The Presidential Poser
August 23, 2010 by Bob Livingston
The Presidential Poser
Editor's Note: While this is old, August 2010, it is a concise, accurate assessment.
Just who exactly is this man posing as President of the United States? That’s a question being asked by a growing number of Americans.
In fact, a recent poll by CNN — a news organization that has been downright gushing in its praise of Barack Obama — showed that six out of 10 people are uncertain the President was even born in the U.S. And that includes about one-third of all Democrats.
It’s troubling that so many question Obama’s eligibility to hold the office of President but that so few of the elected class and those of national prominence will even broach the issue. It demonstrates what a superb job Obama’s team and the Democrat party have done in casting those who question his status as a natural born citizen as the lunatic fringe.
In fact, if you are a “birther” — a term coined by the mainstream press to disparage those who doubt Obama’s eligibility to hold office based on his citizenship — even so-called conservative icons like Ann Coulter and Glenn Beck consider you a nut.
All this proves is that the elitists who shape messages are a clique interested not in seeing that the U.S. Constitution is upheld, but in maintaining their power and protecting their own. This was demonstrated once before, when the House of Representatives voted to impeach Bill Clinton for lying to a grand jury, but the Senate voted 100-0 not to remove him.
When was the last time the Senate was unanimous on anything? Democrats and Republicans never agree unanimously. The fix was in from the beginning.
So, too, is the issue of Obama’s citizenship and eligibility. The fix is in, even though the evidence that he is not a natural-born citizen, and therefore ineligible to hold the office, far exceeds evidence that he is.
The Republican governor in Hawaii says a birth certificate exists but she has sealed access to it, thereby eliminating one avenue of determining whether he was born in Hawaii, as he says, or in Kenya, as Michelle Obama, several of Obama’s Kenyan relatives (his paternal grandmother, half sister and half brother) and a couple of Kenyan officials have said. And for you Obama sycophants, don’t even bring up the certificate of live birth (COLB) posted online as proof. The COLB was available to anyone. It is not a legal document, does not list the attending physician, does not include his fingerprints or footprints, could not have been used to obtain his passport and is only a diversion to a weak-minded press and public.
Earlier this year a senior Honolulu elections clerk went on local television and said that it was common knowledge among election officials that no official birth certificate — he called it the long-form birth record — exits in Hawaii, despite what Governor Linda Lingle has said.
The whole situation remains a muddle, just as Obama and his handlers want it. Documents disappear. Other documents crop up — some that cast more doubt on his story and some that seem at first glance to support his claims but simply serve to send the discussion on a tangent. And Obama fights disclosure at every turn, sending agents from the U.S. Justice Department out to block all efforts at obtaining his records.
Thankfully, one news organization is doggedly pursuing the story. Joseph Farah and his reporters at WorldNetDaily (WND) hammer on the Obama eligibility story relentlessly, slowly chipping away at the facade. Some other conservative, fearless publications and websites are also digging for the truth and opining on the eligibility question.
Yet despite a total blackout from the main stream media on the subject of Obama’s citizenship, 60 percent of the American public still doubt Obama’s story that he was born in Hawaii. As Farah says, that means the birthers are winning.
There are some things we do know — or can surmise — about Obama, thanks to WND, some other publications and Obama’s own book, Dreams From My Father.
The man who would ascend to the Presidency in 2009 was born to Ann Dunham on Aug. 4, 1961. The father is purported to be Barack Hussein Obama, a Kenyan student in Hawaii who married Dunham on Feb. 2, 1961.
Some have speculated that Barack Obama II’s (this is how Obama’s name is listed on the COLB) biological father was actually Frank Marshall Davis, a black friend of Ann Dunham’s parents and the man the young Obama would later claim in his autobiography was his mentor. The speculation about Davis — a radical communist — as possibly Obama’s biological father stems from a book Davis wrote under a pseudonym in which he describes having sex with an under aged white girl. The idea is plausible, as Davis was a good friend of Madelyn and Stanley Dunham, Ann Dunham’s parents.
The irony is that this is one nativity story that would cement Obama’s claim to be a natural-born citizen. If Obama Sr., a Kenyan citizen, is Obama’s father, Obama is not a Constitutionally described natural-born citizen because one parent is a non-citizen and the other was a minor and therefore unable to bestow citizenship on the child — if Obama was born in Kenya, as many believe.
As lawsuits have claimed, there is no evidence — beyond the afore-mentioned COLB — that Obama was born in Hawaii. Both Obama and a half sister have named two different Hawaii hospitals as his birth place, no records exist that Dunham was hospitalized in Hawaii and no physician or nurse has stepped forward to claim they assisted with the birth.
Obama’s supporters have pointed out that newspaper articles published in August 1961 in the Honolulu Advertiser and the Honolulu Star-Bulletin prove Obama was born in Hawaii. The address listed was the address of Madelyn and Stanley Dunham, Ann Dunham’s parents. WND has reported that official documents show Obama Sr., had a residence at another address at the same time. And neighbors of the Dunhams told WND they don’t recall a white woman with a black baby ever living next door. College transcripts indicate Dunham moved with her new baby to Seattle within days of Obama’s birth and enrolled in the University of Washington for classes that began on Aug. 19, 1961.
These birth announcements prove only that someone submitted information to two newspapers to herald the birth of a baby. They document the timeframe of the birth, not the location. The baby could have been born on Mars and these announcements could have still run in the newspapers.
Another problem Obama faces is found in his mother’s trip to Indonesia with her second husband, Lolo Soetoro, in the late 1960s. WND has reported that several lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility hinge on this time in Indonesia, which does not allow dual citizenship. Documents released by the U.S. State Department under two Freedom of Information Act requests indicate he may have given up his citizenship when he moved there.
Those documents show that Obama’s mother sought to have “Barack Obama II (Seobarkah)” removed from her passport, possibly as a prelude to obtaining Indonesian citizenship for him. If she did this it was more than likely for the child’s safety, as it was a turbulent time in Indonesia and there was a strong anti-American sentiment there.
While in Indonesia Obama was enrolled in school under the name of Barry Soetoro, as proven by school records photographed by an Associated Press photographer in 2007. Those school records list Soetoro as an Indonesian citizen, born in Honolulu, Hawaii, on Aug. 4, 1961, and records his religion as Muslim.
According to WND, Obama was either 5 or 6 years old when he traveled to Indonesia. This is important because if Lolo Soetoro adopted him at age 5 then he would have automatically become an Indonesian citizen. The law differed for children aged 6 and up and an adoption for a 6-year-old would have had to take place through legal channels.
Another puzzle uncovered by WND revolves around a photograph of Obama — or Soetoro, whoever he is — with another child at a school in Hawaii at the same time he was enrolled in school in Indonesia. The photo is marked has having been taken in 1969, and there is no good explanation as to how he was attending school in two different places at the same time.
The Obama camp has also refused to explain why Obama/Soetoro is using a Social Security number issued in Connecticut. WND has reported that two private investigators discovered the Social Security number anomaly and filed documents in an eligibility lawsuit showing the number was issued in Connecticut between 1977 and 1979, yet Obama’s/Soetoro’s earliest reported employment was at a Baskin-Robbins ice cream shop in Hawaii in 1975.
The Social Security website confirms that the first three numbers of Obama’s/Soetoro’s Social Security number are reserved for applicants with Connecticut addresses. That Social Security number corresponds with Obama’s/Soetoro’s Selective Service registration, according to WND.
Finally, questions surround a trip Obama/Soetoro has admitted he took to Pakistan in 1981, WND reports.
“I traveled to Pakistan when I was in college — I knew what Sunni and Shia was [sic] before I joined the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,” Obama/Soetoro reportedly stated at a fundraising event.
Pakistan in 1981 was under military rule. It was difficult for U.S. citizens to travel to the country without assistance. It would have been easier for someone to enter Pakistan on an Indonesian passport, WND reports.
Obama/Soetoro could easily clear up the confusion by releasing his birth records, his school records, college records and other official documents. Instead, he is spending millions of dollars to fight all attempts to obtain documents that most public officials release by habit. That begs the question: What is he hiding?
Some brave souls are fighting the good fight in trying to get to the bottom of the mysterious background of the 44th President. Some military people are putting their careers on the line in an attempt to get proof that any orders Obama/Soetoro issues are legitimate.
However, the court system seems hell-bent on covering up any efforts at discovery. It consistently throws out lawsuits on standing and is frequently hostile to plaintiffs. Several judges have threatened lawyers and plaintiffs with stiff fines if they continue to pursue the matter.
Meanwhile, the only logical conclusion is that Obama/Soetoro is not Constitutionally eligible to hold the office of President. Any other view is only based on hope — Obama’s/Soetoro’s favorite theme.
A Constitutional crisis is in the offing and when the truth finally gets out about Obama’s/Soetoro’s citizenship, the legitimacy of orders signed by an illegitimate President will be called into question. Expect mass chaos to ensue.
That very well could be the culmination of the whole plan by Obama/Soetoro and those pulling his strings.
Friday, July 29, 2011
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Capone Was Nabbed For Tax Evasion – Will This Be Obama’s Downfall?
FORGERY OF A GOVERNMENT DOCUMENT IS A FELONY
by thinkwell
Editor's Note: Reprinted with permission of The Post & Email.
Obama and the entire government and media have presented this image as Obama's birth certificate. If it was available all along, why did he not reveal it sooner?
(Jul. 26, 2011) — One of the reasons so many people question Obama’s legitimacy is that very odd and questionable circumstances exist about so many aspects of his life story. Although most normal people have NO such issues clouding their backgrounds, if the Obots had to only explain away a single anomalous circumstance from Obama’s past, most people would probably let it go as a random unusual event and accept the Obots’ twisted “Rube Goldberg” stories in explaining it away. But Obama is a man for whom the normal events in his past are the seemingly anomalous events.
Obama is a man who has a draft registration record that, because of its historically questionable number sequence, appears to be a recent fabrication (for a man of Obama’s age cohort, failure to register would bar one from ever holding any federal office, let alone the Presidency).
Unlike normal people, Obama is a man who has been found by multiple investigators to have used several social security numbers, including some reserved only for foreign students (the “999″ type, although, considering how he has been taking our country straight to Hades, “666″ would be more appropriate in his case). And Obama is a man whose current SSN was supposedly handed out in person from Connecticut at a time when Obama was a high school student in Hawaii and Obama Sr. was many years returned to his own native Kenya.
This fact brings up that Obama is a man whose father was himself never a citizen (nor even a permanent resident) of this country and, thus, could never produce a child who could be a natural born Citizen. Obama is a man who was bred (and probably born) under the flag of an alien land. His life story is more jumbled than a fresh load of wash at the end of the spin cycle (in fact, almost everything to do with the man is one big continuous spin cycle).
And these are but a sampling of many, many more anomalies to Obama’s seemingly mostly fictitious life story, any number of which could (and probably do) condemn him as a criminal fraud and premeditated usurper.
But regardless of the several other ways Obama has criminally lied about his past, his latest lie alone should be the purchase price for a nonstop express ticket straight from the White House to a nice long “vacation” in the “big house.” Of course, I am referring to the blatantly fraudulent PDF posted (by Obama’s own authorization) on a whitehouse.gov website that supposedly is a direct scan of Obama’s Hawaiian birth certificate. Regardless of any of the other paper copies or other reproductions, Obama is directly responsible for the issuance of that PDF as an official government document. And that single PDF is loaded with more inescapably incriminating signs of forgery than the illegal
drugs that were contained in a college-age Obama loaded on weed or cocaine.
Since many others have done a fine job of pointing out the numerous signs of forgery in Obama’s recently released birth certificate, I will just touch upon one that I find especially damning, that is, that the document contains text and whole areas with completely different pixel densities (the individual pixels are not all the same size – not even close). There simply is no plausible explanation for this other than tampering. Obot claims about differing pixel densities (especially when occurring with no correlation to detail density) arising from a normal scan of a simple one-page document are laughable on their face and do not for a moment convince anyone of anything other than that the Obots are in desperate panic mode. (Perhaps they will claim that the never-seen-in-any-other-document-before weird combinations of “compression” contained in Obama’s PDF BC was done because Obama was trying to save The People money by saving a few 10kBs or so of government server space. LOL)
FORGERY OF A GOVERNMENT DOCUMENT IS A FELONY
by thinkwell
Editor's Note: Reprinted with permission of The Post & Email.
Obama and the entire government and media have presented this image as Obama's birth certificate. If it was available all along, why did he not reveal it sooner?
(Jul. 26, 2011) — One of the reasons so many people question Obama’s legitimacy is that very odd and questionable circumstances exist about so many aspects of his life story. Although most normal people have NO such issues clouding their backgrounds, if the Obots had to only explain away a single anomalous circumstance from Obama’s past, most people would probably let it go as a random unusual event and accept the Obots’ twisted “Rube Goldberg” stories in explaining it away. But Obama is a man for whom the normal events in his past are the seemingly anomalous events.
Obama is a man who has a draft registration record that, because of its historically questionable number sequence, appears to be a recent fabrication (for a man of Obama’s age cohort, failure to register would bar one from ever holding any federal office, let alone the Presidency).
Unlike normal people, Obama is a man who has been found by multiple investigators to have used several social security numbers, including some reserved only for foreign students (the “999″ type, although, considering how he has been taking our country straight to Hades, “666″ would be more appropriate in his case). And Obama is a man whose current SSN was supposedly handed out in person from Connecticut at a time when Obama was a high school student in Hawaii and Obama Sr. was many years returned to his own native Kenya.
This fact brings up that Obama is a man whose father was himself never a citizen (nor even a permanent resident) of this country and, thus, could never produce a child who could be a natural born Citizen. Obama is a man who was bred (and probably born) under the flag of an alien land. His life story is more jumbled than a fresh load of wash at the end of the spin cycle (in fact, almost everything to do with the man is one big continuous spin cycle).
And these are but a sampling of many, many more anomalies to Obama’s seemingly mostly fictitious life story, any number of which could (and probably do) condemn him as a criminal fraud and premeditated usurper.
But regardless of the several other ways Obama has criminally lied about his past, his latest lie alone should be the purchase price for a nonstop express ticket straight from the White House to a nice long “vacation” in the “big house.” Of course, I am referring to the blatantly fraudulent PDF posted (by Obama’s own authorization) on a whitehouse.gov website that supposedly is a direct scan of Obama’s Hawaiian birth certificate. Regardless of any of the other paper copies or other reproductions, Obama is directly responsible for the issuance of that PDF as an official government document. And that single PDF is loaded with more inescapably incriminating signs of forgery than the illegal
drugs that were contained in a college-age Obama loaded on weed or cocaine.
Since many others have done a fine job of pointing out the numerous signs of forgery in Obama’s recently released birth certificate, I will just touch upon one that I find especially damning, that is, that the document contains text and whole areas with completely different pixel densities (the individual pixels are not all the same size – not even close). There simply is no plausible explanation for this other than tampering. Obot claims about differing pixel densities (especially when occurring with no correlation to detail density) arising from a normal scan of a simple one-page document are laughable on their face and do not for a moment convince anyone of anything other than that the Obots are in desperate panic mode. (Perhaps they will claim that the never-seen-in-any-other-document-before weird combinations of “compression” contained in Obama’s PDF BC was done because Obama was trying to save The People money by saving a few 10kBs or so of government server space. LOL)
Top Fourteen Signatures of Stanley Ann Dunham Obama Soetoro Doe
CRIMES “TOO NUMEROUS TO MENTION”
by WTPOTUS, ©2011, blogging at WTPOTUS
Editor's Note: Reprinted with permission of The Post & Email.
http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/07/27/top-fourteen-signatures-of-stanley-ann-dunham-obama-soetoro-doe/
Alleged to be Stanley Ann Dunham Note the tell tale neck covering. Photo: NY Times
(Jul. 27, 2011) — Below is a compilation of Barack Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham’s, many variations of her signature. Like anything else having to do with this fabricated family, there are just too many inconsistencies in provided information to say any of them are biologically related to each other or that they even exist. The felonious crimes of the cabal involved in these crimes are getting too numerous to mention. The apparent forgeries of many documents are being examined by experts in various fields, and the exposure of these fraudulent documents and the crimes of those involved are beginning to reach a fevered pitch.
It is unfathomable to me how so many documents for this family that were completed for the government can raise so many questions, i.e., social security cards, social security applications, passport applications, petitions, written notes, letters, marriage licenses, birth certificates, school records, alien documents, and photographs.
Applications are incomplete, blank spaces occur where questions were supposed to be answered, dates referring to specific events are different in various documents, forms are used that were never in use by the government, and form numbers or revisions are erroneous.
Applications contain writing that is noticeably written by different hands on the same page and within the same file of documents. Handwriting signatures aren’t identical when compared to other examples supposedly written by the same person. Signatures occurring on the same page for the same day don’t match either.
As you will see below in examples of Ann Dunham’s signatures, the slant of the writing is either to the left, right or straight up and down. The cursive signature varies in the amount of pressure applied to the paper; it is heavy to extremely light. When the signature is written it is exactly on the baseline or way above it. The written letters are either angular or rounded and vary. Her signature is clear or sloppily written. As her name changes from Dunham to Obama to Soetoro, her first name is written either as Stanley, S., or Ann. Along with her name changes, her cursive handwriting style also changes. The discrepancies are quite obvious when they are laid out together and seen.
How can these abnormalities be explained away? The obvious answer is they can’t. Someone has forged these government documents. It has been done by those who have conspired to cover-up the usurper and his less than illustrious family. They try, but their deceit has gone too far. Their forged documents and the information presented are being dissected and examined page by page.
As your eyes can see, Ann’s name as well as her signature varies from document to document. Which, if any, is the real signature of Stanley Ann Dunham? In reality, is there a real Ann Dunham that is the mother of Barack Obama or is she a fabrication? I added the legal term of Doe to indicate another name she may have used but is unknown.
Let’s compare and contrast Ann’s signatures. These are arranged from the earliest dates to the latest. If you have other examples that are missing from this list, please let us know the source and they will be added.
Will a handwriting expert please weigh in!
Signature Variations of
Stanley Ann Dunham Obama Soetoro Doe
1.
Stanley Signature from High School Photo
2.
Stanley Ann Signature from Application for Social Security Number from SSA
3.
Stanley Ann Dunham Obama as written on BHO's LFCOLB in 1961. Recently presented to the US by the White House on April 27, 2011
4.
Stanley Ann Soetoro Signature from Petition for Lolo, page 70
5.
Stanley Ann Soetoro Signature Passport File Page 5
6.
S. Ann Soetoro Nov. 30, 1965 Affidavit, Lolo Petition File, page 117
7.
Stanley Ann Dunham Passport File, Page 3, August 13, 1968
8.
Stanley Ann Soetoro Signature Page 6 Passport File
9.
S. Ann Dunham Soetoro, Passport Application, January 4, 1972
10.
Mrs. S. Ann Soetoro May 1, 1974 Letter, Lolo Petition File Pg 165
11.
S. Ann Dunham Soetoro, June 197? Passport Application, Page 11
12.
Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro Signature from Marriage Certificate - Lolo Soetoro Page 73
13.
Stanley Ann Dunham Signature April 9, 1986 - Note Trip to Philippines Delayed
14.
S. Ann Dunham Passport Application Signature April 27, 1987?
Sources:
Stanley Ann Dunham Obama Soetoro Passport Application – Strunk v Dept of State.
White House Long Form COLB for Barack Obama on April 27, 2011
Lolo Soetoro Petition, Obama Sr. – Ken Allen FOIA Release – Department of Homeland Security
Documents Related to Stanley Ann Dunham – FOIA requests 12/10/2010
CRIMES “TOO NUMEROUS TO MENTION”
by WTPOTUS, ©2011, blogging at WTPOTUS
Editor's Note: Reprinted with permission of The Post & Email.
http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/07/27/top-fourteen-signatures-of-stanley-ann-dunham-obama-soetoro-doe/
Alleged to be Stanley Ann Dunham Note the tell tale neck covering. Photo: NY Times
(Jul. 27, 2011) — Below is a compilation of Barack Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham’s, many variations of her signature. Like anything else having to do with this fabricated family, there are just too many inconsistencies in provided information to say any of them are biologically related to each other or that they even exist. The felonious crimes of the cabal involved in these crimes are getting too numerous to mention. The apparent forgeries of many documents are being examined by experts in various fields, and the exposure of these fraudulent documents and the crimes of those involved are beginning to reach a fevered pitch.
It is unfathomable to me how so many documents for this family that were completed for the government can raise so many questions, i.e., social security cards, social security applications, passport applications, petitions, written notes, letters, marriage licenses, birth certificates, school records, alien documents, and photographs.
Applications are incomplete, blank spaces occur where questions were supposed to be answered, dates referring to specific events are different in various documents, forms are used that were never in use by the government, and form numbers or revisions are erroneous.
Applications contain writing that is noticeably written by different hands on the same page and within the same file of documents. Handwriting signatures aren’t identical when compared to other examples supposedly written by the same person. Signatures occurring on the same page for the same day don’t match either.
As you will see below in examples of Ann Dunham’s signatures, the slant of the writing is either to the left, right or straight up and down. The cursive signature varies in the amount of pressure applied to the paper; it is heavy to extremely light. When the signature is written it is exactly on the baseline or way above it. The written letters are either angular or rounded and vary. Her signature is clear or sloppily written. As her name changes from Dunham to Obama to Soetoro, her first name is written either as Stanley, S., or Ann. Along with her name changes, her cursive handwriting style also changes. The discrepancies are quite obvious when they are laid out together and seen.
How can these abnormalities be explained away? The obvious answer is they can’t. Someone has forged these government documents. It has been done by those who have conspired to cover-up the usurper and his less than illustrious family. They try, but their deceit has gone too far. Their forged documents and the information presented are being dissected and examined page by page.
As your eyes can see, Ann’s name as well as her signature varies from document to document. Which, if any, is the real signature of Stanley Ann Dunham? In reality, is there a real Ann Dunham that is the mother of Barack Obama or is she a fabrication? I added the legal term of Doe to indicate another name she may have used but is unknown.
Let’s compare and contrast Ann’s signatures. These are arranged from the earliest dates to the latest. If you have other examples that are missing from this list, please let us know the source and they will be added.
Will a handwriting expert please weigh in!
Signature Variations of
Stanley Ann Dunham Obama Soetoro Doe
1.
Stanley Signature from High School Photo
2.
Stanley Ann Signature from Application for Social Security Number from SSA
3.
Stanley Ann Dunham Obama as written on BHO's LFCOLB in 1961. Recently presented to the US by the White House on April 27, 2011
4.
Stanley Ann Soetoro Signature from Petition for Lolo, page 70
5.
Stanley Ann Soetoro Signature Passport File Page 5
6.
S. Ann Soetoro Nov. 30, 1965 Affidavit, Lolo Petition File, page 117
7.
Stanley Ann Dunham Passport File, Page 3, August 13, 1968
8.
Stanley Ann Soetoro Signature Page 6 Passport File
9.
S. Ann Dunham Soetoro, Passport Application, January 4, 1972
10.
Mrs. S. Ann Soetoro May 1, 1974 Letter, Lolo Petition File Pg 165
11.
S. Ann Dunham Soetoro, June 197? Passport Application, Page 11
12.
Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro Signature from Marriage Certificate - Lolo Soetoro Page 73
13.
Stanley Ann Dunham Signature April 9, 1986 - Note Trip to Philippines Delayed
14.
S. Ann Dunham Passport Application Signature April 27, 1987?
Sources:
Stanley Ann Dunham Obama Soetoro Passport Application – Strunk v Dept of State.
White House Long Form COLB for Barack Obama on April 27, 2011
Lolo Soetoro Petition, Obama Sr. – Ken Allen FOIA Release – Department of Homeland Security
Documents Related to Stanley Ann Dunham – FOIA requests 12/10/2010
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
A SLEEPER AMONG US :
Some very interesting questions!
Obama: Where are his girl friends????? Strange that none have popped up!!!!
Strange to the point of being downright WEIRD!
OK... this is past the 'birthers' questions.... this is just plain old common sense, no political agendas for either side.
Just common knowledge for citizens of a country, especially American citizens, who even know that Andrew Jackson's wife smoked a corn cob pipe and was accused of adultery, or that Lincoln never went to school or Kennedy wore a back brace or Truman played the piano.
We are Americans! We are known for our humanitarian interests and caring for our 'fellow man.' We care, but none of us know one single humanizing fact about the history of our own president. Honestly, and this is a personal thing...but it's niggled at me for ages that no one who ever dated him ever showed up. The simple fact of his charisma, which caused the women to be drawn to him so obviously during his campaign, looks like some lady would not have missed the opportunity....
We all know about JFK's magnetism, McCain was no monk, Palin's courtship and even her athletic prowess were probed. Biden's aneurisms are no secret. Look at Cheney and Clinton--we all know about their heart problems. How could I have left out Wild Bill before or during the White House?
Nope... not one lady has stepped up and said, "He was soooo shy," or "What a great dancer!" Now look at the rest of this.... no classmates, not even the recorder for the Columbia class notes ever heard of him I just don't know about this fellow. Who was the best man at his wedding? Start there. Then check groomsmen.
Then get the footage of the graduation ceremony. Has anyone talked to the professors? It is odd that no one is bragging that they knew him or taught him or lived with him. When did he meet Michele and how? Are there photos? Every president gives to the public all their photos, etc. for their library. What has he released?
And who voted for him to be the most popular man in 2010????? How did he receive a Nobel Peace Prize in his first year in office? Does this make you wonder?
Ever wonder why no one ever came forward from Obama's past, saying they knew him, attended school with him, was his friend, etc. ? Not one person has ever come forward from his past. VERY, VERY STRANGE… This should really be a cause for great concern. To those who voted for him, you may have elected an unqualified, inexperienced shadow man.
Did you see a picture called The Manchurian Candidate?
Let's face it. As insignificant as we all are... someone whom we went to school with remembers our name or face ... someone remembers we were the clown or the dork or the brain or the quiet one or the bully or something about us.
George Stephanopoulos of ABC News said the same thing during the 2008 campaign. He questions why no one has acknowledged the president was in
their classroom or ate in the same cafeteria or made impromptu speeches on campus. Stephanopoulos also was a classmate of Obama at Columbia --the class of 1984. He says he never had a single class with him.
While he is such a great orator, why doesn't anyone in Obama's college class remember him? And, why won't he allow Columbia to release his records?
NOBODY REMEMBERS OBAMA AT COLUMBIA
Looking for evidence of Obama's past, Fox News contacted 400 Columbia University students from the period when Obama claims to have been there, but none remembered him. For example, Wayne Allyn Root was, like Obama, a political science major at Columbia , who also graduated in 1983. In 2008, Root says of Obama, "I don't know a single person at Columbia that knew him, and they all know me. I don't have a classmate who ever knew Barack Obama at Columbia ... EVER!
Nobody recalls him. Root adds that he was also, like Obama, "Class of '83 political science, pre-law" and says, "You don't get more exact or closer than that. Never met him in my life, don't know anyone who ever met him."
At the class reunion, our 20th reunion five years ago, who was asked to be the speaker of the class? Me. No one ever heard of Barack! And five years ago, nobody even knew who he was. The guy who writes the class notes, who's kind of the, as we say in New York, 'the macha' who knows everybody, has yet to find a person, a human who ever met him."
Obama's photograph does not appear in the school's yearbook, and Obama consistently declines requests to talk about his years at Columbia, provide school records, or provide the name of any former classmates or friends while at Columbia ...
NOTE: Root graduated as valedictorian from his high school, Thornton-Donovan School, then graduated from Columbia University in 1983 as a political science major in the same class in which Barack Hussein Obama states he was.
Some other interesting questions…
Why was Obama's law license inactivated in 2002?
Why was Michelle's law license inactivated by court order?
It is circulating that according to the U.S. Census, there is only one Barack Obama but 27 Social Security numbers and over 80 aliases!!! WHAT!? The Social Security number he uses now originated in Connecticut where he is never reported to have lived.
No wonder all his records are sealed!
Somewhere, someone had to know him in school...before he "reorganized" Chicago and burst upon the scene at the 2004 Democratic Convention and made us swoon with his charm, poise, and speaking pizzazz.
Knowing answers to these humanizing questions would sure help to lift the veil and let us have some insight of who he actually is, but all we have is what HE PUT in HIS books that have now been proven to have a number of inaccuracies in them as well as questions about accuracy about his mother's life and last days. He claims her insurance wouldn't pay her hospital bills, but apparently they paid all of them without question, BUT the disability insurance she applied for was disallowed as she had a clearly excluded prior condition, uterine cancer, that prevented her from getting the insurance and that is the only insurance that did not pay when she was sick and died. A fair number of inaccuracies have been unearthed and he just says he was speaking in generalities and the principle was true. I wonder if we would be considered honest if we made this kind of inaccurate statements in what was suppose to be our background or if it would be considered a cover-up of unknown magnitude.
Some very interesting questions!
Obama: Where are his girl friends????? Strange that none have popped up!!!!
Strange to the point of being downright WEIRD!
OK... this is past the 'birthers' questions.... this is just plain old common sense, no political agendas for either side.
Just common knowledge for citizens of a country, especially American citizens, who even know that Andrew Jackson's wife smoked a corn cob pipe and was accused of adultery, or that Lincoln never went to school or Kennedy wore a back brace or Truman played the piano.
We are Americans! We are known for our humanitarian interests and caring for our 'fellow man.' We care, but none of us know one single humanizing fact about the history of our own president. Honestly, and this is a personal thing...but it's niggled at me for ages that no one who ever dated him ever showed up. The simple fact of his charisma, which caused the women to be drawn to him so obviously during his campaign, looks like some lady would not have missed the opportunity....
We all know about JFK's magnetism, McCain was no monk, Palin's courtship and even her athletic prowess were probed. Biden's aneurisms are no secret. Look at Cheney and Clinton--we all know about their heart problems. How could I have left out Wild Bill before or during the White House?
Nope... not one lady has stepped up and said, "He was soooo shy," or "What a great dancer!" Now look at the rest of this.... no classmates, not even the recorder for the Columbia class notes ever heard of him I just don't know about this fellow. Who was the best man at his wedding? Start there. Then check groomsmen.
Then get the footage of the graduation ceremony. Has anyone talked to the professors? It is odd that no one is bragging that they knew him or taught him or lived with him. When did he meet Michele and how? Are there photos? Every president gives to the public all their photos, etc. for their library. What has he released?
And who voted for him to be the most popular man in 2010????? How did he receive a Nobel Peace Prize in his first year in office? Does this make you wonder?
Ever wonder why no one ever came forward from Obama's past, saying they knew him, attended school with him, was his friend, etc. ? Not one person has ever come forward from his past. VERY, VERY STRANGE… This should really be a cause for great concern. To those who voted for him, you may have elected an unqualified, inexperienced shadow man.
Did you see a picture called The Manchurian Candidate?
Let's face it. As insignificant as we all are... someone whom we went to school with remembers our name or face ... someone remembers we were the clown or the dork or the brain or the quiet one or the bully or something about us.
George Stephanopoulos of ABC News said the same thing during the 2008 campaign. He questions why no one has acknowledged the president was in
their classroom or ate in the same cafeteria or made impromptu speeches on campus. Stephanopoulos also was a classmate of Obama at Columbia --the class of 1984. He says he never had a single class with him.
While he is such a great orator, why doesn't anyone in Obama's college class remember him? And, why won't he allow Columbia to release his records?
NOBODY REMEMBERS OBAMA AT COLUMBIA
Looking for evidence of Obama's past, Fox News contacted 400 Columbia University students from the period when Obama claims to have been there, but none remembered him. For example, Wayne Allyn Root was, like Obama, a political science major at Columbia , who also graduated in 1983. In 2008, Root says of Obama, "I don't know a single person at Columbia that knew him, and they all know me. I don't have a classmate who ever knew Barack Obama at Columbia ... EVER!
Nobody recalls him. Root adds that he was also, like Obama, "Class of '83 political science, pre-law" and says, "You don't get more exact or closer than that. Never met him in my life, don't know anyone who ever met him."
At the class reunion, our 20th reunion five years ago, who was asked to be the speaker of the class? Me. No one ever heard of Barack! And five years ago, nobody even knew who he was. The guy who writes the class notes, who's kind of the, as we say in New York, 'the macha' who knows everybody, has yet to find a person, a human who ever met him."
Obama's photograph does not appear in the school's yearbook, and Obama consistently declines requests to talk about his years at Columbia, provide school records, or provide the name of any former classmates or friends while at Columbia ...
NOTE: Root graduated as valedictorian from his high school, Thornton-Donovan School, then graduated from Columbia University in 1983 as a political science major in the same class in which Barack Hussein Obama states he was.
Some other interesting questions…
Why was Obama's law license inactivated in 2002?
Why was Michelle's law license inactivated by court order?
It is circulating that according to the U.S. Census, there is only one Barack Obama but 27 Social Security numbers and over 80 aliases!!! WHAT!? The Social Security number he uses now originated in Connecticut where he is never reported to have lived.
No wonder all his records are sealed!
Somewhere, someone had to know him in school...before he "reorganized" Chicago and burst upon the scene at the 2004 Democratic Convention and made us swoon with his charm, poise, and speaking pizzazz.
Knowing answers to these humanizing questions would sure help to lift the veil and let us have some insight of who he actually is, but all we have is what HE PUT in HIS books that have now been proven to have a number of inaccuracies in them as well as questions about accuracy about his mother's life and last days. He claims her insurance wouldn't pay her hospital bills, but apparently they paid all of them without question, BUT the disability insurance she applied for was disallowed as she had a clearly excluded prior condition, uterine cancer, that prevented her from getting the insurance and that is the only insurance that did not pay when she was sick and died. A fair number of inaccuracies have been unearthed and he just says he was speaking in generalities and the principle was true. I wonder if we would be considered honest if we made this kind of inaccurate statements in what was suppose to be our background or if it would be considered a cover-up of unknown magnitude.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
CONGRESS KNEW OBAMA WAS INELIGIBLE…SIX YEARS BEFORE HE WAS ELECTED!by Penbrook One
Congressional records reveal a viral premeditation within the liberal ranks of our government to alter fundamental Constitutional eligibility protections in order to covertly assist an ineligible Obama candidacy and his usurpation of America’s executive power.
by Penbrook Johannson
Editor of The Daily Pen
Some diseases are so viral, so invasive, so insidious, so contagious…that they eventually infect what most would believe is the most sanitary part of any body. Even the once honored sovereignty of America’s highest legislative body is now coming under the attack of the disease of multi-culturalism and liberal extremism.
Congressional records show that on eight separate occasions over six years, between 2003 and 2008, legislators attempted to eliminate or change the definition of the “Natural Born” eligibility clause of Article 2 of the Constitution in order to remove restrictions and, thereby, create legal justifications supporting Obama’s unlawful candidacy for President.
We now know what members of congress knew about Obama’s ineligibility, and when they knew it.
In a recently produced documentary, Carl Gallups, a senior pastor at Hickory Hammock Baptist Church for more than two decades with a ten year professional background in law enforcement, presents documented evidence showing that members of congress submitted repetitive, coordinated proposals to alter the 'natural-born' eligibility clause.
Gallups also serves on the board of regents at the University of Mobile and hosts several weekly radio programs in the northwest Florida region.
Gallups’ documentary shows that between June 11, 2003 until Feb. 28, 2008, there were eight attempts to circumvent the Natural-born eligibility clause of the U.S. Constitution.
1. On June 11, 2003, Rep. Vic Snyder, D-Arkansas, introduced House Joint Resolution 59 (HJR 59) which attempted to Constitutionally change the understood historical definition of a ‘natural-born’ eligibility for the U.S. Presidency in order to "permit persons who are not natural born citizens of the United States, but who have been citizens of the United States for at least 35 years, to be eligible to hold the offices of president and vice president.” The resolution did not make it to a senate vote at that time.
2. Then, on Sept. 3, 2003, Rep. John Conyers, D-Michigan, introduced HJR67, which would have defined presidential eligibility the same as Snyder's proposal, only the requirement to be a citizen in Conyers’ bill was actually lowered to 20 years, not the more stringent 35 years. Conyers’ bill was also rebuffed prior to an official vote. However, the introduction of two such proposals within a mere four month period reveals that Congressional leadership was conscious of the issue of Presidential eligibility prior to Obama’s candidacy. Whether these acts were put into motion at this time specifically for the benefit of Obama, exclusively, is unclear, but highly suspicious.
3. Then, in an attempt to contend with the obvious attack against the natural born citizenship clause, on Feb. 25, 2004, Sen. Don Nickles, R-Oklahoma, introduced Senate Bill 2128 which also failed to hit the eligibility requirement target. It defined a ‘natural-born citizen’ as someone who was born in and is subject to the United States.” This was not the understanding of the framers of the Constitution. Exhibiting the same ignorance as other legislators, Nickles failed to acknowledge that the intended purpose of the natural-born eligibility clause was to ensure that the sovereignty, identity and loyalty of a presidential candidate was measured by not only a geographic birth under the protection of the U.S. Constitution but also the possession of natural natal biology afforded by birth to TWO parents who are U.S. citizens at the time of conception AND the preservation of the continuity of that citizenship status until election.
Five months later, on July 27, 2004, Barack Obama delivered his keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention which essentially and suddenly made America aware of him at a national level.
4. Then, just two months later, on Sept. 15, 2004, House Representative Dana Rohrabacher, R-California, submitted HJR 104, which audaciously attempted "to make eligible for the office of president a person who is not a natural born citizen of the United States but has been a United States citizen for at least 20 years." Rohrabacher’s fallow resolution attempted to completely ignore the Constitution’s requirement that a president had to be a natural born citizen. The resolution was rejected on its face.
5. Four months later, on Jan. 4, 2005, Conyers pushed yet another unwanted attempt to change the definition of ‘natural born citizen’ in HJR 02, which was the exact same as Rohrabacher's.
6. Just one month later, on Feb. 1, 2005, Rohrabacher submitted a revised version of her previous resolution in HJR 15 which would require only 20 years of citizenship to be eligible for the office of president.
7. Two months later, on April 14, 2005, Snyder resubmitted his bill under another proposal, HJR42, requiring 35 years of U.S. citizenship to be eligible. Interestingly, it has long since been established that Barack Obama’s return to the U.S. from Indonesia took place in approximately 1970-1971. At that time, if Obama had re-naturalized as a U.S. Citizen, this resolution would have made him just eligible in 2005.
Barack Obama announced his candidacy for the U.S. presidency on February 10, 2007.
The Iowa Caucus is held on January 3, 2008.
8. Finally, in Feb. 28, 2008, after seven failures to change the natural-born eligibility requirement, Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., attempted to parasite SB 2678 with the Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act, an amendment clarifying what "natural-born citizen" includes. Obama and Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., were sponsors of this bill.
Liberal democrats in Congress were in an obvious array to push against this long-standing Constitutional mandate at the time, coincidentally, when the first unnatural born presidential candidate, Barack Obama, began his political career at the national level. Why? Who or what was pulling their strings?
As reported by Bob Unruh of World Net Daily, Gallups’ documentary then demonstrates that “..on April 10, 2008, being "unable to alter or remove" the natural-born eligibility requirement for Barack Obama..", the Senate engaged an active deception by distracting the growing consciousness of Obama’s ineligibility by introducing Senate Resolution 511, which addressed Sen. John McCain's qualifications as a ‘natural-born citizen.’
Overcompensating for their failure to validate Obama, the Senate feigned generosity for McCain in hopes of making his eligibility the target of attention, but not criticism, by declaring him eligible as a “natural born citizen”. Senate leadership desired to avoid making McCain's eligibility the subject of criticism because they knew that if McCain was not eligible, Barack Obama was certainly not eligible. The weight of scrutiny against a worthier McCain would have caused Obama's campaign to fail, politically, if not legally.
However, in what can only be described as complete legislative incompetence, SR511 writers and sponsors specifically stated McCain was eligible because he was "...born in a territory under treaty with the U.S." and, therefore, under the protection of the U.S. Constitution and, most importantly, "because he was the son of TWO U.S. citizen parents." The language of Resolution 511 actually and explicitly commits McCain to presidential eligibility because of the citizenship of his parentage. Both of McCain's parents were U.S. citizens. This is a qualification which Barack Obama does not possess.
Shockingly, Obama voted in favor of Resolution 511 knowing he, himself, was not eligible under these same metrics. Barack Obama voted in favor of a formal resolution stating that a presidential candidate was Constitutionally eligible because the candidate was defined as being ‘natural born’ by the fact that the candidate’s birth was, in fact, to TWO U.S. citizen parent. Obama’s father was never a U.S. citizen and his mother was only 18 at the time of his birth which disqualified transfer of citizenship if the birth occurred outside the U.S
Obama's qualifications were never reviewed or conferred upon under any similar resolution, nor were his qualifications to be president ever vetted by any federal authority, legislative body or formal inquiry, as were John McCain’s. Not ever.
Unruh continues: “After his election, Gallups points out, Obama held a secret meeting with eight of the nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court – from which no public information was released. The meeting was held even though there were legal challenges in which Obama was a defendant pending before the Supreme Court at the time. The attorneys for the plaintiffs never were told of the meeting or invited to participate in what critics have described as extrajudicial contact between the court and a defendant.”
Consider this very carefully, sons and daughters of vintage America. Barack Obama, an illegally appointed president under suspicion of violating the U.S. Constitution, actually engaged personal contact with eight sitting supreme court judges who were actively considering pending cases regarding his ineligibility as president, in covert meetings, without the presence of any opposing legal representation. The suspect was allowed to meet alone with very authorities who were presiding in law suits against him, who have the supreme legal power to dismiss, overrule or uphold these lawsuits with binding jurisdictions, without any record of the content or accounting of attendance of those meetings, and without any representation of those filing complaints against him.
This level of corruption and judicial tampering is unprecedented in American history.
Ironically, only Justice Scalia, the longest serving conservatively oriented judge, appointed by Republican President, Ronald Reagan, in 1986, was absent from this secret meeting. Scalia has often been hailed as the "conservative intellectual anchor" of the supreme court. If any one of the nine supreme court justices would have held opposition to Obama's illegal presidency, Scalia would be the first. He was either not allowed in the meeting, or recused himself for reasons of deniability about the subject.
Unruh continues, “WND previously reported on another link between Obama and a campaign to change the constitutional provision. It came from an associate lawyer in a Chicago-based firm whose partner served on a finance committee for then-Sen. Barack Obama. She advocated for the elimination of the U.S. Constitution's requirement that a president be a "natural-born" citizen, calling the requirement "stupid" and asserting it discriminates, is outdated and undemocratic."
The paper was written in 2006 by Sarah Herlihy, just two years after Obama had won a landslide election in Illinois to the U.S. Senate. Herlihy was listed as an associate at the Chicago firm of Kirkland & Ellis. A partner in the same firm, Bruce I. Ettelson, cited his membership on the finance committees for both Obama and Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., on the corporate website.
The article by Herlihy was available online under law review articles from Kent University when it originally was the subject of reports but later was removed.
Herlihy's published paper reveals that the requirement likely was considered in a negative light by organizations linked to Obama in the months before he announced in 2007 his candidacy for the presidency.
The natural born citizen requirement in Article II of the United States Constitution has been called the "stupidest provision" in the Constitution, "undecidedly un-American," "blatantly discriminatory" and the "Constitution's worst provision," Herlihy begins in her introduction to the paper titled "Amending the Natural Born Citizen Requirement: Globalization as the Impetus and the Obstacle."
She concludes that the "emotional" reasons to oppose changing the Constitution will prevail over the "rational" reasons demanding a change.
The current American perceptions about the effects of globalization and the misunderstanding about what globalization actually is will result in Americans deciding that naturalized citizens should not be president because this would, in effect, be promoting globalization, Herlihy wrote.
"Although this argument is admittedly circular, because globalization is the thing that makes the need to abolish the requirement more and more persuasive, Americans' subsequent perceptions about globalization are the very things that will prevent Americans from embracing the idea of eliminating the natural born requirement.
"Logical Americans are looking for a reason to ignore the rational reasons promoted by globalization so that they may vote based on their own emotions and instincts," she wrote.
In the body of her argument, Herlihy said the constitutional provision simply is outdated.
"Considering that the Founding Fathers presumably included the natural born citizen clause in the Constitution partly out of fear of foreign subversion, the current stability of the American government and the intense media scrutiny of presidential candidates virtually eliminates the possibility of a 'foreigner' coming to America, becoming a naturalized citizen, generating enough public support to become president, and somehow using the presidency to directly benefit his homeland," she wrote.
"The natural born citizen clause of the United States Constitution should be repealed for numerous reasons. Limiting presidential eligibility to natural born citizens discriminates against naturalized citizens, is outdated and undemocratic, and incorrectly assumes that birthplace is a proxy for loyalty," she wrote.
Many of the reasons for keeping the limit, she wrote, "are based primarily on emotion."
Or, Ms. Herlihy, perhaps you must be forced to accept that it was simply a wise measure correctly foreseen as necessary to prevent a lying, criminal usurper, perhaps like Barack Obama, from assuming power over the value, work and lives of the greatest people in world history. There is nothing outdated in any doctrine devised to preserve that.
Is there no limit to the degeneracy of this current political roster into which they will descend in order to acheive their psychotic agenda and control over the blood-ransomed freedom, value and power of the only true decent and prosperous people of humanity?
Wake up, vintage America. Your nation is under attack from within. Liars and deceivers are stealing your daily lives, creeping closer into your personal boundaries and mocking the screaming blood of your pristine warriors.
It is time all who consider themselves decent and sovereign to reject Barack Obama as the criminal usurper that he is.
Congressional records reveal a viral premeditation within the liberal ranks of our government to alter fundamental Constitutional eligibility protections in order to covertly assist an ineligible Obama candidacy and his usurpation of America’s executive power.
by Penbrook Johannson
Editor of The Daily Pen
Some diseases are so viral, so invasive, so insidious, so contagious…that they eventually infect what most would believe is the most sanitary part of any body. Even the once honored sovereignty of America’s highest legislative body is now coming under the attack of the disease of multi-culturalism and liberal extremism.
Congressional records show that on eight separate occasions over six years, between 2003 and 2008, legislators attempted to eliminate or change the definition of the “Natural Born” eligibility clause of Article 2 of the Constitution in order to remove restrictions and, thereby, create legal justifications supporting Obama’s unlawful candidacy for President.
We now know what members of congress knew about Obama’s ineligibility, and when they knew it.
In a recently produced documentary, Carl Gallups, a senior pastor at Hickory Hammock Baptist Church for more than two decades with a ten year professional background in law enforcement, presents documented evidence showing that members of congress submitted repetitive, coordinated proposals to alter the 'natural-born' eligibility clause.
Gallups also serves on the board of regents at the University of Mobile and hosts several weekly radio programs in the northwest Florida region.
Gallups’ documentary shows that between June 11, 2003 until Feb. 28, 2008, there were eight attempts to circumvent the Natural-born eligibility clause of the U.S. Constitution.
1. On June 11, 2003, Rep. Vic Snyder, D-Arkansas, introduced House Joint Resolution 59 (HJR 59) which attempted to Constitutionally change the understood historical definition of a ‘natural-born’ eligibility for the U.S. Presidency in order to "permit persons who are not natural born citizens of the United States, but who have been citizens of the United States for at least 35 years, to be eligible to hold the offices of president and vice president.” The resolution did not make it to a senate vote at that time.
2. Then, on Sept. 3, 2003, Rep. John Conyers, D-Michigan, introduced HJR67, which would have defined presidential eligibility the same as Snyder's proposal, only the requirement to be a citizen in Conyers’ bill was actually lowered to 20 years, not the more stringent 35 years. Conyers’ bill was also rebuffed prior to an official vote. However, the introduction of two such proposals within a mere four month period reveals that Congressional leadership was conscious of the issue of Presidential eligibility prior to Obama’s candidacy. Whether these acts were put into motion at this time specifically for the benefit of Obama, exclusively, is unclear, but highly suspicious.
3. Then, in an attempt to contend with the obvious attack against the natural born citizenship clause, on Feb. 25, 2004, Sen. Don Nickles, R-Oklahoma, introduced Senate Bill 2128 which also failed to hit the eligibility requirement target. It defined a ‘natural-born citizen’ as someone who was born in and is subject to the United States.” This was not the understanding of the framers of the Constitution. Exhibiting the same ignorance as other legislators, Nickles failed to acknowledge that the intended purpose of the natural-born eligibility clause was to ensure that the sovereignty, identity and loyalty of a presidential candidate was measured by not only a geographic birth under the protection of the U.S. Constitution but also the possession of natural natal biology afforded by birth to TWO parents who are U.S. citizens at the time of conception AND the preservation of the continuity of that citizenship status until election.
Five months later, on July 27, 2004, Barack Obama delivered his keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention which essentially and suddenly made America aware of him at a national level.
4. Then, just two months later, on Sept. 15, 2004, House Representative Dana Rohrabacher, R-California, submitted HJR 104, which audaciously attempted "to make eligible for the office of president a person who is not a natural born citizen of the United States but has been a United States citizen for at least 20 years." Rohrabacher’s fallow resolution attempted to completely ignore the Constitution’s requirement that a president had to be a natural born citizen. The resolution was rejected on its face.
5. Four months later, on Jan. 4, 2005, Conyers pushed yet another unwanted attempt to change the definition of ‘natural born citizen’ in HJR 02, which was the exact same as Rohrabacher's.
6. Just one month later, on Feb. 1, 2005, Rohrabacher submitted a revised version of her previous resolution in HJR 15 which would require only 20 years of citizenship to be eligible for the office of president.
7. Two months later, on April 14, 2005, Snyder resubmitted his bill under another proposal, HJR42, requiring 35 years of U.S. citizenship to be eligible. Interestingly, it has long since been established that Barack Obama’s return to the U.S. from Indonesia took place in approximately 1970-1971. At that time, if Obama had re-naturalized as a U.S. Citizen, this resolution would have made him just eligible in 2005.
Barack Obama announced his candidacy for the U.S. presidency on February 10, 2007.
The Iowa Caucus is held on January 3, 2008.
8. Finally, in Feb. 28, 2008, after seven failures to change the natural-born eligibility requirement, Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., attempted to parasite SB 2678 with the Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act, an amendment clarifying what "natural-born citizen" includes. Obama and Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., were sponsors of this bill.
Liberal democrats in Congress were in an obvious array to push against this long-standing Constitutional mandate at the time, coincidentally, when the first unnatural born presidential candidate, Barack Obama, began his political career at the national level. Why? Who or what was pulling their strings?
As reported by Bob Unruh of World Net Daily, Gallups’ documentary then demonstrates that “..on April 10, 2008, being "unable to alter or remove" the natural-born eligibility requirement for Barack Obama..", the Senate engaged an active deception by distracting the growing consciousness of Obama’s ineligibility by introducing Senate Resolution 511, which addressed Sen. John McCain's qualifications as a ‘natural-born citizen.’
Overcompensating for their failure to validate Obama, the Senate feigned generosity for McCain in hopes of making his eligibility the target of attention, but not criticism, by declaring him eligible as a “natural born citizen”. Senate leadership desired to avoid making McCain's eligibility the subject of criticism because they knew that if McCain was not eligible, Barack Obama was certainly not eligible. The weight of scrutiny against a worthier McCain would have caused Obama's campaign to fail, politically, if not legally.
However, in what can only be described as complete legislative incompetence, SR511 writers and sponsors specifically stated McCain was eligible because he was "...born in a territory under treaty with the U.S." and, therefore, under the protection of the U.S. Constitution and, most importantly, "because he was the son of TWO U.S. citizen parents." The language of Resolution 511 actually and explicitly commits McCain to presidential eligibility because of the citizenship of his parentage. Both of McCain's parents were U.S. citizens. This is a qualification which Barack Obama does not possess.
Shockingly, Obama voted in favor of Resolution 511 knowing he, himself, was not eligible under these same metrics. Barack Obama voted in favor of a formal resolution stating that a presidential candidate was Constitutionally eligible because the candidate was defined as being ‘natural born’ by the fact that the candidate’s birth was, in fact, to TWO U.S. citizen parent. Obama’s father was never a U.S. citizen and his mother was only 18 at the time of his birth which disqualified transfer of citizenship if the birth occurred outside the U.S
Obama's qualifications were never reviewed or conferred upon under any similar resolution, nor were his qualifications to be president ever vetted by any federal authority, legislative body or formal inquiry, as were John McCain’s. Not ever.
Unruh continues: “After his election, Gallups points out, Obama held a secret meeting with eight of the nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court – from which no public information was released. The meeting was held even though there were legal challenges in which Obama was a defendant pending before the Supreme Court at the time. The attorneys for the plaintiffs never were told of the meeting or invited to participate in what critics have described as extrajudicial contact between the court and a defendant.”
Consider this very carefully, sons and daughters of vintage America. Barack Obama, an illegally appointed president under suspicion of violating the U.S. Constitution, actually engaged personal contact with eight sitting supreme court judges who were actively considering pending cases regarding his ineligibility as president, in covert meetings, without the presence of any opposing legal representation. The suspect was allowed to meet alone with very authorities who were presiding in law suits against him, who have the supreme legal power to dismiss, overrule or uphold these lawsuits with binding jurisdictions, without any record of the content or accounting of attendance of those meetings, and without any representation of those filing complaints against him.
This level of corruption and judicial tampering is unprecedented in American history.
Ironically, only Justice Scalia, the longest serving conservatively oriented judge, appointed by Republican President, Ronald Reagan, in 1986, was absent from this secret meeting. Scalia has often been hailed as the "conservative intellectual anchor" of the supreme court. If any one of the nine supreme court justices would have held opposition to Obama's illegal presidency, Scalia would be the first. He was either not allowed in the meeting, or recused himself for reasons of deniability about the subject.
Unruh continues, “WND previously reported on another link between Obama and a campaign to change the constitutional provision. It came from an associate lawyer in a Chicago-based firm whose partner served on a finance committee for then-Sen. Barack Obama. She advocated for the elimination of the U.S. Constitution's requirement that a president be a "natural-born" citizen, calling the requirement "stupid" and asserting it discriminates, is outdated and undemocratic."
The paper was written in 2006 by Sarah Herlihy, just two years after Obama had won a landslide election in Illinois to the U.S. Senate. Herlihy was listed as an associate at the Chicago firm of Kirkland & Ellis. A partner in the same firm, Bruce I. Ettelson, cited his membership on the finance committees for both Obama and Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., on the corporate website.
The article by Herlihy was available online under law review articles from Kent University when it originally was the subject of reports but later was removed.
Herlihy's published paper reveals that the requirement likely was considered in a negative light by organizations linked to Obama in the months before he announced in 2007 his candidacy for the presidency.
The natural born citizen requirement in Article II of the United States Constitution has been called the "stupidest provision" in the Constitution, "undecidedly un-American," "blatantly discriminatory" and the "Constitution's worst provision," Herlihy begins in her introduction to the paper titled "Amending the Natural Born Citizen Requirement: Globalization as the Impetus and the Obstacle."
She concludes that the "emotional" reasons to oppose changing the Constitution will prevail over the "rational" reasons demanding a change.
The current American perceptions about the effects of globalization and the misunderstanding about what globalization actually is will result in Americans deciding that naturalized citizens should not be president because this would, in effect, be promoting globalization, Herlihy wrote.
"Although this argument is admittedly circular, because globalization is the thing that makes the need to abolish the requirement more and more persuasive, Americans' subsequent perceptions about globalization are the very things that will prevent Americans from embracing the idea of eliminating the natural born requirement.
"Logical Americans are looking for a reason to ignore the rational reasons promoted by globalization so that they may vote based on their own emotions and instincts," she wrote.
In the body of her argument, Herlihy said the constitutional provision simply is outdated.
"Considering that the Founding Fathers presumably included the natural born citizen clause in the Constitution partly out of fear of foreign subversion, the current stability of the American government and the intense media scrutiny of presidential candidates virtually eliminates the possibility of a 'foreigner' coming to America, becoming a naturalized citizen, generating enough public support to become president, and somehow using the presidency to directly benefit his homeland," she wrote.
"The natural born citizen clause of the United States Constitution should be repealed for numerous reasons. Limiting presidential eligibility to natural born citizens discriminates against naturalized citizens, is outdated and undemocratic, and incorrectly assumes that birthplace is a proxy for loyalty," she wrote.
Many of the reasons for keeping the limit, she wrote, "are based primarily on emotion."
Or, Ms. Herlihy, perhaps you must be forced to accept that it was simply a wise measure correctly foreseen as necessary to prevent a lying, criminal usurper, perhaps like Barack Obama, from assuming power over the value, work and lives of the greatest people in world history. There is nothing outdated in any doctrine devised to preserve that.
Is there no limit to the degeneracy of this current political roster into which they will descend in order to acheive their psychotic agenda and control over the blood-ransomed freedom, value and power of the only true decent and prosperous people of humanity?
Wake up, vintage America. Your nation is under attack from within. Liars and deceivers are stealing your daily lives, creeping closer into your personal boundaries and mocking the screaming blood of your pristine warriors.
It is time all who consider themselves decent and sovereign to reject Barack Obama as the criminal usurper that he is.
Why Calls for Impeachment Process Are Still on the Table
BUT HOW DO WE CONVINCE A PROPAGANDIZED POPULACE?
by Neil Turner
Editor's Note: Reprinted with permission of The Post & Email.
How many people are involved in the treason of installing and maintaining Obama in the office of president when he is ineligible?
(Jul. 19, 2011) — While it is correct that proper and lawful charges of Treason against Mr. Obama (et al) have been in place for over 2 years now, with absolutely no indication that any action by those responsible to do so is about to take place, it does not appear that the Constitution mentions anything about the legitimacy of the person holding the high Office of President (the ‘candidate’ may have been ineligible and therefore illegitimate, but the fact remains that that illegitimate candidate is now ‘sitting’ in the Office, albeit unlawfully);
And while it is correct that the proper venue for prosecution of the crimes of Treason performed by Mr. Obama (et al) is in Federal Court before a JURY of his peers, it does not appear that we have any chance of getting these charges into Federal Court before a JURY of his peers, even with a massive nation-wide effort of bringing these charges of Treason before currently sitting Grand Juries, at least before the 2012 elections – by which time it will be too late. Any elections under this treasonous regime and treasonous 112th Congress will be a fraud and a sham, and the outcome will be pre-ordained.
And while it is correct that the Constitution does state that the person in the Office of President (as well as anyone elected or appointed to Federal Office – including Congress-members and Judges and SCOTUS, NOT on ‘good behaviour’ “shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors“, it does not appear that their Oath of Office expires once they are in that Office (whether lawfully or not), and that any and all failures to uphold that Oath, whether by utterances or deeds or failure to perform as sworn, can now be considered ‘high Crimes’, committed while in ‘high Office’.
The Crime of actually installing the usurper in the Office of President was committed by:
Nancy Pelosi, the DNC, and the Hawaii DNC;
The 111th Congress when they accepted the unconstitutional electoral votes on Jan 8, 2009;
Dick Cheney when he tallied the unconstitutional electoral votes on Jan 8, 2009;
SCOTUS when they met privately with the accused (there was a case pending concerning Obama in their Court) just prior to the ‘inauguration’ on Jan 20, 2009;
Chief Justice John Roberts when he administered the perjured oath to the usurper on Jan 20, 2009;
G.W. Bush who, without saying a word or firing a shot, silently turned over the reins of our Constitutional Government to a known usurper;
They are the ones who should now be impeached/removed from their ‘Offices’, or, if already out of Office – tried for their heinous crimes of Treason.
And since those who would or could properly remove Mr. Obama physically from our White House and incarcerate him until his case could properly be heard before a Jury of his peers seem to have been completely intimidated into not complying with their oaths;
And since those who would or could properly initiate the Impeachment process are by now all complicit themselves (some new members of the 112th Congress may yet be salvageable and have plausible deniability – if they step forward before it is too late);
The question then is, is there anything we can do short of force to save our Constitutional Republic from certain ruin?
The only two peaceful courses of action left for us appear to be:
The IMPEACHMENT Process (initiated and performed by Congress – leading to DISCOVERY, and the public exposure of the treason), or
His physical arrest and removal by someone or some entity in authority (this seems more like voodoo – conjuring up a vision and demanding with all our hearts and minds that they show us by what authority [Quo Warranto] they installed him there).
Someone recently postulated the question: ‘But how do we convince a propagandized populace, so that they will properly intimidate their representatives to do this essential act of survival?
Some suggestions, if I may:
Since their representatives do not fear Impeachment (only they can actually impeach themselves), and they do not fear the shouts and cries of their constituents, and they do not fear Recall, I contend that they only fear losing their job at the next election!
Therefore, I believe that the fastest and most effective way for the constituents to intimidate their representatives to do this essential act of survival is to threaten them with being REPLACED from their ‘high Office’ at the next election. That would be about 468 of them in the upcoming elections.
In a recent moving article by Jim ‘The SEAL’ O’Neill, Time to Reboot America, he admonishes us to start a plethora of causes, groups, and agendas to topple the Obama regime. Everything is ‘on the table’, so to speak.
Therefore, for those who are of a mind that Impeachment is not on their agenda, I will still support and pursue their approach, whatever that may be. And for those who want to help intimidate their representatives to do the right thing and uphold their Oaths, I will support and pursue that approach, whatever it is. All we need is the right amount of ‘straws’ to break the back of this treasonous cabal. I care not a whit which one will do it.
BUT HOW DO WE CONVINCE A PROPAGANDIZED POPULACE?
by Neil Turner
Editor's Note: Reprinted with permission of The Post & Email.
How many people are involved in the treason of installing and maintaining Obama in the office of president when he is ineligible?
(Jul. 19, 2011) — While it is correct that proper and lawful charges of Treason against Mr. Obama (et al) have been in place for over 2 years now, with absolutely no indication that any action by those responsible to do so is about to take place, it does not appear that the Constitution mentions anything about the legitimacy of the person holding the high Office of President (the ‘candidate’ may have been ineligible and therefore illegitimate, but the fact remains that that illegitimate candidate is now ‘sitting’ in the Office, albeit unlawfully);
And while it is correct that the proper venue for prosecution of the crimes of Treason performed by Mr. Obama (et al) is in Federal Court before a JURY of his peers, it does not appear that we have any chance of getting these charges into Federal Court before a JURY of his peers, even with a massive nation-wide effort of bringing these charges of Treason before currently sitting Grand Juries, at least before the 2012 elections – by which time it will be too late. Any elections under this treasonous regime and treasonous 112th Congress will be a fraud and a sham, and the outcome will be pre-ordained.
And while it is correct that the Constitution does state that the person in the Office of President (as well as anyone elected or appointed to Federal Office – including Congress-members and Judges and SCOTUS, NOT on ‘good behaviour’ “shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors“, it does not appear that their Oath of Office expires once they are in that Office (whether lawfully or not), and that any and all failures to uphold that Oath, whether by utterances or deeds or failure to perform as sworn, can now be considered ‘high Crimes’, committed while in ‘high Office’.
The Crime of actually installing the usurper in the Office of President was committed by:
Nancy Pelosi, the DNC, and the Hawaii DNC;
The 111th Congress when they accepted the unconstitutional electoral votes on Jan 8, 2009;
Dick Cheney when he tallied the unconstitutional electoral votes on Jan 8, 2009;
SCOTUS when they met privately with the accused (there was a case pending concerning Obama in their Court) just prior to the ‘inauguration’ on Jan 20, 2009;
Chief Justice John Roberts when he administered the perjured oath to the usurper on Jan 20, 2009;
G.W. Bush who, without saying a word or firing a shot, silently turned over the reins of our Constitutional Government to a known usurper;
They are the ones who should now be impeached/removed from their ‘Offices’, or, if already out of Office – tried for their heinous crimes of Treason.
And since those who would or could properly remove Mr. Obama physically from our White House and incarcerate him until his case could properly be heard before a Jury of his peers seem to have been completely intimidated into not complying with their oaths;
And since those who would or could properly initiate the Impeachment process are by now all complicit themselves (some new members of the 112th Congress may yet be salvageable and have plausible deniability – if they step forward before it is too late);
The question then is, is there anything we can do short of force to save our Constitutional Republic from certain ruin?
The only two peaceful courses of action left for us appear to be:
The IMPEACHMENT Process (initiated and performed by Congress – leading to DISCOVERY, and the public exposure of the treason), or
His physical arrest and removal by someone or some entity in authority (this seems more like voodoo – conjuring up a vision and demanding with all our hearts and minds that they show us by what authority [Quo Warranto] they installed him there).
Someone recently postulated the question: ‘But how do we convince a propagandized populace, so that they will properly intimidate their representatives to do this essential act of survival?
Some suggestions, if I may:
Since their representatives do not fear Impeachment (only they can actually impeach themselves), and they do not fear the shouts and cries of their constituents, and they do not fear Recall, I contend that they only fear losing their job at the next election!
Therefore, I believe that the fastest and most effective way for the constituents to intimidate their representatives to do this essential act of survival is to threaten them with being REPLACED from their ‘high Office’ at the next election. That would be about 468 of them in the upcoming elections.
In a recent moving article by Jim ‘The SEAL’ O’Neill, Time to Reboot America, he admonishes us to start a plethora of causes, groups, and agendas to topple the Obama regime. Everything is ‘on the table’, so to speak.
Therefore, for those who are of a mind that Impeachment is not on their agenda, I will still support and pursue their approach, whatever that may be. And for those who want to help intimidate their representatives to do the right thing and uphold their Oaths, I will support and pursue that approach, whatever it is. All we need is the right amount of ‘straws’ to break the back of this treasonous cabal. I care not a whit which one will do it.
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Why Obama Must Be Criminally Prosecuted, Not Impeached
OBAMA’S INELIGIBILITY RENDERS HIS OATH OF OFFICE A CRIMINAL ACT
by Walter Francis Fitzpatrick, III
Editor's Note: Reprinted with permission of The Post & Email.
Why has Obama not addressed the multiple charges of treason which have been brought against him? Why won't the U.S. attorneys?
(Jul. 17, 2011) — A perjured oath is no oath at all.
Persons not eligible to take an oath of office, knowing they are disqualified from legally holding that office, are called infiltrators, or traitors.
Persons who knowingly take an oath, when at the time swearing that oath knowing they never intend to obey their oath, find no comfort or protection from the oath once discovered as infiltrators, or traitors.
Even those who lawfully and in good faith take an oath, who later turn against that oath, then forfeit any protections they may have otherwise enjoyed under their oath.
No one–I SAY AGAIN, NO ONE–is immunized from being held to a criminal consequence having been found guilty in TREASON against the United States of America.
Barring Mr. OBAMA from enjoying the protection our Constitution offers regarding IMPEACHMENT does not vacate or weaken the process of IMPEACHMENT, but rather confers upon the process of IMPEACHMENT the proper legitimacy, sanctity and integrity the process of IMPEACHMENT must otherwise command.
Mr. OBAMA is charged with the crime of TREASON for over two years now. Mr. OBAMA accepts the accusation as correct by way of his silence.
Mr. OBAMA can be “perp-walked” out of the White House with an overcoat covering his handcuffs and walked into a federal courthouse to face a jury of his peers on the change of TREASON, just like any other person owing allegiance to the United States of America.
Mr. OBAMA enjoys no special protection!
To suggest that OBAMA somehow stands outside our fundamental laws is to argue in favor of the disconnection from, and the destruction of, our United States Constitution.
Under the Constitution I pledged my oath to, NO MAN STANDS ABOVE THE LAW!
OBAMA’S INELIGIBILITY RENDERS HIS OATH OF OFFICE A CRIMINAL ACT
by Walter Francis Fitzpatrick, III
Editor's Note: Reprinted with permission of The Post & Email.
Why has Obama not addressed the multiple charges of treason which have been brought against him? Why won't the U.S. attorneys?
(Jul. 17, 2011) — A perjured oath is no oath at all.
Persons not eligible to take an oath of office, knowing they are disqualified from legally holding that office, are called infiltrators, or traitors.
Persons who knowingly take an oath, when at the time swearing that oath knowing they never intend to obey their oath, find no comfort or protection from the oath once discovered as infiltrators, or traitors.
Even those who lawfully and in good faith take an oath, who later turn against that oath, then forfeit any protections they may have otherwise enjoyed under their oath.
No one–I SAY AGAIN, NO ONE–is immunized from being held to a criminal consequence having been found guilty in TREASON against the United States of America.
Barring Mr. OBAMA from enjoying the protection our Constitution offers regarding IMPEACHMENT does not vacate or weaken the process of IMPEACHMENT, but rather confers upon the process of IMPEACHMENT the proper legitimacy, sanctity and integrity the process of IMPEACHMENT must otherwise command.
Mr. OBAMA is charged with the crime of TREASON for over two years now. Mr. OBAMA accepts the accusation as correct by way of his silence.
Mr. OBAMA can be “perp-walked” out of the White House with an overcoat covering his handcuffs and walked into a federal courthouse to face a jury of his peers on the change of TREASON, just like any other person owing allegiance to the United States of America.
Mr. OBAMA enjoys no special protection!
To suggest that OBAMA somehow stands outside our fundamental laws is to argue in favor of the disconnection from, and the destruction of, our United States Constitution.
Under the Constitution I pledged my oath to, NO MAN STANDS ABOVE THE LAW!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)