an inexplicable lack of appropriate documentation that would prove the President?s eligibility.
?
In support of their position, the plaintiffs claim to have evidence of the following challenges to President Obama?s ineligibility for the office he now occupies:
?
1. Mr. Obama has been using a stolen Social Security number since 1980-81 according to Dr. Taitz; moreover, Obama never resided in Connecticut where his Social Security number 042-68-4425 had already been issued to a Connecticut resident in March, 1977. Taitz verified Obama's continued usage of the allegedly stolen number via public Selective Service website information, Lexis Nexis, Choice Point and also E-Verify documentation. Taitz has brought suit against the U.S. Social Security Administration for Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) violations.?
?

2. Obama is not a NATURAL BORN citizen, that is, one who is born in the United States to parents who are BOTH U.S. citizens.? [Emphasis in original.]
?

3. Obama has failed to produce a LONG FORM birth certificate with hospital, attending physician's name and official signatures, etc. Instead, Obama has produced a SHORT FORM certificate widely circulated on the internet and cable news shows. [Emphasis in original.]
?

4. According to stamped, certified court documents and a licensed investigator, President Obama is linked to 39 DIFFERENT SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS AND MULTIPLE ADDRESSES IN NATIONAL DATABASES. (http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Taitz-v-Astrue-filed-Complaint.pdf). [Emphasis in original.]
?

5. Associated Press reports from Indonesia show Obama's elementary school record with usage of his adopted father's name Soetoro, Indonesian citizenship, religion Islam. Obama denies all three facts.?
?

6. Dr. Taitz has served President Obama with a complaint five times, but she said the President has defaulted and failed to answer the complaint thus far. Taitz asserted that Judge Carter has "defrauded us" [her clients and the American people, in initial District Court filings]. "It was a clear case of an error by the judge, abuse of judicial discretion and possibly judicial misconduct. Not only did Judge Carter dismiss the case; he also used his final order (undoubtedly written by some Obama supporter) to viciously attack me and my clients."?
?

7. Taitz has presented evidence and court documents to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX-21), House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA-49), Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA-46), and Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA-4), among others who have thus far failed to hold hearings, subpoena Obama's long-form birth certificate, subpoena documents regarding his links to 39 social security numbers, subpoena his college records which Taitz has asserted contain fraudulent information, and subpoena documents related to whether he is a natural born citizen. The congressional cover-up and failure to investigate Dr. Taitz's meritorious evidence raises serious questions as to whether members of congress may have been threatened or even blackmailed by the White House.?
?

8. Multiple cable television hosts are deriding undeclared presidential candidate Donald Trump for questioning Mr. Obama's presidential eligibility, raising additional serious questions as to why cable hosts are attempting to silence Mr. Trump while not reporting Taitz's evidence ? especially if Mr. Obama is ever found to be ineligible, and whether his executive orders and Supreme Court appointments would also be nullified.
?
Every one of the legal challenges to President Obama?s Article II qualifications calls into question the lack of convincing documentation regarding the place of nativity. As this author has written on a couple of occasions in The New American, the history of the ?natural born citizen? clause and the appropriate application of that concept obviate the need to inquire into whether or not Barack Obama was born in the United States.?
?
The larger and more relevant (and easily proven) issue is the allegiance owed by Barack Obama?s Kenyan father at the time of the President?s birth ? regardless of whether that event occurred in Hawaii, Kenya, or elsewhere.
?
Essentially, a baby, even one born in the United States, cannot be considered a ?natural born citizen? of our Republic if one or more of his parents were subjects to a foreign power. In this case, there is no dispute that President Obama?s father was neither a citizen nor a permanent resident of the United States, and in fact as a Kenyan he was a subject of the British Crown. This inarguable fact alone is sufficient to void President Obama?s eligibility for the presidency.
?
Arguments in this case are scheduled to begin at 9 a.m. on May 2 in the Federal Courthouse in Pasadena, California. Donald Trump?s plan to attend the hearing is still unconfirmed.
Photo: AP Images
?
?

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 16:40
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Share on Facebook

Monday, April 25, 2011

When is Congress going to investigate Obama for all the unconstitutional, nefarious, and illegal activities he is engaged in?...

?
For Immediate Release - 25 April 2011

New Wash Times Ad: Whose CT Social Security Number is President Barack Hussein Soetoro Obama Using? Washington Times National Weekly in 25 Apr 2011 issue - pg 5 -
JPG and PDF file copy attached
| by CDR Kerchner (Ret) | @ Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2011/04/new-wash-times-ad-whose-ct-social.html

A Federal lawsuit* accuses putative President Obama is fraudulently using a Social Security Number which is legally not his and which was issued only to residents of the State of Connecticut, a state where Obama never legally resided and certainly not during the time frame of circa 1977 when that SSN was issued!


042-XX-XXXX*

This Social Security Number is reserved for the people of Connecticut NOT Hawaii. Obama never lived in Connecticut, and he certainly wasn't living there when the number was issued in 1977, rather he was a 15 year old attending high school in Hawaii. This Connecticut geographic region SSN was used by Obama to register for the Selective Service System. Obama was either in HI or in CA attending Occidental College during his late teens when he was required to file and register with the Selective Service System. Use of this SSN by Obama as recently as the year 2008 has been confirmed by two private investigators - Susan Daniels and Neil Sankey. See the federal lawsuit for more details.

*For more information and details on the civil lawsuit against Obama and his Social Security Number (SSN) fraud and Selective Service (Draft Registration) fraud see Federal Court Docket Number: 1:11-cv-00402-RCL - Taitz v Astrue, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration.

When is Congress going to investigate Obama for all the unconstitutional, nefarious, and illegal activities he is engaged in?


CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
http://www.protectourliberty.org

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 16:19
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Share on Facebook

?

Two days ago, Matt Drudge linked to a new book by Jerome Corsi, unflinchingly titled Where?s the Birth Certificate? The book immediately leapt to number one on Amazon.com, where it has remained ever since.? The media has shown its usual incredulity at the indisputable stupidity of the American people.? How could so many people question President Obama?s birthplace?? How could they wonder about his origins?? Are they all simply racist?

The answer, of course, is that Americans are desperately seeking an answer to a simple question: why does President Obama appear to be so un-American?? The term un-American here is not synonymous with anti-American (though Obama has been that on occasion); instead, it merely signifies that President Obama is unconcerned with typical American principles and traditions.? He sees capitalism as selfish and evil, religion as dangerous and oppressive; he sees the Constitution as antiquated and entrepreneurialism as exploitative.? He is the representative of the Fareed Zakaria ideology at work, celebrating the post-American world.

When America elects a president like this, many Americans begin wondering how it happened.? There are always two answers to such difficult questions: the first is optimistically externally-oriented, while the second is realistically reflexive.? It is far easier to believe that the problem of un-Americanism lies outside our borders, that within we are unified.? Hence the oddly persistent belief that politics stops at the water?s edge, that our politicians unify around foreign policy.? But that belief has been obsolete since the 1960s; hence the persistent outrage when certain politicians (see Pelosi, Nancy) travel abroad and then criticize their fellow American officeholders (see Bush, George W.).? We like to think that if we hang together, we will not hang separately.

Thus the stubborn belief that President Obama is born outside the United States.? If he was, the unspoken logic goes, we can understand where he picked up his un-American philosophy.? He is not one of us ? he is rather a member of the same global community that despises America and tolerates Islamism, that slams American consumerism and praises Chinese communism, that rips evangelical Christianity while ignoring Muslim-imposed clitorectomy.? We need not worry about our domestic institutions, goes the line of thought ? instead, we must focus on protecting ourselves from foreign infiltration.

More realistically, however, President Obama is the culmination of a century of foreign infiltration already in place.? The turning of America?s institutions of higher education took place decades ago; it is too little too late to focus on such infiltration now.? Beginning in the early 20th century, America?s colleges and universities were infiltrated by German thought, then thought to be the most sophisticated in the world.? That school of thought, a merger of Hegelian utopianism and Marxist classism, quickly infected America?s halls of power.? Theodore Roosevelt, always trendy, bought into the new ?progressivism? with alacrity, jettisoning the Constitution and capitalism in the process.? Bringing this perverse ideology to American shores, Teddy announced, ?We of to-day who stand for the Progressive movement here in the United States are not wedded to any particular kind of machinery, save solely as means to the end desired.?? This was the philosophy of incipient dictatorship.? It was brought to its near-term apex under a college professor, Woodrow Wilson, who thought that the Constitution itself needed to be stripped away

.

Even as Wilson and Roosevelt began implementing German philosophy in American government ? with disastrous results including the decimation of growing American industries and a bizarre foreign policy focused on global institutions rather than American interests ? Europeans abroad began to plan the next step of the American takeover.? Members of the Frankfurt School, German philosophers who recognized that class conflict would not take place openly, traveled to the United States, where they proceeded to agitate for an even more extreme version of German Hegelian-Marxism.

Frankfurt School philosophers believed that Marxism had failed to produce widespread transnational class uprisings because societies were already too ensconced in a culture of capitalism.? Culture and society themselves had to be destroyed in order to make way for a new brand of equality.? And the first step toward such a revolution was destruction of traditional logic, destruction of traditional mores, and destruction of America?s homegrown culture.? Men like Herbert Marcuse led the charge here, telling members of President Obama?s generation to make love, not war, and to fight the powers that be.? America was cruel, and only by indoctrinating Americans in a new way of thinking could that cruelty be fought.

The philosophy of the Frankfurt School, making an alliance with trendy French post modernism, ?spread like wildfire through the academic world.? Traditional history courses were torn down in favor of ?queer? studies, black studies, Asian studies, women?s studies; language was deconstructed in order to remove its capitalistic foundations; traditional sexual mores were torn asunder in the name of ?tolerance.?

President Obama was the result.? He grew up abroad, to be sure, but he spent most of his educational career right here in the United States, ?indoctrinated in the traditions of the progressives and the Frankfurt School.? Ironically enough, the biggest problem for America arises if President Obama was born here ? because if he was, the problem of un-Americanism is now internal rather than external.? Perhaps that is why so many Americans wonder about the birth certificate ? they hope against hope that President Obama is a symptom of a foreign ill rather than a domestic one.? No matter whether Jerome Corsi comes up with evidence of Obama?s foreign birth, however ? it is clear that the problem of Obama-esque un-Americanism is now endemic to American culture herself.? We have an ideological problem in our midst, and no amount of digging in Kenya and Indonesia is going to solve a problem that now starts right here.

?

?
Ben Shapiro is an attorney and writer and a Shillman Journalism Fellow?at the Freedom Center, and author of the upcoming book ?Primetime?Propaganda: The True Hollywood Story of How The Left Took Over Your?TV? from Broadside Books, an imprint of HarperCollins.



Publicado por Corazon7 @ 15:08
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Domingo, 24 de abril de 2011

Share on Facebook

Saturday, April 23, 2011

Fact Check This Media: Reasons Why Obama Is Fighting The Release Of All Past Records!?

?


By Ann Barnhardt: - I can't believe I'm actually going to say this, but I am starting to feel a teensy-weensy bit of respect for Donald Trump. Finally, someone in the mainstream is saying the things that need to be said about Obama's fake nativity story. To clear up a lot of confusion, below is an image of EXACTLY the document that Obama needs to produce. This is the birth certificate of Susan Nordyke, one of a set of twins who were born at the Kapiolani Hospital in Honolulu on August 5, 1961. Obama CLAIMS to have been born on August 6th. Therefore, this certificate form is EXACTLY THE SAME as what would have been generated for Obama.

Description: http://barnhardt.biz/blogimages/NordykeBirthCertificate.jpg

ORYR: This Certificate of Live Birth was lightened for easier viewing - View the unaltered one here.

This form gives the name, age, address, race and description of the occupation of the father. It does NOT give the religion. It gives the name, age, address, race, occupation outside of the home and last date worked of the mother.

Interestingly, IT DOES NOT LIST THE RACE OF THE CHILD. Look for yourself. There is no field at the top for race of the baby.

So, given this, there are several things we can logically conclude:

1. The word "muslim" does not appear on Obama's BC assuming he was in fact born in Honolulu in August of 1961, because these certificates make no mention of religion at all. So that can't be the big secret.

2. Obama himself cannot be listed as either "caucasian" or "arab" because there is no field on the certificate for the race of the child. So that can't be the big secret, either, assuming Obama even has a Hawaii BC.

3. I doubt that the father's field would say either "Frank Marshall Davis" or "Unknown" because the baby was named "Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.". If you're going to go to the lengths of naming a baby "Jr.", then there is no reason not to list "Sr." as the daddy - even if that is a lie. If you name the kid "Jr.", you're in for a penny, in for a pound. Again, this assumes Barry actually has a Hawaii BC.

So where does this leave us?

A. There is no Hawaii birth certificate because he wasn't born in Hawaii. Ann Dunham was present and enrolled at the University of Washington TWO WEEKS after Obama's alleged birth date. He could have been born just across the border in Canada, and then Granny Dunham registered his birth with the state of Hawaii, thus automatically generating the newspaper announcement. This would have been done to fraudulently obtain citizenship for Barry.

B. He could have been born months earlier. Given that Ann picked up, flew across the Pacific, enrolled and began attending classes at UW all before August 20, 1961, it seems a bit much to think that she did all this at the age of 18 with a tiny newborn baby.

C. Obama could have indeed been born in Kenya, and Granny Dunham submitted a false certificate of home birth to get him US citizenship, again, thus automatically generating the newspaper birth announcement.

D. When Obama was adopted by Lolo Soetoro in Indonesia, his original BC was altered to reflect the new name "Barry Soetoro" with Lolo listed as the father. If this is the case, Obama MUST be a dual citizen of Indonesia, because Indonesia required citizenship of adopted children. Also, unless Obama legally had his named changed back to "Barack Obama", his name today legally remains "Barry Soetoro". This would nullify every document he has signed. If you don't believe me, try signing this year's tax return with the name "Peaches McAwesome" and see if you don't get a visit from the IRS. Finally, and I think this is the monster issue, unless Barry formally rescinded his Indonesian citizenship upon reaching the age of majority, he is AT BEST a dual citizen of the US and Indonesia. If he presented himself as an Indonesian citizen after the age of 18 either to acquire college scholarships OR traveling under an Indonesian passport after the age of 18, then there is no way in God's Green Earth that he can be the President of the United States. No person who has EVER, under any circumstance, claimed citizenship to any country other than the United States as an adult be eligible for the Presidency. That's just common sense. The LEGAL standard per the Constitution is far, far more stringent than that. I realize that. I'm just talking about common sense. This is a no-brainer. Obama is a completely illegal usurper, a con artist, a liar, and he MUST be removed, not by impeachment, but by law enforcement. Impeachment only applies to legitimate sitting Presidents. Obama is neither legitimate, nor the President. He is a hostile invader and the enemy of this nation, its people and its Constitution. Barack and Michelle Obama SHOULD spend the rest of their lives being supported and secured by the tax dollars of the people of the United States of America . . . in lovely Florence, Colorado. -Source: http://barnhardt.biz/index.cfm

Dr. Polland's reports show Factcheck, Politifact, Daily Kos, et. el., committed and continue to commit fraud in regards to Obama's forged COLB(s). -Details here and here.

Notre Dame Professor Charles Rice: Obama's eligibility could be biggest political fraud in the history of the world; time for a new approach -Details here.?

Attorney Mario Apuzzo: All presidents born after 1787, except for Chester Arthur and Barack Obama, met the ?natural born Citizen? criteria. -Details here.?

Commander Charles Kerchner: List of U.S. Presidents - Eligibility under Article II Grandfather Clause (GFC) or Natural Born Citizen (NBC) Clause or Seated due to Election Fraud -Details here.?

Jack Cashill Discusses Obama's Fraudulent Social Security Number Reserved for Connecticut Applicants -Video here.?

Detailed reports on Obama's SS# can be found here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. Visit the Birther Vault for the long list of evidence against Hawaii officials and all of the people questioning Obama's eligibility; [http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/08/video-ltc-terry-lakins-attorney-on-cnn.html].?
Whose SSN is President Barack Hussein Soetoro Obama Using? Wash Times Natl Wkly 11 Apr 2011 pg 5

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 13:41
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
S?bado, 23 de abril de 2011

Share on Facebook

Elected and Appointed U.S. Government Officials Who Violate Their Oath of Office and the Constitution Must Resign

?
???

?

NATIONAL CALL TO ACTION SERIES

by Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely (Ret.)

The Declaration of Independence was written

(Apr. 23, 2011) ? As the Declaration of Independence states:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their Safety and Happiness.

The arrogance of power and incompetence in Washington has generated this dissent I and protest. Elitism and wasteful spending of tax-payers? dollars is no longer to be tolerated.

Each member of the House of Representatives, the United States Senate and even the President of the United States place their hands on the Bible, raise their hands to the square? and swear on their sacred honor to protect, defend and serve the people of the United States. Sadly, we see them in violation of their oaths. They know who they are as do the people. We should see a massive resignation demand on the steps of the capital and the call for the Impeachment of Barack Obama. We should be seeing them groveling before those who instilled their faith and trust in them by electing them to public service and seeking forgiveness.? Most have violated the Constitution of the United and many are guilty of treason. Fraud and corruption is rampant in the use of the people?s money.

We the people have had enough of this current Government, elected officials and appointees. They (not the American People) are on a progressive socialist suicide march. WE, the people have watched the President and his Cabinet, Congress and other bureaucrats defile our founding documents and sacred principles for several years now with no end in sight. In 1789, Thomas Jefferson was overheard saying to Madison, ?Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves therefore are its only safe depositories.? While no Leader can ever be held blameless, we MUST insist that you resign from office immediately.?

In Lincoln?s 1861 Inaugural address, he issued this warning to his peers, ?Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one. This is a most valuable and sacred right ? a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world?.

IMPEACHMENT, RESIGNATION AND RECALL must be conducted by the People of those elected and appointed political leaders who have violated the Constitution, which states in Article One, Section Five, Clause II? ?Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly behavior, and with the concurrence of a 2/3 vote, expel a member.?

The Constitution and the States, however, provide the people the right and authority to do either of the following:

Per the 10th amendment to decide domestic matters within individual states, also grants the right to the state to refuse federal aid and to sever from the Federal Government?s authority entirely or per Article Two, Section Four, ?The President, Vice President and ALL CIVIL OFFICERS of the United States shall be removed from office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

The current oath of office was enacted in 1884: The Oaths of Office is administered to:

?I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.?

  • When a young man or woman enlists in one of the armed forces, he or she takes an oath to protect and defend the United States of America.
  • When an officer in any of the armed services raises his hand and takes an oath to protect and defend his or her country, the Officers are expected to keep the vow.
  • When any officer of the court takes an oath to perform their duties it is done with an expectation they will do so.

Why not the same for any member of the United States Government, but especially those that are elected by the people? Each member of the House of Representatives, the United States Senate and even the President of the United States raise their hands and swear on their sacred honor to protect, defend and serve the people of the United States.

BERATING and CONDEMNING the United States before the world, overseas and in the United Nations is a flagrant violation of Trust.

If the impeachment and resignations do not occur then the American people must do their duty to God and Country and use the power of their votes and remove the violators from office. In the event there may be some doubt in certain individuals then for the good and welfare of the country ALL should go. We will start over. We will seek out those who have a strong desire to see America continue as created and designed by our Founding Fathers.? It may be difficult to start over from scratch but it will certainly be better than the trashing of the Constitution.

The majority of American people have lost trust and faith in those they have elected to serve the country because they have abrogated their oaths, given comfort to the enemy both foreign and domestic.? 535 men and women have sworn to serve the nation. They have willingly taken an oath to protect and serve and defend the people and interests of this great country. Sadly, we see them in violation of their oaths and the moral strength to do what needs to be done.

America, Act Now for our survival as our strong and trusted nation is in great jeopardy.

Paul E. Vallely ? Chairman of Stand Up America

Paul E. Vallely MG, US Army (Ret)

Chairman ? Stand Up America

E-Mail: [email protected]

www.standupamericaus.com

www.soldiersmemorialfund.org

www.patriotsunion.org

? 2011, The Post & Email. All rights reserved internationally, unless otherwise specified. To read more on our copyright restrictions, see our Copyright notice on the subheader of every page, along the left margin.


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 13:07
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Viernes, 22 de abril de 2011

Share on Facebook

Friday, April 22, 2011

Should Enforcing the Constitution and Protecting the Nation Be An Embarrassment?

Should Enforcing the Constitution and Protecting the Nation Be?An Embarrassment?

By: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
April 22, 2011


Oklahoma?s SB91, described as ?Identity and citizenship - requiring proof of citizenship for candidates,? authored by Senators Brinkley, is now making its way through the Oklahoma legislature. See information on the bill here, http://www.oklegislature.gov/BillInfo.aspx?Bill=sb91. The bill passed the Senate by a vote of 34 yes to 10 no (4 votes were excluded). On April 6, 2011, it passed the House Rules Committee by a vote of 11 yes to 0 no.

?Here in Oklahoma, where Mr. Obama won just over a third of the vote in 2008 ? one of his worst state losses ? Senate Bill 91 passed last month with overwhelming and even bipartisan support. People in both parties said they were confident that the House would do the same by the deadline next week (the bill would have to return to the Senate for a procedural vote). Lawmakers said they assumed that Gov. Mary Fallin, a Republican, would sign it.

A spokesman said Ms. Fallin would not comment until the bill was on her desk and she had a chance to review it.

Legislators backing credentials bills in other states are closely watching what happens here.

?If one state passes, and the Obama administration basically ignores the requirement and does not qualify for the ballot in that state, that would send a very strong signal that we have a situation in the United States where someone who is not eligible is occupying the White House,? said Mark Hatfield, a Republican state representative in Georgia whose own ballot bill failed to get through. If Oklahoma does not go forward, and an override of Ms. Brewer?s veto in Arizona does not materialize, Mr. Hatfield said, ?then other states, including Georgia, have a duty to step up.?

Opponents of the birther bills say they are unnecessary and are designed to score political points more than safeguard democracy, certainly in Mr. Obama?s case.

Still, Democrats in Oklahoma were divided. For example, the minority floor leader in the House, Chuck Hoskin, said he would probably vote yes. Asked in an interview whether he was concerned about embarrassing the leader of his own party, Mr. Hoskin said he thought Mr. Obama?s failure to win over Oklahomans in 2008 was the real embarrassment.

But down the hall, an assistant Democratic floor leader in the House, Al McAffrey, said the bill was the embarrassment. ?But this is Oklahoma ? we embarrass ourselves all the time,? he said. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/22/us/politics/22birthers.html?_r=2&hp.

What a sad state of affairs in America. Someone should ask these politicians when it became embarrassing for lawmakers to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, which is the oath of office that they all take. When did it become embarrassing to assure the integrity of the electoral process? When did it become embarrassing to restore the faith of the American people in knowing who their President is?

Was our media and Congress also too embarrassed to press Obama that he release to the public his documents showing who and what he is and to otherwise properly vet him during the 2008 presidential campaign? Were the courts too embarrassed to accept any one case in which Obama would have to produce discovery and conclusively show that he is a ?natural born Citizen?? Did Arizona Governor Jan Brewer tell us that she was too embarrassed to sign the Arizona legislation that would have required presidential candidates to prove their citizenship when she said it was ?a bridge too far?? Were our leaders also so embarrassed that they allowed a highly decorated military officer, LTC Terry Lakin, to be court-martialed and go to federal prison for exercising his sense of duty to protect the Constitution? And are our leaders now just too embarrassed to admit that they were simply too embarrassed to properly exercise their duties to the nation and to the American people and adequately deal with Obama?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
April 22, 2011
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 12:17
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Share on Facebook

http://www.therightscoop.com/allen-west-doubles-down-on-calling-obama-a-low-level-socialist-agitator/

Allen West doubles down on calling Obama a low level socialist agitator

Allen West?s awesomeness knows no bounds. Greta tried to pin him down on the comments he made referring to Obama as having the attitude of a dictator and being a low level socialist agitator, and he didn?t back down for one second. Instead he countered that the truth needs to be told!

This man is seriously my favorite politician. Go West!

?


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 11:53
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Share on Facebook

Thursday, April 21, 2011

Fox Business Goes Birther: Alan Keyes On Citizen Vs. Natural Born Citizen Issue And The Courts Evasion Of Obama's Constitutional Eligibility...

?


Video: Fox Business Network Goes Full Birther: Dr. Alan Keyes Lays Out The Citizen Vs. Natural Born Citizen Issue And The Courts Evasion Of The Obama Eligibility Issue. The Fox Business Segment Aired On 4/21/2011...

Reminder: Dr. Keyes, et. al., lawsuit against Obama will have oral arguments on May 2, 2011 at 9am, in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Pasadena division, courtroom 1. More details here. The reply brief for review embedded below...



Notre Dame Professor Charles Rice: Obama's eligibility could be biggest political fraud in the history of the world; time for a new approach -Details here.?

Attorney Mario Apuzzo: All presidents born after 1787, except for Chester Arthur and Barack Obama, met the ?natural born Citizen? criteria. -Details here.?

Commander Charles Kerchner: List of U.S. Presidents - Eligibility under Article II Grandfather Clause (GFC) or Natural Born Citizen (NBC) Clause or Seated due to Election Fraud -Details here.?

Jack Cashill Discusses Obama's Fraudulent Social Security Number Reserved for Connecticut Applicants -Video here.?

Previous reports on Barnett/Keyes v Obama can be found here. Visit the Birther Vault for the long list of evidence against Obama & the Hawaii Department of Health and all of the people questioning Obama's eligibility; [http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/08/video-ltc-terry-lakins-attorney-on-cnn.html].

Barnett/Keyes et al. v Obama et al. - Appeal - Taitz - Reply Brief for Review - 9th Circuit - 10/27/10

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 11:20
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Mi?rcoles, 20 de abril de 2011

Share on Facebook

http://trevorloudon.com/2011/04/must-view-rep-allen-west-defense-in-a-time-of-economic-danger/

?

This is why Allen West should be next president of? the United States.

Allen West explains that America?s economic problems are essentially a SECURITY issue.? West is the only presidential contender who is willing to address this problem.

This is not just the greatest issue now facing America, it is the greatest SINGLE ISSUE facing the entire FREE WORLD.

Note that West calls for Congressional security hearings.? A must!


http://allenwest2012.ning.com/

?


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 11:04
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Martes, 19 de abril de 2011

Share on Facebook

We Write With?Urgency?

?2011 drkate

Author?s Note.? As readers of this blog know I have endeavored to focus the natural born citizenship discussion on its full unified meaning?born in the United States to two American citizen parents. This is the most basic definition we can glean from the use of the term ?natural born citizen?, rather than ?citizen? to describe the higher level of allegiance required for the office of the President and Commander in Chief.? Nature?s law, and the Law of Nations were the context within which major portions of our Constitution were written.? Absent a constitutional amendment or a Supreme Court definition of natural born citizen, we have no legal authority to arbitrarily separate the geographic test and the parental citizenship tests for natural born citizenship required by Article II.

It seems that when we are close to really focusing on the concept of natural born citizenship, numerous diversions constantly blur what should be a sharp discussion.? The birth certificate, social security fraud, selective service registration fraud, differing versions of the meaning of natural born citizen, Kenyan birth certificates, state nomination form fraud?all of these are important tools that would bring any ?Al Capone? down.? But the fundamental fraud right in front of our eyes is the failure to qualify as a natural born citizen as stated in Article II of the Constitution.? Whatever tool is used to bring Mr. Obama to justice and move him out of our White House, we cannot forget that what we are talking about is the Constitution?s most fundamental protection for our nation: the office of the President and Commander in Chief of the Nation?s Armed Forces.

This essay forms the basis of a certified letter recently sent? directly to Mr. Donald Trump by drkatesview, and is this author?s attempt to capture an unencumbered, clear focus on the natural born citizen.??? In this version for the blog, I have linked some, but not all of the key articles from which I have learned much.? My letter to Mr. Trump contains an annotated bibliography of the most excellent materials developed over the last two years by many fine writers and in the legal cases valiantly pursued in the last several years. Readers are welcome to share this letter with proper attribution and a link back to this blog. My greatest goal is that you build on this letter to develop your own 5 minute definition of natural born citizen.

not a natural born citizen


?

?

Mr. Donald J. Trump
The Trump Organization 725 5th Ave.
New York, NY 10022

Subject:? Natural Born Citizen

We write with urgency regarding the ?natural born citizen? requirement for the office of the President and Commander in Chief of the United States of America.? The need to see a forensically authenticated ?birth certificate? is just one part of the natural born citizen clause, namely geography.? The other necessary part of ?natural born citizenship? is the citizenship of both parents?who must be citizens of the United States at the time of a child?s birth.? Being born in the United States is a necessary but not sufficient condition for natural born citizenship.

While a large part of the discussion of the constitutional eligibility of Mr. Obama is focused on birth place , or geographic location, the other necessary element of natural born citizenship? the U.S. citizenship of both ?parents ?is also required? to be constitutionally eligible.? In reality, there? are two tests for a natural born citizen: a geographic location test, and a parental citizenship test.

This is important to understand because national security is the ultimate goal of the requirement that the President be a natural born citizen.? Not merely a citizen, but a natural born citizen.? As articulated in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.

The two highlighted phrases appear only once in the U.S. Constitution, and are intended only for the President, and by extension Vice President.? Historical research reveals that these words were chosen with intent and specificity.

National ?Security , Natural Born Citizen, ?Allegiance

The terms ?natural born Citizen?, and ?Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution?? were used by the Framers? as a national security safeguard? to ensure that? the President and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces would have sole, singular allegiance to the United States.

That the Article II requirements for the President were aimed specifically at national security is revealed in a statement by John Jay to George Washington as the contents of Article II were drafted:

?Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural? born Citizen.?

A natural born citizen is a person born of citizen parents owing no allegiance to foreign countries and born in the United States or its territories.? A natural born citizen owes his allegiance solely to the United States.? No act of law can convey natural born citizenship.

A natural born citizen is not the same as an English common law citizen.? A natural born citizen owes allegiance only to the people of the United States through the Constitution; an English common-law citizen is a subject who owes allegiance to an individual.

The principle of natural born citizenship is derived from the Founder?s use of and reference to nature?s law and the Law of Nations in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.? Absent a Constitutional Amendment or a Supreme Court definition of natural born citizen, the Constitution?s definition must stand.

Thus, the question of birth place may not be separated from citizenship of the parents.

Verifying Natural Born Citizenship

While the question of ?where?s the birth certificate?? is valid and has now broken into the ?mainstream?, the proper, complete question?a demand really?should be ?verify Natural Born Citizenship!?. This means not only the production of a forensically authenticated long-form Hawaiian Birth Certificate, but also the necessary forensically examined evidence to verify his ?life story? as discussed in his book ?Dreams From My Father?.

Because Mr. Obama has hidden all his records there is no way to verify Obama?s natural born citizenship?either the geographic location of his birth place or the true identity and citizenship of his parents.

If his autobiography is true, then Mr. Obama?s life story immediately disqualifies him under Article II of the Constitution, and he fails the parental citizenship test because his father, Barack Obama, was never an American citizen.? If his hidden birth certificate proves he was born outside the United States, he also fails the geography test.? If he can prove he was born in Hawaii, and his life story is true, then he is simply an American citizen, not a natural born American citizen.

Congress, the Parties, the Courts, and Mr. Obama Fail the Constitution

The failure to verify the natural born citizenship status of Mr. Obama lies first with Obama himself.? Without any evidence to the contrary, Mr. Obama knowingly evaded the constitutional eligibility requirements of the Constitution.? He did so with the apparent knowledge of the leadership and members of the Democrat and Republican parties, the media, the State of Hawaii, political advisors, and other members of his cabinet and inner circle.

To avoid the meaning of ?natural born citizen, the discussion of the Obama campaign, the media, the pundits, and nearly all of the Congress, was diverted away from natural born citizen to simply birth place (geographic criterion), that is, the birth certificate.? This allowed Mr. Obama, and everyone else, to claim that an electronic version of a certification of live birth (COLB) was a valid, authentic ??birth certificate and to not grasp the import of Mr. Obama?s autobiography where he admits his Kenyan father was never an American citizen. ?Mr. Obama knowingly deceived the American public by placing his name on the ballot in every state.

Congress is required by the Twentieth Amendment to certify the President?s constitutional eligibility through a joint session of Congress in early January of the year the President-elect is sworn into office.?? The Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate are required to ensure that any and all objections are raised and addressed before certifying that the President elect is constitutionally eligible for the office.? If for any reason the President elect is not verified, the Twentieth Amendment provides a procedure for filling the vacancy until the President elect qualifies or a new President is elected.

The Congress, led by the House Speaker and President of the Senate, failed America?s national security and the American people by failing to certify Mr. Obama?s constitutional eligibility. In doing so, they have failed to uphold their oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution.

Constitutional Remedies

The Constitutional remedies available to resolve this problem begin with the full disclosure of information by Barack Obama.? Such information would enable the verification of the natural born citizen status of Barack Obama and thus his constitutional eligibility.? The release and examination of information, and findings based thereon, would finally put to rest any speculation.

The two basic components of information needed from ?Barack Obama in order to ascertain whether he is a natural born citizen are:

  1. Verification of Barack Obama?s birth place in Hawaii, USA, to meet the geographic criterion of natural born citizenship.? A forensically verified authentic long form birth certificate showing the name Barack Obama, and indicating birth place, parents, doctor?s signatures, and hospital/midwife/witnesses is the basic prima facie evidence of birth in the United States.
  2. Verification that Barack Obama?s life story as told in his autobiography ?Dreams from My Father? ?is true and correct, particularly the identity and citizenship of his parents.

If Mr. Obama makes this information available for forensic analysis, and if it verifies both of these elements, Mr. Obama is an American citizen but not a natural born citizen because of his father?s citizenship, and is not eligible to hold the office of the President. ??But simply verifying his birth in Hawaii does not make him a natural born citizen, hence the birth certificate (proof of birth in the U.S.) is only one aspect of natural born citizenship.

A President that cannot, and did not initially qualify as an Article II natural born citizen, must step down or may be removed from office immediately under the Twentieth Amendment.? Mr. Obama is ?disabled? under the Twenty Fifth Amendment and could be removed from office by the Cabinet and/or Congress.?? A process for transitioning the government to a constitutionally qualified President is provided in the Twentieth Amendment.

We urge you to study this letter and referenced material so as to address the full meaning of the Constitutional requirement for the Presidency embodied in Article II.

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.

Thank you for your honesty and courage in raising this issue on behalf of our Nation.


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 11:35
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Share on Facebook

?
As the Constitution goes, so goes our country

Obama?s ineligibility: Choosing political expediency over defending the Constitution

?
?- Lawrence Sellin??Tuesday, April 19, 2011

Note to the Republican leadership ? if you continue to shield Barack Hussein Obama, knowing that he is ineligible for the Presidency and has possibly committed fraud and felony conspiracy, then, you are welcome to him for a second term. I will not stand with you.

In my opinion, many Republicans have violated their oaths of office to support and defend the Constitution. Because of their cowardice or complicity in hiding the truth from the American people, there was a major failure to uphold the law. For that reason, they have forfeited their privilege to represent me.


Compared to Obama, other government officials have been called to account for far lesser presumed infractions of the law.

As Thomas Paine wrote:

?Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice.?

According to the Constitution, the narrative of the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court case of Minor v. Happersett (1874), other legal opinions and precedence, Obama has never been eligible for the presidency because he does not meet the requirements of natural born citizenship i.e. someone born in the US of citizen parents at the time of birth.

It is the simplest and most irrefutable argument to make regarding Obama?s ineligibility for the Presidency.

Republican elected officials: how much evidence do you need before you take the appropriate action?

In addition to Obama?s clear Constitutional ineligibility, there are an ample number of apparent inconsistencies in Obama?s personal history to warrant a Congressional investigation.

First, if Obama was born in Hawaii, there is no evidence indicating in which hospital he was born. I doubt that there are many living Americans, who do not know the hospital of their birth and who cannot prove it.

Second, Obama has been using a Social Security Number issued in Connecticut, a state in which he never lived or even had a mailing address.

Third, it has been claimed, but never proven, that Obama was born in Kapiolani hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961. The Nordyke twins were also born in Kapiolani hospital, the day after Obama was born. (Source).

Susan Nordyke was born at 2:12 p.m. Hawaii time and was given birth certificate number 151 ? 61 ? 10637, which was filed with the Hawaii registrar Aug. 11, 1961.

Gretchen Nordyke followed at 2:17 p.m. and was given birth certificatenumber 151 ? 61 ? 10638, which was also filed with the Hawaii registrar Aug. 11, 1961.

The online certification of live birth provided by FactCheck.org,? and purported to be the evidence for Obama?s Hawaiian birth, shows the certificate number 151 ? 1961 ? 10641.

If Obama was born in the same hospital one day earlier than the Nordyke twins and his birth was registered three days earlier on Aug. 8, 1961, then why does he have a higher certificate number? And why does his certificate number have two extra digits?

Even a cub reporter would conclude that there is something wrong with that picture. And it is only the tip of the iceberg. As all Americans know very well, however, the deluded main stream media are protecting Obama at the expense of their journalistic integrity.

Likewise, unless for reasons of political expediency based on fear or complicity, I have no other explanation for the silence of the Republican leadership.

Paine also wrote:

?The American constitutions were to liberty, what a grammar is to language: they define its parts of speech, and practically construct them into syntax.?

As they slowly dismantle our Constitution, the political elite will bequeath to our children a legal system based on gobbledygook.

As the Constitution goes, so goes our country.


Author
Lawrence Sellin

Lawrence Sellin
Most recent columns

? Canada Free Press 2011

Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is a recently retired colonel with 29 years of service in the US Army Reserve. He is a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. receives hate mail at [email protected]




Publicado por Corazon7 @ 11:21
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Domingo, 17 de abril de 2011

Share on Facebook

Saturday, April 16, 2011

The far left progressives are playing a game of Catch 22 with the election system once again

?

The far left progressives are playing a game of Catch 22 with the election system once again

~ Commander Charles Kerchner ~

Before the election date of 2008 the Congress told people it is the state's job to vet the candidates. And the state's secretaries of states said it was not their job. Some said and one court judge said it was up to Congress. The Congress refused to address it and ducked the issue like the politically correct cowards they are. Before the election date the courts said the case is moot because Obama may not win the election. Then after he won ... oops it's too late to apply the Constitutional law of the land, he won the election. And then later of course in the infamous secret CRS Memo circulated secretly to members of Congress in April 2009, those lawyers said it is the responsibility of the states. Now that the states are doing something about this Catch 22 mess and gaming of the election and legal system by Obama and the progressives, now the far left progressives are saying ... nope it's not up to the states but up to the federal government to decide. Basically the bottom line of the far left progressives is that they don't want any rules or vetting. They want to let anyone run even if not a Citizen at all like the Socialist Party candidate Calero. The far left progressives want a pure democracy with no rules with 51% determining who the President and Commander of our Military is to be ... Constitution and fundamental law be damned from their point of view. A pure democracy is just a stepping stone to mob rule and that ultimately leads to a tyrannical nationalist socialist takeover to restore order. The is what the far left want. It's the end game of the Cloward-Piven Strategy. No rules, no Constitution except for what the few far left elite will dictate for the moment to suit their needs then change them 30 days later to suit that times need.

The far left progressives and their lawyers and money gamed the system in the 2008 election cycle. Now we have come full cycle and they are trying to do it all over again ... it's not the states job it's Congress' job. Here we go again ... Catch 22 all over again.

Read this essay about our Cloward-Piven Government in which Obama is driving the country into the end game to throw out the Constitution and install a national socialist new government in response to the calls from the mob rule of 51% to end the misery that Obama and his Obots are creating.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/clowardpiven_government.html

CDR Kerchner (Ret)
http://www.protectourliberty.org

Notre Dame Professor Charles Rice: Obama's eligibility could be biggest political fraud in the history of the world; time for a new approach -Details here.?

Attorney Mario Apuzzo: All presidents born after 1787, except for Chester Arthur and Barack Obama, met the ?natural born Citizen? criteria. -Details here.?

Commander Charles Kerchner: List of U.S. Presidents - Eligibility under Article II Grandfather Clause (GFC) or Natural Born Citizen (NBC) Clause or Seated due to Election Fraud -Details here.?

Jack Cashill Discusses Obama's Fraudulent Social Security Number Reserved for Connecticut Applicants -Video here.?

Visit the Birther Vault for the long list of evidence against Hawaii officials and all of the people questioning Obama's eligibility; [http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/08/video-ltc-terry-lakins-attorney-on-cnn.html].
States Have Constitutional Power to Pass Legislation Prescribing Presidential Ballot Access Reqs

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 9:47
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Share on Facebook

Saturday, April 16, 2011

Breaking News: Another Supreme Court Justice discusses Natural Born Citizen term in the U.S. Constitution

?


Video: Another Supreme Court Justice again discusses Natural Born Citizen term in the U.S. Constitution before the House Appropriations Committee of Congress... April 14, 2011... Hat tip to Protect Our Liberty...





Notre Dame Professor Charles Rice: Obama's eligibility could be biggest political fraud in the history of the world; time for a new approach -Details here.?

Attorney Mario Apuzzo: All presidents born after 1787, except for Chester Arthur and Barack Obama, met the ?natural born Citizen? criteria. -Details here.?

Commander Charles Kerchner: List of U.S. Presidents - Eligibility under Article II Grandfather Clause (GFC) or Natural Born Citizen (NBC) Clause or Seated due to Election Fraud -Details here.?

Jack Cashill Discusses Obama's Fraudulent Social Security Number Reserved for Connecticut Applicants -Video here.?

Visit the Birther Vault for the long list of evidence against Hawaii officials and all of the people questioning Obama's eligibility; [http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/08/video-ltc-terry-lakins-attorney-on-cnn.html].
A Catalog of Evidence-Concerned Americans Have Good Reason to Doubt Putative Pres Obama Born in HI

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 9:39
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Viernes, 15 de abril de 2011

Share on Facebook

Wednesday, April 13, 2011

Agustin Blazquez at Emory University

Here's my friend, the leading Cuban-American documentary filmmaker you've never heard of, presenting CHE: The Other Side of an Icon to Dr. Mary Grabar's class on March 16th.
His film is now on sale on DVD at Amazon.com:?


Here's my review:
*****
When working as an actor in the Cuban film industry as a young man, filmmaker Agustin Blazquez met Che Guevara personally. The revolutionary legend had come to shake hands with the cast and crew of his film, and Blazquez was among those granted an audience. Not too long afterwards, Guevara was dead in the jungles of Latin America...and Blazquez subequently fled as a political exile--a story I hope he will one day tell on film, as it is as gripping as any novel. So he knows about Che, both as a Cuban culture worker for the revolution, and later as a refugee from Communism.

For his seventh documentary on Cuba, his beloved homeland, Blazquez compares the legend of Che with the reality of his legacy. Although Cuban-American audiences have been exposed to this side of Che before, much of it was new and surprising to me, a non-Cuban viewer.

Blazquez traces Che's route from Argentine leftism, to Cuban guerilla warfare, to execution of prisoners, to international terrorism. Underlying the film is a convincing case that Che Guevara is a spiritual father to Osama bin Laden. As evidence, Blazquez documents a foiled Guevara plot to bomb New York City in the 1960s, that had it succeeded, would have been America's first 9/11.

The film is powerful, compelling, and should be seen by anyone interested in Cuba, international terrorism--or the terrible power of an iconic image.

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 9:50
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Jueves, 14 de abril de 2011

Share on Facebook

http://nobarack08.wordpress.com/2011/04/13/bill-o%E2%80%99reilly-%E2%80%98the-clown-prince-of-spin%E2%80%99-or-just-%E2%80%98dumber-then-a-box-of-rocks-%E2%80%99/

Bill O?Reilly ?The Clown Prince of Spin? or just ?Dumber then a box of?Rocks.?

Bill O?Reilly is becoming the center act under the FauxNews circus of yellow journalism. When Keith Olberman was booted off MSNBC because even ?space aliens? couldn?t swill the rancid kool-aide anymore, up to the plate steps Big Top Bill, and his version of denigrating, condescending, and misreporting the facts in his spin zone.

?Using his ?Talking Points Memo? segment, Bill decided to go through the numerous conspiracy theories concerning Barack Obama, omitting and disregarding the facts and evidence that Bill refuses to see, even when placed directly in front of his face, conveniently ignoring the evidence and spins his web of lies.

?As Bill stated ?So in the interest of no spin, it is my pleasure to set the record straight.?

Item: Mr. Obama has not released his medical records.

Bill?s spin; His doctor says he?s in good health and has put that in writing.

The fact is that when John McCain was asked about his health records, McCain released over 1200+ pages to the public for review. Obama on the other hand issued a 276 word note from his doctor. That?s correct the entire medical history issued by Obama was a 276 worded note. Nothing more.

Item: No birth certificate has been made public.

Bill?s spin. But the state of Hawaii has, once again, said Mr. Obama?s birth certificate is on file. A certificate of live birth has been released. A ?Factor? investigation also showed Mr. Obama was born in a Honolulu hospital and we stand by our reporting.

Bill O?Reilly says he spoke to Hawaiian officials ? the birth certificate exists! (Too bad that?s not what the Governor says.)

Facts; What?s is Bill claiming as a ?Birth Certificate?? A notation on file that the current Gov of Hawaii states that?s all that is there, a notation? Where is the hospital generated long form that lists the hospital, doctor, witnesses, etc? What ?Factor? investigation did Bill and Team Spin do? The same lame depth reporting that excepts that a birth announcement in a paper equates to a legal document, when there is no information that establishes the facts as to where or when the birth took place. The ?certification of live birth? that Obama reported to have posted is a forgery and a questionable document.

The ?Obama COLB? is supposed to be a self authenticating document with an official record on file. Two separate Hawaiian officials state that no such record exists, therefore how can the COLB be viewed as factual? Why does the ?Obama COLB? state ?FILED? and not ?ACCEPTED?, and why is this important.

?Why was the Obama issued story of Dr. Rodney West proven to be a lie and debunked in mere hours?

The officials from the State of Hawaii, have also been caught in lies and have had to alter their ?corrections? because of their blantant lies have been exposed.?They claimed first to have provided the COLB electronically. After it was exposed that Hawaii does not issue any vital records electronically, they then attempted to state that all the records were lost in a fire. When they got caught with that lie, they then stated that all the records were transferred digitally. That has been proven to be a lie. Then they stated that only the shortened abstract known as the ?Certification of Live Birth? or the COLB is currently issued. Again, exposed as a lie.

Lies after lies, after lies.

?Neil Ambercrombie, current Gov of Hawaii, used a search warrant and was not able to locate any records in Hawaii of the supposed Barack Abdallah Husein Obama?s birth, per Ambercrombie ?there is no proof that Obama was born in Hawaii?

?Former Elections official Tim Adams, ?there is no long form Birth Certificate on file in Hawaii for Barack Obama?

?Additional information that conflicts with Barack Obama being born anywhere in the United States includes the following;

?As a State Senator Obama admits childhood in Kenya, Obama?s next big international journey will be in 2007 ?he?s looking at China, India and Indonesia, ?where ironicall I actually have more of a childhood than I do in Kenya.?

?Michelle Obama ? Obama, a Kenyan, when we visited Barack?s ?Home Country? of Kenya, on video multiple times.

?Newspaper articles;

?NPR Radio ? Kenyan Born

Nigerian-Observer ? Kenyan Born

All Africa ? Kenyan Born

My Auburn California ? Kenyan Born

East African Standard ? Kenyan Born

Ghana News ? Kenyan Born

Modern Ghana ? - Continent of his birth

Newspage Weekly ? Kenyan Born

BBC News ? who last visited his Kenyan home in 1992

Sunday Standard ? Kenyan Born

Tanzania ? US Senator born here, He?s born here, who live in the US.

The Kenyan Government Official James Orengo ?If America was living in a situation where they feared ethnicity and did not see itself as a multiparty state or nation, how could a young man born here in Kenya, who is not even a native American, become the President of America?

If there is no Birth Certificate in file in Hawaii, which means that the Obama COLB is worthless.

But in all fairness, Bill O?Reilly need only answer four questions to prove how fair and balanced his really is?

  1. Why are the same questions that Donald Trump is asking, that an 18 year military officer Terry Lakin is serving time in Leavenworth prison and the media never reported on his court martial?
  2. How does just being born in the United States qualify anyone for the Presidency, when the United States Constitution requires that only a ?Natural-Born Citizen? is eligible and does the Constitutional requirement allow for anchor babies?
  3. With the evidence that is presented above that contradicts the fabled nativity and fabricated background and history of Barack Obama, why isn?t the media demanding answers?
  4. Why is Barack Obama using a Social Security Number issued to a another person in the State of Connecticut, who was born in 1890 and issued in 1977, when Barack Obama was already working in Hawaii? How is this possible and is this not identity theft?

If you were a female Bill I would honestly ask ?whom did you sleep with to get the job? or ?how much did it take to sell your soul to the devil, to sell your country down the drain?? It?s sick and self centered people like your self that display classic narcissistic personality disorder that elevate themselves, and disregard common sense and refuse to see the facts and question when conflicting evidence is presented. Maybe what you need is a real debate with people of opposing views and fact?s, instead of telling people like Donald Trump ?I?m sure you believe Obama was born in Hawaii?.

?That?s my ?Talking Points Memo?. ?What say you, Bill O?Reilly?

UPDATE!

Purveyor of falsehoods outright lies again.

Bill O?Reilly in replying to an email that asked about Barack Abdallah Husein Obama?s Connecticut Social Security Number stated that Barack Obama Sr lived in the State of Connecticut and that Obama Sr provided the address.

As usual, when the facts don?t fit O?Reilly?s spin, Bill outright lies.

In September 1962, after a tour of mainland U.S. universities, Obama Sr. traveled to Cambridge, Massachusetts where he began a graduate fellowship in economics at Harvard University and rented an apartment in a rooming house near Central Square in Cambridge. He was in Cambridge, Massachusetts ? 1962?1965.

Barack Obama Sr was never a resident of Connecticut!

?Or the fact that Stanley Ann and Barack Obama Sr. were divorced in 1963

Marriage:? 1960; Divorce: 1963
Wife:? [Stanley] Ann DUNHAM

Obama fraudulant Social Security Number was issued in March of 1977 to a person born in 1890. Barack Obama started using that number in 1980. Obama Sr was back in Kenya at this time.

Come on Bill, lie your A$$ off some more.


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 13:38
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Share on Facebook

http://radiopatriot.wordpress.com/2011/04/14/there-he-goes-again/?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=286677

There he goes?again?

. . . . .

UPDATED WITH VIDEO


The O?Bloviator?s been spinning on the Factor again, folks. ?This pompous ass is amazingly sloppy with his facts. ?Maybe his producers aren?t ?watching out for him?? Deliberately feeding him misinformation to make him look even more foolish than he already does? ?Or?naw! ?Couldn?t be he?d intentionally lie to YOU, the folks he?s watching out for?.

Retired USNR Commander Charles Kerchner, lead plaintiff in the case of Kerchner et al v Obama caught this on Wednesday evening?s ?The Spin Stops Here But not Really, O?Reilly? show.

Bill O?Reilly told a big fat whopper and piece of disinformation on the ending email comments segment of his TV show tonight when he said in answer to an email comment about Obama having a SSN from CT, O?Reilly then said that Obama?s father lived for several years in CT and probably got it for his son.

When that CT number was issued circa Mar 1977, Obama?s father was back in Kenya for many years and Obama was age 15 living in Hawaii in the legal custody of his maternal grandparents. There is no way Obama Sr. in Kenya could have requested a SSN for Obama Jr. living in Hawaii and got issued a CT SSN.

It also should be pointed out that Harvard, which is the New England college Obama Sr. attended for a few years in the early 1960s before returning to Kenya, is in Massachusetts, not Connecticut. So O?Reilly is either completely stupid or he is purposely putting out false information to protect Obama.

NOTE: ?OReilly attended Boston College and took a course or two at Harvard. ?He knows quite well where both those institutions of higher learning are located.

Is O?Reilly dancing to the tune or Obama?s Homeland Security Department warnings and disinformation to keep Obama?s usurpation a national security secret with fear of violence threats if Obama?s fraud is exposed or is O?Reilly simply a closet progressive and Obama?s lapdog?

Listen to this audio interview of Susan Daniels, Licensed Private Investigator, of the great state of Ohio at about 18 minutes and 25 seconds in where she destroys the above false story that O?Reilly repeated tonight. Listen to the entire audio if you have time. It?s 34 minutes full of good, solid information on the Obama fraudulent use of a CT SSN.
http://www.t-room.us/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/SDInterview.mp3

Obama should be charged with criminal felony identity theft for using since at least 1986 someone else?s CT SSN, and criminal felony Selective Service Registration fraud for filing a back-dated SSS registration via his contacts in the Chicago IL regional selective service registration office circa 2007/2008 when he decided to run for President.

The truth must be allowed to come out. It will come out eventually. The longer the grifter and usurper in chief is in the Oval Office and is the commander of our military, the more damage he will do to our nation, republic, and constitution. When will the cowardly Congress and courts act? ?The Central American country of Honduras had more backbone in dealing with an unconstitutional President than our Congress and Courts do. Obama is making American the laughing stock of the world and is a grave threat to our liberty. He must be removed by Congress as a usurper.

CDR Kerchner (Ret)
www.protectourliberty.org

Sorry O?Bloviator. The spin stops here.


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 13:30
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Share on Facebook

An Elaborate Hoax and Conspiracy

??
?

WHY WAS REQUIRED ELIGIBILITY WORDING OMITTED FROM THE HAWAII DEMOCRAT PARTY?S NOMINATION CERTIFICATES IN 2008?

by Arnie Rosner

Brian Schatz was Chairman of the Hawaii Democrat Party in 2008 and is now the Lt. Governor. The Post & Email has contacted him by letter and telephone to ask why eligibility wording was removed from the party's nomination certificates in 2008, but his office refuses to respond.

(Apr. 14, 2011) ? We are constantly reminded of the dignity of our fellow man. ?As humans the highest honor one human can pay another is the simple act of recognition. So I expect it is not surprising that, in my opinion, one of the most despicable crimes against our fellow humankind is to deprive our trusting fellow Americans of our dignity.

Throughout history many people have seen examples of where those in whom high levels of trust have been placed turn out to sadly betray that trust. ?In many cases the people are betrayed by those who were elevated to exalted levels of admiration.

How sad and painful it must be for many Americans to learn that indeed, once more, they must bear the sad disappointment and realization of having to ultimately acknowledge that their trust and adulation were misguided and that one more time, their trust has been abused.

In this case for many Americans, great pride had been taken that as a society we had evolved to a point where recognition for an individual was based on merit, above all other considerations, to be elected to the highest position of responsibility of the free world. ?It is indeed too bad this high level of human evolution, to which we had aspired, ?to which we had believed we had achieved, was marred by an elaborate hoax and conspiracy.

Ladies and Gentlemen of America?there appears a very strong case that indicates we have been had!

Now as to your comments, Mr. Boehner?are you still maintaining it is good enough for you?

And there is more.

QUESTIONS FOR CONGRESS

QUESTION 1: Why, after including the legally-required language for previous Democratic candidates in elections past, did chairperson Brian Schatz, acting on behalf of the Democrat Party of Hawaii, refuse to include the legally-required language upon submitting it for the approval of that state party?s 2008 Official Certification of Nomination when they submitted it to Kevin B. Cronin and the Hawaiian Election Commission?

QUESTION 2: Did Kevin Cronin, Hawaiian Chief Elections Officer in 2008, approve the placement of Barack Obama?s name on the presidential ballot for the 2008 federal election in spite of the fact that explicit language stating that Obama was Constitutionally eligible to run for president was omitted from the Official Certification of Nomination submitted by the Democrat Party of Hawaii?

QUESTION 3: Did Kevin Cronin, Chief Elections Officer, in coordination with the Hawaiian Election Commission, and HRS 11-113 (1)(d), notify Barack Obama in writing of his eligibility or disqualification for placement on the Hawaiian presidential ballot and what date did he provide this notification?

QUESTION 4: If a notice of disqualification was sent to Obama, upon receiving this notice from the Hawaiian Elections Commission, did Barack Obama file a request, per HRS 11-113 (1)(e), in writing to Mr. Cronin, and what date did he submit this request?

QUESTION 5: Did Cronin schedule Obama to a hearing and what date was this hearing scheduled?

QUESTION 6: Where was Obama between October 20th and 24th, 2008?
?

?QUESTION 7: Was Obama present in Hawaii during the time when a hearing was conducted with the Hawaiian Elections Commission regarding his disqualification from the 2008 Hawaiian Presidential ballot?

QUESTION 8: Why did the Democratic National Committee author two separate Official Certifications of Nomination for Barack Obama, sending one version to Hawaii but not the other 49 states?

QUESTION 9: Did The DNC send two separate versions of its OCON to the Hawaiian Election Commission, and if so, why did it do this?

QUESTION 10: What secret evidence, which was obviously not accessible to the Democrat Party of Hawaii (the very state Obama was born in), did Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic National Committee acquire to determine Barack Obama?s legal qualifications to serve under the provisions of the U.S. Constitution and, thereby, include such language in its OCON?

QUESTION 11: When it was determined that the state and national party authorities of the Democratic Party did not agree on the status of Barack Obama?s eligibility, did the Chief Elections Officer of Hawaii, Kevin Cronin, determine to include Obama on the Hawaii presidential election ballot with authority provided by HRS 11-113(b).

QUESTION 12: What documented evidence was used by the DNC, which was not available to the Democrat Party of Hawaii, to determine that Barack Obama was legally qualified to serve as President under the provisions of the U.S. Constitution?

One more question for Representative Rohrabacher, Speaker Boehner, ?Representative Bachmann, Representative Lofgren and Senator Leahy


? 2011, The Post & Email. All rights reserved internationally, unless otherwise specified. To read more on our copyright restrictions, see our Copyright notice on the subheader of every page, along the left margin.

------------------------------
?
Read related:
?
http://thedailypen.blogspot.com/2011/01/o-con-had-legal-help-from-non-partisan.html
?
New analysis of Democrat Party's official 2008 Certification of Nominations for Obama reveals that reasons for his sudden trip to Hawaii in October, 2008 were to visit more than just his sick grandmother. Hawaiian election laws, media accounts and post-dated documents reveal he may have attended a private hearing with the Hawaiian Chief Elections Officer regarding his disqualification from the Hawaiian ballot due to lack of certified Constitutional eligibility.

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 11:35
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Share on Facebook

Who is Jean Paul?Ludwig?

?2011 drkate

Senator Reed, PA, J. P. Ludwig's employer

Jean Paul Ludwig came to the United States from France to work for Pennsylvania Senator David Aiken Reed in 1924 arriving through Ellis Island.

Senator Reed, whose book collections include multiple volumes in French, was the co-author of the Immigration Act of 1924 that limited immigration to the United States to certain ?geographic? (read race) areas. Senator Reed was buried in Arlington National Cemetery in 1953

From the Ellis Island records:

Place of Birth: France, Ammersville.

Height 5′5″, Complexion Dk., Hair Br., Eyes Br., Marks of ID: None

First Name: Jean P.
Last Name: Ludwig
Ethnicity: France
Last Place of Residence: Washington, D.C.
Date of Arrival: Aug 12, 1924
Age at Arrival: 34 Gender: M Marital Status: S
Ship of Travel: Leviathan
Port of Departure: Cherbourg, France
Manifest Line Number: 0008

U.S. Social Security Death Index
Name: Jean Ludwig
Birth Date: 17 February 1890
Zip Code of Last Residence: 96816 (Honolulu,HI)
Death Date: June 1981
Estimated Age at Death: 91

Jean Paul Ludwig is also the person whose? Social Security Number was stolen is being used by Barack Hussein Obama.

?

Identity Theft as a Foundation

?

Stolen Identity

This stunning information? including name, death location and date?combined with the perfect circumstances of Madelyn Payne Dunham?s access to Hawaii probate records in 1981, reveals the unforgivable, criminal conclusion that the person named ?Barack Hussein Obama? has/is committed/ing identity theft and is fraudulently occupying the office of the Presidency.

An entire false identity was created for Obama/Soetoro/Dunham using Mr. Ludwig?s social security number, available to Madelyn Dunham when Ludwig died in Honolulu in June 1981. The T-Room notes that Obama?s use of this social security number

?has been tied to Obama?s State Senate and US Senate offices and his private residences, as well as land line phone numbers since coming stateside to attend Occidental College in California?and further surfaced in his back-dated, fraudulent Selective Service registration.

Obama is using Ludwig?s SSN right now as an occupant of the White House.

The T-Room?s interview with Susan Daniels, approximately one hour, discusses that back-dating of Obama?s Selective Service registration occurred sometime between 2007-2008.

Who is Sitting in the White House?

Since there is certainly no authenticated Hawaiian Long Form Birth Certificate in the name of Barack Hussein Obama II, and no authenticated Kenyan Birth Certificate in the name of Barack Hussein Obama II, America has absolutely no idea who is sitting in the Oval Office. Except?

We do know? that based on his life story, Obama is not a natural born citizen? and never can meet the eligibility requirements of? the U.S. Constitution for the office of the Presidency.

We also now know that Obama has been using stolen social security number?identity? for? thirty years.

Now it is clear that the narrative upon which Obama stands as a politician political character is a house of cards, sand, and mirages?his ?roots? in a foreign father? his fatal constitutional flaw. Obama is incapable of meeting our Founders? most stringent and urgent demand for the Presidency: loyalty to America alone.

To urgently call attention to the problem we face with a usurper, be aware!? A Natural Born Citizen would not have gone to war against Libya by himself, using our men and women.? A Natural Born Citizen would be aware of the historic reasons why the Founders did not vest that power in the President.

In the meantime, the media buffoons, liars and communists by proxy continue to cover for Obama? as Bill O?Lielly lives up to his name once again.

The Stunning Scale of? Operation(s) Deception

Starting with identity theft before ?Obama? was 20 years old, an entire ?career? was fabricated? some of which we know but most remains as secret as Operation Paperclip. (Yes, the reference was intentional as the parallels are too strong to miss).? The deception of? birthplace-versus natural born citizenship?through the multiple birth certificates, the failure to verify and vet, the disguise of ?the parties??all these combined in 2008 to pull off the greatest crime against the American people since the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.? Pure deception. A ?fairy tale?

The republicans ran the poorest candidate, John McCain and then undermined Sarah Palin?MCain?s best chance to beat Obama.? Then House-Speaker and DNC Chairwoman Nancy Pelosi certified to fifty states that Obama was constitutionally eligible for the Presidency.? Chief Justice John Roberts illegally and knowingly administered the Oath of Office to a usurper?twice, once outside of public view and without a Bible.? Knowingly and with malice aforethought, the planned usurpation of the Presidency was orchestrated by the media and? in retrospect, a ?well known? secret between the republican-democrat-progressive cabal.

Now, who is Jean Paul Ludwig?

?

Usurper breaking into the White House.


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 11:27
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Mi?rcoles, 13 de abril de 2011

Share on Facebook

WND Exclusive


BORN IN THE USA?

Eligibility verification

just 1 vote from governor

Oklahoma lawmakers chasing

Arizona to be 1st with requirement


Posted: April 13, 2011
8:28 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
??2011?WorldNetDaily

?


Obama on the campaign trail

A regional tea party leader who met recently with possible GOP 2012 presidential contender Donald Trump to discuss Barack Obama's eligibility says states need to do something soon to begin closing the gap exposed in 2008 when Obama was elected and took office without documenting his qualifications under the Constitution's requirement presidents be a "natural born citizen."

And Kelly Townsend of Phoenix Tea Party just might be getting her wish, if a couple more votes fall into place and the governors involved are agreeable.

That's because two bills pending in state legislatures to require state vetting of candidates not only remain alive but are advancing.

Be the first to get the new eligibility book signed by Jerome Corsi and help get TV commercials on the air to bust this issue wide open!

Senate Bill 91 in Oklahoma has been approved in the Senate and is out of committee in the state House, leaving only a couple of votes before the representatives before it could be turned over to the governor.

Not complicated, it requires that all candidates ? not just those for president ? shall "provide proof of identity and eligibility to hold the office."

It provides that the secretary of state write up rules to specify the documentation that will be required and that such documents will be made available for public inspection.


?
?
Specifically, for presidential candidates, it requires them to "provide proof of identity" as well as citizenship and also submit an original birth document.

In Arizona, a similar plan advanced out of the state Senate and faces only a single concurrence vote in the state House before it could go to Gov. Jan Brewer.

It requires similar documentation, but also includes a provision that identifying documents for a presidential candidate could be the same ones as those used to acquire a top security clearance in the federal government.

Townsend told WND that the gap is that there is no procedure or standard for making certain that the candidates for president, in fact, meet the demands of the U.S. Constitution, to be age 35, a resident in the U.S. for 14 years and a "natural born citizen."

The questions have arisen over Obama because while he has talked about his birth in Hawaii, he's offered no documentation but a "Certification of Live Birth" online image of a document that during the time of Obama's birth was available to any child whose parents would state he or she was born in Hawaii, whether true or not.

Townsend said she and several others met recently with Trump, who has been raising the issue of Obama's eligibility to stratospheric heights in nearly every interview he conducts, but there were no immediate plans made as he has not yet formally announced a candidacy.

She said the Arizona delegation was able to discuss with Trump the proposed law there, and she believes Arizona's lead on the controversy is very important. And she suggested that the issue will continue until it is resolved, and halfway answers probably aren't going to suffice.

The New York Times has contended that Hawaii has "confirmed" that the online document is authentic, however no state official has publicly verified it is Obama's Certification of Live Birth. They have said they have Obama's records, but they haven't detailed what information they include.

WND has reported on the state-level efforts to ensure that candidates for the Oval Office meet the requirements established in the U.S. Constitution.

The plans also appeared this year in New Hampshire, Montana, Iowa, Maine, Tennessee, Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, Missouri, Nebraska and Texas. Some efforts are conclusively out of the running, and in some states plans already are being made for next year, which still would give states time to impose a requirement for the 2012 election. .

New Hampshire last year adopted HB1245, but it requires only a statement under penalty of perjury that a candidate meets the qualification requirements of the U.S. Constitution, which is similar to what the political parties already state regarding their candidates.

At the time the Constitution was written, many analysts suggest, a natural-born citizen was considered to be a citizen born of two citizen parents. If that indeed is correct, Obama never would have been qualified to be president, as he himself has confirmed his father was a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, making Obama a dual citizen with Kenyan and American parentage at his birth.

Other definitions regard a natural-born citizen to be a person born of citizen parents inside the nation.

There have been dozens of lawsuits and challenges over the fact that Obama's natural-born citizen status never has been documented. The controversy stems from the Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, which states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."

The challenges to Obama's eligibility allege he does not qualify because he was not born in Hawaii in 1961 as he claims, or that he fails to qualify because he was a dual citizen, through his father, of the U.S. and the United Kingdom's Kenyan territory when he was born and the framers of the Constitution specifically excluded dual citizens from eligibility.

There are several cases still pending before the courts over Obama's eligibility. Those cases, however, almost all have been facing hurdles created by the courts' interpretation of "standing," meaning someone who is being or could be harmed by the situation. The courts have decided almost unanimously that an individual taxpayer faces no damages different from other taxpayers, therefore doesn't have standing. Judges even have ruled that other presidential candidates are in that position.

The result is that none of the court cases to date has reached the level of discovery, through which Obama's birth documentation could be brought into court.

Obama even continued to withhold the information during a court-martial of a military doctor, Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, who challenged his deployment orders on the grounds Obama may not be a legitimate president. Lakin was convicted and sent to prison.

A year ago, polls indicated that roughly half of American voters were aware of a dispute over Obama's eligibility. Recent polls, however, by organizations including CNN, show that roughly six in 10 American voters hold serious doubts that Obama is eligible under the Constitution's demands.

Orly Taitz, the California lawyer who has worked on a number of the highest-profile legal challenges to Obama, was encouraging residents of other states to get to work.

"We need eligibility bills filed in each and every state of the union ... as it shows the regime that we are still the nation of law and the Constitution, that the Constitution matters and state representatives and senators are ready to fight for the rule of law. During the last election there were some 700 more Republican state assemblyman elected all over the country, as the nation is not willing to tolerate this assault on our rights and our Constitution any further," she said.

There also was, during the last Congress, Rep. Bill Posey's bill at the federal level.

Posey's H.R. 1503 stated:

"To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require the principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of President to include with the committee's statement of organization a copy of the candidate's birth certificate, together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution."

The bill also provided:

"Congress finds that under ? the Constitution of the United States, in order to be eligible to serve as President, an individual must be a natural born citizen of the United States who has attained the age of 35 years and has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years."

It had more than a dozen sponsors, and while it died at the end of the last Congress, there are hopes the GOP majority in the House again will move such a plan forward.

There also is a petition, already signed by tens of thousands, to state lawmakers asking them to make sure the next president of the United States qualifies under the Constitution's eligibility requirements.

"What we need are hundreds of thousands of Americans endorsing this strategy on the petition ? encouraging more action by state officials before the 2012 election. Imagine if just one or two states adopt such measures before 2012. Obama will be forced to comply with those state regulations or forgo any effort to get on the ballot for re-election. Can Obama run and win without getting on all 50 state ballots? I don't think so," said Joseph Farah, CEO of WND, who is behind the idea of the petition.

An earlier petition had been directed at all controlling legal authorities at the federal level to address the concerns expressed by Americans, and it attracted more than half a million names.

For nearly two years, Farah has been one of the few national figures who has steadfastly pushed the issue of eligibility, despite ridicule, name-calling and ostracism at the hands of most of his colleagues. To date, in addition to the earlier petition, he has:

Farah says all those campaigns are continuing.

"Obama may be able to continue showing contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law for the next two years, as he has demonstrated his willingness to do in his first year in office," he wrote in a column. "However, a day of reckoning is coming. Even if only one significant state, with a sizable Electoral College count, decides a candidate for election or re-election has failed to prove his or her eligibility, that makes it nearly impossible for the candidate to win. It doesn't take all 50 states complying with the law to be effective."

If you are a member of the media and would like to interview Joseph Farah about this campaign, e-mail WND.


Read more: Eligibility verification just 1 vote from governor http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=286677#ixzz1JSRkhx7J

?


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 21:48
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Share on Facebook

Is Obama Ineligibility a Side Show or the Main Event?

??
?

BIRTHERS, HISTORIANS AND OBOTS? DEFINITIONS OF ?NATURAL BORN CITIZEN?

by JB Williams,??2011

The Certification of Live Birth does not contain the details, nor resemble the format, of a long-form birth certificate which the state of Hawaii now contends cannot be released to anyone

(Apr. 13, 2011) ? Despite monumental efforts to keep Obama?s entire past completely under wraps, questions persist over who and what Barack Hussein Obama really is and how a half-term senate political neophyte with a totally blank resume managed to defeat the Clinton machine to become the most secretive president in U.S. history. Is it a side show, or the main event?

Because Obama has refused to release his official vault birth certificate, college, passport records or family history including all medical records, and because he and those covering for him insist that there is ?nothing to see here? ? many Americans are increasingly interested in how Obama was able to happen to America.

His many overt anti-American and anti-constitution policies have driven speculation that not only is he not a natural born citizen eligible for the office he holds, he may not even be American at all.

Business mogul Donald Trump appears ready to run for office on the search for a real Obama birther certificate. Not a COLB, but a real authentic birth certificate that looks just like every other American birth certificate.

The press is largely responsible for the ongoing circus, as they have been completely uninterested in the matter for almost three years now.? Never before in history has the press taken so little sincere journalistic interest in what could be the greatest scam ever perpetrated on American voters.

They still claim that Obama?s COLB (Certification of Live Birth) is an actual birth certificate, even though we all know that it isn?t. We have seen real Hawaii birth certificates from people born in Hawaii on the same day Obama claims to have been born, even from the same hospital.

But is the missing birth certificate the real issue?

We all agree that the constitution requires one to be a natural born citizen of the United States to be president ? ?No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President;? ? But there is more than one definition of natural born citizen being proposed.

  • The Obot definition is simply citizen ? native, natural, naturalized, hatchet, all being one in the same, using 14th Amendment naturalization arguments which are actually unrelated to the subject.
  • The birther definition is one line borrowed from Vattel?s book on the Law of Nations ? ?The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.? ? But this definition ignores everything else Vattel said on the matter.
  • The historians definition also comes from Vattel?s Law of Nations, but relies on the entire body of work; 1) As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights; 2) The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; 3) in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

According to the Obot definition, all American citizens are natural born citizens eligible for office, including 14th Amendment citizens, which means, Article II ? Section I ? Clause V of the constitution means nothing at all.

According to birthers searching for an authentic Hawaiian birth certificate, confirming Obama?s birthplace, or native born status, will establish whether or not Obama is eligible for the office he holds.

Obama is happy with both of these definitions. The Obot definition of ?citizen? sets the bar so low that Obama is confident he can meet that test, as could any anchor baby or 14th Amendment citizen.

Once birthers help Obots establish that native and natural born are the same thing, Obama will likely find his missing birth certificate, even if the ink is not yet dry.

His opposition will claim that the runny ink on the wrong paper proves it is a forgery, but Obama?s defense team, known as the U.S. Justice Department, will argue that it is authentic. Leftist self-made Academics at FactCheck and Snopes will confirm and the press will say, ?See, we told ya so!?

The Supreme Court that has dodged the question for three years will continue to dodge the question. Obama?s name will appear on the 2012 presidential ballot in all 50 states and anyone opposed will be labeled a racist.

But the historian?s definition is not only factually correct ? it leaves Obama no escape route and we don?t even need to find the missing birth certificate.

1) those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers;

2) The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children;

3) it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen;

The true historical meaning of the term natural born citizen is based in natural law, not man-made law.

The Law of Nations is the foundation, but not just the line birthers choose to hang their hat on, but the balance of the entire work, which clearly identifies the bloodline of the natural birth father as the source from which all rights succeed, specifically, natural born citizenship.

We do not need a Hawaiian birth certificate because Obama has repeatedly identified his natural birth father as Barack Hussein Obama I of Kenya, who was at no time in his life a citizen of the United States. Therefore, Barack Hussein Obama I could not have passed U.S. natural born citizenship to his son, Barack Hussein Obama II.

As a constitutional law student, certainly, Barack Hussein Obama knows this, and that is why he is thrilled that people continue the silly search for a missing Hawaiian birth certificate, which would only affirm his native born status and also identify Barack Hussein Obama I as his natural birth father.

Because natural rights are transferred to offspring via the bloodline of the father, Barack Hussein Obama II cannot be a natural born citizen of the United States, no matter where he might have been born.

Why are birthers still in search of a birth certificate? What do they think they can gain from finding that missing document?

If the goal is to uphold the constitution and preserve the future of the constitutional republic, then they need only remove Obama from office, along with all who participated in the grandest scam ever perpetrated upon American voters.

Members of Congress and the Supreme Court either know this truth, or they should. They are either looking the other way for political gain, or they are horrifically unqualified for the jobs they currently hold. Either way, they are complicit?

The ongoing search for a birth certificate is a dangerous distraction from the search for truth. The future of freedom and liberty hang in the balance. The people must get this one right, or they will get nothing else right.

This matter is no side show ? it is the main event!

????????

JB Williams is co-founder of the Patriots Union.

? 2011, The Post & Email. All rights reserved internationally, unless otherwise specified. To read more on our copyright restrictions, see our Copyright notice on the subheader of every page, along the left margin.


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 19:34
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Share on Facebook

OPINION

IT?S THE SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER STUPID!

Posted by helen

Stanley Ann Dunham's SS Card

By Helen Tansey

The Obama nativity scavenger hunt continues to capture the attention of many citizens here in the US, as well as abroad, but what is flying under the radar, and cannot be disputed, is Obama?s use of a Social Security Number (SSN) issued in the spring of 1977 with it first appearing on his Selective Service Registration of which he applied on September 4, 1980. There are serious problems with this SSN with the first being it appears to have been originally assigned to another individual born in 1890, and secondly, when verified using several Social Security Administration verifying databases it is rejected as ?NOT FOUND IN THE SOCIAL SECURITY INDEX? and finally it is a Connecticut issued SSN; a state in which Obama was not living in at the age of 15.? This SSN has been tied to Obama?s State Senate and US Senate offices and his private residents, as well as land line phone numbers since coming stateside to attend Occidental College in California.

Now that Donald Trump has crowned himself a ?birther? he too is making it abundantly clear to any and all who will dare listen that the digital Certification of Live Birth (COLB) is meaningless, because it is and always has been, but he needs to widen his scope of interest to include the oddities permeating around the President?s Social Security Number. For nearly two years now, the SSN peculiarities have percolated just below the dubious Certification of Live Birth, and it it has yet to bubble up to the top as being more significant in undoing the fabricated tale Bill Ayers wove together in Obama?s two autobiographies. More importantly, you can?t change a SSN record, but you can certainly create a long-form birth certificate just in time for the 2012 elections. Which is what many are anticipating, and now with Donald Trump entering the fray you can count on such a document entering into the public arena and soon. Afterall, anyone who has studied this issue knows the Obama camps next step is to embarrass the ?birthers? by producing a long-form birth certificate. That would be checkmate wouldn?t it? Of course, it will be a scanned copy just like the COLB, because it will never hold up under the scrutiny of an independent forensic review team of experts, that is someone other than his former employer, the Annenberg?s,? so get ready for a repeat of a similar ruse coming to a computer screen near you.

There is good news though, and that is, thanks to the tenaciousness of many professional and amateur investigators, who appear to be working independently of one another, have created a hard trail of solid evidence that cannot be undone. As a matter of record, these investigators have only just begun their work; especially into the many different addresses that are associated with Obama?s SSN.

One of these tenacious investigators, Susan Daniels, recently granted the T-Room an exclusive interview which can be heard in full by clicking ?Full Story? below.

The REAL STORY ? the Fraudulent Social Security Number ? An Exclusive T-Room Interview w/Private Investigator, Susan Daniels

For 16 years, Susan Daniels, Private Investigator, License #201021001759, has been employing her investigative skills sleuthing for? lawyers, other investigators, law enforcement professionals and private individuals in and around the state of Ohio. She is the sole proprietor of Susan Daniels & Associates located in Northern Ohio. As a licensed investigator she is privy and has access to numerous databases used by law enforcement officials which remain largely? unavailable to the public.

Frustrated with the direction Obama was taking the country, Daniels at the urging of a client put her skills to work to investigate President Obama. She began this journey by entering the keywords ?Barack Obama, Chicago, Illinois,? into a number of exclusive databases. The first few searches did not provide any information, however several smaller and more obscure databases did. One in particular provided Obama?s Social Security Number (SSN), 042-XX-4425, along with 105 records detailing numerous addresses and land-line phone numbers associated with him and his SSN for more than 25 years. Immediately, as Daniels describes in her interview, she knew the number was fraudulent. We?ll leave it to her to explain why.

But first, to get the most out of this 35 minute interview, you will need to do some sleuthing on your own. To begin your own investigative work click here to see the unredacted Standard People Search to review the 105 records associated with the keywords ?Barack Obama, Chicago Illinois?. These records serve as an excellent starting point for those interested in doing some sleuthing, and for those that aren?t, the papers give you an idea of how busy Obama was while community organizing in Chi-town.

Daniels was able to verify this SSN was issued at one time and to another individual, AND when it was run through different verifiers by her and other sleuths, she/they received these messages ?SSN not found in Social Security Death Index? and ?SSN not on file (never issued)? ? click here and here to see the SSN verifier records.

Next, Daniels began looking into the SSN listed immediately before and after Obama?s number so as to pin down an exact date of issuance. She learned that the individual associated with the number immediately before Obama?s, 042-XX-4424, had passed away. Knowing any expectation of privacy regarding SSNs become moot when a person dies, the individuals parents were tracked down to confirm his place of residence at the time of his original application aka SS-5. The residence listed on the deceased?s original application is Newington, Hartford, CT. Application date March 21, 1977 ? click here to review the original SSA form SS-5 Application.

Daniels also secured from another associate a ?Certification? by the Social Security Administrations, Division of Earnings Record Operations, Office of Central Operations, certifying ?that the annexed computer prinouts showing the dates the information was recorded are true and complete copies of such documents in my custody for Social Security Number 042-XX-4424??? click here and scroll down to second page to see the Social Security Certification.

Let?s pause for a moment to review what Daniels with the assistance of other interested parties has confirmed so far -

  • FACT ? the SSN President Obama used between 1980 ? 2008 was issued in or around March 21, 1977.
  • FACT ? the SSN immediately preceding President Obama?s was certified by the Social Security Administration to be ?true and complete?.
  • FACT ? the SSN was issued in the state of Connecticut.
  • FACT the Social Security Administration cannot verify the SSN President Obama used between 1980 ? 2008.

No where in Obama?s books, writings or interviews does he state he lived in Connecticut when he was a 15 year old ? do the math, Obama?s DOB is August 4, 1961 and the date the SSN was issued was in or around March 21, 1977.? If we are to believe Obama, all of his eyewitnesses, his family and friends we know for a fact he was attending High School in Hawaii in the spring of 1977.

So the obvious question is ? how in blue blazes did Obama get a Connecticut SSN when he was obviously living in Hawaii when he filled out hiss SSA form SS-5 Application form? Well, you can?t very well blame this oddity on the Social Security Administration. Prior to the ?new? language which currently states ?This did not necessarily have to be the State where the applicant lived, since a person could apply for their card in any Social Security Office.? Well, we know Obama was shooting hoops in Hawaii in the spring of 1977 so he certainly didn?t walk into a Social Security office in Connecticut.? What is more useful is the language used prior to this ?new? language change, which details precisely how a SSN is assigned -

Number Has Three Parts

The nine-digit SSN is composed of three parts:

  • The first set of three digits is called the Area Number
  • The second set of two digits is called the Group Number
  • The final set of four digits is the Serial Number

The Area Number is assigned by the geographical region. Prior to 1972, cards were issued in local Social Security offices around the country and the Area Number represented the State in which the card was issued. This did not necessarily have to be the State where the applicant lived, since a person could apply for their card in any Social Security office. Since 1972, when SSA began assigning SSNs and issuing cards centrally from Baltimore, the area number assigned has been based on the ZIP code in the mailing address provided on the application for the original Social Security card. The applicant?s mailing address does not have to be the same as their place of residence. Thus, the Area Number does not necessarily represent the State of residence of the applicant, either prior to 1972 or since.

Again, how did Obama receive a Connecticut SSN at the age of 15 when he was body surfing the waves thousands of miles away in Hawaii?

Daniels provides the answer along with additional facts in her interview linked below, but before we tune in, there is a new very intentional and deliberate item of disinformation that has surfaced recently.? Daniels addresses this purposeful disinformation item in her interview as well, which is the silly notion that the SSN Obama has been using since he was 15 years old is actually an Individual Tax Identification Number (ITIN). Big clue, IT?S NOT! This is pure rubbish AND purposeful, deliberate and intentional disinformation. DO NOT FALL FOR IT. Here?s why ? according to IRS Agent w/ID # 4331084 all ITIN?s begin with the number ?9″. He then referred me to Publication 1915 (revised 11-2010), Page 5, where it states -

What is an ITIN?
An ITIN is a tax processing number, issued by the Internal Revenue Service, for certain resident and nonresident aliens, their spouses, and their dependents. It is a nine-digit number beginning with the number ?9?, has a range of numbers from ?70? to ?88? for the fourth and fifth digits and is formatted like a SSN (i.e. 9XX-7X-XXXX).

The SSN issued by the Social Security Administration is a tax ID as is the ITIN issued by the Internal Revenue Service. These two agencies identify and collect tax monies based on these unique nine-digit identifiers. Do you honestly believe for a millisecond that the IRS and SSA numeric system would use the same numbering system? The answer is an emphatic NO! Plus, this numerical assignment has ALWAYS BEEN the IRS?s practice, that is, ALL ITIN?S BEGIN WITH THE NUMBER ?9′

Now, let?s learn the details from a real investigator who knows what the hell she?s talking about. (Note: below the interview, you will find additional documents and websites to assist you in your research.)

Without further adieu, here?s Susan Daniels in her own words -

The T-Room Exclusive Interview with Susan Daniels, Private Investigator

Additional research documents:

SSS Form 3B (May-07)

Record from old phone number used by President Obama with 1890 date on it.

Additional research websites:

COUNSEL for DNC SERVICES CORPORATION PERFORMS 3 CARD MONTE* for FEDERAL?COURT

EXCLUSIVE: Did Next Commander-in-Chief Falsify Selective Service Registration? Never Actually Register? Obama?s Draft Registration Raises Serious Questions

Some of Stanley Ann (Dunham) Obama Soetoro?s Passport Application Records Are Released due to Strunk FOIA Filing ?
Revised Analysis here. FOIA update(9/8/10) can be viewed here.

Note: all documents and the MP3 interview w/Daniels may be used in your own work. We only ask that you give appropriate credit to the T-Room and if you feel generous a link back to this post.


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 18:50
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Share on Facebook

Wednesday, April 13, 2011

Arizona Senate Passes Proof of Eligibility Legislation; One Step Closer To... Got Papers!?

?



[update] As reported here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here; Montana, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona, Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Indiana, Connecticut, Missouri and Iowa are pursuing legislation that will require presidential and vice-presidential candidates prove they're Constitutionally Eligible. The Arizona legislation just passed HB 2177 in the Senate and it now moves on to the Arizona House and then to Gov. Brewer for her signature. Hat tip to GUL for the heads up and Jeff for the email update from Arizona. The HB 2177 legislation can viewed here. The complete overview here.

Via Jeff: Most of you know, we have been working on this bill for two years. Passed with 21 of 30 votes today in Senate. On to the House next week where we need 31 votes to pass it and if it makes that, final step is on on to Gov. Brewer for signature.

FOR THOSE OF YOU IN ARIZONA, PLEASE HELP BY CALLING ARIZONA HOUSE REPS AND EXPRESS YOUR SUPPORT FOR THE BILL. MAKE SURE THE SECRETARY'S TAKING THE CALLS SAY THEY WILL PASS YOUR SENTIMENTS ON ON TO THE REP. YOU CAN GET THEIR NAMES AND PHONE NUMBERS AT www.azhouse.gov -Thanks, Jeff -snip-

UPDATE: Atty. Taitz reports: I got a phone call from Lyle Rowland, sponsor of the presidential eligibility certification bill in Missouri.The bill finally passed the committees and is going to a full vote of the house this week or next week. Demand that your state representatives and senators vote for the bill.

I got a phone call from Leo Berman, Texas state senator, sponsor of the presidential eligibility certification bill in TX. Mr. Berman is extremely upset with members of the committee refusing to vote on the bill. They just seat on it, while they know that majority of of the state representatives and senators are willing to vote for it. Call each and every committee member and demand scheduling of the bill for vote tomorrow, immediate passing of the bill. Demand answers, whether committee members received some consideration or were intimidated into not bringing the bill to a vote. Call public integrity of unit of the office of the TX Attorney General Greg Abbott and demand immediate investigation, whether committee members received any consideration or we re intimidated into not bringing this bill to a vote. -snip-

Notre Dame Professor Charles Rice: Obama's eligibility could be biggest political fraud in the history of the world; time for a new approach -Details here.?

Attorney Mario Apuzzo: All presidents born after 1787, except for Chester Arthur and Barack Obama, met the ?natural born Citizen? criteria. -Details here.?

Commander Charles Kerchner: List of U.S. Presidents - Eligibility under Article II Grandfather Clause (GFC) or Natural Born Citizen (NBC) Clause or Seated due to Election Fraud -Details here.?

Jack Cashill Discusses Obama's Fraudulent Social Security Number Reserved for Connecticut Applicants -Video here.?

Visit the Birther Vault for the long list of evidence against Hawaii officials and all of the people questioning Obama's eligibility; [http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/08/video-ltc-terry-lakins-attorney-on-cnn.html].
A Catalog of Evidence-Concerned Americans Have Good Reason to Doubt Putative Pres Obama Born in HI
Obama Ineligible! 14 Mar 2011 Washington Times National Weekly edition - pg 5

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 17:57
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Share on Facebook

Bill O?Reilly Aids and Abets Hawaii Department of Health Law-Breakers

??
?

MAKES PATENTLY FALSE STATEMENT ABOUT HAWAII LAW WHICH ?PREVENTS? THE RELEASE OF BIRTH CERTIFICATES

by Sharon Rondeau

Bill O'Reilly says he has a research team which has found that Obama was born in Hawaii and that the image purported to be Obama's birth certificate is authentic. On April 12, 2011, O'Reilly showed the image of the Certification of Live Birth, which contains no signature, no hospital, and no identification of his parents

(Apr. 13, 2011) ? On April 12, 2011, bloviator and faux commentator Bill O?Reilly referred to ?internet spin? and the importance of honesty in regard to reporting on Barack Hussein Obama, then proceeded to lie about the law in the state of Hawaii which governs the availability of records.

O?Reilly has tried to marginalize Donald Trump, along with fellow Fox News show host Glenn Beck, on the issue of Obama?s original, long-form birth certificate.? O?Reilly claimed that Trump?s reason for speaking out was that he ?wanted attention.?? Beck and O?Reilly then discussed whether or not they ?could vote? for Trump, and Beck stated that Trump is making him ?uncomfortable? and stated that the document Trump released is ?worse than Obama?s.?

How could that be true?? At least it had a seal and two signatures.? Nothing Obama has released contains that.

Hawaii statute 338-16 states that in lieu of a certified copy of a record, a verification letter stating that an event took place can be obtained by ?any applicant.?? The Post & Email knows for a fact that a researcher has been trying for over two years to obtain a verification letter about Obama?s birth, and the Hawaii Department of Health has refused to produce it.

Hawaii statute 338-13 reads:

(a) Subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18, the department of health shall, upon request, furnish to any applicant a certified copy of any certificate, or the contents of any certificate, or any part thereof.

(b) Copies of the contents of any certificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original, subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18.

(c) Copies may be made by photography, dry copy reproduction, typing, computer printout or other process approved by the director of health. [L 1949, c 327, ?17; RL 1955, ?57-16; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, ?19; HRS ?338-13; am L 1978, c 49, ?1]

Moreover, the Hawaii Department of Health?s website states that a copy of a government record can be obtained as long as the person requesting it has a ?direct and tangible interest? in the record and that ?Certified copies of these records may be issued to authorized individuals and used for such diverse purposes as school entry, passports, Social Security participation, driver?s licenses, employment, sports participation, survivor?s benefits, proof of property rights, and other needs.?

However, the Hawaii Department of Health has now broken the law by denying the issuance of a long-form, original birth certificate to a man born and residing in Hawaii.

Dr. Chiyome Fukino, former Director of the Department of Health, stated on April 10, 2011 to MSNBC that copies of an original birth record are no longer issued.? As of last month, however, such copies were issued, and one was supplied from a Hawaii resident to The Post & Email via reader and writer Miki Booth.

Amended birth certificates are also provided under certain conditions, including for people born ?in a foreign country? as well as children born outside of Hawaii.

O?Reilly claimed that the Hawaii Department of Health?s statement that Obama?s original vital record is on file there proves that Obama was born there.? However, he has ignored the following:

AllAfrica article, paragraph 11, which states ?Little wonder then why Kenyan-born Barack Obama, America?s first Black President,??

Members of the Kenyan Parliament stating on the record that Obama was born in Kenya (a pity that Greta Van Susteren?s ?On the Record? has not reported this to the American people, instead of saying ?I don?t agree with you on this whole birther issue? and failing to investigate Trump?s claim that Obama?s grandmother has stated that he was born in Kenya);

This statement with audio that a member of the Luo tribe and ?Barack Obama, a Kenyan citizen? might be elected the U.S. president;

The headline here announcing ?Kenyan-born Obama all set for US Senate?;

NPR stating that Obama was born in Kenya;

Obama?s own wife describing Kenya as Obama?s ?home country?;

The Nigerian Observer identifying Obama as ?Kenyan-born?;

This article from Indonesia Matters stating exactly where in Kenya Obama was born.

O?Reilly, Beck, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and many other highly-paid commentators have ignored this evidence that Obama was not born in Hawaii, and Donald Trump is the sole voice demanding answers.

? 2011, The Post & Email. All rights reserved internationally, unless otherwise specified. To read more on our copyright restrictions, see our Copyright notice on the subheader of every page, along the left margin.


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 17:51
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Martes, 12 de abril de 2011

Share on Facebook

Tuesday, April 12, 2011

An Analysis of the Current Revelations of Hawaii?s Dr. Chiyome Fukino to NBC News Regarding Obama?s Place of Birth

?
An Analysis of the Current Revelations of Hawaii?s Dr. Chiyome Fukino to NBC News Regarding Obama?s Place of Birth

By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
April 12, 2011

Recently we saw an article appear at msnbc.com written by Michael Isikoff, National investigative correspondent for NBC News. The article is dated April 10, 2011, and is entitled, ?Ex-Hawaii Official Denounces ?Ludicrous? Birther Claims.? It can be read at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42519951/ns/politics-more_politics# I will now analyze the many problems that exist with this ?investigative? story. My criticisms are directed at both Dr. Fukino and Mr. Isikoff.

The article states:

"The Hawaiian state health official who personally reviewed Barack Obama's original birth certificate has affirmed again that the document is 'real' and denounced 'conspiracy theorists' in the so-called 'birther' movement for continuing to spread bogus claims about the issue.

'It?s kind of ludicrous at this point,' Dr. Chiyome Fukino, the former director of Hawaii's Department of Health, said in a rare telephone interview with NBC.

Fukino, sounding both exasperated and amused, spoke to a reporter in the aftermath of Donald Trump's statements on the NBC Today show last week questioning whether Obama has a legitimate birth certificate.

Trump, who says he is considering a run for president, repeated his claims on CNN's 'State of the Union' Sunday, saying that 'nobody has any information' about the president's birth and that 'if he wasn't born in this country, he shouldn't be president of the United States.'

No matter what state officials release on the issue, the 'birthers' are going to question it, said Fukino. 'They?re going to question the ink on which it was written or say it was fabricated,' said Fukino. 'The whole thing is silly.'?

Here we see nothing but excuses for not releasing Obama?s long-form, hospital generated birth certificate which I will call his ?real birth certificate.? This is not to be confused with a short-form Certification of Live Birth (COLB) dated June 2007 which Obama released on the internet in 2008, which does not contain the name of the birth hospital and the names and signatures of the delivery doctor and other witnesses to the birth.

Isikoff states:

"Contacted by NBC, Fukino expanded on previous public statements and made two key points when asked about Trump's recent comments."

Fukino no longer works for the Hawaii Department of Health. Why did Mr. Isikoff not contact the current health department director who overseas the birth certificates in Hawaii? Why do we have to hear from someone who no longer works for Hawaii and no longer has any control over or access to its vital records files? Why can we not hear from the current official who could tell us what is in the file today?

Mr. Isikoff writes:

"The first is that the original so-called 'long form' birth certificate ? described by Hawaiian officials as a 'record of live birth' ? absolutely exists, located in a bound volume in a file cabinet on the first floor of the state Department of Health. Fukimo said she has personally inspected it ? twice. The first time was in late October 2008, during the closing days of the presidential campaign, when the communications director for the state's then Republican governor, Linda Lingle (who appointed Fukino) asked if she could make a public statement in response to claims then circulating on the Internet that Obama was actually born in Kenya. Before she would do so, Fukino said, she wanted to inspect the files ? and did so, taking with her the state official in charge of vital records."

Fukino is sure to tell us the exact location of where the real birth certificate was located. She gives us great detail to lend credibility to her story. But she does not tell us who this state official was who accompanied her and whether he or she also saw the real birth certificate. She does not identify any other person who allegedly saw the real birth certificate. One would think that such information would be important and lend credibility to her story. But for some unknown reason, she finds it important to give details of where the birth certificate was located but not that someone other than herself actually saw it.

Isikoff then tells us:

"She found the original birth record, properly numbered, half typed and half handwritten, and signed by the doctor who delivered Obama, located in the files."

Why does Fukino tell us that the real birth certificate showed the doctor on it but she fails to tell us that Obama?s birth occurred in a hospital which is what Obama told the public occurred? After all, she knows how much ?birthers? have been demanding to see conclusive proof that Obama was born in Kapi?olani Hospital, the hospital in which Obama says he was born. There would be no violation of any privacy laws for her to simply say that he was born in a hospital, without giving the name of the hospital, just like she said that a doctor delivered Obama and signed the birth certificate. What is suspect is that there were numerous doctors at that time who could have delivered Obama but only two hospitals in which he could have been born, Kapi?olani Hospital or Queens Hospital. In other words, the doctors get lost in the shuffle but the hospitals do not. Just saying that a doctor signed the birth certificate does not open up channels of information that can be independently verified. On the other hand, knowing the birth hospital pins down the place of birth to only two specific locations in which there would be contained medical evidence of the alleged birth there.

The article continues:

"She then put out a public statement asserting to the document's validity. She later put out another public statement in July 2009 ? after reviewing the original birth record a second time."

Why did her public statements back then not include the additional information that she is now willing to share with the public? Why has she waited so long to tell us her information?

Isikoff then quotes Fukino:

?'It is real, and no amount of saying it is not, is going to change that,' Fukino said. Moreover, she added, her boss at the time, Lingle ? who was backing John McCain for president ? would presumably have to be in on any cover up since Fukino made her public comment at the governor's office's request. 'Why would a Republican governor ? who was stumping for the other guy ? hold out on a big secret?' she asked."

Why is Fukino theorizing about what a Republican Governor would or would not do? Either Hawaii has or does not have the real birth certificate. If they have the document, there is no need to theorize that the Republican Governor would not go along with any conspiracy. Additionally, Fukino does not say that Lingle ever saw the real birth certificate. So how could Lingle be involved in any alleged ?cover up? if she was never privy to any information on the issue? By dragging Lingle into the alleged conspiracy makes it look like Lingle had access to some inside information which she would not fabricate because of her opposition position with the Republican Party.

Isikoff continues:

"Her second point ? one she made repeatedly in the interview ? is that the shorter, computer generated 'certification of live birth' that was obtained by the Obama campaign in 2007 and has since been publicly released is the standard document that anybody requesting their birth certificate from the state of Hawaii would receive from the health department.

The document was distributed to the Obama campaign in 2007 after Obama, at the request of a campaign official, personally signed a Hawaii birth certificate request form downloaded on the Internet, according to a former campaign official who asked for anonymity. (Obama was 'testy' when asked to sign the form but did so anyway to put the issue to rest, the former campaign official said."

Why should a former campaign official who was involved in a presidential election and who can shed light on this national crisis issue want to maintain anonymity? Should concerned Americans not be able to learn who was intimately involved in handling Obama?s birth certificate? After all, what is the harm to anyone in knowing that information?

In 2007, there was no issue regarding Obama?s place of birth. The issue of his place of birth came up in 2008. So how could Obama have been ?testy? in having to obtain his birth certificate and for reasons of putting ?the issue to rest?? If there was no place of birth issue in 2007 why did Obama allegedly request his Certification of Live Birth (COLB) in 2007 which he did receive and which is dated June 6, 2007 to put to rest a nonexistent issue? Why have we not heard that Obama used that 2007 COLB by sending a copy of it to someone who he thought needed it? We have not heard that he sent a copy of that document to any state election officials to show that he was a ?natural born Citizen.? Why did Obama wait a whole year before using the 2007 COLB?

Isikoff writes:

"The certification that the campaign received back ?which shows that Obama was born in Honolulu at 7:24 p.m. on Aug. 4, 1961 ? was based on the content of the original document in state files, Fukino said.

'What he got, everybody got,' said Fukino. 'He put out exactly what everybody gets when they ask for a birth certificate.'"

But Fukino fails to tell us who in the Hawaii Department of Health processed in 2007 Obama?s alleged request for a copy of his birth certificate. She does not tell us that she personally looked at the real birth certificate and used it to prepare the COLB. She is only speculating that someone did that. But she does not tell us who would have done that at that time. As the director of that department, she would have known who her employees were at that time. She could have easily identified the employee who prepared the document so that Mr. Isikoff could have done further ?investigative? follow up with that person.

The article continues:

"Hawaiian officials say that the certification is, in fact, only one piece of abundant evidence of Obama's birth in Hawaii. Joshua Wisch, a spokesman for the Hawaii attorney general's office, noted that a public index of vital records, available for inspection in a bound volume at the Health Department's Office of Health Status Monitoring, lists a male child named 'Obama II, Barack Hussein' as having been born in the state."

But this public index only proves that a birth was registered in Hawaii. It is not independent medical evidence of any such birth actually occurring in Hawaii.

The article adds:

"In addition, as Factcheck.org and other media organizations have repeatedly pointed out, both of Honolulu's newspapers, the Honolulu Advertiser on Aug. 13, 1961, and the Honolulu Star Bulletin, on Aug. 14, 1961, both ran birth announcements listing Obama's birth on Aug. 4 of that year."

The newspaper birth announcements are not evidence of a birth in Hawaii. At best they are evidence that the Hawaii Department of Health put those ads in the newspapers based on a birth being registered as having occurred in Hawaii. The announcements are not the product of a medically verified birth in Hawaii. They do not have a direct link to the birth hospital.

The article goes on to say:

"Even Fukino accepts that her comments are not likely to end the matter for the die-hard birthers. Trump and other skeptics have questioned why the original birth certificate has not been released.

But Wisch, the spokesman for the attorney general's office, said state law does not in fact permit the release of "vital records," including an original "record of live birth" ? even to the individual whose birth it records.

'It's a Department of Health record and it can't be released to anybody,' he said. Nor do state laws have any provision that authorizes such records to be photocopied, Wisch said. If Obama wanted to personally visit the state health department, he would be permitted to inspect his birth record, Wisch said.

But if he or anybody else wanted a copy of their birth records, they would be told to fill out the appropriate state form and receive back the same computer generated 'certification of live birth' form that everybody else gets ? which is exactly what Obama did four years ago."

Fukino attacks anyone who will not be convinced by her story, marginalizing them and casting aspersions toward them. It is rather absurd for Mr. Wisch to contend that someone could not get a certified copy of their own birth certificate, especially the President of the United States. There is no law in Hawaii that so provides. On the contrary, the Hawaii Revised Statutes, Section 338-13(a) states that the department "shall, upon request, furnish an applicant a certified copy of any certificate, or the contents of any certificate, or any part thereof." Paragraph (c) also provides that copies of birth certificates "may be made by photograph, dry copy reproduction, typing, computer printout or other process approved by the director of health." Hence, Hawaii?s statutes directly contradict what Mr. Wisch is telling the public.

To further prove that Mr. Wisch is wrong and/or inventing information, we have seen recent examples of people who were born in Hawaii obtain with little fanfare a certified copy of their original long-form, hospital generated birth certificate. A friend of Niki Booth--who was born in Japan, spent much of her life in Hawaii and ran for Congress in 2010 from the Second District of Oklahoma?has a friend who obtained a copy of his long-form, Certificate of Live Birth in March 2011. See the story here,
http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/04/07/exposing-the-birth-certificate-lies-used-to-cover-for-obama/. Also, October 13, 2010, a ?Danae? posted on FreeRepublic a copy of her long-form, birth certificate originally issued in 1969, which she obtained by mail from the Hawaii Department of Health on September 28, 2010 after paying a $10.00 fee. She also posted a copy of the receipt that she got for paying the $10.00 fee.

We know that Governor Abercrombie recently tried to prove that Obama was born in Hawaii. He told the public that he was going to see if he could release Obama?s real birth certificate. Eventually, Abercrombie told the public in a very vague and evasive fashion that he could do no more because of privacy laws. He did say that he found out that Obama?s birth was written down in some state archive. What is strange is that if the long-form birth certificate exists in Obama?s birth file as Fukino is now telling us, why could Abercrombie not tell us the same information that she told us? Why did Abercrombie have to be so evasive and vague about the matter? He could have told us like she did that he went into the health department file and actually saw with his own eyes Obama?s long-form birth certificate and he could have also told us that it contained all the information that Fukino now tells us it contained when she saw it. Abercrombie could have even told us what Fukino left out, i.e., that per the birth certificate, Obama was born in a hospital. Fukino only told us what was in the birth file when she worked there. Abercrombie, as the current Governor, could have told us what is in the file today. That would have been more credible. What is also suspect is that there is no one from Hawaii telling us what is in the health department file today. Rather, Fukino tells us what was in the file in the past. Hearing from someone with official authority tell us what is in the file today would have given the story more credibility given that now Joshua Wisch tells us that today no one can have a copy of the real birth certificate, not even Obama himself, a statement which in itself is incredible and has no basis in law. How convenient can Hawaii get, telling us that at one time the birth certificate was in the file but today no one, not even Obama, is allowed to get a copy of that birth certificate.

What Fukino now tells us is contradicted by former Hawaii election clerk, Tim Adams, who has stated and sworn under oath, that he worked in the Hawaii elections office during the 2008 presidential election and that even though Hawaiian election officials searched for Obama?s long-form, hospital generated birth certificate, none could be found. Rather, what was found was a registration and archive notation which sounds like what Abercrombie has told us.

It is very suspect that Hawaii tells the public what was in Obama?s birth file in the past but does not tell us what is in the file today. Fukino does not even mention that anyone has inspected the file today to see that those same documents are still in it. Why did Mr. Isikoff no reach out to any current officials in the health department for his story? Such a set up is suspicious, for if access to the file is eventually gotten and the alleged real birth certificate is not in there, Fukino can conveniently say that it was there when she looked and she has no control over what happened to it since she does not work there anymore.

What is also suspicious is that Hawaii, using privacy laws as an excuse, will not even release to the public a copy of the documents evidencing someone requested the birth certificate in 2007 and paid for its reproduction costs.

This whole article is also very suspect since we do not have direct quotes from Fukino but rather what Mr. Isikoff summarized to allegedly be her statements. Why would the reporter not provide direct quotes to such important statements?

So where is the grand conspiracy of which the ?birthers? are accused? Based on what Dr. Fukino tells us, there is only one person who has actually seen Obama?s real birth certificate and that is she. Hawaii has not identified any other person who has seen it. So Obama?s nativity story is now held together by only one person, Dr. Fukino. That does not sound like much of a conspiracy story.

Why does Obama not want the public to see his real birth certificate or to learn that no real birth certificate exists? The real birth certificate could reveal information that puts into serious doubt that Obama was in fact born in Hawaii. The absence of a real birth certificate could also put into serious doubt his claim that he was actually born in Hawaii. Or the real birth certificate could contain information that is highly embarrassing to Obama and which could put in jeopardy his life narrative that he has put into the public. Whatever could be the truth of Obama?s problem, the American people whom the President serves are entitled to know which one of those truths it is.

Obama?s supporters are proclaiming Dr. Fukino?s recent revelations are the death of the ?birthers.? On the contrary, as we can see, what Dr. Fukino has recently said is a far cry from finally resolving the issue concerning Obama?s place of birth. If anything, it just has added more suspicion to the whole story.

Donald Trump needs to continue to press forward in his quest to find out what the truth is.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
April 12, 2011
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####

Copyright ? 2011
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 13:47
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Lunes, 11 de abril de 2011

Share on Facebook

By electing Obama without an Amendment, the Constitution has been undermined and a precedent has been established to eliminate the term ?natural born? from Article II, Section I

Obama?s Eligibility: The Big Con


By Lawrence Sellin??Monday, April 11, 2011

imageOrdinary Americans could be forgiven for believing that the Democrat political effete elite and the main stream media (MSM) have been working in parallel to dismantle the Constitution and create a permanent left-wing, multicultural majority in the United States.

Their apparent goal is to transform our republic into a collection of simultaneous arguments, where the only thing we have in common is our differences.

If you?ve been wondering how things got so bad, then you haven?t been paying careful attention to their shenanigans, which is exactly what they hope, would happen.

A major part of that ongoing effort by the left-wing and the MSM involved a political deception to sidestep the Constitution and permit Barack Hussein Obama to run for President.


According to Article II, Section I of the Constitution, Obama has never been eligible for the Presidency because he is not a natural born citizen i.e. someone born in the US of citizen parents at the time of birth.

Over the last thirty years, there have been numerous attempts by Congress to change the Article II natural born requirement to ?native born?, which is, born in the US regardless of parentage or just ?citizen?, whether native or naturalized (good news for Arnold).

By electing Obama without an Amendment, the Constitution has been undermined and a precedent has been established to eliminate the term ?natural born? from Article II, Section I.

One could claim that the ?set-up? of the con began with the fabricated controversy, bolstered by the MSM, questioning the eligibility of Senator John McCain for President under the same Constitutional provision. McCain was born while his Navy officer father was serving at a US military base in the Panama Canal Zone.

It is interesting to note that those who questioned McCain?s eligibility were not called derogatory names like ?birther?. They were deemed serious people asking valid questions related to the Constitution.

The details of the McCain controversy are less important than the means it created to hoodwink voters into thinking that Obama was also eligible for the Presidency. It all was conveniently written into the Congressional Record.

On April 30, 2008 Senate Resolution 511 resolved that John Sidney McCain, III, is a ??natural born Citizen?? under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.

SR 511 had no recorded vote, is not legal or binding

The core argument of SR 511 was the legal analysis co-written by Laurence H. Tribe and rumored conservative Theodore B. Olson.

Tribe is a professor at Harvard Law School and a leading liberal scholar of constitutional law. He was an active supporter of and a legal advisor to Barack Obama during the 2008 campaign.

(I am grateful to Linda A. Melin for her thorough and thought-provoking research? on the subject of natural born citizenship from which I liberally pilfer.)

SR 511 had no recorded vote, is not legal or binding, but cleverly expresses the opinions of those who stand to benefit from them, that is, to sanitize Obama?s ineligibility to be President.

In his memorandum to the Senate, Tribe makes selective arguments, which seem more to serve the interests of Obama than McCain, particularly in the statement:

?These sources all confirm that the phrase ?natural born? includes both birth abroad to parents who were citizens, and birth within the nation?s territory and allegiance.?

The citation Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, 790-91 (1983), which Tribe uses, actually comes from the dissenting opinion of Justice Brennan, who argued that ?the Constitution is not a static document?

The reference Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 655 (1898) is cited without Minor v. Happersett 21 Wall. 162, 166-168 (1874), which was the guiding case for the Wong Kim Ark decision. In Minor, the Court cited the ?Law of Nations? and clearly established who was a ?natural born citizen? beyond any doubt, a definition that does not include Barack Hussein Obama.

Not surprisingly, Tribe, being an expert on the subject, claims that the Framers of the Constitution relied on British common law. To a casual observer, it would seem odd that the Founders would choose a legal model from which they were trying to free themselves.

Tribe is, quite simply, wrong. The 1st commentaries on the Constitution and a plethora of other historical references all point to the Law of Nations as a guiding force, not British common law.

The McCain eligibility controversy and SR 511 were the Congressional equivalent of ?I?m ok, you?re ok?, both seemingly meant to divert attention away from Obama?s Constitutional ineligibility.

The ?hook? of the con was the June 2008 release of Obama?s ?birth certificate?, more aptly described as the ?Certification of Live Birth? (COLB). It was accompanied by the circulation of many carefully-worded, official statements of verification, all of which sounded more like legal escape hatches.

Dr. Ron Pollard aka Polarik has produced informative and entertaining videos arguing that the various versions of the COLB, which appeared on pro-Obama websites, are all forgeries.

Video 1
Video 2
Video 3
Video 4

Sometimes the facts make it difficult not to believe in conspiracies.

Author
Lawrence Sellin ?Bio

Lawrence Sellin Most recent columns

? Canada Free Press 2011

Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is a recently retired colonel with 29 years of service in the US Army Reserve. He is a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. receives hate mail at [email protected]


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 10:29
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Share on Facebook

YAWN. Alinsky #5,??Ridicule?

?2011 drkate

Hey David Plouffee ? Floozy? POOFIE, what?s that ?A? on your forehead?? ?ALINSKY?, ah.? I get it.? Number 5. Well, here?s one for you, LOL.

White House senior adviser David Plouffe says billionaire Donald Trump has no chance if he decides to make a 2012 presidential run, and his pursuit of President Barack Obama?s birth certificate is a ?sideshow,? Politico reports. ?I saw Donald Trump kind of rising in the polls. Given his behavior, and the spectacle of the last couple of weeks, I hope he keeps on rising,? Plouffe said the issue of Obama?s birth will not impact the 2012 presidential election because the American people are focused on the economy and national security.

Let?s analyze these juicy words which give away in an instant?

  • Intellectual dishonesty
  • No regard for the American people
  • Condescension, arrogance, and conceit
  • Panic?got depends?
ROFLMAO
?
From their Alinsky handbook, rule No. 5.
5. ?Ridicule is man?s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.?
What makes the Obamas, JarRAT, POOFIE, ASShack, and the lame stream media think that the use of this tactic again (yawn) will do anything to drive ?those darn birthers? away?? I mean, they tried ignoring us, and it didn?t work; then they ridiculed all of us, and that didn?t work, so, um, why don?t you just fight us and lose, to get it over with? :razz:
David POOFIE does a poor job here of trying to disguise his tactics and strategy?here are the underlined words and my translation?
  • ?no chance??sorry you?re nervous POOFIE
  • ?side show??you?ve ignored it for so long you thought it was
  • ?behavior??no, it was facts and speaking out about it with knowledge
  • ?spectacle??not backing down from the cynical, lying media
  • ?Obama?s birth??its not ?birth?, it?s natural born citizenship
As if perfectly, transparently, paid for timed, the disgraced ex-director of the HDOH repeats her disgrace once again?but this time it is too late as Abercrombie already blew her alibi out the window, as did Miss Tickly.
The New Obot Line

$2 million to hide kindergarten records

Yesterday a tin-headed obot visited this site with a new assignment?daring us to prove anything about obama.? How sick is that?? Actually saying ?you guy?s can?t prove anything??trying to bait us to respond, and waste time.? Of course this idiot was quite easily spotted and was ridiculed, identified, and booted to spam.? He employed Alinsky?s #4.

?Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.

Our own strict rules of information collection and verification?the botfly says ?prove it?.? He also uses Alinsky # 5, and then tries but fails to keep up the pressure to get our reaction a la Alinsky # 10:

?The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign.?

I guess this is the campaign to protect obama, but in reality, it is the campaign to defeat America.? Implemented by the willing obotic tin-heads.

Let Them Know

Yawn.? Ok, what?s the next tactic you will use, Obama?? Another false flag?? More ridicule?? More political prisoners?

They are all hat, and no cattle.


?


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 10:22
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Share on Facebook

Hawaii Official and Ex-Official Lie to Cover Their Tracks

??
?

DISINFORMATION CAMPAIGN RAMPS UP IN RESPONSE TO DONALD TRUMP?S ASSERTIONS THAT OBAMA HAS NOT SHOWN A REAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE

by Miki Booth

Dr. Chiyome Fukino lied on national TV when she said that the "Certification of Live Birth" is all a person can obtain from the Health Department. And what gave her the right to "inspect" Obama's records if they are closed by state law?

(Apr. 10, 2011) ? Donald Trump is really turning the heat up on Obama?s missing birth certificate and far-left zealots have found it necessary to drag ex-Hawai?i official, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, former director of Hawaii?s Department of Health, back to the podium to recite her tale of viewing the elusive document. This time, unlike her first obtuse and lawyered-up comments, Fukino has gotten bolder since Abercrombie slipped his Obama ?born in Hawaii? sentence into the 50th anniversary commemorative bill.

But the latest attempt to put out the flames has backfired and exposed some naughty children huddled in a back room playing with matches. Michael Isikoff, MSNBC?s ?so-called? national investigative correspondent, was caught with Joshua Wisch, former chairman of Howard Dean?s presidential campaign in Hawaii. Now spokesman for the Hawaii attorney general?s office, Wisch apparently colluded with Fukino to validate Obama?s alleged ?Certification of Live Birth.?

?What he got, everybody got,? said Fukino. ?He put out exactly what everybody gets when they ask for a birth certificate.?

Not true, Dr. Fukino. When my son, Alan, requested a copy of his birth certificate he got just that?a ?Certificate of Live Birth,? not the same as Obama?s. Different titles and different information. Obama?s is sorely lacking information required for obtaining a passport?Mother?s State/Country of Birth and Father?s State/Country of Birth.

?

Short-Form Certificate of Live Birth obtained by Alan Booth, who was born in Hawaii. The document contains a raised seal, which Obama's Certification of Live Birth did not.

It appears specific people are lining up to take a bullet for Obama. Conspiracy to defraud the American people is a serious crime and MSNBC has become the epitome of yellow journalism, brashly covering-up for Obama and the entire anti-American agenda of the socialist left. This latest cover-up attempt is laughable and speaks volumes to the desperation of the Democrat Party.

Michael Isikoff writes, ?But Wisch, the spokesman for the attorney general?s office, said state law does not in fact permit the release of ?vital records,? including an original ?record of live birth? ? even to the individual whose birth it records.

?It?s a Department of Health record and it can?t be released to anybody,? he said. Nor do state laws have any provision that authorized such records to be photocopied, Wisch said. If Obama wanted to personally visit the state health department, he would be permitted to inspect his birth record, Wisch said.

But if he or anybody else wanted a copy of their birth records, they would be told to fill out the appropriate state form and receive back the same computer-generated ?certification of live birth? form that everybody else gets ? which is exactly what Obama did four years ago.?

Not true, Mr. Wisch. A friend of mine filled out the appropriate state form and received back a ?certificate of live birth? as shown below:

?

Long-Form Certificate of Live Birth from the state of Hawaii received in March 2011 by the requester

Enough with the lies already. You will be held accountable.

As long as the debate over Obama?s birth records drag on, we will have that much more time to inform Americans that the birth certificate doesn?t even matter. We don?t care whether he has one or not; Obama is clearly illegally occupying the office of US President since he is not by any stretch of the imagination an Article II, Section I, clause 5 ?natural born Citizen? born of two citizen parents on American soil. It becomes more evident every day that his allegiance is not to the United States of America.

Truth will out.

?????????-

Editor?s Note: The Post & Email will be calling Mr. Wisch tomorrow to confront him with his false statements about obtaining vital records in Hawaii.? We will also be contacting for the third time the Health Department, Governor Neil Abercrombie, and Lt. Gov. Brian Schatz, all of whom have spokespersons who have failed to return our calls or answer our letters regarding the many contradictions evident in Obama?s birth story and documentation, or lack thereof.? The Health Department registrar, Dr. Alvin Onaka, whose stamp appears on the long-form document above, is apparently squeamish about picking up the telephone and answering our questions.

How many people will be going to jail over this massive cover-up?? And what else, other than Obama?s ?records,? are they hiding?? Perhaps 50 years of defrauding the federal government?

? 2011, The Post & Email. All rights reserved internationally, unless otherwise specified. To read more on our copyright restrictions, see our Copyright notice on the subheader of every page, along the left margin.


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 9:50
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Domingo, 10 de abril de 2011
??
WEBCommentary Contributor
Author:? Sher Zieve
Bio:
Sher Zieve
Date:? April 10, 2011

?


Topic category:? Other/General

The Usurper in Chief Obama vs. The Donald?

Since the then-obscure Illinois Senate Candidate Barack Hussein Obama was picked to give the keynote address at the 2004 Democrat National Convention, he has been on a seemingly unstoppable and unprecedented E-ticket ride to the top--in order to take control of all of the assets of the United States of America and parcel them out to his friends and supporters. Thus far, he has gotten away with and is still affecting it. Even his ?campaign? against Republican Candidate Sen. John Sidney McCain was a breeze, as each time McCain found himself rising in the polls he told his people to ?back off? on any criticism of opponent Obama. In other words, it strongly appears that McCain threw the election, took a dive etc. Are they both working for the same masters?

Note: Don?t forget McCain IS a liberal (aka covert leftist) and only pretends conservatism when he?s running for reelection. Unfortunately, his Senatorial election tactics have worked. However, when McCain was asked to provide his long-form birth certificate to prove he was a natural born citizen--he did. On the other hand, Obama?s handlers only produced a very short-form Certificate of Live Birth (ostensibly from Hawaii and a document that is easily obtained even by those who are foreign-born) that had no signatures and was, almost immediately, shown to be fraudulent. Also, besides birth place, there is that other pesky problem of his ostensible father?s birthplace. In order to be a US natural born citizen (NBC) one?s parents must also be citizens of the USA before the child is born. Obama senior was Kenyan and carried British citizenship. So, either way (assuming Obama senior is his father and Stanley Ann Durham did give birth to him) Barack Hussein Obama is not a natural-born US citizen--if a citizen of this country at all.

Since the original Obama COLB forgery, no fewer than three others have appeared on the Internet and Obama still refuses to produce his long-form birth certificate. Question: Are Obama?s minions really having that much trouble creating one?

To date, none of the Republican potential presidential candidates (although recently candidate Herman Cain came out very cautiously questioning it) have challenged The Obama?s NBC. The wimp factor of the Republican Party?s potential candidates is now higher than at any other time in history. They are all afraid of (or bought off by?) Obama and seem to be on a course that will reelect the usurper to his soon-to-be throne. Don?t forget that if the dictator-in-chief is reelected nothing will stop his completion of the shredding of OUR US Constitution and the complete elimination of our Bill of Rights. Even before his was ?elected? Obama said he didn?t like the US Constitution, he planned to drive up energy prices (saying that due to his planned policies ?energy prices will necessarily skyrocket?) and that he would have gasoline at $4.00/gallon. He has done these and so very much more to destroy the USA and its people. But, there are still dyed in the wool masochists out there who want him to continue doling out the pain. Obama intends to continue accommodating them.

Currently, there is only one potential candidate for the Presidency of the United States who is even talking about saving our country from the rout being employed and forced upon us by the current occupant of our White House. That individual is Donald Trump. As one of the US? (if not the world?s) most successful business entrepreneurs, Trump has watched Obama?s ongoing dismantling towards termination of the USA and all of its freedoms designed by our founders for individuals to succeed. And along with the rest of us who still believe in liberty, Mr. Trump doesn?t like it. He also--while the rest of the Republican presidential field candidates cower in their respective corners--has not been afraid to jump into the central battle of Obama?s eligibility. Trump is talking much like a man who is ready to take on the battle and eventually the war of ending the reign of the most malevolent White House resident in our history. I pray he?s serious about taking on the fight and that he is being truthful with We-the-People. Note: I?ve followed Trump for years through his downturns (we all have them) and his ultimate successes. Thus far, he seems to be a man of integrity.

At this juncture I fervently hope Trump runs for the Office of President of the United States, as he is the only one now potentially running who can possibly pull us back from the cliff over which we are being forced to jump. Oh and by the way, he has already produced his long-form birth certificate and his Mother?s (she was born in Scotland) US citizenship documents. Not only does he appear to be a force majeure for the good of the USA but, he is truly a natural born citizen. Imagine that!

Obama gives Keynote Speech at 2004 DNC:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/vote2004/demconvention/speeches/obama.html

1st Anniversary of Obama COLB Forgery:

http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/06/1st-anniversary-of-aka-obama-colb.html

Dyed in the wool: http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/1/messages/2147.html

Donald Trump Birth Certificate and his Mother?s citizenship doc:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=281157

Sher Zieve

Send email feedback to Sher Zieve


Biography - Sher Zieve

Sher Zieve is an author and political commentator. Zieve's op-ed columns are widely carried by multiple internet journals and sites, and she also writes hard news. Her columns have also appeared in The Oregon Herald, Dallas Times, Sacramento Sun, in international news publications, and on multiple university websites. Sher is also a guest on multiple national radio shows.


Read other commentaries by Sher Zieve.

?

Copyright ? 2011 by Sher Zieve
All Rights Reserved.


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 13:47
Comentarios (1)  | Enviar

Share on Facebook

When Did the Definition of ?natural born Citizen? Change?

??
?

BUT CAN CONGRESS LEGISLATE A CONSTITUTIONAL CLAUSE?

by Glen Gilliland

What was the Founders' meaning of the term "natural born Citizen"?

(Apr. 10, 2011) ? When I was a young boy in Mr. Hanson?s fifth grade civics class in the mid-60s, we learned that the definition of ?natural born Citizen? was exclusively a person born on US soil of parents who are US citizens.

That has been the accepted definition of ?natural born Citizen? for most of our history, except between the years 1790-1795, and 1971 to the present.

The first Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1790:

And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States?

That act was repealed with the uniform rule of the Naturalization Act of 1795 and new language in Section 3:

and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States:

Section 4. And be it further enacted, That the Act intitled, ?An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization,? passed the twenty-sixth day of March, one thousand seven hundred and ninety, be, and the same is hereby repealed.

I assume Congress realized they had made a mistake enacting the first naturalization act, because? ?natural born Citizen? is a constitutional clause, and the only way Congress can change the definition is by Constitutional Amendment.

The founders (John Jay) obtained the definition of ?natural born Citizen? from The Law of Nations (Vattel):

The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens? (Vattel in Book 1, Sec 212)

The Founders? intent was to prevent foreign influence on the office of President.

The Law of Nations (Vattel) is recognized as part of US domestic law (page 37 footnotes).? Yet internet sites such as www.usconstitution.net list title 8 ? 1401. Nationals and citizens as being ?natural born citizens.?

Cornell Law states of ?1401. Nationals and citizens:

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;

(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;

(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;

(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;

(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;

(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person

(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or

(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and

(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.

Some people have pointed to the 14th Amendment for the change. I didn?t see it in the 14th Amendment, but I am just a retired plumber, not a constitutional lawyer.

This contradiction in the law has been the subject of some very intense debate in the political circles I frequent. When did the definition of ?natural born Citizen? change? So I began searching on the internet for an answer.

The only other way the definition could have been changed is by USSC interpretation. I began reading USSC decisions, starting with the The Venus, 1 (1814), Shanks v. Dupont, (1830), Minor v. Happersett , (1875), United States v. Wong Kim Ark, (1898), Perkins v. Elg,(1939), and many more, approximately 80 USSC citizenship decisions (most pointing to Vattel for definition of ?natural born Citizen,? none for any other definition).

Then I came across Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS (no.99-2071) in the oral arguments at about 23 minutes they discuss ?natural born Citizen,? with Souter asking the question and the attorney claiming she hadn?t done the research but commentators saying that citizens born outside the US are NBC, and Scalia asking if being born on the soil wasn?t also the requirement; Ginsberg saying her grandson born in France could be an NBC, but they came to the conclusion that it is an unsettled controversy.

That exchange led me to Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971)

Here is the point in time which changed the definition of ?natural born Citizen.?

In the decision in section IV, the statutes culminating in 301 merit review.? They list seven statutes to review to apply to the case, beginning with the the 1790 Naturalization Act which was repealed in 1795:

And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States?

The language the Supreme Court used to apply to the case also appears in the 1795 statute:

That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States:

Thus the U.S. Supreme Court set a new precedent for the definition of ?natural born Citizen in Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971), Section IV.

? 2011, The Post & Email. All rights reserved internationally, unless otherwise specified. To read more on our copyright restrictions, see our Copyright notice on the subheader of every page, along the left margin.


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 9:23
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
S?bado, 09 de abril de 2011

Share on Facebook

April 06, 2011

A prominent libertarian constitutional lawyer and civil libertarian has drafted an article of impeachment against President Obama over his attack on Libya, throwing down a legal gauntlet that could be picked up by some Congressional Republicans

Bruce Fein, a former Reagan administration official in the Department of Justice and chairman of American Freedom Agenda writes in his 15-page argument of Obama's course that "Barack Hussein Obama has mocked the rule of law, endangered the very existence of the Republic and the liberties of the people, and perpetrated an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor."

Fein is a small-government conservative who worked on the impeachment of President Bill Clinton and also called for the impeachment of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, and his work doesn't represent the Republican Party line. But it comes as some Republicans on the Hill, led by Senator Rand Paul, object vociferously to Obama's decision to strike targets in Libya without Congressional authorization.

"He's been more bold than any other president," said Fein, who said Obama has failed to secure congressional approval for his military action in a much more brazen way than previous administrations.

"If he can wipe out the war powers authorization, why can't he wipe out Congress's authority to spend?" asked Fein. " If we're going to be a government of laws, and not descend into empire, this is Caesar crossing the Rubicon."

Fein said a number of Congressional offices have expressed interest in his proposal.

"They actually need to defend constitutional prerogatives," said Fein. "There's definitely been interest on the Hill. There's at least two dozen who have been open to the idea that this is a serious constitutional crisis."

Fein's articles of impeachment discuss the run-up to the Libya conflict and conclude, "In all of this, President Barack Obama has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States."

The article of impeachment and three subsections are after the jump.

(with Byron Tau)

ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA

RESOLVED, That Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following article of impeachment to be exhibited to the Senate:

ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT EXHIBITED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN THE NAME OF ITSELF AND OF ALL OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AGAINST BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, IN MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT OF ITS IMPEACHMENT AGAINST HIM FOR HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS IN USURPING THE EXCLUSIVE PREROGATIVE OF CONGRESS TO COMENCE WAR UNDER ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 11 OF THE CONSTITUTION.

ARTICLE I

In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has usurped the exclusive power of Congress to initiate war under Article I, section 8, clause 11 of the United States Constitution by unilaterally commencing war against the Republic of Libya on March 19, 2011, declaring that Congress is powerless to constrain his conduct of the war, and claiming authority in the future to commence war unilaterally to advance whatever he ordains is in the national interest. By so doing and declaring, Barack Hussein Obama has mocked the rule of law, endangered the very existence of the Republic and the liberties of the people, and perpetrated an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor as hereinafter elaborated.

I.
THE IMPEACHMENT POWER

1. Article II, Section IV of the United States Constitution provides: ?The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.?

2. According to James Madison?s Records of the Convention, 2:550; Madison, 8 Sept., Mr. George Mason objected to an initial proposal to confine impeachable offenses to treason or bribery:

Why is the provision restrained to Treason & bribery only? Treason as defined in the Constitution will not reach many great and dangerous offences. Hastings is not guilty of Treason. Attempts to subvert the Constitution may not be Treason as above defined--As bills of attainder which have saved the British Constitution are forbidden, it is the more necessary to extend: the power of impeachments.

3. Delegates to the Federal Convention voted overwhelmingly to include ?high crimes and misdemeanors? in Article II, Section IV of the United States Constitution specifically to ensure that ?attempts to subvert the Constitution? would fall within the universe of impeachable offences. Id.

4. Alexander Hamilton, a delegate to the Federal Convention, characterized impeachable offenses in Federalist 65 as, ?offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words, from the violation or abuse of some public trust. They are of a nature which with peculiar propriety may be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done to society itself.?

5. In 1974, the House Judiciary Committee voted three articles of impeachment against then President Richard M. Nixon for actions ?subversive of constitutional government.?

6. Father of the Constitution, James Madison, observed that, ?Of all the enemies of public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other?. War is the true nurse of executive aggrandizement.?

7. James Madison also instructed that ?no nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.?

8. The exclusive congressional power to commence war under Article I, section VIII, clause XI of the Constitution is the pillar of the Republic and the greatest constitutional guarantor of individual liberty, transparency, and government frugality.

II.
THE ?DECLARE WAR? CLAUSE

9. Article I, Section VIII, Clause XI of the United States Constitution provides: ?The Congress shall have the power ? To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;?

10. Article II, Section II, Clause I of the United States Constitution provides: ?The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.?

11. The authors of the United States Constitution manifestly intended Article I, Section VIII, Clause XI to fasten exclusive responsibility and authority on the Congress to decide whether to undertake offensive military action.

12. The authors of the United States Constitution believed that individual liberty and the Republic would be endangered by fighting too many wars, not too few.

13. The authors of the United States Constitution understood that to aggrandize power and to leave a historical legacy, the executive in all countries chronically inflates danger manifold to justify warfare.

14. John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States, in Federalist 4 noted:

[A]bsolute monarchs will often make war when their nations are to get nothing by it, but for the purposes and objects merely personal, such as thirst for military glory, revenge for personal affronts, ambition, or private compacts to aggrandize or support their particular families or partisans. These and a variety of other motives, which affect only the mind of the sovereign, often lead him to engage in wars not sanctified by justice or the voice and interests of his people.

15. Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist 69 that the president's Commander-in-Chief authority

?would be nominally the same with that of the King of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first general and admiral of the confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war, and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies; all which by the constitution under consideration would appertain to the Legislature.

16. In a written exchange with Alexander Hamilton under the pseudonym Helvidius, James Madison wrote:

In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department. Beside the objection to such a mixture to heterogeneous powers, the trust and the temptation would be too great for any one man; not such as nature may offer as the prodigy of many centuries, but such as may be expected in the ordinary successions of magistracy. War is in fact the true nurse of executive aggrandizement. In war, a physical force is to be created; and it is the executive will, which is to direct it. In war, the public treasures are to be unlocked; and it is the executive hand which is to dispense them. In war, the honours and emoluments of office are to be multiplied; and it is the executive patronage under which they are to be enjoyed. It is in war, finally, that laurels are to be gathered, and it is the executive brow they are to encircle. The strongest passions and most dangerous weaknesses of the human breast; ambition, avarice, vanity, the honourable or venial love of fame, are all in conspiracy against the desire and duty of peace.

17. James Madison also wrote as Helvidius to Alexander Hamilton:

Those who are to conduct a war cannot in the nature of things, be proper or safe judges, whether a war ought to be commenced, continued, or concluded. They are barred from the latter functions by a great principle in free government, analogous to that which separates the sword from the purse, or the power of executing from the power of enacting laws.

18. On June 29, 1787, at the Federal Convention, James Madison explained that an executive crowned with war powers invites tyranny and the reduction of citizens to vassalage:

In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.

19. In a letter dated April 4, 1798, James Madison wrote to Thomas Jefferson:

The constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, & most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care, vested the question of war in the Legislature. But the Doctrines lately advanced strike at the root of all these provisions, and will deposit the peace of the Country in that Department which the Constitution distrusts as most ready without cause to renounce it. For if the opinion of the President not the facts & proofs themselves are to sway the judgment of Congress, in declaring war, and if the President in the recess of Congress create a foreign mission, appoint the minister, & negociate a War Treaty, without the possibility of a check even from the Senate, untill the measures present alternatives overruling the freedom of its judgment; if again a Treaty when made obliges the Legislature to declare war contrary to its judgment, and in pursuance of the same doctrine, a law declaring war, imposes a like moral obligation, to grant the requisite supplies until it be formally repealed with the consent of the President & Senate, it is evident that the people are cheated out of the best ingredients in their Government, the safeguards of peace which is the greatest of their blessings.

20. During the Pennsylvania Convention to ratify the Constitution, James Wilson, a future Justice of the United States Supreme Court, observed:

This system will not hurry us into war; it is calculated to guard against it. It will not be in the power of a single man, or a single body of men, to involve us in such distress; for the important power of declaring war is vested in the legislature at large: this declaration must he made with the concurrence of the House of Representatives: from this circumstance we may draw a certain conclusion that nothing but our national interest can draw us into a war.

21. In 1793, President George Washington, who presided over the Federal Convention, wrote to South Carolina Governor William Moultrie in regards to a prospective counter-offensive against the American Indian Creek Nation: "The Constitution vests the power of declaring war with Congress, therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they have deliberated upon the subject, and authorized such a measure."

22. President Thomas Jefferson, who served as Secretary of State under President Washington, in a statement before Congress regarding Tripoli and the Barbary Pirates, deemed himself ?unauthorized by the Constitution, without the sanction of Congress, to go beyond the line of defense." He amplified: "I communicate [to the Congress] all material information on this subject, that in the exercise of this important function confided by the Constitution to the Legislature exclusively their judgment may form itself on a knowledge and consideration of every circumstance of weight."

23. In a message to Congress in December, 1805 regarding potential military action to resolve a border dispute with Spain, President Thomas Jefferson acknowledged that "Congress alone is constitutionally invested with the power of changing our condition from peace to war, I have thought it my duty to await their authority for using force.? He requested Congressional authorization for offensive military action, even short of war, elaborating:

Formal war is not necessary?it is not probable it will follow; but the protection of our citizens, the spirit and honor of our country, require that force should be interposed to a certain degree. It will probably contribute to advance the object of peace.

But the course to be pursued will require the command of means which it belongs to Congress exclusively to yield or deny. To them I communicate every fact material for their information, and the documents necessary to enable them to judge for themselves. To their wisdom, then, I look for the course I am to pursue; and will pursue, with sincere zeal, that which they shall approve.

24. In his War Message to Congress on June 1, 1812, President James Madison reaffirmed that the shift in language from make to declare in Article I, Section VIII, Clause XI of the United States Constitution authorized at the Constitutional convention did not empower the Executive to involve the United States military in any action aside from defense against an overt attack. Although President Madison was convinced that Great Britain had undertaken acts of war against the United States, he nevertheless maintained that he could not respond with military force without congressional authorization. He proclaimed:

We behold, in fine, on the side of Great Britain, a state of war against the United States, and on the side of the United States a state of peace toward Great Britain.

Whether the United States shall continue passive under these progressive usurpations and these accumulating wrongs, or, opposing force to force in defense of their national rights, shall commit a just cause into the hands of the Almighty Disposer of Events, avoiding all connections which might entangle it in the contest or views of other powers, and preserving a constant readiness to concur in an honorable re-establishment of peace and friendship, is a solemn question which the Constitution wisely confides to the legislative department of the Government. In recommending it to their early deliberations I am happy in the assurance that the decision will be worthy the enlightened and patriotic councils of a virtuous, a free, and a powerful nation.

25. In his Records of the Convention, 2:318; Madison, 17 Aug., James Madison wrote that the power ?To declare war? had been vested in the Congress in lieu of the power ?To make war? to leave to the Executive ?the power to repel sudden attacks.?

26. Mr. Elbridge Gerry ?never expected to hear in a republic a motion to empower the Executive alone to declare war,? but still moved with Mr. Madison ?to insert declare?in place of make? in Article I, Section VIII, Clause XI. Id.

27. Mr. George Mason was against ?giving the power of war to the Executive, because not safely to be trusted with it; or to the Senate, because not so constructed as to be entitled to it. He was for clogging rather than facilitating war; but for facilitating peace.? Yet Mr. Mason ?preferred declare to make.? Id.

28. Mr. Roger Sherman ?thought [the proposal] stood very well. The Executive shd. be able to repel and not to commence war.? Id.

29. Delegates to the Federal Convention overwhelmingly approved the motion to insert ?declare?in place of make,? to deny the Executive power to initiate military action, but to permit the Executive to repel sudden attacks unilaterally. Id.

30. Then Congressman Abraham Lincoln sermonized:

Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so, whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose ? and you allow him to make war at pleasure?. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after you have given him so much as you propose. If, to-day, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, "I see no probability of the British invading us" but he will say to you "be silent; I see it, if you don't."

The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress, was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons. Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This, our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood.

31. Crowning the President with unilateral authority to commence war under the banner of anticipatory self-defense, prevention of civilian slaughters, gender discrimination, subjugation of ethnic or religious minorities, or otherwise would empower the President to initiate war without limit, threatening the very existence of the Republic. Although a benevolent Chief Executive might resist abuse of an unlimited war power, the principle, if ever accepted by Congress, would lie around like a loaded weapon ready for use by any successor craving absolute power.

32. Thomas Paine justly and rightly declared in Common Sense that "in America, the law is king. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other."

33. Article 43 Paragraph 3 of the Charter of the United Nations provides that all resolutions or agreements of the United Nations Security Counsel ?shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.?

34. Article 43 Paragraph 3 of Charter of the United Nations was included specifically to allay concerns that prevented the United States of America from ratifying the League of Nations Treaty in 1919.

35. That treaty risked crowning the President with the counter-constitutional authority to initiate warfare. On November 19, 1919, in Section II of his Reservations with Regard to Ratification of the Versailles Treaty, to preserve the balance of power established by the United States Constitution from executive usurpation, Senator Henry Cabot Lodge resolved as follows:

The United States assumes no obligation to preserve the territorial integrity or political independence of any other country or to interfere in controversies between nations -- whether members of the League or not -- under the provisions of Article 10, or to employ the military or naval forces of the United States under any article of the treaty for any purpose, unless in any particular case the Congress, which, under the Constitution, has the sole power to declare war or authorize the employment of the military or naval forces of the United States, shall by act or joint resolution so provide.

The rejection of Lodge?s reservations by President Woodrow Wilson and his Senate allies insured defeat of the treaty.

36. Section 2(c) of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 clarifies Presidential authority to undertake military action as follows:

The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

37. In United States v. Smith, 27 F. Cas. 1192 (1806), Supreme Court Justice William Paterson, a delegate to the Federal Convention from New Jersey, wrote on behalf of a federal circuit court:

There is a manifest distinction between our going to war with a nation at peace, and a war being made against us by an actual invasion, or a formal declaration. In the former case it is the exclusive province of Congress to change a state of peace into a state of war.

38. In Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267 (1890), the Supreme Court of the United States held:

The treaty power, as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments, and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government, or in that of one of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter, without its consent.

39. In his concurrence in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 642-643 (1952), which rebuked President Harry Truman?s claim of unilateral war powers in the Korean War, Justice Robert Jackson elaborated:

Nothing in our Constitution is plainer than that declaration of a war is entrusted only to Congress. Of course, a state of war may in fact exist without a formal declaration. But no doctrine that the Court could promulgate would seem to me more sinister and alarming than that a President whose conduct of foreign affairs is so largely uncontrolled, and often even is unknown, can vastly enlarge his mastery over the internal affairs of the country by his own commitment of the Nation's armed forces to some foreign venture.


40. All treaties are subservient to the exclusive congressional power to commence war. In Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 18 (1957), the United States Supreme Court held:

There is nothing in [the Constitution?s text] which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result.

41. Unconstitutional usurpations by one branch of government of powers entrusted to a coequal branch are not rendered constitutional by repetition. The United States Supreme Court held unconstitutional hundreds of laws enacted by Congress over the course of five decades that included a legislative veto of executive actions in INS v. Chada, 462 U.S. 919 (1982).

42. In their dissent in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), Justices John Paul Stevens and Antonin Scalia recognized the ?Founders? general distrust of military power lodged with the President, including the authority to commence war:

No fewer than 10 issues of the Federalist were devoted in whole or part to allaying fears of oppression from the proposed Constitution?s authorization of standing armies in peacetime. Many safeguards in the Constitution reflect these concerns. Congress's authority "[t]o raise and support Armies" was hedged with the proviso that "no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years." U.S. Const., Art. 1, ?8, cl. 12. Except for the actual command of military forces, all authorization for their maintenance and all explicit authorization for their use is placed in the control of Congress under Article I, rather than the President under Article II. As Hamilton explained, the President's military authority would be "much inferior" to that of the British King? (Citing Federalist 69, Supra.)

43. On December 20, 2007, then Senator Hillary Clinton proclaimed: "The President has the solemn duty to defend our Nation. If the country is under truly imminent threat of attack, of course the President must take appropriate action to defend us. At the same time, the Constitution requires Congress to authorize war. I do not believe that the President can take military action ? including any kind of strategic bombing ? against Iran without congressional authorization."

44. Then Senator Joseph Biden stated in a speech at the Iowa City Public Library in 2007 regarding potential military action in Iran that unilateral action by the President would be an impeachable offense under the Constitution:

It is precisely because the consequences of war ? intended or otherwise ? can be so profound and complicated that our Founding Fathers vested in Congress, not the President, the power to initiate war, except to repel an imminent attack on the United States or its citizens.

They reasoned that requiring the President to come to Congress first would slow things down? allow for more careful decision making before sending Americans to fight and die? and ensure broader public support.

The Founding Fathers were, as in most things, profoundly right.

That?s why I want to be very clear: if the President takes us to war with Iran without Congressional approval, I will call for his impeachment.

I do not say this lightly or to be provocative. I am dead serious. I have chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee. I still teach constitutional law. I?ve consulted with some of our leading constitutional scholars. The Constitution is clear. And so am I.

I?m saying this now to put the administration on notice and hopefully to deter the President from taking unilateral action in the last year of his administration.

If war is warranted with a nation of 70 million people, it warrants coming to Congress and the American people first.

45. In a speech on the Senate Floor in 1998, then Senator Joseph Biden maintained: ?...the only logical conclusion is that the framers [of the United States Constitution] intended to grant to Congress the power to initiate all hostilities, even limited wars.?

46. On December 20, 2007, then Senator Barack Obama informed the Boston Globe, based upon his extensive knowledge of the United States Constitution: "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

III.
USURPATION OF THE WAR POWER OVER LIBYA

47. President Barack Obama?s military attacks against Libya constitute acts of war.

48. Congressman J. Randy Forbes (VA-4) had the following exchange with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates during a March 31, 2011 House Armed Services Committee Hearing on the legality of the present military operation in Libya:

Congressman Forbes: Mr. Secretary, if tomorrow a foreign nation intentionally, for whatever reason, launched a Tomahawk missile into New York City, would that be considered an act of war against the United States?

Secretary Gates: Probably so.

Congressman Forbes: Then I would assume the same laws would apply if we launched a Tomahawk missile at another nation?is that also true?

Secretary Gates: You?re getting into constitutional law here and I am no expert on it.

Congressman Forbes: Mr. Secretary, you?re the Secretary of Defense. You ought to be an expert on what?s an act of war or not. If it?s an act of war to launch a Tomahawk missile on New York City would it not also be an act of war to launch a Tomahawk missile by us at another nation?

Secretary Gates: Presumably.

49. Since the passage of United Nations Security Council resolution 1973 on March 19, 2011, the United States has detonated over 200 tomahawk land attack cruise missiles and 455 precision-guided bombs on Libyan soil.

50. Libya posed no actual or imminent threat to the United States when President Obama unleashed Operation Odyssey Dawn.

51. On March 27, 2011, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated that Libya never posed an ?actual or imminent threat to the United States.? He further stated that Libya has never constituted a ?vital interest? to the United States.

52. United Nations Security Council resolution 1973 directs an indefinite United States military quagmire in Libya, authorizing ?all necessary measures? to protect Libyan civilians, which clearly contemplates removal by force of the murderous regime of Col. Muammar Qadhafi.

53. In a Letter From the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate sent March 21, 2011, President Barack Obama informed Members of Congress that ?U.S. forces have targeted the Qadhafi regime's air defense systems, command and control structures, and other capabilities of Qadhafi's armed forces used to attack civilians and civilian populated areas. We will seek a rapid, but responsible, transition of operations to coalition, regional, or international organizations that are postured to continue activities as may be necessary to realize the objectives of U.N. Security Council Resolutions 1970 and 1973.?

54. In his March 21, 2011 letter, President Barack Obama further informed Members of Congress that he opted to take unilateral military action ??in support of international efforts to protect civilians and prevent a humanitarian disaster.?

55. President Barack Obama has usurped congressional authority to decide on war or peace with Libya, and has declared he will persist in additional usurpations of the congressional power to commence war whenever he decrees it would advance his idea of the national interest. On March 28, 2011, he declared to Congress and the American people: ?I have made it clear that I will never hesitate to use our military swiftly, decisively, and unilaterally when necessary to defend our people, our homeland, our allies, and our core interests? (emphasis added).

56. President Obama?s humanitarian justification for war in Libya establishes a threshold that would justify his initiation of warfare in scores of nations around the globe, including Iran, North Korea, Syria, Sudan, Myanmar, China, Belarus, Zimbabwe, Cuba, and Russia.

57. In Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928), Justice Louis D. Brandeis wrote on behalf of a majority of the United States Supreme Court:

Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding.

58. President Barack Obama has signed an order, euphemistically named a ?Presidential Finding,? authorizing covert U.S. government support for rebel forces seeking to oust Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, further entangling the United States in the Libyan conflict, despite earlier promises of restraint. Truth is invariably the first casualty of war.

59. In response to questions by Members of Congress during a classified briefing on March 30, 2011, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton indicated that the President needs no Congressional authorization for his attack on the Libyan nation, and will ignore any Congressional attempt by resolution or otherwise to constrain or halt United States participation in the Libyan war.

60. On March 30, 2011, by persistent silence or otherwise, Secretary Clinton rebuffed congressional inquiries into President Obama?s view of the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution of 1973. She failed to cite a single judicial decision in support of President Obama?s recent actions, relying instead on the undisclosed legal opinions of White House attorneys.

61. President Barack Obama, in flagrant violation of his constitutional oath to execute his office as President of the United States and preserve and protect the United States Constitution, has usurped the exclusive authority of Congress to authorize the initiation of war, in that on March 19, 2011 President Obama initiated an offensive military attack against the Republic of Libya without congressional authorization. In so doing, President Obama has arrested the rule of law, and saluted a vandalizing of the Constitution that will occasion ruination of the Republic, the crippling of individual liberty, and a Leviathan government unless the President is impeached by the House of Representatives and removed from office by the Senate.

In all of this, President Barack Obama has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

?

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 11:47
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Viernes, 08 de abril de 2011

Share on Facebook

?


Will the rule of law be dictated by the whims of the political elite and the MSM or by the Constitution?

The coming meltdown of Barack Obama


?By Lawrence Sellin??Friday, April 8, 2011

imagePolitics has recently replaced the Constitution as the basis for the rule of law in the United States. It is a recipe for chaos, if permitted to continue.

More and more Americans are beginning to realize that Barack Obama is an illegal President and/or has a potentially damaging personal history.

The desperation now being displayed by Obama sycophants is proof positive.

The race card is increasingly being played. Expect much more of it.


Donald Trump is the earthquake. A tsunami of revelations will soon follow, which will have a yet unforeseen impact on the legitimacy of our political system and the integrity of the main stream media (MSM).

Having largely dismissed Constitutional considerations since 2008, the political elite and the MSM, perhaps not now, but ultimately will find politics a poor substitute as the final arbitrator of our national discourse.

I will provide a libretto for the political comic opera now underway.

The Democratic left-wing will continue to support Obama. Moderate Democrats, behind the scenes, are already seeking an alternative. The Clinton machine is waiting for an opportunity to make its move.

The Republicans smell electoral blood and consider Obama the most vulnerable of the probable Democratic Presidential candidates. For that reason, they would prefer revelations about a damaging personal history rather than an illegal Presidency.

The MSM are in a win-win situation. They will continue to back Obama until he is replaced by a potentially stronger Democratic candidate. If that happens, expect a ruthless assault describing Republicans as racists and haters, who hounded poor Barack Obama out of office. In that case, the MSM will also help re-energize the Democratic faithful for the new standard-bearer.

The Constitutional questions raised by the election of Barack Obama will be ignored, either forever or as long as possible, because the political elite and the MSM were likely either complicit in or acquiesced to its infringement.

The breach created in the Constitution sets a precedent for its further erosion. Regrettably, many of our political elite favor a situation, where the Constitutional rights guaranteed to Americans become negotiable according to the political caprice of party leaders.

The debate about Barack Obama?s eligibility to serve as President is over. It is his responsibility to establish his eligibility for office, not the task of ordinary Americans to prove that he is not.

The content and intent of the Constitution are clear. The Founders did not use the word ?citizen? but the term ?natural born citizen? to describe eligibility for the Presidency.

The authors of the Constitution no doubt based their understanding of the term ?natural born citizen,? on the 1758 book ?The Law of Nations? written by Swiss philosopher and diplomat Emerich de Vattel, who wrote:

?? natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. ? children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. ? The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children??

That is, someone who is born in the US of citizen parents at the time of birth is a natural born citizen.

In the early days of our country, it was specifically designed to prevent a British usurper from gaining office and undermining American independence.

Accordingly, Barack Obama is a priori ineligible. In that regard, it does not matter where he was born or if we ever see a real birth certificate.

It does not mean, however, that Obama should not show his birth certificate to prove that he was born in Hawaii as he claims. Unfortunately for him, the Certification of Live Birth, which has been posted on the internet, is not sufficient proof. In addition, it has never been legally validated by the State of Hawaii and may even be a forgery.

Another shibboleth used by Obama defenders is the newspaper clipping announcing his birth. Seriously? Just try using a newspaper clipping to get a driver?s license. What?s next, Monopoly money to pay down the national debt?

Barack Obama should step down or be Constitutionally removed from office.

The American people are now faced with an urgent and critical choice.

Will the rule of law be dictated by the whims of the political elite and the MSM or by the Constitution?

I choose the latter.

Author
Lawrence Sellin ?Bio

Lawrence Sellin Most recent columns

Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is a recently retired colonel with 29 years of service in the US Army Reserve. He is a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. receives hate mail at [email protected]



Publicado por Corazon7 @ 13:37
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Jueves, 07 de abril de 2011

Share on Facebook

?

Thursday, April 7, 2011

Video: Donald Trump On The Today Show: Investigators On The Ground in Hawaii; Obama May Be Greatest Scam In American History

?


Video: Donald Trump On Today Show: I Have Investigators On The Ground in Hawaii And They Cannot Believe What They?re Finding; Obama May Be Greatest Scam In American History... The segment aired on 4/7/2011. Previous reports on Donald Trump can be found here. Bonus video of Trump appearing on MSNBC's Morning Joe embedded below...



Bonus: Donald Trump's Emotional Birther Defense to Giggles & Smirks of The Morning Joe Panel - 4/7/2011



Notre Dame Professor Charles Rice: Obama's eligibility could be biggest political fraud in the history of the world; time for a new approach -Details here.?

Attorney Mario Apuzzo: All presidents born after 1787, except for Chester Arthur and Barack Obama, met the ?natural born Citizen? criteria. -Details here.?

Commander Charles Kerchner: List of U.S. Presidents - Eligibility under Article II Grandfather Clause (GFC) or Natural Born Citizen (NBC) Clause or Seated due to Election Fraud -Details here.?

Jack Cashill Discusses Obama's Fraudulent Social Security Number Reserved for Connecticut Applicants -Video here.?

Visit the Birther Vault for the long list of evidence against Hawaii officials and all of the people questioning Obama's eligibility; [http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/08/video-ltc-terry-lakins-attorney-on-cnn.html].
??

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 12:16
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Mi?rcoles, 06 de abril de 2011

Share on Facebook

http://drkatesview.wordpress.com/2011/04/05/pretend-stupidity/#more-5847

Pretend?Stupidity

?2011 drkate

usurper

The lefties and liberals like to think they have such intellectual prowess that they are truly better than anyone, and therefore, have the right to dictate or control our lives because they are oh-so-much- smarter than regular Americans. :roll: ? Yawn.

But confront them with the truth about Obama?s lack of eligibility, or the fact that the once-noble democratic party has become a haven brothel for communists, islamofascists and totalitarianism, and all of a sudden they become stupid, feigning their ?confusion?.

What kind of idiot spends millions of dollars to hide their kindergarten records? :lol: ? Anderson Cooper Vanderbilt, Bill O?Reilly, and Karl Rove?the republican lefties and Obama supporters,? feign shock and incredulity that anyone would ask to see Obama?s records.

FEIGN verb affect, beguile, belie, cheat, concoct, create a false appearance, deceive, delude, disguise, dissemble, dissimulate, distort the truth, fabricate, falsify, fingere, imagine, imitate deceptively, impersonate, lack candor, lie about, make a false show of, make believe, make up, mislead, misreport, misrepresent, misstate, palter, pretend, prevaricate, represent fictitiously, sham, simulate, speak falsely
See also: assume, cloak, counterfeit, disguise, fabricate, fake, falsify, forge, imitate, invent, misrepresent, mock, palter, perjure, pretend, prevaricate, profess, simulate

The truth about the left is that they are intellectually lazy and dishonest, and stupid when they need to be to cover their tracks.

But the tables have turned.? No amount of mocking, lying, misreporting, or cloaking can disguise the now very public knowledge of Obama?s usurpation of the White House.? With their race card in the trash heap and their failure to protect Obama from the likes of ?those darn birthers?, the wheels are coming off the the lefty wagon.

Let?s review their stupidity in the face of FACTS.

  • They stupidly placed four versions of a COLB on the internet, which were subsequently and easily proven to be complete forgeries. In any case this forgery doesn?t tell anything about Obama except he was born sometime.? One of the most hilarious parts of this is that some leftie couldn?t bring him/herself to write ?negro? as the descriptor for Obama?s father, so put ?African? in there instead.? And, gee, where did Hawaii get a laser printer in 1961?? Oops, there goes the first wheel off the wagon.
  • They stupidly point to the ?newspaper? birth announcements for Obama as proof of ?natural born citizenship status?.? ?Obama?s birth announcements appearing in Hawaii?s two primary newspapers in August, 1961 show conclusively they were the result of a registration record taken by the municipal health authority, not a medically verified ?Live? birth documented as occurring at a Hawaiian hospital, per an officially defined ?vital event? designated by the U.S. Department of Health, National Vital Statistics Division protocols.?? In other words, the birth announcements are useless and again do not confirm Obama was born in Hawaii, as the COLB was often used to register foreign births.? Oops, two more wheels off that wagon.
  • They repeatedly and stupidly pretend Hawaii verified Obama?s birth and citizenship. The State of Hawaii never confirmed that Obama was born in Hawaii nor that he was a ?natural born citizen?, contrary to the endless Obutt frantic pronouncements that they did just that.? Republicans and democrats alike say ?the state of Hawaii confirmed his birth in Hawaii, and falsify their understanding of Article II by insisting that Obama is a ?citizen?.? There goes the fourth wheel.
  • Governor Neil Abercrombie?s stupidly transparent effort to cover for Obama actually backfired badly?not only should Abercrombie be investigated for lying, but he admitted there is no birth certificate for Obama?just a hand written note in the library.? Well, there goes the spare tire.

Occam?s Razor

What are the chances that Obama is hiding (a) something benign, or (b) something that undermines his life as a politician?? Who would spend millions to hide something benign?? If anyone accused you of not being an American citizen, would you hide it or would you prove it?? Obama admits nothing, and in doing so, he admits everything.? He is a bald-faced liar.

Anyone with a brain knows that Obama is hiding something.? One chooses to lie about it or seeks the truth.? Seriously, why hide your kindergarten records?? ROFLMAO.? And Obama has made all his supporters and the feigning media look like absolute fools?as they continue to carry Obama?s water wash Obama?s diapers for him.

Since religion is not a common identifier on a birth certificate, Obama could be hiding any number of things, but the key is whatever it is it undermines him as a politician.

Verify

A former CIA agent confirms that Obama was never vetted by anyone. Therefore every person who has said they know he is a NBC has perjured themselves.? Everyone who thinks he is a NBC is intellectually lazy and dishonest.? Get off your duff and VERIFY.??? But they won?t because they are too invested in the fraud.

Quoting ITookTheRedPill,

We need to all keep the faith until members of Congress begin supporting and defending Article II Section 1, Section 3 of the 20th Amendment, and the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.

Step 1 is verifying the ?Obama birth narrative?? seeing the original, certified, hard copy vital records to determine the truth of Soetoro/Obama?s birth.

Step 2 is reacting to the outcome of that verification?

If the ?Obama birth narrative? is 100% true, then he is a usurper because he does not meet the Natural Law definition of ?natural born citizen?.

George Washington, John Jay, and the Natural Law Definition of ?Natural Born Citizen?

A usurper should be immediately removed from office, all of the usurped actions (including Obamacare) stricken from the record, and the usurper? sent to Gitmo .

If the ?Obama birth narrative? is not 100% true, then he is guilty of forgery, perjury, obstruction of justice, etc., so even if he is a natural born citizen of the United States, he would still be guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors, and should be impeached, convicted, removed from office, and sent to Gitmo.

I couldn?t agree more.

Lock him out and lock him down


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 10:09
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Share on Facebook

For Immediate Release:? - 04/06/2011
For Further Information Contact:

Philip J. Berg, Esquire????????? ?

555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12???????????????????????????????????????? ?????????
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531

Cell (610) 662-3005

(610) 825-3134

(800) 993-PHIL? [7445]

Fax (610) 834-7659
?

Obama must be Investigated for the
?Fraud?
he has committed on the United States and its Citizens
?
as he announces he is a candidate
for re-election
??
as Obama?s legal name is
Barry Soetoro
??
obamacrimes.com requests
any D.A. or Attorney General
to Investigate and take appropriate legal actions for the ?Fraud? perpetrated by Soetoro/Obama
??
and hopefully Donald Trump
knows of a D.A. or Attorney General
with guts to take Legal Action


(Lafayette Hill, PA ? 04/06/11) - Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the first Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama on August 21, 2008 challenging Obama?s lack of ?Constitutionally Eligibility? to serve as President of the United States calls for any District Attorney or Attorney General in the United States to investigate and take appropriate legal action against Obama for ?FRAUD? as Obama is using a false name and falsely claiming his eligibility for the Presidency of the United States.

Berg said, ?Obama?s ?LEGAL NAME? is Barry Soetoro, his name when he was adopted or acknowledged by his Step-Father, Lolo Soetoro, in Indonesia. Obama refers to his Step-Father, Lolo Soetoro, in one of his books.? Also, on our web site, obamacrimes.com, we have detailed all of the facts that substantiate ?Soetoro/Obama is a fraud, a phony, an imposter and this is the biggest ?HOAX? against our country in our history?. ?We have a copy of his school record in Indonesia where his name is Barry Soetoro !
I am reaching out to Donald Trump to ask a D.A. or Attorney General that he knows to investigate Soetoro/Obama and take appropriate legal action for the Fraud perpetrated on the United States and its citizens.

Yes, one can use a fictitious name, but not for fraudulent purposes.? And by being a candidate for President, the use of Barrack Hussein Obama is fraud.

There is no evidence that we have uncovered, nor has Soetoro/Obama put forth, that he legally changed his name after returning to the United States from Indonesia at age ten [10].?

Berg continued, ?It is time for our so called ?Free Press? to do what they used to do and that is vet candidates and in this case, Soetoro/Obama.
?
We are in a Constitutional crisis and it will only get worse.

Soetoro/Obama is not ?Constitutionally Eligible? to be President and therefore, everything he has done, all appointments and all signings are voidable.

I am basing this on the research that we and others have done that the overwhelming actual and circumstantial evidence is that Soetoro/Obama was born in Mombasa Kenya Africa and with only one [1] parent, his mother, a U.S. citizen, and by the law in effect on August 4, 1961, she could not convey ?natural born? status to Soetoro/Obama.? ?

Berg states, ?Shortly, I will continue to expose Soetoro/Obama by filing another False Claims [Qui Tam] case that I am preparing to file with the additional facts that Attorney General Eric Holder is in a position of Conflict-of-Interest and therefore, he and his staff in the U.S. Attorney General?s Office and Department of Justice should conflict out of the case and appoint a Special Prosecutor.?

Also, we will continue putting pressure on Republicans and Darryl Issa (R. California) to hold Hearings to verify if Soetoro/Obama is ?Constitutionally Eligible? to be President of the United States.?

Berg said, ?I hope that everyone in our country realizes the freedoms that we all enjoy that came forth from our Forefathers who gave us ?our? U.S. Constitution, ?our? Declaration of Independence and ?our? Bill of Rights.?

Berg continued, ?We are in a Constitution crisis that must be resolved ASAP.? We, citizens of the United States, are laughed at around the world as it is general knowledge that Soetoro/Obama is a Fraud, a Phony, an Imposter and he has put forth the greatest ?Hoax? in the history of the United States, over 234 years? !

Obamacrimes.com will also be putting pressure on the Republicans as they now control in the U.S. House for Hearings to verify if Obama is ?Constitutionally Eligible? to be President of the United States.? Keep watching our website, obamacrimes.com, for further details.??
??
Berg concluded, ?The crucial issues regarding Soetoro/Obama, the ?IMPOSTER?, continue to grow.? However, the most important issue is Obama not being ?Constitutionally Eligible? to be President: 1) not being ?natural born?, being born in Mombasa, Kenya; and 2) even more important, the fact that Obama was ?adopted? or legally ?acknowledged? by his Step-Father, Lolo Soetoro, and his school record in Indonesia indicates the ?Imposter?s? name is ?Barry Soetoro?, his nationality being ?Indonesia? and his religion being ?Islam?.? Obama, the Imposter?s legal name is ?Barry Soetoro?.? If Soetoro/Obama has not legally changed his name, his legal name is Barry Soetoro!? Yes, one can use an alias, but not for fraudulent purposes; and Soetoro/Obama is.? Soetoro/Obama must be stopped ! ?Soetoro/Obama?s agenda must be stopped!??

Donations are needed ASAP and very appreciated
to help cover our expenses to continue to Defend ?our? Constitution
?
My Birthday is April 13th and I am requesting everyone to
please contribute $2.11, $20.11, $201.10, $2,011.00 or $20,110.00
so we can expose Soetoro/Obama in 2011 for the fraud he is ! ??
?
You may donate on our web site:? obamacrimes.com
?
For copies of all Press Releases and Court Pleadings, go to:

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 9:53
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Lunes, 04 de abril de 2011

Share on Facebook

Memo to American Thinker: Four Facts on the Breach of Article?II

?2011 drkate

American Thinker has generally produced well researched and interesting articles that I enjoy very much.? But they fail, like so many others, in discussing the most pressing issue of our day: the invasion of the White House by the foreign usurper, Obama.? This author has repeatedly submitted? articles to the American Thinker? on the subject of Barack Obama?s failure to meet the constitutional requirements for the Presidency articulated in Article II of the Constitution.? American Thinker has refused to publish not only mine but many articles on this subject, presumably because they either don?t see a problem or have been directed to not publish anything of substance.? Recently AT allowed two articles to discuss Obama?s ?birth certificate?, notice not eligibility.? Both articles fall woefully short of informing their readers of the true seriousness of this issue.

The American Thinker?s satire and ludicrous analyses aside, the failure of? the media and others to? acknowledge that Barack Hussein Obama? is not a natural born citizen eligible to the Presidency under Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the Constitution is one of the most serious breaches of the Constitution in United States history.? We do ourselves, America, and our future generations no favor by satirizing, ignoring, or being afraid to address this issue.

Donald Trump?s release of his Birth Certificate, and the ?media?s? immediate questioning of Trump?s mother?s birth outside the U.S. demonstrates unequivocally that the media knows full well what a ?natural born citizen? is.? Trump masterfully produced his mother?s naturalization papers the next day proving that both his parents were U.S. citizens at the time of his birth.? Now that Mr. Trump has broken the ice jam and has forcefully brought this issue into the public view, it may be useful to review the basic problems of Mr. Obama?s citizenship that have caused 91% of Americans to doubt his birth story.

?

  • Fact.? The Constitution requires that the President be a natural born Citizen, which is not the same as a Citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment.? The term ?natural born? Citizen is a national security safeguard to ensure that the Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces does not have dual or multiple allegiances.? If the Founders had thought a ?Citizen? was sufficient for the Presidency, the words ?natural born? would not have preceded the word ?Citizen? in Article II:

    No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President

  • Fact.? The natural born citizenship clause of the Constitution requires both parents to be American citizens at the time of a child?s birth in order for that child to be eligible for the Presidency.? Mr. Obama has already admitted that at birth he had dual citizenship from his father, a British subject, and his mother, an American citizen.? This is irrespective of birth place. A dual citizens? allegiance is inherently divided. The Constitution requires singular allegiance to the United States at birth.
  • Fact.? Mr. Obama admits he was adopted by an Indonesian national and became an Indonesian citizen in order to attend school there.? No record exists as to whether Mr. Obama renounced this Indonesian citizenship or was naturalized as an American citizen when he returned to the United States.? Even if he did renounce his Indonesian citizenship, Mr. Obama fails the singular allegiance test of the Constitution as a result of his dual allegiance at birth.? As further disqualification then,? Mr. Obama has multiple citizenships:? British, Kenyan, Indonesian, with his American citizenship confirmed as soon as he releases his naturalization papers.? The Constitution requires singular allegiance to the United States.? A Citizen of the United States by naturalization is not a natural born citizen.
  • Fact.? The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution establishes the conditions for U.S. citizenship but not ?natural born? citizenship. ?Fourteenth Amendment citizens are not natural born citizens.? The Fourteenth Amendment did not modify, replace, or change Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the Constitution.

Without mentioning the ?birth certificate? at all, Mr. Obama fails to qualify for the Presidency under Article II, and fails the tests of the Twelfth, Twentieth, and Twenty Fifth Amendments of the Constitution.

Under any of these provisions of the Constitution, Obama can be relieved from duty with an orderly succession of officers that ensures the continuity of government.

Its time to act, not avoid.? And its time for the American Thinker to grow an editorial spine and seriously address this issue.


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 11:12
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Share on Facebook

Constitutional requirement that a Presidential candidate be a natural born citizen

Obama?s ineligibility: conspiracy and cowardice


?- Lawrence Sellin??Saturday, April 2, 2011

Unless I am mistaken, it has always been a Constitutional requirement that a Presidential candidate be a natural born citizen. That is, the candidate must be born in the US of parents who are US citizens at the time of birth.


According to that definition, Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen and, therefore, has never been eligible for the Presidency.

How could he have been nominated by the Democratic Party, placed on ballots in all 50 states, certified by the Electoral College and sworn into office by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court?

Did I miss some important event somewhere along the way to the 2009 inauguration? Are we not using the natural born definition anymore? If so, who decided that? Was the Constitution amended in secret?

Actually, none of that happened.

What I think did happen was that many people got caught up in the euphoria and glamor of electing the nation?s first African-American President. The left wing of the Democratic Party saw it as a possible way of achieving long-term power. The main stream media, which is a shill for the Democrat Party, put its full weight behind Obama. Finally, the Republican Party may have been intimidated into cowardice by political correctness, fear of press ridicule and their own love of power and privilege.

So, rather than deal with the troublesome requirement of natural born citizenship, it appears that some individuals may have intentionally decided to sidestep the Constitution, while the vast majority of those who knew better, simply acquiesced.

A conspiracy of silence remains in effect today

A conspiracy of silence remains in effect today. One can only conclude that rather than face the truth, our political leadership has chosen to enter the 2012 election cycle as if nothing is wrong.

What the sorry excuses for statesmen don?t realize is that by not facing up to such an issue both then and now, they have irreparably damaged the foundation of our republic. A precedent has been set that the Constitution may be invoked when it is politically expedient to do so, or just as easily ignored by the same criterion.

On the Democratic side of the aisle, there are some, who believe that they are blessed with only noble intentions and possess bound volumes of the truth. Any opposing views are not only wrong, but they are evil or stupid. It is acceptable, therefore, to express rage and fling insults at anyone, who disagrees with them. The end, to dramatically transform the US according to their left wing ideologies, justifies the means.

On the Republican side of the aisle, there are some, who are simply weak and cowardly.

It appears that the majority of our political leadership and the main stream media, probably for different reasons, have decided not to address the issue of Obama?s ineligibility.

Those who may be guilty will do anything they can to prevent discussions and investigations of his eligibility because it could lead to substantiation of their complicity in the greatest political fraud ever perpetrated on the American people.

Unlike them, the American people do not fear the truth and are intent on upholding the integrity of our Constitution. If what I wrote above is true, then what our political leaders and the main stream media have done is nothing less than tyranny by taking it upon themselves to subvert the people?s Constitution.

Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black stated: ?Our Constitution was not written in the sands to be washed away by each wave of new judges blown in by each successive political wind.?

Abraham Lincoln said: ?Don?t interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties.?

To our temporary employees in Washington, D.C. ? On which side of history do you wish to be?

You have only a little time left to decide.


Author
Lawrence Sellin

Lawrence Sellin
Most recent columns

Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is a recently retired colonel with 29 years of service in the US Army Reserve. He is a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. receives hate mail at [email protected]




Publicado por Corazon7 @ 11:04
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Domingo, 03 de abril de 2011

Share on Facebook

Dr.Alan Keyes Speaks About Obama's

Eligibility Question 3-29-11



Publicado por Corazon7 @ 14:26
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
S?bado, 02 de abril de 2011

Share on Facebook

?


http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=282117


BORN IN THE USA?

Another presidential

hopeful wants Obama

eligibility proof

Says during interview:

'I'd produce birth certificate.

End of discussion'


Posted: April 02, 2011
12:00 am Eastern

By Bob Unruh
??2011?WorldNetDaily

?


Herman Cain

Businessman and possible 2012 GOP contender Herman Cain says he understands why people want President Obama to bring out some proof of his eligibility to occupy the Oval Office.

He said in an interview with Shark-Tank.net he respects people who believe Obama "should prove he was born in the United States of America."

He was responding to a question about billionaire Donald Trump's flamboyant challenges to Obama to just produce his birth certificate and close the issue.

Help get TV commercials on the air to bust Obama's eligibility wide open!

He said Trump was "not off base, just like the people who have been challenging his place of birth the last couple of years."

The interview:

?

?

Cain continued, "It's just not an issue that I have studied enough to have a view on one way or another. I've been on the radio for five years fulltime. That wasn't an issue, quite frankly, that I spent a lot of time studying. And I respect people who believe he should prove his citizenship."


Barack Obama

He continued that there is a very simple way for such issues to be resolved.

"If I were president and someone were challenging me on that, I'd produce my birth certificate. End of discussion, so that it doesn't remain a big distraction," he said. "I know there are people who have dug up some facts on this side, some people who have dug up some facts on [the other] side."

"I, frankly, have not looked at all the facts."

He earlier leveled another type of criticism against Obama.

He said Barack Obama's long list of incidents in which he disregards America's Christian heritage may be intentional.

"I have been able to get the pulse of the American people of not only what's in their head but what's in their heart," Cain told CBN News Correspondent David Brody in an interview. "What's in their heart is they love this country. They love the values upon which this country was founded, and they don't like it when the president omits 'endowed by their Creator' from reciting the Declaration of Independence."

Brody asked Cain, "Do you believe that was intentional by the president?"

"I believe it was intentional because he did it three times, two of which I know about, and a friend of mine actually knows of a third one," Cain answered. "With all of his teleprompters, how could you not put that in there? No. I believe it was intentional."

As WND has reported, Obama has an established record of omitting references to the Divine: prompting a letter from the Congressional Prayer Caucus for incorrectly replacing the nation's motto of "In God We Trust" with "E pluribus unum" in a speech at the University of Indonesia, omitting the phrase "endowed by their Creator" from documents submitted to the United Nations, drawing criticism for omitting the same phrase three times in a little over a month and, by WND columnist Chuck Norris' count, dropping "their Creator" a total of seven times in a two-month span last year.

Cain, a radio talk host, WND columnist and former CEO of Godfather's Pizza, is one of only a few GOP potential candidates to announce formation of an exploratory committee to seek possible nomination for president in 2012.

The issue of Obama's eligibility has been in the news since before his election. There have been a multitude of lawsuits and other challenges over his eligibility under the Constitution's requirement that a president be a "natural born Citizen."

Many contend that means a child of two U.S. citizen parents, and Obama's father was a Kenyan national when he attended college in the U.S. He later returned without any effort to become a U.S. citizen.

Other challenges contend Obama was not born in Hawaii as he claimed, suggesting an out-of-the borders birth, and resulting ineligibility. The "certification of live birth" from Hawaii that his campaign released is a "short form" summary of a birth record that does not necessarily indicate a Hawaiian birth.


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 9:53
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Viernes, 01 de abril de 2011

Share on Facebook

Civil Case Against Obama Scheduled for Oral Arguments on May 2

WHICH TAKES PRECEDENCE:? A CIVIL OR CRIMINAL CHARGE?

by Sharon Rondeau

What has happened to justice in America when decorated military men are put in prison for asking a question?

(Mar. 30, 2011) ? WorldNetDaily is reporting that an appellate court has scheduled a hearing on the merits of a lawsuit filed by California attorney and dentist Orly Taitz more than two years ago.

The case Wiley Drake v. Obama will be heard by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, according to Taitz, who, in addition to challenging Barack Hussein Obama on his constitutional eligibility to serve as President and Commander-in-Chief, claims that Obama has also lied about his attendance at Columbia University in the early 1980s.

In recent days, entrepreneur and real estate developer Donald Trump has demanded that Obama produce his long-form birth certificate allegedly on file with the Hawaii Department of Health, according to former Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle.?? However, the current Hawaii governor has stated that there is no original birth certificate of Obama?s in the Aloha State.

News reports have been changed to reflect differing stories about where Obama was born, and members of the Kenyan Parliament say that he was born there.? Does Hawaii Governor Abercrombie say that Obama has no birth certificate from Hawaii because Obama was actually born in Kenya?? To date, no one has discredited the document which Lucas Smith produced in 2009.

Mr. Lucas Daniel Smith claims that on a trip to Africa in early 2009, he heard from some of the natives that Barack Hussein Obama, the man acting as the U.S. president, had been born in Kenya, not Hawaii.? He stated that he traveled to Kenya from the Congo, bribed hospital personnel to produce a copy of Obama?s birth certificate, and is willing to testify to Congress about it.

A decorated U.S. Army medical doctor is incarcerated at Ft. Leavenworth federal prison for asking if the orders he was receiving through his chain of command which ultimately emanated from Obama were legal.? The military officers who convicted him denied Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin the answers to his questions and have been accused of treason by retired LCDR Walter Francis Fitzpatrick, III.

Barack Hussein Obama claims he was born in Hawaii but has never produced official documentation bearing the signature of a doctor or nurse attesting to having assisted at the birth.? No one has come forward to commemorate the event in Hawaii. Neither Queens Medical Center nor the Kapiolani Medical Center in Honolulu has claimed to be his birthplace.

On Monday, Donald Trump released his short-form birth certificate, and on Tuesday he released his long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate showing that he was born in Queens (New York City), New York.? The mainstream media immediately attempted to discredit Trump?s documentation even though Obama has failed to release a long-form birth certificate of his own.

Also today, The Post & Email has been told that radio show host Doug Urbanski discussed the incarcerations of both Lt. Col. Lakin and LCDR Walter Fitzpatrick on his nationally-broadcast show.

Lakin was sentenced to six months in Ft. Leavenworth, forfeiture of pay and discharge from the U.S. Army after questioning Obama?s eligibility.? Fitzpatrick was jailed on October 27, 2010 after local sheriff?s department deputies broke down his door, tasered and beat him, then took him to the county detention facility for allegedly failing to appear at a hearing regarding his attorney of record.? Fitzpatrick had originally asked that the county grand jury evaluate his charge of treason against Obama.

The Post & Email was informed that Urbanski did not denigrate either Lakin or Fitzpatrick, but rather, had attempted to shed light on two men who went to jail as a result of their respective actions relative to Obama.

Of the national broadcast, Fitzpatrick said, ?This is a new development.? It?s the first time Lt. Col. Lakin?s case or mine has? received national coverage.? Something?s happening here.? Tomorrow?s another day.?? Fitzpatrick contacted Urbanski?s producer, who reportedly was surprised that one of the subjects of Urbanski?s show, which was still in progress, had called in.? Fitzpatrick stated that the producer took down his contact information and promised to get back to him.

Urbanski took over as host of the radio program when former Senator and presidential candidate Fred Thompson departed at the beginning of this year.

Fitzpatrick has filed a second treason complaint against Obama, as have several thousand U.S. citizens.

On March 21, Mr. Fitzpatrick was the featured guest on the Terry Lakin Action Fund radio program, designed to bring attention to Lt. Col. Lakin?s plight and to assist his family financially while he serves his prison sentence.

A civil complaint has been described, in part, as:

A civil complaint initiates a civil lawsuit by setting forth for the court a claim for relief from damages caused, or wrongful conduct engaged in, by the defendant. The complaint outlines all of the plaintiff?s theories of relief, or causes of action (e.g., negligence, battery, assault), and the facts supporting each cause of action. The complaint also serves as notice to the defendant that legal action is underway. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure govern construction of complaints filed in federal courts. Many state courts follow the same rules as the federal courts, or similar rules?

A criminal complaint is defined as:

A criminal complaint charges the person named or an unknown person with a particular offense. For example, after the bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995, authorities issued a John Doe complaint, charging an unknown person or persons with the crime.

A criminal complaint must state the facts that constitute the offense and must be supported by probable cause. It may be initiated by the victim, a police officer, the district attorney, or another interested party. After the complaint is filed, it is presented to a magistrate, who reviews it to determine whether sufficient cause exists to issue an arrest warrant. If the magistrate determines that the complaint does not state sufficient probable cause, the complaint is rejected and a warrant is not issued. In federal court, the complaint is presented under oath (Fed. R. Crim. P. 3).

Are the facts supported by probable cause?? If so, the above definition states that an arrest warrant will be issued.

Fitzpatrick has stated that a criminal charge takes precedence over a civil suit.

How many criminal complaints could be filed before May 2?

How many people will be charged with treason against the U.S. Constitution?

Who is complicit?? Congress, governors, military officers, the Joint Chiefs of Staff?the mainstream media, the Hawaii Department of Health, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Janice Okubo, the Hawaii Elections Office, the Democrat National Committee??

And how about the U.S. Supreme Court for ?evading the issue??

When the truth comes out about Obama, where will they hide?? Or where will they be incarcerated?

Perhaps they will change places with Lt. Col. Lakin.

? 2011, The Post & Email. All rights reserved internationally, unless otherwise specified. To read more on our copyright restrictions, see our Copyright notice on the subheader of every page, along the left margin.

?

?


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 10:09
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Share on Facebook

Thursday, March 31, 2011

Commander Kerchner: LTC Terrence Lakin Clemency Request -- for Inclusion in the Filing as part of the Clemency Request for LTC Lakin

?

Commander Kerchner: LTC Terrence Lakin Clemency Request -- for Inclusion in the Filing as part of the Clemency Request for LTC Terry Lakin

Date:
31 March 2011

From:
CDR Charles F. Kerchner, Jr. (Ret)
Lehigh Valley PA

To:
Major Matthew Kemkes
U.S. Army Trial Defense Service
204 Lee Avenue, Suite B12
Ft. Meyers VA 22211-1199

Subject: LTC Terrence Lakin Clemency Request

Major Kemkes:

Please forward this Clemency Request to the General making that decision.

I am a retired Commander who served his country 33 years on both active duty and in the reserves as both an enlisted person and the last 19 years as a commissioned officer. More details on my background and military service can be found here:
http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/06/21/a-one-on-one-personal-interview-with-commander-kerchner-regarding-his-eligibility-challenge-and-lawsuit-against-obama-and-congress

I attended the court martial of LTC Terrence Lakin. Needless to say I was very disappointed as to how the court martial was conducted in that no discovery or witnesses were allowed to be presented about the underlying reason that LTC Lakin believed he had no constitutional choice to faithfully live up to his solemn oath to the Constitution but to disobey orders involving his second deployment to Afghanistan to call attention to a very serious constitutional crisis facing our nation. That reason was the very constitutional lawfulness of the putative president and commander-in-chief to issue orders to surge 30,000 more troops into combat in Afghanistan. All deployments of military forces to foreign combat zones must be ordered by a lawful president and such president must sign off on such orders. Thus LTC Lakin's deployment orders ultimately did originate with the Putative President Obama, and the legality of those orders and the chain of command did not stop at the Pentagon as was stated in the records of the preliminary hearings and in this trial. The Putative President Obama has not conclusively proven to the overwhelming majority of the American people that he is constitutionally eligible to be the President. See this recent scientifically conducted national poll wherein now less than 10% of those surveyed indicated they believed that Obama has conclusively proven he was born in the USA and/or is eligible to be the President.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=276865

LTC Terrence Lakin, as did I, and as did you, took a solemn oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. He did not take an oath to the President or to the Officers appointed above him. His solemn oath is solely to the U.S. Constitution and no one or nothing else. The Constitution is the fundamental law of the land. That solemn oath the commissioned officer takes is an officer's prime directive as to what he is to use to judge the lawfulness of all orders. And officers are charged with evaluating the lawfulness of any orders they are given. The Nuremberg defense invalidated any officers claim that he was simply following orders if his conscience suspected that the orders were unlawful and he just blindly followed them anyway.

The officer?s sole and solemn oath is solely to support and defend the Constitution. The enlisted man?s oath is to support and defend the Constitution and obey all orders from the President, all officers appointed above you, and the UCMJ regulations. There?s a big difference. The officer?s oath obligates the commissioned officer to only be responsible to support and defend the Constitution, not a person or man or president. The first oath administered to commissioned officers under the new Constitution, like the current oath, required them only to support the Constitution. Various oaths were tried in between the first oath enacted into law on June 1, 1789 and the modern version prescribed in the 1860s after the Civil War. But the writers of the modern oath realized that the singular intent of the original oath was the best for the survival of the constitutional republic. Officers were and still are in general more educated, and they were envisioned to be able if need be to question the lawful constitutionality of orders and to be the last line of defense for the Constitution against from a usurper president and commander in chief, which is why in their original commissioned officer?s oath and in the modern commissioned officer?s oath they are charged solely to support and/or defend the Constitution.

By leaving out the word ?President? and ?officers appointed above you? and references to the ?UCMJ? out of their oath -? when push gets to shove with the U.S. Constitution and the constitutionality of orders Officers are intended to stand up and question the constitutionality of orders and stand up to defend the Constitution no matter what ? even if it means going up against a President violating that Constitution. You are charged with defending only the Constitution in that oath ? because the President is not in the commissioned officer?s oath and to President is not the sovereign in our republic or of our land, We the People and our Constitution are. The writer?s of the oath, both the original one and modern one used since the Civil War, knew that someday a President could be subverting the Constitution to gain more personal power.

In my opinion as a witness to the Court Martial, the court and prosecutors tried Lt. Col. Lakin on the enlisted man?s oath. They didn?t explicitly say it, but anybody watching knew it, because they were saying he has to obey the orders of the President without question without regard to the constitution of said orders. He has to obey the orders of the officers above him with out question without regard to the constitutionality of said orders. He has to obey the regulations of the UCMJ with out question without regard to the constitutionality of doing so in the circumstances the officer is confronted with. The constitutionality of the putative president now in the Oval Office was not allowed to be introduced as a defense for his actions. But follow those order blindly would have been violating the prime directive of protecting the Constitution. That oath to the Constitution was and is the supreme order and the only oath to which he solemnly swore when he became a member of the military. He didn?t swear an oath to the president, or a man. People are forgetting this. They don?t understand why our Founding Fathers created this system of checks and balances. They were so wise that they knew this day could come. That?s why the oath is written the way it is. Not enough people have studied this and know this, and it should never have had to happen. http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/george-washington-consulted-legal.html

Lt. Col. Lakin shouldn?t have been put in a position by our society and the U.S. government to have to stand up to the de facto putative president as being a usurper. Our system of checks and balances should have taken care of that, but it didn?t. They all failed us. The Washington, DC establishment is a cesspool of corruption. It?s a cesspool, and it?s controlled by social forces, alternative-lifestyle forces that are pushing objectives to move our government totally away from right and wrong, the Army's core values, and the Constitution, the fundamental law of our land. They?re trying to twist things and the meaning of words at every turn as in ?What does the word ?is? mean?? and their contention that the Constitution is malleable without legal amendment thereof. For example saying that the 1st Amendment is supposed to be saying ?freedom from religion? when it provides for freedom ?of religion.? They twist words.
http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/12/28/cdr-charles-kerchner-speaks-out-about-the-court-martial-of-lt-col-terry-lakin

I believe that LTC Terrence Lakin was not given fair preliminary hearings, due process and other legal rights guaranteed by our Constitution by being denied the ability for even limited discovery and to call key expert witnesses to testify to the historical purpose and meaning of the commissioned officer's oath and true duty of an officer under his commissioned officer's solemn oath to support and defend the Constitution and to stand and defend it as his prime directive and not acquiesce to its usurpation or trampling. And Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, the presidential eligibility clause is as much a part of our constitution as is the 1st and 2nd amendments.
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/08/why-natural-born-citizen-clause-is.html

I respectfully request that LTC Terrence Lakin be granted full clemency and/or the conviction by at his court martial be overturned and vacated and that LTC Lakin be returned to full service, pay and benefits, promotion, and potential eligibility for a future pension until such time as the constitutional eligibility of Obama is conclusively proven and confirmed by a controlling legal authority (if such can be done given what we already know about Obama's use of someone else's SSN on a back dated Selective Service registration) such as a Congressional investigation into Obama's early life missing original long form documents as to his nativity story and his fraudulent claim to natural born citizenship to constitutional standards. And image on the internet proves nothing in these days of PhotoShop. Obama is not only a usurper of the office of the presidency and command of the military he is also a criminal involving criminal document fraud involving both his bogus Social Security Number and a back dated and falsified Selective Service registration.
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=183337

Obama could have avoided endangering the troops under his command unnecessarily by providing a certified true and correct paper copy of his long form birth certificate, if one exists, like all the troops under him are required to provide prior to a foreign deployment. Internet images do not suffice. Obama chose not to stand up for the best interest of his soldiers under his command. Obama failed as a Commanding Officer and failed as a leader of men. He permitted the prosecution of a commissioned officer standing up for his oath to the Constitution and allowed a decorated officer and doctor to go to prison rather than he, Obama, providing a simple certified paper copy of a long form birth certificate issued by the state of Hawaii directly to a controlling legal authority to end that 2 year controversy. Campaign internet images of a short form do not suffice. Would a trooper be allowed to present a digital image on a laptop computer screen as adequate documentation as part of his pre-deployment processing? What's is required of the troops to prove eligibility and birth status beyond a reasonable doubt is also what should be required of their commander-in-chief. And a real commanding officer would have gladly provided it. Obama is unfit for command.

Please overturn the court martial conviction of LTC Terrence Lakin or grant him full clemency. The Constitution and being on the right side of history demands this. Allow LTC Lakin to return to full service to his country and the Army as a decorated and talented medical doctor while giving the legal and political system more time to expose the true traitor to our Constitution the military core values, the usurper Obama.

Respectfully submitted,


CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Lehigh Valley PA
Lead Plaintiff in Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al
http://www.scribd.com/doc/38506403
http://www.protectourliberty.org

Via WND: - So whatever became of Lt. Col. Lakin? - Army doctor half done with prison term for questioning Obama eligibility - Details here.

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 10:03
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar