Centralized Government is a Freedom-Grabbing Black Hole!
FROM “THE PARALLAX PROPHECIES”
by Ron Ewart, ©2012
Editor's Note: Re-posted with permission of The Post & Email.
(Feb. 12, 2012) — “Those who have been once intoxicated with power, and have derived any kind of emolument from it, even though but for one year, never can willingly abandon it. They may be distressed in the midst of all their power; but they will never look to anything but power for their relief.” — Edmund Burke
Like political power, a massive black hole is an insatiable beast. It will literally absorb (eat) anything that gets too close. It eats surrounding gases, whole stars, star systems and planets. And as it eats, it grows, and the more it eats, the larger and more powerful it gets. Its power reaches out deeper and deeper into the heavens and warps the very fabric of space and time. A black hole is a whirlpool in the universe and its immense gravity powers entire galaxies while it clears the space around it like a giant vacuum cleaner inside its event horizon. At its center is a point of infinite density where the laws of physics no longer apply. It is, in its growing sphere of influence, the epitome of absolute power. Not even light can escape it.
Since the dawn of human civilization, the masses have been, and still are, in a constant struggle against the ever-increasing power of centralized government. Whether it be kings, despots, dictators, or even democracies, centralized power grows and grows, like a black hole, until it envelops and consumes all those who would attempt to break it up or destroy it. Even though the Founding Fathers went to great pains to inhibit the rise of the federal government by limiting its powers in the U. S. Constitution, every succeeding executive, legislative and judicial branch of government since George Washington, has wriggled and finagled around its constitutional restraints into ever-increasing political power. The jaws of absolute power are open wide and lie there in our not-too-distant future if the people don’t take it upon themselves to break up that centralized power and restore it to the states and to the people, as it was intended by those who gave birth to freedom over two centuries ago at great sacrifice.
Throughout history, when centralized power is broken up or destroyed, it usually comes from the people violently rising up, en masse, and restoring political power in the people and dividing all such power into smaller jurisdictions, which was part of the core foundation of the U. S. Constitution. It was the states that created the federal government, not the other way around. It is the states and the people that are supposed to have the supreme power under our Constitutional Republic, not the federal government.
Fractionalized power, split up between many small centers of political power, (i.e. states, counties and cities) is freedom’s only salvation. Centralized, concentrated authority in a single center of power, in the end, will be freedom’s demise.
For over 100 years the power of the American federal government has grown to the point where it now is the beast whose only goal is to perpetuate itself by “eating” anyone or anything that gets in its way. Constitutional limitations, or resistance from the states, or the people, are vigorously opposed by those who hold federal power. The federal government will sue in Federal court any state that tries to invoke its 10th Amendment rights, as Attorney General Eric Holder has done to several states over their attempts to control illegal immigration. The federal government will lie, dupe, or use propaganda and outright brainwashing to paint a rosy picture of what a good job it is doing for the people. Obama’s entire campaign strategy for re-election will be and is based on lies and propaganda, since he cannot run on his dismal record of failure.
As an example of this propaganda that government puts out, highly credible individuals have charged that the current unemployment numbers are a complete fraud because the government simply removes a million or so people from the total to make the rate look better by sleight of hand. David Stockman, in an article in the Business Insider, makes the point that the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ numbers on unemployment are an outright fabrication.
Ladies and gentlemen, if government will so blatantly lie about a national statistic, what else will they lie about? Just about anything! Truth is the first casualty of government hell-bent on increasing its power.
The three branches of the federal government that were supposed to check the rise of each others power through the Separation of Powers doctrine now work in concert to support and enhance each others power. But the greatest increase in power has risen within the confines of the Executive Branch. Since the days of Abraham Lincoln, each succeeding president has added power to the executive branch by increasing the size of the President’s cabinet. Each cabinet secretary serves at the pleasure of the president and will do his bidding when directed. If the President wants to get around the Legislative Branch, he just gives a directive to one of his cabinet Secretaries to promulgate a “rule” which has the force of law. Or he just writes an Executive Order. (FDR, Obama’s hero, wrote more than 3,600 Executive Orders) If the president wants a better judicial outcome, he just packs the U. S. Supreme Court with appointments for justices-for-life ideologues who will support his ideology or agenda.
The second way that the executive branch has increased its power is by the legislative branch abdicating its constitutional legislative power and granting more unconstitutional power to the president or his cabinet bureaucracies. Around the time of Christ, the Roman Republic of almost 500 years became the Roman Empire when the Roman Senate abdicated all of its power and granted it to the new Emperor, Octavius (Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus – 27 BC). Could history be repeating itself again and man has learned nothing in 2,100 years? Could it be that in time, an American Republic could morph into the American Empire when the Congress abdicates all of its legislative power to the executive branch under his majesty, Caesar Obama, or some other equally narcissistic and arrogant ”ruler”?
Each year the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government, coupled with an out-of-control federal bureaucracy, take more and more control of every aspect of our daily lives by passing law after law or promulgating rule after rule. No area of human behavior is safe from the long arms of the law and rule makers that make up the black hole of centralized government.
From the top down, the federal government now controls public education, the money, the land, the water, the food, the energy and the health care of every American. America has reached the point where the government can do anything it pleases, but each American must ask permission from the government to do anything they want to do.
Much of this growing federal control has been done in cooperation with the hopelessly corrupt United Nations, along with the world ruling class and the moneychangers. Government can back up that control with the most powerful military on the planet if they so choose. Even a totally armed population could not stop the onslaught of the combined forces of the Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, Coast Guard and civilian law enforcement, that is, if those in power could convince the military and civilian law enforcement to fire upon their own citizens. That is a big “if,” we will admit, but the possibility still exists.
The more laws and rules that government passes result in higher taxes, more aggressive law enforcement, more law-abiding citizens being turned into law-breakers and more brainwashing of the entire population to convince them that all of the new laws are legal, ”necessary and proper.” To further government’s hold on power, they encourage neighbors to be snitches by ratting on their neighbors over real or unreal violations of too many laws. Instead of neighbors helping neighbors to work against government as we used to do when there was the fire of freedom in our bellies, the government now turns neighbor against neighbor and directs their attention away from government. Can a police state (think the Third Reich) be far behind if Americans don’t wise up and soon?
But it isn’t always government with an evil agenda that sends us reeling headlong into the black hole of corruption and enslavement. Sometimes it is just plain stupidity of and by government and it takes on all the appearances of a bunch of crazed inmates running an asylum.
In many of our columns we have struggled with why there seem to be no genuine solutions to our problems even though many plausible solutions are proffered. This ABC News Watchdog video might explain why. Government passes a law and then moves onto another law without regard to the reasons for, or the consequences of, the previous law they just passed. (Should we say Obamacare?) It’s as if someone who is not playing with all of his marbles was pulling the handle on a slot machine and garbage dumped in his lap with each pull. But instead of stopping and analyzing why the machine is malfunctioning, he just keeps pulling the handle until he is buried in garbage, a classic example of insanity.
Americans are being drawn in and sucked up into the black hole of growing government tyranny, ineptness ….. and stupidity. The trap has been set and there is “cheese” on the trigger. As more and more Americans are drawn to the sweet, enticing smell of the “cheese,” each will succumb to the snap of the trap, as they tumble helplessly down and down into the black hole, finally consumed by absolute power resulting from their own greed. Man’s short experiment with freedom will have become a sidebar in some history book, as civilization rapidly decays into chaos and anarchy, where the world is run by an Oligarchy (ruling class) and martial law is the rule rather than the exception. Complete enslavement of the masses will have become a reality if freedom in America dies.
But government could never set the trap with “cheese” and be successful if it weren’t for the not-so-smart “mice” that are always looking for a free meal. In fact, the government has been so successful that 70% of the Federal budget is spent on those dependent “mice” that are always sniffing around the “cheese” in the trap. According to Investor.com, under Obama, the number of dependent “mice” has shot up 23% with 67 million “mice” now dependent on some form of government assistance. That translates into 67 million ”mice” that won’t “bite” the hand that feeds them and these “mice” get to vote. If you wonder whom they will vote for, you are naive.
In spite of the possibility of America’s ultimate demise as a free and prosperous nation, there still may be reason to hope for a more positive outcome. There is the distinct aroma of determined resistance sweeping across America and that resistance is manifested in more and more people taking it upon themselves to start holding government accountable for what they are doing, or not doing, at the local, state and federal level. As a result, the left is growing more nervous and turning up the heat on the resistors ….. and ”feeding” more propaganda to the naive and un-enlightened.
Even though there are growing signs of resistance, “The Parallax Prophecies” predicts that if Americans who care about freedom don’t find a way to peacefully render impotent this black hole of ever-increasing government power, a certain segment of the population will be forced to go the way of all previous civilizations to restore freedom and break up, by other means, the arrogant monopoly of an out-of-control, drunk-with-power, centralized government. Unfortunately, if such an event were to occur in today’s world, there is no guarantee that their actions to restore freedom by other means will be a replay of 1776. Instead, there is a distinct possibility that the freedom-grabbing black hole of government will just get stronger and stronger and larger and larger, unless a superior force is mounted against it. Two thousand twelve (2012) could be the turning point towards a paradigm shift in the American mindset. Freedom might just be born anew, but we’re not holding our breath.
——————————-
Ron Ewart, President
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF RURAL LANDOWNERS
P. O. Box 1031, Issaquah, WA 98027
425 837-5365 or 1 800 682-7848
http://www.narlo.org/
http://www.narloltd.com
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Thursday, February 9, 2012
This is part one of a three part story which will present evidence discovered within the vital records archives of the United States, Great Britain and the Prefecture of Hiroshima, Japan which shows that Barack Obama exploited the municipality of Hawaii and U.S. Vital Statistics reporting methods in order to counterfeit birth records in a criminal attempt to deceive the American people and fraudulently usurp the power of the U.S. Presidency.
by Penbrook Johannson
of THE DAILY PEN
New York, NY – Barack Obama’s ineligibility to be President remains the most troubling concern for the American people over the past four years. The issue outweighs concern over healthcare, the economy and the war on terror, combined.
Regardless of transient political and social lusts, immovable Constitutional prerequisites dictate that no office Obama holds, or policy he implements, is legitimate without proving that he is qualified to implement them, first. Compounding our constitutional crisis, an ineligible President only makes these problems worse, no matter what party he or she represents. Marco Rubio will come to understand, just as Obama has, that hypocrisy is not a part of the constitutional eligibility platform.
Despite spineless commiseration with Obama by the mainstream media complex, including abettors at Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, CBS and ABC, public sentiment demanding a formal investigation into the matter of Obama’s Natural-born status, and thus his eligibility, continues to grow beyond the control of our government and media.
Soon, the vast and shocking truth about Obama’s otherness, based in part on evidence revealed in this report, will begin to rupture the constructs of Obama’s massive deception.
Presented here for the first time, in coordination with longstanding evidence supporting charges of fraud against Obama, is documented proof demonstrating multiple discrepancies between the dates and locations of Obama’s alleged birth registration and uncorroborated claims that his birth actually occurred on the island of Oahu, Hawaii in 1961.
Along with valid proof that the image of Obama’s “Certificate of Live Birth” is a digitally manipulated forgery, analysis of data on the image in reference with 1961 vital statistics reporting methods reveals there are conflicts between the vital statistics data educed about Obama and his ambiguous birth narrative.
As this report will show, the proof of Obama’s fraudulence resides in the domain of publicly accessible records which show that the birth registration procedures, federal vital statistics reporting methods and organizational structure of the Hawaiian municipality expose these contradictions and reveal that Obama’s Hawaiian birth is a fabrication of modern administrative processes and that his actual natal biography has been actively and intentionally obscured by present-day governmental officials.
REGIONAL NUMBERING OF VITAL STATISTICS
Vital statistics reporting methods in 1961 dictated that when births were registered in Hawaii, the official vital record was coded with a nine digit number called a geographic reference. Hawaii’s vital records are reported to the main office of the Hawaiian Department of Health in Honolulu from five counties comprised of seven geographic reference numbers as shown in the Vital Statistics Instruction Manual for 1959-1963. In Hawaii the geographic areas, numbered in alphabetical order by name of county, were coded as follows:
The geographic reference table shows the alphabetical order in which the counties of Hawaii were numbered by the National Vital Statistics Division and how vital statistics were required by the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare to be reported using codes indicating the state (first and second digit), county (third, fourth and fifth digit) and city (sixth, seventh and eighth digit) and population (ninth digit) with population being designated as follows:
Cities with populations of 10,000 or more within each state are number in alphabetical order. Rural areas not identified in birth records which have a population up to10,000 are numbered 999 in each state. In 1961, there were only two incorporated areas in Hawaii, the City of Honolulu in the County of Honolulu, and the City of Hilo in the County of Hawaii, coded as follows:
As indicated by this code, in reference with the population codes, the city of Honolulu was reported by 1960 Census figures to have a population of 250,000 to 500,000 and the city of Hilo, 25,000 to 50,000 with the City of Honolulu being designated as the Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA).
Notice, according to the National Vital Statistics Division, Hawaii contained only two geographic references with populations specified as greater than 25,000. They are the incorporated area of Hilo in the County of Hawaii, which is located on the Island of Hawaii, and the incorporated city of Honolulu in the County of Honolulu on the island of Oahu which is also part of the state of Hawaii.
The incorporated area of Honolulu County covers the City of Honolulu for Region 3.
OUT OF ORDER: BIRTH REGISTRATION NUMBER EXPOSES OBAMA’S FRAUD
As first reported by The Daily Pen in 2010, in order to streamline accounting of millions of births reported by all the states in 1961, the National Vital Statistics Division (NVSD) of the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, as it was known, mandated a 50-percent reporting method from state agencies using even-numbered certificates only. This commonly practiced statistical accounting method was implemented periodically in order to accelerate the quantification and categorization of natal statistics while preserving the margins of accuracy of the data to be included in various reports and Census data.
In Hawaii in 1961, birth registration records were collected by the State of Hawaii’s Department of Health each week for births registered throughout the five regional offices between the previous Sunday at Midnight through Saturday at 11:59 p.m. Records from the five reporting counties were grouped in order by their geographic reference code into the seven groups shown above. Then the state of Hawaii’s Vital Statistics Registrar assigned birth registration numbers based, first, on regional occurrence with secondary consideration for chronological occurrence, as so stated in the 1961 Vital Statistics of the U.S. Report in Section 5, pg. 5-8.
In 1961, upon receipt of the states’ data by the U.S. DHEW, the final even-number total for each reporting region (divided by counties) in each state was simply multiplied by two, thereby assigning an equal statistical value for the unreported odd numbered certificates. The resulting number was published in the annual 1961 "Natal Statistics of the U.S. Report Volume 1: Natality" issued through the National Center for Health Statistics headed by Dr. Forrest Linder and members of the National Vital Statistics Division at the time.
Since state-level Departments of Health were mandated by the federal government to convey their data by the 50-percent reporting method using only even numbered registration numbers, the states' health departments were not able to utilize "chronological" birth numbering to account for births in 1961. This means that as birth registration requests arrived at states' main Department of Health offices, registrars had to first account them in order of receipt from regional office locations around the state. These were the offices in outlying and unincorporated areas (non-metropolitan areas) which most often provided birth registration services for rural, non-hospital, indigenous and foreign births since most main offices are nearest to major hospitals and city populations.
Understanding this regional birth registration system is critical when analyzing Obama birth records and it is essential to understanding why his birth registration number indicates that he has provided fraudulent birth data and, also, why it is out of sequence with other birth registrations.
REGIONAL VS. CHRONOLOGICAL BIRTH REGISTRATION
The 1961 Vital Statistics Report of the United States reveals there were 17,616 births registered in the state of Hawaii between midnight, January 1, 1961 and 11:59 p.m., December 31st, 1961. This means that the State of Hawaii reported 8,808 even-numbered registrations to the U.S. Department of Health.
Of the total births registered in the State of Hawaii, 14,906 were registered in the County of Honolulu, alone. This means that almost 85% of births are registered in just one of the five Hawaiian counties using 7,453 of the 8,808 even-numbers available leaving only 1355 even numbers for the remaining six regional birth registration areas.
If the state of Hawaii had assigned birth registration numbers in chronological order, without consideration for the regional origin of the birth registration, many of the remaining 2710 births in the four remaining counties would have been assigned a disproportionate number of odd registration numbers because they were “outnumbered” by Honolulu County births by 5.5 to 1.
Statistically, for every 16 births registered in the City of Honolulu, only one birth is registered in the City of Hilo. If the birth in Hilo were chronologically numbered among those other 16 from Honolulu and just happened to receive an odd number in 1961, it would never be reported as ever occurring. Worse yet, what if all 524 births in Hilo were randomly assigned odd numbers because of their chronological occurrence with the 14,906 births from Honolulu County. This is not impossible considering there are 7,453 odd numbers available.
The data reveals there were a total of 17,616 births registered and reported to the U.S. DHEW from the state of Hawaii in 1961. Of these, 9348 were registered outside the incorporated area of Honolulu leaving more than half the birth registrations of the Hawaiian Islands from places outside the shoreline boundaries of Oahu and, thus, outside the geographic authority of the Honolulu based Department of Health.
As shown in the table below, births were registered, numbered and reported from seven different regional groupings among five counties (Hawaii, Honolulu, Kalawao, Kauai and Maui) which are numbered in alphabetical order, according to NVSD protocols outlined in the Vital Statistics Instruction Manual, Part II, Section C - “Geographic Code”.
In order to avoid this statistical inaccuracy, states adopted regional birth numbering which assigned an equal percentage of even numbers within all birth regions, not just cities and densely populated areas. This allowed rural and urban births to be accounted accurately regardless of their chronological occurrence.
The only way to make sure there was an accurate accounting, based on the federal health department’s request that states use even-numbered reporting of natal statistics was for the states’ main DOH office to number births in order of receipt from regional offices, first, then consider them chronologically, second.
Therefore, the State of Hawaii, like many states, implemented a regional numbering of birth registrations to ensure that births outside of the urban area of Honolulu would be accounted for using the 50-percent reporting method using even-numbers only.
This "regional" ordering of birth registrations prevented an over-counting of native urban births because urban births occur in a much higher density and frequency and, therefore, are statistically more likely to receive an even number if only chronological birth numbering were used.
Compounding this problem in Hawaii is the fact that births can occur in a region stretching more than 1500 miles across the Pacific Ocean and still be called “Hawaiian” births. Hawaii’s municipal government does not operate like one in a mainland state. In 1961, the geographic chain of Hawaiian Islands stretched far beyond the reach of Honolulu’s municipal authority. The main offices of the Hawaiian Health Department had only enough resources to take registration information at face value and create documentation without investigation. It did this so often, it eventually became permissible by law via HRS 338 and Administrative Rule 91.
Also, five of Hawaii’s regional birth registration districts are separated from the City of Honolulu by oceanic boundaries and open water of the Pacific Ocean. In 1961, the municipal government of the State of Hawaii did not have computer technology and had tremendous difficulty in implementing native birth verification and immigration laws.
The regions from which birth registrations were received by the Hawaiian Department of Health’s main office in 1961 were:
1. Births registered in the County of Hawaii and within the incorporated area of Hilo on the island of Hawaii – 524 births.
2. Remaining births registered in the County of Hawaii (births registered outside of Hilo yet on the big Island of Hawaii) from the areas surrounding Hilo - 668 births.
3. Births registered in the County of Honolulu and within the incorporated City of Honolulu on the Island of Oahu – 8,268 births (Registered in Kapiolani Medical Center…i.e. the Nordyke twins 10638 and10637);
4. Remaining births registered in the County of Honolulu in remaining areas surrounding the incorporated City of Honolulu on the island of Oahu – 6,638 births (Not registered in Kapiolani Medical Center…i.e. Obama 10641);
5. Births registered in the county of Kalawao on the north shore of the island of Moloka’I – 0 births.
6. Births registered in the County of Kauai which consists of the islands of Kauaʻi, Niʻihau, Lehua, and Kaʻula – 604 births, and;
7. Births registered in the County of Maui which consists of the islands of Maui, Kahoolawe, Lānai, Moloka’i (except for a portion of Molokai that comprises Kalawao County), and Molokini – 914 births.
The following table illustrates Hawaii’s regional statistics and shows the order of the numbering sequence as it applied in 1961.
OBAMA’S BIRTH REGISTERED BY PLACE OF RESIDENCE, NOT PLACE OF OCCURENCE
The 1961 Vital Statistics Report of the United States reveals in Section 5-5 that birth statistics are classified by the mother’s usual place of residence. This means that, in Hawaii in 1961, if the mother of a child resided in Region 4 (in Honolulu County but outside of the Incorporated area of the City of Honolulu), but came into the City of Honolulu (Region 3) to have the child at one of the urban hospitals, the vital statistics for that baby were recorded by the Department of health as occurring in Region 4, not Region 3. However, if the father was a resident alien, foreign student or undocumented immigrant, the mother’s usual place of residence was considered the place of occurrence, regardless of the birth location.
Contrarily, if someone wanted to conceal a birth or obscure its data, registering it in an outlying area would accomplish this.
Therefore, chronological birth registration numbering creates a statistical accuracy problem when attempting to account the births which are not registered in major hospitals because those less frequent births might just happen to occur in a chronological order which renders a disproportionate quantity of them with odd numbers, therefore, preventing them from being reported by the 50-percent, “even-number-only” method.
Because of the even numbered reporting in Hawaii in 1961, if the birth registration numbers were assigned chronologically, and those from Hilo, Kalawao, Kauai and Maui counties were lumped in with the births registered in Honolulu county, they would not be accurately counted by the U.S. Department of Health, Welfare and Education because their fewer numbers would be vulnerable to odd numbering in higher proportion.
If this were allowed to happen without regional consideration, those rural or foreign birth registrations would not be reported to the U.S. Dept. of Health, and therefore, they would not receive "credit" for future federal services and funding of various programs.
Therefore, in 1961, the “50-percent” reporting method of even-numbered certificates only, forced state vital records agencies to use the Regional numbering system, instead of exclusive chronological numbering in order to make sure an accurate proportion of even numbered rural, foreign and non-hospital births were accounted for census and natal statistics reporting. This is one reason the U.S. DHEW added data categories to the official "Certificate of Live Birth" template in the 1950's in order to account for non-hospital births in comparison to the higher number of urban births.
The table below demonstrates the importance of clarifying birth registrations by regions in Hawaii. The U.S. Department of Health wanted to know the natality rates and status of births not only in highly populated areas, but in rural areas and non-metropolitan counties of each state.
In the alleged year of Obama's birth, regional clarification of birth data allowed Hawaii, with its scattered indigenous population and foreign birth registration history, a way to modulate the birth registrations from foreign, unnattended and non-hospital births without allowing them to be lost in odd numbers of the 17,616 total births that year and therefore promoted the Hawaiian municipal government’s need for federal funding for its population growth and expanding municipality.
As a result, Obama's birth was registered in a region whose certificates received a higher number even though his birth outside of Honolulu was recorded as allegedly occurring earlier than the Nordyke twins, because the regional offices, including the one which registered the Nordykes, had a lower regional reference number and served the main hospital at Kapi'olani.
Obama's birth did not occur in Kapi'olani Medical Center and these data prove it.
THE NORDYKES BORN IN KAPIOLANI MEDICAL CENTER, OBAMA WAS NOT
Moreover, the newspapers printed their birth announcements in the same order the certificates were numbered and in the order they were regionally registered by the main office of the State of Hawaii’s Department of Health in 1961.
Notice where Obama's announcement occurs within the columns of the two newspapers compared to the dates of other births in other announcements. Several births are dated days after his yet they are printed above his. This is because they were registered either in a lower numbered regional office or in the office serving Kapi'olani Medical Center and, therefore, received a lower registration number despite occurring after his birth, chronologically.
At the top of the column, why does the birth announcement for the Kitson’s August 6th birth occur before the Ayau’s July 31st birth? Because the birth of the Kitson’s son was registered with a lower number than the Ayau’s registration.
The Nordyke twins’ birth announcements appear several days later, on August 18th because, although they were born just a day later than Obama, their births were still numbered higher than other births at Kapi'olani that week because they occurred on the last day of the reporting period on August 5, which was a Saturday. The regional batches of births were printed in their respective groups by the newspapers with respect for column space available. This is yet another indication that the Nordyke births were registered in the Honolulu county main office while Obama's was registered in an outlying regional office. His birth announcement appear before the Nordykes even though his number is higher, because his birth was registered with a batch of regional births requiring less column space to include the entire week’s registration from that region.
The fact that Obama's birth registration number is higher indicates that his birth was not in the same order with other births in Region 3 because his birth did not actually occur in the City of Honolulu. In fact, his birth was registered some time after once a registration number became available in another region. In this case, probably region 4.
Therefore, this statistical evidence is a powerful indicator that Obama’s birth was not registered as a result of a birth in Kapiolani because his registration occurred after registration numbers were already applied to births for the week ending Saturday, August 5th, which did occur in Kapiolani medical center.
FOREIGN BIRTH SHELTER IN THE PACIFIC
It should be no surprise, given the Obama eligibility saga, that the word “Honolulu” means “place of shelter” in native Hawaiian language. In June of 1959, two months before Hawaii was officially granted U.S. statehood, the governor-to-be of Hawaii and the mayor of the Prefecture of Hiroshima, Japan met to discuss, among other things, a way to “streamline” immigration and citizenship rights for residents between the two states and, thus, help struggling Japanese citizens find refuge in the wake of the destruction wrought by World War II. The relationship between Hawaii and Japan was originally seeded by the “People to People Program” established by Eisenhower administration in the 1950s to promote peace and mutual understanding between citizens in the two former enemy nations.
In that same year, government officials of Honolulu and the city of Hiroshima officially adopted each other’s city as a “sister city” paving the way for an open and cooperative induction of bureaucracy, commerce and migration between the two municipalities. However, records show that the symbiotic history between these metropolises extends even deeper into Hawaii’s history than the 1950s and reveals that thousands of Japanese immigrants, since the mid 1800s, have entered Hawaii and received official native birth and citizenship status from the Hawaii Office of the Secretary of State via the Hawaiian Department of Health.
Most mainlanders do not realize that Hawaii has been under American statutory and legislative influence since 1898, 61 years before officially becoming a state. In 110 plus years, Hawaii has had 19 governors, 12 appointed prior to statehood, seven elected since statehood. Stanford B. Cole was the first governor of Hawaii, appointed by the McKinley administration from 1900 to 1903, 59 years before Hawaiian statehood. William Quinn became Hawaii’s first elected governor upon statehood in 1959. Between these two administrations, Hawaiian laws evolved out of what most Americans would consider foreign influence and cultural exclusivity.
From its earliest history, Hawaii cooperated with Asiatic nations in creating a model of immigration which, while intended to improve the lives of suffering immigrants, actually evolved out of social values and cultural homogeny into the very laws and administrative regulations of the state of Hawaii which would eventually facilitate Barack Obama’s illegal presidency.
Essentially, by exploiting Hawaii’s cultural history of drawing poor foreigners through its municipal exclusivity, without accountability to mainland America, Obama was able to deceive America. By using Hawaii’s municipal history and vital records processes to create a façade of legitimacy, Obama simply did what foreign immigrants have been doing for 100 years in Hawaii. Lying about who they really are, and where they actually come from.
The result of this deception was that he was able to hypnotize a bowing liberal consensus into accepting, wholesale, that he was eligible to be president by exploiting their willful ignorance and emotionalism.
ANCHORS A WAY!…TO ARTIFICIAL U.S. CITIZENSHIP
The exploitation of babies by their foreign-born parents as a means to achieve sanctuary within the U.S. and its affiliated territory and states has been around long before border jumping from Mexico. It appears that Hawaii, not Arizona, was the first anchor-baby harbinger in the U.S.
As stated, Hawaii has strong historic ties to Hiroshima. In as early as the decade between 1885 and 1894, approximately 30,000 people arrived in the island nation from Japan, primarily to work in the sugar industry.
Among these earliest recorded Japanese-to-U.S. immigrants were more than 6000 Japan-born children who received native Hawaiian birth records and, thus, native Hawaiian citizenship allowing their parents a legal mooring for residency and land ownership. Many foreign-born Japanese adults also received birth records which legally stated they were born in the territory of Hawaii. An estimated one-third, 10,000 of these 30,000 immigrants, came from Hiroshima.
New and not-so-new arrivals could receive birth records from the Hawaiian territory’s municipal records office by presenting nothing more than a handwritten or verbal testimonial of native birth from one witness (a medical doctor was not required), and an application signed by the applicant, the witness and the Territory’s Secretary of Records.
Archive records and recently filed vital statistics reports by the Hawaiian Office of Vital Statistics via the Sinclair and Hamilton libraries show that more than 357,000 Japanese citizens entered the U.S. through Hawaii illegally between 1911 and 1972. With them, were more than 41,000 young and newborn children who were relocated with many being granted Hawaiian native birth status and, thus, citizenship in the Hawaiian Islands and, eventually, by default as a result of statehood, citizenship of the U.S. At some point, soon after 1959, this infiltration of nameless hordes triggered a formal response from the government of the State of Hawaii to introduce “accommodation” policies. Therefore, Hawaii’s administrative authority formed the “Certificate of Hawaiian Birth” program in which anyone willing to apply could receive a Hawaii birth certificate regardless of where they were actually born.
“This is unprecedented in American immigration history. Essentially, immigrants who were already present in Hawaii at the time of statehood were automatically granted U.S. citizenship by default when the islands became a U.S. state, and they were provided false birth documentation as a primary form of official U.S. identification,” says Dan Crosby after his investigation of the history and vital records processes in Hawaii.
“Municipal officials and law enforcement personnel working in Hawaii simply did not question identity and citizenship at that time. It would have been like verifying the source and identity of a grain of sand on a Hawaiian beach,” Crosby continued.
“Once you look at the history of this place in depth, it really is not surprising to learn that many of these ‘citizens-by-presence’ simply claimed that their children were born in Hawaii so they could have an identity as Hawaiian citizens, nor is it surprising, once you look at the dynamics between Hawaii and Japan, that they were issued simple birth records stating so. In fact, it seems logical that they allowed it,” says Crosby.
“Unfortunately, however, it is a violation of the U.S. Constitution when one of those foreign-born Hawaiian orphans tries to run for president.”
Crosby explains that the large volume of people actually prevented an extensive legal verification process because the time and resources required to accomplish it were simply not available. He also gives compelling reasons why it was actually a benefit to Hawaii to declare foreign-born children as native Hawaiians.
“Money. Duh!” quips Crosby.
“The bigger the population native to Hawaii, the more financially viable the demographic is to the federal bureaucracy. Tax payers and municipal services keep the federal government in business. Keep in mind, there was little to no official immigration enforcement in Hawaii before statehood. Hawaii just didn’t have the municipal resources from 1898 to the 1960’s to verify the legitimacy of applicants’ birth claims and parentage, so they just handed out birth certificates like candy,” says Crosby.
“Eventually, the informal social precedence became statutory law and the state of Hawaii, after 1959, simply made it a policy and formal process to issue native birth records to foreign born children because it was so burdensome to enforce rigid verification standards for so many entering the islands from all sides. Remember, this is not Oklahoma or North Dakota…this place is in the middle of thousands of square miles of open water directly accessible to more than 80 different countries. This little island didn’t stand a chance. You could’ve had Asian immigrants walking into Hawaii after swimming the Maui Channel between islands. Once they got here, who the hell is gonna know they aren’t native? There is no immigration enforcement body. Who would care when everyone else is lying too?”
Wayne Miyao, president of Honolulu Hiroshima Kenjin Kai and chairman of the Hiroshima-Hawaii Sister State Committee says, “The numbers seeking a new life were staggering. Thousands of Japanese citizens who had been struggling for years since the end of the war were desperate to enter the U.S. via the remote, unchecked Hawaiian Territory after 1945. This should not be a surprise to anyone considering what happened in Hiroshima.”
OBAMA BENEFITTED FROM A CULTURE OF "ATOMIC GUILT"
Supporting Hawaii’s explanation for its failed immigration and vital records enforcement policies between 1945 and 1964 was that those living and working in Hawaii were torn between their political moorings with the U.S. and their sympathy for atomic bomb survivors from Japan.
“This is at the heart of the two city’s sisterhood celebration here,” says Crosby, “The sentiments over this issue were so deeply held and so evocative that it was essentially made a law of social nature that Japan had open and unfettered access to Hawaii. From there, I believe the social attitudes and municipal policy of Hawaii officially supported, if not actively promoted, the extralegal assimilation of all foreigners into the American landscape. Ultimately, these attitudes and ‘creeping warrants’ is how Obama ultimately became an illegitimate president. Guilt and shame, not hope and change.”
In 1985, the Prefecture of Hiroshima presented Honolulu with the Hiroshima Peace Bell. A bell-ringing ceremony is held each year at the Izumo Taishakyo Mission near Chinatown to mark the 1945 atomic bombing of Hiroshima. Included in the ceremony is a traditional Shinto offering of fruits, vegetables, sake and rice for purification and blessing.
In 2001, the Hiroshima Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Hiroshima Prefecture, and the City of Hiroshima presented to the Honolulu Japanese Chamber of Commerce a replica of the Torii Gate at Hiyajima, a World Heritage Site, as a symbol of our everlasting friendship. In 2002, the Honolulu Japanese Chamber of Commerce presented the same token of friendship to the City and County of Honolulu. This $165,000, tax funded, 26-foot-high structure, a symbol of Japan’s illegal immigration into the U.S. and the preeminent symbol of the Shinto religion, now stands on public land at the intersection of King and Beretania streets, in Moiliili.
In 2009, the cities of Hiroshima and Hawaii celebrated the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Sister City Relationship between the City and County of Honolulu and the City of Hiroshima.
“Hiroshima was Honolulu’s first sister city, and we’re very proud of our warm and strong relationship,” Mayor Hannemann said. “It’s very important that we celebrate this historic occasion appropriately and continue to share our aloha with the wonderful people of Hiroshima.”
....and a few other people, it appears.
READ PART II COMING SOON
by Penbrook Johannson
of THE DAILY PEN
New York, NY – Barack Obama’s ineligibility to be President remains the most troubling concern for the American people over the past four years. The issue outweighs concern over healthcare, the economy and the war on terror, combined.
Regardless of transient political and social lusts, immovable Constitutional prerequisites dictate that no office Obama holds, or policy he implements, is legitimate without proving that he is qualified to implement them, first. Compounding our constitutional crisis, an ineligible President only makes these problems worse, no matter what party he or she represents. Marco Rubio will come to understand, just as Obama has, that hypocrisy is not a part of the constitutional eligibility platform.
Despite spineless commiseration with Obama by the mainstream media complex, including abettors at Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, CBS and ABC, public sentiment demanding a formal investigation into the matter of Obama’s Natural-born status, and thus his eligibility, continues to grow beyond the control of our government and media.
Soon, the vast and shocking truth about Obama’s otherness, based in part on evidence revealed in this report, will begin to rupture the constructs of Obama’s massive deception.
Presented here for the first time, in coordination with longstanding evidence supporting charges of fraud against Obama, is documented proof demonstrating multiple discrepancies between the dates and locations of Obama’s alleged birth registration and uncorroborated claims that his birth actually occurred on the island of Oahu, Hawaii in 1961.
Along with valid proof that the image of Obama’s “Certificate of Live Birth” is a digitally manipulated forgery, analysis of data on the image in reference with 1961 vital statistics reporting methods reveals there are conflicts between the vital statistics data educed about Obama and his ambiguous birth narrative.
As this report will show, the proof of Obama’s fraudulence resides in the domain of publicly accessible records which show that the birth registration procedures, federal vital statistics reporting methods and organizational structure of the Hawaiian municipality expose these contradictions and reveal that Obama’s Hawaiian birth is a fabrication of modern administrative processes and that his actual natal biography has been actively and intentionally obscured by present-day governmental officials.
REGIONAL NUMBERING OF VITAL STATISTICS
Vital statistics reporting methods in 1961 dictated that when births were registered in Hawaii, the official vital record was coded with a nine digit number called a geographic reference. Hawaii’s vital records are reported to the main office of the Hawaiian Department of Health in Honolulu from five counties comprised of seven geographic reference numbers as shown in the Vital Statistics Instruction Manual for 1959-1963. In Hawaii the geographic areas, numbered in alphabetical order by name of county, were coded as follows:
The geographic reference table shows the alphabetical order in which the counties of Hawaii were numbered by the National Vital Statistics Division and how vital statistics were required by the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare to be reported using codes indicating the state (first and second digit), county (third, fourth and fifth digit) and city (sixth, seventh and eighth digit) and population (ninth digit) with population being designated as follows:
Cities with populations of 10,000 or more within each state are number in alphabetical order. Rural areas not identified in birth records which have a population up to10,000 are numbered 999 in each state. In 1961, there were only two incorporated areas in Hawaii, the City of Honolulu in the County of Honolulu, and the City of Hilo in the County of Hawaii, coded as follows:
As indicated by this code, in reference with the population codes, the city of Honolulu was reported by 1960 Census figures to have a population of 250,000 to 500,000 and the city of Hilo, 25,000 to 50,000 with the City of Honolulu being designated as the Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA).
Notice, according to the National Vital Statistics Division, Hawaii contained only two geographic references with populations specified as greater than 25,000. They are the incorporated area of Hilo in the County of Hawaii, which is located on the Island of Hawaii, and the incorporated city of Honolulu in the County of Honolulu on the island of Oahu which is also part of the state of Hawaii.
The incorporated area of Honolulu County covers the City of Honolulu for Region 3.
OUT OF ORDER: BIRTH REGISTRATION NUMBER EXPOSES OBAMA’S FRAUD
As first reported by The Daily Pen in 2010, in order to streamline accounting of millions of births reported by all the states in 1961, the National Vital Statistics Division (NVSD) of the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, as it was known, mandated a 50-percent reporting method from state agencies using even-numbered certificates only. This commonly practiced statistical accounting method was implemented periodically in order to accelerate the quantification and categorization of natal statistics while preserving the margins of accuracy of the data to be included in various reports and Census data.
In Hawaii in 1961, birth registration records were collected by the State of Hawaii’s Department of Health each week for births registered throughout the five regional offices between the previous Sunday at Midnight through Saturday at 11:59 p.m. Records from the five reporting counties were grouped in order by their geographic reference code into the seven groups shown above. Then the state of Hawaii’s Vital Statistics Registrar assigned birth registration numbers based, first, on regional occurrence with secondary consideration for chronological occurrence, as so stated in the 1961 Vital Statistics of the U.S. Report in Section 5, pg. 5-8.
In 1961, upon receipt of the states’ data by the U.S. DHEW, the final even-number total for each reporting region (divided by counties) in each state was simply multiplied by two, thereby assigning an equal statistical value for the unreported odd numbered certificates. The resulting number was published in the annual 1961 "Natal Statistics of the U.S. Report Volume 1: Natality" issued through the National Center for Health Statistics headed by Dr. Forrest Linder and members of the National Vital Statistics Division at the time.
Since state-level Departments of Health were mandated by the federal government to convey their data by the 50-percent reporting method using only even numbered registration numbers, the states' health departments were not able to utilize "chronological" birth numbering to account for births in 1961. This means that as birth registration requests arrived at states' main Department of Health offices, registrars had to first account them in order of receipt from regional office locations around the state. These were the offices in outlying and unincorporated areas (non-metropolitan areas) which most often provided birth registration services for rural, non-hospital, indigenous and foreign births since most main offices are nearest to major hospitals and city populations.
Understanding this regional birth registration system is critical when analyzing Obama birth records and it is essential to understanding why his birth registration number indicates that he has provided fraudulent birth data and, also, why it is out of sequence with other birth registrations.
REGIONAL VS. CHRONOLOGICAL BIRTH REGISTRATION
The 1961 Vital Statistics Report of the United States reveals there were 17,616 births registered in the state of Hawaii between midnight, January 1, 1961 and 11:59 p.m., December 31st, 1961. This means that the State of Hawaii reported 8,808 even-numbered registrations to the U.S. Department of Health.
Of the total births registered in the State of Hawaii, 14,906 were registered in the County of Honolulu, alone. This means that almost 85% of births are registered in just one of the five Hawaiian counties using 7,453 of the 8,808 even-numbers available leaving only 1355 even numbers for the remaining six regional birth registration areas.
If the state of Hawaii had assigned birth registration numbers in chronological order, without consideration for the regional origin of the birth registration, many of the remaining 2710 births in the four remaining counties would have been assigned a disproportionate number of odd registration numbers because they were “outnumbered” by Honolulu County births by 5.5 to 1.
Statistically, for every 16 births registered in the City of Honolulu, only one birth is registered in the City of Hilo. If the birth in Hilo were chronologically numbered among those other 16 from Honolulu and just happened to receive an odd number in 1961, it would never be reported as ever occurring. Worse yet, what if all 524 births in Hilo were randomly assigned odd numbers because of their chronological occurrence with the 14,906 births from Honolulu County. This is not impossible considering there are 7,453 odd numbers available.
The data reveals there were a total of 17,616 births registered and reported to the U.S. DHEW from the state of Hawaii in 1961. Of these, 9348 were registered outside the incorporated area of Honolulu leaving more than half the birth registrations of the Hawaiian Islands from places outside the shoreline boundaries of Oahu and, thus, outside the geographic authority of the Honolulu based Department of Health.
As shown in the table below, births were registered, numbered and reported from seven different regional groupings among five counties (Hawaii, Honolulu, Kalawao, Kauai and Maui) which are numbered in alphabetical order, according to NVSD protocols outlined in the Vital Statistics Instruction Manual, Part II, Section C - “Geographic Code”.
In order to avoid this statistical inaccuracy, states adopted regional birth numbering which assigned an equal percentage of even numbers within all birth regions, not just cities and densely populated areas. This allowed rural and urban births to be accounted accurately regardless of their chronological occurrence.
The only way to make sure there was an accurate accounting, based on the federal health department’s request that states use even-numbered reporting of natal statistics was for the states’ main DOH office to number births in order of receipt from regional offices, first, then consider them chronologically, second.
Therefore, the State of Hawaii, like many states, implemented a regional numbering of birth registrations to ensure that births outside of the urban area of Honolulu would be accounted for using the 50-percent reporting method using even-numbers only.
This "regional" ordering of birth registrations prevented an over-counting of native urban births because urban births occur in a much higher density and frequency and, therefore, are statistically more likely to receive an even number if only chronological birth numbering were used.
Compounding this problem in Hawaii is the fact that births can occur in a region stretching more than 1500 miles across the Pacific Ocean and still be called “Hawaiian” births. Hawaii’s municipal government does not operate like one in a mainland state. In 1961, the geographic chain of Hawaiian Islands stretched far beyond the reach of Honolulu’s municipal authority. The main offices of the Hawaiian Health Department had only enough resources to take registration information at face value and create documentation without investigation. It did this so often, it eventually became permissible by law via HRS 338 and Administrative Rule 91.
Also, five of Hawaii’s regional birth registration districts are separated from the City of Honolulu by oceanic boundaries and open water of the Pacific Ocean. In 1961, the municipal government of the State of Hawaii did not have computer technology and had tremendous difficulty in implementing native birth verification and immigration laws.
The regions from which birth registrations were received by the Hawaiian Department of Health’s main office in 1961 were:
1. Births registered in the County of Hawaii and within the incorporated area of Hilo on the island of Hawaii – 524 births.
2. Remaining births registered in the County of Hawaii (births registered outside of Hilo yet on the big Island of Hawaii) from the areas surrounding Hilo - 668 births.
3. Births registered in the County of Honolulu and within the incorporated City of Honolulu on the Island of Oahu – 8,268 births (Registered in Kapiolani Medical Center…i.e. the Nordyke twins 10638 and10637);
4. Remaining births registered in the County of Honolulu in remaining areas surrounding the incorporated City of Honolulu on the island of Oahu – 6,638 births (Not registered in Kapiolani Medical Center…i.e. Obama 10641);
5. Births registered in the county of Kalawao on the north shore of the island of Moloka’I – 0 births.
6. Births registered in the County of Kauai which consists of the islands of Kauaʻi, Niʻihau, Lehua, and Kaʻula – 604 births, and;
7. Births registered in the County of Maui which consists of the islands of Maui, Kahoolawe, Lānai, Moloka’i (except for a portion of Molokai that comprises Kalawao County), and Molokini – 914 births.
The following table illustrates Hawaii’s regional statistics and shows the order of the numbering sequence as it applied in 1961.
OBAMA’S BIRTH REGISTERED BY PLACE OF RESIDENCE, NOT PLACE OF OCCURENCE
The 1961 Vital Statistics Report of the United States reveals in Section 5-5 that birth statistics are classified by the mother’s usual place of residence. This means that, in Hawaii in 1961, if the mother of a child resided in Region 4 (in Honolulu County but outside of the Incorporated area of the City of Honolulu), but came into the City of Honolulu (Region 3) to have the child at one of the urban hospitals, the vital statistics for that baby were recorded by the Department of health as occurring in Region 4, not Region 3. However, if the father was a resident alien, foreign student or undocumented immigrant, the mother’s usual place of residence was considered the place of occurrence, regardless of the birth location.
Contrarily, if someone wanted to conceal a birth or obscure its data, registering it in an outlying area would accomplish this.
Therefore, chronological birth registration numbering creates a statistical accuracy problem when attempting to account the births which are not registered in major hospitals because those less frequent births might just happen to occur in a chronological order which renders a disproportionate quantity of them with odd numbers, therefore, preventing them from being reported by the 50-percent, “even-number-only” method.
Because of the even numbered reporting in Hawaii in 1961, if the birth registration numbers were assigned chronologically, and those from Hilo, Kalawao, Kauai and Maui counties were lumped in with the births registered in Honolulu county, they would not be accurately counted by the U.S. Department of Health, Welfare and Education because their fewer numbers would be vulnerable to odd numbering in higher proportion.
If this were allowed to happen without regional consideration, those rural or foreign birth registrations would not be reported to the U.S. Dept. of Health, and therefore, they would not receive "credit" for future federal services and funding of various programs.
Therefore, in 1961, the “50-percent” reporting method of even-numbered certificates only, forced state vital records agencies to use the Regional numbering system, instead of exclusive chronological numbering in order to make sure an accurate proportion of even numbered rural, foreign and non-hospital births were accounted for census and natal statistics reporting. This is one reason the U.S. DHEW added data categories to the official "Certificate of Live Birth" template in the 1950's in order to account for non-hospital births in comparison to the higher number of urban births.
The table below demonstrates the importance of clarifying birth registrations by regions in Hawaii. The U.S. Department of Health wanted to know the natality rates and status of births not only in highly populated areas, but in rural areas and non-metropolitan counties of each state.
In the alleged year of Obama's birth, regional clarification of birth data allowed Hawaii, with its scattered indigenous population and foreign birth registration history, a way to modulate the birth registrations from foreign, unnattended and non-hospital births without allowing them to be lost in odd numbers of the 17,616 total births that year and therefore promoted the Hawaiian municipal government’s need for federal funding for its population growth and expanding municipality.
As a result, Obama's birth was registered in a region whose certificates received a higher number even though his birth outside of Honolulu was recorded as allegedly occurring earlier than the Nordyke twins, because the regional offices, including the one which registered the Nordykes, had a lower regional reference number and served the main hospital at Kapi'olani.
Obama's birth did not occur in Kapi'olani Medical Center and these data prove it.
THE NORDYKES BORN IN KAPIOLANI MEDICAL CENTER, OBAMA WAS NOT
Moreover, the newspapers printed their birth announcements in the same order the certificates were numbered and in the order they were regionally registered by the main office of the State of Hawaii’s Department of Health in 1961.
Notice where Obama's announcement occurs within the columns of the two newspapers compared to the dates of other births in other announcements. Several births are dated days after his yet they are printed above his. This is because they were registered either in a lower numbered regional office or in the office serving Kapi'olani Medical Center and, therefore, received a lower registration number despite occurring after his birth, chronologically.
At the top of the column, why does the birth announcement for the Kitson’s August 6th birth occur before the Ayau’s July 31st birth? Because the birth of the Kitson’s son was registered with a lower number than the Ayau’s registration.
The Nordyke twins’ birth announcements appear several days later, on August 18th because, although they were born just a day later than Obama, their births were still numbered higher than other births at Kapi'olani that week because they occurred on the last day of the reporting period on August 5, which was a Saturday. The regional batches of births were printed in their respective groups by the newspapers with respect for column space available. This is yet another indication that the Nordyke births were registered in the Honolulu county main office while Obama's was registered in an outlying regional office. His birth announcement appear before the Nordykes even though his number is higher, because his birth was registered with a batch of regional births requiring less column space to include the entire week’s registration from that region.
The fact that Obama's birth registration number is higher indicates that his birth was not in the same order with other births in Region 3 because his birth did not actually occur in the City of Honolulu. In fact, his birth was registered some time after once a registration number became available in another region. In this case, probably region 4.
Therefore, this statistical evidence is a powerful indicator that Obama’s birth was not registered as a result of a birth in Kapiolani because his registration occurred after registration numbers were already applied to births for the week ending Saturday, August 5th, which did occur in Kapiolani medical center.
FOREIGN BIRTH SHELTER IN THE PACIFIC
It should be no surprise, given the Obama eligibility saga, that the word “Honolulu” means “place of shelter” in native Hawaiian language. In June of 1959, two months before Hawaii was officially granted U.S. statehood, the governor-to-be of Hawaii and the mayor of the Prefecture of Hiroshima, Japan met to discuss, among other things, a way to “streamline” immigration and citizenship rights for residents between the two states and, thus, help struggling Japanese citizens find refuge in the wake of the destruction wrought by World War II. The relationship between Hawaii and Japan was originally seeded by the “People to People Program” established by Eisenhower administration in the 1950s to promote peace and mutual understanding between citizens in the two former enemy nations.
In that same year, government officials of Honolulu and the city of Hiroshima officially adopted each other’s city as a “sister city” paving the way for an open and cooperative induction of bureaucracy, commerce and migration between the two municipalities. However, records show that the symbiotic history between these metropolises extends even deeper into Hawaii’s history than the 1950s and reveals that thousands of Japanese immigrants, since the mid 1800s, have entered Hawaii and received official native birth and citizenship status from the Hawaii Office of the Secretary of State via the Hawaiian Department of Health.
Most mainlanders do not realize that Hawaii has been under American statutory and legislative influence since 1898, 61 years before officially becoming a state. In 110 plus years, Hawaii has had 19 governors, 12 appointed prior to statehood, seven elected since statehood. Stanford B. Cole was the first governor of Hawaii, appointed by the McKinley administration from 1900 to 1903, 59 years before Hawaiian statehood. William Quinn became Hawaii’s first elected governor upon statehood in 1959. Between these two administrations, Hawaiian laws evolved out of what most Americans would consider foreign influence and cultural exclusivity.
From its earliest history, Hawaii cooperated with Asiatic nations in creating a model of immigration which, while intended to improve the lives of suffering immigrants, actually evolved out of social values and cultural homogeny into the very laws and administrative regulations of the state of Hawaii which would eventually facilitate Barack Obama’s illegal presidency.
Essentially, by exploiting Hawaii’s cultural history of drawing poor foreigners through its municipal exclusivity, without accountability to mainland America, Obama was able to deceive America. By using Hawaii’s municipal history and vital records processes to create a façade of legitimacy, Obama simply did what foreign immigrants have been doing for 100 years in Hawaii. Lying about who they really are, and where they actually come from.
The result of this deception was that he was able to hypnotize a bowing liberal consensus into accepting, wholesale, that he was eligible to be president by exploiting their willful ignorance and emotionalism.
ANCHORS A WAY!…TO ARTIFICIAL U.S. CITIZENSHIP
The exploitation of babies by their foreign-born parents as a means to achieve sanctuary within the U.S. and its affiliated territory and states has been around long before border jumping from Mexico. It appears that Hawaii, not Arizona, was the first anchor-baby harbinger in the U.S.
As stated, Hawaii has strong historic ties to Hiroshima. In as early as the decade between 1885 and 1894, approximately 30,000 people arrived in the island nation from Japan, primarily to work in the sugar industry.
Among these earliest recorded Japanese-to-U.S. immigrants were more than 6000 Japan-born children who received native Hawaiian birth records and, thus, native Hawaiian citizenship allowing their parents a legal mooring for residency and land ownership. Many foreign-born Japanese adults also received birth records which legally stated they were born in the territory of Hawaii. An estimated one-third, 10,000 of these 30,000 immigrants, came from Hiroshima.
New and not-so-new arrivals could receive birth records from the Hawaiian territory’s municipal records office by presenting nothing more than a handwritten or verbal testimonial of native birth from one witness (a medical doctor was not required), and an application signed by the applicant, the witness and the Territory’s Secretary of Records.
Archive records and recently filed vital statistics reports by the Hawaiian Office of Vital Statistics via the Sinclair and Hamilton libraries show that more than 357,000 Japanese citizens entered the U.S. through Hawaii illegally between 1911 and 1972. With them, were more than 41,000 young and newborn children who were relocated with many being granted Hawaiian native birth status and, thus, citizenship in the Hawaiian Islands and, eventually, by default as a result of statehood, citizenship of the U.S. At some point, soon after 1959, this infiltration of nameless hordes triggered a formal response from the government of the State of Hawaii to introduce “accommodation” policies. Therefore, Hawaii’s administrative authority formed the “Certificate of Hawaiian Birth” program in which anyone willing to apply could receive a Hawaii birth certificate regardless of where they were actually born.
“This is unprecedented in American immigration history. Essentially, immigrants who were already present in Hawaii at the time of statehood were automatically granted U.S. citizenship by default when the islands became a U.S. state, and they were provided false birth documentation as a primary form of official U.S. identification,” says Dan Crosby after his investigation of the history and vital records processes in Hawaii.
“Municipal officials and law enforcement personnel working in Hawaii simply did not question identity and citizenship at that time. It would have been like verifying the source and identity of a grain of sand on a Hawaiian beach,” Crosby continued.
“Once you look at the history of this place in depth, it really is not surprising to learn that many of these ‘citizens-by-presence’ simply claimed that their children were born in Hawaii so they could have an identity as Hawaiian citizens, nor is it surprising, once you look at the dynamics between Hawaii and Japan, that they were issued simple birth records stating so. In fact, it seems logical that they allowed it,” says Crosby.
“Unfortunately, however, it is a violation of the U.S. Constitution when one of those foreign-born Hawaiian orphans tries to run for president.”
Crosby explains that the large volume of people actually prevented an extensive legal verification process because the time and resources required to accomplish it were simply not available. He also gives compelling reasons why it was actually a benefit to Hawaii to declare foreign-born children as native Hawaiians.
“Money. Duh!” quips Crosby.
“The bigger the population native to Hawaii, the more financially viable the demographic is to the federal bureaucracy. Tax payers and municipal services keep the federal government in business. Keep in mind, there was little to no official immigration enforcement in Hawaii before statehood. Hawaii just didn’t have the municipal resources from 1898 to the 1960’s to verify the legitimacy of applicants’ birth claims and parentage, so they just handed out birth certificates like candy,” says Crosby.
“Eventually, the informal social precedence became statutory law and the state of Hawaii, after 1959, simply made it a policy and formal process to issue native birth records to foreign born children because it was so burdensome to enforce rigid verification standards for so many entering the islands from all sides. Remember, this is not Oklahoma or North Dakota…this place is in the middle of thousands of square miles of open water directly accessible to more than 80 different countries. This little island didn’t stand a chance. You could’ve had Asian immigrants walking into Hawaii after swimming the Maui Channel between islands. Once they got here, who the hell is gonna know they aren’t native? There is no immigration enforcement body. Who would care when everyone else is lying too?”
Wayne Miyao, president of Honolulu Hiroshima Kenjin Kai and chairman of the Hiroshima-Hawaii Sister State Committee says, “The numbers seeking a new life were staggering. Thousands of Japanese citizens who had been struggling for years since the end of the war were desperate to enter the U.S. via the remote, unchecked Hawaiian Territory after 1945. This should not be a surprise to anyone considering what happened in Hiroshima.”
OBAMA BENEFITTED FROM A CULTURE OF "ATOMIC GUILT"
Supporting Hawaii’s explanation for its failed immigration and vital records enforcement policies between 1945 and 1964 was that those living and working in Hawaii were torn between their political moorings with the U.S. and their sympathy for atomic bomb survivors from Japan.
“This is at the heart of the two city’s sisterhood celebration here,” says Crosby, “The sentiments over this issue were so deeply held and so evocative that it was essentially made a law of social nature that Japan had open and unfettered access to Hawaii. From there, I believe the social attitudes and municipal policy of Hawaii officially supported, if not actively promoted, the extralegal assimilation of all foreigners into the American landscape. Ultimately, these attitudes and ‘creeping warrants’ is how Obama ultimately became an illegitimate president. Guilt and shame, not hope and change.”
In 1985, the Prefecture of Hiroshima presented Honolulu with the Hiroshima Peace Bell. A bell-ringing ceremony is held each year at the Izumo Taishakyo Mission near Chinatown to mark the 1945 atomic bombing of Hiroshima. Included in the ceremony is a traditional Shinto offering of fruits, vegetables, sake and rice for purification and blessing.
In 2001, the Hiroshima Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Hiroshima Prefecture, and the City of Hiroshima presented to the Honolulu Japanese Chamber of Commerce a replica of the Torii Gate at Hiyajima, a World Heritage Site, as a symbol of our everlasting friendship. In 2002, the Honolulu Japanese Chamber of Commerce presented the same token of friendship to the City and County of Honolulu. This $165,000, tax funded, 26-foot-high structure, a symbol of Japan’s illegal immigration into the U.S. and the preeminent symbol of the Shinto religion, now stands on public land at the intersection of King and Beretania streets, in Moiliili.
In 2009, the cities of Hiroshima and Hawaii celebrated the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Sister City Relationship between the City and County of Honolulu and the City of Hiroshima.
“Hiroshima was Honolulu’s first sister city, and we’re very proud of our warm and strong relationship,” Mayor Hannemann said. “It’s very important that we celebrate this historic occasion appropriately and continue to share our aloha with the wonderful people of Hiroshima.”
....and a few other people, it appears.
READ PART II COMING SOON
Do Most Americans Know About Michelle Obama’s Photo-Op in the White House?
FAUX FIRST LADY USES “NORMALLY DIGNIFIED” ROOM IN PRESIDENTIAL RESIDENCE TO VIDEOTAPE “COMEDY” SHOW
by Sharon Rondeau
Editor's Note: Re-posted with permission of The Post & Email.
(Feb. 8, 2012) — What would our Founding Fathers think if they could see the wife of the de facto President of the United States utilizing various rooms in the White House to promote a fitness program which included a tug-of-war in the historic Blue Room?
The Blue Room is oval-shaped and was the location of President Grover Cleveland’s wedding in 1886. It has been called “the choicest room in the palace.” Do the Obamas respect this place with its rich history? Even though the Blue Room “has been the customary place for presidents to formally receive guests,” Michelle’s tug-of-war, recorded for her appearance with Jimmy Fallon, found a place there.
What would George Washington think if he could see how Michelle Obama behaves and how she makes use of the people’s house, the White House? Who is winning her game of tug-of-war, and why? What is the significance of the red tie marker on the tug-of-war rope? And who is winning?
Michelle has shown a willingness to “make a complete fool out of” herself to allegedly battle childhood obesity. But is that really necessary? Is it expected of a “First Lady?”
Do Michelle Obama’s exercise routines and photo-ops have to be done in formal rooms in the White House? Cannot games of catch and sack hop races be done in a more fitting place such as a recreation room?
Where does Michelle normally “work out?” Does she carry herself with the dignity befitting a “First Lady,” or would she rather look “ridiculous?” Nevertheless, “it matters” to Michelle whether you win or lose a fitness challenge.
Besides appearing on late-night TV shows, what else is Michelle doing in the interest of the United States? She has more staff than any other “First Lady” in the history of the United States, so perhaps she has spare time.
While Michelle claims that she “left a job at a big law firm for a career in public service,” she might not have had a choice about leaving the legal profession.
Michelle Obama founded the “Let’s Move!” initiative two years ago which includes a contest complete with a reported $500,000 in prizes to be awarded. And who could resist an award for adhering to a challenge posed by the “President?” After all, even “educators” are rewarded by the Obamas!
Does anyone know how Obama and his friends celebrated his alleged birthday last summer?
As reported in USA Today, Obama and his famous guests “did the Electric Slide” barefoot in the Rose Garden after “sending the White House press corps home early.”
One researcher claims that Obama’s birthday did not actually occur last summer, but rather, in the fall, and that his real name is not “Barack Hussein Obama,” but Bari M. Shabazz, born October 28, 1959. Does Obama bear a resemblance to this woman, or this man?
How much do “Obama” and his wife “sacrifice,” as they tell Americans they should, particularly during times of economic stress?
Are the Obamas’ programs all about helping America, or all about how much of the spotlight they can have? Does Obama fulfill his duties or simply “hang out with America?” Is he capable of actually leading the country?
Who is paying for Michelle’s three-day tour which begins on February 9 and includes “guest stars” and “sports celebrities?”
Is Obama following his wife’s advice in regard to healthy eating? How much control do they wish to have over food outlets under the mantra of promoting “family values?”
Who is actually running the country as Obama has lunch with his fans? Why has his schedule been filled in only day by day for the last several weeks? What is he really accomplishing? And why are so many items on his schedule “closed press?”
Does Obama have nothing else to do than to “fire sweets across the span of the room” (East Room of the White House), where the “bodies of…Abraham Lincoln and John Kennedy have lain in state?”
Now the East Room is a place where Obama enjoys shooting marshmallows with an air cannon at a science fair.
Why is his appointment of Richard Cordray hailed as a positive accomplishment when it could have been unconstitutional? Is the Obama regime being truthful when it tells the people:
The Senate has effectively been in recess for weeks, and is expected to remain in recess for weeks. In an overt attempt to prevent the President from exercising his authority during this period, Republican Senators insisted on using a gimmick called “pro forma” sessions, which are sessions during which no Senate business is conducted and instead one or two Senators simply gavel in and out of session in a matter of seconds. But gimmicks do not override the President’s constitutional authority to make appointments to keep the government running. Legal experts agree. In fact, the lawyers who advised President Bush on recess appointments wrote that the Senate cannot use sham “pro forma” sessions to prevent the President from exercising a constitutional power.”
Do we need a “consumer watchdog,” or is Obama simply growing the government in keeping with his Marxist ideology? Is he attempting to brainwash and propagandize America’s children?
How much have he and his wife spent as Americans become poorer and poorer? Is everyone equal, but some people are more equal than others?
Even the Los Angeles Times, which refused to release the video of Obama and Rashid Al-Khalidi allegedly at a dinner where they denigrated Israel prior to the 2008 election, is asking “Just what is going on at the White House these days?”
And what else are the Obamas doing both inside and outside of the White House? What else do the American people not know about them, and how much has the mainstream media protected them? How much information was hidden before the 2008 election?
Was Obama’s purported birth father really a friend of his true biological father? And is the state of Hawaii hiding something which would confirm that they have been lying for Obama?
Will that information emerge before the 2012 election, or will Obama and his wife Michelle “win” again?
FAUX FIRST LADY USES “NORMALLY DIGNIFIED” ROOM IN PRESIDENTIAL RESIDENCE TO VIDEOTAPE “COMEDY” SHOW
by Sharon Rondeau
Editor's Note: Re-posted with permission of The Post & Email.
(Feb. 8, 2012) — What would our Founding Fathers think if they could see the wife of the de facto President of the United States utilizing various rooms in the White House to promote a fitness program which included a tug-of-war in the historic Blue Room?
The Blue Room is oval-shaped and was the location of President Grover Cleveland’s wedding in 1886. It has been called “the choicest room in the palace.” Do the Obamas respect this place with its rich history? Even though the Blue Room “has been the customary place for presidents to formally receive guests,” Michelle’s tug-of-war, recorded for her appearance with Jimmy Fallon, found a place there.
What would George Washington think if he could see how Michelle Obama behaves and how she makes use of the people’s house, the White House? Who is winning her game of tug-of-war, and why? What is the significance of the red tie marker on the tug-of-war rope? And who is winning?
Michelle has shown a willingness to “make a complete fool out of” herself to allegedly battle childhood obesity. But is that really necessary? Is it expected of a “First Lady?”
Do Michelle Obama’s exercise routines and photo-ops have to be done in formal rooms in the White House? Cannot games of catch and sack hop races be done in a more fitting place such as a recreation room?
Where does Michelle normally “work out?” Does she carry herself with the dignity befitting a “First Lady,” or would she rather look “ridiculous?” Nevertheless, “it matters” to Michelle whether you win or lose a fitness challenge.
Besides appearing on late-night TV shows, what else is Michelle doing in the interest of the United States? She has more staff than any other “First Lady” in the history of the United States, so perhaps she has spare time.
While Michelle claims that she “left a job at a big law firm for a career in public service,” she might not have had a choice about leaving the legal profession.
Michelle Obama founded the “Let’s Move!” initiative two years ago which includes a contest complete with a reported $500,000 in prizes to be awarded. And who could resist an award for adhering to a challenge posed by the “President?” After all, even “educators” are rewarded by the Obamas!
Does anyone know how Obama and his friends celebrated his alleged birthday last summer?
As reported in USA Today, Obama and his famous guests “did the Electric Slide” barefoot in the Rose Garden after “sending the White House press corps home early.”
One researcher claims that Obama’s birthday did not actually occur last summer, but rather, in the fall, and that his real name is not “Barack Hussein Obama,” but Bari M. Shabazz, born October 28, 1959. Does Obama bear a resemblance to this woman, or this man?
How much do “Obama” and his wife “sacrifice,” as they tell Americans they should, particularly during times of economic stress?
Are the Obamas’ programs all about helping America, or all about how much of the spotlight they can have? Does Obama fulfill his duties or simply “hang out with America?” Is he capable of actually leading the country?
Who is paying for Michelle’s three-day tour which begins on February 9 and includes “guest stars” and “sports celebrities?”
Is Obama following his wife’s advice in regard to healthy eating? How much control do they wish to have over food outlets under the mantra of promoting “family values?”
Who is actually running the country as Obama has lunch with his fans? Why has his schedule been filled in only day by day for the last several weeks? What is he really accomplishing? And why are so many items on his schedule “closed press?”
Does Obama have nothing else to do than to “fire sweets across the span of the room” (East Room of the White House), where the “bodies of…Abraham Lincoln and John Kennedy have lain in state?”
Now the East Room is a place where Obama enjoys shooting marshmallows with an air cannon at a science fair.
Why is his appointment of Richard Cordray hailed as a positive accomplishment when it could have been unconstitutional? Is the Obama regime being truthful when it tells the people:
The Senate has effectively been in recess for weeks, and is expected to remain in recess for weeks. In an overt attempt to prevent the President from exercising his authority during this period, Republican Senators insisted on using a gimmick called “pro forma” sessions, which are sessions during which no Senate business is conducted and instead one or two Senators simply gavel in and out of session in a matter of seconds. But gimmicks do not override the President’s constitutional authority to make appointments to keep the government running. Legal experts agree. In fact, the lawyers who advised President Bush on recess appointments wrote that the Senate cannot use sham “pro forma” sessions to prevent the President from exercising a constitutional power.”
Do we need a “consumer watchdog,” or is Obama simply growing the government in keeping with his Marxist ideology? Is he attempting to brainwash and propagandize America’s children?
How much have he and his wife spent as Americans become poorer and poorer? Is everyone equal, but some people are more equal than others?
Even the Los Angeles Times, which refused to release the video of Obama and Rashid Al-Khalidi allegedly at a dinner where they denigrated Israel prior to the 2008 election, is asking “Just what is going on at the White House these days?”
And what else are the Obamas doing both inside and outside of the White House? What else do the American people not know about them, and how much has the mainstream media protected them? How much information was hidden before the 2008 election?
Was Obama’s purported birth father really a friend of his true biological father? And is the state of Hawaii hiding something which would confirm that they have been lying for Obama?
Will that information emerge before the 2012 election, or will Obama and his wife Michelle “win” again?
Israel Insider
Bari M. Shabazz, fugitive from Hawaiian justice, had to "die" so Barack Obama could run
Posted by Israel Insider on November 9, 2011 at 11:00pm
Two astonishing pieces of evidence -- both connected to someone using the identity of Bari Shabazz -- the same last name as the one used by Malcolm X -- have just emerged which may make sense of some of the unsolved mysteries surrounding the life and identity of the man who now goes by the name of Barack Hussein Obama II.
Israel Insider was among the first publications in the world to put together a coherent, if inconclusive, case that Obama might in fact be the illegitimate son of Malcolm X. The starting point was the astonishing physical resemblance, in facial and body structure, in gestures and mannerisms, and even in speaking style. The startling visual evidence is here.
The theory advanced was that Obama was known by “insiders” to be of royal lineage, the sole son of Malcolm X, who took on the Islamic name El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz. Malcolm had six daughters, including twins Malikah and Malaak, born after his assassination. Observers have been struck by the resemblance of the twins to Obama’s own daughters. And a smirking mug shot of Malikah, 45, arrested this year on the anniversary of her father’s murder, looks remarkably like the man who would be her half-brother.
If Malcolm X, who harshly criticized Nation of Islam leader Elijah Muhammad, for siring illegitimate children, including with white woman, his own fatherhood would indeed be something he would want to conceal. And for the sole son to have been hidden all these years, known only to a chosen few, would uniquely explain why Obama himself – an undistinguished student and party boy in his youth --- was selected for exceptional treatment by Muslim potentates, communists and anarchists, and given a free ride to Columbia and Harvard Law School, for reasons that evidently had nothing to do with academic accomplishments.
The new evidence starts and ends with revelation of a traffic accident – apparently a “major” one – in Honolulu. The driver, one Bari M. Shabazz, may have been injured. But he was also arrested, for driving without a license. In a non-jury proceeding in traffic course, Bari Shabazz produced a New York Driver’s License, and the prosecution in the State of Hawaii evidently decided not to prosecute him.
This evidence is linked to the death report of Bari M. Shabazz, although irregularities in the death report apparently left some questions about whether this person really died, or whether the identity was just “put to death.”
The possible use of the identity of Bari M. Shabazz by the man today known as Barack Hussein Obama II might explain a great deal.
It may explain why so much of his past has been concealed. Driving without a license is the least of the secrets that would have needed to be hidden.
But the use of the name Shabazz would have revealed his greatest secret of all, his blood-relation to his famous and fatally controversial father.
A major traffic accident might also explain the large scar still visible on his scalp. But much more than the physical scar would be the need to explain the legacy of deception and dissimulation, the concealment of his true identity, a lifelong double-life.
If Malcolm X is indeed his father – and there is photographic evidence that Stanley Ann Dunham met him in New York when he spoke there in 1960, and Malcolm was a friend of Barack Obama senior and an admirer of Obama's father, a Mau Mau leader – that would make little Barack, or Bari, a natural born citizen. But it would expose him to far more serious charges of deception, twenty years as a fugitive from Hawaiian justice, and a lifelong pursuit of hiding who he really is.
Certainly the secret is of a magnitude that would justify the immense cover-up and stonewalling that has characterized Obama sealing of his past and the withholding of his personal and professional records.
The evidence is circumstantial, and there is still much investigative work to be done to tie all the evidence together. There is no clear link between Bari M. Shabazz and Barack “Barry” Obama, although as we will see there are some remarkable "coincidences." The new evidence opens a Pandora’s Box might disprove the birther claim that Obama was not a natural born citizen, but what it reveals may be far more damning.
The current trail was started by one Martha Trowbridge, who did some digging in public records and came up with the evidence of the existence of one Bari M Shabazz, who was listed as living, as an infant and small child, just a street away from Malcolm X: he on 98th Street in Elmhurst, New York, while Malcolm was on 99th.
Malcolm X knew Barack Obama Senior. Barack Obama was the son of Mau Mau Kenyan Revolution Hero, Hussein Onyango Obama. In the early 1950's, Malcolm was publicly singing HOO's praises in Harlem - years before the Mau Mau hero’s son, Barack Obama I, arrived in America. It was he, apparently, who would be appointed to be the future White House resident’s “official” father.
in August 1994, at the age of 34, Trowbridge notes that Bâri′ M. Shabazz was reported to have died. From the Social Security Death Index database:
SHABAZZ, B M 28 Oct 1959 Aug 1994 (V) 34 (PE) (none specified) New York 084-54-5926
And why, Trowbridge asks, did Bari Shabazz need to die in August 1994? Well, she suggests, it may have to do with the fact that on August 21, 1994, the Illinois State Senate seat ‘officially’ opened up! Its occupant, Alice Palmer – for whom “Barack Obama” was working – could now set her sights on indicted Mel Reynolds’ Congressional seat. And Barack, successor of Bari, was primed and perfectly positioned to take her place, which he promptly did. Apparently after someone "knocked off" the poor Mr. Shabazz, at least on paper.
The Social Security Death Index record, she notes, states that the death information for Bâri′ M. Shabazz was coded “V”. V signifies “Verified: a report verified with a family member or someone acting on behalf of a family member.” The report is not coded “P”, which would signify: “(Proof): Death Certificate Observed”. In other words, the death was merely claimed: there was no proof offered.
Further, Trowbridge notes, once in the federal system, the record was flagged as ‘PE’, indicating an inconsistency exists between what was reported and what was recorded in the government’s files.
BM Shabazz (Bari M Shabazz)
B 10/28/59
D 8/94
SSN 084545926
Among Trowbridge’s discoveries, apparently from an Intellius public records search was this sequence of addresses:
1 3226 98TH ST APT 1 EAST ELMHURST, NY 11369
2 32 98 EAST ELMHURST, NY 11369
3 HQCO SUC BN QUANTICO, VA
4 1 HQ CO MCDEC QUANTICO, VA
5 HQ CO SERV BN QUANTICO, VA
6 99999 MILITARY APT QUANTICO, VA 22134
7 HQCO HQSVCBN MCDEC QUANTICO, VA 22134
8 HQCO SERV BN QUANTICO, VA
9 99999 MILITARY APT QUANTICO, VA 22134
Trowbridge notes that these seem like fake military addresses. Quantico VA is not not another military address. It's a huge marine base and home of the FBI's primary training center. The official records raise the possibility that Obama may, at some point, have been recruited into the US military, the FBI, or another secret service. That, perhaps, before being groomed and positioned for official office.
Mario Apuzzo, an attorney who has been active pursuing the Obama identity case, published a report on Trowbridge’s blog post. That was for the most part a distillation of Trowbridge’s more lyrical piece. But then another piece of the puzzle was sent to Apuzzo.
“On November 4, 2011, an anonymous source emailed me something very interesting. To substantiate the content of the email, the writer directed me to go to a web site of the Judiciary for the State of Hawaii and to do a search of cases that have been disposed of by that State’s traffic courts. The anonymous source had done just that and so the person provided me with the information which that traffic court shows on its web site.”
“I did go to the Hawaii traffic court’s web site which is called eCourt Kokua and I was eventually able to confirm the information that the anonymous source sent me. Access to the court’s web set may be gained by going to this link. (Once at the site, click “Agree” to the terms and conditions. Then click, “Search for case details by case ID or citation number.” Once there, enter at the prompt, Case ID or Citation Number(*): 1193041MO and hit Search.” The following report appears: (Click each image to enlarge)
Attorney Apuzzo explains the meaning of the court documents:
The court record indicates that the offense occurred on March 12, 1982. The event is characterized as an “Accident Major.” The charge was driving without a valid driver’s license. The case was first filed on Tuesday, March 16, 1982, in the First Circuit, and then continued to April 5, 1982. Bari Shabazz was supposed to be arraigned and enter a plea on April 5, 1982, at 8:30 a.m., in Kane’ohe Traffic Court, Courtroom B, at the Kane’ohe Division, but apparently that did not happen, perhaps because the defendant was a no-show. The case was continued to May 5, 1982. On May 5, 1982, at 8:00 a.m., Bari Shabazz was supposed to again be arraigned and enter his plea in the same court room. He apparently did not appear and so the court issued a bench warrant on May 5, 1982, bearing number “BWO 050582.” The court ordered the “AP” (maybe meaning accused person) to show proof of “NEW YORK DRIVER’S LICENSE.”
That is the last we hear of the case. It appears that the defendant Shabazza never appeared. He was, in effect, a fugitive from justice in the State of Hawaii.
The report then shows that the prosecutor on April 9, 2003 – more than 20 years later -- filed an ex parte motion to recall the bench warrant and announced on the record “nolle prosequi.” As Apuzzo notes, this is a Latin phrase which is formally entered into a court record which means that the prosecutor in a criminal case “will no further prosecute” the case. So, the charge was dismissed upon the prosecutor’s ex parte “Nolle Prosequi” motion made on April 9, 2003. “Ex parte” means that only one side made the application which in this case was the prosecutor.
Why would a prosecutor bother with a 20 year old bench warrant for a nobody named Bari Shabazz. Well, it might have something to do with the fact that Barack Hussein Obama II was beginning his campaign to become a US Senator.
The final entry was for October 30, 2005, at 8:00 a.m., when the court noted that a $-0- balance was owed on the account, but noted: “Pls check.”
By that time, of course, anyone could check: Barack Obama was the freshly minted US Senator from Illinois.
Polarik Comment by Polarik on December 14, 2011 at 11:02pm
Polarik Comment by Polarik on December 14, 2011 at 10:53pm
Tricia Comment by Tricia on November 10, 2011 at 1:47am
Well done, Israel Insider! That would make the age about right, too--especially when August is now claimed as the birth month of BHO. His alias was "born" in the month that Shabazz "died". Hmmm.
Bari M. Shabazz, fugitive from Hawaiian justice, had to "die" so Barack Obama could run
Posted by Israel Insider on November 9, 2011 at 11:00pm
Two astonishing pieces of evidence -- both connected to someone using the identity of Bari Shabazz -- the same last name as the one used by Malcolm X -- have just emerged which may make sense of some of the unsolved mysteries surrounding the life and identity of the man who now goes by the name of Barack Hussein Obama II.
Israel Insider was among the first publications in the world to put together a coherent, if inconclusive, case that Obama might in fact be the illegitimate son of Malcolm X. The starting point was the astonishing physical resemblance, in facial and body structure, in gestures and mannerisms, and even in speaking style. The startling visual evidence is here.
The theory advanced was that Obama was known by “insiders” to be of royal lineage, the sole son of Malcolm X, who took on the Islamic name El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz. Malcolm had six daughters, including twins Malikah and Malaak, born after his assassination. Observers have been struck by the resemblance of the twins to Obama’s own daughters. And a smirking mug shot of Malikah, 45, arrested this year on the anniversary of her father’s murder, looks remarkably like the man who would be her half-brother.
If Malcolm X, who harshly criticized Nation of Islam leader Elijah Muhammad, for siring illegitimate children, including with white woman, his own fatherhood would indeed be something he would want to conceal. And for the sole son to have been hidden all these years, known only to a chosen few, would uniquely explain why Obama himself – an undistinguished student and party boy in his youth --- was selected for exceptional treatment by Muslim potentates, communists and anarchists, and given a free ride to Columbia and Harvard Law School, for reasons that evidently had nothing to do with academic accomplishments.
The new evidence starts and ends with revelation of a traffic accident – apparently a “major” one – in Honolulu. The driver, one Bari M. Shabazz, may have been injured. But he was also arrested, for driving without a license. In a non-jury proceeding in traffic course, Bari Shabazz produced a New York Driver’s License, and the prosecution in the State of Hawaii evidently decided not to prosecute him.
This evidence is linked to the death report of Bari M. Shabazz, although irregularities in the death report apparently left some questions about whether this person really died, or whether the identity was just “put to death.”
The possible use of the identity of Bari M. Shabazz by the man today known as Barack Hussein Obama II might explain a great deal.
It may explain why so much of his past has been concealed. Driving without a license is the least of the secrets that would have needed to be hidden.
But the use of the name Shabazz would have revealed his greatest secret of all, his blood-relation to his famous and fatally controversial father.
A major traffic accident might also explain the large scar still visible on his scalp. But much more than the physical scar would be the need to explain the legacy of deception and dissimulation, the concealment of his true identity, a lifelong double-life.
If Malcolm X is indeed his father – and there is photographic evidence that Stanley Ann Dunham met him in New York when he spoke there in 1960, and Malcolm was a friend of Barack Obama senior and an admirer of Obama's father, a Mau Mau leader – that would make little Barack, or Bari, a natural born citizen. But it would expose him to far more serious charges of deception, twenty years as a fugitive from Hawaiian justice, and a lifelong pursuit of hiding who he really is.
Certainly the secret is of a magnitude that would justify the immense cover-up and stonewalling that has characterized Obama sealing of his past and the withholding of his personal and professional records.
The evidence is circumstantial, and there is still much investigative work to be done to tie all the evidence together. There is no clear link between Bari M. Shabazz and Barack “Barry” Obama, although as we will see there are some remarkable "coincidences." The new evidence opens a Pandora’s Box might disprove the birther claim that Obama was not a natural born citizen, but what it reveals may be far more damning.
The current trail was started by one Martha Trowbridge, who did some digging in public records and came up with the evidence of the existence of one Bari M Shabazz, who was listed as living, as an infant and small child, just a street away from Malcolm X: he on 98th Street in Elmhurst, New York, while Malcolm was on 99th.
Malcolm X knew Barack Obama Senior. Barack Obama was the son of Mau Mau Kenyan Revolution Hero, Hussein Onyango Obama. In the early 1950's, Malcolm was publicly singing HOO's praises in Harlem - years before the Mau Mau hero’s son, Barack Obama I, arrived in America. It was he, apparently, who would be appointed to be the future White House resident’s “official” father.
in August 1994, at the age of 34, Trowbridge notes that Bâri′ M. Shabazz was reported to have died. From the Social Security Death Index database:
SHABAZZ, B M 28 Oct 1959 Aug 1994 (V) 34 (PE) (none specified) New York 084-54-5926
And why, Trowbridge asks, did Bari Shabazz need to die in August 1994? Well, she suggests, it may have to do with the fact that on August 21, 1994, the Illinois State Senate seat ‘officially’ opened up! Its occupant, Alice Palmer – for whom “Barack Obama” was working – could now set her sights on indicted Mel Reynolds’ Congressional seat. And Barack, successor of Bari, was primed and perfectly positioned to take her place, which he promptly did. Apparently after someone "knocked off" the poor Mr. Shabazz, at least on paper.
The Social Security Death Index record, she notes, states that the death information for Bâri′ M. Shabazz was coded “V”. V signifies “Verified: a report verified with a family member or someone acting on behalf of a family member.” The report is not coded “P”, which would signify: “(Proof): Death Certificate Observed”. In other words, the death was merely claimed: there was no proof offered.
Further, Trowbridge notes, once in the federal system, the record was flagged as ‘PE’, indicating an inconsistency exists between what was reported and what was recorded in the government’s files.
BM Shabazz (Bari M Shabazz)
B 10/28/59
D 8/94
SSN 084545926
Among Trowbridge’s discoveries, apparently from an Intellius public records search was this sequence of addresses:
1 3226 98TH ST APT 1 EAST ELMHURST, NY 11369
2 32 98 EAST ELMHURST, NY 11369
3 HQCO SUC BN QUANTICO, VA
4 1 HQ CO MCDEC QUANTICO, VA
5 HQ CO SERV BN QUANTICO, VA
6 99999 MILITARY APT QUANTICO, VA 22134
7 HQCO HQSVCBN MCDEC QUANTICO, VA 22134
8 HQCO SERV BN QUANTICO, VA
9 99999 MILITARY APT QUANTICO, VA 22134
Trowbridge notes that these seem like fake military addresses. Quantico VA is not not another military address. It's a huge marine base and home of the FBI's primary training center. The official records raise the possibility that Obama may, at some point, have been recruited into the US military, the FBI, or another secret service. That, perhaps, before being groomed and positioned for official office.
Mario Apuzzo, an attorney who has been active pursuing the Obama identity case, published a report on Trowbridge’s blog post. That was for the most part a distillation of Trowbridge’s more lyrical piece. But then another piece of the puzzle was sent to Apuzzo.
“On November 4, 2011, an anonymous source emailed me something very interesting. To substantiate the content of the email, the writer directed me to go to a web site of the Judiciary for the State of Hawaii and to do a search of cases that have been disposed of by that State’s traffic courts. The anonymous source had done just that and so the person provided me with the information which that traffic court shows on its web site.”
“I did go to the Hawaii traffic court’s web site which is called eCourt Kokua and I was eventually able to confirm the information that the anonymous source sent me. Access to the court’s web set may be gained by going to this link. (Once at the site, click “Agree” to the terms and conditions. Then click, “Search for case details by case ID or citation number.” Once there, enter at the prompt, Case ID or Citation Number(*): 1193041MO and hit Search.” The following report appears: (Click each image to enlarge)
Attorney Apuzzo explains the meaning of the court documents:
The court record indicates that the offense occurred on March 12, 1982. The event is characterized as an “Accident Major.” The charge was driving without a valid driver’s license. The case was first filed on Tuesday, March 16, 1982, in the First Circuit, and then continued to April 5, 1982. Bari Shabazz was supposed to be arraigned and enter a plea on April 5, 1982, at 8:30 a.m., in Kane’ohe Traffic Court, Courtroom B, at the Kane’ohe Division, but apparently that did not happen, perhaps because the defendant was a no-show. The case was continued to May 5, 1982. On May 5, 1982, at 8:00 a.m., Bari Shabazz was supposed to again be arraigned and enter his plea in the same court room. He apparently did not appear and so the court issued a bench warrant on May 5, 1982, bearing number “BWO 050582.” The court ordered the “AP” (maybe meaning accused person) to show proof of “NEW YORK DRIVER’S LICENSE.”
That is the last we hear of the case. It appears that the defendant Shabazza never appeared. He was, in effect, a fugitive from justice in the State of Hawaii.
The report then shows that the prosecutor on April 9, 2003 – more than 20 years later -- filed an ex parte motion to recall the bench warrant and announced on the record “nolle prosequi.” As Apuzzo notes, this is a Latin phrase which is formally entered into a court record which means that the prosecutor in a criminal case “will no further prosecute” the case. So, the charge was dismissed upon the prosecutor’s ex parte “Nolle Prosequi” motion made on April 9, 2003. “Ex parte” means that only one side made the application which in this case was the prosecutor.
Why would a prosecutor bother with a 20 year old bench warrant for a nobody named Bari Shabazz. Well, it might have something to do with the fact that Barack Hussein Obama II was beginning his campaign to become a US Senator.
The final entry was for October 30, 2005, at 8:00 a.m., when the court noted that a $-0- balance was owed on the account, but noted: “Pls check.”
By that time, of course, anyone could check: Barack Obama was the freshly minted US Senator from Illinois.
Polarik Comment by Polarik on December 14, 2011 at 11:02pm
Polarik Comment by Polarik on December 14, 2011 at 10:53pm
Tricia Comment by Tricia on November 10, 2011 at 1:47am
Well done, Israel Insider! That would make the age about right, too--especially when August is now claimed as the birth month of BHO. His alias was "born" in the month that Shabazz "died". Hmmm.
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
A Nation of Fools
WHAT IS THE TRUE MEANING OF “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN?”
by Jedi Pauly, ©2012
Editor's Note: Re-posted with permission of The Post & Email.
(Feb. 8, 2012) — For some time now, I have been trying to explain the facts of life to the world regarding the true meaning and interpretation of Article II “natural born Citizen” requirements for the Office of President, and that Mr. Obama cannot possibly meet these requirements, as he was born to a foreign father who was never a U.S. citizen. I believe I have been viciously and unjustly attacked by the public at large and by some of the attorneys who have filed cases against Mr. Obama.
I contend and maintain that not one case filing so far has properly identified and argued the true and correct meaning and interpretation of Article II “natural born Citizen.” They have all missed the obvious, which I will once again state in light of the recent finding by Judge Malihi in the Georgia cases.
I am finding that I am forced to agree with Judge Malihi on one point: that Minor v Happersett is not a controlling case with regard to defining Article II “natural born Citizen.” It is, however, very useful in determining what is defining. One could even say it is controlling, but not for the reasons stated by the plaintiffs.
The judge is quite correct in his reading of the Minor case that the justices in Minor simply applied a general rule to Mrs. Minor: that those born within the U.S. to citizen parents are themselves “natives” or “natural born citizens” with a lower case “c” which, according to the Minor v Happersett judges, are synonymous terms. Such offspring are therefore members of the general class of “citizens” of the U.S. However, this does not mean that Mrs. Minor had the recognized and protected natural political right to be President that is implied in Article II by the term ”natural born Citizen” with a capital “C”. The Minor case was not even about Mrs. Minor’s right to be President; thus for this reason and others, it is not a controlling case.
In fact, the court in Minor went on to find that even though Mrs. Minor was already a citizen, and even a “natural born citizen” as a general category or type of “citizen” prior to the 14th Amendment, she still did not have any natural political rights recognized or protected by the Constitution. Nor did she possess any rights protected by the definition used by the court of what constitutes a “natural born citizen,” because the court found that she could not even vote, nor that she had any political rights secured by the Constitution at all. It required an Amendment to the Constitution to secure her natural political rights, her right to vote, regardless of the fact that she was determined to be a “natural born citizen.”
Obviously if she could not even vote, she could hardly be expected to be a candidate for the Office of President and qualify as a “natural born Citizen” by Article II. In fact, the court, using the findings in Minor v Happersett, actually proves that the definition of “one born in the country to parents who are citizens” IS NOT what is meant by “natural born Citizen” in Article II. In this sense, Minor might actually be a controlling case.
The Minor court determined that there were no political rights at all provided for or protected by the Constitution for Mrs. Minor, despite the fact that they determined that Mrs. Minor was a natural born citizen due to being born in the U.S.to parents who were citizens. If they could not see or find any political rights in the Constitution for Mrs. Minor, obviously the term in Article II, “natural born Citizen,” does not mean one who is born in the U.S. to parents who are citizens.
Likewise, if Article II “natural born Citizen” applied to Mrs. Minor and was what was meant by the court when they said that she was a natural born citizen, then the court would have found that she had the political right to be President secured, and so would have found that natural political rights were provided for her and thus could not then find that she could not vote. How might the Constitution provide for her a political right to be President but not a political right to vote? Obviously, the general term “natural born citizen,” with a lower case “c,” is a class of citizen that is synonymous in U.S. case law with native-born or even naturalized for most purposes, but it has nothing at all to do with the term in Article II spelled with an upper case “C” as in “natural born Citizen,” and the Minor v Happersett case proves this. It proves that these two terms, “natural born citizen” from U.S. case law that is removed from the context of Article II, and “natural born Citizen” within the context of Article II, are legal homonyms (they sound the same and are spelled the same but mean something different) and legal antonyms (two words or phrases that are opposite in meaning).
I will state again the obvious which everyone is ignoring or overlooking, now proved to be correct by Minor v Happersett. The term in Article II, “natural born Citizen,” is not a legal term that is undefined in the Constitution. It is not even a legal term, and it is perfectly defined within the context of Article II by the subject of natural political rights, history, Natural Law, International Law, and by the Declaration of Independence. It is an adjective phrase, “natural born,” which simply means created by natural birth inheritance as opposed to being created by statutory authority, modifying a specifically-restricted noun, “Citizen,” that is not a general use of the noun “citizen” but pointedly means a specific member out of the general class of citizens.
Specifically, the use of “Citizen” in Article II is meant to preclude natural born citizens of the federal territories or possessions, as they are not State citizens and not a party to the Constitution, so they cannot run for the Office of President. It is meant to include those from a State of the Union of States only, and did not mean a female; otherwise, the Minor court would have found a political right provided for females in the Constitution (the right to be President). Nor did it even at that time mean a Negro or Indian.
Minor v Happersett shows us and proves that the term “natural born Citizen” in Article II is being used in the most restrictive sense and means something other than someone born in the country to parents who are citizens. One need only examine convention according to International Law and Natural Law to see what it means. From Vattel’s The Law of Nations, Book I, Chapter 19, Section 212:
§212. Citizens and natives. The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see, whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, 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. [Emphasis added]
In the Supreme Court Case Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg made the following statements affirming that the world recognizes “birthrights” of the father (not the mother), and bloodline rather than birthplace as the foundation for inherited citizenship by birthright, aka “natural-born citizenship.”
“Mr. Kneedler, I have a problem with it [Kneedler’s argument]. You would surely have a huge statelessness problem if you didn’t recognize that the child born abroad to U.S.citizens is a U.S.citizen because, as you point out, in most countries in the world, they go by blood, not by land of birth.”—“You call the child born abroad an alien, but in most places in the world that child would NOT be a citizen of the place in which that person is born; isn’t that so?”
“Well, I thought you said in your brief that in most places, and I think it’s right, they do not go on just soil, they go on parentage.”
“Mr. Kneedler, if Congress went back to the way it was when everything was determined by the father’s citizenship, go back to before 1934, suppose congress accepts your argument or we accept your argument and say plenary power, they can do whatever they damn please, so they say children born abroad of fathers who are U.S. citizens can become U.S. citizens, but not children who are born abroad of U.S. mothers where the father in an alien. That’s the way it used to be in the bad old days.”
“Suppose Congress wants to restore the way it was, the way it was for most of our nation’s history, that the father’s citizenship gets transferred to the child, not the mother’s?”
“You are talking to children not born to a marriage…”
One need only realize that the general rule is that if you are born in a country to citizen parents, then you are a natural born citizen of your parents’ country and of course you would qualify for the Office of the President –if you were a white male from a State prior to the 15th Amendment and 19th Amendment. This is the general rule used in Minor v Happersett but was shown in Minor to not specifically apply to Article II “natural born Citizen” in the case of females.
However, if you are not born in the country, or you do not have parents who are both citizens of that same country, then the rule and convention under both International Law and Natural Law and U.S. law prior to the 1930s to which Justice Ginsburg is referring is that the offspring “naturally follow the condition of their fathers.” In other words, you are born a natural citizen of your father’s country and that is also a natural born citizen, regardless of where you are born or who your mother is, and no one can deny you your natural inherited political birth rights to membership in your father’s clan and society and allegiance to your birth father and his country: not the soil territory of a foreign country; not even a foreign mother. So to be consistent with Minor v Happersett and all other controlling Supreme Court cases, we see that in Article II, the term “natural born Citizen” just means those who are born to citizen fathers. It did not originally mean females or Blacks, but in light of the 15th Amendment and the 19th Amendment, one must expand Article II nbC to include females and Black people so that these parts of the Constitution do not clash with Article II. Without including these Amendments to expand the scope of Article II, it would otherwise require a constitutional Amendment for females or Blacks to be President, especially since most Blacks were not even State citizens in many of the States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution and Article II.
So there you have it. Article II is using the most restrictive case of one born to a citizen father, and that is all that is required or necessary. That is what is meant by “natural born Citizen” in Article II. This is actually proven by Minor v Happersett. So Minor is controlling, but not for the reasons espoused in the Georgia filings because nbC has nothing at all to do with the place of birth or the citizenship of the mother, and the Minor court case proves this.
Judge Malihi is wrong because Obama does not qualify via his mother or place of birth. In fact, Mr. Obama is disqualified by his birth to a foreign father who was never a U.S. citizen, which, by International Law and Natural Law, makes him at birth to be a natural born member of his father’s country of Kenya despite his mother’s citizenship or place of birth. You cannot be born owing a natural allegiance to two countries simultaneously at birth. Which master would you serve? The convention recognized worldwide for thousands of years, and even under U.S. law, is to follow the father when you don’t have a unity of soil and parents.
Finally, in light of Minor v Happersett, Judge Malihi’s finding that Mr. Obama is Article II qualified because he is a natural born citizen via soil birth regardless of his foreign father takes on a surreal and ridiculous condition that is beyond absurd and can be easily seen via the following line of reasoning. Just apply some common sense and consider this:
The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States were written and signed entirely by males from State and Federal legislatures populated entirely by males who were citizens of the States and from the Confederation of States or federal government. The Declaration of Independence even states that governments are created according to natural laws by males, not females.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,[75] that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,”
[Notice the use of upper case "Men" and lower case "men" in the same sentence indicating that in the upper case instance the writer specifically means males.]
The purpose, of course, was to secure the natural political rights of males of this country. The Minor court found that the natural political rights that exist in the Constitution, such as the right to be President or to vote, for example, are only for U.S. males, proving that the entire purpose of the Constitution is to secure male citizens’ political rights. So Judge Malihi’s ruling implies that the political rights of the males are not provided for or secured by Article II nbC because the father’s citizenship does not matter when it comes to the Office of President, and any foreign father can sire a child with the political right to be President of the United States. In one fell swoop, Judge Malihi has eviscerated the political rights of U.S. males meant to be secured and protected by Article II nbC and the Constitution as a whole, and he has found that Article II and the Constitution were not created by the males of this American society to secure and protect their American political rights in order to pass on their American birthright heritage to their offspring, but instead was created to provide political rights for foreign males for their offspring! Can anyone now accept with a straight face that nbC in Article II just means born on the soil regardless of your father’s citizenship and that Obama qualifies? Does judge Malihi really expect us to accept that those who wrote nbC qualifications into Article II intended to not secure their own political rights as males who were citizens of this country, but rather intended to secure political rights for foreign non-citizen males and the offspring of those foreign males?
The judges must think that we are a Nation of Fools.
WHAT IS THE TRUE MEANING OF “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN?”
by Jedi Pauly, ©2012
Editor's Note: Re-posted with permission of The Post & Email.
(Feb. 8, 2012) — For some time now, I have been trying to explain the facts of life to the world regarding the true meaning and interpretation of Article II “natural born Citizen” requirements for the Office of President, and that Mr. Obama cannot possibly meet these requirements, as he was born to a foreign father who was never a U.S. citizen. I believe I have been viciously and unjustly attacked by the public at large and by some of the attorneys who have filed cases against Mr. Obama.
I contend and maintain that not one case filing so far has properly identified and argued the true and correct meaning and interpretation of Article II “natural born Citizen.” They have all missed the obvious, which I will once again state in light of the recent finding by Judge Malihi in the Georgia cases.
I am finding that I am forced to agree with Judge Malihi on one point: that Minor v Happersett is not a controlling case with regard to defining Article II “natural born Citizen.” It is, however, very useful in determining what is defining. One could even say it is controlling, but not for the reasons stated by the plaintiffs.
The judge is quite correct in his reading of the Minor case that the justices in Minor simply applied a general rule to Mrs. Minor: that those born within the U.S. to citizen parents are themselves “natives” or “natural born citizens” with a lower case “c” which, according to the Minor v Happersett judges, are synonymous terms. Such offspring are therefore members of the general class of “citizens” of the U.S. However, this does not mean that Mrs. Minor had the recognized and protected natural political right to be President that is implied in Article II by the term ”natural born Citizen” with a capital “C”. The Minor case was not even about Mrs. Minor’s right to be President; thus for this reason and others, it is not a controlling case.
In fact, the court in Minor went on to find that even though Mrs. Minor was already a citizen, and even a “natural born citizen” as a general category or type of “citizen” prior to the 14th Amendment, she still did not have any natural political rights recognized or protected by the Constitution. Nor did she possess any rights protected by the definition used by the court of what constitutes a “natural born citizen,” because the court found that she could not even vote, nor that she had any political rights secured by the Constitution at all. It required an Amendment to the Constitution to secure her natural political rights, her right to vote, regardless of the fact that she was determined to be a “natural born citizen.”
Obviously if she could not even vote, she could hardly be expected to be a candidate for the Office of President and qualify as a “natural born Citizen” by Article II. In fact, the court, using the findings in Minor v Happersett, actually proves that the definition of “one born in the country to parents who are citizens” IS NOT what is meant by “natural born Citizen” in Article II. In this sense, Minor might actually be a controlling case.
The Minor court determined that there were no political rights at all provided for or protected by the Constitution for Mrs. Minor, despite the fact that they determined that Mrs. Minor was a natural born citizen due to being born in the U.S.to parents who were citizens. If they could not see or find any political rights in the Constitution for Mrs. Minor, obviously the term in Article II, “natural born Citizen,” does not mean one who is born in the U.S. to parents who are citizens.
Likewise, if Article II “natural born Citizen” applied to Mrs. Minor and was what was meant by the court when they said that she was a natural born citizen, then the court would have found that she had the political right to be President secured, and so would have found that natural political rights were provided for her and thus could not then find that she could not vote. How might the Constitution provide for her a political right to be President but not a political right to vote? Obviously, the general term “natural born citizen,” with a lower case “c,” is a class of citizen that is synonymous in U.S. case law with native-born or even naturalized for most purposes, but it has nothing at all to do with the term in Article II spelled with an upper case “C” as in “natural born Citizen,” and the Minor v Happersett case proves this. It proves that these two terms, “natural born citizen” from U.S. case law that is removed from the context of Article II, and “natural born Citizen” within the context of Article II, are legal homonyms (they sound the same and are spelled the same but mean something different) and legal antonyms (two words or phrases that are opposite in meaning).
I will state again the obvious which everyone is ignoring or overlooking, now proved to be correct by Minor v Happersett. The term in Article II, “natural born Citizen,” is not a legal term that is undefined in the Constitution. It is not even a legal term, and it is perfectly defined within the context of Article II by the subject of natural political rights, history, Natural Law, International Law, and by the Declaration of Independence. It is an adjective phrase, “natural born,” which simply means created by natural birth inheritance as opposed to being created by statutory authority, modifying a specifically-restricted noun, “Citizen,” that is not a general use of the noun “citizen” but pointedly means a specific member out of the general class of citizens.
Specifically, the use of “Citizen” in Article II is meant to preclude natural born citizens of the federal territories or possessions, as they are not State citizens and not a party to the Constitution, so they cannot run for the Office of President. It is meant to include those from a State of the Union of States only, and did not mean a female; otherwise, the Minor court would have found a political right provided for females in the Constitution (the right to be President). Nor did it even at that time mean a Negro or Indian.
Minor v Happersett shows us and proves that the term “natural born Citizen” in Article II is being used in the most restrictive sense and means something other than someone born in the country to parents who are citizens. One need only examine convention according to International Law and Natural Law to see what it means. From Vattel’s The Law of Nations, Book I, Chapter 19, Section 212:
§212. Citizens and natives. The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see, whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, 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. [Emphasis added]
In the Supreme Court Case Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg made the following statements affirming that the world recognizes “birthrights” of the father (not the mother), and bloodline rather than birthplace as the foundation for inherited citizenship by birthright, aka “natural-born citizenship.”
“Mr. Kneedler, I have a problem with it [Kneedler’s argument]. You would surely have a huge statelessness problem if you didn’t recognize that the child born abroad to U.S.citizens is a U.S.citizen because, as you point out, in most countries in the world, they go by blood, not by land of birth.”—“You call the child born abroad an alien, but in most places in the world that child would NOT be a citizen of the place in which that person is born; isn’t that so?”
“Well, I thought you said in your brief that in most places, and I think it’s right, they do not go on just soil, they go on parentage.”
“Mr. Kneedler, if Congress went back to the way it was when everything was determined by the father’s citizenship, go back to before 1934, suppose congress accepts your argument or we accept your argument and say plenary power, they can do whatever they damn please, so they say children born abroad of fathers who are U.S. citizens can become U.S. citizens, but not children who are born abroad of U.S. mothers where the father in an alien. That’s the way it used to be in the bad old days.”
“Suppose Congress wants to restore the way it was, the way it was for most of our nation’s history, that the father’s citizenship gets transferred to the child, not the mother’s?”
“You are talking to children not born to a marriage…”
One need only realize that the general rule is that if you are born in a country to citizen parents, then you are a natural born citizen of your parents’ country and of course you would qualify for the Office of the President –if you were a white male from a State prior to the 15th Amendment and 19th Amendment. This is the general rule used in Minor v Happersett but was shown in Minor to not specifically apply to Article II “natural born Citizen” in the case of females.
However, if you are not born in the country, or you do not have parents who are both citizens of that same country, then the rule and convention under both International Law and Natural Law and U.S. law prior to the 1930s to which Justice Ginsburg is referring is that the offspring “naturally follow the condition of their fathers.” In other words, you are born a natural citizen of your father’s country and that is also a natural born citizen, regardless of where you are born or who your mother is, and no one can deny you your natural inherited political birth rights to membership in your father’s clan and society and allegiance to your birth father and his country: not the soil territory of a foreign country; not even a foreign mother. So to be consistent with Minor v Happersett and all other controlling Supreme Court cases, we see that in Article II, the term “natural born Citizen” just means those who are born to citizen fathers. It did not originally mean females or Blacks, but in light of the 15th Amendment and the 19th Amendment, one must expand Article II nbC to include females and Black people so that these parts of the Constitution do not clash with Article II. Without including these Amendments to expand the scope of Article II, it would otherwise require a constitutional Amendment for females or Blacks to be President, especially since most Blacks were not even State citizens in many of the States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution and Article II.
So there you have it. Article II is using the most restrictive case of one born to a citizen father, and that is all that is required or necessary. That is what is meant by “natural born Citizen” in Article II. This is actually proven by Minor v Happersett. So Minor is controlling, but not for the reasons espoused in the Georgia filings because nbC has nothing at all to do with the place of birth or the citizenship of the mother, and the Minor court case proves this.
Judge Malihi is wrong because Obama does not qualify via his mother or place of birth. In fact, Mr. Obama is disqualified by his birth to a foreign father who was never a U.S. citizen, which, by International Law and Natural Law, makes him at birth to be a natural born member of his father’s country of Kenya despite his mother’s citizenship or place of birth. You cannot be born owing a natural allegiance to two countries simultaneously at birth. Which master would you serve? The convention recognized worldwide for thousands of years, and even under U.S. law, is to follow the father when you don’t have a unity of soil and parents.
Finally, in light of Minor v Happersett, Judge Malihi’s finding that Mr. Obama is Article II qualified because he is a natural born citizen via soil birth regardless of his foreign father takes on a surreal and ridiculous condition that is beyond absurd and can be easily seen via the following line of reasoning. Just apply some common sense and consider this:
The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States were written and signed entirely by males from State and Federal legislatures populated entirely by males who were citizens of the States and from the Confederation of States or federal government. The Declaration of Independence even states that governments are created according to natural laws by males, not females.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,[75] that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,”
[Notice the use of upper case "Men" and lower case "men" in the same sentence indicating that in the upper case instance the writer specifically means males.]
The purpose, of course, was to secure the natural political rights of males of this country. The Minor court found that the natural political rights that exist in the Constitution, such as the right to be President or to vote, for example, are only for U.S. males, proving that the entire purpose of the Constitution is to secure male citizens’ political rights. So Judge Malihi’s ruling implies that the political rights of the males are not provided for or secured by Article II nbC because the father’s citizenship does not matter when it comes to the Office of President, and any foreign father can sire a child with the political right to be President of the United States. In one fell swoop, Judge Malihi has eviscerated the political rights of U.S. males meant to be secured and protected by Article II nbC and the Constitution as a whole, and he has found that Article II and the Constitution were not created by the males of this American society to secure and protect their American political rights in order to pass on their American birthright heritage to their offspring, but instead was created to provide political rights for foreign males for their offspring! Can anyone now accept with a straight face that nbC in Article II just means born on the soil regardless of your father’s citizenship and that Obama qualifies? Does judge Malihi really expect us to accept that those who wrote nbC qualifications into Article II intended to not secure their own political rights as males who were citizens of this country, but rather intended to secure political rights for foreign non-citizen males and the offspring of those foreign males?
The judges must think that we are a Nation of Fools.
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
FROM “THE PARALLAX PROPHECIES”
by Ron Ewart, ©2012
Editor's Note: Re-posted with permission of The Post & Email.
(Feb. 6, 2012) — “We should measure welfare’s success by how many people leave welfare, not by how many are added.” — Ronald Reagan
Every day, like vultures circling a fallen prey, they descend upon the centers of political power with their hands outstretched and without a hint of compunction or embarrassment, they beg, lobby, or riot for what they consider to be their “fair” portion of the sweat, blood and tears of those who are successful, self-reliant, responsible and independent. Black, white, tan, red or yellow, these mostly urban beggars and whiners epitomize the Occupy Wall Street crowd that say they aren’t getting their fair share of America’s wealth and demand that those that produce and earn their way must cough up more in taxes to pay those who won’t work and want something for nothing, using the power of government to get it, in a grand scheme of wealth redistribution. This “system,” if you can call it that, is socialism by any other name. If they don’t get their way, they resort to violence, property damage and mayhem. This display of “Gimee! Gimee! Gimee!” is disgusting and not worthy of a people who once called themselves free, sovereign and independent. If the Founding Fathers could see us now, they would wonder where they went wrong.
Over the last 50 years, America has spawned at least half of the population (if not more) as a mindless collective of whiners and takers, egged on by corrupt politicians scrounging for votes to remain in power. The legislatures, local, state and federal, exploit human weakness and greed and can’t wait to rob the public coffers to pay the bloodsuckers for what they have not earned. Government then uses the education system to brainwash the next generation, the court system and law enforcement to intimidate the current generation and passes never-ending social legislation to make the people and their offspring weaker and more dependent.
Unfortunately, these whiners and takers can vote and thus will always vote for the corrupt politician (and there are so many of them, “R’s” and “D’s”) that will keep the “pig trough” full. When the whiners and takers demand more, the corrupt politicians, eager to placate and pander to the rioters and complainers, scream that the rich aren’t paying their fair share and in so doing they are direct contributors to dividing America, with malice aforethought, in a totally unnecessary war of the haves and the have-nots.
“Fair Share!” Let’s talk about fair share! Ten percent (10%) of the top income earners in America pay 70% of the income taxes. That’s not just fair; it is way more than fair, to the point of outright theft. Forty-seven percent (47%) of the population pay no income taxes at all and that 47% receives money FROM the government for just being poor, paid by those that pay 70% of the taxes. This unconstitutional redistribution of wealth is class warfare run amok! In a free society, it is inexcusable. If this author had the fortune of being in the top 10% of income earners, you can bet we would do everything in our power to shield our income from the rapacious government and the bloodsuckers. By what right, or by what common-sense law, or by what constitutional principle, does the poor obtain a benefit from the rich by the mere fact of being poor? You won’t find that in the Constitution, ladies and gentlemen.
As Obama dodges along the campaign trail towards re-election and lies come out of his mouth like a saliva-driven Niagara Falls, he uses class warfare to further divide the country between ethnic and white, naive and intelligent, socialist and patriot, unwise and wise and the rich and the poor. He is the consummate politician who will say anything to get elected. He will tell any lie, use any meaningless example, dupe any group, or exploit any opportunity or emergency, to fulfill his goal of four more years. Millions of Americans saw through this snake-oil salesman-style charlatan well before he was ever elected president and couldn’t believe that the electorate was so mesmerized by someone who was so shallow, without substance and a severely tainted past.
But all of Obama’s lying and propaganda wouldn’t work if government hadn’t been so successful in dividing us, such that we are so dumbed-down now that we fight with each other instead of taking our anger and actions out on those who manipulate us, pull our strings and given the chance, would enslave us. We have spawned more than one generation that no longer values freedom, self-reliance and independence; they only value what they can get for free. They no longer value the therapeutic and monetary rewards of hard work. They have willingly sacrificed their freedom for welfare payments, guaranteed jobs, a so-called “living wage” and the false umbrella of security, as defined and provided by government. At least half of these last few generations of Americans find no value in personal pride or doing the best job they can because they haven’t been taught that doing a good job reflects well upon them and gives them credibility and honor. Instead, they are obsessed with electronic and other toys, communication devices and mindless, guttural TV shows, or movies with no redeeming value or substance. They are also obsessed by “unfairness,” spoon- fed to them by a government that exploits everything they can out of the looters, moochers and freeloaders for their vote. What is even worse, these folks who hate America and would take her down if they could are spawning more generations of dependent Americans with the same Gimee! mindset.
But bear in mind, none of this has happened by accident, because throughout history government has learned that the best and easiest way to govern is to keep the masses happy, brainwashed, distracted ….. and divided. But what faces America today could also not have happened if the people were honorable, honest, trustworthy, self-reliant and vigilant against government’s shadowy and covert expansion of its constitutionally-authorized powers.
It is quite possible from the foregoing that you think that we are heartless and without compassion. Nothing could be further from the truth. On the contrary, we believe there is a limited role for government to play in helping those who can’t help themselves by providing incentives and enhancing the role that private charities play in providing this assistance. When a person gives to a private charity as a voluntary charitable act, that is an act of free choice. There are millions of Americans who give regularly to charities every year. There are millions more who give to their churches which also provide assistance for the poor. In fact, America is the most generous nation on earth.
However, when government says you MUST pay higher taxes so that government can transfer those taxes to the poor and the undeserving, that is an involuntary act of charity through force of law and takes away the right of free choice. But what so many forget is that without free choice, there can be no freedom, and free choice is the first casualty of a tyrannical government.
Here is what Benjamin Franklin said about the poor:
“I am for doing good to the poor, but … I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed … that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”
When the government gets in the act of providing for the poor, especially when their motive is to buy votes, the poor grow in number and the cost to continue their support grows as well. The cost for government to support the poor in America since President Johnson’s Great Society, (click on “Great Society” link for more information about the poor from The Heritage Foundation) has been in the trillions of dollars and yet we have neither “….. led or have driven the poor out of poverty,” in the words of Benjamin Franklin. We have only succeeded in growing poverty and growing exponentially the cost to support it. As a result, we are weaker as a people and weaker as a nation.
Of course, being poor is no picnic and not all poor people are looters, moochers or freeloaders. But in America, anyone who will get an education, work hard to the best of his physical and mental ability, stay on the right side of the law and be personally responsible for his actions can rise above being poor. The history books are full of individuals who have risen out of poverty to become household names. But the poor will never rise out of poverty if they continue to surround themselves with other people who care so little about them. The poor will never beat the odds if they settle for a life of dependency on government and pick role models who are the dredges of society.
The reality is, the poor in America live far better off than the poor anywhere on the planet, with subsidized housing, food credit cards, plasma TVs, free health care, free education, free school breakfasts and lunches and free cell phones, all paid for on the backs of the American taxpayer and administered by a grossly inefficient and hopelessly corrupt government. The reason that they live so well is that they are just the pawns of government who pay them off to buy their votes. This is why the Democrats have been so successful at maintaining political power in America for the last 70 years. They pander to the poor, the undeserving and ethnic minorities with your tax money for their votes.
Through ever-expanding entitlement programs, government has been instrumental in spawning generation after generation of people whose only choice for living is being dependent on the great mother, government. Having done so, the government has brought us to the brink of national bankruptcy and has created a large segment of the population that is weak, wholly dependent upon government and votes for those politicians that promise and deliver their continuing subsistence, in a classic example of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
A letter to the editor in the Waco Tribune Herald back in November of 2010 by one Alfred W. Evans of Gatesville, TX sums up pretty well what millions of Americans think about the welfare state. Chances are, you agree with Mr. Evans:
(link for publisher https://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/tag/waco-tribune-herald/)
“The Parallax Prophecy” predicts that the law of diminishing returns will eventually bring this scheme for buying votes through government handouts crashing down (as it has in Greece and soon the rest of Europe), and those now dependent on government for their lives and livelihoods will either have to become self-reliant and independent, find the skirts of another “mother” to hang on to, or suffer or die needlessly.
Ladies and gentlemen, the history books tell us that it took just 3% of the colonials to give birth to freedom some 235 years ago by making the greatest sacrifice that anyone can give: the sacrifice of life. Can 3% of Americans restore freedom again this time peacefully, or are there 3% of Americans who even care about freedom anymore? The presidential election in November of 2012 will give us a clue as to which way the wind is blowing. If the wind is blowing in the right direction, perhaps then we can “spawn” another generation of greater Americans who believe in freedom so much that they will give whatever sacrifice is necessary to preserve, protect and defend that freedom for their children and grandchildren ….. so help them God, in spite of the freeloaders who circle the seats of power to beg, borrow, or steal their “fair” share and the political criminals that will hand their “fair” share to them by force of law.
“We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force.” — Ayn Rand
——————————–
Ron Ewart, President
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF RURAL LANDOWNERS
P. O. Box 1031, Issaquah, WA 98027
425 837-5365 or 1 800 682-7848R
http://www.narlo.org,
http://www.narloltd.com
by Ron Ewart, ©2012
Editor's Note: Re-posted with permission of The Post & Email.
(Feb. 6, 2012) — “We should measure welfare’s success by how many people leave welfare, not by how many are added.” — Ronald Reagan
Every day, like vultures circling a fallen prey, they descend upon the centers of political power with their hands outstretched and without a hint of compunction or embarrassment, they beg, lobby, or riot for what they consider to be their “fair” portion of the sweat, blood and tears of those who are successful, self-reliant, responsible and independent. Black, white, tan, red or yellow, these mostly urban beggars and whiners epitomize the Occupy Wall Street crowd that say they aren’t getting their fair share of America’s wealth and demand that those that produce and earn their way must cough up more in taxes to pay those who won’t work and want something for nothing, using the power of government to get it, in a grand scheme of wealth redistribution. This “system,” if you can call it that, is socialism by any other name. If they don’t get their way, they resort to violence, property damage and mayhem. This display of “Gimee! Gimee! Gimee!” is disgusting and not worthy of a people who once called themselves free, sovereign and independent. If the Founding Fathers could see us now, they would wonder where they went wrong.
Over the last 50 years, America has spawned at least half of the population (if not more) as a mindless collective of whiners and takers, egged on by corrupt politicians scrounging for votes to remain in power. The legislatures, local, state and federal, exploit human weakness and greed and can’t wait to rob the public coffers to pay the bloodsuckers for what they have not earned. Government then uses the education system to brainwash the next generation, the court system and law enforcement to intimidate the current generation and passes never-ending social legislation to make the people and their offspring weaker and more dependent.
Unfortunately, these whiners and takers can vote and thus will always vote for the corrupt politician (and there are so many of them, “R’s” and “D’s”) that will keep the “pig trough” full. When the whiners and takers demand more, the corrupt politicians, eager to placate and pander to the rioters and complainers, scream that the rich aren’t paying their fair share and in so doing they are direct contributors to dividing America, with malice aforethought, in a totally unnecessary war of the haves and the have-nots.
“Fair Share!” Let’s talk about fair share! Ten percent (10%) of the top income earners in America pay 70% of the income taxes. That’s not just fair; it is way more than fair, to the point of outright theft. Forty-seven percent (47%) of the population pay no income taxes at all and that 47% receives money FROM the government for just being poor, paid by those that pay 70% of the taxes. This unconstitutional redistribution of wealth is class warfare run amok! In a free society, it is inexcusable. If this author had the fortune of being in the top 10% of income earners, you can bet we would do everything in our power to shield our income from the rapacious government and the bloodsuckers. By what right, or by what common-sense law, or by what constitutional principle, does the poor obtain a benefit from the rich by the mere fact of being poor? You won’t find that in the Constitution, ladies and gentlemen.
As Obama dodges along the campaign trail towards re-election and lies come out of his mouth like a saliva-driven Niagara Falls, he uses class warfare to further divide the country between ethnic and white, naive and intelligent, socialist and patriot, unwise and wise and the rich and the poor. He is the consummate politician who will say anything to get elected. He will tell any lie, use any meaningless example, dupe any group, or exploit any opportunity or emergency, to fulfill his goal of four more years. Millions of Americans saw through this snake-oil salesman-style charlatan well before he was ever elected president and couldn’t believe that the electorate was so mesmerized by someone who was so shallow, without substance and a severely tainted past.
But all of Obama’s lying and propaganda wouldn’t work if government hadn’t been so successful in dividing us, such that we are so dumbed-down now that we fight with each other instead of taking our anger and actions out on those who manipulate us, pull our strings and given the chance, would enslave us. We have spawned more than one generation that no longer values freedom, self-reliance and independence; they only value what they can get for free. They no longer value the therapeutic and monetary rewards of hard work. They have willingly sacrificed their freedom for welfare payments, guaranteed jobs, a so-called “living wage” and the false umbrella of security, as defined and provided by government. At least half of these last few generations of Americans find no value in personal pride or doing the best job they can because they haven’t been taught that doing a good job reflects well upon them and gives them credibility and honor. Instead, they are obsessed with electronic and other toys, communication devices and mindless, guttural TV shows, or movies with no redeeming value or substance. They are also obsessed by “unfairness,” spoon- fed to them by a government that exploits everything they can out of the looters, moochers and freeloaders for their vote. What is even worse, these folks who hate America and would take her down if they could are spawning more generations of dependent Americans with the same Gimee! mindset.
But bear in mind, none of this has happened by accident, because throughout history government has learned that the best and easiest way to govern is to keep the masses happy, brainwashed, distracted ….. and divided. But what faces America today could also not have happened if the people were honorable, honest, trustworthy, self-reliant and vigilant against government’s shadowy and covert expansion of its constitutionally-authorized powers.
It is quite possible from the foregoing that you think that we are heartless and without compassion. Nothing could be further from the truth. On the contrary, we believe there is a limited role for government to play in helping those who can’t help themselves by providing incentives and enhancing the role that private charities play in providing this assistance. When a person gives to a private charity as a voluntary charitable act, that is an act of free choice. There are millions of Americans who give regularly to charities every year. There are millions more who give to their churches which also provide assistance for the poor. In fact, America is the most generous nation on earth.
However, when government says you MUST pay higher taxes so that government can transfer those taxes to the poor and the undeserving, that is an involuntary act of charity through force of law and takes away the right of free choice. But what so many forget is that without free choice, there can be no freedom, and free choice is the first casualty of a tyrannical government.
Here is what Benjamin Franklin said about the poor:
“I am for doing good to the poor, but … I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed … that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”
When the government gets in the act of providing for the poor, especially when their motive is to buy votes, the poor grow in number and the cost to continue their support grows as well. The cost for government to support the poor in America since President Johnson’s Great Society, (click on “Great Society” link for more information about the poor from The Heritage Foundation) has been in the trillions of dollars and yet we have neither “….. led or have driven the poor out of poverty,” in the words of Benjamin Franklin. We have only succeeded in growing poverty and growing exponentially the cost to support it. As a result, we are weaker as a people and weaker as a nation.
Of course, being poor is no picnic and not all poor people are looters, moochers or freeloaders. But in America, anyone who will get an education, work hard to the best of his physical and mental ability, stay on the right side of the law and be personally responsible for his actions can rise above being poor. The history books are full of individuals who have risen out of poverty to become household names. But the poor will never rise out of poverty if they continue to surround themselves with other people who care so little about them. The poor will never beat the odds if they settle for a life of dependency on government and pick role models who are the dredges of society.
The reality is, the poor in America live far better off than the poor anywhere on the planet, with subsidized housing, food credit cards, plasma TVs, free health care, free education, free school breakfasts and lunches and free cell phones, all paid for on the backs of the American taxpayer and administered by a grossly inefficient and hopelessly corrupt government. The reason that they live so well is that they are just the pawns of government who pay them off to buy their votes. This is why the Democrats have been so successful at maintaining political power in America for the last 70 years. They pander to the poor, the undeserving and ethnic minorities with your tax money for their votes.
Through ever-expanding entitlement programs, government has been instrumental in spawning generation after generation of people whose only choice for living is being dependent on the great mother, government. Having done so, the government has brought us to the brink of national bankruptcy and has created a large segment of the population that is weak, wholly dependent upon government and votes for those politicians that promise and deliver their continuing subsistence, in a classic example of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
A letter to the editor in the Waco Tribune Herald back in November of 2010 by one Alfred W. Evans of Gatesville, TX sums up pretty well what millions of Americans think about the welfare state. Chances are, you agree with Mr. Evans:
(link for publisher https://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/tag/waco-tribune-herald/)
“The Parallax Prophecy” predicts that the law of diminishing returns will eventually bring this scheme for buying votes through government handouts crashing down (as it has in Greece and soon the rest of Europe), and those now dependent on government for their lives and livelihoods will either have to become self-reliant and independent, find the skirts of another “mother” to hang on to, or suffer or die needlessly.
Ladies and gentlemen, the history books tell us that it took just 3% of the colonials to give birth to freedom some 235 years ago by making the greatest sacrifice that anyone can give: the sacrifice of life. Can 3% of Americans restore freedom again this time peacefully, or are there 3% of Americans who even care about freedom anymore? The presidential election in November of 2012 will give us a clue as to which way the wind is blowing. If the wind is blowing in the right direction, perhaps then we can “spawn” another generation of greater Americans who believe in freedom so much that they will give whatever sacrifice is necessary to preserve, protect and defend that freedom for their children and grandchildren ….. so help them God, in spite of the freeloaders who circle the seats of power to beg, borrow, or steal their “fair” share and the political criminals that will hand their “fair” share to them by force of law.
“We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force.” — Ayn Rand
——————————–
Ron Ewart, President
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF RURAL LANDOWNERS
P. O. Box 1031, Issaquah, WA 98027
425 837-5365 or 1 800 682-7848R
http://www.narlo.org,
http://www.narloltd.com
Corruption in America is Killing Her…and Us
ARE WE SEEING “THE LAST VESTIGES OF LIBERTY”
by Anonymous
(Feb. 6, 2012) — One can only suffer so much degradation at the hands of evildoers, that, backed into the proverbial corner, they lash back. I am now at that point. The evil my family has been dealing with through the corrupt court system, the watching of a beloved, yet helpless family member literally be snuffed from existence by the very guardians of her person for money, fighting on as every attempt to do the right thing the right way is thrown back at you with so much corruption and dishonesty, that you finally feel that perhaps the “right way” can no longer be the best way……….that is the crossroad at which I now stand.
Evil in America has been insidiously attacking every moral fiber of our society for a VERY long time. The perpetrators finally reached their pinnacle with the 2008 election. Everything they had crawled through the gutter to achieve was now within their grasp, and the roaches finally crawled from the woodwork to claim their prize, namely, the complete overthrow of America. They no longer have to hide. Their work is completed. Agenda 21, the UN Small Arms Treaty, the appointment of Muslim judges to major courts by the likes of would-be “conservative” heroes like Chris Christie. Oh, sure, there are still gems to be added to their crowning glory, but that is fast being carried out by all who now corrupt the halls of government.
The ABC agencies have spread their evil into the deepest strongholds, permeated our guarded secrets and turned them against America’s citizens. Criminals cross our borders with reckless abandon, and Christian followers are labeled “enemies and traitors.” Tax cheats hold our highest offices, and little people are forced from their jobs, their homes, from all that gives them dignity.
Is there actually anyone out there willing to tell me this can be reversed with a single corrupt election? The machines are rigged, the ability to stop foreign influence was destroyed when BO was allowed to accept funding from across the globe, much of it coming from our mortal enemies. Our allies, on the other hand, have suffered similar insults and assaults as those heaped upon this nation’s members. I stand by my email from the other night. The time has come. To shut one’s eyes after the Malihi fiasco is to just prolong the inevitable. Mexico has been allowed to sue a sovereign American State standing partner with our very own “government.” Our national sovereignty is slowly but surely being handed over to foreign entities……Libya, anyone?
From the get-go, those in D.C. KNEW the evil of BO and company. His work for Raila’s election after Raila signed an agreement with the Muslim Brotherhood. The turning off of EVERY security step on his machines so as to accept funds from many in the Middle East trying to “buy” the American Presidency. The refusal on the part of “his” AG to prosecute the New Black Panthers. Do I need to go on? You are the choir………those of us here already know all the sordid details. We have all watched, and prayed, as “R’s” tried to convince us they were NOT part of the evil……..RIIIIIIGHT, thank you, Crybaby Boehner.
What I think I find most disheartening is so many of those I consider “My Patriots” trying to decide which of the remaining “four” is the lesser evil. They are ALL “EVIL.” I have prayed that the work on the net by Patriots would spur IMMENSE support for Patriots like John Dummett, Tim Cox with goooh, and a handful of others who have tried to break the chains of “party hack” status and take back America as that which our Founding Fathers so desired, “citizen legislators.” Too many here just will NOT believe that we could once again have such a mighty show of force for someone not huddled under the mantle of a “D” or an “R.”
“If you run an outsider, BO is back in,” is the response. Are there REALLY that many who disbelieve after all we have done here in the last four years? “YES!” Mitt, Newt, Rick or Ron are none of them going to save America. IMHO, anyone who has worked here low these many months and does not understand that is doomed to watch musloids remove the last vestiges of Liberty from us. BO will once again pay for our Presidency with Middle Eastern money. Whoever wins the “R” backing will only be afforded his “turn” to run. I believe that person has already been chosen by the “R” elites, and it will be Mitt. But that matters little, because based on Malihi, BO WILL serve a second term…….for LIFE!
It is time for watering the Tree of Liberty. The price of that Liberty is eternal vigilance, and we let our guard down. Now the only way, I believe, to set things straight, is to start where our Founders started, and once again BEG GOD to give us the strength and courage to risk our lives, our fortunes, and our Sacred Honor. It’s a mighty price, but it sure beats the alternative.
ARE WE SEEING “THE LAST VESTIGES OF LIBERTY”
by Anonymous
(Feb. 6, 2012) — One can only suffer so much degradation at the hands of evildoers, that, backed into the proverbial corner, they lash back. I am now at that point. The evil my family has been dealing with through the corrupt court system, the watching of a beloved, yet helpless family member literally be snuffed from existence by the very guardians of her person for money, fighting on as every attempt to do the right thing the right way is thrown back at you with so much corruption and dishonesty, that you finally feel that perhaps the “right way” can no longer be the best way……….that is the crossroad at which I now stand.
Evil in America has been insidiously attacking every moral fiber of our society for a VERY long time. The perpetrators finally reached their pinnacle with the 2008 election. Everything they had crawled through the gutter to achieve was now within their grasp, and the roaches finally crawled from the woodwork to claim their prize, namely, the complete overthrow of America. They no longer have to hide. Their work is completed. Agenda 21, the UN Small Arms Treaty, the appointment of Muslim judges to major courts by the likes of would-be “conservative” heroes like Chris Christie. Oh, sure, there are still gems to be added to their crowning glory, but that is fast being carried out by all who now corrupt the halls of government.
The ABC agencies have spread their evil into the deepest strongholds, permeated our guarded secrets and turned them against America’s citizens. Criminals cross our borders with reckless abandon, and Christian followers are labeled “enemies and traitors.” Tax cheats hold our highest offices, and little people are forced from their jobs, their homes, from all that gives them dignity.
Is there actually anyone out there willing to tell me this can be reversed with a single corrupt election? The machines are rigged, the ability to stop foreign influence was destroyed when BO was allowed to accept funding from across the globe, much of it coming from our mortal enemies. Our allies, on the other hand, have suffered similar insults and assaults as those heaped upon this nation’s members. I stand by my email from the other night. The time has come. To shut one’s eyes after the Malihi fiasco is to just prolong the inevitable. Mexico has been allowed to sue a sovereign American State standing partner with our very own “government.” Our national sovereignty is slowly but surely being handed over to foreign entities……Libya, anyone?
From the get-go, those in D.C. KNEW the evil of BO and company. His work for Raila’s election after Raila signed an agreement with the Muslim Brotherhood. The turning off of EVERY security step on his machines so as to accept funds from many in the Middle East trying to “buy” the American Presidency. The refusal on the part of “his” AG to prosecute the New Black Panthers. Do I need to go on? You are the choir………those of us here already know all the sordid details. We have all watched, and prayed, as “R’s” tried to convince us they were NOT part of the evil……..RIIIIIIGHT, thank you, Crybaby Boehner.
What I think I find most disheartening is so many of those I consider “My Patriots” trying to decide which of the remaining “four” is the lesser evil. They are ALL “EVIL.” I have prayed that the work on the net by Patriots would spur IMMENSE support for Patriots like John Dummett, Tim Cox with goooh, and a handful of others who have tried to break the chains of “party hack” status and take back America as that which our Founding Fathers so desired, “citizen legislators.” Too many here just will NOT believe that we could once again have such a mighty show of force for someone not huddled under the mantle of a “D” or an “R.”
“If you run an outsider, BO is back in,” is the response. Are there REALLY that many who disbelieve after all we have done here in the last four years? “YES!” Mitt, Newt, Rick or Ron are none of them going to save America. IMHO, anyone who has worked here low these many months and does not understand that is doomed to watch musloids remove the last vestiges of Liberty from us. BO will once again pay for our Presidency with Middle Eastern money. Whoever wins the “R” backing will only be afforded his “turn” to run. I believe that person has already been chosen by the “R” elites, and it will be Mitt. But that matters little, because based on Malihi, BO WILL serve a second term…….for LIFE!
It is time for watering the Tree of Liberty. The price of that Liberty is eternal vigilance, and we let our guard down. Now the only way, I believe, to set things straight, is to start where our Founders started, and once again BEG GOD to give us the strength and courage to risk our lives, our fortunes, and our Sacred Honor. It’s a mighty price, but it sure beats the alternative.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)