Before It's News | People Powered News

Friday, July 29, 2011

The Presidential Poser

August 23, 2010 by Bob Livingston
The Presidential Poser

Editor's Note: While this is old, August 2010, it is a concise, accurate assessment.

Just who exactly is this man posing as President of the United States? That’s a question being asked by a growing number of Americans.

In fact, a recent poll by CNN — a news organization that has been downright gushing in its praise of Barack Obama — showed that six out of 10 people are uncertain the President was even born in the U.S. And that includes about one-third of all Democrats.

It’s troubling that so many question Obama’s eligibility to hold the office of President but that so few of the elected class and those of national prominence will even broach the issue. It demonstrates what a superb job Obama’s team and the Democrat party have done in casting those who question his status as a natural born citizen as the lunatic fringe.

In fact, if you are a “birther” — a term coined by the mainstream press to disparage those who doubt Obama’s eligibility to hold office based on his citizenship — even so-called conservative icons like Ann Coulter and Glenn Beck consider you a nut.

All this proves is that the elitists who shape messages are a clique interested not in seeing that the U.S. Constitution is upheld, but in maintaining their power and protecting their own. This was demonstrated once before, when the House of Representatives voted to impeach Bill Clinton for lying to a grand jury, but the Senate voted 100-0 not to remove him.

When was the last time the Senate was unanimous on anything? Democrats and Republicans never agree unanimously. The fix was in from the beginning.

So, too, is the issue of Obama’s citizenship and eligibility. The fix is in, even though the evidence that he is not a natural-born citizen, and therefore ineligible to hold the office, far exceeds evidence that he is.

The Republican governor in Hawaii says a birth certificate exists but she has sealed access to it, thereby eliminating one avenue of determining whether he was born in Hawaii, as he says, or in Kenya, as Michelle Obama, several of Obama’s Kenyan relatives (his paternal grandmother, half sister and half brother) and a couple of Kenyan officials have said. And for you Obama sycophants, don’t even bring up the certificate of live birth (COLB) posted online as proof. The COLB was available to anyone. It is not a legal document, does not list the attending physician, does not include his fingerprints or footprints, could not have been used to obtain his passport and is only a diversion to a weak-minded press and public.

Earlier this year a senior Honolulu elections clerk went on local television and said that it was common knowledge among election officials that no official birth certificate — he called it the long-form birth record — exits in Hawaii, despite what Governor Linda Lingle has said.

The whole situation remains a muddle, just as Obama and his handlers want it. Documents disappear. Other documents crop up — some that cast more doubt on his story and some that seem at first glance to support his claims but simply serve to send the discussion on a tangent. And Obama fights disclosure at every turn, sending agents from the U.S. Justice Department out to block all efforts at obtaining his records.

Thankfully, one news organization is doggedly pursuing the story. Joseph Farah and his reporters at WorldNetDaily (WND) hammer on the Obama eligibility story relentlessly, slowly chipping away at the facade. Some other conservative, fearless publications and websites are also digging for the truth and opining on the eligibility question.

Yet despite a total blackout from the main stream media on the subject of Obama’s citizenship, 60 percent of the American public still doubt Obama’s story that he was born in Hawaii. As Farah says, that means the birthers are winning.

There are some things we do know — or can surmise — about Obama, thanks to WND, some other publications and Obama’s own book, Dreams From My Father.

The man who would ascend to the Presidency in 2009 was born to Ann Dunham on Aug. 4, 1961. The father is purported to be Barack Hussein Obama, a Kenyan student in Hawaii who married Dunham on Feb. 2, 1961.

Some have speculated that Barack Obama II’s (this is how Obama’s name is listed on the COLB) biological father was actually Frank Marshall Davis, a black friend of Ann Dunham’s parents and the man the young Obama would later claim in his autobiography was his mentor. The speculation about Davis — a radical communist — as possibly Obama’s biological father stems from a book Davis wrote under a pseudonym in which he describes having sex with an under aged white girl. The idea is plausible, as Davis was a good friend of Madelyn and Stanley Dunham, Ann Dunham’s parents.

The irony is that this is one nativity story that would cement Obama’s claim to be a natural-born citizen. If Obama Sr., a Kenyan citizen, is Obama’s father, Obama is not a Constitutionally described natural-born citizen because one parent is a non-citizen and the other was a minor and therefore unable to bestow citizenship on the child — if Obama was born in Kenya, as many believe.

As lawsuits have claimed, there is no evidence — beyond the afore-mentioned COLB — that Obama was born in Hawaii. Both Obama and a half sister have named two different Hawaii hospitals as his birth place, no records exist that Dunham was hospitalized in Hawaii and no physician or nurse has stepped forward to claim they assisted with the birth.

Obama’s supporters have pointed out that newspaper articles published in August 1961 in the Honolulu Advertiser and the Honolulu Star-Bulletin prove Obama was born in Hawaii. The address listed was the address of Madelyn and Stanley Dunham, Ann Dunham’s parents. WND has reported that official documents show Obama Sr., had a residence at another address at the same time. And neighbors of the Dunhams told WND they don’t recall a white woman with a black baby ever living next door. College transcripts indicate Dunham moved with her new baby to Seattle within days of Obama’s birth and enrolled in the University of Washington for classes that began on Aug. 19, 1961.

These birth announcements prove only that someone submitted information to two newspapers to herald the birth of a baby. They document the timeframe of the birth, not the location. The baby could have been born on Mars and these announcements could have still run in the newspapers.

Another problem Obama faces is found in his mother’s trip to Indonesia with her second husband, Lolo Soetoro, in the late 1960s. WND has reported that several lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility hinge on this time in Indonesia, which does not allow dual citizenship. Documents released by the U.S. State Department under two Freedom of Information Act requests indicate he may have given up his citizenship when he moved there.

Those documents show that Obama’s mother sought to have “Barack Obama II (Seobarkah)” removed from her passport, possibly as a prelude to obtaining Indonesian citizenship for him. If she did this it was more than likely for the child’s safety, as it was a turbulent time in Indonesia and there was a strong anti-American sentiment there.

While in Indonesia Obama was enrolled in school under the name of Barry Soetoro, as proven by school records photographed by an Associated Press photographer in 2007. Those school records list Soetoro as an Indonesian citizen, born in Honolulu, Hawaii, on Aug. 4, 1961, and records his religion as Muslim.

According to WND, Obama was either 5 or 6 years old when he traveled to Indonesia. This is important because if Lolo Soetoro adopted him at age 5 then he would have automatically become an Indonesian citizen. The law differed for children aged 6 and up and an adoption for a 6-year-old would have had to take place through legal channels.

Another puzzle uncovered by WND revolves around a photograph of Obama — or Soetoro, whoever he is — with another child at a school in Hawaii at the same time he was enrolled in school in Indonesia. The photo is marked has having been taken in 1969, and there is no good explanation as to how he was attending school in two different places at the same time.

The Obama camp has also refused to explain why Obama/Soetoro is using a Social Security number issued in Connecticut. WND has reported that two private investigators discovered the Social Security number anomaly and filed documents in an eligibility lawsuit showing the number was issued in Connecticut between 1977 and 1979, yet Obama’s/Soetoro’s earliest reported employment was at a Baskin-Robbins ice cream shop in Hawaii in 1975.

The Social Security website confirms that the first three numbers of Obama’s/Soetoro’s Social Security number are reserved for applicants with Connecticut addresses. That Social Security number corresponds with Obama’s/Soetoro’s Selective Service registration, according to WND.

Finally, questions surround a trip Obama/Soetoro has admitted he took to Pakistan in 1981, WND reports.

“I traveled to Pakistan when I was in college — I knew what Sunni and Shia was [sic] before I joined the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,” Obama/Soetoro reportedly stated at a fundraising event.

Pakistan in 1981 was under military rule. It was difficult for U.S. citizens to travel to the country without assistance. It would have been easier for someone to enter Pakistan on an Indonesian passport, WND reports.

Obama/Soetoro could easily clear up the confusion by releasing his birth records, his school records, college records and other official documents. Instead, he is spending millions of dollars to fight all attempts to obtain documents that most public officials release by habit. That begs the question: What is he hiding?

Some brave souls are fighting the good fight in trying to get to the bottom of the mysterious background of the 44th President. Some military people are putting their careers on the line in an attempt to get proof that any orders Obama/Soetoro issues are legitimate.

However, the court system seems hell-bent on covering up any efforts at discovery. It consistently throws out lawsuits on standing and is frequently hostile to plaintiffs. Several judges have threatened lawyers and plaintiffs with stiff fines if they continue to pursue the matter.

Meanwhile, the only logical conclusion is that Obama/Soetoro is not Constitutionally eligible to hold the office of President. Any other view is only based on hope — Obama’s/Soetoro’s favorite theme.

A Constitutional crisis is in the offing and when the truth finally gets out about Obama’s/Soetoro’s citizenship, the legitimacy of orders signed by an illegitimate President will be called into question. Expect mass chaos to ensue.

That very well could be the culmination of the whole plan by Obama/Soetoro and those pulling his strings.

Thursday, July 28, 2011

Capone Was Nabbed For Tax Evasion – Will This Be Obama’s Downfall?


by thinkwell

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

Obama and the entire government and media have presented this image as Obama's birth certificate. If it was available all along, why did he not reveal it sooner?

(Jul. 26, 2011) — One of the reasons so many people question Obama’s legitimacy is that very odd and questionable circumstances exist about so many aspects of his life story. Although most normal people have NO such issues clouding their backgrounds, if the Obots had to only explain away a single anomalous circumstance from Obama’s past, most people would probably let it go as a random unusual event and accept the Obots’ twisted “Rube Goldberg” stories in explaining it away. But Obama is a man for whom the normal events in his past are the seemingly anomalous events.

Obama is a man who has a draft registration record that, because of its historically questionable number sequence, appears to be a recent fabrication (for a man of Obama’s age cohort, failure to register would bar one from ever holding any federal office, let alone the Presidency).

Unlike normal people, Obama is a man who has been found by multiple investigators to have used several social security numbers, including some reserved only for foreign students (the “999″ type, although, considering how he has been taking our country straight to Hades, “666″ would be more appropriate in his case). And Obama is a man whose current SSN was supposedly handed out in person from Connecticut at a time when Obama was a high school student in Hawaii and Obama Sr. was many years returned to his own native Kenya.

This fact brings up that Obama is a man whose father was himself never a citizen (nor even a permanent resident) of this country and, thus, could never produce a child who could be a natural born Citizen. Obama is a man who was bred (and probably born) under the flag of an alien land. His life story is more jumbled than a fresh load of wash at the end of the spin cycle (in fact, almost everything to do with the man is one big continuous spin cycle).

And these are but a sampling of many, many more anomalies to Obama’s seemingly mostly fictitious life story, any number of which could (and probably do) condemn him as a criminal fraud and premeditated usurper.

But regardless of the several other ways Obama has criminally lied about his past, his latest lie alone should be the purchase price for a nonstop express ticket straight from the White House to a nice long “vacation” in the “big house.” Of course, I am referring to the blatantly fraudulent PDF posted (by Obama’s own authorization) on a website that supposedly is a direct scan of Obama’s Hawaiian birth certificate. Regardless of any of the other paper copies or other reproductions, Obama is directly responsible for the issuance of that PDF as an official government document. And that single PDF is loaded with more inescapably incriminating signs of forgery than the illegal
drugs that were contained in a college-age Obama loaded on weed or cocaine.

Since many others have done a fine job of pointing out the numerous signs of forgery in Obama’s recently released birth certificate, I will just touch upon one that I find especially damning, that is, that the document contains text and whole areas with completely different pixel densities (the individual pixels are not all the same size – not even close). There simply is no plausible explanation for this other than tampering. Obot claims about differing pixel densities (especially when occurring with no correlation to detail density) arising from a normal scan of a simple one-page document are laughable on their face and do not for a moment convince anyone of anything other than that the Obots are in desperate panic mode. (Perhaps they will claim that the never-seen-in-any-other-document-before weird combinations of “compression” contained in Obama’s PDF BC was done because Obama was trying to save The People money by saving a few 10kBs or so of government server space. LOL)
Top Fourteen Signatures of Stanley Ann Dunham Obama Soetoro Doe


by WTPOTUS, ©2011, blogging at WTPOTUS

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

Alleged to be Stanley Ann Dunham Note the tell tale neck covering. Photo: NY Times

(Jul. 27, 2011) — Below is a compilation of Barack Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham’s, many variations of her signature. Like anything else having to do with this fabricated family, there are just too many inconsistencies in provided information to say any of them are biologically related to each other or that they even exist. The felonious crimes of the cabal involved in these crimes are getting too numerous to mention. The apparent forgeries of many documents are being examined by experts in various fields, and the exposure of these fraudulent documents and the crimes of those involved are beginning to reach a fevered pitch.

It is unfathomable to me how so many documents for this family that were completed for the government can raise so many questions, i.e., social security cards, social security applications, passport applications, petitions, written notes, letters, marriage licenses, birth certificates, school records, alien documents, and photographs.

Applications are incomplete, blank spaces occur where questions were supposed to be answered, dates referring to specific events are different in various documents, forms are used that were never in use by the government, and form numbers or revisions are erroneous.

Applications contain writing that is noticeably written by different hands on the same page and within the same file of documents. Handwriting signatures aren’t identical when compared to other examples supposedly written by the same person. Signatures occurring on the same page for the same day don’t match either.

As you will see below in examples of Ann Dunham’s signatures, the slant of the writing is either to the left, right or straight up and down. The cursive signature varies in the amount of pressure applied to the paper; it is heavy to extremely light. When the signature is written it is exactly on the baseline or way above it. The written letters are either angular or rounded and vary. Her signature is clear or sloppily written. As her name changes from Dunham to Obama to Soetoro, her first name is written either as Stanley, S., or Ann. Along with her name changes, her cursive handwriting style also changes. The discrepancies are quite obvious when they are laid out together and seen.

How can these abnormalities be explained away? The obvious answer is they can’t. Someone has forged these government documents. It has been done by those who have conspired to cover-up the usurper and his less than illustrious family. They try, but their deceit has gone too far. Their forged documents and the information presented are being dissected and examined page by page.

As your eyes can see, Ann’s name as well as her signature varies from document to document. Which, if any, is the real signature of Stanley Ann Dunham? In reality, is there a real Ann Dunham that is the mother of Barack Obama or is she a fabrication? I added the legal term of Doe to indicate another name she may have used but is unknown.

Let’s compare and contrast Ann’s signatures. These are arranged from the earliest dates to the latest. If you have other examples that are missing from this list, please let us know the source and they will be added.

Will a handwriting expert please weigh in!
Signature Variations of
Stanley Ann Dunham Obama Soetoro Doe

Stanley Signature from High School Photo


Stanley Ann Signature from Application for Social Security Number from SSA


Stanley Ann Dunham Obama as written on BHO's LFCOLB in 1961. Recently presented to the US by the White House on April 27, 2011


Stanley Ann Soetoro Signature from Petition for Lolo, page 70


Stanley Ann Soetoro Signature Passport File Page 5


S. Ann Soetoro Nov. 30, 1965 Affidavit, Lolo Petition File, page 117


Stanley Ann Dunham Passport File, Page 3, August 13, 1968


Stanley Ann Soetoro Signature Page 6 Passport File


S. Ann Dunham Soetoro, Passport Application, January 4, 1972


Mrs. S. Ann Soetoro May 1, 1974 Letter, Lolo Petition File Pg 165


S. Ann Dunham Soetoro, June 197? Passport Application, Page 11


Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro Signature from Marriage Certificate - Lolo Soetoro Page 73


Stanley Ann Dunham Signature April 9, 1986 - Note Trip to Philippines Delayed


S. Ann Dunham Passport Application Signature April 27, 1987?


Stanley Ann Dunham Obama Soetoro Passport Application – Strunk v Dept of State.

White House Long Form COLB for Barack Obama on April 27, 2011

Lolo Soetoro Petition, Obama Sr. – Ken Allen FOIA Release – Department of Homeland Security

Documents Related to Stanley Ann Dunham – FOIA requests 12/10/2010

Wednesday, July 27, 2011

Some very interesting questions!

Obama: Where are his girl friends????? Strange that none have popped up!!!!
Strange to the point of being downright WEIRD!

OK... this is past the 'birthers' questions.... this is just plain old common sense, no political agendas for either side.

Just common knowledge for citizens of a country, especially American citizens, who even know that Andrew Jackson's wife smoked a corn cob pipe and was accused of adultery, or that Lincoln never went to school or Kennedy wore a back brace or Truman played the piano.

We are Americans! We are known for our humanitarian interests and caring for our 'fellow man.' We care, but none of us know one single humanizing fact about the history of our own president. Honestly, and this is a personal thing...but it's niggled at me for ages that no one who ever dated him ever showed up. The simple fact of his charisma, which caused the women to be drawn to him so obviously during his campaign, looks like some lady would not have missed the opportunity....
We all know about JFK's magnetism, McCain was no monk, Palin's courtship and even her athletic prowess were probed. Biden's aneurisms are no secret. Look at Cheney and Clinton--we all know about their heart problems. How could I have left out Wild Bill before or during the White House?

Nope... not one lady has stepped up and said, "He was soooo shy," or "What a great dancer!" Now look at the rest of this.... no classmates, not even the recorder for the Columbia class notes ever heard of him I just don't know about this fellow. Who was the best man at his wedding? Start there. Then check groomsmen.

Then get the footage of the graduation ceremony. Has anyone talked to the professors? It is odd that no one is bragging that they knew him or taught him or lived with him. When did he meet Michele and how? Are there photos? Every president gives to the public all their photos, etc. for their library. What has he released?
And who voted for him to be the most popular man in 2010????? How did he receive a Nobel Peace Prize in his first year in office? Does this make you wonder?

Ever wonder why no one ever came forward from Obama's past, saying they knew him, attended school with him, was his friend, etc. ? Not one person has ever come forward from his past. VERY, VERY STRANGE… This should really be a cause for great concern. To those who voted for him, you may have elected an unqualified, inexperienced shadow man.

Did you see a picture called The Manchurian Candidate?
Let's face it. As insignificant as we all are... someone whom we went to school with remembers our name or face ... someone remembers we were the clown or the dork or the brain or the quiet one or the bully or something about us.
George Stephanopoulos of ABC News said the same thing during the 2008 campaign. He questions why no one has acknowledged the president was in
their classroom or ate in the same cafeteria or made impromptu speeches on campus. Stephanopoulos also was a classmate of Obama at Columbia --the class of 1984. He says he never had a single class with him.

While he is such a great orator, why doesn't anyone in Obama's college class remember him? And, why won't he allow Columbia to release his records?


Looking for evidence of Obama's past, Fox News contacted 400 Columbia University students from the period when Obama claims to have been there, but none remembered him. For example, Wayne Allyn Root was, like Obama, a political science major at Columbia , who also graduated in 1983. In 2008, Root says of Obama, "I don't know a single person at Columbia that knew him, and they all know me. I don't have a classmate who ever knew Barack Obama at Columbia ... EVER!

Nobody recalls him. Root adds that he was also, like Obama, "Class of '83 political science, pre-law" and says, "You don't get more exact or closer than that. Never met him in my life, don't know anyone who ever met him."

At the class reunion, our 20th reunion five years ago, who was asked to be the speaker of the class? Me. No one ever heard of Barack! And five years ago, nobody even knew who he was. The guy who writes the class notes, who's kind of the, as we say in New York, 'the macha' who knows everybody, has yet to find a person, a human who ever met him."

Obama's photograph does not appear in the school's yearbook, and Obama consistently declines requests to talk about his years at Columbia, provide school records, or provide the name of any former classmates or friends while at Columbia ...

NOTE: Root graduated as valedictorian from his high school, Thornton-Donovan School, then graduated from Columbia University in 1983 as a political science major in the same class in which Barack Hussein Obama states he was.
Some other interesting questions…
Why was Obama's law license inactivated in 2002?
Why was Michelle's law license inactivated by court order?
It is circulating that according to the U.S. Census, there is only one Barack Obama but 27 Social Security numbers and over 80 aliases!!! WHAT!? The Social Security number he uses now originated in Connecticut where he is never reported to have lived.

No wonder all his records are sealed!

Somewhere, someone had to know him in school...before he "reorganized" Chicago and burst upon the scene at the 2004 Democratic Convention and made us swoon with his charm, poise, and speaking pizzazz.

Knowing answers to these humanizing questions would sure help to lift the veil and let us have some insight of who he actually is, but all we have is what HE PUT in HIS books that have now been proven to have a number of inaccuracies in them as well as questions about accuracy about his mother's life and last days. He claims her insurance wouldn't pay her hospital bills, but apparently they paid all of them without question, BUT the disability insurance she applied for was disallowed as she had a clearly excluded prior condition, uterine cancer, that prevented her from getting the insurance and that is the only insurance that did not pay when she was sick and died. A fair number of inaccuracies have been unearthed and he just says he was speaking in generalities and the principle was true. I wonder if we would be considered honest if we made this kind of inaccurate statements in what was suppose to be our background or if it would be considered a cover-up of unknown magnitude.

Tuesday, July 19, 2011

Congressional records reveal a viral premeditation within the liberal ranks of our government to alter fundamental Constitutional eligibility protections in order to covertly assist an ineligible Obama candidacy and his usurpation of America’s executive power.

by Penbrook Johannson
Editor of The Daily Pen

Some diseases are so viral, so invasive, so insidious, so contagious…that they eventually infect what most would believe is the most sanitary part of any body. Even the once honored sovereignty of America’s highest legislative body is now coming under the attack of the disease of multi-culturalism and liberal extremism.

Congressional records show that on eight separate occasions over six years, between 2003 and 2008, legislators attempted to eliminate or change the definition of the “Natural Born” eligibility clause of Article 2 of the Constitution in order to remove restrictions and, thereby, create legal justifications supporting Obama’s unlawful candidacy for President.

We now know what members of congress knew about Obama’s ineligibility, and when they knew it.

In a recently produced documentary, Carl Gallups, a senior pastor at Hickory Hammock Baptist Church for more than two decades with a ten year professional background in law enforcement, presents documented evidence showing that members of congress submitted repetitive, coordinated proposals to alter the 'natural-born' eligibility clause.

Gallups also serves on the board of regents at the University of Mobile and hosts several weekly radio programs in the northwest Florida region.

Gallups’ documentary shows that between June 11, 2003 until Feb. 28, 2008, there were eight attempts to circumvent the Natural-born eligibility clause of the U.S. Constitution.

1. On June 11, 2003, Rep. Vic Snyder, D-Arkansas, introduced House Joint Resolution 59 (HJR 59) which attempted to Constitutionally change the understood historical definition of a ‘natural-born’ eligibility for the U.S. Presidency in order to "permit persons who are not natural born citizens of the United States, but who have been citizens of the United States for at least 35 years, to be eligible to hold the offices of president and vice president.” The resolution did not make it to a senate vote at that time.

2. Then, on Sept. 3, 2003, Rep. John Conyers, D-Michigan, introduced HJR67, which would have defined presidential eligibility the same as Snyder's proposal, only the requirement to be a citizen in Conyers’ bill was actually lowered to 20 years, not the more stringent 35 years. Conyers’ bill was also rebuffed prior to an official vote. However, the introduction of two such proposals within a mere four month period reveals that Congressional leadership was conscious of the issue of Presidential eligibility prior to Obama’s candidacy. Whether these acts were put into motion at this time specifically for the benefit of Obama, exclusively, is unclear, but highly suspicious.

3. Then, in an attempt to contend with the obvious attack against the natural born citizenship clause, on Feb. 25, 2004, Sen. Don Nickles, R-Oklahoma, introduced Senate Bill 2128 which also failed to hit the eligibility requirement target. It defined a ‘natural-born citizen’ as someone who was born in and is subject to the United States.” This was not the understanding of the framers of the Constitution. Exhibiting the same ignorance as other legislators, Nickles failed to acknowledge that the intended purpose of the natural-born eligibility clause was to ensure that the sovereignty, identity and loyalty of a presidential candidate was measured by not only a geographic birth under the protection of the U.S. Constitution but also the possession of natural natal biology afforded by birth to TWO parents who are U.S. citizens at the time of conception AND the preservation of the continuity of that citizenship status until election.

Five months later, on July 27, 2004, Barack Obama delivered his keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention which essentially and suddenly made America aware of him at a national level.

4. Then, just two months later, on Sept. 15, 2004, House Representative Dana Rohrabacher, R-California, submitted HJR 104, which audaciously attempted "to make eligible for the office of president a person who is not a natural born citizen of the United States but has been a United States citizen for at least 20 years." Rohrabacher’s fallow resolution attempted to completely ignore the Constitution’s requirement that a president had to be a natural born citizen. The resolution was rejected on its face.

5. Four months later, on Jan. 4, 2005, Conyers pushed yet another unwanted attempt to change the definition of ‘natural born citizen’ in HJR 02, which was the exact same as Rohrabacher's.

6. Just one month later, on Feb. 1, 2005, Rohrabacher submitted a revised version of her previous resolution in HJR 15 which would require only 20 years of citizenship to be eligible for the office of president.

7. Two months later, on April 14, 2005, Snyder resubmitted his bill under another proposal, HJR42, requiring 35 years of U.S. citizenship to be eligible. Interestingly, it has long since been established that Barack Obama’s return to the U.S. from Indonesia took place in approximately 1970-1971. At that time, if Obama had re-naturalized as a U.S. Citizen, this resolution would have made him just eligible in 2005.
Barack Obama announced his candidacy for the U.S. presidency on February 10, 2007.
The Iowa Caucus is held on January 3, 2008.

8. Finally, in Feb. 28, 2008, after seven failures to change the natural-born eligibility requirement, Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., attempted to parasite SB 2678 with the Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act, an amendment clarifying what "natural-born citizen" includes. Obama and Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., were sponsors of this bill.

Liberal democrats in Congress were in an obvious array to push against this long-standing Constitutional mandate at the time, coincidentally, when the first unnatural born presidential candidate, Barack Obama, began his political career at the national level. Why? Who or what was pulling their strings?

As reported by Bob Unruh of World Net Daily, Gallups’ documentary then demonstrates that “..on April 10, 2008, being "unable to alter or remove" the natural-born eligibility requirement for Barack Obama..", the Senate engaged an active deception by distracting the growing consciousness of Obama’s ineligibility by introducing Senate Resolution 511, which addressed Sen. John McCain's qualifications as a ‘natural-born citizen.’

Overcompensating for their failure to validate Obama, the Senate feigned generosity for McCain in hopes of making his eligibility the target of attention, but not criticism, by declaring him eligible as a “natural born citizen”. Senate leadership desired to avoid making McCain's eligibility the subject of criticism because they knew that if McCain was not eligible, Barack Obama was certainly not eligible. The weight of scrutiny against a worthier McCain would have caused Obama's campaign to fail, politically, if not legally.

However, in what can only be described as complete legislative incompetence, SR511 writers and sponsors specifically stated McCain was eligible because he was "...born in a territory under treaty with the U.S." and, therefore, under the protection of the U.S. Constitution and, most importantly, "because he was the son of TWO U.S. citizen parents." The language of Resolution 511 actually and explicitly commits McCain to presidential eligibility because of the citizenship of his parentage. Both of McCain's parents were U.S. citizens. This is a qualification which Barack Obama does not possess.

Shockingly, Obama voted in favor of Resolution 511 knowing he, himself, was not eligible under these same metrics. Barack Obama voted in favor of a formal resolution stating that a presidential candidate was Constitutionally eligible because the candidate was defined as being ‘natural born’ by the fact that the candidate’s birth was, in fact, to TWO U.S. citizen parent. Obama’s father was never a U.S. citizen and his mother was only 18 at the time of his birth which disqualified transfer of citizenship if the birth occurred outside the U.S
Obama's qualifications were never reviewed or conferred upon under any similar resolution, nor were his qualifications to be president ever vetted by any federal authority, legislative body or formal inquiry, as were John McCain’s. Not ever.

Unruh continues: “After his election, Gallups points out, Obama held a secret meeting with eight of the nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court – from which no public information was released. The meeting was held even though there were legal challenges in which Obama was a defendant pending before the Supreme Court at the time. The attorneys for the plaintiffs never were told of the meeting or invited to participate in what critics have described as extrajudicial contact between the court and a defendant.”

Consider this very carefully, sons and daughters of vintage America. Barack Obama, an illegally appointed president under suspicion of violating the U.S. Constitution, actually engaged personal contact with eight sitting supreme court judges who were actively considering pending cases regarding his ineligibility as president, in covert meetings, without the presence of any opposing legal representation. The suspect was allowed to meet alone with very authorities who were presiding in law suits against him, who have the supreme legal power to dismiss, overrule or uphold these lawsuits with binding jurisdictions, without any record of the content or accounting of attendance of those meetings, and without any representation of those filing complaints against him.
This level of corruption and judicial tampering is unprecedented in American history.

Ironically, only Justice Scalia, the longest serving conservatively oriented judge, appointed by Republican President, Ronald Reagan, in 1986, was absent from this secret meeting. Scalia has often been hailed as the "conservative intellectual anchor" of the supreme court. If any one of the nine supreme court justices would have held opposition to Obama's illegal presidency, Scalia would be the first. He was either not allowed in the meeting, or recused himself for reasons of deniability about the subject.

Unruh continues, “WND previously reported on another link between Obama and a campaign to change the constitutional provision. It came from an associate lawyer in a Chicago-based firm whose partner served on a finance committee for then-Sen. Barack Obama. She advocated for the elimination of the U.S. Constitution's requirement that a president be a "natural-born" citizen, calling the requirement "stupid" and asserting it discriminates, is outdated and undemocratic."

The paper was written in 2006 by Sarah Herlihy, just two years after Obama had won a landslide election in Illinois to the U.S. Senate. Herlihy was listed as an associate at the Chicago firm of Kirkland & Ellis. A partner in the same firm, Bruce I. Ettelson, cited his membership on the finance committees for both Obama and Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., on the corporate website.

The article by Herlihy was available online under law review articles from Kent University when it originally was the subject of reports but later was removed.

Herlihy's published paper reveals that the requirement likely was considered in a negative light by organizations linked to Obama in the months before he announced in 2007 his candidacy for the presidency.

The natural born citizen requirement in Article II of the United States Constitution has been called the "stupidest provision" in the Constitution, "undecidedly un-American," "blatantly discriminatory" and the "Constitution's worst provision," Herlihy begins in her introduction to the paper titled "Amending the Natural Born Citizen Requirement: Globalization as the Impetus and the Obstacle."

She concludes that the "emotional" reasons to oppose changing the Constitution will prevail over the "rational" reasons demanding a change.

The current American perceptions about the effects of globalization and the misunderstanding about what globalization actually is will result in Americans deciding that naturalized citizens should not be president because this would, in effect, be promoting globalization, Herlihy wrote.

"Although this argument is admittedly circular, because globalization is the thing that makes the need to abolish the requirement more and more persuasive, Americans' subsequent perceptions about globalization are the very things that will prevent Americans from embracing the idea of eliminating the natural born requirement.
"Logical Americans are looking for a reason to ignore the rational reasons promoted by globalization so that they may vote based on their own emotions and instincts," she wrote.

In the body of her argument, Herlihy said the constitutional provision simply is outdated.

"Considering that the Founding Fathers presumably included the natural born citizen clause in the Constitution partly out of fear of foreign subversion, the current stability of the American government and the intense media scrutiny of presidential candidates virtually eliminates the possibility of a 'foreigner' coming to America, becoming a naturalized citizen, generating enough public support to become president, and somehow using the presidency to directly benefit his homeland," she wrote.

"The natural born citizen clause of the United States Constitution should be repealed for numerous reasons. Limiting presidential eligibility to natural born citizens discriminates against naturalized citizens, is outdated and undemocratic, and incorrectly assumes that birthplace is a proxy for loyalty," she wrote.

Many of the reasons for keeping the limit, she wrote, "are based primarily on emotion."

Or, Ms. Herlihy, perhaps you must be forced to accept that it was simply a wise measure correctly foreseen as necessary to prevent a lying, criminal usurper, perhaps like Barack Obama, from assuming power over the value, work and lives of the greatest people in world history. There is nothing outdated in any doctrine devised to preserve that.

Is there no limit to the degeneracy of this current political roster into which they will descend in order to acheive their psychotic agenda and control over the blood-ransomed freedom, value and power of the only true decent and prosperous people of humanity?

Wake up, vintage America. Your nation is under attack from within. Liars and deceivers are stealing your daily lives, creeping closer into your personal boundaries and mocking the screaming blood of your pristine warriors.

It is time all who consider themselves decent and sovereign to reject Barack Obama as the criminal usurper that he is.
Why Calls for Impeachment Process Are Still on the Table


by Neil Turner

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

How many people are involved in the treason of installing and maintaining Obama in the office of president when he is ineligible?

(Jul. 19, 2011) — While it is correct that proper and lawful charges of Treason against Mr. Obama (et al) have been in place for over 2 years now, with absolutely no indication that any action by those responsible to do so is about to take place, it does not appear that the Constitution mentions anything about the legitimacy of the person holding the high Office of President (the ‘candidate’ may have been ineligible and therefore illegitimate, but the fact remains that that illegitimate candidate is now ‘sitting’ in the Office, albeit unlawfully);

And while it is correct that the proper venue for prosecution of the crimes of Treason performed by Mr. Obama (et al) is in Federal Court before a JURY of his peers, it does not appear that we have any chance of getting these charges into Federal Court before a JURY of his peers, even with a massive nation-wide effort of bringing these charges of Treason before currently sitting Grand Juries, at least before the 2012 elections – by which time it will be too late. Any elections under this treasonous regime and treasonous 112th Congress will be a fraud and a sham, and the outcome will be pre-ordained.

And while it is correct that the Constitution does state that the person in the Office of President (as well as anyone elected or appointed to Federal Office – including Congress-members and Judges and SCOTUS, NOT on ‘good behaviour’ “shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors“, it does not appear that their Oath of Office expires once they are in that Office (whether lawfully or not), and that any and all failures to uphold that Oath, whether by utterances or deeds or failure to perform as sworn, can now be considered ‘high Crimes’, committed while in ‘high Office’.

The Crime of actually installing the usurper in the Office of President was committed by:

Nancy Pelosi, the DNC, and the Hawaii DNC;
The 111th Congress when they accepted the unconstitutional electoral votes on Jan 8, 2009;
Dick Cheney when he tallied the unconstitutional electoral votes on Jan 8, 2009;
SCOTUS when they met privately with the accused (there was a case pending concerning Obama in their Court) just prior to the ‘inauguration’ on Jan 20, 2009;
Chief Justice John Roberts when he administered the perjured oath to the usurper on Jan 20, 2009;
G.W. Bush who, without saying a word or firing a shot, silently turned over the reins of our Constitutional Government to a known usurper;

They are the ones who should now be impeached/removed from their ‘Offices’, or, if already out of Office – tried for their heinous crimes of Treason.

And since those who would or could properly remove Mr. Obama physically from our White House and incarcerate him until his case could properly be heard before a Jury of his peers seem to have been completely intimidated into not complying with their oaths;

And since those who would or could properly initiate the Impeachment process are by now all complicit themselves (some new members of the 112th Congress may yet be salvageable and have plausible deniability – if they step forward before it is too late);

The question then is, is there anything we can do short of force to save our Constitutional Republic from certain ruin?

The only two peaceful courses of action left for us appear to be:

The IMPEACHMENT Process (initiated and performed by Congress – leading to DISCOVERY, and the public exposure of the treason), or
His physical arrest and removal by someone or some entity in authority (this seems more like voodoo – conjuring up a vision and demanding with all our hearts and minds that they show us by what authority [Quo Warranto] they installed him there).

Someone recently postulated the question: ‘But how do we convince a propagandized populace, so that they will properly intimidate their representatives to do this essential act of survival?

Some suggestions, if I may:

Since their representatives do not fear Impeachment (only they can actually impeach themselves), and they do not fear the shouts and cries of their constituents, and they do not fear Recall, I contend that they only fear losing their job at the next election!

Therefore, I believe that the fastest and most effective way for the constituents to intimidate their representatives to do this essential act of survival is to threaten them with being REPLACED from their ‘high Office’ at the next election. That would be about 468 of them in the upcoming elections.

In a recent moving article by Jim ‘The SEAL’ O’Neill, Time to Reboot America, he admonishes us to start a plethora of causes, groups, and agendas to topple the Obama regime. Everything is ‘on the table’, so to speak.

Therefore, for those who are of a mind that Impeachment is not on their agenda, I will still support and pursue their approach, whatever that may be. And for those who want to help intimidate their representatives to do the right thing and uphold their Oaths, I will support and pursue that approach, whatever it is. All we need is the right amount of ‘straws’ to break the back of this treasonous cabal. I care not a whit which one will do it.

Sunday, July 17, 2011

Why Obama Must Be Criminally Prosecuted, Not Impeached


by Walter Francis Fitzpatrick, III

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

Why has Obama not addressed the multiple charges of treason which have been brought against him? Why won't the U.S. attorneys?

(Jul. 17, 2011) — A perjured oath is no oath at all.

Persons not eligible to take an oath of office, knowing they are disqualified from legally holding that office, are called infiltrators, or traitors.

Persons who knowingly take an oath, when at the time swearing that oath knowing they never intend to obey their oath, find no comfort or protection from the oath once discovered as infiltrators, or traitors.

Even those who lawfully and in good faith take an oath, who later turn against that oath, then forfeit any protections they may have otherwise enjoyed under their oath.

No one–I SAY AGAIN, NO ONE–is immunized from being held to a criminal consequence having been found guilty in TREASON against the United States of America.

Barring Mr. OBAMA from enjoying the protection our Constitution offers regarding IMPEACHMENT does not vacate or weaken the process of IMPEACHMENT, but rather confers upon the process of IMPEACHMENT the proper legitimacy, sanctity and integrity the process of IMPEACHMENT must otherwise command.

Mr. OBAMA is charged with the crime of TREASON for over two years now. Mr. OBAMA accepts the accusation as correct by way of his silence.

Mr. OBAMA can be “perp-walked” out of the White House with an overcoat covering his handcuffs and walked into a federal courthouse to face a jury of his peers on the change of TREASON, just like any other person owing allegiance to the United States of America.

Mr. OBAMA enjoys no special protection!

To suggest that OBAMA somehow stands outside our fundamental laws is to argue in favor of the disconnection from, and the destruction of, our United States Constitution.

Under the Constitution I pledged my oath to, NO MAN STANDS ABOVE THE LAW!

Saturday, July 16, 2011

Californians to McClintock: What About the Two Citizen Parents McCain Had to Have?
by Sharon Rondeau

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

To which vetting process is Rep. Tom McClintock referring when he says that Obama's eligbility was determined before the election?

(Jul. 16, 2011) — In response to the letter received by Congressman Tom McClintock and published here, the congressman has received the following two letters:

Hi Tom:

As my former Congressman, I hold you in high esteem and also voted for you for Governor. I am a well-regarded retired businessman.

After reading the letter appearing below this one, purportedly from you, I offer the following thoughts. I’m writing to ask you to reconsider your position on the eligibility issue– please hear me out.

1. There was no vetting process. That has been confirmed at the federal level and for various states, including our own (please research the case against Debra Bowen, Secretary of State). Nancy Pelosi omitted the Constitutional eligibility statement in her 2008 “Obama” candidate certification in 49 states and apparently perjured herself in the 50th (Hawaii). The “media” glossed over the vetting of “Obama” and seemed strangely incurious, relying mostly upon the two somewhat fictional “autobiographies.” “Obama” offered almost no background and substantiation of his past. In fact, he has actively and aggressively covered it up, in an unprecedented manner. If you can point out how and who he was vetted by, we would like to help enlighten the benighted public, who question “Obama’s” legitimacy.

2. It is fairly clear, from the papers of the founding fathers and De Vattel’s Law of Nations, a primary reference used by them in the writing of the Constitution, that they thought of a natural born citizen as someone born in this country of two citizen parents at the time of that person’s birth. SR 511 appears to harbor similar assumptions. This has been repeatedly confirmed by Congress and the Supreme Court. However, CRS wrote a very misleading memo about eligibility, distorting both facts and case law, particularly Minor vs. Happersett. This has been documented in several articles, which we will forward upon request.

3. The withholding of “Obama’s” vital papers and expenditure of possibly up to $2MM to defend him in eligibility legal actions, plus an undetermined amount from DOJ funds, is an outrage. They should have been prosecuting, not defending him.

4. There is documented, indisputable evidence, compiled by multiple independent private investigators (Sankey, Daniels and others), that:
- “Obama” is linked at least 16 stolen Social Security numbers, including 042-68-4425, via name and addresses.
- This was uncovered via commercial databases and other research.
- That led to a finding that his Selective Service registration, linked to the aforementioned Social Security number, is also fraudulent and apparently forged circa 2008.
- At least one of his purported mother’s Social Security numbers appears to be stolen.
- We are told by investigators that this normally happens either when people cannot obtain such documentation legally, or are using it to break the law, usually for financial gain or other felony fraud.

5. There is no record of him ever legally changing his name from Barry Soetoro or Soebarkah to his current AKA. There is also evidence linking him to an alias of Harrison Bounel.

6. The so-called birth certificate was, after over three years of stalling. finally released in digital form by “Obama,” via the White House staff, on 4-27-11, with limited copies made from an undetermined source document. It has been declared a fraud by dozens of document experts, some of them very well-known and respected. In short, it opens up in Adobe Illustrator as a nine-layered document, displaying numerous symptoms known to experts as evidence of alteration.

7. John McCain was submitted to an extensive investigation and humiliating Senate hearing, on his eligibility for the Presidency, in spite of having a very well-documented history and two American citizen parents. His family has served with distinction as military officers for multiple generations. Even though he was born in Panama (NOT the at the time Canal Zone, a U.S. Possession, as many thought), he was declared eligible, because his father was serving his country as a military officer, a special case. No such hearing was ever held for his Democrat opponent, who had far more mysterious circumstances in his past and had already been served for eligibility suits. Some say this was some sort of quid pro quo. Whatever.

8. You didn’t raise the issue in your letter, but the so-called “birth announcements”:
- Are unvetted
- Are not legal documents
- Could have been triggered via relatives in a request, or Certification (NOT Certificate) of Live Birth, obtained with only an affidavit, under Hawaiian law.
- Do not state the name of the child
- Do not state the place of birth
- List a false address, where the parents never lived

Congress and courts have both failed to act on the issues, to date. The Courts claim it’s Congress’ responsibility and Congress vice- versa. You say it’s a non-issue. About half of the public at large surveyed think otherwise.

We do NOT intend to roll over and let this go away. The stakes are way too high. The founders established a high bar for eligibility, precisely to help avoid situations like we have now, with a chief executive whose priorities, loyalties, ideology and revered traditions clearly do not stand with We The People. This and his many impeachable offenses, are far worse than Watergate and Monicagate to the nth power.

We hope and pray that you will have the courage to act, to motivate the House of Reps to investigate this and act accordingly. I also ask you to help motivate the FBI to move on the multiple complaints submitted.

We do not think it is sufficient to wait until January 2013 to solve the problem, particularly because he has been so very dangerous and destructive in office and seems willing to commit massive fraud to get his way, with powerful forces enabling him to do so.


G. Miller


Dear Rep. McLintock,

I read your letter to “redacted” on the Post and Email website and would like to share the following. You said that President Obama was thoroughly vetted and found clean. I don’t think so. You may have forgotten Senate Resolution 511 which vetted Sen. McCain on being a natural born citizen. He was cleared and his nomination accepted by Democrats. But here’s what you and so many others are missing. During one of the hearings on Res. 511 Sen. Patrick Leahy said, “Because he (McCain) was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen.” Obviously, “born to American citizens” means that both parents are U.S. citizens, which McCain’s parents were. But by this statement, Sen. Leahy admitted that President Obama is not a natural born citizen as required by Art. 2, Sect. 1, Clause 5 of the constitution. This appeared to be a thoughtless “oops” that went unnoticed. But according to the historical record and Surpeme Court rulings, Leahy is dead on. Obama is not eligible to be President of the United States because his father was Kenyan and never was a U.S. citizen. McCain must have known this, but why didn’t he bring it up? And why didn’t he and Republicans demand that Sen. Obama be vetted for natural born citizenship also? Those questions need to be answered, but try and get one. The real substance of natural born citizenship is citizen parents and Leahy nailed it. So you are wrong, sir, when you say that Barack Obama was thoroughly vetted. He has committed election fraud and is guilty of usurping the presidency, among other things. Check with Senator Leahy and see if he still believes a natural born citizen is born of parents who are BOTH “American citizens.”

Regards, J. Black

Tuesday, July 12, 2011

“A Conspiracy of Congress”


by Neil Turner

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

Why would anyone in the White House claim a forgery as a copy of his original birth record? Why is Congress pretending that a crime has not been committed?

(Jul. 12, 2011) — This is to notify you of a ‘high Crime’ criminal act that was recently performed (and is still ongoing to date) in plain sight before all of America, and that it now becomes incumbent upon every American Citizen so notified herewith that they have a civic duty to pursue prosecution of this crime, lest they themselves be chargeable with 18 USC Sec. 1028, Part I, Chapter 1, Section 4: Misprision of Felony.

On April 27, 2011, the person commonly known as (but without any proof thereof) Barack Hussein Obama (aka Barry Soetoro), did, with malice and aforethought, publicly display on the official White House website, a blatantly forged document that he claimed to be a copy of his Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth – in order to obtain and maintain his continued employment within our Federal Government.

One of the crimes (among others) enabled by that forgery is Mispersonization of Identity – a crime punishable by up to 15 years in prison. And that same punishment would apply to all those who have aided and abetted in the commission of just this crime alone.

NOTE: This publicly committed and ongoing crime has nothing to do with whether or not Mr. Obama/Soetoro is a natural born Citizen, as required by Article II of the Constitution to be eligible to the Office of President. The actual ‘Birth Certificate’ or location of birth, therefore, is irrelevant to this crime. This is not a ‘Birther’ issue.

Not to let you, the reader of this message, off the hook*, but the reporting of (and certified forensic proof of)1 this crime of forgery has been formally presented by the author of this proof, Mr. Douglas Vogt, to the head office of the F.B.I. (

If no response is received in due course, this documentation will also be served on every Federal (Criminal) Judge (and when no response is forthcoming), every U.S. Attorney (and when no response is forthcoming), selected General/Flag Officers of the Military.

According to 18 USC Sec. 1028, Part I, Chapter 1, Sec. 3. Accessory after the fact

Whoever knowing that an offense against the United States has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact. Except as otherwise expressly provided by any Act of Congress, an accessory after the fact shall be imprisoned not more than one-half the maximum term of imprisonment …. prescribed for the punishment of the principal.

This would apply to all elected officials, not just in Congress, but from your own City Council on up. Perhaps we should all go before our City Councils during the ‘public comment’ period, and inform them of this crime and their responsibility to act, lest they themselves become an ‘accessory after the fact’.

And according to 18 USC Sec. 1028, Part I, Chapter 1, Sec. 4. Misprision of felony

* Whoever (any and all Citizens) having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

This duty and responsibility would apply to every American Citizen who has the privilege and honor of living under our Constitution, whether sworn or not.

It is by now quite obvious to all that the media and our leaders in government have no intention of addressing this treason2 of the altering of our Constitutional form of government by deception, dissembling, fraud, and deceit, nor the ‘high’ crime of offering a blatantly forged Certificate of Live Birth in order to maintain his (Obama’s) ‘government employment’. (

It is also quite obvious that there are ~ 300 million of us, and only 535 +/- of them, and the only thing that ‘them’ is concerned with is keeping their job/staying in office. And they are not worried about recall or impeachment, the only two ways to get them out before their terms expire – unless they embarrass themselves out of office first!

It is also well understood that the only peaceful way to remove a sitting President (whether Constitutionally eligible or not) is by the impeachment process. This process, whether or not it succeeds in the Senate (it surely would not at this time), would automatically lead to investigations, subpoenas, public discussions, and eventually ‘DISCOVERY’ – discovery that we have a usurper in our White House, and a conspiracy of Congress3 that put him there.

Since Biden and Hillary and Pelosi and Reid, et al, will be shown to be intimately involved in this treason, then you can be sure that the reins of government cannot and will not devolve upon them. And when the Obots say, “What about Bush?” you can agree with them, since G.W. Bush, of all people, did knowingly and without a word of protest, turn over the reins of our Constitutional Republic to a well-documented-to-be-ineligible usurper – an act of treason as criminal and heinous as the act of usurpation itself. The power, and duty, to stop this was always in his hands.

(NOTE: there is no statute of limitations on Treason, but a lawful President is immune from prosecution while in office. Once he is out, he can be prosecuted by the left, who blame Bush for everything – but they should be careful about what they wish and prosecute for.)

Sunday, July 10, 2011

Breaking: New Developments in Social Security Number Lawsuit


by Sharon Rondeau

Editor;s Note: Reprinted with permission of The Post & Email,

Why did the Social Security Administration exceed its obligations in responding to a FOIA request from Dr. Orly Taitz in this instance?

(Jul. 5, 2011) — The following is a breaking-news report from Dr. Orly Taitz, who filed the lawsuit Taitz v. Astrue to gain access to the application completed by Barack Hussein Obama to obtain his social security number. Taitz has questioned the SSN used by Obama which begins with 042 and therefore signifies that it was issued from the state of Connecticut, where Obama has neither worked, lived, nor attended school. The lawsuit was filed in February 2011 after her Freedom of Information request for Obama’s records was denied.

I got a letter today from the Social Security Administration saying that they don’t usually provide this information, but “here is more information.” It’s something very interesting.

They gave me a better copy of Ann Dunham’s SSA application, and it shows on the bottom that supposedly the form was revised 7/55. Then, they included another page saying “Versions of SS-5,” and there wasn’t a new one issued in 1955. They didn’t have such a form. So not only does Obama not have a valid social security number and valid application, but his mother’s appears to be fraudulent as well. We have no idea who these people are. His mother does not have a valid social security number. She obtained her social security number using falsified forms, as evidenced by the notation at the bottom of the page where it gives a revision date of 7/55.

Today I received a letter that was sent to me on June 27th. It took a few days for me to get it because of the holiday. It says that there was no revision date in 1955. If you look at the court filings in this case, I already sent them letters showing that when you look at the revision date on this form on the bottom, you can see that one “5″ is bigger than the other. So it’s clearly a forged document where they used different type settings. They might have used one “5″ from one form and another “5″ from another form, but it’s a forged document.

My supporters have sent forms to me which were used in 1959, and the forms are different. This is not the same form used in 1959. So there is evidence that not only Obama, but also his mother are using fraudulent documents. This is huge.

Editor’s Note: The form is signed May 22, 1959.

A report from early 2009 stated that Stanley Ann Dunham’s social security number has been used by a woman in Washington State “all her life.” The same social security number, 535-40-8522, appears on passport applications released through a FOIA request to Mr. Christopher Strunk last summer, although there was one occurrence in which the box was left blank.

Purported social security application for Stanley Ann Dunham dated May 22, 1959 which indicates below her signature "(Revised 7-55)". The two "5s" appear to be different sizes as noted by this editor

Bottom part of form which indicates that the form was revised "7-55". The two "5" digits do not appear to be the same typeface

Enlarged top portion of Stanley Ann Dunham's alleged SSN application

Letter to Orly Taitz from the Social Security Administration dated June 27, 2011 stating that it "created a document" in response to her request

Chart received from the Social Security Administration indicating when revisions were made to Form SS-5. The year 1955 does not appear in the chart, and the form is different from others Taitz has obtained from 1955

The application for Stanley Ann Dunham appears similar, if not identical, to that which is pictured here.

An enlarged version of the June 27, 2011 letter from the Social Security Administration can be found here.

© 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.
Barack Hussein Obama Has Not Produced Anything But a Forged Document

by Creg Maroney

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

Obama released this document to the public on April 27, 2011, but it has been widely discredited as an amateur forgery. Then why are Obama and Congress standing by it?

(Jul. 7, 2011) — On June 29, 2011, Adobe expert Mara Zebest stated at a WorldNetDaily press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, DC that Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth is “unequivocally a forgery.”

An Article II natural born Citizen, which is one of the Constitutional requirements for POTUS in the United States (Article II, Section 1, Clause 5), was never doubted to be a child born of two (2) U.S citizen Parent[s].

The US Supreme Court ruling in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) [[ DEFINING ]] a natural born [C]itizen is Precedent NOT *Dicta*, as Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) was.

Minor v. Happersett:

…it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. AS TO THIS CLASS THERE HAVE BEEN DOUBTS, [[ BUT NEVER AS TO THE FIRST. ]].

What has [[NEVER]] been doubted? Answer: The ”FIRST.” The ”FIRST” is: “…all children born in a country of PARENT[S] who were its CITIZEN[S] became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or NATURAL BORN CITIZENS,…”

Todd Leventhal of the U.S. State Department confirms Barack Hussein Obama was born a DUAL citizen of the U.K. and the U.S. from 1961 to 1963 and was then a DUAL citizen of KENYA and The U.S from 1963 to 1982.

Obama’s own FactCheck confirms he was born a DUAL citizen: “Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.

The British Nationality Act of 1948 confirms Barack Hussein Obama Sr passed UK citizenship TO HIS CHILDREN (Barack Hussein Obama Jr.) no matter where the child’s birth took place. The British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5) states: ” Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.”

Barack Hussein Obama himself confirms he was born a DUAL citizen on his “official” website, Fight The Smears: “When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr…was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children. Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4, 1982.”

There it is in black and white.

A DUAL citizen at birth does NOT have sole allegiance to the United States and is NOT an Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 natural born Citizen eligible for the Presidency of these 50 States of the Union within the meaning and context of the United States Constitution as required.

Lower Courts CANNOT overrule the Supreme Court.


Weakness in The Constitution will cripple The People.
Was Obama Sr.’s “U.S. Citizen Wife in the Philippines” Stanley Ann Dunham?
by Sharon Rondeau

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

Was Stanley Ann Dunham an unmarried expectant mother in 1961 who left the country to have her child?

(Jul. 7, 2011) — Despite numerous FOIA requests made and lawsuits filed against the U.S. State Department, no travel or passport information on Stanley Ann Dunham prior to 1965 has been made available to the public. Contrary to a State Department assertion that “Many passport applications and other non-vital records were destroyed during the 1980s in accordance with guidance from the General Services Administration,” neither the GSA nor NARA was able to locate any evidence that such destruction took place.

The current U.S. Department of Justice states on its FOIA page:

…Obama and Attorney General Holder have directed agencies to apply a presumption of openness in responding to FOIA requests. The Attorney General specifically called on agencies not to withhold information just because it technically falls within an exemption and he also encouraged agencies to make discretionary releases of records. The Attorney General emphasized that the President has called on agencies to work in a spirit of cooperation with FOIA requesters. The Office of Information Policy at the Department of Justice oversees agency compliance with these directives and encourages all agencies to fully comply with both the letter and the spirit of the FOIA. …Obama has pledged to make this the most transparent Administration in history.

Regarding exceptions to the 1966 FOIA law, the web page states:

Not all records can be released under the FOIA. Congress established certain categories of information that are not required to be released in response to a FOIA request because release would be harmful to governmental or private interests. These categories are called “exemptions” from disclosures. Still, even if an exemption applies, agencies may use their discretion to release information when there is no foreseeable harm in doing so and disclosure is not otherwise prohibited by law. There are nine categories of exempt information and each is described below.

Exemption 1: Information that is classified to protect national security. The material must be properly classified under an Executive Order.

Exemption 2: Information related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency.

Exemption 3: Information that is prohibited from disclosure by another federal law. Examples of laws which Courts have approved for use under Exemption 3 can be found here.

Exemption 4: Information that concerns business trade secrets or other confidential commercial or financial information.

Exemption 5: Information that concerns communications within or between agencies which are protected by legal privileges, that include but are not limited to:

Attorney-Work Product Privilege
Attorney-Client Privilege
Deliberative Process Privilege
Presidential Communications Privilege

Exemption 6: Information that, if disclosed, would invade another individual’s personal privacy.

Exemption 7: Information compiled for law enforcement purposes if one of the following harms would occur. Law enforcement information is exempt if it:

7(A). Could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings
7(B). Would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication
7(C). Could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy
7(D). Could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source
7(E). Would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions
7(F). Could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual

Exemption 8: Information that concerns the supervision of financial institutions.

Exemption 9: Geological information on wells.

Mr. Kenneth Allen supplied The Post & Email with additional information recently released to him on Barack Hussein Obama Sr. as a result of an additional Freedom of Information request which quotes Obama Sr. as having told INS authorities that he had an American wife overseas in April 1964.

Dated 4/21/64, a memo entitled “RE: A11 938 537 – BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA” indicates that Obama had attended the University of Hawaii from 1959 to 1962, graduating with a Bachelor of Arts degree. It continues:

Transferred to Harvard in September 1962 to study for Ph.D. in Economics. Expects to get degree in 2-3 years and then go home. Had not filled in marital status, etc. and employment portion of I-539. E.J.Golden said to hold up extension for present.

Talked with Miss Frost at Harvard as alien claimed he couldn’t remember where he had worked in the U.S. She said he works on research at Harvard; and that Mr. Henry, one of the Harvard officials, intends to talk to subject re his marital situation. Harvard thinks he’s married to someone in Kenya and someone in Honolulu, but that possibly he belongs to a tribe where multiple marriages are O.K.

Mr. Henry may not talk to him until after his exams in case he might get upset and use that as an excuse for not passing. Harvard will call us with the results of the interview.

After alien stated he was married, he said he was separated and thatthey [sic] may get a divorce. The wife in the Philippines from whom he is separated is a U.S.C. Memo on yellow paper in file indicates he had wife in Kenya when he arrived in U.S. in 1959.

Was the wife “in the Philippines” Stanley Ann Dunham? What was the “U.S.C. wife” to Barack Obama Sr. doing overseas? If it was Dunham, why wasn’t she in Hawaii as her biography typically reads? If Dunham had “fallen in love with a grad student” in Hawaii, why did Harvard state that Obama Sr. had achieved a B.A. as of 1962, not 1960 or 1961?

If Stanley Ann Dunham left the United States between 1960 and 1964, the years for which records have been unavailable, she would have had to have applied for a passport, yet the State Department maintains that the records were “destroyed.” If she had her baby overseas and that baby is Barry Soetoro, aka Barack Hussein Obama II, is he a natural born Citizen as required by Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution?

If some records for Lolo Soetoro and Stanley Ann Dunham were finally made available to Mr. Allen, why was nothing released under the name “Barry Soetoro,” which appears to be an alias for Barack Hussein Obama II? The exemption frequently cited on the documents is (b)(6), which claims privacy concerns, just as the Hawaii Department of Health has in regard to releasing Obama’s original birth certificate, if in fact they have it.

While Obama Sr. supposedly had a wife in Honolulu, why did he tell immigration authorities that a U.S. citizen wife was in the Philippines?

An article dated July 7, 2011 from The Boston Globe states that Obama Sr. told an INS official that he and his “USC wife,” who was expecting his child, had discussed arranging for an adoption of the baby. If they were married, why would they have discussed such a thing? The article contains no documentation or external links to source the information.

Page 21 from documentation released by the State Department on Barack Hussein Obama stating that he had a U.S. citizen wife in the Philippines in April 1964

Were Obama Sr. and Stanley Ann Dunham ever really married? Obama had already been married to a Kenyan woman, Kezia, and although it has been reported that he “divorced” her, it has also been reported that Kezia gave her approval for Obama to take another wife and even became “friends” with Stanley Ann.

Did Dunham go to Kenya to have her baby with the expectation that the child’s father’s family would raise him? If she had gone overseas for the birth of the baby, she would have needed a passport. Mysteriously, the State Department has maintained that it doesn’t have the records, which could imply that they did or do exist.

The address provided in the two purported birth announcements for Obama II stating the parents’ address does not agree with the address which the father provided in his application for a visa extension in August 1961. He lists a wife, Ann Dunham, but does not provide her address on the form when asked, nor does he acknowledge having a child born earlier that month.

One of Stanley Ann’s biographers, Janny Scott, stated that Stanley Ann married Lolo Soetoro in 1964, but records released by the State Department revealed that Dunham married Soetoro in 1965, although she provided two different dates for the marriage.

Did the biographer use original sources such as documents from the State Department or Hawaii Department of Health to arrive at the 1964 date? If not, how much of the biography is accurate? Where are the footnotes stating Ms. Scott’s sources? Writer Jack Cashill has also questioned the reliability of Scott’s work, citing the lack of information regarding Ann Dunham’s relationship with Barack Obama Sr., their alleged wedding and the months leading up to the alleged birth of Barack Obama II.

A Certificate of Marriage document released by the State Department with signatures and signed statement of certification shows a marriage date of March 1965.

Portion of marriage certificate for Stanley Ann Dunham and Lolo Soetoro

Another biography of Dunham states that she and Lolo Soetoro were not yet married in 1967. An article published shortly after the 2008 presidential election maintains that Barack Hussein Obama II was born in Kogelo, Kenya. The same article states that Dunham married Soeotor in 1967, not 1965.

Why are there so many inconsistencies in the histories of Stanley Ann Dunham and her son, Barry Soetoro/Barack Hussein Obama II?

The document which Obama claimed as a certified copy of his original birth certificate on file with the Hawaii Department of Health is lacking the statement present on his mother’s marriage certificate from 1965, four years later, which reads:

This certifies that the above is a true and correct copy of the original record on file in the research and statistics office
Hawaii State Department of Health

There are two signatures below the statement: Walter B. Quisenberry, M.D., Director of Health, and George H. Tokuyama, State Registrar, and the document is dated “3-15-65.”

Other documents released contain the (b)(6) privacy exemption:

If Stanley Ann Dunham and Lolo Soetoro are deceased, whose privacy could the State Department be protecting?

Document dated 7-19-65 regarding whether or not Lolo Soetoro should be granted a waiver to allow him to remain in the United States following the expiration of his visa. The same (b)(6) exemption is used to redact information.

Obama’s “birth certificate” does not bear the signature of the director of the Hawaii Department of Health, currently Loretta J. Fuddy. However, the birth certificates released by Eleanor Nordyke, the mother of the twin girls born on August 5, 1961 at Kapiolani Medical Center, have the same statement quoted above which appears on the marriage certificate for Stanley Ann Dunham and Lolo Soetoro, including the two signatures below it.

Without that statement of certification, is the long-form birth certificate bearing Obama’s name authentic? Is his social security number? Is his real name Barack Hussein Obama II or Barry Soetoro?

Is there anything authentic about him?

Of the FOIA release, Mr. Allen told The Post & Email, “the 118 pages aren’t all I asked for, I asked for much more. I have 2 years to file suit for the rest and because the answer from the 9th circuit is due I’ll see what else I can retrieve.”

© 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.
What About Barry Soetoro and the Casey Anthony Trial?


by Gary Steven

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

Is it a lie that Obama is even an American citizen? Why have others, including the media, lied for Obama?

(Jul. 8, 2011) — The Casey Anthony case dominates all major news. Commentators and pundits from various networks are having lively discussions and often heated debates since the verdict of “not guilty” to the murder charges was handed down by the jury. However, the jury found Casey Anthony guilty of lying on four counts, each count punishable by one year in prison.

Not one major media outlet has covered the comparative crime by Barry Soetero, aka Barack Obama. Lying is a crime. Whether you agree with the outcome of the Casey Anthony case or not, the charges of lying which were brought forth reveal a rule of law that was broken.

Often, jokes about politicians bring a chuckle or cynical smile during conversations. For example, one person says, “How do you know a politician is lying?” and the other answers, “His lips are moving.” Then, rather than be alarmed by the truth of the inference in the joke, we, perhaps in silence, agree that it is the norm and expected of politicians. That is a broken moral compass for sure. The putative president has earned the distinction as liar-in-chief. This title is not only based on campaign promises broken, but also the consistent falsehood of his background, his agenda for America, and his blatant disregard for truth.

The space required to list the outright lies would far surpass this column’s capability. There are the documented lies on camera before audiences. The speeches. The national addresses before both chambers of Congress (remember “Health care will not increase the deficit one dime?) filled with lies. There are the lies to his family, lies to the military personnel, lies to voters, lies about his background, lies about the economy, lies about pulling out of Iraq, lies about Libya, lies about transparency.

The central issue to this article poses a HUGE question: Why is Barry Soetero not legally charged with lying? The one document he provided allegedly proving his birthplace is a forgery. Many experts (even former CIA agents) have gone on the record stating this FACT. Lying is a moral virus. The lies perpetuate more lies. The deceit becomes contagious to others. The Congress then lies to cover the lies already told. The structure built on lies is weak. The longevity of such a structure, whether political, relational, or economic, will not last. Collapse is imminent. Lies have no color. Lies are not little or white (no racial reference here) as in, “little white lie.“

The visual impact of the Anthony case mentioned above should be a stimulating comparison. Anthony was charged with four counts of lying and sentenced to a prison term of one year for each lie by the judge. Since the judge followed the sentencing guidelines, one could easily conclude that Barry Soetero should be charged with hundreds of counts of LYING. By simple math it is easy to see more than a life’s sentence afforded the liar-in-chief. Arresting him may be a problem. Why? The participating liars don’t want their lies exposed.

What about the LIE before millions of people? Under oath, Barry Soetero swore to uphold, defend, and protect the Constitution. Has he done that? Perjury is also a crime, lying under oath. Where is the rule of law? Does it apply only in Orlando, FL? Do all politicians lie? Does truth exist in DC? Where are the leaders who proclaim moral values and integrity? The deceit continues. Five hundred thirty-five congressional members decide issues for the lives of 310,000,000 Americans.

The liar-in-chief with corrupt staff has an agenda. Leaders, beware; your lies will find you out.

© 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.

Friday, July 1, 2011

Stipulation to Produce Obama’s SSN Application Sent to DOJ Attorneys


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

by Sharon Rondeau

The Social Security Administration has not released a copy of Obama's original social security number application. At least two private investigators have stated that the number he is using was not assigned to him originally.

(Jul. 1, 2011) — As part of the discovery phase of her lawsuit to obtain the social security number application for Barack Hussein Obama II, Atty. Orly Taitz has sent the following request to three Justice Department attorneys currently acting as defense counsel for the Social Security Administration (SSA). The Post & Email previously covered the case here and here.




Ph.949-683-5411 fax 949-766-7603


Att Tony West

Assistant Attorney general

Elizabeth J. Shapiro
Deputy director

Federal Programs Branch

Patrick Nemeroff

Trial Atty, U.S. Dep’t of Justice

Civil Division, federal Programs branch

20 Massachusetts Ave, NW

Washington, DC 20530

Fax 202-305-8517

Phone 202-305-8727

Request to stipulate to production of the application to SS_5 application to SSN 042-68-4425

Taitz v Astrue 11-cv-402 RCL

Dear Ms. Shapiro, Mr. West and Mr. Nemeroff

While FOIA legal actions do not require meet and confer, I am extending this letter as part of meet and confer and request to stipulate to production of the requested SS-5 application to SSN 042-68-4425, which is used by Mr. Obama since around 1980, but was shown by the SSN, as one, never assigned to Mr. Obama.

Documents provided in this case, as well as additional documents, provided with this letter show, that Mr. Obama is defrauding the whole nation and illegally occupying the position of the President and Commander in Chief, while using a cheap forgery instead of a valid birth certificate, invalid Social Security number and forged or fraudulently obtained other vital records.

I would like to reiterate, that If you and your client, commissioner of the Social Security administration Michael Astrue, who happen to be a licensed attorney and an officer of the court as well, refuse to stipulate and produce requested application, you and your client become complicit to the crimes committed by Mr. Obama against 311 million American citizens, and a formal complaint will be forwarded to the Attorney’s bar of the District of Columbia, as well as Inspector General of the Department of Justice, House Judiciary Committee and House oversight committee.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ


Of this most recent action, Taitz stated that she has addressed both Michael Astrue, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, and his agency’s defense attorneys: “You people are complicit in all the crimes committed by Obama. We have a forged birth certificate and a criminal in the White House. You are engaged in a cover-up. You either stipulate that you will release the documents or you will be prosecuted together with him, and I’m going to the House Oversight Committee, the Department of Justice, and the Bar of the District of Columbia. It’s horrible. I’m keeping their feet to the fire.”

A statement of facts “not in dispute” filed today by the defendant’s attorneys provides a timeline of events in the case.