Welcome! Jesus Christ is my LORD and Savior! Romans 10:9-10,13; John 3:16

[For EU visitors, I do not personally use cookies, but Google or any clickable link (if you choose to click on it) might. This is in compliance with mandatory EU notification]

I am a Natural Born United States Citizen with NO allegiance or citizenship to any nation but my own, and will use this site as a hobby place of sorts to present my own political and religious viewpoints, as a genuine Constitutional Conservative and a genuine Christian Conservative.

Thank you for coming.
In the Year of our LORD Jesus Christ
-- As of January 20, 2017
A Sigh Of Relief With The Inauguration Of Donald John Trump as President of the United States of America, And Hope For A Prosperous Future For All United States Citizens (we who are a nation called "the melting pot of the world"). We shall be great and exceptionally great again.

It is likely that the entries to this blog will be less frequent than in years past. I do intend to keep this blog active, and to offer insightful information and/or opinion (and sometimes humor and/or entertainment on occasion) when I do post.

Peace and Liberty. Semper Fidelis.

Sunday, August 30, 2015

A Collection of Brianroy's Recent Miscellaneous Point Of View (August 2015) Internet Exchanges on the Natural Born Citizen Issue

For so many in this nation, upholding the whole of the Constitution no longer matters. And what is worse, what is good for the goose is good for the gander was offered a naturalized Citizen of the United States well before it was also offered to Ted Cruz to also subvert the Constitution and run on the same Sorosian premise his wife Heidi operated upon on a specific board at the CFR aimed on how to destroy U.S. Sovereignty and make Canada and Mexico and the United States into Region 1 of the New World Order governance discussed in carbon tax think tank and academic papers that the CFR utilizes and directs and advises from.  So who was offered the you don't need to be a natural Born Citizen to run for President anymore, by example?  None other than Russian American attorney Orly Taitz.  No, I am not kidding.

On Friday November 18, 2011, the Russian born naturalized US Citizen and Attorney, Orly Taitz, addressed the New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission (aka. the Elections Board) in Room 307  of the Legislative  Office Building over the ineligibility of Barack Hussein Obama II.

Even though she was born in the Soviet Union, now simply called "Russia", the Assistant Secretary General of the State of New Hampshire said under cross-examination by Attorney Taitz that she, Orly, could run for President of the United States in New Hampshire, as long as she filed the correct form, filled it out properly, and paid them the $1,000 fee.

The testimony (see 43:12 ff.)  revealed that Joe Biden filed the paperwork and used an Obama check in person, and that Biden submitted an affidavit swearing he was Constitutionally eligible.  Even though born in Russia, if Orly Taitz did the same, (see 46:28 ff.)  the Assistant Secretary of State said she would be placed on the Presidential Primary Ballot if she chose to make the same declaration.  

Born in Russia, run for US President in New Hampshire?  Watch the video for yourself, 

because America is in the hands of the corrupt and too many who are like the Sorosian Open-society advocates.
“Open-society advocates would reinterpret the U.S. Constitution to better suit the "age of fallibility," which no longer recognizes unalienable rights or divine providence. The Soros open-society concept requires that the United States be removed as a superpower and that the American people be subjected to the will and wants of all the world's people.”  James H. Walsh,   Newsmax July 25, 2006  “George Soros: Open Society and Open Borders”

Those who support Obama blindly, who in most respects are little different than brainwashed cultists, clearly seem to follow and indirectly advance at least a similar (if not the same)  same concept that  "  the United States be removed as a superpower and that the American people be subjected to the will and wants of all the world's people” by their willful support of violating the Constitution and openly breaking the Supreme Law of the Land,  it seems to me.

I bring this up because Illinois never inquired on Obama.  They decided that any vetting was the problem of the Democratic Party.  In effect, they could run an illegal immigrant as a candidate, and if the Democratic Party said, "OK", it would not be any big deal for the State of Illinois, by the inference they used.  Lou Dobbs when at CNN reported on this feature also.
In 2008, the Federal Elections Commission passed the responsibility of vetting Obama’s “Citizen and Qualification Status” off to the State of Illinois, the State of Illinois passed that responsibility off to the City of Chicago, the City of Chicago passed it off to the affiliation called Democratic Socialists of America, and the DSA (comprised of conspiratorial Communist-Socialists intent on overthrowing the Republic of the United states of America) simply blew it off.

Again,  going back now to the 2008 Presidential Campaign and Election the first time around, the Secretary of the State of Connecticut said regarding asking if or not a Presidential Candidate was Constitutionally qualified to run: "we haven't the right to ask that of a Presidential Candidate", or words to this effect. 

Connecticut’s Secretary of State, claimed they had NO right to even ask Obama for verification to prove he was eligible to run! 
"As Secretary of the State of Connecticut, I do not have the statutory authority to remove a candidate from the ballot unless that candidate officially withdraws...Likewise, neither the Connecticut General Statutes nor the Constitution of the State of Connecticut authorizes me to investigate a Presidential candidate's eligibility to run for the office of President of the United States."
Secretary of State, Susan Bysicwicz (Connecticut).

In South Carolina, the Democratic Party’s Carol Fowler in 2008 did pretty much the same thing.  She stated that:
“The South Carolina Democratic Party certifies that each candidate meets, OR WILL MEET BY THE TIME OF THE GENERAL ELECTION, or as otherwise required by law, the qualifications for the office for which he/she has filed.” (Emphasis mine -- see page 2 of the pdf, dated August 14, 2008, and received 11:43 AM by the South Carolina Election Commission on August 15, 2008.)

Fowler, gave the  "we'll have it for you later" excuse,with clear intent to defraud, and gambled and won.  She never did at any time "later" provide the meets or will meet by the time of the general election" evidence.  She gave NOTHING and lied.

Now in times since, in court responses attorney Taitz has received, at New Hampshire above and also in California, the attitude of someone being anything more than just above the age of 35 and paying a filing fee is NOT the problem of the State in which they file to run for POTUS, speaks volumes as to how an alien usurper in the person of Obama has so easily been placed by the corrupt leaders of the two major parties in the White House WITHOUT a legal and proper challenge.

On October 29, 2008, Constitutional Attorney Edwin Viera correctly stated then, that:
[Quote]  Now that Obama’s citizenship has been seriously questioned, the burden of proof rests squarely on his shoulders. The “burden of establishing a delegation of power to the United States * * * is upon those making the claim.” Bute v. Illinois, 333 U.S. 640, 653 (1948).
And if each of the General Government’s powers must be proven (not simply presumed) to exist, then every requirement that the Constitution sets for any individual’s exercise of those powers must also be proven (not simply presumed) to be fully satisfied before that individual may exercise any of those powers. The Constitution’s command that “[n]o Person except a natural born Citizen * * * shall be eligible to the Office of President” is an absolute prohibition against the exercise of each and every Presidential power by certain unqualified individuals.
Actually (not simply presumptively or speculatively) being “a natural born Citizen” is the condition precedent sine qua non for avoiding this prohibition. Therefore, anyone who claims eligibility for “the Office of President” must, when credibly challenged, establish his qualifications in this regard with sufficient evidence.
…[T]he Constitution mandates that “[t]he judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution” (Article III, Section 2, Clause 1).
… Third, his purported “Oath or Affirmation” being perjured from the beginning, Obama’s every subsequent act in the usurped “Office of President” will be a criminal offense under Title 18, United States Code, Section 242, which provides that:
[w]hoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States * * * shall be fined * * * or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined * * * or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, * * *, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined * * * or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
Plainly enough, every supposedly “official” act performed by an usurper in the President’s chair will be an act “under color of law” that necessarily and unavoidably “subjects [some] person * * * to the deprivation of [some] rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution * * * of the United States….  [unquote]

In the same way that corruption has permeated the political voting structure within the United states so that State Secretary Generals can encourage someone born a citizen of the Soviet Union by two Soviet Union Citizen parents to simply fill out a form, pay $1,000, and she can run for President of the United States on the ballot in their state, so has the political corruption protected Obama with claims that no one could ever have legal standing to sue him, except a direct Republican Presidential nominee, and the Republican Party is so corrupt, they guarantee that will NEVER happen.  In court, against all challengers who were dismissed for this kind of "lack of standing" to sue, those who defended Obama have never, never as not even once,  been able to prove anything that justifies even one minute of his legally holding the office of POTUS by any authority of the Constitution of the United States, not one bit.  To which I add:

Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266 (1973) @ 272         "It is clear, of course, that no Act of Congress can authorize a violation of the Constitution." 

Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886)@442          “…an unconstitutional act is not a law;   it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”

Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942) @ 25   "Congress and the President, like the courts, possess   no power not derived from the Constitution."

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)@ 180     "... in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned,  and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank. Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions,  that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument." 

Under the Clinton Administration's own Report we can cite as,
The Department of Health and Human Services,
 JUNE GIBBS BROWN Inspector General.
on page iii  states:
"Birth Certificates Alone do not Provide Conclusive or Reliable Proof of Identity"?

On 03/11/2008, 10 month's before Barack published his open letter to Kenya, the Weekly Standard (of Nairobi Kenya) lamented: 
“On the road from Kisumu to Busia, there isn’t a single sign indicating the real hometown of Senator Obama. Yet billions of shillings are reportedly spent every year by bigwigs pretending to promote tourism!”    

Obama hinted at it in his book: 
"...but for me that only underscored my own uneasy status: a Westerner not entirely at home in the West, an African on his way to a land full of strangers." Barack Obama, Dreams of My Father, Pg 301.

"You know, as soon as the Old Man died, the lawyers contacted all those who might have a claim to the inheritance. Unlike my mum, Ruth has all the documents needed to prove who Mark's father was."
Dreams from My Father, p. 345 Barack Obama 

So where was Barack’s birth certificate in 1995?  It was NON-EXISTENT in the United States.  So when Barack ran for U.S. senate, he conveniently changed the narrative, and lied about where he was born…and little sister Maya (and until November 2008 many of his pro-Obama bios including his own campaign likewise) passed it on.  

On page 2 of the November 2004 Rainbow Edition School newspaper, Barack’s sister explicitly informed the reporter that: 
“Barack Obama was born on August 4, 1961 at the Queen’s Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii”  

It was repeated in print and in Obama's official bios for 2007 and until election day 2008 that Barack was most definitely born at Queen's Medical Center, and that anyone who said he was not, was a liar.

In November 2008, all Obama biographies were electronically scrubbed to erase Queen's hospital, and opt for a completely different hospital 1.6 miles away, called Kapi'olani.  

On March 1, 2012, there was a Preliminary Findings Report that became part of what Sheriff Arpaio was willing to legally commit to saying about the Obama Birth Certificate as released by the White House on April 27, 2011.

The Washington Times reported at 4:05 p.m. on Thursday, March 1, 2012 that  Sheriff Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona, officially said:

“Based on all of the evidence presented and investigated, I cannot in good faith report to you that these documents are authentic,” … “My investigators believe that the long-form birth certificate was manufactured electronically and that it did not originate in paper format as claimed by the White House.”

Skynews - Greg Milam, US correspondent   12:21pm UK, Saturday February 27, 2010  reported a WTF?

A year after that narrative, "poof", "guess what"?  In my review of the Obama Political Funds for the first quarter of 2011 , I would put Layered Technologies as being a candidate for the Obama Long Form Forgery that has yet to be ruled out as a possible, in my opinion,  the same who were only paid $2,027 by the Obama Campaign Political funds.

But for the Obama cult, nothing matters, even though the truth is told them, it is to be taken as a joke.
May 3, 2014   Correspondents Dinner
Barack Obama:
 “While we’re talking sports, just last month, a wonderful story -- an American won the Boston Marathon for first time in 30 years. 
Which was inspiring and only fair, since a Kenyan has been president for the last six.  
(Laughter and applause.)”

The Obama Sr. file proves the 1961 Birth docs to be utter fabrications, as Barack Sr. would not use an altered birthdate of 1936 until the year 1964…which is necessary so that he might be age 25 on the Birth Certificate forgery that the forger clearly messed up on.
The Obama Sr. File was uploaded onto Scribd from www.heathersmathers.com and contains an original birthday of  June 15, 1934 for Obama Sr.      Obama Sr. could only be age 25 during the years 1959 to part of 1960.  The 1961 Obama Birth alleged document are FORGERIES.

Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio asked to see the original of Obama Jr.'s Media hyped long-form birth certificate on its original microfilm roll (as it is alleged to so be stored in Hawaii's vaults).
Pictures of 3 differing versions of the same form are posted at this above WND article link.  

The Obama Long Form Birth Certificate Forgery released by the White House, the one Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio has a problem with,  mislabels Obama Sr. as being 25 years old  on August 4, 1961...or misdates  Obama Sr. as being born in 1936, rather than "1934", by Obama Sr.'s own hand in 1961.

For the June 18, 1934  birth date of Obama Sr., see pages 1,3, 9, 19, 32, 35, 37, 39, 43, 45, 49, 51, 52, 54 of the Scribd link

At least 14 times, Obama Sr. is documented as born June 18, 1934.
Only in the post-1961 dated documents,apparently, is the June 18, 1936 birth date is found ...and these are on pages:
7 (dated 07/22/64),
14 dated (04/21/1964),
25 (dated 06/06/63),
31 (undated, but appears to be related to page 32 as what should have been a throwaway for a corrected 06/27/1962 form listing the June 18, 1934 birth date).

In other words, no completed official document before April 21, 1964 makes any claim to a 1936 mis-dated birthday for Obama Sr., and the very earliest on file corrected listing very likely does not precede June 27, 1962.  

The birth date of Obama Sr. was altered to June 18, 1936 some 4 times, and only on or after June 27, 1962.  If Obama Jr. was born on August 04, 1961, his alleged Birth Certificate or Long Form Birth Certification should most certainly NOT have this post-1961 and post June 27 of 1962  discrepancy.

Mike Zullo stated to the effect that:
Two Independent experts were hired to do 600 forensic tests each, independent of each other.  These 600 tests each were done on the ink of the Obama long form birth certificate document and neither could in any way authenticate or justify the inconsistencies, nor come close.  The Sheriff Investigation will hold up in a Court of Law under judicial scrutiny, while the Obama document “could not survive judicial scrutiny,” or words to this effect.
Starting in 1960, the Bureau of vital statistics required an embedded coding for their references.  The Cold Case Posse found and talked to a 95 year old Verna Lee, known on the document as U.K. Lee.  She walked Mike Zullo by phone in a recorded conversation through the steps exactly as outlined by a Mr. Bennett who wrote out the State’s legal procedures, and stated that the document was coded by hand for the exclusive use of the Government, and rechecked and then signed.  The numbers at the top of the form were placed in order and chronologically appeared according to batch, first by geography, then by hospital, clinic, or what have you in required chronological order. 
The order of numbers of the Nordykes who were chronologically born after the time alleged for Barack Obama proves in order for the document to be genuine, it would have to have listed another location other than Kapiolani.  The numbers and time and date of birth are consistent with a birth at another outlying location, not at Kapiolani.
The imbedded Bureau of Statistics number 9 on the Obama document where the race and profession  of the father are designates that in order for a document to pass another authentication, it must leave these boxes blank with NO DATA typed into the boxes.  For a box to have data in it as Obama’s does, means it is an “altered document”, which according to the Verification Manual available at the Hawaiian Supreme Court Library states must be stamped as “Amended”.  This means it cannot ever hereafter be legally relied upon ever as a means of identification or verification.
There was a Delivery Room Door log that recorded who came in to Kapiolani that was supposed to be accessible to inquiry.  Kapiolani removed the logbook from access, and Mike Zullo stated that had he seen the log and Ann Dunham’s name been there, the investigation would have concluded.  Instead, the Hospital removed the log book from access in the Library Archives of the Kapiolani Medical Records probably because Ann Dunham is NOT in the log. 
Under Hawaii Law initiated March 1, 1982, Barack Obama himself could have gone to Hawaii at any time after that, and at any time post March 1, 1982, then claimed he was born in Hawaii, and have his own birth declared.  It is only a possible legal scenario Zullo was presenting here, NOT that this happened. The Law of March 1, 1982 made it possible for anyone, even a foreigner born in another country, to do this; as long as he or she was some time before that day of entering one of 5 satellite offices or the main office of registry in person as a witness, and simply able to prove that they were an Hawaiian resident who paid taxes and able to prove those two things, that is all Hawaii Law required for him to submit data to newly claim that he was born in Hawaii even though such a birth was never previously recorded.  And by the use of the word “resident”, that means an Hawaiian Birth Certificate could be issued to just about anyone who could prove mere residency, such as paying rent, in Hawaii…even to foreign nationals now taking a skate or short cut path to United States Citizenship around United States Immigration laws.  Hawaii law mandates these birth certificates be allowed because the statutory language uses the words “shall issue”.  [It is impossible for a person to say they witnessed their own birth and knew where they were born, which Hawaii Law allows for.]
The label of African for a race preference was not used by the Government until 1989.  Yet that designation appears on a document alleged to have been typed in 1961. 
Zullo stated in the question and answer period:
“I can’t find, for lack of a better word, anything to clear this thing.” Or words to this effect.
He also stated, or in words to the same effect of:
  “This document is fictitious…this is not politically motivated.”

For a more detailed example on the long form birth doc fraud, start here

For a more detailed example on  the short form Birth doc fraud, start here: 

On December 18, 2007, Chris Matthews of CNBC had absolutely NO PROBLEM with the narrative that Obama  should run for President of the United States, even though born in Indonesia  (he thought).

In December 2010, Governor-elect Abercrombie of Hawaii boasted how he was going to release Obama's Hawaii Birth Certificate whether he liked it or not.  But when January 2011 came, his new Director of Health Neal Palafox revealed that Obama does NOT have a Birth Certificate or Certification of Live Birth on file in Hawaii.  This was reported at the time. 

This actually affirmed the claim made by Tim Adams, contracted temporary Chief Elections Clerk in Honolulu during the November 2008 Presidential Election, who stated that the records of Hawaii SHOWED that Barack Obama was NOT born in Hawaii AND notes also that there were relevant records of interest stolen in or around the time period after this discovery.

Worldnetdaily reported Adams as saying:
"There is no birth certificate," said Tim Adams... "It's like an open secret. There isn't one. Everyone in the government there knows this."
"I was the one overseeing the work of the people doing the balloting."

"In my professional opinion, [Obama] definitely was not born in Hawaii. I can say without a shadow of a doubt that he was not born in Hawaii because there is no legal record of him being born there."

On the FIRST year anniversary of his fabricated long form electronic file release, Chiyome Fukino is inferred by CNN as giving CNN Obama's Long Form Birth Certificate, and then they show it.  "THIS is Barack Obama's birth certificate", they tell America.  But when you freeze frame it 

you find that at 1:20, 1:21, 1:22 on the video, that clearly CNN  presents Keith Suganuma's April 1960 birth certificate as Obama's.  The video snippet shows in context that CNN presents the child of a 42 year old Japanese American police officer and his 20 year old wife's child's birth certificate as if it were Barack Obama's.  This kind of blatant fraud is what Constitutionalists (aka. birthers) have to contend with in regards to those who are blind to facts and law regarding Obama's ineligibility.  The Media fabricates for him without shame, and then we are expected that any crime he commits is all excusable to such a degree of irrationality, it is like talking to brainwashed members of a religious cult, with very little psychological difference on their part (it seems to me). 

Do any of those who defend Obama at least concur that CNN really messed up on whose birth document they showed and vetted as Obama's on their one year anniversary piece regarding Obama's birth certificate?   Never.  To the brainwashed dumbed down cult member :  "Disloyalty is treason, and TRUTH is the enemy.  Only the Party line must survive...all others must perish...there is no such thing as free and independent thought or the ability of one to question the wisdom of the State.  Seig heil!"
Only this time it isn't a little man with a Charlie Chaplin mustache, it is a guy who was simultaneously born in Kenya and Indonesia and in two miles apart locations in Hawaii.  In other words, he is a manufactured thing?  Well, that's what the cult would have anyone cognizant of the constant changing birth narratives of Obama to believe.  

Obama claims a 151-61-10641 number.  These numbers are NOT the same as CNN claimed on this CNN video piece that I previously posted.  

 The CNN video piece below shows a Birth Certificate # 151-60-05000  possibly #151-60-05009 (the last digit having a defect to the inner left.  Gary Tuchman of CNN specifically says that this specific microfilm replica IS BARACK OBAMA's.  The implication or reasonable inference is "as supplied or vetted by Dr. Fukino". 

On THIS CNN Presented Birth Certificate, the Attending Physician is Dr. Herbert Tanaka.
--Not Dr. West as the adamant we are 100% correct and birthers are wrong  Obama narrative claimed until April 27, 2011. 
--Not Dr. David A. Sinclair as the Obama fictional narrative now declares,
 but a Dr. Herbert Tanaka.     
How many times will the Obama cultists change the pretend facts they believe into?  "As many times as it takes, for as long as it takes.  Seig heil!"

The document of Keith Suganuma was certified on April 21, 1960.  This copy was reproduced on April 25, 1965. 

CNN presented an April 1960 birth certificate of Keith Suganuma as that of Barack Obama's. 
Really.  CNN and Dr. Fukino attempted to pass off a proof of Obama's birth in Hawaii using someone born in the wrong year (1960) who was fathered by a 42 year old Japanese American Police Officer (Francis Suganuma), and born to a 20 year old Japanese  American mother. 
CNN and Chiyome Fukino want us to believe Obama, be he called black or mulatto, even looks like an ethnic Japanese?  Oh give me a break. 

Jake Tapper and Sunlen Miller of ABC News,  http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/04/president-ob-20.html

and Major Garrett of Foxnews

-- both reported on April 17, 2009 -- and that of Howard LaFranchi, Staff writer of the Christian Science Monitor reporting 2 days after the fact on April 19, 2009, that Obama claimed an entire different birthdate than the official 1984 Newsspeak narrative:

"…Obama responded disarmingly to an hour-long opening speech by Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega, in which the former leftist revolutionary reviewed US action against Cuba including the failed Bay of Pigs invasion.     “I’m grateful President Ortega did not blame me for things that happened when I was three months old,” he told chuckling leaders."

The Bay of Pigs incident happened on April 17, 1961, when 1400 C.I.A. initially supported Cuban exiles launched what became a botched invasion on the south coast of Cuba.

So Obama was then clearly saying he was born in January 1961.   HIS WORDS.  HIS WORDS .

May 04, 2010, Obama's step-grandmother Sarah clearly states that she mid-wifed Ann Dunham-Obama and that Barack passed through her hands

see also

File No., :
#9056/ 2009/ 05
NSIS Bu1letin #9056/2009/05 -

The ministry of national heritage this
month hosted a cultural festival in Kogelo
and commissioned a cultural museum on a
plot donated by a member of the Kogelo
community. The cultural festival  was
attended by minister for national heritage,
William ole Ntimama and US ambassador,
Michael Ranneberger.

This was to honour the birthplace of
President Barack Obama..."

Kenya's government reiterated this recognition.

Thursday, 25th March, 2010
The House met at 2.30 p.m.
 p. 31 ...2nd paragraph
[Mr. Orengo, Minister of Lands of the nation of Kenya, speaking]:
"...how could a young man born here in Kenya, who is not even a native American, become the President of America?  
It is because they did away with exclusion."

But the Media in Kenya had been saying this for years.  Kenyan Eastern Standard on June 27, 2004, proclaimed then newly elected Senator of Illinois, Barack Obama, as being born in Kenya.

So Governor Abercrombie sends his Director of Health to pull Obama's birth records in January 2011 and what happens?
Ooops, it's not there.    

Neal Palafox resigns in disgrace, and 3 months later...poof...we suddenly have a manufactured electronic file that claims to be genuine when we have prior  NO CHAIN OF CUSTODY validation.  None.
John Brennan's Analysis Corporation employees breached State Department security on January 9, February 21 and March 14 of 2008, 
before a final theft of all Obama’s documents was “alleged” to have happened by pro-Obama supporters on March 21 or March 26, 2008

One of the other two who breached Department of State security, and was aware of what was in the Obama documents that were on file, worked for Stanley Inc.; and was not long after shot dead in 2008 while allegedly “cooperating with authorities” over this very issue.

In CIA and other U.S. Gov't sanctioned quid pro quo,  John Brennan was appointed to Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Adviser for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism on January 20, 2009, and the rest is history.  Only some Obama defenders have an emotional crisis when their cult leader is exposed for the fraud he is.  Oh well.  

Barack’s step-grandmother Sarah, who never left Kenya until a recent post-2010 pilgrimage to Mecca, stated to the Media in Africa and published May 04, 2010, that the future POTUS was mid-wifed over by her. “Even the US president passed through my hands” she is quoted as saying.

In 2010 also, National Public Radio (NPR) scrubbed its electronic history to their October 2008 reporting of Presidential Candidate Obama's Kenyan birth.  Their Kenyan birth narrative remained up almost one and a half years before being scrubbed as an embarrassing ADMISSION.

Of the Short Form Birth Certificate Fraud, a very good post by Pamela Geller at Atlasshrugs:


and see also: 

No one can place Obama in the United States any earlier than 1962. If Obama was born in August 4 of 1961...why is it that no one can account for him at all in 1961 in Hawaii or anywhere in the USA in 1961? Why?  Unless he was foreign born?  

Barack Obama's Jr.'s first baby-sitter only remembers baby Barry as present in the USA in Washington State from February 1962 onward.

Barack was not in Washington State with his illegal adopting and now believed to be non-biological mother in all of 1961's August to December months...where was he? There is stipulation or no dispute as to Ann Dunham-Obama being enrolled and in the continental U.S. as enrolled in school.. The documentation shows that we are to accept that she was enrolled. But where was the baby?  

WND reported: 
"...Dunham took two classes: Anthropology 100, beginning on Aug. 19, 1961 and ending on Dec. 11, 1961; and Political Science 201, beginning on Aug. 19, 1961 and ending on Dec. 12, 1961.   ...In the winter term 1962, Dunham took two additional courses: History 478,beginning on Dec. 27, 1961, and ending on March 30, 1962; and Philosophy 120, beginning on Dec. 27, 1961, and ending on March 20, 1962. All four of these classes are listed in the transcript as University of Washington extension courses."

 "The University of Washington registrar’s office told WND that the extension courses on Ann Dunham’s transcript most likely involved a combination of self-study and night classes taken on the university campus.
As WND has also reported, the evidence that Dunham was in Seattle in August 1961 comes from three sources:

    The public records division of the University of Washington has e-mailed WND that: “Ms. Stanley Ann Dunham was enrolled at the University of Washington for: Autumn 1961, Winter 1962, Spring 1962″

    Mary Toutonghi, the babysitter for Barack Obama Jr., told WND that she babysat for Obama when he was 7-months old (around February/March 1962) and Dunham was attending night classes at the University of Washington that started around 4:30 p.m.

    The Polk 1961-1962 directory listed Dunham at a Capitol Hill address in Seattle."

There are no other living witnesses besides Barack's step-grandmother, who says she saw him birthed in Kenya.

In 1991, Obama wrote his own auto-biography for his book agents stating in 1991 specifically that he was born in Kenya.
"Barack Obama, the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review, was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii." 

When he updated for his agents at their request it, he kept the born in Kenya narrative.
The Wayback Machine as of 19:00:01 Apr 3, 2007
"BARACK OBAMA is the junior Democratic senator from Illinois and was the dynamic keynote speaker at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He was also the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review. He was born in Kenya to an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister and was raised in Indonesia, Hawaii, and Chicago".

And yet, the Council on Foreign Relations controlled Mainstream Media mocks those who say Obama was likely born in Kenya?  Which is oddly  hypocritical on their part, because they refuse to criticize Barack or his grandmother Sarah for in ostentatious display promulgating the exact same thing.   

On February 27, 2014, Western Journalism pulled up a video from Michael Shrimpton which is quite significant in regard to the Obama birth narrative.  The sub-headline reads:
"British Intelligence Advisor Barrister Michael Shrimpton reported Obama's purported mom was not pregnant in 1961 and that Obama was born in Kenya in 1960."
We still have at least one surviving video of this.  
See also

See especially pages 8 to 14.  On page 15:   The above UK Court submitted affidavit was notarized by James Ricahrd Couzens under oath by Michael Shrimpton on May 12, 2014.

It is also interesting to note why the Subud cult is so close to home with Ann Dunham and those like Neil Abercrombie and various ones in the Hawaii Obama cover-up connection (like L. Fuddy and others).    Obama  aka, Soetoro looks almost exactly like his probable  maternal grandfather at the end of the ff. video

which means the great likelihood is that Ann Dunham was not only NOT his real biological mother, and NEVER gave birth to him (as all these birth doc forgeries on his behalf suggest) but that Ann and her mother were those someones who basically illegally adopted him and gave him a name for some other nefarious reason, and probably got a small stipend in cash on the sly for it.

Also posted by Shrimpton, he states:
Michael Shrimpton
November 12, 2012 - 11:03 am
Having provided the intel to the CIA in one sense I ‘own’ it, ie it is more a question of my providing intel to CIA rather than the other way round.
The CIA didn’t do a DNA test on the alleged mother, Ann Dunham, who sadly died of cancer in the 1990′s, but on the grandmother, ie her mother. Since that relationship is not in dispute that was a perfectly fair way of doing it.

The wine glass idea was mine by the way – MI5 had done something similar when a British politician exposed himself to blackmail by pretending to have fathered a child which wasn’t his. The true father was a party colleague. The mother and true father were both invited to a dinner. Entirely by co-incidence I was also invited. Special Branch had a tame caterer and Bob was your uncle, as it were.

My experience of DNA fingerprinting goes back to 1985, when I became I think the second lawyer in the world to use DNA fingerprinting in legal proceedings. At that stage the process was still experimental. I was advising an immigrant whose relationship to a sponsor in the UK had been questioned by the Home Office.

‘President Obama’ is not a colonial subject but a British Subject,. The status applies to all Commonwealth Citizens and is not limited to British Subjects who live in colonies, such as the Falkland Islands.... 

Michael Shrimpton
November 12, 2012 - 3:57 am
…In any event since Obama appears to have been born in a territory under British control and his father was under British surveillance as a terrorist we have intel which we are duty bound to share with you under UKUSA arrangements. Technically, since on balance he is a Citizen of Kenya (indeed even on his own case he is probably a Kenyan national by descent, ie a dual national), and Kenya is in the British Commonwealth, he is a British Subject.

... On constitutional and intel matters however I try to be objective....

Michael Shrimpton
November 9, 2012 - 2:01 pm

...Frank Marshall Davis was the other name put round by the CIA, but I’m not buying. Some of the intel pukes at Langley wanted a name with a genuine claim to US Citizenship. They knew the marriage was bigamous and that even if she were the mother Ann Dunham could not pass her citizenship to BHO, so they came up with Davis, or Malcolm X – depended on who you talked to and when.

It was all a nonsense, as paternity was settled by the DNA test. 

Only Kenya Colony was referred to as Kenya prior to 1963. Mombasa was formally part of the Sultanate of Zanzibar, and a British Protectorate. Technically, in my opinion, BHO at birth was a Subject of the Sultan of Zanzibar and a British Protected Person.... 

You can read the Original Article and Michael's comments in full, at:

Having addressed just some of the justifiable cause to say Obama is most likely Kenyan born, despite a Sorosian and Council on Foreign Relations controlled anti-United States senior management directing a Globalist anti-U.S. narrative, those who want a sovereign United States of America and the Constitution that we now still have need to understand that the Constitutional nail in the coffin that should have been issued upon Obama and every other illegal candidate who runs for President of the United States while being a dual national citizen at birth, which dual citizen at birth is an automatic fail in any United States Natural Born Citizenship test, will be found in  Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) @ 102. And if Congress had done its job in say, 2005, this whole mess we have since 2007 with Obama illegally entering the race for President of the United states, and those who have entered illegally since, this ALL could have been avoided.  Why did I example 2005?  My reference is in regard to a subcommittee that held a hearing on September 29, 2005.



House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Immigration,
Border Security, and Claims,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m., in Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable John Hostettler (Chair of the Subcommittee) presiding.


Page 83  


As you know, any child born in the United States is granted automatic American citizenship regardless of whether or not the baby's parents are legal residents. This is a supposed ''right'' granted by the Fourteenth Amendment's citizenship clause which states that ''all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States.'' The original intent of this clause was to guarantee citizenship to all freed slaves but has since become an attractive incentive for illegal immigrants.

    Some have contended my legislation is insufficient to address the birthright issue, as a restriction on citizenship would require a Constitutional amendment. I do not agree with this assessment. As Dr. John Eastman and numerous other outstanding legal minds have contended, current interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment is not only misguided but also has profound consequences for the democratic character of our federal government. While the Supreme Court has addressed the issue in passing, it has never squarely dealt with the question of birthright citizenship as understood within the bounds of the Fourteenth Amendment.


    Page 31         The Constitution's text actually has two components. It says ''birth on United States soil'' and ''subject to the jurisdiction thereof.'' The ''subject of the jurisdiction'' clause ….means complete allegiance owing, subject to prosecution for treason-type jurisdiction, not the mere territorial jurisdiction that anybody coming here visiting as a tourist is subject to if they exceed our speed limits on our highways.
… Historically, the language of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which the 14th amendment was intended to constitutionalize, makes very clear that all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power are declared to be citizens of the United States.
    The authors in the legislative history, the authors of that language, Senator Lyman Trumbull said, ''When we talk about 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,' it means complete jurisdiction, not owing allegiance to anybody else.'' Senator Jacob Howard said that it's ''a full and complete jurisdiction.''
    The interpretative gloss given by Senators Trumbull and Howard, adopted by Congress, understood by those that ratified the 14th amendment, was accepted by the Supreme Court in its first two cases addressing the citizenship clause. In the Slaughter-House cases, both the majority and the dissenting justices in that case recognized it meant this more complete allegiance-owing jurisdiction. 

Page 32    
    That was only dicta in Slaughter-House, but in the 1884 case of Elk v. Wilkins the Supreme Court held that a claimant was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at birth if he was merely subject in some respect or degree, but completely subject to the political jurisdiction and owing it direct and immediate allegiance.
    Now, in 1898, the Supreme Court reversed course. And I can understand the sentiments of the Court for doing so. In the case of Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court dealt with a child of a Chinese immigrant who was here legally, permanently, but subject to a treaty that we had entered into with the emperor of China that would never recognize the ability of anyone to renounce their prior citizenship. However the sympathy there falls, we should not read that Wong Kim Ark case so broadly as to insist upon the Constitution setting a minimum threshold for conferring citizenship on anyone who happens to be born here, whether here permanently or temporarily, whether here legally or illegally, or the worst case scenario, whether here with a design to cause harm to the United States, to engage in armed conflict against United States.



page 24
...    Mr. FONTE. America has had more success assimilating immigrants than any other country in the history of the world because since the early days of the Republic, we have pursued a policy of patriotic assimilation. At the heart of patriotic assimilation is the transfer of allegiance. For more than 200 years, immigrants have taken an oath renouncing prior allegiance and transferring sole political allegiance to the United States of America.

 Page 25           The transfer of allegiance is central to America because of the kind of country that we are. If we were a country that did not receive large numbers of immigrants, this would not be as important in practical terms, but it is precisely because we are a nation of assimilated immigrants that we must be serious about dual allegiance.
    We are a civic, not an ethnic nation. American citizenship is not based on belonging to a particular ethnicity, but on political loyalty to American democracy. Regimes based on ethnicity support the doctrine of perpetual allegiance, for one is always a member of the ethnic nation. In 1812, Americans went to war against the concept of the ethnic nation and the doctrine of perpetual allegiance. At this time, Great Britain under the slogan ''Once an Englishman, always an Englishman'' refused to recognize the renunciation clause of our citizenship oath.
    Today, some immigrant sending countries appear to be closer to the British position in 1812 than to the American position of a civic nation as opposed to an ethnic nation.
    Dual allegiance violates a core American principle of equality of citizenship. Dual citizens are specially privileged, supra citizens who have voting power in more than one nation and special privileges like EU privileges that the majority of their fellow American citizens do not have.
    I recently talked to a British immigrant who had become an American citizen while retaining British citizenship. This immigrant dual citizen cast ballots in 2004 in both the U.S. and British elections within 5 months of each other.

Page 26
.... Dual citizens exist in a political space beyond the U.S. Constitution. As members of foreign constitutional communities, they have different and, in some cases, competing and conflicting responsibilities, interests and commitments. By objective practical necessity, as well as moral obligation, these other responsibilities, interests and commitments dilute their commitment and allegiance to the United States of America.
Page 27...    In opposing dual allegiance, we of the Citizenship Roundtable stand with the Founding Fathers, including both Hamilton and Jefferson, those political rivals, and also political rivals, Theodore Roosevelt and Democratic President Woodrow Wilson. We stand with Justice Louis Brandeis and his protege, Justice Felix Frankfurter, and with the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt, which said, ''Taking an active part in the political affairs of a foreign state by voting in the election of that state involves a political attachment and practical allegiance thereto which is inconsistent with continued allegiance to the United States.''

Keep in mind, that both Barack Obama and Ted Cruz by birth citizenship at age 21,  had the right to fully assimilate virtually instantaneously into their respective birth citizenship nations: Obama to Kenya  and Great Britain both as a UKC citizen; and Ted Cruz to Canada.  

NEITHER are NATURAL BORN to the United States as sole allegiance citizens at birth, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States alone at birth.  

Both PAST AGE 21 chose to KEEP foreign birth nationalities and foreign birth allegiances.  And what is the famous court line?  "Ignorance of the Law is no excuse" regarding these men?  Yes sir, that's a fact that both the Obama and Cruz cults cannot allow and have to throw tantrums over, as if such puerility wins debates.

Look.     In Elk v. Wilkins, the court ruled in effect on the matter of being born with dual allegiance was technically the same as falling under the laws of naturalization.
 Obama and Cruz are uncontested as being DUAL citizens at birth and both remained so continuously each to age 23 (bare minimum for Obama, and used as a comparative of being so WELL past the age of majority at 21).
 In 2010 Obama had Biden help him regain his birth citizenship so that he is again a Kenyan Citizen currently since then, while Cruz is alleged to have stopped being a Canadian as of May 2014.  But read the entire section of what I cite, recognize that subject to the jurisdiction forbids multiple births, and that even if one eliminates or claims one over another present at birth, it becomes a legal act of naturalization and is certainly NOT ever allowed to be labeled a Natural Born Status...Dual Citizenship makes the claim of being a United States Natural Born Citizen impossible in U.S. Constitutional Law.  Fact.

Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) @101-102,103
Chief Justice Taney, in the passage cited for the plaintiff
Page 112 U. S. 101

But an emigrant from any foreign state cannot become a citizen of the United States without a formal renunciation of his old allegiance, and an acceptance by the United States of that renunciation through such form of naturalization as may be required law.

The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the Constitution, by which
"No person, except a natural born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President,"
"The Congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization." Constitution, Article II, Section 1; Article I, Section 8. By the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution, slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this Court, as to the citizenship of free negroes ( 60 U. S. 73; Strauder v. West Virginia,@ 100 U. S. 303, 100 U. S. 306.

This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared
Page 112 U. S. 102
to be citizens are "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.

And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus [completely] subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.

[Read this last statement AGAIN]:
 "Persons not thus [completely] subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired."

In other words, there is NO United States Natural Born Status, only a "Naturalization" or "Operation of Law, and NOT by Nature" Status at work for Dual Nationals in U.S. Constitutional Law.  

The Natural Born Citizen Clause came about as a means to exclude dual nationals at birth, especially those children of foreign citizen fathers.   Its introduction into the United States Constitution began with John Jay’s letter to George Washington, July 25, 1787 states:

“Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government; and to declare expressly that the commander in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.”

Therefore, having this information, I can only ask that those who wish to back political candidates in the United States adhere to the Constitution first, and rule out any and all alliances with those who usurp or are would be usurpers of the Constitution of the United States of America. 

Do NOT financially nor morally support Obama, Cruz, Jindal, or Rubio. 

 That is my advice, IF you wish to faithfully adhere to the text and intent of the Constitution of the United States. 

That's my input.