Before It's News | People Powered News

Friday, April 29, 2011

Dr. Ron Polland Evaluates Obama’s “Birth Certificate”


Introduction by Sharon Rondeau

Editor's Note: Reprinted with permission of The Post & Email.

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 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 – albeit via YouTube – 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 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 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 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.

April 28, 2011

Editor's Note: Reprinted with permission of The Post & Email.

Rep. Allen West served in the U.S. Army in Iraq and was threatened with a court-martial in 2003

Dear Editor:

The following letter has been sent to the office of Rep. Allen West of Florida’s 22nd District:

To: Jonathan Blyth, Assistant to Florida Congressman Allen West

From: Gordon Smith

Re: An Open Letter to Rep. West

Dear Jonathan,

You and I have communicated over time about your boss’s “involvement” in this birther controversy…..and to encapsulate, I believe, the impression you left me about this issue…..your boss, Rep. West was “deeply” concerned about it….and would do something to get to the bottom of it.

Is that about correct?

Well, Jonathan……yesterday, as you know, Obama released his so-called long form birth certificate only because of the pressure put on him not by Congress or any other member of our government….but from Donald Trump, of all people….and the upcoming release of a very telling book from author Jerome Corsi from WorldNetDaily.

But that is a TOTALLY separate issue….I could lose alot of brain cells ranting about how wrong THAT one is!

But now that the birth certificate has been released, and it has taken less than 24 hours for MULTITUDES of amateur and professional document experts to reveal it is a VERY VERY poorly done fake…….what does Rep. West plan on doing about this?

Out of the whole entire Congress & Senate……I am NOT solely picking on Rep. West…but YOU indicated to me very emphatically in previous emails that he was all over this issue……so how about now?

There are dozens and dozens of youtube videos that exploded overnight showing in vivid detail how wrong this birth certificate is……

Here is just one good example

I am IMPLORING…IMPLORING you very cordially to have Rep. West watch this video…or any others he deems necessary….and if he agrees that there is something rotten in Denmark….to come out with a VERY public statement demanding that this document get IMMEDIATELY investigated by a professional document examiner of his choice, and the findings (whatever they are) be brought up on the floor of the House that AMERICA has been lied to and deceived.

If Rep. West chooses not to do this…..or he thinks this problem is “above his paygrade”………he will have become just as complicit as the usurper sitting in the Oval Office.

I am a Christian, Jonathan….and over and over my religion teaches that EVERY DAY we need to “decide today who we shall serve”…… God or man?

It’s time to choose, Rep. West.

I would VERY much like a reply to this email…..I am a disabled vet who served my country…and although it doesn’t give me any special treatment, and I am not a resident of the great State of Florida…..I think I deserve nothing less than a modicum of respect. I served for 20 years….and I know Rep. West is a dedicated/patriotic vet himself… I would very much like to hear from “my brother-in-arms”.


Gordon Smith

© 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.
Obama Confirms: Not a Natural Born Citizen


by JB Williams, ©2011

Editor's Note: Reprinted with permission of the Post & Email

Is this document authentic, and if so, why was it not made available during the presidential campaign?

(Apr. 28, 2011) — As the media blitz to silence questions about Obama’s eligibility for office become shrill, Obama finally releases his so-called “long form” birth certificate (aka, a birth certificate), confirming once and for all that he is not a natural born citizen of the United States in compliance with Article II of the U.S. Constitution.

Let the impeachment begin!

The document posted on the White House web site, reported to be Obama’s actual birth certificate, appears to be a very poor forgery even to the untrained eye. But that’s not really the big story here…

The release of this document actually proves a few things much more important at this stage of the debate.

Obama lied – having claimed for two years to have already released his birth certificate, which birthers correctly identified as only a COLB (Certification of Live Birth). Now he has released his birth certificate, allegedly.

The press lied – swearing to Obama’s lie, also claiming over and over and over again for two years, that Obama had already released his birth certificate. He had not. Now he has, maybe.

Barack Hussein Obama I is his natural birth father – and since he was never a citizen of the United States, Barack Obama II cannot possibly be a natural born citizen of the United States.

Most people don’t know what natural born citizen means.

To be or not to be a natural born citizen

The official definition of natural born citizen is as follows –

natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

those 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; and these become true citizens

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.

For those still having trouble following along, a natural born citizen is one born the natural offspring of a father who was at the time of birth, a U.S. citizen.

Now that Obama has confirmed that his natural birth father was a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. He has confirmed that he is not a natural born citizen of the United States.

As a result, the U.S. Constitution says he cannot be president of the United States, just as birthers have claimed for over two years. Article II – Section I – Clause V of the U.S. Constitution is very clear on the matter –

“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;”

Case closed!

As the confirmed natural born son of a foreign father who was at no time in his life a citizen of the United States, Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen of the United States and he cannot be president of the United States, just as many suspected and the constitution states unequivocally.

However, now that all Americans know the truth, what can they do about it?
Impeach immediately!

Some have claimed that Obama cannot be impeached because he was not legally elected, as a candidate who was a fraud from the start. I’m not a lawyer, but I disagree.

From the moment that Supreme Court Justice Roberts administered the oath of office to Barack Obama on January 20, 2009, he has sat in the people’s White House as the official president of the United States and has in fact made a disaster of our nation and much of the free world while sitting in that chair.

Not only can he be impeached, he must be. He must be impeached, removed from office and maybe put in prison for life for his intentional outright fraud.

Further, all in his administration, in congress and in the Supreme Court who knew he was a fraud and did nothing to stop this nightmare, must immediately resign and be charged with conspiracy to commit fraud as well.

In any free representative republic, there is nothing more vital than the integrity of our system. Once the people have lost faith in the integrity of the system, there is no system. No individual or group of politicians is more important than the preservation of our system of self-governance. All who were complicit must be held accountable in order to protect and preserve our constitutional republic.

I call for the immediate impeachment of Barack Hussein Obama for the high crime of fraud and breach of the public trust.
I call upon House Representative Allen West to initiate impeachment proceedings against Barack Hussein Obama at once.

Allen West is a retired Military Colonel who has sworn an oath to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution and the people of the United States, twice, as a soldier and as a House Representative. He took an oath to protect and preserve against all enemies, foreign and domestic and he currently has the confidence of the American people as an honorable man.

Last, the main stream press who has lied on Obama’s behalf, misleading the American public for almost three years regarding the fraud in the people’s White House, must be held accountable too. I call upon all American citizens to boycott all of the media outlets and personalities that carried water for the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on the American public.

The United States Patriots Union is making its secure People’s Lobby software available to the public, free of charge, for the purpose of contacting your House representatives regarding the impeachment of Barack Hussein Obama II.

Patriots prepared to take action can do so by contacting their House Representatives here. Join a Patriots Union discussion on this matter Friday night at 9:00 PM ET.

© 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.
CNN Stated Two Years Ago that Obama’s Birth Records Weren’t Available


by Sharon Rondeau

Editor's Note: Reprinted with permission of The Post & Email.

The Hawaii Great Seal contains elements of the former Kingdom of Hawaii Coat of Arms

(Apr. 29, 2011) — In July 2009, CNN President Jon Klein stated that the vital records belonging to Barack Hussein Obama could not be obtained because the Hawaii Department of Health had discarded original paper birth records in 2001.

Klein told some members of the staff of “Lou Dobbs Tonight” that no one should have a “legitimate beef” over Obama’s failure to release his birth certificate because it was no longer available.

However, the website for the Hawaii Department of Health mentions releasing “certified copies” of paper documents to eligible requesters, not electronic documents which would occur in a paperless environment.

If the Hawaii Department of Health had “gone paperless” in 2001, as claimed by CNN President Jon Klein, where did the image come from which was produced by the White House on Wednesday?

Where did the Certification of Live Birth come from which former White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs claimed was Obama’s “birth certificate?”

The HDOH also maintains that a person must have a “direct and tangible interest in the record” to obtain a certified copy of it. The law firm of Perkins & Coie reportedly made arrangements for Obama to obtain his long-form birth certificate from the Health Department on Obama’s behalf. But why did it take an attorney to obtain the alleged document? Why couldn’t Obama have done it himself using the simple request form from the Hawaii Department of Health’s website?

The application instructions for requesting a certified copy of a record online state clearly that electronic copies are not issued. Why, then, did CNN’s president imply that since 2001, that was the procedure? Where did he obtain his information?

From the Hawaii Department of Health:

Who is Eligible to Apply for Certified Copies of Vital Records?

A certified copy of a vital record (birth, death, marriage, or divorce certificate) is issued only to an applicant who has a direct and tangible interest in the record. The following persons are considered to have such an interest:

the registrant (the person whom the record is concerned with);
the registrant’s spouse;
the registrant’s parent(s);
a descendant of the registrant (e.g., a child or grandchild);
a person having a common ancestor with the registrant (e.g., a sibling, grandparent, aunt/uncle, or cousin);
a legal guardian of the registrant;
a person or agency acting on behalf of the registrant;
a personal representative of the registrant’s estate;
a person whose right to obtain a copy of the record is established by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction;
adoptive parents who have filed a petition for adoption and need to determine the death of one or more of the prospective adopted child’s natural or legal parents;
a person who needs to determine the marital status of a former spouse in order to determine the payment of alimony;
a person who needs to determine the death of a nonrelated co-owner of property purchased under a joint tenancy agreement; and
a person who needs a death certificate for the determination of payments under a credit insurance policy.

If you are not able to establish a direct and tangible interest in the record, you are ineligible and will not be issued a certified copy of the record.

Other news reports from Hawaii have confirmed the Department of Health’s defense of the state’s privacy laws in regard to vital records.

What “direct and tangible interest” did Attorney Judith Corley have in Obama’s birth certificate? She does not appear to meet any of the above criteria upon which the Health Department has relied to deny numerous UIPA requests made over at least the last three years.

If quoted correctly, Corley also lied when she said that Obama “doesn’t have a lot of personal legal issues.” There have been numerous lawsuits filed over the lack of proof that Obama meets the eligibility requirements of “natural born Citizen,” and more than 3,000 treason complaints have been filed against him. One lawsuit filed by Dr. Alan Keyes, a former 2008 presidential candidate, has been granted a hearing on the merits of the case on May 2, 2011. How, then, could Corley seriously say that he “doesn’t have a lot of personal legal issues?”

Why did Corley have to personally travel to Hawaii to obtain the alleged documents? Was it because release of certified copies normally takes 4-6 weeks?

There is no evidence that an official change in “administrative rules” at the Hawaii Department of Health has been enacted which would deny an eligible requester access to his or her government-maintained record. Even if there had been, administrative rules would not take precedence over the law passed by the Hawaii legislature in 1988 requiring disclosure of government records. Therefore, the Department of Health’s recent denial of certified copies, as promised on its website, is illegal.

The claim made by Hawaii Health Department Director Loretta Fuddy that the issuance of only “computer copies” to a requester was established “departmental policy” is not found anywhere in Hawaii law. Fuddy claimed that she was making an exception due to Obama’s “status.”

If Obama’s original birth record was held by the Hawaii Department of Health since doubts began to swirl about his birthplace, why was it not released then? Why were so many requests made under Hawaii’s UIPA law which were not even related to Obama denied or stonewalled?

Why was the wording on the Hawaii Democrat Party’s nomination form changed in 2008 and the DNC relied upon to provide the statement that Obama and Biden were constitutionally eligible to serve? And why did Tim Adams, a former Hawaii Elections Office supervisor during the 2008 election cycle, state in an affidavit that his supervisors had said that it was common knowledge that there “was no long-form birth certificate” of Obama’s held by the state of Hawaii.

Why have some people received copies of their long-form birth certificate and others been denied?

There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution which states that being born on U.S. soil is enough to satisfy the “natural born Citizen” requirement placed in Article II, Section 1 before the adoption of the Constitution in 1787. Even the 14th Amendment, which many claim renders Obama eligible under Article II and which largely dealt with freed slaves following the American Civil War, refers to “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” It says nothing about “natural born Citizen.” The exception “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” would not have applied to Obama because his father was a British citizen; therefore, Obama was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at his birth.

A report from USA Today claimed that the original birth certificate was two pages, not one.

The alleged document has not been shown in paper form, nor does it resemble a long-form birth certificate released on March 15, 2011 to another requester. Hawaii Health Department Director Loretta Fuddy stated that the form is a copy of Obama’s original document rather than a computer-generated composite.

Letter written to Barack Obama affirming that she had the "legal authority to approve the process by which copies of such records are made."

First page of letter from Perkins Coie requesting "two certified copies" of Obama's original certificate of live birth. The image shown to the public on April 27 did not contain an embossed seal.

Page 2 of Perkins Coie letter

Obama's letter stating that he wanted "two certified copies of my original certificate of live birth"

Some letters on White House stationery show an embossed seal, while others do not. A “letter” allegedly signed by Obama sent to Kapiolani Medical Center which the hospital later removed from its website and refused to allow Hawaii State Senator Sam Slom to see did not, and after analysis of the source code, was shown to be a combination of HTML codes rather than a scan of a real document.

Is Kapiolani Medical Center aware that a crime has been perpetrated and either participated in that crime or done nothing about it? When The Post & Email asked them to confirm that Obama was born there following the release of the image on the internet and on mainstream media, Kapiolani responded that it could make no comment due to privacy laws and that there would be no interviews granted to the press.

If employees of Kapiolani, the Hawaii Health Department, and Obama’s personal lawyer know that Obama’s documentation is not legitimate or that he has lied about his past to the American people to purposely deceive them, are they not committing misprision of felony?

Some are claiming that the image released on April 27, 2011 is a forgery. When Dr. Fukino told MSNBC that “what he [Obama] got, everybody got,” it was refuted by Miki Booth, whose son had requested a certified copy of his birth certificate and received something different than the original image purported by and Politifact to be Obama’s “birth certificate.” The Booth document contained a raised seal and was titled “Certificate of Live Birth,’ while Obama’s did not contain a seal and was titled “Certification of Live Birth.”

Contradicting Governor Neil Abercrombie, Fukino had told MSNBC’s Michael Isikoff that Obama’s “record of live birth absolutely exists.” She also contended that Obama’s original birth certificate was “half typed and half handwritten,” but the image released on April 27 did not appear to match that description.

Scan of image released by the White House purported to be a "certified copy" of his original, long-form birth certificate from Hawaii

Miki Booth has also shown a copy of her son’s long-form birth certificate from 1981 which contained spaces for the signatures of both parents rather than one, as shown on the image released by the White House on Wednesday.

The Booth document shows spaces for the signatures of both parents, while Obama’s shows a line just for the mother. There were fewer divorces in 1961, so why was there no line for the father’s signature on the form but there was in 1981?

The mainstream media have overwhelmingly gone to bat for the authenticity of the “document” released on Wednesday, claiming that those demanding to see it are racist or childish. However, on April 28, 2011, Eric Bolling of the Fox Business Network had Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs on as his guest to discuss the authenticity of the image presented by the White House. The style of the article is not a straight news story, as the author clearly shows a bias against Geller.

not one of them will address the fact that Obama’s purported biological father was a British citizen, which should have eliminated Obama from being eligible under Article II.

© 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.
Ten Commandments According to
Obama T Shirt

The Ten Commandments According to Obama

I. Thou shalt have no God in America, except for me. For we are no longer a Christian nation and, after all, I am the chosen One. (And like God, I do not have a birth certificate.) SOURCE

II. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, unless it is my face carved on Mt. Rushmore. SOURCE

III. Thou shalt not utter my middle name in vain (or in public). Only I can say Barack Hussein Obama. SOURCE

IV. Remember tax day, April 15th, to keep it holy. SOURCE

V. Honour thy father and thy mother until they are too old and sick to care for. They will cost our public-funded health-care system too much money. SOURCE

VI. Thou shalt not kill, unless you have an unwanted, unborn baby. For it would be an abomination to punish your daughter with a baby. SOURCE

VII. Thou shalt not commit adultery if you are conservative or a Republican. Liberals and Democrats are hereby forgiven for all of their infidelity and immorality, but the careers of conservatives will be forever destroyed. SOURCE

VIII. Thou shalt not steal, until you've been elected to public office. Only then is it acceptable to take money from hard-working, successful citizens and give it to those who do not work, illegal immigrants, or those who do not have the motivation to better their own lives. SOURCE

IX. Thou shalt not discriminate against thy neighbor unless they are conservative, Caucasian, or Christian. SOURCE

X. Thou shalt not covet because it is simply unnecessary. I will place such a heavy tax burden on those that have achieved the American Dream that, by the end of my term as President, nobody will have any wealth or material goods left for you to covet. SOURCE

Thursday, April 21, 2011

MSNBC Suggests Obama Not Born in a Hawaiian Hospital
from THE DAILY PEN by Penbrook One
MSNBC’s Savannah Guthrie joins Chris "leg-tingle" Matthews in becoming the network's second confirmed ‘birther’ as the leftist media conglomerate continues its spiral into obliviousness about Obama’s biography.

A Daily Pen editorial
by Daniel Crosby

When the truth is against you, impending judgment ultimately forces you to surrender and repent, or else, perish with your crumbling lies. The longer Obama’s defenders try to fill the vast, empty chasms of his covert biography with sermons of fawning, dishonest propaganda, the more they unravel into an incoherent psychosis under the crushing weight of the impending, cataclysmic reality.

Some at MSNBC are repenting.

MSNBC commentators, Savannah Guthrie and Chuck Todd, co-host "The Daily Rundown", a typically left-leaning program which attempts to focus on the top political stories of the day and is presented in a liberal-friendly format with reports and analysis from the Washington D.C. bureau of NBC News. The show airs at 9:00 a.m, Monday thru Friday.

During the April 4, 2011 broadcast of the show, the two pundits conducted an interview with founder, Bill Adair, as another post-mortem twitch of the network's dead coverage of Obama's eligibility story.

Regarding Obama’s covert Hawaiian birth records, Guthrie asked Adair, “…so what they (Hawaiian Department of Health) release is the ‘short-form’, but presumably, is there a long-form somewhere in the bowels of some bureaucratic building in Hawaii, and if so, why don’t they pull it out?”

Invoking the Chris Matthews ‘Devil’s Advocate to Birtherism’ technique, Savannah Guthrie became a birther!

In asking the question, Guthrie touched the essence of Obama's horrific problem. On the day this man was born, someone witnessed the birth and at least one of those witnesses attested official documentation recording the metrics and information about that birth. Those individuals are assumed to be at least an attending physician, and other hospital personnel or family members. That document was filed with the municipal authority and the medical facility bearing responsibility for such vital records in the location of the birth. As of today, this documentation has never been seen by anyone outside of a covertly protected group of government agents and pro-Obama municipal employees.

Moreover, Obama has paid in excess of a million dollars to his lawyers at Perkins Coie to defend against more than 30 lawsuits seeking his orignal documented eligibility to be President.

For Guthrie, the next step in the deductive process typically used by intelligent people is to consider the actual possible reasons why 'they don’t pull it out'. The foremost reason to consider is that it would expose Barack Obama as the most prolific liar and criminal in American political history while, possibly, sending America into social, legal and international chaos.

However, to date, NBC's pathetic overbending for Obama proves they and their viewers are viscerally terrified of what Obama has hidden from them. They invested too much in him. The rest of us in real America are not afraid of it because we only care if there is a criminal in the White House...regardless of his skin color or political party.

The 2012 pre-campaign media blast included a previous interview on ‘Rundown’ with Donald Trump last week during which Trump said that he wants Obama to produce a real birth certificate and that the reason Obama refuses to disclose his original natal documentation is because it might show that he is ineligible to be president.

Trump, unlike many in government today, appears to understand the importance of upholding Constitutional sovereignty through our President without respect for the political welfare of the individual holding the office.

Adair was brought on the show to rebut “The Donald”. Unfortunately, as we have become accustomed to seeing when this network attempts “journalism”, the conversation between these three devolved into a confusing back-and-forth replete with utter disinformation, outright dishonesty and laughable ignorance as they fumbled through Obama’s undocumented Hawaiian natal history.

Upon introducing Adair's with a reference to the Pulitzer prize, Chuck Todd asked, "We have heard from the Trump organization quite a bit about this segment, so, Bill, let's start with Trumps claim, he says the 'certificate of birth', but its actually a 'certificate of live birth', which is what Hawaii had versus a birth certificate. Please help clear this up."

Todd's incoherence is astonishing. First, his references to the document titles in association with Obama are wrong. Obama's inauspiciously posted, digitally imaged, altered documentation has a header title of 'Certification of Live Birth', not 'Certificate of Birth', as stated by Trump and which is a legitimate title of original birth documentation in some states, but not in Hawaii, and it is not a 'Certificate of Live Birth', as Todd claims, which is the NVSD template form of the standard federal document prescribed as the official medical verification of birth used by the hospital and is available through the U.S. Department of Health in 1961. The state of Hawaii did utilize this document in 1961 but it has never been shown to have been utilized to record Obama's birth.

“This is something we have done alot of research on at Politifact. We have talked to Hawaiian officials about it and there is, obviously, and I think many people know, the 'birth certificate' was posted on the web by the Obama campaign in the fall of 2008,” replied Adair.

Adair is already wrong and he's only been talking for five seconds. The image of a 'Certification of Live Birth' found suspiciously posted on the internet in October2008 is not a medically verified 'birth certificate' provided by a hospital and attested by a licensed professional. In fact, until 2009, many of Hawaii's very own municipal agencies refused to accept the 'Certification of Live Birth' document as a primary form of identification. The Obama campaign, nor anyone else, has ever posted an official, original birth certificate on the internet for Obama.

Adair continued, "Hawaiian officials have said that is real."

Aside from Adair’s genius in recognizing its existential qualities, he misidentifies the ‘CertificaTION of Live Birth’ as a “birth certificate", which is a generic term used by people who are ignorant about the difference between the available types of birth documentation in Hawaii. There is a big difference as it pertains to Obama, as we all know.

Recap, again. A Hawaiian ‘Certification of Live Birth’ is an independently published cover document created by a remote municipality way out in the Pacific Ocean, 40 years after Obama was born. It is not an original birth record created at the time of the birth. It is not endorsed or otherwise supported as an original medically verified U.S. 'Certificate of Live Birth' produced from template form and issued to municipal health departments who then provide the blank form to hospitals. This form is available and used in all 50 states per requirements outlined by the federal authority of the U.S. Department of Health, National Vital Statistics Division (NVSD 1961 Vital Statistics Report of the U.S., pp 229-244, Technical Appendix.)

When a birth occurs in a hospital, as we have been told Obama's did, the attending physician or administrator is required to consult with the parents who provide the appropriate information required on the form about them. The doctor then provides the medical information about the birth on the form. The form is then signed by a minimum of three different witnesses including the doctor, a hospital administrator and a witness or informant. The form will be attested and authenticated with he doctor's professional registration number and the date of its expiration. The form is then copied, either by photostatic method, or, currently, by digital scanning and is stored in the records of the medical facility. The original is then tranfered to the local Department of Health where the birth is registered and the original form is filed.

Unfortunately for Obama and his 'Obots', the Office of the President is a federal office, not an office held in the state of Hawaii…thank God...but, we digress.

It is apparent that Mr. Adair may not have researched as extensively as he claims. Most importantly, however, the ‘extensive researcher’, Adair, also fails to include that the “Certification of Live Birth” is deficient in allowing for the determination of natural-born qualifications of a presidential candidate.

In Obama’s case, the unconfirmed Hawaiian document only indicates the location of the registration of a birth by the department of Health, not the actual location of the occurrence of a medically verified “Live” birth in a Hospital or other facility with professional medical personnel or eyewitnesses who are qualified to attest documents certifying a vital event in the United States. Obama may very well have been born in Hawaii, but this document is not the original one created at the time of his birth which shows this. This is just a fact that can never be changed no matter how many want to deny it.

If the Hawaiian 'Certification of Live Birth' were authentic like the original, 1961 'Certificate of Live Birth', it would contain the identity and signatures of the attending physicians, the identity and signatures of the informant, the identity and signatures of the hospital administrator and the name of the hospital. Obama’s does not. Moreover, Obama’s ‘Certification of Live Birth’ does not indicate the citizenship status or birthplace of his parents, nor does it indicate whether the birth subject was adopted or whether the birth was, in anyway, originally documented through administrative processes which would possibly indicate a plural natal identity which, if shown to be true, would disqualify a presidential candidate.

These vital pieces of information are required to determine the natural-born status of the birth subject. Adair’s response reveals the long-standing flaw in Obama's supporters in that they lust to endow exclusive authority in determining Obama’s ‘natural-born’ status exclusively to the Hawaiian Department of Health. They seem to do this because this is the only entity on the planet willing to construct the information in an ambiguously misleading manner which supports Obama’s desire to conceal the authentic, original documents created in 1961.

Between its nonsensical records laws and its subversively liberal state legislature; Its administrative rules which allow everything from cover documents-in-lieu-of-authentic-originals, it has become clear the state of Hawaii is the foremost suspect in the abetment of Obama’s criminal presidency.

For someone claiming to have ‘researched this extensively’, Adair was shockingly unintelligible about the facts surrounding Obama’s Hawaiian origins, but the contaminated interview continued.

“There is another piece of evidence which is, as I understand, is contemporaneous…a birth announcement in the local paper in 1961?” asked Guthrie.

“Correct,” replied Adair, “and this to me is even more persuasive in many ways, because it’s published in the paper…for it to be put there in two papers…in the two Honolulu newspapers it was placed by the department of health…”

“They do it! Not the families!” Todd interrupted, pointing to a copy of the birth announcements.

“This is county produced! The same way…because right next to it are marriage applications! Which we have up here. Marriage applications which also it’s not as if…people filed with the county…and death notices…the same thing, whenever the county recorded a death certificate, correct?”

Okay, Chuck…since you mention it. Let’s talk about the marriage announcements.

While you are exalting the DOH with authority to initiate newspaper announcements declaring Obama as an eligible, ‘natural-born’ candidate for the most power office in the world, please tell us why Obama parents’ marriage announcements have never been found in the same papers as the birth announcements. They were allegedly married in Hawaii in February, 1961. Maybe the Department of Health or the newspapers were closed that day.

Todd’s implication that Obama was born in some fictional maternity ward at the offices of the Department of Health in Hawaii is a new low for Obama’s blind supporters.

Like so many other shills for Obama, he is so one dimensional in is pro-Obama thought structure that he never considers that the most important fact concerning the birth announcements is not whether members of Obama’s family provided information directly to the newspapers, but rather, that the information for the announcements was most importantly, not provided to the newspapers directly by the alleged medical facility in which Obama claimed he was born! Todd completely ignores this fact because he wants to endow the Hawaiian Department of Health with the authority to validate Obama as an eyewitness to the facts, exclusively.

Essentially, there have evolved four entities in this conversation. The Department of Health, the Obama/Dunham Family, an unconfirmed hospital and the Honolulu newspapers.

Of these four, only the hospital is the preeminent authority qualified to demonstrate that Obama is natural-born. We haven't heard from any hospital about Obama's birth. In determining natural born status, the Department of Health does not have a maternity ward nor does its personnel attend births. The family cannot be held accountable due to their personal interests, and the newspapers print whatever the Department of Health tells them to - regardless of the original sources used to create the information for birth announcements in the first place.

No, Obama was not born at the offices of the Hawaiian Department of Health in 2007! He was not born at the newspapers’ offices on August 11 when the announcements were published. We don't know if he was born at his family's home or at a hospital.

Therefore, the DOH officials whom these pundits so excruciatingly exalt as authorities in determining Obama’s constitutional eligibility are merely municipal tools used in a chain of command to process information provided to them by the initial authority – the medically qualified individual or individuals in the hospital where the birth is first verified.

Adair continued, “And, it says there (in the announcement), ‘a son born to Mr. and Mrs. Barack Obama…so for there to be any sort of conspiracy you had to have a lot of groups working together here.”

“You mean in other words, the department of Health had to be in on the conspiracy fifty years ago…” said Guthrie.

“Exactly,” replied Adair. “And, so, I think this is corroborating evidence that the birth certificate is authentic.” added Adair.

Notice the assumptions made by Adair about the connections between unrelated pieces of evidence. He states that the presence of the birth announcements created by two newspapers from information provided by the DOH in 1961 automatically indicates, without exception, that a Certification of Live Birth provided by the DOH in 2001 is a real document which, therefore, means that Barack Obama is a natural-born citizen. A quantum leap which Guthrie's burgeoning instincts cause her to take issue with.

“Well, just to be totally clear,” interrupted Guthrie, "when the Honolulu advertiser and the other paper has a birth announcement like this, the presumption is that this is a birth that has taken place in Hawaii, because it does not say ‘born in Honolulu.”

“Correct,” replied Adair.

Guthrie's use of the word 'presumption' is the problem. She finally hits one of the essential key pieces of information oriented against Obama's eligibility. The fact is that the appearance of a birth announcement in a Hawaiian newspaper in 1961 did not indicate a Hawaiian birth, as has been proven. Thousands of children born outside of Hawaii from the early 1900's until today have had their births registered and announced in Hawaii as a native birth. The state of Hawaii, and the territory prior, has maintained laws and policies for 100 years which afford its municipal authority with tremendous latitude in registering and 'nativizing' foreign-born children. A review of the history of Hawaii's plural culture and remote location explains the evolution of Hawaii's permeable migrational history.

“But, it (the newspaper) only reports births which happen in Hawaii,” continued Savannah.

“Exactly,” replied Adair, “…and the birth certificate says that the birth was in Honolulu.”

Adair and Guthrie have gone down the rabbit hole at this point, making an incredibly ignorant assumption. The fact is that the Hawaiian Department of Health has registered foreign births in Hawaii as native births and that the newspapers do not care whether the birth occurs in Hawaii or not. The newspapers simply print from a list of birth registrations which only indicate the address of the registrant, not the location of the birth. Adair becomes less of an expert the more he talks.

Then, appearing to shift accountability from Obama to the Republican party, Todd said, “You know, Bill, the cynical side of what I’ve heard from republicans on this is ‘okay, we don’t dispute that he was born in Hawaii’, but they are trying to smoke out the real birth certificate because they think there will be something else on the birth certificate, perhaps his religious denomination…did Hawaii even have that on their birth certificate in 1961?”

In Adair’s shockingly ignorant reply, he said, “Well, I am not sure about the religious faith but I would doubt it. Hawaiian officials have said that what is in their files, a certificate of Live birth, contains the same information as the one produced online…”

At this time it became apparent that Adair had no idea what he was talking about. Just as was expected. If an individual who claims to have researched the issue of Obama’s undocumented eligibility extensively does not know whether or not the religion of a baby is shown the 1961 Certificate of Live Birth, he is not qualified to have this conversation.

“Whatever was on the original one is what they produce now!” interjected Todd, incorrectly.

If the DOH produced a Certification of Live Birth with ‘whatever was on the original’, Todd would know that it would contain, among other things, the identity of the doctor or witness to the birth and the name of the hospital in which the original document was issued. It would also indicate the usual residence of the mother, the birthplace of both parents, the age of the mother, and 30 other pieces of critical information which do not appear on Hawaii’s fallow document.

Then, Guthrie seemed to crack under the weight of the truth as she began to think outside the Obama box.

“Okay,” she added, “…so what they release is the ‘short-form’, but presumably, is there a long-form somewhere in the bowels of some bureaucratic building in Hawaii, and if so, why don’t they pull it out?”

Adair replied, “We asked the health officials about that, and they said for all intents and purposes, they are the same document and what is on that computer generated document are the same things that are on the long-form and that the words ‘long-form’ are really not good terminology.”

Adair did not venture to ask, if the two documents are so much alike, then why doesn’t Obama just produce the original certificate created in 1961 for public review? Since they are exactly the same, then he should just produce both of them and end this controversy, once and for all.

Adair went on to say that, recently, Donald Trump had claimed that no one remembers Obama from school and that Trump was wrong because there is plenty of people who went to school with Barack Obama who remember him at all levels, they have been very public about it.

Adair could not name even one of them however.
FINAL REPORT: Obama's Birth Announcements Fail To Indicate "Natural Born" Status
from THE DAILY PEN by Penbrook One
A new investigation of Obama’s birth announcements appearing in Hawaii’s two primary newspapers in August, 1961 shows, 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.

By Penbrook Johannson
Editor of the Daily Pen

In August, 1961, two announcements allegedly showing a “native” birth for Barack Obama were published in Hawaii’s two primary newspapers, the Sunday Advertiser and the Honolulu Star. For more than three years since Obama engaged his unvetted candidacy for the presidency, many of his supporters have mistakenly lauded these blurbish announcements as the "holy grail" of proof that he was born in the state of Hawaii.

However, a detailed investigation of the history and procedures used by Hawaii’s municipal health department, and its relationship with the newspapers, shows that not only was it a matter of official policy that Obama’s birth would have been announced in the paper regardless of where he was born, the information used to publish the announcements is not even confirmed through any eye-witness, medical authority or hospital representative in the state.

In 1961, the two newspapers shared the same address and facility for their publishing operations which means they received only one copy of the same vital records information from the Department of Health. Therefore, the format and content of information used in "vital event" public announcements, including births, deaths, divorces and marriage applications, were published identically by both papers, including any mistakes, omissions, order or context. No investigation was carried out by the papers' editors to determine if the information provided by the DOH was actually accurate or, in the case of birth announcements, if the address published and provided by the registrant had any association with the geographic location of the actual birth. More than 1200 birth announcements between 1960 and 1965 were shown to contain Hawaiian addresses for registrants of births outside of the state of Hawaii, including more than three hundred in which the child was born outside of the United States.

The two newspapers have long since collaborated into one organization.

Now, however, data from the archive of the U.S. Department of Health’s 1961 Report on Vital Statistics of the U.S – Volume 1: Natality, and Hawaii’s Administrative rules governing the creation of vital records finally reveals the truth about how these announcements were published and why they are mistakenly used by uneducated pundits to promote a misguided message about Obama's natal history.

The Daily Pen’s, Dan Crosby, engaged a two month long research project on location in Hawaii, to, once and for all, close the door on questions about the facts and bring the long-due invalidation of the authority of these fallow Hawaiian birth announcements, in quaint, remote newspapers, to confirm Obama's eligibility to be president.

Recall, for more than two years, major media personalities, such as Bill O’reilly, Chris Matthews and recently fired, Keith Olbermann have enjoyed a willful ignorance in support of Obama's legitimacy while poking fun with these announcements essentially saying to their viewers that the very presence of these announcements means only one of two exclusive options: 1. They are a legitimate and accurate indication of Obama’s geographic birth in Hawaii, or 2. They are the result of some crazy 50-year-long conspiracy concocted by members of Obama’s family and newspaper editors at the time in order to enable Obama to use the announcements some time later as primary evidence that he was born in Hawaii in the event he might run for president some day.

In his investigation, Crosby found confirmed and easily accessible evidence that neither of these choices apply to Obama’s records. In fact, the explanation is far less sensational and simple that it reveals that Mr. Obama (Barry Soetoro) simply benefitted from a commonly used administrative practice in the state of Hawaii which was applied for literally thousands of births which were registered there, but which did not occur there. In doing so, Obama appears to have benefitted from a coincidental set of passive circumstances in which the choice to register his birth in Hawaii also allowed him to engage native U.S. citizenship status, not Natural Born status.

The announcements were a fringe benefit to his eligibility facade which merely occur as a consequence of the non-native birth registration process. However, the primary reason for his family registering his birth in Hawaii was to make sure he was eligible for something far less significant than the presidency. His grandparents wanted to make sure Obama could receive state financial assistance and medical care as an infant of an unemployed, wayward teenage mother and a foreign dead-beat, alcoholic, bigamist.

“The birth announcements were printed from unconfirmed information provided to the Newspapers by the Department of Health who received the information from Obama's grandparents, not a hospital," says Crosby in a phone call from Oahu.

“This information was publish without the DOH or newspaper editors confirming the actual location of the birth in any hospital or location in Hawaii. I found thousands of birth registration records of children born outside of Hawaii who have their announcements published in these two newspapers."

Crosby says this information can be determined by cross-referencing public records with birth announcements and associating the addresses with a residential directory and the natality data provided by Hawaii to the U.S. Department of Health's U.S. Vital Records Report.

Recall that Hawaii Revised Statute 338-17.8 allows the state Health Department to register the foreign birth of any child as a native Hawaiian birth if the parents of that child can be proven to the satisfaction and criteria of the Director of the Department of Health only, they were residence of Hawaii within one year of the birth, regardless of the location of the birth. This law then mandates that the vital records registrar must register the birth with the vital records office in coordination with an official, original Hawaiian birth record. This law originated during Hawaii's territorial era beginning with births in 1911 and was most recently revised in 1982 to allow the Health Department's director to assume autonomous authority over the evaluation of applicants.

“The Health Department director has complete autonomy in determining whether a foreign applicant qualifies for an original birth record under Hawaii's administrative rules," added Crosby

"Essentially, this means that former Health Department director, Chiyome Fukino single-handedly determined the eligibility of Obama to be President of the U.S."

"Regardless," he continued, "They (newspaper editors) don’t even confirm 'native' birth status. The newspaper doesn’t care if the birth occurred in the local hospital. They don’t even print the address of the birth. They publish the address of the registrant, not the birth place. They merely published information provided to them directly and exclusively from the Department of Health in 1961, which means that any birth meeting the criteria of this law can be registered in Hawaii, and therefore is published in a newspaper announcement. Obama could have been born on Mars and it wouldn't matter to the DOH or the newspapers.”

“The birth location is mistakenly implied to be Hawaii by people because the address of the registrant is Hawaiian as it appears in this newspaper. I also found several birth records in Japan for birth's registered in Hawaii.”

A review of all the birth announcements in Hawaii in 1961 reveals other evidence suggesting a disconnect between the Department of Health and Hawaii’s hospitals.

First of all, as shown by Crosby, all the announcements show the parents as married and living at the same address.

“This is not merely a majority of the announcements, this is actually all of them. Every single one! Approximately 16,000 in all!” Crosby said.

He continued, “This is a significant indication that the newspapers actually do not investigate the information provided by the DOH (Department of Health). If they did, they would have seen that there are more than 1040 births recorded in Hawaii in 1961 in which the parents were not married and/or only the mother is recorded as the parent, yet the papers still publish Mr. and Mrs. ‘Whoever’ in the announcement because that is the information registered, not medically verified.”

If the DOH doesn’t include accurate information about the parents marital status for birth announcements, in all cases, what makes people conclude a native birth even though the DOH also omits accurate information about the location of the birth, as well? Crosby also discovered that the announcements are in a tale-tell order which exposes a shocking fact about Obama’s birth announcements.

"Also," says Crosby, "just an interesting little side-note, we have all been told that Obama's parents were married sometime in early 1961. There are thousands of marriage application announcements published in these newspapers between 1960 and 1962, which were also published from registration information provided by the same DOH vital records office as Hawaii's birth registration announcements. There is no marriage application announcement for Dunham and Obama Sr. anywhere in the volumes I've researched."

Crosby admittedly found that a marriage application registration was provided under different administrative rules in 1961 than those applied to information in birth announcements. A marriage is not a medical procedure like a live birth. However, he says that it fits the Obama "black out" theme that critical information about his parent's vague, fleeting relationship would also stem from the same suspicious vital records reporting municipality.

“Did anyone notice the birth announcements are not in any alphabetic order, or in order of birthdate?" asked Crosby, "This is because, in 1961, birth registration numbers were issued based on the location of the local Vital Records office in which the registration was recorded. The hospital does not assign these numbers, the DOH does. It appears that Obama’s birth was registered in an office not used by any of the hospitals' registration locations who only received medically verified "Live Birth" certificates from either Kapi'olani Medical Center, or Queen's Medical Center. These had access to a local registrar near those facilities,” said Crosby.

He continued, “It appears Obama’s birth was registered with the satellite office near his grandparent’s home some distance from the offices nearest to and most used by the hospitals, a location not commonly used by any medical facility. This particular office was commonly used by indigenous people of Hawaii wanting to record births of children outside of the city. This is why the U.S. Department of Health created the Certificate of Live Birth template in 1959 with a check box indicating whether or not the child was born in the city limits and if the residence of the mother was a farm or not. It appears Obama’s birth at least did not occur in the city of Honolulu and, at most, did not even occur in the state of Hawaii.”

In 1956, the National Vital Statistics Division of the U.S. Department of Health issued a revised template version of the “Certificate of Live Birth” form to be used by state municipalities to record and medically verify births. Since Hawaii had not yet become a state, these revisions to the template would not be used in Hawaii until 1959. Therefore, birth records created after 1959 were subject to demographic clarifications and metrics prescribed by the federal authority of the U.S. Department of Health, not the state of Hawaii.

“This also explains why Obama’s birth announcements appear in the succession of announcements where and when they do. His alleged “Certification of Live Birth” is not approved by any federal authority as an official source of demographic data or medical verification of his birth. It is merely a record of birth registration. Therefore, the order of printing of announcements in the local papers comes directly from the list which is ordered based on the birth registration office location, not the chronological or alphabetical order of the medically verified birth.”

Crosby says the difference between a "medically verified” live birth and a “birth registration” are significant. A live birth is witnessed by a doctor, a birth registration is simply recorded by administrative authority without witnessing the birth.

"Obama's birth registration announcement appears deeper in the column of the paper because his birth was not a medical certificate provided by a hospital like the births shown above his. Walk-in birth registrations are treated differently in the reporting process. They seem to get 'second billing' based on registration indexing," said Crosby

Crosby interviewed former U.S. Dept. of Health Vital Records administrator, Martin Hesch in order to gain understanding of the different procedures and authorities used to create vital records and public announcements in a medical verification process as opposed to merely registering a vital event with a municipal office.

“I think people want to believe a simple equation to this issue,” said Hesch, when asked why he thought so many people ignorantly believe what they are told about Obama’s records.

“Notice that none of the birth announcements published in Hawaii then show the address of the birth place. Why do you think that is?" Hesch asked rhetorically.

"Because the papers had no way of knowing in most cases...too many were born outside of Hawaii. That is why too many people wrongly think that a birth announcement in a local paper is somehow an automatic indication of a local birth. Unfortunately, they wrongly accept a locally appearing birth announcement as an indication of medically confirmed ‘local birth’ and that just simply is not the way it is in most cases in Hawaii in early part of its history. The media also wants Barack Obama’s natal circumstances and documentation to fit the traditional record model because it is too disturbing to them to think that they were so easily deceived… but we also now know they do not fit this model.”

Hesch went on to explain that there two primary authorities to consider when understanding vital records administration. First, you have the medical verification of a vital event, like a birth or death, which is established by a licensed medical professional. Then you have the administrative process implemented by the municipal authority which documents, records and files vital records for the purpose of reporting data to various federal agencies like the Census Bureau and the U.S. Department of Health, the CDC, FEMA, etc.

“Birth events and deaths are unique because they require medical verification in the form of official original documentation attested by a medical authority, and, most importantly, the possession of that original documentation is maintained by the local authority,” says Hesch.

“However, a birth registration does not require the original presiding medical professional because, ironically, a state's Department of Health will be headed by a medical doctor who professional title affords surrogate authority in declaring a 'live' birth."

Aside from obvious complications that may occur during birth, medical verification for births are necessary because in some intances, when a baby is born alive for a only a brief period, or if the child is still-born, the attendant must be legally qualified to determine if the baby was alive or deceased at the moment of birth. If the baby was born alive, the DOH must file a "Certificate of Live Birth" and a "Death Certificate", signed by the same doctor. If the baby is still-born, a "Certificate of Live Birth" is not filed, only a "Death Certificate" is. This is significant for manner in which the birth is treated for natality data reporting by the DOH.

"A registration can occur anywhere in the U.S. because an administrative process such as that used in birth registrations (not medical verifications), marriages, divorces or amendments to vital records are presided over by legislative rule, not medical diagnostics," says Hesch.

"This means that they are not exclusive to some originating medical authority where the event occurred. That is not to say that a judge in a divorce case, for example, would not require a medical record in making legal decisions, it just means that the standards used to document administrative processes are far different than those used to document a medically verifiable vital event in the U.S.”

Hesch explained this is why it is possible to publish a birth announcement for a non-native birth. The announcements in the newspapers are the result of the registration records held by the administrative authority, not the records created by the medical authority bound by local geography. A "Certificate of Live Birth" is used by the child's doctor to originate a medical history file, a birth registration is merely used to initiate and reference report data with the federal U.S. Department of Health, National Vital Statistics Division.

“The birth announcement is automatically triggered by the creation of the registration through administrative process, when the municipal record is provided to the newspaper, not the creation of a medical verification record by a medical doctor or hospital,” he said.

“The birth can actually occur anywhere and if the announcement does not disclose the location, there is no way to know from just the public announcement whether the vital event is a local occurrence or not.”

Hesch’s explanation brings clarity to Obama’s birth announcements. Conclusively, Obama’s birth was registered in the state of Hawaii, but the announcements were not an indication that it was medically verified as occurring there.

“So, let me get this straight. People who think that Obama's birth announcements indicate a Hawaiian birth actually believe that the newspaper editors of the 1960’s received thousands of different notices from thousands of different doctors from multiple hospitals and villages throughout Hawaii, and then they organized them in some highly coordinated manner for publication in non-computerized publishing system?” asked Hesch, laughing incredulously.

"That is utterly ridiculous," he continued, “that is why the DOH pools this information and provided it for public announcements and why the newspapers accepted the information from the DOH without verifying the facts. The verification process would have been staggering and way too time intensive to meet deadlines.”

“If people would turn off the T.V. and just investigate this stuff for five minutes, they would feel stupid when they realize how simple and unimpressive the reality of it is,” he said.

In fact, the evidence shows that the original medical verification, in the form of what would be an original, 1961 federal U.S. Department of Health "Certificate of Live Birth" signed by an attending physician and attested by a hospital administrator, simply does not exist in a form or content which would promote Obama’s “natural born status”.

Hesch agreed that there is probably information in the original medical birth record, regardless of its origins, which undermines Obama’s identity as a politician and that is the reason why Obama is refusing to disclose it.

“Oh, sure, he is hiding something,” he said, “...that is a fact, and that is the only reason NOT to disclose it. Because, if the original medical record supported his current identity, he would be stupid to keep it hidden. It would only support him in that case.”

When asked his opinion about Obama’s case, Hesch said that is a certainty in his mind that Obama’s birth documentation was subjected to administrative processes or amendments which probably undermine his ability to be a natural born citizen, and that his medically verified natal records show information that the local vital records authority is able to conceal under the guise of identity protection.

“Of course, it’s ridiculous,” said Hesch, “the Secret Service is not required here. This is natal information about a birth which occurred 50 years ago, not a public appearance where the president is under some threat. The only reason to hide the original record is to protect something Obama doesn’t want people to know about him and how that information adversely impacts his ability to be president. It’s plain and simple to me.”

In the medical verification process, a registered professional of a federal board must document the circumstances and metrics of a birth. However, the administrative process used to the document the event for municipal purposes is not bound by medical requirements to accurately express those same circumstances because the vital records data is applied under different authoritative functions. Census reports, vital records reports and demographic data serve a different purpose than health report data. Hesch explained that the reasons for this level of administrative complexity comes from Hawaii’s historically plural culture where you have indigenous, native Oceanic, Asian and, of course, American peoples mixing in the population. Since Hawaii is unique in this and that it was a remote, detached territory prior to becoming a part of the U.S., it was necessary to “customize” much of their vital records processes in order to include all those who would be eligible for U.S. citizenry after the island nation became a state. This meant that including non-native births was necessary because the islands of Hawaii were so permeable to migration.

Therefore, it has now been confirmed by authorities in Hawaii and abroad that Obama’s birth announcements appeared in two local Hawaiian newspapers without the birth having been medically verified as occurring in Hawaii. The announcements are automatically triggered from information provided by the Department of Health, not the hospital. Therefore, since we already know that Hawaii's Health Department registered foreign births, the announcements would include births for these registrations as well, along with local birth registrations.

As a final statement to Bill O’reilly, Chris Matthews and the remaining ignorant slew of media hacks, we would like to say this:

Your failure to investigate these facts has undermined your profession and made you look pathetically wanton as journalists. If you would have taken just two more steps in your shallow observations, just one more level down into the actual truth, you have come to the same facts about Obama’s natal history as the internet community has. Instead, you chose to glance at the drive-by message and believe what some deceitful political animal told you about the matter.

Now, Obama has made you look like a fool.
Obama’s Parentage Disqualifies His Presidency…Regardless of His Birthplace
from THE DAILY PEN by Penbrook One
Donald Trump is right...but he is not as right as he could be with a few more facts.

Commentary by Penbrook Johannson
Editor of The Daily Pen

Yes, I know. Donald Trump keeps using the term “Certificate of Live Birth” to describe the fraudulent Hawaiian document which has been ambiguously attributed to Obama’s covert natal history by abettors at that state's public health agency. My email was full with comments this week asking that I call Donald and have a talk with him.

I left a message with his delightful executive assistant and told him to continue the investigation and not give up on exposing Obama's lies. I told him never to lose sight of the most important thing of all. That Barry Soetoro-Obama is hiding the truth about his past and he is lying about his real identity.

We all know Trump's righteous intention to draw a correct distinction between the failure of Obama’s fraudulent Hawaiian “CertificaTION of Live Birth”, wielded by municipal dregs and Obots since 2008 to obscure his actual natural-born citizenship status, and a medically authenticated, original, 1961, federal NVSD document template, which is actually titled per guidelines issued by the National Conference on Vital Records and Statistics, called a “CertifiCATE of Live Birth” since 1915. This document is signed by a medical doctor, an informant and an administrator, and exists for all natural-born citizens of the U.S.

To confuse the matter even more, the ever-opaque Hawaiian municipality weaseled in a "cover-Obama's-ass" revision to the 2008 version of “Certification of Live Birth” template sometime in August, 2009 which changed its header title guessed it, “Certificate of Live Birth”, like the federal version. This was intentionally done by Hawaiian administrators, after Obama’s alleged record was forged, in order to quell the flood of inquiry about Obama's birth records.

Those of us who requested Obama's original 1961 "Certificate of Live Birth" as early as May of 2008 were told simply that Hawaii was not legally able to release that document. Now, however, the significance of such a title change has the affect of confusing a waking public by causing rookie truth seekers to incorrectly associate the appropriate document with it's historical authority. Now, when anyone uses the term "Certificate of Live Birth", the little weasels at the State of Hawaii can say that document title is what they issue as an official birth certificate, like the federal government's document template is titled. They now just refer to the image of the Certification of Live Birth and tell the requester that it is now titled like the original one. Cute, huh? That's why it's important to tell powerful people like Donald Trump how important it is to investigate the details and cut deeper into Obama's epic deception. Even the title of documents have been corrupted with the intention of deceiving. Evil, pure evil.

Few people know, however, two very damning facts against the State of Hawaii's vital records irregularities. First, it is the only state in America which, throughout its history at successive times, has issued and revised a "Certification of Live Birth", a "Certificate of Hawaiian Birth" and, now, a municipal document with no historical federal authority entitled "Certificate of Live Birth" to foreign-born children.

Second, the state of Hawaii has been notified by the U.S. Department of Health that their document format and content does not meet the federal provisions for an official, standard birth certificate in that it must be attested by a medical professional qualified to determine the mortal characteristics of a “live birth” as opposed to a “still birth”, each of which require separate administrative procedures and documentation to record data for the National Vital Statistics Division of the U.S. If a baby is born with even the faintest signs of life then dies, that child must be recorded and reported as a "Live Birth" then, obviously, reported as a natal fatality with an attested Death Certificate. However, if a child is still-born, live birth statistics are not reported.

“The Donald’s” intentions are good, but just slightly confused. We can't blame him though. Obama's regime and covert teams have had almost six years to corrupt the information, con the public, create a virtual reality and disseminate b.s. propaganda. Let’s give Trump a little time to get up to speed with the correct association of terms and related entities. He’s only been in the fight for a month, unlike the rest of us who have been in it for more than three years.

If you are reading this, Mr. Trump, may God bless you. You are headed in the right direction. The fraudulent document you are correctly associating with Barry Soetoro a.k.a. Barack Obama a.k.a Barry Obama a.k.a. Barry Subarkah, is called a Hawaiian “Certification of Live Birth”. An official, original, federally approved, medically verified birth record is titled as “CertifiCATE of Live Birth”. You are correct, however…Obama’s document is not an official birth certificate, no matter what you call it.


All this talk about Obama’s birthplace and birth certificates has caused everyone to lose sight of the single, undeniable fact that renders Obama an illegitimate president. One of his parents was not a U.S. citizen when he was born and he very likely lost his natural-born citizenship status in 1967 or 1968 when he moved to Indonesia and was adopted by his mother's Indonesian husband, Lolo Soetoro.

On many occasions, since Obama was ensconced, he and his defenders have tried to promote a lie, without original, eye-witnessed, medically attested documented evidence, which would exist if he were a natural born citizen, that he was born in the U.S. However, they ignorantly fail to realize that Obama’s geographic birth only matters with regard to his legitimacy as President if the other metrics of natural born citizenship are met. Those being his biological origins and his continuity of natural-born status from birth to election.

It’s not the fault of Republicans, Tea Partiers or so-called ‘birthers’ that Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen at the time Obama was born. It's not their fault that Obama's mother married an Indonesian and allowed him to adopt Barry as an Indonesian citizen son. Nor is it their fault that the founding fathers of America wrote, 230 years ago, that only a candidate born of U.S. citizen parents and born in a geographic location under the legal protection of the U.S. Constitution could be President.

Many of Obama’s overbenders desperately deny that the “natural-born” citizen requirement of the Constitution requires a President to be born of two U.S. citizen (naturalized or natural-born) parents, despite historical records affirming this definition, because, well, that means they have to admit that their overlord is actually an illegitimate pretender. Which he is. They are pathetic minimalists seeking to embrace the minimal standard for the benefit of one man rather than uphold the maximum standard for an entire nation. That makes them traitorous. They argue that such a demanding stipulation would limit the candidate pool to only a select few and therefore create unfairness in American politics. They actually think that anyone in the world has a right the American Presidency.

Imagine that! To think that we, the defenders of world freedom, would actually uphold standards which are highly selective and challenging of those seeking the vast power of elected American leadership.

Liberals are wrong in just about everything they think, do and say. This multiculturalist, globalist derangement is no exception. However, the World Census Report of the CIA estimates that less than 4.9% of the world's population is Constitutinally qualified to be president of the U.S. Think about it for a moment. Given Obama's ambiguously defined, multi-culturalistic identity and detached migratory background, this puts an even more remote quantification on his foul legitimacy.

I have to laugh at Obama supporters. They are so psychotic, they can only parrot delusional accusations of racism against anyone who questions Obama's past. It is hilarious to realize such a large section of a society, claiming to be the bastion of intelligence and tolerance to the world, fail so miserably to understand that by promoting an illegitimate candidate simply because of his demography only tarnishes humanity's view of their character and moral standard. The world is laughing at Obama's minions because they were so blind in their ideology and obsessive hate for vintage American culture, they actually went slumming in Chicago of all places, to pick an illegitimate pretender with African ancestory, simply on the basis that he had darker skin than his predecessor. And, they call us racists?

The punch-line of the "President Obama" joke is, now that he has been enthroned by his racist liberal subjects, he is now faced with the diametric horror of being a usurper of the most hated position in human history. He must actually present himself as a legitimate executive leader of an entire nation of people who hate him for being an illegitimate liar. So, you wanna be President, do ya? Liberals need to learn there are just some things you shouldn't fight for. You just might get them.

Many American citizens were not born here. They can never legitimately be president. Many citizens in America were born here but also have at least one foreign, non-U.S. citizen parent. They cannot be president either. Natural born citizens, on the other hand, fulfill a prerequisite intended by our founders to provide the best possible chances by birth-right allowing for a candidate to the sovereign position of President of the United States.

Our response to this pathetic, liberal minimization of the standard is, "..Well, yes, exactly!"

If the candidate fails to provide original documented proof of his or her birth in U.S. to two citizen parents, then they can’t be president.

The burden is upon the individual, not the standard. This means that Obama must be held solely accountable for his failure to gain the confidence of the American people, not that the Constitution must be held in contempt to make opportunity for Obama. Diminishing the standard is exactly what the bowing liberal consensus in America has done for Obama. In essence they have lowered the bar for him only to see him fall on it. The law remains valid. Obama does not. The standard still applies. Obama has failed to meet it. Isn’t it more important to require the most of our leadership rather than minimal qualifications? Isn’t that the basis by which we should be able to honor our president.

We should uphold the ideal that the individual who becomes President became so because they are exceptional in many ways, none more importantly than in their foundational establishments of national sovereignty through adherence to highest spirit and aspirations of Constitutional intent.

Rather than willfully discounting the Constitution, which Obama has done throughout his entire existence, as some old doctrine of negative restrictions written by racist old white men, perhaps we should lift higher the idea that the Constitution is a generous provision of preemptive protections against the enemies of God’s love for vintage American heritage. Instead, the liberal media in America today actually seek to portray the founding fathers, whose descendents are now leading members of advanced human citizenry, conspired centuries ago to prevent Obama’s dad from becoming a U.S. citizen before Obama was born so that, in the off chance the guy happened to impregnate a wayward teenage white girl from middle America with offspring that might become president someday, the kid would be Constitutionally disqualified.

The natural circumstances of Obama’s birth which define his lack of constitutional qualifications to hold the office of the president are what they are. It’s no one’s fault that Obama is not eligible to be president. It’s just the facts of the present circumstance in which Obama resides. However, it becomes criminal behavior when anyone that knowingly allowed him to usurp power did so while hiding the documented facts of his illegitimacy.

Obama likes to promote the undocumented lie that he was born in Hawaii. Unfortunately for him, that is not the only circumstance which disqualifies him. Ironically, the very circumstance of his documented biography, which everyone in America agrees has been widely accepted and affirmatively reported, which disqualifies Obama from being president. His foreign parentage.

The Constitution mandates that a presidential candidate be a natural born citizen. This means that the candidate must be born under “natural” circumstances which make it impossible for he or she to possess plural loyalties, biologically, geographically or politically, to any foreign government or foreign influence.

On its face, Obama has failed at this since he was born. He has never been able to understand his own identity. So, he made one up. The fact that Obama’s birthplace has never been confirmed with official, original, attested documentation is well established and undeniable. Let’s not forget that his birth to a foreigner is also as equally damning to his legal legitimacy to be president.

Donald Trump understands that Obama is a liar and fraud and that is all that matters. Regardless of the actual words on any document.

Tuesday, April 19, 2011

Will Illegal Campaign Contributions Bring Down the Obama Machine?


by Sharon Rondeau

Editor's Note: Reprinted with permission of The Post & Email.

The Federal Election Commission was created in 1975 to enforce the Federal Election Campaign Act

(Apr. 18, 2011) — It has been reported that the Federal Election Commission began an investigation into the campaign contributions taken in by Barack Hussein Obama in 2008 over “allegations of improper contributions.”

The FEC website states:

In 1975, Congress created the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to administer and enforce the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) – the statute that governs the financing of federal elections. The duties of the FEC, which is an independent regulatory agency, are to disclose campaign finance information, to enforce the provisions of the law such as the limits and prohibitions on contributions, and to oversee the public funding of Presidential elections.

Complaints can be filed with the FEC here. The initial stages of how enforcement of election law is carried out are described here, and a history of the law passed by Congress and chart of contribution limits are available to the public.

Perkins Coie, the law firm which has defended Obama in numerous lawsuits challenging his eligibility to hold the office of President of the United States, wrote a letter to FEC Chairman Matthew S. Petersen and copied to several others, on January 6, 2010, in which Perkins Coie’s attorney, Brian Svoboda, “elaborated” on testimony given the month before in regard to the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee having to do with “get-out-the-vote” activities on behalf of local and state candidates for office.

As early as August 6, 2008, blogger Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs had been investigating questionable donations to the Obama presidential campaign. Geller listed various contributions which had come from a “Gaza refugee camp” instead of Rafah, GA, where it was originally listed.

Even earlier, on August 4, 2008, WorldNetDaily reported that “Palestinian brothers inside the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip are listed in government election filings as having donated $29,521.54 to Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign…Donations of this nature would violate election laws, including prohibitions on receiving contributions from foreigners and guidelines against accepting more than $2,300 from one individual during a single election.”

Author Michael Isikoff, mentioned recently at The Post & Email here and here, reported in 2008 that Obama campaign donors had already raised “red flags” with the FEC because of donations which totaled thousands of dollars but were made in small increments. Isikoff mentioned the Palestinian brothers about whom Geller had written who had contributed $33,000 to the Obama campaign by buying T-shirts in large quantities.

A report from the Center for Responsive Politics on the Obama 2008 campaign states:

Obama’s victory in the general election was aided by his tremendous fundraising success. Since the start of 2007, his campaign relied on bigger donors and smaller donors nearly equally, pulling in successive donations mostly over the Internet. After becoming his party’s nominee, Obama declined public financing and the spending limits that came with it, making him the first major-party candidate since the system was created to reject taxpayers’ money for the general election.

But was Obama even eligible to receive those funds? Questions regarding his constitutional eligibility still remain. Recently real estate entrepreneur Donald Trump has pursued the issue of Obama’s missing long-form birth certificate which the state of Hawaii has recently announced Obama can no longer obtain even if he wanted to. Dr. Alvin Onaka, Registrar at the Hawaii Department of Health, has failed to return two calls from The Post & Email about this apparent sudden change made without legislative approval.

Various citizens and organizations are also accusing Obama of treason against the United States. On March 31, 2011, the group American Citizens for Legal Immigration stated in a press release:

One of America’s largest border enforcement advocacy organizations is calling on supporters to demand that Congress use investigations, prosecutions, impeachments, military tribunals, and treason charges if necessary to bring justice to those who betrayed American citizens by arming drug and illegal alien importing invaders.

On April 14, 2011, Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy accused Eric Holder’s Justice Department of misprision of treason for being aware that “seditious activity” is occurring and taking no action. Last year, Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely (Ret.), who is a possible contender for president or vice president in 2012, called on Obama to step down due to the “constitutional crisis” he had precipitated, and for a new government to be elected.

Also on April 14, Tom Davis, writing at The Patriot Post, stated:

…is Obama bullet proof?

Not only regarding DOMA had this imposter flouted the law but on numerous others has completely ignored existing law or worse Constitutional Law. His claim to be a Constitutional Scholar exacerbates his offenses to that of High Misdemeanors and in on instance, Treason. That occurred when Obama, rather than send troops to secure Arizona’s borders from incursion by illegal aliens from Mexico, invited foreign entities to join his administration in legal action versus a sovereign Star of the Union, namely Arizona. That treasonous act violated Article IV, Section 4.

Then there is the matter of Obama ordering the U.S. military to drop bombs on Libya, a country ruled by a dictator but which did not threaten nor attack the United States, without Congressional approval.

Last July, the Obama machine filed a lawsuit against the sovereign state of Arizona for passing a law which tightened restrictions on illegal immigration. Alex Jones described Obama’s pursuit of the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), begun by the Bush administration, as “a treasonous collaboration with foreign powers.”

Writer JB Williams suggested that Obama and “a growing list of folks” in the areas of the judiciary and law enforcement could be guilty of treason for refusing to allow discovery as to Obama’s background and eligibility for the office of President as evidenced by the Monroe County grand jury’s refusal to review evidence presented by LCDR Walter Francis Fitzpatrick, III, who had already filed a complaint of treason against Obama for allowing U.S. Army troops to deploy into Samson, AL on March 10, 2009, in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. Fitzpatrick did not address the eligibility question in his complaint, even though some reporters stated incorrectly that the issue was Obama’s “birth certificate.”

Donald Trump, however, has recently brought out the absence of Obama’s long-form, original birth certificate on the mainstream news networks, having stated, “if he wasn’t born in this country, he shouldn’t be the president of the United States.” The New York Times opined in a piece masquerading as a news story that Trump has made “incendiary statements” about Obama’s past which had “previously been debunked,” but offered no documentation, just as Obama has offered no substantive documentation regarding his birthplace, school records, college education funding, and travels to Pakistan when he was supposedly attending Columbia University.

Last week, some polls showed Trump tied for first place in a hypothetical Republican race, but more recently, the Politico reported that Trump had catapulted to first place.

How many treason complaints against Obama have been filed? How many will it take to launch Congressional hearings? If Obama has been ineligible to hold the office which he occupies, how many appointments, laws and executive orders will have to be undone?

And what happens to all the money he collected?

© 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.
Obama Continues Fight to End American Prosperity–While he Golfs and Vacations


by Sher Zieve, ©2011

Editor's Note: Reprinted with permission of The Post & Email.

Based on what Obama has done to the U.S., how could anyone call him "President?"

(Apr. 19, 2011) — When something consummately horrific happens to the United States of America, its people or a US ally, Obama celebrates by going golfing. He, most certainly, must be on the links now. When an unprecedented number of tornadoes hit six US States and killed at least 45 people, Obama went golfing. When his misadventure (aka “war” without any Congressional approvals) against Libya was in full swing, Obama went golfing. While the Japanese people were dying from a massive earthquake, tsunami and radiation, Obama went on vacation to Brazil with his family and hangers-on. Michelle Obama took her daughters to Spain for another lavish trip and the Obamas’ trip to India (although the Obama regime still refuses to disclose the actual figures) is said to have topped the scales at $200 millions/day. All of this is being done while Obama & Co are summarily bankrupting the USA, in order to line their own and their friends’ pockets with American taxpayer money, and destroying Americans ability to earn a living…in other words, bleeding us dry.

To rub salt into our already-festering wounds, Obama has instructed the Department of Homeland Security (that’s security for the ObamaElite only–not US citizens) to stop the US Border Patrol from monitoring any and all top-smuggler routes into the country. Folks, Obama is killing us on every front and no one is stopping him. Congress (including establishment RINOs) yawns, gives him what he wants and largely ignores what he’s doing, while the leftist courts rule unconstitutionally in one case after another. And now Standard & Poor’s has announced that [due to Obama and company gutting our country and racking up unsustainable debt] the USA will likely be downgraded soon. Shades of Greece?

In fact–and I challenge anyone to disprove me–Obama and his family have taken more profligate vacations and golfed more that any other resident of the White House in history. Note: Obama, his family and entourage continue to laugh at We-the-People louder and louder every day. Can you hear them now? Yet, most of the “media” and their pundits still scratch their heads like chimpanzees and wonder how and why this is happening. If I hear one more “conservative” analyst ask “Why would Obama do this?” I think I’ll scream. He’s doing it because his mission was and is to destroy the United States of America! Without the USA, the rest of the ‘free world’ will fall and the would-be totalitarian rulers of the planet can and will finally step in and take over…with Soros as their front man. Why is that which is in front of our faces so difficult for them to comprehend? Again, Occam’s Razor proves true: “The simplest explanation is most likely the correct one.”

As with other decimators and tyrants, once we have been bled dry of all of our resources, We-the-People will be weakened and better able to be defeated. Our enslavement will then be complete. Those who would be our real leaders–apart from a thoroughly bribed-and-bought Congress–had best get on the move soon. If we want to survive, we’re almost fully on our own now. None of our branches of government can be counted to do the right thing; that of saving our country and its people from destruction and ruin from the criminal syndicate currently running the country off a cliff. In actuality, both the Marxist-Leninist Democrats and Republicans appear to be part of the same cabal. Prepare yourselves. This ride is going to be bumpier and more savage than any of us had previously imagined. The Left, itself, is a criminal enterprise and this minority is now running the country as it plans to run the world–with us serving it.

© 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.