A voice of sanity here...[quote="Dr. James David Manning, Ph.D."][size=117]DR. MANNING: People in government at present, whom I call collectively the “2008 political classâ€
Printable View
A voice of sanity here...[quote="Dr. James David Manning, Ph.D."][size=117]DR. MANNING: People in government at present, whom I call collectively the “2008 political classâ€
Another article about the Arizona eligibility bill, HB 2441.
Please contact Arizona Senate President Robert Burns.
[quote="MinutemanCDC_SC"][size=117]To: Arizona State Senator Robert Burns <rburns@azleg.gov>
Subject: YES on HB 2441 to verify candidate eligibility
Dear Hon. Sen. Burns,
To have an eligible President is of the utmost importance to every American. Please allow a Senate vote on Rep. Judy Burges' bill, HB 2441, to verify eligibility of Presidential candidates. This is a reasonable and justifiable precaution against future fraud.
From an interview with Harlem minister Dr. James David Manning, Ph.D.:
[list]DR. MANNING: The excuse passed around in board rooms and situation rooms and think tanks has been that if we expose him, it would tear the nation apart; black people in particular would rise up. And the thing I’d like to say to you, having said that, is this: that’s a misnomer; it’s a red herring. First of all, it is a very condescending, patronizing and disrespectful view of black people that their only recourse is to riot. It’s disrespectful.
While I think that a number of things have remained the same or gotten worse in America, one of the things I can say as an alleged “blackâ€
Perhaps a court martial would proceed differently, with less intimidation and coercion, than U.S. District Judge Clay Land's trial of Maj. Stefan Cook and U.S. District Court Judge David O. Carter's trial of Capt. Barnett.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob DieVart (USN, Retired)
[quote=MinutemanCDC_SC]Perhaps a court martial would proceed differently, with less intimidation and coercion, than U.S. District Judge Clay Land's trial of Maj. Stefan Cook and U.S. District Court Judge David O. Carter's trial of Capt. Barnett.[/quote:3fowfp6m]Quote:
Originally Posted by "Bob DieVart (USN, Retired)":3fowfp6m
I suppose that I may have been unreasonable in my personal drive to expose and depose the usurper, but all of this lawlessness and corruption has been so obvious to me for so long, I have been frustrated by what appears to have been an ongoing cover up and free pass to ongoing crimes against our country by members of our government.
I would sincerely like to believe that patriotic cooler heads within government have known about the the same usurpation problems and have carefully planned the re-capture, correction, and return of our once lawful republic form of government. That would be a good thing, because this socialist tyranny and pathway to doom offered by the progressives and communists in our midst really sucks - big time!
Having said that, and like many Americans, I will continue to oppose and expose the tyranny of the progressives. That's my job, and a job I am happy to perform for my country.
God Bless America! Long may She remain a free republic!
What you said.... :D :D :DQuote:
I suppose that I may have been unreasonable in my personal drive to expose and depose the usurper, but all of this lawlessness and corruption has been so obvious to me for so long, I have been frustrated by what appears to have been an ongoing cover up and free pass to ongoing crimes against our country by members of our government.
I would sincerely like to believe that patriotic cooler heads within government have known about the the same usurpation problems and have carefully planned the re-capture, correction, and return of our once lawful republic form of government. That would be a good thing, because this socialist tyranny and pathway to doom offered by the progressives and communists in our midst really sucks - big time!
Having said that, and like many Americans, I will continue to oppose and expose the tyranny of the progressives. That's my job, and a job I am happy to perform for my country.
God Bless America! Long may She remain a free republic!
[quote="Atty. Leo Donofrio"][size=117][url=http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2010/04/26/educating-the-really-really-confused-about-nbc-gate/][b]Educating The Really Really Confused About “Nbc-gateâ€
An investigative report detailing the Obama eligibility controversy
Author: Douglas J. Hagmann, Director
The Northeast Intelligence Network
Date: April 27, 2010
http://homelandsecurityus.com/archives/3735
27 April 2010: I cannot think of any other subject in recent American history that has been so mired in controversy, so factually misrepresented, mischaracterized and so misunderstood than the matter of the eligibility of Barack Hussein OBAMA II to hold the office of President of the United States. Despite its importance, the topic has been summarily dismissed as fodder for conspiracy theorists by many, while others insist that the question of OBAMA’s citizenship has been “asked and answered.â€
NO...the question has not been answered.
In fact it has been totally distorted and covered up. One man died/murdered researching FBI records. For those of us/me that have been researching since 2008 and have withstood all the slams threats and name calling...it is good to see all the squirming now going on by the name callers.
There is just way to much information and real truth out there now for the birther and crack pot talk to work. This form of racism against those wanting real answers will have a day in court. When? That I am not sure of but it WILL happen.
As with all information there will be a mix of truth and conspiracy. But even conspiracy needs to be investigated for shreds of truth. I keep an open mind and made it through the sand traps on this issue to stand on the firm ground of truth not conspiracy. I have said sense day one I do not care about race...I do care about BO being a Muslim...and I still do. It is just a matter of time...I hope ours does not run out first!!!!
http://americangrandjury.org/?page=2
New investigation into Obama background spells trouble ahead
April 28, 12:24 PM
Anthony G. Martin
165 comments
A brand new, in-depth investigation into the background of Barack Obama may spell big trouble ahead regarding the issue of Presidential eligibility.
The investigation was conducted by Northeast Intelligence Network--a team of experienced, professional private investigators whose services have been utilized by Fortune-500 companies. The director, Douglas J. Hagmann, is a 23-year veteran in high-level investigations and is a member of the International Counter-Terrorism Officers Association.
Hagmann's investigation into the background and Constitutional eligibility of Barack Obama to serve as President of the United States is extensive and thorough. His conclusions are stunning.
For example, neither of Obama's parents were citizens of the United States at the time of his birth. Therefore, Obama would have to have been born on U.S. soil in order to qualify as a 'natural born citizen' according to the qualifications specified in the Constitution.
But Hagmann's investigation reveals that, contrary to the notion of those who point to a short-form birth certificate in Hawaii, and 2 birth announcements in Hawaiian newspapers, neither of these factors proves anything at all about Obama's status or citizenship:
the Certification of Live Birth is consistently cited by individuals, the media and others to prove the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein OBAMA. Nonetheless, even an authenticated and genuine Certification of Live Birth is legally insufficient for the purpose of proving eligibility, as it merely represents that OBAMA’s birth record is on file in the state of Hawaii. It falls short of providing the information necessary to determine constitutional eligibility in at least two areas: it does not offer any information regarding who supplied the information, nor does it confirm the authenticity of the information provided. Again, it merely indicates that the information is “on file.â€
This thing is so ridiculous... we either go by the constitution or we don't... What is the argument about...????
It has been argued that we are no longer a nation based on the rule of law, rather we are now a nation ruled by man.Quote:
Originally Posted by hardlineconstitutionalist
That's tyranny.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28178876/Publ ... ule-of-Men
[quote="FedUpinFarmersBranch"]New investigation into Obama background spells trouble ahead
April 28, 12:24 PM
Anthony G. Martin
165 comments
A brand new, in-depth investigation into the background of Barack Obama may spell big trouble ahead regarding the issue of Presidential eligibility.
The investigation was conducted by Northeast Intelligence Network--a team of experienced, professional private investigators whose services have been utilized by Fortune-500 companies. The director, Douglas J. Hagmann, is a 23-year veteran in high-level investigations and is a member of the International Counter-Terrorism Officers Association.
Hagmann's investigation into the background and Constitutional eligibility of Barack Obama to serve as President of the United States is extensive and thorough. His conclusions are stunning.
For example, neither of Obama's parents were citizens of the United States at the time of his birth. Therefore, Obama would have to have been born on U.S. soil in order to qualify as a 'natural born citizen' according to the qualifications specified in the Constitution.
But Hagmann's investigation reveals that, contrary to the notion of those who point to a short-form birth certificate in Hawaii, and 2 birth announcements in Hawaiian newspapers, neither of these factors proves anything at all about Obama's status or citizenship:
the Certification of Live Birth is consistently cited by individuals, the media and others to prove the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein OBAMA. Nonetheless, even an authenticated and genuine Certification of Live Birth is legally insufficient for the purpose of proving eligibility, as it merely represents that OBAMA’s birth record is on file in the state of Hawaii. It falls short of providing the information necessary to determine constitutional eligibility in at least two areas: it does not offer any information regarding who supplied the information, nor does it confirm the authenticity of the information provided. Again, it merely indicates that the information is “on file.â€
"We are no longer a Nation based on Equal Justice. We are a nation based on social justice. "EQUAL JUSTICE" was what all the immigrants fled from their countries of social justice for. They were fleeing to equal justice found only in America..."Quote:
Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan
Guess who said these prophetic words...
The research done by Stephen Tonchen seems to provide the best available research and definition right now. At some point in the future we may see a second chapter by the Undead Revolution. Both articles are here:Quote:
Originally Posted by hardlineconstitutionalist
http://www.scribd.com/doc/27240350/Step ... ligibility
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20106729/Unde ... tural-Born
I should also note that Obama can never be a natural born citizen because his father was a British subject.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan
That is the point I have been attempting to make since day one... All these stupid arguments are moot!!! He absolutely does not qualify under the definition of "natural born."
BUT>>> 8O The legal questions have been raised and we have BO already seated. There are legal questions testing the wording of the Constitution and it's validity. There are those that claim... "all words and meanings are the same...all make a citizen..." And of course PC and social justice demand that anyone should be able to be the POTUS to disregard raciest bigotry. :roll:
SOooo...we wait. No court will take jurisdiction on this hot potato. But IT WILL make it to the courts someday. It will have to with states like Arizona passing laws that require validation for POTUS. They will have to review and accept the interpretation or usurp the Constitution. Very interesting from a legal perspective.
Now...this is really interesting...I think I have posted it before...Wait till you get to exhibit 6 and 7... It will make blood shoot out of your eyes...
http://americangrandjury.org/public/
OH...BTW...great links...thanks...
OMG...did you watch the full clip @ 1:30min he said:
"I know my approval ratings have gone down. That is politics and I don't worry about it. But I happen to know that my approval ratings are still very quite high in the country of my birth..."
This guy actually thinks he is funny...and to make it worse...people are laughing like it is a big joke.
There are no words for this guy...
Full video but watch at about 1:30:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ ... inner.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardlineconstitutionalist
@ 4:25
"There are few things in life that are harder to find and more important to keep than love . . . well, love and a birth certificate."
I thought it was funny. Of course, I had to learn to laugh at myself long ago, so this sounded funny too.
Mr. Obama closed by saying, "God bless you. And God bless the United States of America."
Why Congressional Republicans avoid the Obama Eligibility Issue
DID THE REPUBLICAN PARTY PURPOSELY ALLOW AN INELIGIBLE CANDIDATE TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT IN 2008?
Author: John F. Sweeney
Republished with permission of The Post & Email
Date: May 2, 2010
http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/05/02/ ... ity-issue/
(May 2, 2010) — In discussions concerning the constitutional eligibility of Barrack Hussein Obama II for the office of President of the United States, many point out that if there were a real issue, the Republicans would have leveraged it in 2008 to retain control of the White House. But it was well-documented at the time, and additional documentation and analysis have established, that John McCain’s eligibility was in question as well. With that being the case, why would the Republicans nominate a candidate who might not be constitutionally eligible to serve in the office?
The answer may be a simple one – the 2008 race was going to the Democrats and the Republicans did not want a leading candidate for 2012 to lose or be roughed up during the campaign. So the solution – let the man who needed to win in 2008, if he was ever going to be president, run – even if he might not be constitutionally eligible. Was this a grand conspiracy by the Republican Party? No, it was just simple pragmatic political strategy.
The Republicans had few things going for them in 2007 and 2008. They had lost the Congress in the 2006 elections, and they had a president who was losing popularity as an unpopular war dragged on. Even if things had been going relatively well, history was against a third straight term in the White House. Since 1953, only once had the White House been occupied by a party more than eight consecutive years, and that was when George H. Bush rode Ronald Reagan’s popularity to take the 1988 election.
Clearly, 2008 was not like 1988, and it was unlikely the Republicans were going to keep the White House. They knew it, and they knew it early.
So when John McCain showed some strength in the primaries, the other front-runners backed off. They knew the odds of winning in 2008 were long. So they avoided going into the 2008 Presidential buzz saw. John McCain had no choice but to make a final and gallant run for the office. The year 2008 was his last stand as a presidential candidate. He was 71 years old. No president has ever been elected for his first term after his 70th birthday. Stories and articles were popping up about McCain’s age in 2008, and polls showed it was a negative factor. If it was a negative issue at age 71 in 2008, it will be a killer issue in 2012 when John McCain will be 75 years old.
So for the Republican Party, the setup in the presidential race looked straightforward in 2008. There was almost no chance to win, no matter who the nominee was. So they nominated the only guy who cannot run in future races: John McCain.
Was the Republican Party aware of John McCain’s potential eligibility issue? Of course it was. The issue was written about by major news organizations – The New York Times, The Washington Post. They wrote about it in 1998. They again wrote about it in 2008. In February of 2008 the Panama issue was written about by these and other major news outlets. And unlike the mocking and sarcastic tone used when writing about Obama’s eligibility issues, these articles are written in serious journalistic fashion and raise the possibility of a constitutional crisis should McCain be elected.
But then the issue disappeared from view after the passing of the Democrat-led Senate Resolution 511 that declared John McCain a “natural born Citizen.â€
You may have seen this already, and I repost it in light of the Arizona situation. Once again I ask - how long until we have Americans firing on Americans?
=====================
The Power Bush gave to Obama to become Dictator for life
2007 LAW UNDID 200 YEARS OF TRADITION, WHICH PROTECTED CITIZENS AGAINST FEDERAL GOVERNMENT’S USE OF MILITARY AGAINST THEM
Author: John Charlton
Republished with permission of The Post & Email
Date: October 29, 2009
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30885570/John ... e-to-Obama
(Oct. 29, 2009) — It’s the power Bush gave to Obama, by which the latter can install himself as Dictator for life, now that he has usurped the Presidency and pressured the Courts to dismiss challenges to his eligibility and fraud.
Hidden away in H.R. 5122 , of the 109th Congress, the “John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007″ — Signed into law by G. W. Bush on Oct. 17th of that year — there is a section which reads thus:
Sec. 333 . Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law
(a) Use of Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies-
(1) The President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to--
(A) restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that--
(i) domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order; and
(ii) such violence results in a condition described in paragraph (2); or
(B) suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such insurrection, violation, combination, or conspiracy results in a condition described in paragraph (2).
(2) A condition described in this paragraph is a condition that--
(A) so hinders the execution of the laws of a State or possession, as applicable, and of the United States within that State or possession, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State or possession are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or
(B) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.
(3) In any situation covered by paragraph (1)(B), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.
(b) Notice to Congress- The President shall notify Congress of the determination to exercise the authority in subsection (a)(1)(A) as soon as practicable after the determination and every 14 days thereafter during the duration of the exercise of that authority.'
(2) PROCLAMATION TO DISPERSE- Section 334 of such title is amended by inserting `or those obstructing the enforcement of the laws' after `insurgents'.
(3) HEADING AMENDMENT- The heading of chapter 15 of such title is amended to read as follows:
This law, obviously has nothing to do with terrorism and everything to do about suppressing State sovereignty in the case of secession from the Federal Government.
Why would Bush and Congress be thinking of that in 2007, if they had already not planned to install Obama?
The Federal Government has no authority to suppress individual rights and State Sovereignty: this is expressly denied in the 9th and 10th Amendments!
Nor does the President have the constitutional authority to determine who is breaking the law by his own ipse dixit decree. Notice that he can call in armed forces even in the eventuality of what he judges is a conspiracy against public order! That’s pretty much a carte blanche to arrest any group of citizens he does not like.
Seeing that Obama’s usurpation of the Presidency has caused the deprivation of the rights of all Citizens to have a legitimate President, born on U.S. soil of 2 U.S. citizen parents, the powers granted in the above law should rather be invoked to arrest him and his supporters, if sanity reigned in this country!
Side by side comparison! CLOB's
http://khow.com/cc-common/mlib/636/05/6 ... 975400.pdf
Quote:
Originally Posted by At forums.hannity.com, ksdb
Being legally entitled to disclosure and having the government record in hand are two very different things.
But in this case, law means nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawaii Uniform Information Practices Act
Whoever leans the hardest on Gov. Lingle and DoH Director Fukino controls the outcome.
[quote="[url=http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=1216821]At forums.hannity.com, Roberts the man[/url]"][size=117]Barry knew he would have his eligibility questioned - the ink bleed through pre-dates the first challenge too, and Pay for play, thanks for pointing that out = Barry apologist meaningless drivel !
Link to Perkins Coie letter to Hollister warning that they would pursue santions including attorney fees .....
[link requires authorization]
http://209.197.9.46/e3m9u5m8/cds/s/17/m ... ee01d96442
$ 688,316.42 more in Perkins Coie fees
[link requires authorization]
http://209.197.9.46/e3m9u5m8/cds/s/17/m ... 6d2564c372
Barry also can't legally use the AG office to defend him according to this article below ! :
http://romanticpoet.wordpress.com/2010/ ... the-level/
Now that Bauer is safely tucked away in the White House, Obama has resorted to illegally using Justice Department attorneys to represent him in his ongoing battle to hide his questionable background from the American People.
The use of civil servants to further Obama’s coup d’etat is clearly illegal. Torm Howse, the co-founder, and National Board Director of United Civil Rights Councils of America says the statutory law of the United States Code is extremely clear, even often in multiple ways, that:
[list]a) the Attorney General cannot represent/defend Obama in any challenge that involves a question of his citizenship, for the relevant statutory laws mandate that the AG be on the prosecuting side against Obama, if the AG is involved, at all… In fact, whether intentional or not, Obama and Holder can be hit with “constructive fraud,â€
[quote="[url=http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=1216821&page=2427]At forums.hannity.com, Trip[/url]"]SR 511[size=117]
Let's look at these persons involved in this Senate Resolution 511, a supposedly bi-partisan resolution that was voted on unanimously. The bipartisan resolution was introduced on April 10 by Sens. Claire McCaskill (D-MO), and co-sponsors:
- Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
Tom Coburn (R-OK)
Barack Obama (D-IL) Presidential Candidate
Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) Presidential Candidate
Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA).
There's One Republican only, Tom Coburn, and even two Democratic candidates from their busy primaries, involved in drafting this resolution, and it was led and sponsored by Democrat Claire McCaskill!
When was the last time we saw this sort of Democratic "reach across the aisle" for such a salute of "bi-partisanship"? NEVER! Certainly not at all since the election.
Bill S. 2678
At this time, it seems that Claire McCaskill was curiously a very civic minded person. Only 5 weeks before McCaskill sponsored SRes 511, there was another Senate Bill she sponsored. [b]Bill S. 2678 attempted to change article II, section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States with reference to the requirements of being a “natural born citizen,â€
The Bigamy of Obama’s Citizenship
THE PRESIDENT MUST HAVE LIFELONG ALLEGIANCE
Author: Sally Vendée
Date: may 5, 2010
Republished with permission of The Post & Email
http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/05/05/ ... tizenship/
(May 5, 2010) — Following the publication of a previous editorial which explored the status of Obama’s citizenship and allegiance while he was aged 18 through 23, commenters argued that only his status at birth is of consequence in the argument of Article II eligibility. Attorney Mario Apuzzo explains:
“Natural born Citizenâ€
By now most of you have no doubt read the latest. I've only posted a snippet of the article below. Suddenly, the skies cleared and we have all been given the gift of truth. The rats just keep getting bigger and bigger and the stench stronger and stronger!
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=150125
BORN IN THE USA?
Hawaii governor announces 'exact' place of Obama birth
'The question has been asked and answered, and I think we should all move on now'
Posted: May 05, 2010
10:13 pm Eastern
By Joe Kovacs
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
Gov. Linda Lingle, R-Hawaii
More than a year and half after Barack Obama was elected commander in chief, the governor of Hawaii is now publicly voicing the alleged exact location of Obama's birth, saying "the president was, in fact, born at Kapi'olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii."
The disclosure is believed to be the first time a state government official has declared the precise place where Obama was born, despite numerous other published claims, including some for a different hospital in Honolulu.
The remark came Sunday night when Gov. Linda Lingle, a Republican, was interviewed on New York's WABC Radio by host Rabbi Shmuley Boteach. (The subject was addressed at the 77-minute mark.)
"It's been an odd situation," Lingle said, referring to the continuing controversy over the disputed natural-born citizenship of Obama. "This issue kept coming up so much in the campaign, and again I think it's one of those issues that is simply a distraction from the more critical issues that are facing the country.
"So I had my health director, who is a physician by background, go personally view the birth certificate in the birth records of the Department of Health, and we issued a news release at that time saying that the president was, in fact, born at Kapi'olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii. And that's just a fact and yet people continue to call up and e-mail and want to make it an issue and I think it's again a horrible distraction for the country by those people who continue this."
Make yourself a walking billboard! Wear the T-shirt that demands eligibility proof from Obama ...
The Kapi'olani Medical Center for Woman and Children in Hawaii is one of two Honolulu hospitals at which that President Obama is alleged to have been born.
Although the governor now claims she issued a news release stating Kapi'olani is Obama's birthplace, the actual release said no such thing, making no reference to Kapi'olani nor any other specific location of Obama's birth.
At the time of the 2008 election, the release featured the state's director of health, Chiyome Fukino, who said: "There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama's official birth certificate. State law (Hawaii Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record.
"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 Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.
"No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawaii."
Months later, in July 2009, she added another comment: "I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago."
Lingle's radio statement could add further confirmation that a long-form, hospital-generated birth ceritifcate still exists, despite a February report by Britain's Sky News which stated: "Authorities in Hawaii have provided an electronic record of Obama's birth because the paper copy was destroyed in a fire which wiped out much of the state's archives."
Ironically, the governor's pinpointing of the Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women and Children as well as her health director's previous public statements on the matter statement are in apparent violation of Hawaii state law.
In two separate telephone interviews with WND, Janice Okubo, the Health Department's public information officer, told WND that Hawaii law prohibited her from commenting on the birth records of any specific person.
Okubo cited Hawaii Revised Statutes Section 338-18, which pertains to "Disclosure of Records."
That section states regarding the release of vital statistics records, "The department shall not permit inspection of public health statistics records, or issue a certified copy of any such record or part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the record."
More than one hospital?
An intriguing aspect to the story is that Kapi'olani is not the only Honolulu hospital touted as Obama's place of birth. Another facility, the Queen's Medical Center, has also been mentioned as the actual site in numerous publications, including United Press International and the online, myth-busting site Snopes.com.
You'll forgive me if I don't believe the truthfulness of this article. When the actual document, describing the actual details of Obama's birth is made public, then I will reconsider my opinion on this matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasBorn
This is all academic anyway, due to the fact that Obama's alleged father was an alien, he will never be a 'natural born citizen' regardless of where he was born. Of course, it could be that the whole Barack Obama Sr. thing is bogus, and that Barack Hussein Obama's father was actually someone else as has been speculated many times.
Whatever the real answer is, Obama is a liar, usurper, and corrupt politician in my view. I'd like to be shown how wrong I'm in this view, but I don't have any high hopes that will ever happen.
Take Liberty Defense League's poll:
“Are States Doing Enough to Resist Federal Tyranny Within Their Borders?â€
Now we know why Obama for America paid the Perkins Coie law firm $1.7 million between Oct. 15, 2008, and Mar. 31, 2009, after which the Dept. of Justice and the U.S. Attorneys took over the battle - at taxpayer expense - to dismiss the scores of lawsuits demanding proof of eligibility which would cost all of $10 at the Hawaii Dept. of Health. Suddenly the clouds open up, the sunshine bursts through, and we can see it all clearly now.Quote:
Originally Posted by For WorldNetDaily, Joe Kovacs
Now we know why... no, wait, it eludes me for the moment... can someone explain again why this was kept a deep, dark, top secret until just now? Hmmm? It wouldn't have anything to do with the Heidelberg printing press in Toronto and UV-curing the replacement document to make it appear 49 years old?
And can someone explain Mama Sarah's testimony that she was in the birthing room in the hospital when her famous [step-]grandson was born in Mombasa, Kenya, and that he is a "native of the village," Kogelo?
And why, since then, the Kenyan government has kept her under armed guard at her home near Kisumu, and barred western reporters from speaking with her?
And why the Kenyan people, celebrating their native son's victory as U.S. President, shut down Nairobi and most of the rest of Kenya the day after the U.S. election?
And why, at cousin Raila Odinga's behest, the Kenyan police held Jerome Corsi under arrest until his flight out of the country, after he sought Barack Obama II's birth certificate at two hospitals in Mombasa?
And why the Kenyan police declared Barack Obama II's medical records at those two hospitals "top secret," and placed armed guards there to keep them hidden from western reporters?
And why there are armed guards at the State of Hawaii Dept. of Health to keep prying eyes away from Mr. Obama's birth document in the Vital Records vault?
And why, after the 2004 Chicago debate, Dr. Alan Keyes said, "You're not even a natural born citizen," and Mr. Obama responded, "That's all right, I'm not running for President, just for Senate."
And why thereafter the U.S. lamestream media stopped calling him "Kenya-born Barack Obama" - even though the Weekly Standard in Nairobi continued doing so for awhile, and the AP newswire from ModernGhana.com in 2009 heralded the return to "the continent of his birth" by the "Kenyan born American," and the Kenyan parliament has recently, repeatedly, referred to him as a native Kenyan?
And why Pakistani intelligence reports originally listed (de facto) U.S. President Barack Obama as born in Kenya?
And why Madelyn Dunham, Mr. Obama's maternal grandmother in Hawaii, until she died was secluded from reporters who might ask embarrassing questions about where her grandson was born?
And why whistleblower Quarles Harris was murdered in Washington, DC, shortly after he contacted the FBI to testify about the tampering with Mr. Obama's passport file on the State Dept. computer database?
And why... no, we can't ask why the emperor STILL has no birth certificate. The U.S. Attorneys might come and bury us in legal actions.
I'm certain your question is rhetorical, but the obvious answer is that we are no longer a free country in which our government works for us. We have been usurped by more than Obama - the whole federal system is now corrupt.Quote:
Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC
We have to start looking at the Democrat AND Republican Parties as the Enemy.
Consider this... Say it was Election day, you go to the Poll to vote, you get your Ballot and the names listed were :
Al Capone... John Gotti... Bugsy Seagul... John Dillenger...Adolf Hitler... Josef Stallin... Pol Pot
Go ahead, pick ONE... Those are your choices, those are your ONLY CHOICES.
I am not very far off when I suggest this sinario, THIS is what OUR Govt. has come to. It is like this EVERY Election, what shall we do?
Highlander, of course there is no truth to this declaration from Hawaii. A sham! I want to see people tried and convicted for this fraud on the American people!
Quote:
Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan
ANOTHER VIDEO OF MICHELLE CALLING OBAMA A KENYAN!!!
See Michelle call Barack a 'Kenyan'
Video includes comments about Obama at fundraiser
Posted: May 06, 2010
10:10 pm Eastern
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
A video has been posted online in which Michelle Obama, at a 2007 fundraiser, describes her husband as "Kenyan."
The statement from the now-first lady adds weight to another video revealed earlier in which she describe Kenya as Barack Obama's "home country."
"Is Michelle Obama a Birther?" wrote a commentator at American Thinker. "The question has to be asked, now that a second YouTube video has surfaced in which Michelle Obama refers to her husband as a Kenyan."
The video: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=150505
Michelle Obama was boasting about crowds wanting to see her husband that couldn't fit in the venue and were lined up outside.
New strategy unveiled on answering Obama's eligibility questions. See how you can help.
At about two minutes into the video, she says, "What it reminded me of was our trip to Africa, two years ago, and the level of excitement that we felt in that country – the hope that people saw just in the sheer presence of somebody like Barack Obama – a Kenyan, a black man, a man of great statesmanship who they believe could change the fate of the world."
The video apparently was from a Tampa, Fla., fundraiser in December 2007.
(Story continues below)
She also blasted the United States.
"We are still living in a country that is too mean. You know we are not kind to one another and politics reminds us of that," she said. "I don't have faith that Americans want more than what we have. … We don't engage."
She also described Americans as "too cynical" and "too divided" and said they are "led by fear."
The earlier video was from a 2008 appearance:
The video, posted April 3 on YouTube, shows Michelle Obama saying, "When we took our trip to Africa and visited his home country in Kenya, we took a public HIV test."
The clip comes from a June 2008 campaign speech she delivered to the Gay & Lesbian Leadership Council of the Democratic National Committee in New York City, as reported by Reuters.
Many who circulated a link to the 2008 video clip concluded the first lady was acknowledging her husband was born in Kenya and, therefore, not eligible for the Oval Office under the requirement of Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution that the president be a "natural born citizen."
In the speech, Michelle Obama attempted to draw a moral equivalence between the civil rights movement's push to obtain equal rights under U.S. law for blacks and the agenda of homosexual-rights activists.
Echoing leftist Saul Alinsky's 1971 book "Rules for Radicals," Michelle Obama said, "And [Barack] says, 'That in the world as it should be – what does that look like? Now, in the world as it should be we can work together to repeal laws like DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) and 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' and we can (applause) … we can oppose divisive constitutional amendments that would strip civil rights and benefits away from LGBT Americans because discrimination has no place in a nation founded on the promise of equality.'"
The Obamas' 2006 trip to Kenya was documented in a DVD, "Senator Obama Goes to Africa," produced by Bob Hercules and Keith Walker. The two filmmakers also collaborated to produce an earlier documentary on Alinsky, "The Democratic Promise: Saul Alinsky and His Legacy."
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=150505
Right now anyone can say anything because no fact finding has happened yet. I want to hear what they have to say in front of legal council when deposed. That is the only thing I will listen too and even then I want it verified with a copy or the original BC and even then it will make no diff because BO at the very best MAY be a native born citizen...not good enough for POTUS.Quote:
"So I had my health director, who is a physician by background, go personally view the birth certificate in the birth records of the Department of Health, and we issued a news release at that time saying that the president was, in fact, born at Kapi'olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii. And that's just a fact and yet people continue to call up and e-mail and want to make it an issue and I think it's again a horrible distraction for the country by those people who continue this."
In fact...he is an illegal alian...
[quote="MinutemanCDC_SC"][quote="[url=http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=1216821&page=2427]At forums.hannity.com, Trip[/url]"]SR 511[size=117]
Let's look at these persons involved in this Senate Resolution 511, a supposedly bi-partisan resolution that was voted on unanimously. The bipartisan resolution was introduced on April 10 by Sens. Claire McCaskill (D-MO), and co-sponsors:
- Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
Tom Coburn (R-OK)
Barack Obama (D-IL) Presidential Candidate
Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) Presidential Candidate
Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA).
There's One Republican only, Tom Coburn, and even two Democratic candidates from their busy primaries, involved in drafting this resolution, and it was led and sponsored by Democrat Claire McCaskill!
When was the last time we saw this sort of Democratic "reach across the aisle" for such a salute of "bi-partisanship"? NEVER! Certainly not at all since the election.
Bill S. 2678
At this time, it seems that Claire McCaskill was curiously a very civic minded person. Only 5 weeks before McCaskill sponsored SRes 511, there was another Senate Bill she sponsored. [b]Bill S. 2678 attempted to change article II, section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States with reference to the requirements of being a “natural born citizen,â€
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardlineconstitutionalist
Actually, S. 2678 (by whatever identifying bill number) is presented every year, not just for the current usurper.
Eliminating the natural born citizen requirement for POTUS would permit a "world citizen" to control the most powerful military force in the world, instead of a retro fuddy-duddy old-fashioned red white and blue flag-waving jingoist America-first patriot who won't be a team player so as to put the feelings and sensitivities of other nationalities ahead of the home team.
Also, without the NBC requirement, the political parties could select from a global pool of candidates that is over 20 times as large as the pool of natural born U.S. citizen candidates. That would make it much easier to select a President of the U.S. who operates globally rather than provincially. It would make it possible to elect as President of the U.S. a spectacularly exceptional man of peace messiah-figure :twisted: - whom we all know will arise from the opposite side of the planet.
It would also broaden the party contributor list to a global market.
POTUS nomination for sale to the world's highest bidders, any takers?
Oh, I forgot, we already did that last time. (Sorry - YouTube removed.)
I understand what the implications are and why the old Fathers wanted a natural born citizen. I did not realize that the qualifications have been under attach before.Quote:
Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC
However...if this is true...if they have been attempting to change the requirements...then this is legal admission of guilt and willful usurpation against the constitutional requirements. They KNEW what they were doing was illegal and did it anyway.
That is the point I was attempting to make. This will be interesting especially when they get around to exposing the DNC fraud... A read of exhibits 6 and 7 are most interesting...
http://americangrandjury.org/public/
Maybe only interesting to me? :roll:
I came across these two videos this morning and think there is something for us to learn from both. The first video is about 10 minutes in length, the second, longer version, is over an hour.
Robert D. Steele is a former CIA spy, among other job descriptions, and is addressing bloggers - the new news media. If Steele is to be believed, there is serious change a foot. Watch the first video and if you think Steele is legitimate, then go into the second video (language warning).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AIbBGi1gjo
Longer video is here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afb8H-1fcYU
IMO, they only did this as a step to cover their backsides. I believe that the Republicans very deliberately set about ensuring a Democratic victory in the 2008 election. The Republicans didn't want to preside over a disastrous economy, the massive bailouts and the general voter dissatisfaction that was brewing. That having been said, they STILL should be held accountable for usurping the constitution and the office of President.Quote:
Originally Posted by hardlineconstitutionalist