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,
OFFICE OF
INSPECTOR GENERAL,
JUNE GIBBS
BROWN Inspector General.
SEPTEMBER 2000.
0EI-07-99-00570
BIRTH CERTIFICATE
FRAUD
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?
[Quote]
"Authorities in HAWAII have provided an ELECTRONIC RECORD OF
OBAMA’S BIRTH BECAUSE THE PAPER COPY WAS DESTROYED IN A FIRE WHICH WIPED OUT
MUCH OF THE STATE’S ARCHIVES. [Unquote].
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.
(Applause.)
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.
NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OFFICIAL REPORT
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,
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/20/obama.passport/index.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/20/AR2008032003422.html
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.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/20/obama.passport/index.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/20/AR2008032003422.html
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.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=140993
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=140993
Of the Short Form
Birth Certificate Fraud, a very good post by Pamela Geller at Atlasshrugs:
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/07/atlas-exclusive.html
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/07/atlas-exclusive.html
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.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=106258
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=107889
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=107889
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
stated:
"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.
DUAL CITIZENSHIP,
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP, AND THE MEANING OF SOVEREIGNTY
THURSDAY, 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.
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju23690.000/hju23690_0.HTM
Page 83
PREPARED STATEMENT OF
THE HONORABLE NATHAN DEAL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
GEORGIA
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.
TESTIMONY OF DR. JOHN C. EASTMAN, PROFESSOR, CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW
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.
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.
[Quote]
TESTIMONY OF DR. JOHN FONTE, SENIOR FELLOW, THE HUDSON
INSTITUTE
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.
... 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.'' [Unquote]
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.'' [Unquote]
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,"
and
"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.
No comments:
Post a Comment