Thread: Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

BTTT

2 Hours Ago by Tim Brown

BOMBSHELL: Document Examiner Tied To Obama Defense Attorney Says Birth Certificate Is 100% Fraud

1 Comment

Reed Hayes is a court qualified handwriting and document examiner whose business is located in Honolulu, Hawaii. He has nearly 40 years of handwriting related experience, and has worked as an international consultant and speaker. Never heard of him? Well, Hayes is the Certified Document Examiner (CDE) who produced the 40 page opinion referenced in the Mike Zullo affidavit that was submitted to the Alabama Supreme Court in the Obama eligibility case and his report concluded that the Obama birth certificate image, located at WhiteHouse.gov is a complete fabrication.
PPSimmons reports:

The rabid followers of the “O” (Obots) have rushed to denounce Reed Hayes as a “quack.” However, one might be surprised to learn that one of Hayes’ clients listed in the Expert Witness Directory at this link is an attorney with Perkins-Coie Law Firm.

Perkins – Coie is the law practice whose partners have provided Obama’s personal defense against all birth certificate and natural born citizen litigation over the past five years. Hmmmmm. Very interesting indeed.
If it turns out that Sheriff Arpaio is successful in getting Congress to investigate the authenticity of Obama’s BC, the Perkins-Coie legal team, who will be defending Obama, will be hard pressed to simply dismiss Reed Hayes as a “quack.” This fact will be especially significant now that it is a revealed and proven truth that members of the Perkins – Coie firm have used Hayes as an expert witness! Their own prior cases, where Hayes was used as a witness, would be severely compromised if they use Saul Alinski-styled mocking attacks on Hayes.

It has been reported that Mr. Hayes has been hounded by Obama operatives to discover the details of his 40-page forensic analysis of the Obama pdf birth certificate. He has been referring them to Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his Cold Case Posse, who now legally own his report, for further information.
I also found it interesting that someone sided with the Obama administration and attempted to bring up dirt on Hayes by pointing out that he was a homosexual with a “partner,” who is now deceased. Isn’t that interesting? Why would that be considered “dirt” from the Obama side? Isn’t he the one telling us that is “normal” and isn’t he the one helping to push the homosexual agenda along? Ah, the hypocrisy!
Mike Zullo responded to the revelation from Hayes, “This ought to serve as a warning shot across the bow to the naysayers of our criminal investigation in the Obama fraud case. The impressive credentials of Mr. Hayes, and the fact that he has testified in court cases for Perkins-Coie coupled with the fact that Mr. Hayes is a registered Democrat, demonstrates the integrity of our investigation and our conviction that we possess incontrovertible evidence to back our case. It must be emphasized that we possess much more evidence similar to this revelation that we have not yet released for public information.”
Attorney Orly Taitz, who has also been pursuing the Obama fraud, even to the Supreme Court, believes something else is going on. She writes:

I contacted Mr. Hayes, he stated that he made a deal with Mike Zullo that he will not cooperate with anyone else….
What is going on here?
To me this is like a Kabuki theater: great male song, dance and acting theater. Feds brought the law suit against Arpaio before he decided to become really hot on the issue of Obama’s birth certificate. When Brian Riley and 250 residents of AZ brought this complaint against Obama, Arpaio was already facing a federal law suit from Hispanics in his district, where they claimed that he violated their civil rights under the color of authority, that he does not investigate complaints of rape and sexual abuse in Hispanic enclaves. If convicted, Arpaio could get a prison term.
So Arpaio became very loud, very outspoken about Obama’s use of a forged birth certificate. Suddenly on August 31, 2012, right before the election, Obama dropped federal law suit against Arpaio and Arpaio never filed a criminal complaint against Obama. People donated millions of dollars, nothing came out of it. Arpaio never submitted his criminal complaint against Obama and Obama was reelected without a cinch.
…
What is the end result of this Kabuki dance? The whole country is still going down the drain, but Arpaio has an ace in his deck playing poker with Obama, while Obama has an ace in his deck against Arpaio. The country is still going down the drain, but as long as Arpaio does not file his criminal complaint against Obama and does not disclose the aforementioned affidavit, Obama will not file criminal charges against Arpaio on Hispanic drivers civil rights violation criminal case.

She then asked why the far left were attacking her, yet quoting Mike Zullo.
“The answer is, because I am very close to proving Obama to be a criminal, who absolutely has to be removed from the White House and send (sic) to prison,” she wrote.
Taitz recently had her docket denied by Judge Lamberth because she used a pen, instead of a black marker to perform redacting on a document. “Big deal!” she wrote on Friday. “Monday morning he will have the same motion staring at him with black marker and not pen redacting. Lamberth did not indicate any other reasons, which means that within a short period of time we will get the original application to this Connecticut Social Security number of Harrison J. Bounel 042-68-4425. Now Lamberth has zero justification to deny it, as I have proven that the owner of the Social Security number that Obama is using would be 123 years old today and by SSA’s own 120 year rule they are obligated to give me his application even without his consent and without any proof that he is deceased. We have Obama cornered, I have his tax returns with his signature under the stolen Social Security number, I do not tell witnesses not to testify for others, I do not hide important evidence and I cannot be bought or intimidated by anything or anyone.”
Last year Obama attorney Alexandra Hill, of the Newark-based law firm Genova, Burn and Giantomasi, admitted that the image of Obama’s birth certificate was a forgery and made the absurd claim that it could not be used as evidence to confirm his lack of natural born citizenship status.
Seems to me Taitz is laying all her cards out on the table and Arpaio and Zullo, while seeming to have massive amount of evidence may be suspect by not filing a criminal complaint, while the Obama administration dropped their federal lawsuit against him. I don’t know what to make of them at this point. I do know that the evidence of forgery and that we have a Manchurian President seem overwhelmingly clear to me.


http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/06/bo...-is-100-fraud/

Originally Posted by Naysayer Obot "James" in a comment on WND

I did check the facts - Indonesian Law is clear on the matter.
I fail to see what Suharto has to do with it.

Since you can't challenge a single thing I said, my facts stand.
Check them out for yourself.

"Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
Or you will also be like him.
Answer a fool as his folly deserves,
That he not be wise in his own eyes." - Proverbs 26:4,5

I don't debate with proven liars, because when presented
with facts, they make up their own so-called "facts". I don't
waste my time arguing with self-deceived deceivers, who
lead others into the ditch along with them. James is told the
truth, which he then denies, spreading more confusion by
filling up more column inches with more lies. JUST
BECAUSE JAMES SAYS IT IS A FACT, IT MAY BE
TRUE OR IT MAY NOT BE TRUE. James still claims
that the counterfeit, forged Hawaii (long form) Certificate
of Live Birth is genuine, although he HAS to know, just by
examining it closely, that it is sloppily forged, and because
it is forged, it is therefore also fraudulent. So James is lying
about what his eyes tell him is fake, claiming it is genuine.
James is vouching for (lying about) what he knows is false;
how then can he be believed about what he doesn't know
but only claims to be true?

Army Maj. Gen. Suharto took control of Indonesia in 1966
and was "appointed" acting President in 1967. He resigned
the Presidency in 1998. His military regime was authoritarian,
totalitarian, virtual martial law under a Mus|im dictator in the
world's most populous Is|amic state. It was not a Shari'a law
type of totalitarian religious state like Saudi Arabia, Yemen,
Iran, or even like Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, or Afghanistan.
But under Gen. Suharto, Indonesia was definitely subject to
a totalitarian dictatorship - the kind of oppressive rule that
one can feel without even seeing it. Americans are even now
beginning to understand that kind of (almost) "nowhere
touching but everywhere felt" totalitarian dictatorship.

In 1967, when Barry Soetoro was living with Lolo and
Anna Soetoro in Jakarta, Indonesia was under martial
law (whether declared or virtual), and one had to carry
papers - official, government-issued ID - in Barry's case,
his Indonesian citizenship card, the "Kartu Tanda
Penduduk" or "KTP". Not now, and not in the 1960's
until 1967, but AT THAT TIME, under Maj. Gen. Suharto's
military dictatorship, ONLY CITIZENS could attend the
taxpayer-funded government schools. Non-citizen
internationals, such as the ARAMCO foreign employees'
children, attended the privately-funded International School
in Jakarta, as required by law. Barry did not. He attended
St. Fransiskus Assisi (Catholic) Elementary School through
grade 3, and the Mentang (Neighborhood) #1 government
school for the part of grade 4 before his return to Hawaii
in 1971 with his mother, Anna Dunham Soetoro, on her
passport. (He did not have his own passport.)

Barry WAS a citizen of Indonesia. The totalitarian military
regime AT THAT TIME (not now, not in or before 1966)
would not have TOLERATED "Calling yourself a different
name without legally changing it." That is not a fact but a
DEDUCTION, based not upon the flimsy premises and
pretenses of the Bill Ayers-ghosted DFMF narrative, but
upon the internationally infamous harsh nature of the
totalitarian Suharto regime, military rule under what
amounted to martial law, whether it was called that or not.

James can create his own "facts", so-called, he can even
write his own biography and then refer to it as a "history
text," but he can't change the history of the times. Those
were just the facts of life under the Suharto military junta
in Indonesia c.1967-1971.

("A military junta is a group of military officers who
have taken over the government of a country by force.
A military dictatorship where a single leader usually
has all the power. It is an example of an autocratic
dictatorship," from ask.reference.com.)

Originally Posted by Obamapologist skwills commenting at WorldNetDaily

As I answered it at length elsewhere, I'll be breif. I know you and others think Im a Liberal progressive who supports Obama. Im not. But I do support the Law and Factual Arguments. The one thign I need to know about Barrack Hussein Obama Junior, the only relevant thing in this topic, is that he was born a Citizen of the United States, and despite the claism on WND, being born a Citizen of the United States makes you a natural Born citizen. he is thus eligable to serve as president undert he Constitution.

I don't like his policies and didnt spport him, but hsi Mother was a US Citizen and accordign to Title 8, this means he is too. Title 8 doesnt say both parents must be US Citizens. In fact, Title 8 allows for neither parent to be US Citizens if you are born in the US and he was born in Hawaii. The matter is settled. Lets move on to a relevant point.

skwills, you are welcome to move to any other point you like.

Barack Hussein Obama II was born to a Kenyan father, who was never a U.S. citizen or legal resident, just a visiting foreign student on a student visa.

Barack Hussein Obama II was born in the Lady Grigg Maternity Unit of Coast Province General Hospital in Mombasa, Kenya. The Supervisor of Obstetrics was John Kwame Odongo, and the attending physician was Dr. James O.W. Ang'awa, who was a friend of BHO Sr. and later his neighbor in Nairobi. Barack Obama II's birthplace is not in doubt; he was born in Kenya, as was public knowledge (especially to the Hillary Clinton campaign) ... until 2007, when it was buried as political baggage.

The counterfeit, forged, computer-generated .pdf file depicting a State of Hawaii long form Certificate of Live Birth proves nothing and is indicative of nothing, because it is a fabricated fake document, as any law enforcement officer in a southern border state would readily recognize. It is not even a decent forgery - it's just BAD MONEY, and anyone can recognize that a $3 bill is fake from a picture of it, even from a hokey, nine-layer .pdf file that the inexperienced forger did not even remember to flatten to a single layer before publishing it. Bogosky beyond belief. Pathetic.

The INA of 1952, as it was written and in effect in 1961 when Barack Obama II was born, required for conferring U.S. citizenship that the citizen parent of a foreign-born child with an alien parent have been a resident of the U.S. for ten years, five of which were after the age of fourteen. But Anna Dunham Obama was only 18, 117 days short of the 19 years of age (five years after the age of fourteen) which the INA of 1952 then required of her in order to confer her U.S. citizenship to her foreign-born child with an alien. According to 8 USC 1401(h) as it was written at that time, she was incapable to make Barack Obama II a U.S. citizen by birth. At birth, Barack Obama II was NOT a U.S. citizen, but ONLY a British Protected Citizen (UKCC) by virtue of his birth in the British Protectorate of Kenya to a Kenyan citizen father. BTW, British citizenship does not cease when one becomes a citizen of another sovereignty.


HE WAS BORN A BRIT; HE'S ALWAYS A BRIT; AND HE'S NOT LEGIT!

[ED.: I do not advocate for impeaching Mr. Obama, for these and other reasons.

1. Only an actual office-holder can be impeached, not an impostor masquerading as such. Mr. Obama is a criminal intruder trespassing in the White House, an ineligible receiver in the field of presidential wannabes, an enemy foreign agent and a fraudulent impostor who should be removed from the Office by the Secret Service, SEAL Team Seven, the local Sheriff, or whatever appropriate law enforcement agency gets it done.

2. Were Mr. Obama to be impeached by the House, nothing he has done or could do, short of a personally initiated nµclεar attαck on the U.S. Capitol building, would cause two-thirds of the majority-Democrat Senate to convict him. Meanwhile, the legal motions and maneuvers could drag on for years, until impeachment becomes a moot point.

3. The most propitious angle of approach now is a House investigation, which does not require a majority of the House and does not involve the Senate at all. But it could break through both the media cone of silence and the threat of violence by the Chicago Mob and Dar al'Is|am. The results of a House investigation will make Mr. Obama's fraudulent usurpation of the Presidency public knowledge and force him to resign, just as public humiliation about the Watergate break-in and coverup forced then-Pres. Nixon to resign and made impeachment unnecessary.

However, because my opinion is just my opinion and no more, and because many are proposing that Mr. Obama be impeached, here are some of those voices calling for impeachment.]
_______________________________________________

Dennis Kucinich calls for impeachment of Obama over unauthorized cruise missile attacks against Libya

Dennis Kucinich | March 21, 2011 | By: Joe Newby



[Spokane Conservative Examiner, March 21, 2011: Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) calls for impeachment of Obama over cruise missile attacks against Libya without the authorization of Congress.]

Kucinich also sought the impeachment of both President Bush and Vice President Cheney over the Iraq War, but was blocked by Democratic leaders.
...
One Democratic lawmaker noted that while the [Obama] Administration consulted with the Arab League and the United Nations, "They did not consult the United States Congress."
...
Kucinich and other Democrats are technically correct when they say the Constitution does not give the President power to unilaterally initiate military action unless there is a clear and present danger to U.S. national security, a point made by then Senator Obama in 2007:

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

_______________________________________________

GOP Rep: Obama should be impeached
if he tries to usurp Congress on debt

Tim Scott | July 7, 2011 | By: Joe Newby



While speaking at a Tea Party event in Charleston, SC, Rep. Tim Scott (R-SC) said that if President Obama tries to bypass Congress to borrow beyond the debt limit, he would consider it an "impeachable act."

Scott said it would be "catastrophic" if the President tried to "usurp the entire system set up by our Founding Fathers over something this significant."
...
"This president is looking to usurp congressional oversight to find a way to get it done without us," he said.
_______________________________________________

GOP Congressman says Obama should be impeached

Impeach Obama | August 9, 2011 | By: Joe Newby



On Monday, Texas Republican Michael Burgess said the impeachment of Barack Obama "needs to happen," according to an article at Politico.

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram reported:

When one attendee suggested that the House push for impeachment proceedings against President Barack Obama to obstruct the president from pushing his agenda, Burgess was receptive.

"It needs to happen, and I agree with you it would tie things up," Burgess said. "No question about that."

Burgess said later he was not sure if the proper charges were there, but he did not rule out pursing impeachment.

"We need to tie things up," he said. "The longer we allow the damage to continue unchecked, the worse things are going to be for us."

Burgess made the remark at a meeting with about 100 Tarrant County[, Texas,] Tea Party activists, most of whom were unhappy with his support of the debt ceiling deal.

He told the activists he didn't like the deal, but thought supporting it was the best thing to do under the circumstances.

Reid J. Epstein wrote at Politico:

Burgess, an obstetrician who is in his fifth term as a lawmaker, is the latest House Republican to call for the president’s impeachment. Last month, Iowa Rep. Steve King said Obama “would be impeached” if he allowed the nation to default.

Rep. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) said it would be “an impeachable offense” for Obama to raise the debt ceiling without congressional approval. In April, former Reagan administration official Bruce Fein drafted articles of impeachment in hopes that House Republicans would introduce them.

Those articles of impeachment deal with Obama's unilateral actions in the Libyan war:

In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has usurped the exclusive power of Congress to initiate war under Article I, section 8, clause 11 of the United States Constitution by unilaterally commencing war against the Republic of Libya on March 19, 2011, declaring that Congress is powerless to constrain his conduct of the war, and claiming authority in the future to commence war unilaterally to advance whatever he ordains is in the national interest. By so doing and declaring, Barack Hussein Obama has mocked the rule of law, endangered the very existence of the Republic and the liberties of the people, and perpetrated an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor as hereinafter elaborated.

Even if the House successfully impeaches him, it is highly unlikely a Democratic-controlled Senate would actually convict him.
_______________________________________________

Sensenbrenner floats impeachment of Obama
admin. officials as ‘Fast and Furious’ response



by Matthew Boyle, investigative reporter for the dailycaller.com

12:14 PM, Thursday, 12/08/2011: Wisconsin Republican Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, a former chairman of the House Judiciary Committee where Attorney General Eric Holder testified on Thursday, suggested that impeachment of administration officials involved with Operation Fast and Furious may be the only way to bring the scandal to a close.

In a heated exchange between Sensenbrenner and Holder during Thursday’s Judiciary Committee hearing, Sensenbrenner said impeachment is one option on the table if Holder and the Justice Department continue to withhold information from congressional investigators.

Sensenbrenner didn’t specify which administration officials he thinks could face impeachment proceedings, or if Holder is among them. But he did say the drastic measure would be a last resort.

“There is really no responsibility within the Justice Department,” Sensenbrenner said. “The thing is, if we don’t get to the bottom of this — and that requires your assistance on that — there is only [one] alternative that Congress has and it is called impeachment, where our subpoena powers are plenary and there can‘t be any type of legal immunity or privilege that can be asserted on that.”

“But if we keep on getting pushed down the road and the can keeps getting kicked, and we don’t get closure to this, what is Congress to do so that we don’t spend all our time in court arguing privilege?” Sensenbrenner continued. “That is not a way to get at the truth.”

by Joe Newby, reporter at the examiner.com who specializes in impeachment

Holder broadly asserted that no officials had intentionally deceived Congress, but Politico adds that the Attorney General conceded "that some assurances about Fast and Furious and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives policy that the department provided to Congress in February were not true."

Conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh had a partial transcript of the exchange:

HOLDER: Lemme make something very clear and in response to an assertion that you made -- or hinted at -- nobody in the Justice Department has lied.

SENSENBRENNER: Why was the letter withdrawn?

HOLDER: The letter was withdrawn because information in th-there that was inaccurate. The Justice Department letter of February --

SENSENBRENNER: Okay, tell me what's the difference between "lying" and "misleading" Congress in this context?

HOLDER: Well, it -- uh -- eh -- um -- i-i-if you want to have this legal arg -- uh, conversation it all has to with your state of mind and whether or not you had the requisite intent.

"Riiiight, right. You can't lie unless you intend to. It's all about your state of mind!" Limbaugh exclaimed.

Holder acknowledged that as Attorney General, he is ultimately responsible for what happens in the Justice Department, while Sensenbrenner reminded him that misleading Congress is a felony.

Politico added:

“I don’t want to say that you have committed a felony, Mr. Attorney General, but obviously there have been statements so misleading that a letter had to be withdrawn,” Sensenbrenner said. “I think some heads should roll. … The assistant attorney general for the criminal division, Lanny Breuer, should be fired.”

“We have to find out where those mistakes were made, and then I’m going to hold people accountable in that regard,” Holder said during later questioning.

[ED: Eighteen months later, AG Holder has held no one accountable for "those mistakes" yet. However, some have been rewarded. Whistleblowers, not so much.]
__________________________________________________

Obama bypassing Congress on use
of military impeachable offense



March 10, 2012: Introduced by U.S. Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC), H.Con.Res. 107 reads in part:

Whereas the cornerstone of the Republic is honoring Congress's exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that, except in response to an actual or imminent attack against the territory of the United States, the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress violates Congress's exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution and therefore constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.

[ED.: The cornerstone of the Republic might arguably be the honoring of Congress's exclusive power to declare war, but Congress was unwilling to "declare war" against Dictator Obama in order to protect that cornerstone of the Republic.]
_______________________________________________

Sen. Kyl: Impeachment of Obama over immigration 'always a possibility'

Impeachment | June 26, 2012 | By: Joe Newby for the examiner.com



[Today,] Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) suggested that President Obama could be impeached over his immigration policies.

"If the president insists on continuing to ignore parts of the law that he doesn’t like, and simply not enforce that law, the primary remedy for that is political," he said.

After the Supreme Court upheld a key provision of Arizona's immigration law, the administration responded by suspending its 287(g) agreements with Arizona, and issuing a directive telling federal authorities to decline many of the calls reporting illegal immigrants.

Worse yet, the Justice Department set up a hotline and an email address for people to report what they believe are potential civil rights violations.

[On his radio show, Bill] Bennett asked: "How do you make the feds cooperate [with state immigration efforts]?"

"Well, that’s the executive’s job and there are only a couple of ways to do it," the Senator said. "If the president insists on continuing to ignore parts of the law that he doesn’t like, and simply not enforce that law, the primary remedy for that is political. And you have it two ways: one is oversight through the Congress to demonstrate what they’re doing wrong and there are some potential criminal charges there for dereliction of duty. Although, I haven’t looked that up yet. And the other part of it is people need to react through the ballot box to turn out of office those people who are not doing their duty. Now if it’s bad enough and if there are shenanigans involved in it, then of course impeachment is always a possibility. But I don’t think at this point anybody is talking about that," he added.

Writing at MSNBC, Steve Frank called the suggestion reckless, but conservatives say Obama's actions are not those of a responsible chief executive.

[Today,] talk show host Rush Limbaugh said Obama's actions made Arizona law enforcement officials targets of the administration and left wing trial lawyers.

"Law enforcement is now the target, [with] the bull's-eye painted on their backs by Barack Obama. [He has] sided with people who are on the other side of the law."

[ED.: Except for adding the last four sentences, Joe Newby's article
is basically a quote of Igor Volsky's article at ThinkProgress.com .]
_______________________________________________

Obama campaign caught in lie over Joe Soptic,
possible violation of law

Stephanie Cutter | August 10, 2012 | By: Joe Newby


Obama campaign caught in lie over Joe Soptic, the steelworker whose wife
died years after Romney left Bain. Credits: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

The Obama campaign has been caught in a lie over Joe Soptic, the man in the now infamous "Romney killed my wife" ad put out by Priorities USA.

After the real timeline of events caused scrutiny of the PAC, the Obama re-election team claimed to have had no knowledge of Soptic's story. Deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter told CNN she didn't know the facts behind Soptic's story.

“I don’t know the facts about when Mr. Soptic’s wife got sick or the facts about his health insurance,” she said.

Robert Gibbs echoed that sentiment when he told reporters on Air Force One that “we don’t have any knowledge of the story of the family.”

But an article posted Thursday at policymic.com says that Soptic was on a conference call with Cutter on May 4, 2012.

"Stephanie Cutter knew Joe Soptic, and heard the entire story well before the Priorities USA ad debuted over the airways. It’s now obvious that she lied when trying to deny it this week," Jesse Merkel wrote.

"It’s highly likely that Robert Gibbs and other high level Obama campaign advisers knew Joe Soptic and his story very well," he added, noting that it is "a violation of federal law" for a campaign to coordinate with a Super PAC.

Buzzfeed reported Thursday that the campaign also used Soptic's story in a slideshow posted on the internet earlier this year that also fails to mention that Romney was not at Bain when the worker lost his job.

(Continued...)
_______________________________________________

Rep. Trey Radel (R-FL):
Obama impeachment should be 'on the table'



Jan. 13, 2013: Rep. Radel said that Americans “have completely lost our checks and balances in this country[. T]he Congress needs to hold the President accountable for the decisions that he’s making right now ..."

“What I would say to Democrats who are friends with President Obama right now is, ask yourself, what are you going to do when a Republican gets in, that you may not agree with or like very much, and begins doing the same thing?” he asked. [Or paraphrased, "I say right now to President Obama's Democrat friends, ask yourself what you will do when a Republican - someone you may not like very much and with whom you may not agree - becomes President and does these same things?”]
_______________________________________________

Rep. Stockman (R-TX) threatens impeachment
if Obama uses executive action for gun control

Originally Posted by Caroline May for The Daily Caller

Monday, Jan. 14, 2013: Texas Republican Rep. Steve Stockman threatened Monday afternoon that he would file articles of impeachment against President Barack Obama if he institutes gun control measures with an executive order.

Stockman warned that such executive orders would be “unconstitutional” and “infringe on our constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms.”

“I will seek to thwart this action by any means necessary, including but not limited to eliminating funding for implementation, defunding the White House, and even filing articles of impeachment,” Stockman said in a statement.

At his press conference Monday, Obama floated the possibility of using executive action to enact policies aimed at reducing gun violence.

The same day Stockman issued his threat, former U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese told Newsmax that Obama could be impeached if he attempts to override the Second Amendment through executive orders.

[Two days later, on Wednesday, Jan. 16th,] Obama signed 23 executive orders dealing with gun control while using children as props.



[ED.: However innocuous the first 13 of these E.O.s sound, they will only affect law-abiding gun-owners, while not impacting criminals who disrespect and disregard gun laws anyway. Eight of the last ten E.O.s can be readily twisted and misconstrued to disarm dissident citizens first, on the way to disarming all law-abiding individuals, still without doing anything to reduce the use of guns in crimes. These eight E.O.s also threaten the carefully-maintained "ambulance-neutrality" which allows nurses, doctors, and healthcare workers to care for the sick and the wounded even in tense hostile-fire situations. At worst, these eight E.O.s potentially force already overworked medical personnel to perform double-duty as police snitches, turning caregivers into targets for violence.]

Originally Posted by Mr. Obama

14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

17. Release a letter to health-care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law-enforcement authorities.

18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.

20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental-health services that Medicaid plans must cover.

21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.

22. Commit to finalizing mental-health-parity regulations.

23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.

_______________________________________________

Allen West agrees:
Impeachment of Obama should be an option

TEA Party | June 3, 2013 | By: Joe Newby


Allen West talks impeachment of Obama. (Credits: thesharktank1)

In a video posted at the Shark Tank on Saturday, former Rep. Allen West, R-Fla., told Javier Manjarres that impeachment of Barack Obama should be an option.

Manjarres said that he referenced the January statement by Rep. Trey Radel that “all options need to be on the table,” in regards to Obama bypassing Congress on a number of issues. West agreed with Radel's statement.

"We did something that is the most heinous thing that could ever happen. We abandoned Americans while they were under attack. You know that’s right up there to ask someone, maybe you should not be the President. Guess what, Richard Nixon stepped down over breaking and entering," West said.

West noted that two weeks after the attack, Obama was still "talking about a video."

"He did so on Univision. He did so at the United Nations," West said, adding that Obama went so far as to say no one should defame Mohammed. But West said Obama knew at the time the attack was not the result of an online anti-Muslim video.

"We knew that was not the case. He knew that was not the case," he told Manjarres.

The idea of impeaching Obama has come up several times for several reasons in the last three years.
_______________________________________________

Sen. James Inhofe: Obama could face impeachment over Benghazi cover-up

Top GOP Senator Says Obama Could Be Impeached Over ‘Most Egregious Cover-Up in American History’

May. 10, 2013 5:38 pm | by Madeleine Morgenstern for The Blaze



May 10, 2013: The top-ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee said President Barack Obama could possibly be impeached over what happened in Benghazi.

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) said in a radio interview Thursday that “of all the great cover-ups in history” — including the Pentagon papers, Iran-Contra and Watergate — Benghazi “is going to go down as the most serious, most egregious coverup in American history.”

“We may be starting to use the I-word before too long,” Inhofe said on the Las Vegas-based “Rusty Humphries Show.”

“The I-word meaning impeachment?” Humphries asked.

“Yeah,” Inhofe confirmed.

When Humphries questioned the likelihood of impeachment, Inhofe said it wouldn’t be immediate.

“I’m not talking about it now, this is something that could endure until after the ’14 election — this is not a short story, this is something that was re-discovered after eight months…this is clearly an orchestrated coverup,” he said.

Listen to the full interview here.
_______________________________________________

March 3, 2013
U.S. Releases $250 Million in Aid to Egypt After Sec. Kerry’s Meeting With Pres. Mohamed Morsi


U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, left, shakes hands with Egyptian President
Mohamed Morsi at the Presidential Palace in Cairo, Egypt on March 3, 2013.

[ED.: Left unmentioned is the U.S. forgiving $1 Billion of Egypt's debt so Egypt could purchase $1 Billion worth of German U-Boats, as well as U.S. military aid of 250 Raytheon cruise missiles, 20 F-16s, and 200 Abrams tanks to Egypt, ruled by the Mus|im Brotherhood, a sworn enemy of its neighbor, Israel, the primary U.S. ally in the Middle East. But perhaps someone in Washington can justify that conflict of self-interests - not tr__s_n, mind you - as merely restoring a balance of power in the region after the U.S. sold Saudi Arabia $30 billion worth of F-15SA fighter jets in Dec., 2011: 84 new jets and 70 upgrades to existing Saudi F-15 jets. Have to keep our Sunni Is|amic friends and masters armed to the teeth so they can protect themselvcs - not against Israel, of course, but against the Shi'a Is|amic Republic to their east.]
_______________________________________________

[ED.: On June 13th, White House officials met with Sheikh Abdullah bin Bayyah, a deputy of radical Egyptian cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi. The White House hosted this Israel-hating radical Mus1im, while ordinary U.S. citizens are not allowed to set foot in the White House.]


White House under enemy occupation

Banned Cleric's Outspoken Deputy Visits White House

by Steven Emerson and John Rossomando
Exclusive for IPT News
June 26, 2013

Radical Egyptian cleric Yusuf Qaradawi is considered so radical that the United States bans him from entering the country.

Qaradawi, considered the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood movement, has called for the killing of Jews and Americans.

That history makes the June 13[th] White House meeting with Sheik Abdullah Bin Bayyah all the more inexplicable. Bin Bayyah is vice president of the International Union of Muslim Scholars (IUMS), a group founded by and headed by Qaradawi. The IUMS has a long history of supporting Hamas – a top Hamas leader is an IUMS member – and of calling for Israel's destruction.

Bin Bayyah's website claims that he met June 13[th] with senior Obama administration officials at the White House.

Nonetheless, it was the Obama administration which sought the meeting with Bin Bayyah, his website's account said.

"We asked for this meeting to learn from you and we need to be looking for new mechanisms to communicate with you and the Association of Muslim Scholars (another name used for the IUMS)," Gayle Smith, senior director of the National Security Council, reportedly said.

Bin Bayyah's June 13[th] account placed other senior officials in the meeting, including: Rashad Hussain, the U.S. special envoy to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), National Security Adviser Tom Donilon and White House spokeswoman Jennifer Palmieri. But the account was later changed to delete the reference to Donilon's presence at the meeting.

Smith also thanked Bin Bayyah for "his efforts to bring more understanding amongst humanity" during the meeting, the Bin Bayyah account said.

The White House did not respond to repeated requests for comments between June 14 and Tuesday[, June 25].

Sheikh Abdullah Bin Bayyah posted this photo of his June 13 White House meeting.

Bin Bayyah lobbied the White House to "take urgent action" to help Syrian rebels. "We demand Washington take a greater role in [Syria]," Bin Bayyah told Al-Jazeera. President Obama later [the same day] announced plans to arm Syrian rebels.

In granting Bin Bayyah a visa, White House officials ignored his radical statements as well as his close connection to Qaradawi. The IUMS's hostility toward Israel, and its support of terrorists, is well documented. Bin Bayyah falls comfortably in line with that view.

["IPT noted that al-Qaradawi, the founder of the International Union of Muslim Scholars (IUMS), endorses Palestinian Authority Arab suicide bombers and supports Hamas in its fight against Israel. The report also said that bin Bayyah, like al-Qaradawi, also 'refuses to label the acts of groups such as Hamas, Hizbullah or the Islamic Jihad as terrorism.'” (JVIM Daily Update, http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/169349 )]

Continued at http://www.investigativeproject.org/4055/exclusive-banned-cleric-outspoken-deputy-visits

Anti-Morsi, anti-Mus|im Brotherhood protesters hung this banner for the June 30, 2013, protests in Cairo, Egypt. They view Mr. Obama as an enabler of the Mohamed Morsi / Mus|im Brotherhood regime.

_______________________________________________

Levin (audio): If Obama sidesteps Congress
on debt ceiling, ‘no choice’ but impeachment

Originally Posted by Mark Levin

Jan. 14, 2013: Now, if Obama unilaterally acts — and I think there’s a fan-dance going on here where his spokes-idiot [Jay] Carney is out there saying, ‘No, we’ve decided we’re not going to do this’ — if Obama, though, plays the role of Hamlet and in the end says ‘I have no choice: The Republicans are going to destroy our economy, our debt rating, all this that and the other, therefore I must unilaterally act,’ he should be impeached,” Levin declared. “Because that means Congress’ core power — in addition to declaring war — Congress’ core power, that is, control over spending and taxing, will have been seized by the President of the United States in one executive order.

Originally Posted by Mark Levin

July 5, 2011: If Barack Obama attempts to destroy the Separation of Powers doctrine, if he intends to seize Congressional power when it comes to borrowing and spending despite the plain wording of Article 1 Section 8 Clause 2. In other words if he’s going to violate his oath of office…then he needs to be impeached.

Originally Posted by Joe Newby at the examiner.com

July 6, 2011: Fox News reported the idea [of the Executive Branch raising the debt limit] has been "gaining traction" among liberal Democrats since Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said the language of the Fourteenth Amendment could be interpreted in a way that would give the President power to bypass Congress.

According to the Washington Examiner, New York Democrat Chuck Schumer has confirmed that such a course has been considered by the Administration.

Brian Beutler wrote at Talking Points Memo:

I asked Schumer, a lawyer, whether, in his view, the administration had the power to continue issuing new debt even if Congress fails to raise the debt limit. He acknowledged that the question's been discussed, but said the White House probably shouldn't go there just yet.

"It's certainly worth exploring," Schumer said. "I think it needs a little more exploration and study. It's probably not right to pursue at this point and you wouldn't want to go ahead and issue the debt and then have the courts reverse it."

Conn Carroll responded at the Washington Examiner:

Considering the ease with which Obama has violated bankruptcy law, refused to enforce voter fraud laws, and ignored the War Powers Act, what is stopping him from ignoring the debt ceiling.

On Sunday, Texas Senator John Cornyn warned the President to not even consider such a move:

"That's crazy talk. It's not acceptable for Congress and the president not to do their job and to say somehow the president has the authority then to basically do this by himself," Cornyn, R-Texas, a former judge on the Texas Supreme Court, told "Fox News Sunday."

Although Levin did not believe the President would act unilaterally, he warned Obama that America does not like dictators and said that if the President did pull an end-run around Congress, both he and Senator Chuck Schumer should be removed from office:

Should he attempt to seize explicit Congressional power, we’ve got to make a case that we don’t like dictators in this country and that we will not accept dictators in this country. There’s not even a colorable argument that can be made that justifies the President of the United States seizing for himself the authority to “borrow money on the credit of the United States.” And should Chuck Schumer continue to urge this and should the President do it, then Chuck Schumer should be expelled from the United States Senate when the Republicans take it back over as they will.

When asked about the constitutionality of a debt ceiling during a press conference last Wednesday, the president simply said, "I'm not a Supreme Court justice, so I'm not going to put my constitutional law professor hat on here."

Levin is right - if Obama continues to rule by executive order and regulatory fiat, bypassing Congress and ignoring the will of the people as expressed by their elected representatives, he should be impeached.

_______________________________________________

[ED.: As if amnesty for illegal aliens were not a sufficient betrayal of American workers at the production site, Mr. Obama plans to further sell out American workers at the import dock.]

Obama trade dilemma: scant support from Democrats

By TOM RAUM | Associated Press – Sat, Jun 15, 2013 12:18 PM EDT


In this May 2, 2013, file photo, President Barack Obama shakes hands with
Michael Froman, his nominee for U.S. Trade Representative, during a Rose
Garden ceremony at the White House. Obama is pushing to liberalize global
trade through the elimination of tariffs and other barriers, long the plague of
economic relations. The proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Part-
nership with Europe will be a top item this coming week in Northern Ireland
at the Group of Eight summit of major Western democracies.
(AP Photo/Charles Dharapak, File)

WASHINGTON (AP) — As President Barack Obama pushes an ambitious agenda to liberalize global trading, political trade wars already are forming, and they're with fellow Democrats rather than with Republicans, his usual antagonists.

Obama is promoting free-trade proposals with Europe and Asia that could affect up to two-thirds of all global trade.

The ambitious deals would reduce or eliminate tariffs and other trade barriers. But there's trouble ahead for both the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership — at the negotiating table and from Congress.
_______________________________________________

Dean Chambers: Obama should be impeached over Benghazi, targeting conservatives, abuses of power

Government Topics | June 15, 2013 | By: Joe Newby

On Saturday, [June 15th,] Dean Chambers, the Examiner.com writer who caused a stir last November with a web site that said Obama won the [2012] election through voter fraud, said in an op-ed that Barack Obama should be impeached over Benghazi, the scandals involving the targeting of conservative groups, and what Chambers called a "pattern of exceeding" his Constitutional authority.

Originally Posted by Dean Chambers, editor of QStarNews.com

Obama must be impeached

[June 15, 2013:] By Dean Chambers
QstarNews Editorial

By Dean Chambers, Editor and Publisher

[ED.: Numerous grammar errors have been corrected without annotation.]

While there seems to be an almost unlimited amount of scandals and issues with which to suggest this president should be impeached, citing the few most egregious and impeachable offenses among the all-too-numerous to count makes a stronger and more direct case for impeachment. We propose the Congress impeach Barack Obama as President based on three areas of misconduct which are clearly “high crimes and misdemeanors” the Constitution deems to be worthy of presidential impeachment.

There are some who are looking for a “smoking gun” to surface, such as a recording of Obama specifically ordering some of the actions be taken or a memo he signed where he ordered someone to take such actions. That is not likely to surface nor is it necessary. Strong cases are proven to juries in criminal courts every day without that kind of evidence. Remember, an impeachment is an indictment, and it occurs in the House of Representatives. The decision of whether to convict and remove the President takes place in the Senate.

The first area of impeachable offenses by President Obama concerns his pattern of exceeding the Constitutional authority of the Office and repeatedly taking actions where he lacks Constitutional authority. He ordered numerous business decisions, including the firing of the CEO of General Motors, in the restructuring of Chrysler and General Motors that should have been decided by the corporate boards and their stockholders, not the President. Obama has effectecd numerous other decisions by Executive Orders, such as gutting welfare reform and radically changing immigration policy. In all too many of these instances, he made decisions that should not be made by government, or he abused his Executive Order authority to decide policy issues that should be decided by the people's Representatives in Congress.

The second area of violation is in the affair concerning the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. The President was well aware of what was happening even as it happened, and on two occasions, he ordered military personnel to stand down and not seek to help or defend Americans under attack. For eight hours that battle raged, and Obama sat and did nothing, and in the end our ambassador and three other Americans died in the terrorist attack on our consulate. Since then, it is clear the President and his appointees have lied and covered up what happened at Benghazi. The President's conduct in this area alone is impeachable.

The third area of misconduct involves the systematic, consistent, and widespread pattern of abusing government authority to target, harass, and otherwise deny rights to a large group of individuals and organizations. The members of this group supported, donated, or otherwise worked in favor of Republican candidates, Tea Party groups, or other conservative organizations seeking to participate in the political process. Business owners were targeted and harassed with unwarranted IRS audits just for donating to Republican campaigns or super-PACs that opposed the President's policies. Tthe IRS targeted Tea Party and other conservative groups which were in the process of applying for tax-exempt status. Businesses which donated to Republican candidates or were owned by Republicans were raided by federal agencies in gestapo-style raids to harass and publicly embarrass them. Those Chrysler and General Motors automotive dealerships which were owned by Republicans or by owners who donated to Republicans were far more likely to be closed than those owned by Democrats or by owners who donated to Democrats, as a statistically significant pattern demonstrates. Republican-owned businesses were far more likely to be investigated, harassed, and targeted by the Obama Environmental Protection Agency. The pattern of clearly partisan abuse of Republicans, conservatives, and others opposed to the Obama administration is so clear to as be entirely undeniable.

Congress doesn't need a “smoking gun;” the evidence of impeachable offenses in these three areas is already known. At this point, the purpose of Congress having impeachment hearings is to build the case. After the President is impeached in the House, the trial of impeachment takes place in the Senate. The evidence in these areas is overwhelming and far more than enough to warrant impeaching Barack Hussein Obama as President.

Now it's time for Congress to get to work. House Speaker John Boehner should appoint the impeachment committee immediately.

As the country has learned, some 500 conservative groups were targeted by the IRS for extra scrutiny when they filed paperwork to become tax-exempt organizations. Christian organizations were also targeted for scrutiny and abuse by federal bureaucrats, and the Examiner's Anthony Martin reported Friday that government operatives infiltrated churches "for the purpose of data collection."

According to Martin, "government snoops" were looking for any criticism of Obama, "talk of Tea Party participation, conversations about gun ownership, and a number of other issues."

On Saturday, Chambers said in an exclusive interview that he did not believe the Democratic-controlled Senate would vote to convict Obama, but he believes that some Democrats would vote to convict if the public overwhelmingly supported it.

"I think they should make clear at every step that race is not an issue, and that it is unfortunate that America's first African-American President has committed impeachable offenses. But the integrity of the Constitution and the rule of law are more important, and the Members of Congress took an oath to uphold them," he said.

Chambers also said he does not believe Obama has the political skills to fight impeachment the way that Bill Clinton did, and he would probably opt to resign if the House voted to impeach.

But what about the possibility of Joe Biden stepping in to take Obama's place?

Chambers said he wasn't too concerned, since in his view, Biden would simply be a "caretaker president" with no mandate and very little ability to push his agenda.

The International Business Times said Saturday that with the growing scandals in Washington, D.C., campaigns calling for Obama's impeachment are "ramping up."

"Several Facebook pages are dedicated to Obama’s impeachment, with the largest having attracted more than 75,000 likes," Christopher Zara wrote.

[ED.: Even liberals and progressives are now calling for Mr. Obama's impeachment, in the wake of NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden reporting warrantless wiretapping of the general public, especially in cases where federal investigators have been spying on those who are not suspected of any crimes. Because of his most offensive language, I'll not link to theamazingatheist on YouTube. However, his "Impeach Obama" video of June 7, 2013, is an example of the disgust on the left with their anointed dictator's turn for the worse, from the darkness to even darker still.]

Can You Guess Who I Am ? Shocker !



Published on Oct 24, 2012
CAN YOU GUESS WHO THIS IS 45 SECONDS BEFORE THIS VIDEO IS OVER ? This is a mirrored video.

Video Expose: Obama’s Lifetime of Photoshopped Pictures


Wednesday, June 19, 2013 8:02





(Before It's News)
We all know that Obama’s “Internet Birth Certificate” is fake and that all his past from school, politics etc is zipped up. Yet just one questions looms large: Just how far down does this fraud go? Watch the below video-what do you think?


Uploaded on Feb 15, 2011
Part 3 of my new mini eBook , soon to be released. Before 2004, the media had never heard of Barack Obama. They did not know about his birth place, his family, his education, his religion, his background, and his whereabouts.

They still do not know. Everything they thought they know about Obama was fabricated for their benefit from that point forward.

All of these photos "made available to the public" by the Obama Campaign and Obama's "family and friends" are forgeries created for the conspiracy to package, sell, and elect an illusion of the perfect Presidential candidate.

A conspiracy put Obama into politics. A conspiracy put him in office. A conspiracy is keeping him in power.

The Journolist conspiracy was one of hundreds of similar conspiracies to keep Americans from knowing they are being conned by the biggest criminal conspiracy in modern history.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...v=dFzT3BsRDbk#!






http://beforeitsnews.com/obama/2013/06/video-expose-obamas-lifetime-of-photoshopped-pictures-2452830.html?utm_campaign=&utm_source=http%3A%2F%2 Fmail.centurylink.net%2Fzim bra%2Fmail&utm_content=beforeit39snews-verticalresponse&utm_term=http%3A%2F%2Fb4in.info%2 Fc84I&utm_medium=verticalresponse







The men behind Barack Obama part 2

Uploaded on Oct 29, 2008
Especially in politics it is of the utmost importance to try to look behind the facade: who makes up the team of the presidential candidate? The future president of the United States of America is for a large part dependent on and being fed by his team of advisors and future cabinet members. Webster Tarpley wrote a book on the men and women behind presidential hopeful Barack Obama. He argues that there is more to Obama than his charismatic appearance and that some of his advisors pose a danger to the US and the world in case Obama might be elected to become the next US president. Whether Tarpleys view is correct for now is a matter of opinion and remains to be seen, but for the public debate it is relevant to take note of his facts and arguments. Therefor DeepJournal interviewed Webster Tarpley on the topic of his recently published book Obama, The Postmodern Coup,The Making of a Manchurian Candidate.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-KJCMWcoms

MURDERED Andrew Breitbart Discovered OBAMA Missing Link Part 1


Published on Mar 6, 2012
Was Breitbart murdered because he had found the Obama missing link? In this video I break down the real Obama and more. Thanks for watching.

MURDERED Andrew BREITBART held OBAMA missing Link Part 2/2


Published on Mar 7, 2012
Thanks for watching. In this shocking video I breakdown how the globalist have allowed and funded radicals to take this country over. Obama is a Marxist Revolutionary that will seize total control when the time is right.

Originally Posted by kathyet

In immigration and nationality law, the "operative father" is the father of record, according to law, not according to biology. Barrack Hussain Obama, Sr., a Kenyan citizen in the U.S. on a student visa, is the father of record on the Certificate of Birth from Coast Province General Hospital in Mombasa, Kenya, as well as on all the various counterfeit birth documents claiming a birth in Honolulu, Hawaii. Legally speaking, the status of British Protected Citizenship passed from Obama Sr. to Obama II, regardless of the biological father.



Mr. Obama and Malcolm X (born Malcolm Little) share the same skull shape and noses and upper lips of similar size and shape. Malcolm X also had the same uncharacteristically thin lips and the same tall lankiness as Mr. Obama. Although Malcolm X was an inch or two taller than Mr. Obama, SAD, Barry's mother, was comparatively short and stout. But however striking the resemblance between the two, Malcolm X was not legally Barack Obama II's father. Conferring citizenship is a matter of law, not of genetics, personality, appearance, shared domicile, or religion.

Saturday, June 22, 2013

EXPOSED!! OBAMA’S MOMMA ALSO HAS A FAKE SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER; THEY ARE ALL FRAUDS !!! WE ARE BEING SNOOKERED.... WHO IS BEHIND THIS MASSIVE FRAUD?

OBAMA’S MOMMA ALSO HAS A FAKE SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER; TIME FOR REVOLUTION. THIS IS WAY TO DEEP FOR ANY INVESTIGATION TO UNCOVER !

REVOLUTION NOW PATRIOTS! SHARE THIS !!

So not only does Obama not have a valid social security number and valid application, but hismother’s appears to be fraudulent as well. We have no idea who these people are. His mother does not have a valid social security number. She obtained her social security number using falsified forms, as evidenced by the notation at the bottom of the page where it gives a revision date of 7/55.

What are the chances that Obama and his momma, Stanley Ann Dunham, would both have phony social security numbers? How ’bout slim, fat chance, and none, and yet they do!
Obama has MULTIPLE social security numbers. The one used most frequently belongs to a deceased man born in Connecticut…and yet no curiosity on the part of the cable networks (including FOX) or surprise ( not!) the MSM!

Fraud runs rampant in the Obama family! Who has multiple social security numbers unless they are in witness protection or we have elements within our government designing the hidden identity and agenda of Barack Obama and his momma!

Let us not forget Obama’s father. He is just as suspect as his “son”. Harvard wanted him out, deported! Politico reported Obama Sr. was forced out of Harvard!

The following is from Anti-Mullah.

FORGERY NOW SHOWN IN OBAMA MAMA’S SOCIAL SECURITY APPLICATION

FRAUD AND FORGERY RUNS IN THE OBAMA FAMILY!

Irrefutable Proof Obama’s Mama’s Social Security Application Fraudulent: 1965 Application Form Signed In 1959. Got A Time Machine?!

One wonders why would Stanley Ann Dunham’s Social Security card be forged?

To place a verifiable signature of hers into the public record.

Then you see it would match the signature on the recently provided (forged) LFBC (Long Form Birth Certificate) by Obama and in the forged book copy in Hawaii Department of Health.

Since Sarah Anne Dunham can’t sign any documentscreated since she died they would have to recreate her signature and a document history to verify it.

That is: someone alive is signing for her and placing this document into the record would be the way to authenticate her signature as an ‘existing’ sample.

Now at the bottom of Dunhams SS-5 form , it can clearly be seen that the form was Revised on 7/65 . That is quite a task as seeing that she signed the form in 1959. More on that below.
Comments added to the forms below are in bold red.





A REAL FORM FROM 1959



The forms look almost the same. There are just a few minor differences. They are noted in red on the forms.

Basically what they did was just switch the locations of those two areas on the forms. Unless you were looking very closely, those 2 forms would look identical. Someone not paying attention would think the 1965 form was the 1959 form.

Want More? This is from BirtherReport.com.

Where does that leave us ?

1). The SS-5 form used in 1959 is a form that was revised in 1946

2). The Dunham form ( supposedly signed in 1959 ) is different from that used in 1959. In fact, it has the statement Revised 7/65 on the form. Short of using a time machine, there is no way she could have signed that in 1959.

3). It is obvious that the Dunham SS-5 form is a fake. The forger used a form that looked just like the one used in 1959, but he did not look close enough. He missed the layout change in those two fields.

What is more disturbing though is THIS FAKE WAS POSSIBLY PLACED INTO HER RECORD IN THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATIONS FILES. WHO DID THIS ?

For additional details concerning the letter and graph Orly Taitz received from the Social Security Administration under the FOIA read here.

FOR EVEN MORE DETAILED EVIDENCE SCRUTINIZING EVERY PART OF THE FRAUDULENT FORM

PLEASE CLICK HERE
http://www.scribd.com/doc/57873092/I...ion-Fraudulent


Posted by JOHN GAULTIER'S FEROCIOUSLY CONSERVATIVE ACTIVIST BULLETIN at 1:53 PM Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook



Labels: barack obama, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES, fake in the white House, fraud and forgery,LEGAL ISSUES, MSM, OBAMA, Obama and his momma fraudulent social security numbers,Obamaland and tagged Barack Obama


http://john-gaultier.blogspot.com/20...-has-fake.html