2 GA Officers Accused of Running Background Checks on Obama
http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-165099.html
Printable View
2 GA Officers Accused of Running Background Checks on Obama
http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-165099.html
Quote:
Why it matters, it is about honesty, fairness and what is right. I was shocked when a guy said to me, "So what does it matter where Obama was born? Who cares?" So I asked him,
"If you were denied a job because the other applicant that was chosen lied on their application and really was not qualified or eligible, how would you feel?" He said he'd be [angry] and see to it the guy was fired. I replied, "Well that's the case about Obama, it is that simple." He then agreed.
www.obamanotqualified.com/
RELATED
Woman sells her TVs to avoid seeing Obama
http://www.alipac.us/ftopicp-931875.html#931875
Does anyone wonder the reason why he is hiding the birth cert is because it might list him as white, or it lists his religion as Muslim, which to the Muslim world would mean he is a traitor since he left the religion for something else, and that penalty is death?
No. The four relevant, and possibly altered, fields on the Certification of Live Birth (the computer-generated abstract) are the city and state of the birth, and the father's name and race.Quote:
Originally Posted by 93camaro
If the occult document in the vault at Vital Records in Honolulu, Hawaii, [were] a State of Hawaii Certificate of Live Birth (indulge me in this supposition for a moment), the corresponding fields [would be]:
6a. Place of Birth: City, Town, or Rural Location
6b. Island
6c. Name of Hospital or Institution (If not in hospital or institution, give street address)
6d. Is Place of Birth Inside City or Town Limits? If no, give judicial district
8. Full Name of Father
9. Race of Father
For the child, the Hawaii Certificate of Live Birth has no fields for race or religion -
only for sex, birth order in case of a multiple birth, date of birth, and time of birth.
_________________________________________
If the occult document is a Republic of Kenya Certificate of Birth, it has no fields for race or religion -
only for place and date of birth, sex, and time of birth.
This is NOT an actual birth certificate for Barack Obama, but the Kenya Colony, U.K., Certificate of Birth form is accurate.
http://img354.imageshack.us/img354/9...ificateofb.jpg
U.S. District Judge David O. Carter heard the opening presentments for Keyes v. Obama on July 13. If the usual 60-day recess for response applies here, the case will resume on or around September 11.
If the Lord wills, America and Lady Liberty will strike a might blow against taqqiya (battle by deception) and Is1amist conquest of "the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave" on September 11. It won't be a day too soon.
Let me know if this is a duplicate.
I think this article states what a lot of people are now wondering -what is the true story of Obama. Fact vs. fiction. What is he really hiding? The birth issue is a catalyst for all of these questions.
Keep this thread going -it is fascinating.
July 30, 2009, 0:00 a.m.
Suborned in the U.S.A.
The birth-certificate controversy is about Obama’s honesty, not where he was born.
By Andrew C. McCarthy
Throughout the 2008 campaign, Barack Hussein Obama claimed it was a “smearâ€
Some legal notions that were floating around a long time ago.
Barry v. Mercein (1847) - before the 14th Amendment
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... &invol=103
The plaintiff in error being of legeance to the crown of England, his child, though born in the United States during his father's temporary residence therein - twenty-two months and twenty days - not withstanding its mother be an American citizen, is not a citizen of the United States. It is incapacitate by its infancy from making any present election, follows the legeance of its father, partus sequitur patrem, and is a British subject. The father being domiciled and resident within the dominions of Her Britannic Majesty, such is also the proper and rightful domicil of his wife and child, and he has a legal right to remove them thither. The child being detained from the father, its natural guardian and protector, without authority of law, and writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum is his appropriate legal remedy for its restoration to him from its present illegal detention and restraint. Constitution United States, art. 3, sec. 2; Judiciary Act, 1789, sec. 11; Inglis v. Trustees Sailor's Snug Harbor, 3 Peters, 99; 7 Anne, cap. 5; 4 Geo. III. cap. 21; Warrender v. Warrender, 2 Clar. & Fin. Ap. Ca. 523; Story's Confl. Laws, 30, 36, 43, 74, 160; Shelford on Marriage, Ferg. Rep. 397, 398.
That Latin phrase with larger text is worth a little Googling. :lol:
From Minor v. Happersett (1874) -- after the 14th Amendment and suggesting it (the Amendment) added nothing to the term-of-art of "natural born citizen" though the defenders of Obama try to conflate native born with natural born at every opportunity:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... &invol=162
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.
Nothing about mere birth on soil conferring the "natural born" variety of citizenship; just mere "citizen" is the status about which that SCOTUS of 1874 expressed doubt.
Another little factoid:
When did the U.S. even "allow" dual citizenship at all?
Most point to it as getting its "start" as judge-made law in the case of AFROYIM v. RUSK, 387 U.S. 253 (1967)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... &invol=253
which overruled a case from a decade earlier, PEREZ v. BROWNELL, 356 U.S. 44 (1958).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... 6&invol=44
Indeed, prior to AFROYIM, and tracing to the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the US ratified a series of citizenship treaties (the "Bancroft treaties", named after American diplomat George Bancroft). The intent of these treaties was to prevent dual citizenship by providing for automatic loss of citizenship by foreigners who obtained US citizenship, or by Americans who obtained foreign citizenship. They were bi-laterally undertaken with a number of (mostly European) nations. Dual citizenship was considered an unnatural condition and a "curse" rather than a blessing. In a similar vein, the laws which required an affirmative "election" of one citizenship or another -- upon reaching age of majority -- by those whose conditions of birth "afflicted" them with dual citizenship.
WOW! FreedomFirst, how did you happen upon these cases?
Minor v. Happersett, sure, but Barry v. Mercein, Afroyim v. Rusk, and Perez v. Brownell? You blew an old, old layer of dust off those records, didn't you?
In the 19th century and for hundreds of years before, a wife's citizenship followed her husband. A mother's citizenship before marriage did not confer upon her child. Only with women's suffrage did this condition change in the United States - and it has not changed in many other countries.Quote:
Originally Posted by U.S. Circuit Judge Betts for the Southern District of New York, in _Barry_v._Mercein_;
I'm constantly amazed at the depth of your research, FreedomFirst. Thank you for forgiving my curt shortness with you and for returning to the discussion. You are one of the best resources we have.
Steele: Obama wasn't vetted because he's black
Posted: May 22nd, 2009 02:16 PM ET
From CNN Political Producer Rebecca Sinderbrand
Michael Steele said Friday that President Obama 'came out of no where.'
(CNN) — Days after announcing an "aggressive new approach" in confronting President Obama, Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele said Friday that the president hadn't been properly vetted because he is black.
"The problem that we have with this president is we don't know him. He was not vetted, folks. He came out of nowhere," Steele told listeners to Bill Bennett's radio show Friday morning. "….We don't know his political background, we don't know his political philosophy, the ideology that shapes his thinking on policy.
"He was not vetted, because the press fell in love with the black man running for the office. 'Oh gee, wouldn't it be neat to do that? Gee, wouldn't it make all of our liberal guilt just go away? We could continue to ride around in our limousines and feel so lucky be alive and in an America with a black president,'" said Steele. "Okay, that's wonderful — great scenario, nice backdrop. But what does he stand for? What does he believe?
"And that's why I keep going back to the point, the missed opportunity was dissecting and understanding Rev. [Jeremiah] Wright," he added. "It wasn't about Rev. Wright, it was about the philosophy that emerged and the directions that he was given, the lessons he learned at his knee. We never got a chance to understand that. People got lost on what Wright said about America instead of focusing on what Obama understood from what Wright was saying, so that you could understand and track that political philosophy. So we don't know. We just don't know."
Steele — who said last weekend that "like a bad diet, liberalism will kill you" — told GOP leaders this week that the era of Republican "apologizing" was over.
Filed under: Michael Steele
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... hes-black/
RELATED
Senators: McCain Is A ‘Natural Born Citizen’
August 1, 2009
http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-165324.html
Will the senate likewise declare Obama a citizenQuote:
Originally Posted by JohnDoe2
to solve the doubt about his citizenship ?
http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2009/09-063.pdf
http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/1...hiyomefuki.jpg
http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/352...amakoolaid.jpg
There is something on that vault birth document that would sink his boat, or he wouldn't have paid around a million dollars to three law firms to keep it hidden. No one spends $1,000,000 to hide something unless there is a compelling reason to hide it.
Hawaii DoH renames computer abstract "Certification" as "Certificate".
But a Certification of Live Birth by any other name is still not a long-form, typewritten, vault birth certificate.
http://www.westernjournalism.com/?page_id=2697 (linked from WorldNetDaily.com)
excerpt from a web page by an anonymous investigator hired by a retired CIA officer.
July 11th Addendum to Report
1. Until June 2009, the reasonable doubts about where Obama was born could have quickly and finally been resolved if he had authorized the release by the Hawaiian Dept of Health of his original birth certificate or else applied for it himself and released it to the media. But as these doubts have increased and reached the point where they are no longer a “fringe” phenomenon, the Hawaiian state govt has recently taken certain steps that would create procedural and possibly legal barriers to a resolution of the controversy. Given the slipperiness that characterized the statements of Chiyome Fukino, the Dept’s Director, and Janice Okubo, the Dept’s spokesperson, to the media on this issue, it is, I think, also reasonable to regard these steps with suspicion.
A family that I am acquainted with has a child who was born in Hawaii 6 months ago. They filled out and mailed in a form to the Dept of Health, as did their doctor. In return the Dept sent them in the first week of June, 2009, the same abbreviated computer-generated form that last year on the Daily Kos and subsequently on the Obama campaign web site was called a “Certification of Live Birth”. The form that this family received this year is identical in format to the Certification of Live Birth on the Daily Kos web site with one exception: the title at the top of the form.
On June 12, 2008 the title for this abbreviated form was Certification of Live Birth. The title for the form that this family received in the first week of June 2009 is Certificate of Live Birth. I called The Dept of Health and confirmed that the title of the form had been changed. The bureaucrat that I spoke to said the change had been made “recently”, but could not or would not tell me when. Sometime between June 12, 2008 and the first week of June 2009 the Hawaiian Dept of Health changed the title of this abbreviated form from “Certification of Live Birth” to “Certificate of Live Birth“. Why?
The use of the word “Certificate” rather than “Certification” makes the form feel somewhat more like a traditional birth certificate than the “Certification of Live Birth” that the Daily Kos website and subsequently the Obama campaign posted on the Internet even though, like the “Certification“, it also lacks any information about the hospital, doctor, or midwife. There is no footprint etc. This renaming of the document will be very convenient for the Hawaiian Dept of Health in future stonewalling should any legal pressure be brought against them to produce Obama’s “Certificate of Live Birth”. Instead of producing the original “Certificate of Live Birth”, they will produce the abbreviated “Certification of Live Birth” form that the Dept of Health has now renamed a “Certificate of Live Birth” and claim that they are doing so “in accordance with state policies and procedures” in the words of the Dept’s Director, Dr. Chiyome Fukino.
But whether it is called (as it was last year) a Certification or (as it is now) a Certificate of Live Birth this abbreviated document provides none of the probative information that was or wasn’t on Barack Obama’s original Certificate of Live Birth. Unlike the Certificate of Live Birth of the time when Barack Obama was born, this new Certificate of Live Birth provides no real evidence of where a child was born or indication of where such evidence might be found. It provides no information that would demonstrate to the people of the United States whether there is convincing evidence that he was actually born here or whether a relative or two (or possibly even Barack Obama himself) just made a statement to that effect to a low level bureaucrat. (As is permitted under Section 57-40 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii.)
2. On June 7, 2009, a spokeswoman for the Hawaii Department of Health told a rather obvious lie (or engaged in a pretty transparent verbal deception) in another attempt to discourage further investigation into the issue of whether Barack Obama was born on Oahu. “The state Department of Health no longer issues copies of paper birth certificates as was done in the past”, said spokeswoman Janice Okubo. “The department only issues ‘certifications’ of live births, and that is the ‘official birth certificate’ issued by the state of Hawaii, she said. ” [Honolulu Star Bulletin]
www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html
This statement was false or deliberately very misleading. Here, from a Hawaii state document that was posted on June 10, 2009, is a description of how to apply for “the original Certificate of Live Birth” (the original birth certificate) as opposed to the Certification of Live Birth:
“In order to process your application [to prove native Hawaiian ancestry], DHHL [Department of Hawaiian Homelands] utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL.
“Please note that DOH [Department of Health] no longer offers same day service. If you plan on picking up your certified DOH document(s), you should allow at least 10 working days for DOH to process your request(s), OR four to six weeks if you want your certified certificate(s) mailed to you.”
hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl
Ms. Okubo’s statement gave the false impression that Obama could not gain access to or release “the original Certificate of Live Birth”, and that it was the DOH’s policy rather than his own reluctance that was responsible for the holding back of this Certificate. This was an obvious deception. The document at the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands website indicates that at the time she made this statement it was false, and that a procedure was in place for application for “the original Certificate of Live Birth.”
Only the information on the original birth certificate, “the original Certificate of Live Birth”, can demonstrate to the people of the United States whether there is convincing evidence that he was actually born here or whether a relative or two (or possibly even Barack Obama himself) just made a statement to that effect to a low level bureaucrat.
3. On July 8, 2009 the web site World Net Daily reported that “The state, which had excluded the controversial document [the Certification of Live Birth] as proof of native Hawaiian status, has changed its policy and now makes a point of including it.”
www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=103408
Here is the new statement on the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands web site [July 8, 2009]. “The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands accepts both Certificates of Live Birth [original birth certificates and the recently renamed abbreviated computer printouts] and Certifications of Live Birth [as the abbreviated computer printouts were up till recently called] because they are official government records documenting an individual’s birth… Although original birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth) are preferred for their greater detail, the State Department of Health (DOH) no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth. When a request is made for a copy of a birth certificate, the DOH issues a Certification of Live Birth.”
hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl
The web site theobamafile.com picked up this significant change in procedure on the Dept of Hawaiian Homelands website on June 18, 2009.
www.theobamafile.com/_BogusPOTUS/20090608.htm#HawaiiRuleChange
Sometime between June 10, 2009 and June 18, 2009 the State of Hawaii changed its rule on what documents and data were necessary to prove Hawaiian ancestry, thereby upgrading the apparent status of the abbreviated Certification of Live Birth which it had formerly regarded as insufficiently probative. Why?
4. On June 6, Janice Okubo, the Dept of Health spokeswoman, also told the Star Bulletin that “The electronic record of the birth is what (the Health Department) now keeps on file in order to provide same-day certified copies at our help window for most requests.” There is a troubling ambiguity in this statement. A sophisticated forensic investigation would probably be able to determine whether the original paper Certificate of Live Birth was forged, altered, or authentic. But if the data from the original paper Certificates of Live Birth has been transferred to an electronic record and then the original documents were discarded, part of the data could easily have been changed in the transfer or subsequently altered.
Why did the Hawaiian Dept of Health wait until June 6, 2009 to announce to the world that the original paper Certificates of Live Birth had been destroyed (presumably in 2001)? Shouldn’t this have been part of Dr Fukino’s statement on October 31, 2008 (right before the November election), a statement which deceptively implied the contrary:
“Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.”
We know from a document posted on June 10, 2009 on the Department of Hawaiian Homelands website that, up until very recently, either the original paper Certificates of Live Birth or (as is now implied) scanned images of those paper certificates were maintained by the Dept of Health, and copies of them were provided to confirm claims of Hawaiian ancestry. But if in June 2009 the Department of Hawaiian Homelands has decided that it will no longer require the original Certificate of Live Birth as proof for special privileges and the Department of Health spokesman says firmly that they will no longer provide copies of these original certificates, is it possible that, in the midst of the controversy over where Barack Obama was born, the Hawaiian state govt has destroyed the original paper certificate of live birth? This seems almost incredible to me, but the authorities have been so deceptive and evasive on this issue, that it cannot be dismissed as impossible.
4. On June 6, Janice Okubo, the Dept of Health spokeswoman, also told the Star Bulletin that “The electronic record of the birth is what (the Health Department) now keeps on file in order to provide same-day certified copies at our help window for most requests.” There is a troubling ambiguity in this statement. A sophisticated forensic investigation would probably be able to determine whether the original paper Certificate of Live Birth was forged, altered, or authentic. But if the data from the original paper Certificates of Live Birth has been transferred to an electronic record and then the original documents were discarded, part of the data could easily have been changed in the transfer or subsequently altered.
Why did the Hawaiian Dept of Health wait until June 6, 2009 to announce to the world that the original paper Certificates of Live Birth had been destroyed (presumably in 2001)? Shouldn’t this have been part of Dr Fukino’s statement on October 31, 2008 (right before the November election), a statement which deceptively implied the contrary:
“Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.”
We know from a document posted on June 10, 2009 on the Department of Hawaiian Homelands website that, up until very recently, either the original paper Certificates of Live Birth or (as is now implied) scanned images of those paper certificates were maintained by the Dept of Health, and copies of them were provided to confirm claims of Hawaiian ancestry. But if in June 2009 the Department of Hawaiian Homelands has decided that it will no longer require the original Certificate of Live Birth as proof for special privileges and the Department of Health spokesman says firmly that they will no longer provide copies of these original certificates, is it possible that, in the midst of the controversy over where Barack Obama was born, the Hawaiian state govt has destroyed the original paper certificate of live birth? This seems almost incredible to me, but the authorities have been so deceptive and evasive on this issue, that it cannot be dismissed as impossible.
Probably ninety-odd Senators, "all honorable men," have already declared Mr. Obama a "natural born citizen" in rafts of franked letters to constituents. But even in the Senate, there are dissenters, and their numbers will grow, because once you've been Barack'ed, you don't go back.Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnDoe2
Thank you MinuteMan!
After some thought, the Hawaiian conspiracy appears to continue. Now that Dr. Fukino has 'verified' that Barack Obama is a "natural born American citizen" I have a few questions for DHS and for the good doctor:
1. By what legal authority did Dr. Fukino 'verify' that Barack Obama is a "natural born American citizen," a specific legal federal definition?
2. Why didn't Dr. Fukino use the term 'natural born United States citizen?'
3. Because of widespread confusion regarding the term 'natural born citizenship,' what is the legal definition of "natural born American citizen" used by Dr. Fukino in her specific statement of Mr. Obama's verification?
4. Who was Barack Obama's father listed on Obama’s birth certificate?
5. Because a child’s ‘natural born citizenship’ is determined in part by the father's citizenship, was Barack Obama's father known by Dr. Fukino or DHS to be a U.S. citizen at the time of Barack Obama's birth?
6. Will Hawaii DHS be similarly 'verifying' type of citizenship for all births hereafter, or was this a special situation?
7. Will Dr. Fukino now allow a forensic evaluation of Mr. Obama's birth certificate by an impartial federal agency like the FBI?
Legally, and until this time, United States citizenship has been determined by the federal government, and no state department or agency of any state has been empowered to define, classify, or 'verify' U.S. citizenship status.
Is this why the phrase ‘natural born American citizen’ was used by Dr. Fukino?
Is U.S. citizenship ‘verification’ a new state power or authority for the states, and if so, where did this power or authority come from (the power and authority has certainly NOT been defined in the U.S. Constitution)?
BTW, more onerous intrusion by government, this section of the Terms of Use of the Hawaii web sites (http://www.ehawaii.gov/dakine/docs/terms.html) identified as:
"official State of Hawai`i WEB SITE (i.e., all pages starting with "www.state.hi.us," "www.hawaii.gov", "www.ehawaiigov.org", "www.ehawaii.gov", or "www.ehawaiigov.com."), which may be used for authorized purposes only. This WEB SITE is not nor is it intended to be an open public forum."
...
Security & Monitoring Notice
This site reserves the right to collect navigational information about its users such as:
* The name of the domain from which the site was accessed;
* The date and time the site was accessed; and
* The web site address (also called the URL) of the link clicked to access the site.
For site security purposes, all network traffic is monitored in order to identify unauthorized attempts to upload or change information, or otherwise conduct criminal activity. In connection with authorized law enforcement investigations and pursuant to required legal process, navigational information may be used to assist in obtaining personally identifiable information.
Furthermore, to protect this WEB SITE as well as the associated computer system supporting the WEB SITE from unauthorized use and to ensure that the computer system is functioning properly, individuals accessing this WEB SITE and the associated computer system are subject to having all of their activities monitored and recorded by personnel authorized to do so by the State of Hawai`i. Anyone using this WEB SITE and the associated computer system expressly consents to such monitoring and is advised that if such monitoring reveals evidence of possible abuse or criminal activity, State of Hawai`i personnel may provide the results of such monitoring to appropriate officials. Unauthorized attempts to upload or change the content of the WEB SITE, or otherwise cause damage to this WEB SITE or the computer system are strictly prohibited and may be punishable under applicable law.
===============
Really??
You know, maybe it's just me, but there seems to be no more openness and transparency in any government entity these days. Even at the state level. This kind of stuff drives the citizens away from their own state's web sites.
Maybe we do need another revolution, because these guys certainly don't work for us anymore.
Or, maybe I should just join a hacker's club someplace and start doing things anonymously.
That's it. I'll go underground, just like my government.
Pamela at Atlas Shrugs (http://tinyurl.com/nxu3zb) says:
CNN Tells, Sells More Lies About Palin -- it's Time to Expose the truth about Obama
The Palin camp has issued a statement decrying rumors of a Palin divorce being spread by Alaskan CNN stringer Dennis Zaki, sourced to an anonymous Anchorage blogger and the National Enquirer.
Let's understand this. CNN won't touch the birth certificate issue, the Rezko/Auchi corruption, Obama's anti-semitism, his ACORN/SEIU ties and corruption and other legitimate stories that need investigation. But they write fiction about Palin. Daily. So why not tell the truth about Obama and his reported strange sexual predilections? My question is, it is well known that Obama allegedly was involved with a crack whore in his youth. Very seedy stuff. Why aren't they pursuing that story? Find the ho, give her a show! Obama trafficked in some very deviant practices. Where's the investigation?
He spent three weeks in Pakistan in his college days at Occidental in 1981. WTF was he doing in Pakistan in 1981? In 1979 Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was hanged in Pakistan and the military ruler Zia Ul-Haq enacted the controversial Hudood Ordinance, which was intended to implement Islamic Shari'a law, by enforcing punishments mentioned in the Quran.
Back in the early 80's, there were only two reasons to travel to Pakistan. Jihad or drugs. I think he went for the drugs and came back with jihad. (He did, after all, change his name to Barack Hussein Obama from Barry Soetoro, upon his return from that trip).
Why isn't CNN pursuing the nude pornographic photos of Obama's mom, Stanley (unretouched pictures here and here and here) allegedly taken by Frank Marshall Davis in his apartment. Obama's spiritual father, Davis was a child rapist and famous communist. I never ran the pics, as it was unseemly and wasn't relevant. But this assault on Palin is too disgusting. It's time to tell the ugly truth about the enemy in the White House and his whores in the media. It is Obama operatives who are spreading the Palin lies. I strongly recommend that conservatives start sending emailing these family pictures. They know we won't play dirty, so it's time to play dirty.
I say when they ratchet up the lies, then we ratchet up the truth.
=====
The pics are at the linked Atlas Shrugs site: http://tinyurl.com/nxu3zb
Highlander, I say it's time to take off the gloves. We've become so PC and afraid to confront a "black President" that the truth now lies hidden...in plain view! Enough!
Quote:
Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan
It seems we have been focusing on the natural born citizenship situation, and that pursuit has been pretty effective. We certainly know much more today than we have in the past, and we may actually be closer to blowing Obama's birth secrecy and eligibility claims.Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasBorn
But, having said that, we have totally ignored many of the other events in Obama's life that have been slimy and or criminal, and maybe we should do as Pamela and you suggest - go for the throat.
The FBI case against Rod Blago might be a good place to start, just in case there were some compromising comments or involvement by the big O. Chicago must have a lot of answers for us.
I don't think this guy has more than one term anyway - there is just not enough American support for him anymore. I still want to get him out sooner if at all possible.
Too bad the press doesn't practice investigative journalism anymore. We could certainly use their help.
“Come, Watson, come!" he cried. "The game is afoot."
Highlander, Obama could be just sitting back and laughing with all the focus on his controversial birth status. I contend that it's time now for a two pronged front. It's clear to me now that he has no intention of coming clean on the one front and it make become stalemated... so perhaps it's time to crank up the heat on the second front. I agree with you that a second term is in doubt but we shouldn't underestimate Obama and the DNC. They have proven themselves to be clever criminals and con artists. That much is evident. Americans have begun to loosen their blinders a bit as is demonstrated in BO's declining poll numbers and it's time to shine the blinding truth in their eyes and show once and for all what our government and MSM have heretofore been so successful at...hiding the truth in plain sight! I believe the tools and evidence for making the second front a reality are all around us. We have just been too afraid of using them up to this point. PC be damned, it's time to remove the gloves!
Quote:
Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan
Surely Dr. Fukino, in the abyss of the maelstrom, understands the natural born citizen controversy and the implications of divided loyalties, dual citizenship, and having only one parent a U.S. citizen. Her willingness to make such a comment indicates:Quote:
Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan
a) she didn't actually read the occult birth document and chooses to lie about reading it to keep the deception alive.
b) in violation of Hawaii law, she did read the contents of box 6a, "Place of Birth: City, town, or Rural Location" and seeing
........1) Mombasa, Nairobi, Kogelo, or another location in Kenya, she lied to keep up the deception; or
........2) Honolulu, she did read the contents of box 8, "Name of father," and
................a) seeing "Barack Hussein Obama Snr." named as the father,
........................1} she misspoke, not understanding the implications of having a parent who was a British protected subject; or
........................2} she lied to keep up the deception, knowing full well that having a parent who was a British protected subject disqualifed Barack Obama II from being a natural born citizen.
................b) seeing Frank Marshall Davis or Malcolm X named as the father, she said truthfully that Barack Obama II was a natural born citizen, born on soil under U.S. jurisdiction to a father and a mother who both were U.S. citizens.
HighlanderJuan, you may recall that citizenship was originally not an enumerated power under the Constitution nor even defined therein, and therefore it was within the purview of each individual state to pass and to enforce its own citizenship, nationality, and immigration statutes. The new Federal government ostensibly had to pass uniform regulations only to effectuate reciprocity among the states.Quote:
Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan
However, the Federalist ideal of a weak central government died along with the Framers of the Constitution. The authority and responsibility of each individual state to make and enforce its own citizenship and immigration regulations probably ceased during the period when the federal government effectively suspended, revoked, or made of none effect Amendments IX and X.
Quote:
Originally Posted by the Framers of the Constitution
Does the omission of Kenya from the list of colonies cause the British Nationality Act of 1948 not to apply to Kenya?Quote:
www.uniset.ca/naty/BNA1948.htm
British Nationality Act, 1948
1948 (11 & 12 Geo. 6.) CHAPTER 56.
Part I
British Nationality.
British nationality by virtue of citizenship.
1. (1) Every person who under this Act is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or who under any enactment for the time being in force in any country mentioned in subsection (3) of this section is a citizen of that country shall by virtue of that citizenship have the status of a British subject...
(3) The following are the countries hereinbefore referred to, that is to say, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Newfoundland, India, Pakistan, Southern Rhodesia and Ceylon.
Quote:
5. "(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth:
Provided that if the father of such a person is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent only, that person shall not be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by virtue of this section unless”
(a) that person is born or his father was born in a protectorate, protected state, mandated territory or trust territory or any place in a foreign country where by treaty, capitulation, grant, usage, sufferance, or other lawful means, His Majesty then has or had jurisdiction over British subjects; or
(b) that person's birth having occurred in a place in a foreign country other than a place such as is mentioned in the last foregoing paragraph, the birth is registered at a United Kingdom consulate within one year of its occurrence, or, with the permission of the Secretary of State, later; or
(c) that person's father is, at the time of the birth, in Crown service under His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom; or
(d) that person is born in any country mentioned in subsection (3) of section one of this Act in which a citizenship law has then taken effect and does not become a citizen thereof on birth.
[quote=MinutemanCDC_SC]
HighlanderJuan, you may recall that citizenship was originally not an enumerated power under the Constitution nor even defined therein, and therefore it was within the purview of each individual state to pass and to enforce its own citizenship, nationality, and immigration statutes. The new Federal government ostensibly had to pass uniform regulations only to effectuate reciprocity among the states.
However, the Federalist ideal of a weak central government died along with the Framers of the Constitution. The authority and responsibility of each individual state to make and enforce its own citizenship and immigration regulations probably ceased during the period when the federal government effectively suspended, revoked, or made of none effect Amendments IX and X.
[/quote:2y9guqq8]Quote:
Originally Posted by "the Framers of the Constitution":2y9guqq8
I agree with you regarding state residency and state citizenship, but I don't believe the states have the power to define a person as a U.S. Citizen. We get our American passports from the feds, not from the states.
I don't know how to post pictures and such as the following, but if this is true, all hell is about to break loose.
FreedomFirst, I would especially like your opinion here. First link is the legal filing, second is the alleged document and third an alleged expert opinion.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/18018712/03118509264
http://www.scribd.com/doc/18018714/Fake ... ertificate
http://lamecherry.blogspot.com/2009/08/ ... obama.html
Warning: Not authenticated.
But also not the blatant phony that Daily Kos cooked up.
http://www.buenavistamall.com/kenya-bc.jpg
http://www.buenavistamall.com/kenya-bc.jpg
Not sure where Orly got this from.
Cayla - we must have posted at the same time. Got it from the same "back office" where I directed you some months ago.
Donofrio ripped the good DOH bureaucrat a "new one" (as they say) for holding herself out to be possessed of a Supreme Court Justice shingle. He's gotten lively lately.Quote:
Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com ... al-lawyer/
[quote=MinutemanCDC_SC]WOW! FreedomFirst, how did you happen upon these cases?
Minor v. Happersett, sure, but Barry v. Mercein, Afroyim v. Rusk, and Perez v. Brownell? You blew an old, old layer of dust off those records, didn't you?
In the 19th century and for hundreds of years before, a wife's citizenship followed her husband. A mother's citizenship before marriage did not confer upon her child. Only with women's suffrage did this condition change in the United States - and it has not changed in many other countries.Quote:
Originally Posted by "In Barry v. Mercein, for the Southern District of New York, U.S. Circuit Judge Betts":18shtry4
I'm constantly amazed at the depth of your research, FreedomFirst. Thank you for forgiving my curt shortness with you and for returning to the discussion. You are one of the best resources we have.[/quote:18shtry4]
I don't claim nor need any credit. Thank "the back office" .... will leave it at that.
There's likely to be a lot coming out in the next few weeks; one hopes people will separate wheat from chaff. This has been a worthwhile thread where people (in "credit" to the ALIPAC base of supporters) seem earnest and serious (for the most part) and of a good IQ/receptivity for oft-times nuanced information.
I still keep coming around in the "circle" I've orbited since largely detaching from this thread some months ago, however, and back to the legal rule which would apply if it were to be determined that the Obama marriage was either non-existent or null and void due to bigamy. It would leave Obama with only one citizenship/nationality to claim -- that of his mother.
And that would be true whether he was born on the mall in Washington, DC in front of a million people (as Leo D. likes to say), or ... whether he really was born in the Mombassa Hospital. Albeit, the latter scenario takes him away from the American soil that otherwise "seals the deal" on the natural born part of the three word term and raises a possibility of some ius soli "claims" upon him if that comprised a part of U.K colonial law in Kenya in 1961.
Thanks. Donofrio's comments to Dr. Fukino were excellent, even if they were a bit sarcastic.Quote:
Originally Posted by FreedomFirst
And separately, it seems the Kenyan BC has gone viral. For one other post on Scribd.com, after 14 hours, the image had been viewed 34,200+ times. What a kick.
And finally, we come to the missing 13th Amendment. Anyone know about that?
"In June of this year (1991), Dodge uncovered the evidence that this missing 13th Amendment had indeed been lawfully ratified by the state of Virginia and was therefore an authentic Amendment to the American Constitution. If the evidence is correct and no logical errors have been made, a 13th Amendment restricting lawyers from serving in government was ratified in 1819 and removed from the U.S. Constitution during the tumult of the Civil War. Since the Amendment was never lawfully repealed, it is still the Law today."
You can read more on the subject here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/18029501/The- ... -Amendment
It can't get much better than this.
Cayla, this is stunning albeit unverified evidence! Yes, if true, all hell is about to break loose and I suspect that peoples lives may be in danger!
Quote:
Originally Posted by cayla99
I'm troubled by your comments here. I just can't put my finger on why.Quote:
Originally Posted by FreedomFirst
At least you know HOW to post the picture here :roll: :lol: :lol: :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by FreedomFirst
Cayla, I have a question on the legal filing shown in your link. It says that Orly Taitz will be out of country beginning 2 Aug. Do I correctly assume that she may be headed to Kenya?Quote:
Originally Posted by cayla99
Your guess would be as good if not better than mine. I really have no ideaQuote:
Originally Posted by TexasBorn
I'm troubled also as in "What the !*$# are you saying":? Deliberately vague?Quote:
Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan
I would want an imposter and usurper OUSTED YESTERDAY if it were truly the case that he was a fraud. But the more I dug into the marriage thing, the more convinced I became that there was no valid marriage possible. Obama took his citizenship from the mother's side and was illegitimate. People can point to the divorce papers all they want as "proof" that there was a marriage but I'm looking to the law and the 99% probability that Obama Sr. had to have lied about having no past wife to get a Hawaiian marriage license (just as the document image up above is showing a question that asks about "Previous Issue" and fetches up an answer of "Nil" even though Obama Sr. had two children who were "previous issue" thanks to Kezia).Quote:
Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan
The law gets tricky out of colonial Kenya about "customary" and "statutory" marriages but Kezia would have been recognized as a wife by Kenya; that foreign marriage would have been recognized by Hawaii / U.S. as long as it carried recognition in the country where it took place; and that made the February 1961 nuptials (if they even took place at all) a case of bigamy and null/void.
My interest turned from outrage about a usurper lying his way into office to a belief that his "admission" on Fight the Smears was a cold calculation by Obama that bastardy would be more harmful to his electoral chances than dual citizenship, even though bastardy would save his chestnuts legally as far as eligibility. That turned my "interest" to more of a desire for the simple justice of seeing a SOLID SCOTUS decision "settle the hash" once and for all about the proper definition of Natural Born Citizen. No more of the shenanigans like an S. Res. 511 where politicians in Congress usurp the role of the Courts (even as the Courts blithely usurp our liberties under the Constitution).
It's OK to dislike Obama for his ruinous policies.
It's OK to strongly dislike him for his many deceptions perp'ed on the American voting public.
And it's really, really OK to hate the MSM for becoming sycophantic lapdogs for Obama instead of a fact-scrounging Fourth Estate looking to "reveal" rather than "conceal" where politicians are concerned.
But it's not OK to become so blinded by dislike/hate of the man that one fails to keep a level head in analyzing the facts/law that might appropriately deny him the office of POTUS.
Please God....let this be true :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Sunday, August 2, 2009
What I can tell you about Kenyan Obama
There are a few things which have captured my eye concerning the Barack Hussein Obama birth certificate which no one has divulged which will be exclusive here and point to why I deem this an authentic document and in conclusion I believe I know where this document originated from as I touched on it in my work here recently.
The first tell are the folds of this document. In having examined documents of this period and more recent documents, they in group are all folded into these little office yello sized envelopes, usually with a window inside to reveal contents.
For this to be a forgery, the forger would have to know exactly this process in which birth certificates are in copy handed out to the public. It might sound like a simple thing, but those folds are the one thing which someone would overlook.
Paper color is correct, as is age of coloration, wear on the ribbon ink of the font.
This document matches exactly what it should look like having been generated in 1964 and held in files for this long for "safekeeping".
This brings me to the source of this. I realize World Net Daily states the anonymous person is concerned about their life, but considering the document is now secured by Orly Taitz, has been copied and is appearing in more places than Obama's forgery......the lawyers family is not in any danger.
In lawyer, I'm not speaking of Orly Taitz, but the legal firm or family members who had custody of the divorce papers of Stanley Ann "mentaly cruelty Barack sr." Obama.
These are the papers I featured here not long ago in pointing out that in the strangest of terms, Stanley Ann Dunham committed perjury in stating she was a resident of Hawaii for two years when she was a resident of Washington during this time.
As that residency had nothing to do with filing for divorce, it is now speculated that 2 year residency in lying about it might have to do with custody of a 2 year old Barry.
Stanley Ann's papers were filed in January of 1964. Her other court procedings I believe in the series of documents shows to March of 1964.
Look closely at the date of this document issued out of Kenya, February 17th, 1964. This would fit the timeline in Stanley Ann filing, lawyers discussing legalities of custody and residency as an America (not a natural born American).
Stanley Ann's Lawyer would have requested a copy of this birth certificate so that she would have sole custody of the two year old child. See unlike being an Obama in the White House, one does need a real birth certificate in court to prove a child is really your child.
Granted it is not Madelyn Dunham, so we still do not know how a non pregnant looking Stanley Ann in swim suit dropped an 8 pound kid a few months later, but nothing in this has made any sense from the start.
So in reasonable deduction, this is the Lawyer's copy of the Stanley Ann Dunham Obama divorce proceedings. He kept it in files for his legal protection and the family or law firm kept them as everyone does in boxes of papers which mean nothing to anyone.
This is what I was speaking about in there is more evidence out there than people even know. Someone it is deducted figured this out after something jogged in someone's memory or someone did a bit of investigative work and was allowed access to these old unsealed files which mattered to no one, except Axelrod Inc.
I actually find it amusing that Miss Tavisham Stanley and Madelyn in Pip Obama's Great Expectations in screwing over Barack sr. with mental cruelty charges to get custody of this child, lied in court papers committing perjury on residency........then had the audacity to not lie concerning where this illegal alien was born.
THIS is probably what the the 2 year residency was about in being a shifty way of claiming Obama was an American non alien, so she would get custody even when he was born in Kenya.
These twisters have a real Oliver on their hands, as they did not have the foresight to figure out he would be President of some country who needed natural born, and instead went to the expediency of just getting their hands on this child to punish the old man.
Stupidly in the criminal enterprise of Axelrod Inc., in stealing trillions. non taxpayer Geithner, terrorist Napolitano and a million dollars in trying to hide all of this, for one cent this cast of criminals could have used a match and burned up the evidence.
Don't send a lawyer to do a mop woman's job.
This all looks authentic and from the time line I have researched, this document fits exactly where it should in a nasty divorce proceeding for full custody of an African child.
While I have thought that the circus of Taitz and Farah with their crew has been doing nothing but publicity stunts and having people chase red herrings, this has a hat off from the person who came forward with this.
It also points to why the people who have been scamming fake birth certificates this past month looking like the Obamaniacs assaulting Lawrence Sinclair, were probably low level plants to guard against this very document which has been picked up on tapped phone and email communications from it's surfacing.
All of this brings a conclusion this is Barack Obama's Waterloo.
agtG 246
PS: Is it not interesting that the residency of Stanley Ann Dunham Obama is Wichita, Kansas. That might be another Madelyn Dunham story.
Verify the Registrar and signature and let the good times roll.
Breaking News: Obama Pelosi retroactively annex Kenya as 51st US State as of August 3rd, 1961, Gordonian Knot Brown, signs the papers making it all legal.
Sing it pretty Bruce as you elected this British fraud.........
Born down in a Kenya town
The first kick I took was when I hit the ground
You end up like a Marxist that's been beat too much
'Til you spend half your life just covering up
[chorus:]
Born in the KENYU.S.A.
Born in the KENYU.S.A.
Born in the KENYU.S.A.
Born in the KENYU.S.A.
I got in a little hometown jam
And so they put a ballot box in my hands
Sent me off to Chicagoland
To go and build slum houses for the black man
Born in the KENYU.S.A.
Born in the KENYU.S.A.
Born in the KENYU.S.A.
Born in the KENYU.S.A.
Posted by Lame Cherry at 11:36 AM
http://lamecherry.blogspot.com/2009/08/ ... obama.html
FreedomFirst,
Thanks for the detailed discussion. One more question.
You said "Obama took his citizenship from the mother's side and was illegitimate."
Q: Does this tell us that a natural born citizen can be a child born on U.S. soil with only one parent?
Yes. If the "one parent" is an unmarried mother, I believe that's exactly what can happen. It's the flip side of the coin of the otherwise generally applicable rule (back in the 1700's and through much of the 20th century) of partus sequitur patrem.Quote:
Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan
That flip side is: Ejus, qui justum patrem non habet, prima 'origo a matre. In other words, if there's no legally recognized father, a child assumes the origins/nationality of the mother.