Can You Really Still Believe That None of These People Would Have Done a Better Job???
EVERY AMERICAN CITIZEN NEEDS TO SEE THIS VIDEO AND THEN SEE THE FULL LENGTH FILM COMING THIS SUMMER, OUR FUTURE DEPENDS ON IT, BELIEVE ME !!
Video: Dinesh D'Souza - Obama & 2016 - Dinesh D-Souza’s Speech from CPAC
Background Info:
The Roots of Obama's Rage - Dinesh D'Souza
Dreams from My Father - Barack Obama
h/t to George King
FOXNEWS 'HANNITY' PLANS FULL AIRING OF TAPE: TONIGHT 9 PM ET...
BREITBART OBAMA VIDEO SET IS FOR RELEASE TONIGHT AT 9PM ET
THE VETTING: Ben Smith Releases ‘Selectively Edited’ Obama Race Video
Earlier today, Buzzfeed’s Ben Smith announced on Twitter that video researcher Andrew Kaczynski had released “the mysterious Harvard/Obama/race video that the Breitbart folks have been talking about.”
The video, which Kaczynski says was “licensed from a Boston television station,” shows a young Barack Obama leading a protest at Harvard Law School on behalf of Prof. Derrick Bell, a radical academic tied to Jeremiah Wright--about whom we will be releasing significant information in the coming hours.
However, the video has been selectively edited--either by the Boston television station or by Buzzfeed itself. Over the course of the day, Breitbart.com will be releasing additional footage that has been hidden by Obama's allies in the mainstream media and academia.
Breitbart.com Editor-in-Chief Joel Pollak and Editor-at-Large Ben Shapiro will appear on The Sean Hannity Show to discuss the tape. The full tape will be released tonight on Fox News' Hannity.
Video: The Vetting: Obama Embraces Racialist Harvard Prof
Related:
Breitbart's mystery tapes on Obama released
Video: Obama Protesting at Harvard in 1991 – Selectively Edited
Obama Ally Won’t Release Alinsky Tape
The Vetting, Part I: Barack’s Love Song To Alinsky
Breitbart’s Final Message to the Left
Dennis Miller on Breitbart: A Righteous… Consequential Man
Breitbart Lore, Speculation and Tributes
One Falls Along the Way… Goodbye Andrew Breitbart
Andrew Breitbart Just Another Weird Death
Andrew Breitbart Death Sparks Conspiracy Theories
GB: Obama’s Harvard Tapes – Sneak Peek
NOTE: In case you missed the news conference of Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s “Cold Case Posse,” you can view it here. Shocking Video: Andrew Breitbart’s Last Interview Was With Sheriff Joe Arpaio About Obama Eligibility, who gave a seminar about his probe of Obama’s birth certificate the same day Breitbart died.
'Electors, Congress, not Georgia, hold responsibility for qualifications of candidates' says White House
Barack Obama has outlined a defense strategy for a multitude of state-level challenges to his candidacy on the 2012 presidential ballot in a Georgia case that is scheduled to come before a judge later this month – simply explain that states have nothing to do with the eligibility of presidential candidates.
“Presidential electors and Congress, not the state of Georgia, hold the constitutional responsibility for determining the qualifications of presidential candidates,” Obama’s lawyer argues in a motion to quash a subpoena for him to appear at the hearings Jan. 26.
“The election of President Obama by the presidential electors, confirmed by Congress, makes the documents and testimony sought by plaintiff irrelevant,” the lawyer said.
Hearing have been scheduled for that date for three separate issues to be handled. They all are raised by Georgia residents who are challenging Obama’s name on the 2012 ballot for various reasons, which they are allowed to do under state law.
It is states, usually through the office of secretary of state, that run elections, not the federal government. The national election is simply a compilation of the results of the individual elections within states.
The schedule for the hearings was set by Judge Michael M. Malihi of the Georgia state Office of State Administrative Hearings. In Georgia, a state law requires “every candidate for federal” office who is certified by the state executive committees of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy “shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.”
State law also grants the secretary of state and any “elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate” in the state the authority to raise a challenge to a candidate’s qualifications, the judge determined.
Three different plaintiffs’ groups are lined up for separate hearings, including one represented by California attorney Orly Taitz. She had the judge sign a subpoena for Obama’s testimony, and Michael Jablonski, Obama’s attorney for these cases, argtued that he should be exempted.
Jablonski earlier had argued that state eligibility requirements didn’t apply to Obama, but the judge said that isn’t how he reads state law.
“Statutory provisions must be read as they are written, and this court finds that the cases cited by [Obama] are not controlling. When the court construes a constitutional or statutory provision, the ‘first step … is to examine the plain statutory language,” the judge wrote. “Section 21-2-1(a) states that ‘every candidate for federal and state office’ must meet the qualifications for holding that particular office, and this court has seen no case law limiting this provision, nor found any language that contains an exception for the office of president or stating that the provision does not apply to the presidential preference primary.”
In Obama’s attempt to be excused from providing testimony and evidence such as his original birth certificate, he argues that such testimony would “interrupt duties” as president.
He also argues that the documents and testimony “is, on its face, unreasonable.” And further, the documents and testimony already have been made public, he argued.
“The president made the documents available to the general public by placing it on his website. Although the document has been generally available for years, the president took the extraordinary step of acquiring a copy of the record of birth, informally known as the ‘long form,’ making it available to anyone who cares to check the website,” the filing argues.
And the state should mind its own business anyway, he argued.
“The sovereignty of the state of Georgia does not extend beyond the limits of the State. … Since the sovereignty of the state does not extend beyond its territorial limits, an administrative subpoena has no effect,” the filing explains.
Taitz’ supporters joined a discussion on her website, where she also solicits support for the expenses of the battles she’s confronting, judging that Obama is on the defensive.
“What a joke. He claims to be too busy performing the duties of the president of the United States. How many days of vacation has he taken? How many rounds of golf? If he is too busy to provide the documents that provide the basis for meeting the requirements of the office, then perhaps he better sit out the next four years,” said one.
Wrote another, “The election of President Obama by the presidential electors, confirmed by Congress, makes the documents and testimony sought by plaintiff irrelevant. … This is complete utter nonsense!”
In fact, a presidential elector in California brought a lawsuit challenging Obama’s eligibility at the time of the 2008 election, and was told the dispute was not yet ripe because the inauguration hadn’t taken place. The courts later ruled that the elector lost his “standing” to bring the lawsuit after the inauguration.
Barack Obama
Those bringing the complaints include David Farrar, Leah Lax, Cody Judy, Thomas Malaren and Laurie Roth, represented by Taitz; David Weldon represented by attorney Van R. Irion of Liberty Legal Foundation; and Carl Swensson and Kevin Richard Powell, represented by J. Mark Hatfield.
Irion said not many court observers believed Obama actually would comply with the subpoena for a number of reasons. He said for his clients’ arguments the testimony wouldn’t even be an issue.
His argument is that the Founders clearly considered a “natural born citizen,” as the Constitution requires of a president, to be the offspring of two citizen parents. Since Obama himself has written in his books that his father, Barack Obama Sr., was a Kenyan, and thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, Irion argues that Obama is disqualified under any circumstances.
Those who argue against his birth in the United States note that a multitude of experts have given testimony and sworn statements that they believe Obama’s Hawaiian birth documentation to be fraudulent.
It is that concern that also has prompted Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Arizona to turn over an investigation of that issue to his Cold Case Posse. Their investigation report is expected to be released in the next few weeks.
The Georgia hearing will be the first time among dozens of so-far unsuccessful lawsuits brought over Obama’s eligibility issue that evidence will be heard in a court. Other cases all have been dismissed over issues such as standing, without a presentation of the evidence.
Top constitutional expert Herb Titus explains that the use of “natural born citizen,” does, in fact, require parents who are citizens. That argument also is supported by a 19th-century U.S. Supreme Court decision
The hearing is set at 9 a.m. on Jan. 26 for the complaint brought by Weldon. Following immediately will be hearings for the cases brought by Swensson and Powell, and the issue raised by Farrar, Lax, Judy, Malaren and Roth will be third.
Malihi’s ruling said: “The court finds that defendant is a candidate for federal office who has been certified by the state executive committee of a political party, and therefore must, under Code Section 21-2-5, meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.”
There are similar challenges to Obama’s 2012 candidacy being raised before state election or other commissions in Tennessee, Arizona, Illinois, New Hampshire and other states as well.
The U.S. Supreme Court opinion cited is Minor v. Happersett from 1875. It includes one of very few references in the nation’s archives that addresses the definition of “natural-born citizen,” a requirement imposed by the U.S. Constitution on only the U.S. president.
That case states:
“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
What the White House in April released was as an image of a “Certificate of Live Birth” from the state of Hawaii in support of Obama’s claim that he was born in the state. The White House has not addressed the questions raised by Obama’s father’s nationality.
The image that the new lawsuits contend is irrelevant:
Obama long-form birth certificate released April 27 by the White House
An extensive analysis of the issue was conducted by Titus, who has taught constitutional law, common law and other subjects for 30 years at five different American Bar Association-approved law schools. He also was the founding dean of the College of Law at Regent University, a trial attorney and special assistant U.S. attorney in the Department of Justice.
“‘Natural born citizen’ in relation to the office of president, and whether someone is eligible, was in the Constitution from the very beginning,” he said. “Another way of putting it; there is a law of the nature of citizenship. If you are a natural born citizen, you are a citizen according to the law of nature, not according to any positive statement in a Constitution or in a statute, but because of the very nature of your birth and the very nature of nations.”
If you “go back and look at what the law of nature would be or would require … that’s precisely what a natural born citizen is …. is one who is born to a father and mother each of whom is a citizen of the U.S. or whatever other country,” he said.
“Now what we’ve learned from the Hawaii birth certificate is that Mr. Obama’s father was not a citizen of the United States. His mother was, but he doesn’t qualify as a natural born citizen for the office of president.”
Source: WND
Where's the Birth Certificate?
A very interesting bit of detective work...
1. Back in 1961 people of color were called ' Negroes .' So how can the Obama ' birth certificate ' state he is ' African-American ' when the term wasn't even used at that time?
2. The birth certificate that the White House released lists Obama's birth as August 4, 1961 . It also lists Barack Hussein Obama as his father. No big deal, right? At the time of Obama's birth, it also shows that his father is aged 25 years old, and that Obama's father was born in " Kenya, East Africa ." This wouldn't seem like anything of concern, except the fact that Kenya did not even exist until 1963 , two whole years after Obama's birth , and 27 years after his father's birth . How could Obama's father have been born in a country that did not yet exist? Up and until Kenya was formed in 1963 , it was known as the "British East Africa Protectorate."
3. On the birth certificate released by the White House, the listed place of birth is "Kapi'olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital." This cannot be, because the hospital(s) in question in 1961 were called "KauiKeolani Children's Hospital" and "Kapi'olani Maternity Home," respectively. The name did not change to Kapi'olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital until 1978, when these two hospitals merged. How can this particular name of the hospital be on a birth certificate dated 1961 if this name had not yet been applied to it until 1978?
Resources :
http://www.kapiolani.org/women-and-children/about-us/default.aspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Kenya
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenya
OFFICE OF STATE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Judge Mahili Denies Obama's Motion To Squash Subpoenas And To Not Appear At Georgia Ballot Challenge Hearing!!!
The Order:
Defendant, President Barack Obama, a candidate seeking the Democratic nomination for the office of the President of the United States, has filed a motion to quash the subpoena compelling his attendance at the hearing on January 26, 2012.
In support of his motion, Defendant argues that "if enforced, [the subpoena] requires him to interrupt duties as President of the United States" to attend a hearing in Atlanta, Georgia. However, Defendant fails to provide any legal authority to support his motion to quash the subpoena to attend. Defendant's motion suggests that no President should be compelled to attend a Court hearing. This may be correct. But Defendant has failed to enlighten the Court with any legal authority. Specifically, Defendant has failed to cite to any legal authority evidencing why his attendance is "unreasonable or oppressive, or that the testimony... [is] irrelevant, immaterial, or cumulative and unnecessary to a party's preparation or presentation at the hearing, or that basic fairness dictates that the subpoena should not be enforced." Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. r. 616-1-2-.19(5).
Defendant further alludes to a defect in service of the subpoena. However, the Court's rules provide for service of a subpoena upon a party, by serving the party's counsel of record. Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. r. 616-1-2-.19(4). Thus, the argument regarding service is without merit.
Accordingly, Defendant's motion to squash is denied.
SO ORDERED, this the 20th day of January, 2012.
Judge Mahili
Why hasn't this been discussed in the major media?????
Related:
WND – Judge Whacks Obama Eligibility Case
U.S. Sued Over Michelle Obama’s Secretive ‘Family Outing’
Supreme Court Tells Obama “NO”
Obama’s Gay Past Being Hidden by Killing Ex-Lovers Resurfaces
A New Jersey attorney who brought the first legal challenge to Barack Obama's occupancy in the Oval Office to the U.S. Supreme Court has published a report revealing that references to a U.S. Supreme Court decision addressing the definition of "natural-born citizen" were scrubbed at one of the key online resources for legal documents.
The Minor v. Happersett case is significant because it is one of very few references in the nation's archives that addresses the definition of "natural-born citizen," a requirement imposed by the U.S. Constitution on only the U.S. president.
That case states:
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."
In the dispute over Obama's eligibility, dating back to before his election, it has been argued that the Minor case does not apply. Some have argued that it applies only to voting rights.
But now Leo C. Donofrio, whose original Donofio v. Wells against the New Jersey Secretary of State alleged Obama does not meet the Constitution's Article 2, Section 1 "natural-born citizen" demand for presidents because of his dual citizenship at birth, has released research suggesting that even as Obama was preparing to be the Democratic candidate for president in 2008, someone was scrubbing court records of that case.
"New evidence conclusively establishes that 25 U.S. Supreme Court opinions were sabotaged then republished at Justia.com during the runup to the '08 election," he reported
He initially reported several months ago on a few of the adjustments in the text of the Supreme Court opinions at the online resource, "but last week, a third sabotaged case was discovered which led to a thorough examination of all U.S. Supreme Court cases which cite 'Minor v. Happersett' as they appeared on Justia.com between 2006 and the present."
President Obama
Arguably, under the definition in the case, neither candidate in 2008, Democrat Obama nor Republican Sen. John McCain, would be eligible. McCain was born outside of the United States at a U.S. base in the Panama Canal Zone, and Obama's father never was a U.S. citizen.
Donofrio explained in his report that he did not know who made the changes inside the documents purporting to be U.S. Supreme Court opinions, and "the deception might have been undertaken on behalf of either one.
"Regardless of who you supported in 2008, or whether you agree with the assertion of Minor's relevance, every American should be outraged that 25 Supreme Court cases were surgically sabotaged and then passed off to the public as if the tampered versions contained the 'Full Text of Case,'" he wrote.
"This is the very definition of 'Orwellian' Fascism. It's propaganda. And there is no place for it in the United States. The sacrifices for truth and justice which created and have sustained this nation are wantonly debased by the subversive deception emenating from Justia.com servers."
Justia staff did not return a WND message requesting comment.
Donofrio wrote that it's not just a prank-level matter.
"Since Justice placed affirmations on each tampered opinion which state 'Full Text of Case,' personnel may also be guilty of violating 18 U.S.C. 1018 by intentionally passing off tampered versions of U.S. Supreme Court opinions as if they were official versions published by the U.S. Supreme Court."
The public information officer for the U.S. Supreme Court, Kathleen Arberg,declined to respond to a WND call and email query about whether there could be any ramifications from posting an incomplete court document and representing it as the full document.
Among the dozens of examples identified by Donofrio was the Luria case.
The case from 1913 was an appeal out of New York that concluded: "Where a point involving sufficiency of the complaint is not raised and defendant does not challenge the statement of the court that it supposes the point will not be raised, it is too late to raise it in this court.
"This court concurs in the conclusion reached by the district court that the residence in a foreign country of one whose certificate of naturalization was attacked as fraudulent was intended to be and was of a permanent nature and justified the proceeding on the part of the United States to cancel the certificate under § 15 of the Act of June 29, 1906."
Using the online Wayback machine, Donofrio found a 2006 image of the pertinent reference to Minor v. Happersett in the document. The reference is near the highlighted word:
Then Donofrio found a 2008 image of the same page, but the Minor v. Happersett reference had disappeared:
A subsequent image of the same page, from 2010, revealed that the Minor v. Happersett still was gone:
Finally, the current image, as of Friday afternoon, revealed that the reference had been restored:
"We do not know at this point if Justia personnel were behind this or if their site was hacked. That being said, Justia's reaction to my last report (in July) mirrored the deception of the sabotage. Instead of addressing the proof, Justia quietly and with stealth un-scrubbed the evidence without acknowledging or addressing the issue at all. And they placed '.txt robots' on their URLs for the two previously identified cases so the Wayback Machine could no longer provide historical snapshots of those cases as published at Justia," Donofrio explained.
He said he found 25 instances of tampering, and in some cases not only was the case scrubbed, the numerical citation also was taken out.
"The reality that both candidates eligibility was questionable according to Minor v. Happersett appears to have been known and handled by somebody's legal team. However, Justia CEO Tim Stanley was associated with 'Obama For America 2008,'" he wrote.
He said the case should have been used to prevent the outcome of the 2008 election.
"McCain clearly does not meet the definition since he was born in Panama. And since Obama's father was never a U.S. citizen, the current POTUS doesn't meet the Supreme Court's definition of a natural-born citizen either. Minor v. Happersett has, therefore, been the subject of an intense disinformation campaign. Falsehoods about the case have been widely spread," he said.
He said the most common are that Minor was a voting rights case and is not binding on citizenship issues, or that it was overruled.
But he said both criticisms are false.
Donofrio explained that the pattern of sabotage was consistent: The original documents included the Minor reference and subsequent copies did not.
"Some cases scrubbed the words 'Minor v. Happersett' every time they appeared, and some left it in one time, but removed it in other places. References to The Slaughterhouse Cases, Scott v. Sandford, and Osborn v. Bank of United States (citizenship cases which prove troublesome for Obama's eligibility) were also scrubbed along with full sentences from majority opinions (as was done in Pope v. Williams), and dissents (as was done in U.S. v. Wong Km Ark). The scrubbing was surgically precise as to the issue of POTUS eligibility. The Wayback Machine snapshots prove that the tampering stayed in effect through the final snapshots taken in 2010.
"This tampering happened at Justia.com. That is a fact. The questions which need to be answered now are who ordered it and who carried out the subversive plot," he wrote.
Dianna Cotter wrote in the Portland Civil Rights Examiner: "This was done in these specific cases in order to prevent their being found by Internet researchers long before anyone had even begun to look for them, even before Obama would win the Democratic nomination at the DNC Convention in Denver, Colo., in August '08. This is premeditation and intent to deceive."
She noted that attorneys working on arguments always would return to the originals from the Supreme Court, "but 99.99 percent of the population has no access to dusty law texts or expensive legal research services such as Lexis and Westlaw.
"The manipulation at Justia.com diluted the importance of Minor by killing the citations in Supreme Court cases spanning over 100 years. Since Google most often returns Justia.com's version of the case being searched for as the first or second hit, Justia's version of Supreme Court opinions are most influential in the blogosphere's forums and comments. Erasing those citations and text on the Internet literally erases the importance of Minor and its precedents to millions of Americans otherwise unlikely to ever step into physical Law Library," she wrote.
There have been multiple court and other challenges to Obama's occupancy in the Oval Office. Essentially they have argued that he either isn't eligible because he wasn't born in Hawaii as he's said, or that he was never qualified because his father was a Kenyan citizen, giving Barack Obama dual citizenship (the U.S. and the United Kingdom) at his birth. Those people argue that the Founders, with their requirement that the president be a "natural-born citizen," disqualified dual citizens.
The White House in April released an image of a "Certificate of Live Birth" from the state of Hawaii in support of Obama's claim that he was born in the state. However, many computer, imaging, document and technology experts have stated it appears to be a forgery.
The image:
Obama long-form birth certificate released April 27 by the White House
Source: By Bob Unruh © 2011 WND - Posted: October 23, 2011 - 5:30 pm Eastern
Related:
Beck’s GOP Ticket Prediction… “That’s the way the machine works”
Is Barry Soetoro Guilty of Treason and Fraud Against America?
Is Marco Rubio Qualified to Be President… And Do You Have to Qualify for President to be VP?
Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal Not Eligible to be a President
Why Republicans Will Never Address Obama’s Crimes
Background Information: Vittal’s Law of Nations: The Law of Nations (Natural Law Cloth) on which our Constitution is based
A new book by New York Times reporter Janny Scott sheds new light on the life of Barack Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham, including her final years. Scott found while assembling information for “A Singular Woman: The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mother,” that Dunham in fact did have health coverage for her ovarian cancer, based off Dunham’s own past correspondence.Washington Examiner’s Byron York:
“Dunham decided to stay in Jakarta, where she underwent an appendectomy. But the pain did not go away, and Dunham feared, correctly, that she was terribly ill. In January 1995 she left Indonesia to go home to Honolulu, where she was diagnosed with advanced uterine and ovarian cancer. She began a regime of surgery and chemotherapy.
That is the time during which Obama says his mother battled insurance companies to cover her illness. But Scott, who had access to Dunham’s correspondence from the time, reveals that Dunham unquestionably had health coverage. ‘Ann’s compensation for her job in Jakarta had included health insurance, which covered most of the costs of her medical treatment,’ Scott writes. ‘Once she was back in Hawaii, the hospital billed her insurance company directly, leaving Ann to pay only the deductible and any uncovered expenses, which, she said, came to several hundred dollars a month.”
Often in his 2008 campaign and throughout his push for national healthcare reform, Barack Obama retold a compelling story of his mother’s struggle against non-budging insurance companies for care in the final years of her life before the cancer over took her.
Additional Discussion today on Radio:
Obama caught in a massive lie
So has the President been caught in a massive lie? Apparently author Scott Wright has been doing some research on stories he told on the campaign trail, and he has found some contradictory information – primarily that a story he told on the campaign trail about his mother’s cancer coverage was exaggerated, to say the least.
“For my mother to die of cancer at the age of 53 and have to spend the last months of her life in a hospital room arguing with insurance companies because they’re saying that this may be a preexisting condition and they don’t have to pay her treatment, there’s something fundamentally wrong about that.
“There is something fundamentally wrong about that. It’s a lie,” Pat said. “Her insurance company covered her completely for the problem that she was suffering.”
“That is weird. According now to the records in January 1995, she left Indonesia to go to Honolulu where she was diagnosed with an advanced uterine and ovarian cancer. She began a regimen of surgery and chemotherapy. This is the time which womb says his mother battled the insurance companies to cover her illness. But Scott, an author of a new book who has access to Dunham’s correspondence from the time reveals that she unquestionably had health coverage. Ann’s compensation for her job in Jakarta had included health insurance which covered most of the cost of her medical treatment,” Glenn read.
Glenn emphasized that she came from another country to the United States and received her medical care. Pat added that she was actually misdiagnosed in Indonesia, where she was said to have appendicitis.
“ Once she was back in Hawaii, the hospital billed her insurance company directly leaving Ann only to pay the deductible and any uncovered expenses, which she said claimed to be several hundred dollars a month. Scott Wright said Dunham, who wanted to be compensated for those costs as well as for her living expenses. She filed a separate claim under her employer’s disability insurance policy. It was that claim with the insurance company Cigna that was declined in August 1995 because as Cigna investigators said, her condition was known before she was covered by the policy. Dunham protested the decision and informed Cigna that she was turning the case over to my son, an attorney, Barack Obama. Cigna did not budge,” Glenn continued.
“September 1995 Dunham traveled to New York for an evaluation at renowned Memorial Sloan‑Kettering. She returned to Hawaii, began a new course of treatment. She died in November. A dozen years later her son turned ordeal into a campaign pitch for national healthcare. But the story Obama told Scott Wright was abbreviated. The abbreviation was to leave out the fact that she had health insurance and it paid for her treatment. Though he often suggested that she was denied health coverage because of a preexisting condition. It appears from her correspondence in her own writing that she was only denied disability coverage. That’s a different story altogether but one that nobody in the press seems to care.”
What are some other Obama healthcare related lies that have been exposed?
“One man from Illinois lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because his insurer found that he hadn’t reported gallstones that he didn’t even know about. They delayed his treatment and he died because of it.”
But as Pat pointed out, it has been revealed that the man received treatment, his coverage was paid for, but he passed away anyway.
Glenn and Pat then went through a series of hyperbolic statements wherein the President implied that doctors were removing amputating feet from diabetics or needlessly removing tonsils for money. Obama, of course, did not provide concrete examples.
Video Discussion: Beck on Radio – Obama Caught in a Massive Lie
But maybe “O” just comes by it naturally: Evidence of Deception Reaches White House as Well as New Book on Obama Senior
h/t to the Blaze - Cross-Posted at True Health Is True Wealth
US immigration files from '61 reveal Kenyan student's plan
By Sally Jacobs, Boston.com
In the spring of 1961, President Obama's father revealed a plan for his unborn son that might have changed the course of American political history.
The elder Barack H. Obama, a sophomore at the University of Hawaii, had come under scrutiny by federal immigration officials who were concerned that he had more than one wife. When he was questioned by the school's foreign student adviser, the 24-year-old Obama insisted that he had divorced his wife in his native Kenya. Although his new wife, Ann Dunham, was five months pregnant with their child - who would be called Barack Obama II - Obama declared that they intended to put their child up for adoption.
"Subject got his USC wife 'Hapai' [Hawaiian for pregnant] and although they were married they do not live together and Miss Dunham is making arrangements with the Salvation Army to give the baby away," according to a memo describing the conversation with Obama written by Lyle H. Dahling, an administrator in the Honolulu office of what was then called the US Immigration and Naturalization Service.
Obama, the Subject, and his USC, or United States citizen, wife, obviously, did not put their baby up for adoption. Whether the young couple actually considered such a step, or the elder Obama made the story up in order to appease immigration officials who at the time were considering his request for an extension of his stay in the United States, is unclear. Family members on both sides of the marriage now say they never heard any mention of adoption.
But his statement provides a unique glimpse into the relationship between the president’s parents and the fragility of his connection to the father whom he would little know.
Dahling’s memo, dated April 12, 1961, is one of dozens of documents in the elder Obama’s “alien’’ file released by the Department of Homeland Security in response to a Freedom of Information Act request made in the course of research on a biography of Obama’s father. Obama was visiting the United States on a foreign student visa which required him to apply for an annual extension of his stay during the five years he was attending US colleges.
The memo advised that officials should continue to monitor the senior Obama’s personal life, and raised concerns about his behavior, noting that the previous summer he had been warned about his “playboy ways.’’
Robert L. Gibbs, the former White House press secretary, said at the time the document was released that President Obama had never been told that his mother had considered putting him up for adoption. Nor, Gibbs said, was Obama previously aware of the INS memo. Gibbs said that the White House had made no effort to determine if Dunham had ever had a conversation with the Salvation Army. The president, he added, “is absolutely convinced that she did not.’
From the early 20th century through the 1970s the Salvation Army operated nearly a dozen residential maternity homes throughout the United States, one of which was located in Honolulu. Residents who chose not to keep their babies were able to make arrangements to put them up for adoption through local agencies. The agency maintains records of its maternity homes but provides them only to birth mothers or children who request them, according to Kathy Lovin, public affairs manager for The Salvation Army’s western territory in Long Beach, Calif. Lovin declined to say whether Ann Dunham, who died in 1995, spoke with Salvation Army officials at all about the possibility of putting her child up for adoption.
Neither President Obama nor the White House has since asked the Salvation Army if there is any record that his parents talked with the organization regarding his possible adoption, according to a White House press person who declined to be identified.
The INS memo can be regarded from several perspectives. On the one hand, Ann Dunham had good reason to consider surrendering her child. At the time that she gave birth in 1961, Dunham was just 18 years old, and mixed-race marriage - while legal in Hawaii - was a felony in many of the 22 states in which it was banned. Even in Hawaii, the only state at the time with a nonwhite majority, blacks accounted for less than 1 percent of the population, and a black face drew curious stares on the streets of Honolulu.
In his memoir, “Dreams from My Father,’’ President Obama mused that his mother might have considered putting her child up for adoption given the cultural hostility to mixed race marriages that existed at the time. Even in sophisticated urban centers, he wrote, “. . . the hostile stares, the whispers, might have driven a woman in my mother’s predicament into a back-alley abortion - or at the very least to a distant convent that could arrange for adoption.’’
While it is possible that the elder Obama’s statement to the student adviser was true, family and friends say they do not believe she ever considered such a thing. Dunham, they maintain, was a bold iconoclast even as a young woman and regarded her unborn child as very much her responsibility, one that she would never have surrendered.
“I never heard any talk of adoption whatsoever,’’ said Charles Payne, Dunham’s maternal uncle, who is now in his 80s and living in Chicago. “Ann decided she had done this and this was her child and she was going to take care of him. From day one, as far as I could tell, she and Madelyn [Dunham] and Stanley [Dunham] were all completely committed to Barack.’’
Nor do several of Ann Dunham’s friends at the time recall her mentioning giving up her baby. On the contrary, Susan Botkin Blake, a high school friend of Dunham’s, describes how entranced her friend was with her small son during a visit to Seattle just weeks after he was born.
“She was wildly in love with Barack Obama, her husband, and very excited about her future with him,’’ recalled Blake. “From my perspective, she had no equivocation about her baby in the slightest. She was thrilled with him.’’
Barack Obama Sr., on the other hand, would have had reason to worry that having a child in the United States could have significant consequences. For starters, Obama, who had two children in Kenya, was having severe financial problems. Although he told Dunham that he had gotten divorced from his Kenyan wife, he apparently did not tell her about his other children.
Obama was a member of the Luo ethnic group, the third largest of Kenya’s tribes, among whose members polygamy was common. His own father had at least four wives. In fact, Obama was still married to his Kenyan wife, Grace Kezia Obama, and apparently worried about the financial burden of another child.
Of greater concern was his immigration status. At the time that he made his statement about adoption in spring 1961, Obama was in the midst of applying to the INS for an extension of his stay in the United States. Although it was a routine process that was required of foreign students periodically, the application entailed an examination of the student’s academic record and general behavior.
Obama would have wanted to present a case that would impress immigration authorities. A bigamist with a mixed-race baby, if that is how authorities chose to see him, was not likely to be the strongest of candidates. As Gibbs assessed the elder Obama’s possible motive: “He was trying to convince immigration to let him stay. So, part of his effort was to convince immigration that some of the responsibilities that he had he would not continue to have.’’
University of Hawaii and federal immigration authorities were already alarmed about Obama’s relationships with women and perplexed as to his marital status. Since his arrival at the university in 1959, Obama had repeatedly failed to complete routine paperwork at UH’s foreign students office regarding his domestic status that would have clarified whether he had a wife in Kenya, according to an employee in the office who declined to be identified. Even the exact year of his own birth was unclear. Obama alternately reported to immigration and academic officials that he was born in both 1934 and 1936. Although the INS memo records the year of his birth as 1934, Obama’s family members and other records indicate that he was probably born in 1936.
When he married Dunham in February 1961, school administrators began to probe his status in earnest. Sumi McCabe, then UH’s foreign student adviser, first brought attention to the matter during a phone call to Dahling, the INS administrator, the following April. According to Dahling’s memo, “Mrs. McCabe further states that [Obama] has been running around with several girls since he first arrived here and last summer she cautioned him about his playboy ways. [Obama] replied that he would ‘try’ to stay away from the girls.’’ But he didn’t try very hard. Instead, he began dating the dark-eyed Ann Dunham.
Now that he was married to a US citizen and was soon to become the father of an American child, immigration officials would not have been reassured by his official records. On some of the forms in his alien file, Obama reported that he had a Kenyan wife. After he married Dunham, he sometimes reported her as his wife. More often than not, he left the section blank.
All the while, he wrote letters to his family and friends back home in Kenya, inquiring about his wife and children there.
Noting that Obama appeared to have a wife in Kenya and another in Hawaii, Dahling raised the possibility in his memo of charging Obama with polygamy or bigamy in order to get a deportation order against him. In the end, he suggested they keep an eye on him.
“Recommend that Subject be closely questioned before another extension is granted - and denial be considered,’’ Dahling concluded. “If his USC wife tries to petition for him, make sure an investigation is conducted as to the bona fide of the marriage.’’
As it turned out, the matter soon moved out of Honolulu administrators’ purview. The following year, Obama left his small family in Honolulu and headed to Harvard University to pursue a doctorate in economics. While in Cambridge, Obama would not only meet his third wife, but the question of how many wives he had would spiral into a confrontation with devastating consequences.
Sally Jacobs is a Boston Globe reporter. Her book, “The Other Barack: The Bold and Reckless Life of President Obama's Father,’’ will be released next week.
Source: Boston.com and reposted at the Fox Nation
The reality is that Obama is ineligible to be president because he does not meet the “natural born” qualification, and that is without addressing the whole question of whether he really was really born in Hawaii, the Kenya question and the questionable, missing or falsified documents floating around. Furthermore he was adopted by non-citizen to the U.S., Lolo Soetoro and we have members of our government and their counterpart The Shadow Party , not to mention the press, who are in the bag to help create and crown this Manchurian President. We don’t even have to go to the stories of family CIA connections, and Barry Soetoro attending school here on a foreign student scholarship. Wake America, we’ve been had! Why is he still in office? And why would the Dems (Congress and the media) let him run again in 2012?
Related articles: Former DOH Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino Claimed Obama’s Vault Copy Birth Certificate Was Half Handwritten; Exclusive: Court Subpoena of Obama's Original Birth Certificate Served to Hawaii Health Department.; A Slippery Character: New Details Emerge About Obama’s Father; US Supreme Court Precedent States that Obama Is Not Eligible to be President; No Award for Orly; Turns Out Obama’s Story About Mother’s Healthcare Struggle Is Inaccurate
KCP Test Yourself Quiz Answers
Video: O’Reilly Calls Obama Senior a Sociopath
Related Books:
The Other Barack: The Bold and Reckless Life of President Obama's Father, Dreams from My Father & The Audacity of Hope (Written by or Obama… or William Ayers?), The Roots of Obama's Rage; Where's the Birth Certificate? and The Manchurian President: Barack Obama's Ties to Communists, Socialists and Other Anti-American Extremists
CERTIFIGATE
By Bob Unruh - WorldNetDaily
July 11, 201
|
|
In an allegation that pushes the dispute over Barack Obama's presidential eligibility to a new level, an affidavit prepared to accompany a criminal complaint over the "Certificate of Live Birth" released April 27 suggests there was a plan to mislead the American public, and it went as high as the Oval Office.
"What I believe you are looking at is a classic example of an attempt at plausible deniability," wrote Doug Vogt, who has filed a criminal complaint that charges Obama's birth record is forged.
Vogt, who describes himself as an expert in documents, typesetting, imaging, scanners and document imaging programs and has owned Archive Index Systems since 1993, referenced the widely broadcast White House event when officials, including then-White House Counsel Robert Bauer and Obama's communications director Daniel Pfeiffer, released the purported Hawaiian "Certificate of Live Birth."
"Everything that came out of the mouths of both these men and the president's was carefully orchestrated and scripted. It also implies that the president's contingency plan was that in case the forgery was detected, that one or both of them would take the blame," Vogt concluded.
He said in the affidavit, a copy of which was obtained by WND, "The preponderance of evidence leads me to conclude that the Certificate of Live Birth the White House presented at the 8:48 a.m. news conference (on April 27) and not mentioned on television an hour later is a forgery."
He continued, "A strong legal argument can be made that per U.S. Code Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 47, Sec.1028(a)(2 and 4) Mr. Pfeiffer and Mr. Robert Bauer could have made themselves principles in the forgery. There is also the possibility that the director of the Department of Health in Hawaii knows much more about this forgery than she is telling. If it is later proven in federal court that this Certificate of Live Birth issued by the Department of Health is a forgery, then any and all personnel involved with the forgery, would also be principles in the forgery.
Read the full analysis of the White House presentation.
"I am sure that there is someone at the Department of Health who searched their document imaging system to find the certificates that became the elements used to assemble the final Obama fraudulent Certificate. An FBI investigation in Hawaii will be necessary to get to the whole truth of this scandal," he said.
Obama is tied in to the plot, Vogt contends, through his speech shortly after the Hawaii document was released, in which he referenced "the old history of the Short Form certification" and then said, "We've posted the Certification that is given by the State of Hawaii on the Internet for everybody to see."
The president didn't reference the newly released "Certificate of Live Birth" unveiled at the news conference, Vogt writes, in his address that day.
What the White House released:
| |
"Let me ask you a simple question," Vogt writes, "let's say you live in New York, and you were born in California and you want two copies of your Certificate of Live Birth, not because you need it for a passport application or any other legal reason, but just because you want to show it to some friends. So you pay your high priced lawyer to fly on a moment's notice to California and back again with your Certificate. This whole process has cost you thousands. Are you going to want to see it and take possession of at least one of the Certificates? The obvious answer is YES. Next, read the answer given by Mr. Pfeiffer and Robert Bauer from the 8:48 a.m. news conference":
Question: And this is going to sound …. I mean, you can just anticipate what people are going to …. remain unconvinced. They're going to say that this is just a photocopy of a piece of paper, you could have typed anything in there. Will the actual certificate be on display or viewable at any …. (laughter.)
Will the president be holding it?
MR. PFEIFFER: He will not, and I will not leave it here for him to do so. But it will …. the State Department of Health in Hawaii will obviously attest that that is a …. what they have on file. As Bob said, it's in a book in Hawaii.
MR. BAUER: And you'll see the letter from the director of the Health Department that states that she oversaw the copy and is attesting to ….
"Plausible deniability refers to the denial of blame in loose and informal chains of command where upper leadership quarantine the blame to the lower management, and the lower management are often inaccessible, meaning confirming responsibility for the action is nearly impossible," Vogt said. "In the case that illegal or otherwise disreputable and unpopular activities become public, high-ranking officials may deny any awareness of such act or any connection to the agents used to carry out such acts. This method was used in the Nixon administration during the Watergate scandal to protect the president – it did not work then."
Case of fraud advances
Jerome Corsi, Ph.D., the author of "Where's the Birth Certificate?" as well as the Obama Nation said Vogt "continues to advance the case that the Obama birth certificate was fraudulently contrived in an attempt to deflect the news cycle from the issues I raised in 'Where's the Birth Certificate?' – a book that was set to crush Obama on the eligibility issue, unless Obama responded."
Plans to make the Obama document public were being made just as Corsi's book reached No. 1 on Amazon, weeks ahead of the book's release.
"Unfortunately, rather than tell the truth, the White House rushed to get a forged document into the waiting hands of a compliant and loving mainstream media," Corsi said. "Rather than establish a chain of evidence that would establish the PDF file released on the White House website as legitimate, the Obama administration and the Hawaii DOH continued their dance, pretending it was impossible to release a long-form birth certificate."
Corsi said Vogt's analysis "shows not only that the Hawaii DOH remains complicit with the Obama White House in advancing the fraud that Obama was born in Hawaii, but also shows the cover-up is continuing."
"The public must now demand to see the 'best evidence' of the Obama birth certificate – namely, the document itself," he said.
Vogt's affidavit describes several specific concerns, including alleged anomalies in the image released to the public, Obama's dispatching of an attorney to travel to Hawaii for such a document and the careful language that was used to describe its acquistion.
What 'waiver'?
Vogt cited Bauer's statement that, "Early last week the decision was made to review the legal basis for seeking a waiver from the long-standing prohibition in the state Department of Health on releasing the long-form birth certificate. And so we undertook a legal analysis and determined a waiver request could be made, that we had the grounds upon which to make that request."
The affidavit describes how Obama's private attorney, Judy Corley of the law firm of Perkins Coie, was dispatched to travel to Hawaii to retrieve the document.
Continued Bauer, "The department, as I understood it, after reviewing the law and reviewing the grounds asserted in the request, came to the conclusion that a waiver could be appropriately granted. We were advised that the long-form birth certificate could be copied and made available to us as early as Monday, April 25th – the day before yesterday. And we made arrangements for counsel to travel to Honolulu to pick it up and it was returned to the White House yesterday afternoon."
But Vogt notes Hawaii law requires, "Subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18, the Department of Health shall, upon request, furnish to any applicant a certified copy of any certificate."
"The law clearly states 'shall,' that does not mean maybe or 'out of the goodness of their hearts.' It means the Health Department must issue a copy of the Certificate of Live Birth not the Certification if requested. The Hawaiian law has a list of who can receive the Certificate and they include over 20 individuals, as well as government agencies."
He wrote that Loretta Fuddy, the chief of the health department, had announced an "exception" to departmental policy, even though other long-form certificates had been made available to others only weeks before Obama's request.
Which document?
Several forms of the birth document were distributed, including copied images handed out to reporters, the online image and an image taken by a selected reporter who was allowed to see the White House copy.
Vogt says the evidence indicates the "original" copy at the White House may have been a descendant of the online image, not the other way around.
He says the image distributed to media has the previously reported registrar's rubber stamp anomaly, with "TXE" instead of "THE." The reporter's image is from Savannah Guthrie of NBC, who was allowed to see one of the White House copies that arrived from Hawaii.
"She claims she touched it and felt the raised seal, or what looks like a seal. This was important to Robert Bauer and company because the copy they showed the news people did not show any embossed seal. So the White House handlers felt it necessary to have at leas[t] one reporter, they could trust, see and feel the Certificate. She also was permitted to take a photo of the Certificate, which we will assume was done by her camera phone, because the quality was not very good," Vogt explained.
|
|
|
|
Vogt notes several discrepancies, including an "italicized E" under the "A" in Alvin in the image given to reporters that appears not to be present in Guthrie's image. He concedes, however, it could be explained by the low-resolution of the latter image.
He notes that the PDF image that was uploaded from the White House, which reportedly was scanned from a hard copy, reveals it was created April 27 on a Mac computer.
"On the PDF file the italics "E" under the "A" in Alvin also shows up clearly. … That would mean that [the image given reporters and the PDF file] have a common origin.
"The most logical conclusion is that [the image given to reporters and the image from Guthrie] were produced from the same file, namely the PDF file. … The only way to know for sure would be to have the White House place both certificates next to each other and photograph or scan them."
Exactly the same
Further, he said, "What is interesting about these three images of the registrar's seal and the date stamp just to the left of it, is that all are in the exact same position to the hundredths of an inch and I mean both horizontally and vertically to the above form. So you have two certificates [the copies the White House says came from Hawaii] with two hand applied rubber stamps on the bottom and a hand placed embossed seal applied by a machine and all three are in the exact same position. It is impossible to put two forms next to each other and hand stamp them as shown and get all in exactly the same position, along with being placed almost perfectly straight on the two forms. This could only be done with a graphics program like Adobe Illustrator or Photoshop. Keep in mind the clerk or registrar has no reason or preference requirement to place these stamps in exactly the same position."
Vogt said, "The preponderance of evidence leads me to conclude that the Certificate of Live Birth, the White House presented at the 8:48 a.m. news conference and not mentioned on television an hour later, is a forgery."
Corsi said it's mostly likely that "there is no long-form birth certificate in the Hawaii DOH vault, or if there is one, it is a mere print-out of the PDF file."
"Very likely the PDF file is the 'best evidence' of the document, especially if all the paper documents of the Obama long-form birth certificate derive from that electronic file," Corsi said.
"Soon the American public will have compelling expert testimony that the Obama birth certificate was electronically manufactured and electronically modified – using as templates various authentic birth certificates, including the Nordyke twins' birth certificates," he said. "This crude forgery will not survive genuine forensic expert examination – but the White House will continue lying – and showing the one copy with the 'seal' only to a trusted press photographer that the White House knew would not ask any critical questions."
Custody
Vogt also pointed to the chain of custody for the physical documents that the White House said it got from the state of Hawaii, brought to Washington Obama's attorney and then handed over to the White House. But unknown is who created the online image that many experts believe shows evidence of manipulation.
Corsi points out that the government's own guidelines for accepting the authenticity of an electronic document features a long list of conditions.
The Government Printing Office "will inform users about a publication's integrity and chain of custody through the designation of at least 2 different levels of authentication, 'authentic' and 'official.' GPO defines 'authentic' as content that is verified by GPO to be complete and unaltered when compared to the version received by GPO. 'Official' content is content that is approved by, contributed by, or harvested from an official source in accordance with accepted program specifications," the government outlines.
Such provenance has yet to be offered regarding the White House document, he explains.
When the White House released Obama's document in April, officials with the Hawaii Department of Health and the office of Gov. Neal Abercrombie declined to respond to WND requests for a simple confirmation that the image released in Washington was an accurate representation of the information in the state's files.
The previous reports on Vogt's criminal complaint:
Criminal complaint charges Obama birth record 'forged' [url: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=305705 ]
Criminal complaint details birth-certificate 'forgery' [url: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=306953 ]
Why did Obama release electronic birth certificate? [url: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=308277
Posted by PC World news Saturday, June 18th, 2011
Obama’s Occidental College transcripts provides concrete evidence to annul his presidency
Anyone Wonder Why They’ve Been Hiding This?
Occidental Registration transcript states ~ Name: Barry Soetoro - Religion: Islam - Nationality: Indonesian
The smoking gun evidence that annuls Obama’s presidency is Obama’s college transcripts regarding his application for and receiving of foreign student aid. Obama’s college transcripts from Occidental College indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate at the school. The transcript from Occidental College shows that Obama (Barry Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship (scholarship) for foreign students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program – an international educational exchange program sponsored by the U.S. government. Grants are available for U.S. citizens to go abroad and for non-U.S. citizens with no U.S. permanent residence to come to the U.S. To qualify, for the non-US citizen scholarship to study in the U.S., a student applicant must claim and provide proof of foreign citizenship. This document would seem to provide the smoking gun that many of Obama’s detractors have been seeking. The United States Constitution requires that Presidents (and Vice Presidents) of the United States be natural born citizens of the United States.
“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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
Obama hasn’t met and doesn’t meet the basic qualifications for the presidency – must be natural born citizen.
Obama has been named in dozens of civil lawsuits alleging he is not eligible to be president, with many filing a criminal complaint alleging the commander-in-chief is a fraud.
The filed indictments disputes Obama’s eligibility to be president under the U.S. Constitution which requires that eligible candidates for the United States presidency be “natural born” citizens.
U.S. soldiers including a general refuse to recognize Obama as their Commander in Chief since he is not a U.S. citizen. The soldiers have challenged Obama’s legitimacy by filing federal lawsuits against Obama.
On such soldier was U.S. Army Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook who was given orders to deploy to Afghanistan. Cook refused to deploy stating that he shouldn’t have to go because Obama is not a U.S. citizen and therefore not legally President and Commander in Chief. The military revoked the orders with no reason given. Speculation is that Obama would rather not see this thing go to court before a judge!
“In the 20-page document — filed with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia — the California-based Taitz asks the court to consider granting his client’s request based upon Cook’s belief that Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the United States and is therefore ineligible to serve as commander-in-chief of the U.S. Armed Forces,” the Ledger-Enquirer reported.
Cook “would be acting in violation of international law by engaging in military actions outside the United States under this President’s command. … simultaneously subjecting himself to possible prosecution as a war criminal by the faithful execution of these duties,” Taitz stated.
Obama says he was born in Hawaii in 1961, just two years after it became a state.
There are many lawsuits and claims that Barack Obama was never eligible to be president because he wasn’t born in the United States. And there is credible evidence that suggests he is not legally eligible to serve as President of the United States.
Numerous official government documents records Obama being legally registered as Barry Soetoro. School registries shows the registration of Barack Obama under the name Barry Soetoro. During his Occidental College days he is registered as Barry Soetoro. An entry in the journal of the California assembly in reference to grants given to foreign exchange students (this official government document lists Obama as a foreigner not a US citizen. A US citizen wouldn’t qualify for foreign exchange student funding) states Obama as Barry Soetoro from Indonesia.
The first name of a child is always the same from birth. If throughout his childhood Obama went by the first name of Barry then legally his birth name would have to be Barry. In order to register any child for school an official birth certificate must be presented. To receive a government grant proof of citizenship and birth must also be submitted. All of the evidence is stating that Barack Obama’s legal first name is Barry not Barrack.
A biography of Obama’s Occidental College days states that when Obama was 18-19 he attended school as BARRY SOETORO. And it wasn’t until he met a girl by the name of Regina that Obama started using the name Barack. Regina was the first to start calling him Barack. There seems to be no record of Obama legally changing his first name from Barry to Barack.
While being sworn in as an attorney in the State of Illinois, Mr Obama had to provide his personal information under oath. He was asked, if he had any other names, he responded none. In reality, he used the name Barry Soetoro in an entry in the journal of the California assembly in reference to grants given to foreign exchange students. Mr. Soetoro/Obama clearly defrauded the State Bar of Illinois and perjured himself while concealing his identity. Anybody else would’ve been disbarred for this and the matter would’ve been forwarded to the district attorney for prosecution for perjury and fraud, however nothing was done to Mr. Obama. More importantly, why did he conceal his identity?
If Obama didn’t legally have his name changed from Barry to Barack then the birth certificate he passed to Congress is a fake, a forgery. If his name was registered as Barry Soetoro even though Obama claims his real name is Barack Obama then Obama defrauded the state of California in order to receive college funding. Obama knowingly presented a false document to the state wherein he claimed to be a foreign student in order to illegally acquire financial aid.
U.S. Code
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 47—FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS
§ 1015. Naturalization, citizenship or alien registry
(a) Whoever knowingly makes any false statement under oath, in any case, proceeding, or matter relating to, or under, or by virtue of any law of the United States relating to naturalization, citizenship, or registry of aliens; or
(b) Whoever knowingly, with intent to avoid any duty or liability imposed or required by law, denies that he has been naturalized or admitted to be a citizen, after having been so naturalized or admitted; or
(c) Whoever uses or attempts to use any certificate of arrival, declaration of intention, certificate of naturalization, certificate of citizenship or other documentary evidence of naturalization or of citizenship, or any duplicate or copy thereof, knowing the same to have been procured by fraud or false evidence or without required appearance or hearing of the applicant in court or otherwise unlawfully obtained; or
(d) Whoever knowingly makes any false certificate, acknowledgment or statement concerning the appearance before him or the taking of an oath or affirmation or the signature, attestation or execution by any person with respect to any application, declaration, petition, affidavit, deposition, certificate of naturalization, certificate of citizenship or other paper or writing required or authorized by the laws relating to immigration, naturalization, citizenship, or registry of aliens; or
(e) Whoever knowingly makes any false statement or claim that he is, or at any time has been, a citizen or national of the United States, with the intent to obtain on behalf of himself, or any other person, any Federal or State benefit or service, or to engage unlawfully in employment in the United States; or
(f) Whoever knowingly makes any false statement or claim that he is a citizen of the United States in order to register to vote or to vote in any Federal, State, or local election (including an initiative, recall, or referendum)—
This evidence is sufficient to annul the presidency of Obama. Official Occidental College transcripts registered with the state declares that Obama is an impostor.
Short URL: http://presscore.ca/2011/?p=2929
h/t to Jean Stoner
Many Republicans are unhappy with their choices for president, especially after Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels declined to run.
But the ideal GOP candidate was on display in Washington last week.
He has experience in executive positions in both government and private business, and an impressive military record.
As a graduate of both Harvard and MIT, his establishment credentials are impeccable. But his strong conservatism has a populist strain. He connects with ordinary folks.
He's a member of a minority group which usually votes Democratic.
A champion debater at Cheltenham High School in the Philadelphia suburbs, he is an inspiring orator. He gets under Barack Obama's skin.
Alas, Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu already has a job. He's prime minister of Israel.
Mr. Netanyahu concluded a powerful week Tuesday with an address to a joint session of Congress. He received 29 standing ovations. ABC's Jonathan Karl noted that during his (much longer) State of the Union address, President Barack Obama received only 25.
The Israeli prime minister returned home strengthened immeasurably by Mr. Obama's clumsy effort to diminish him. The highlight of his visit came during a joint appearance at the White House when Mr. Netanyahu delivered to the president's face a short, respectful, but powerful explanation for why Israel could never return to its 1967 borders.
Mr. Obama's body language indicated he was surprised and displeased that Mr. Netanyahu would dare confront him. And when the president tried to walk back what he'd said about borders during his speech Sunday to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the heavily Democratic audience of 1,200 mostly sat on their hands. Other speakers at the AIPAC conference -- including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. -- sided with Mr. Netanyahu.
"This is what a leader looks like," wrote Bryan Preston of Pajamas Media of Mr. Netanyahu's "very impressive" speech to Congress. "Not a word of it will have to be 'clarified' or walked back in a day or two. It will not be 'misunderstood,' as President Obama claims his speech of last week has been. I have had many friends on the Republican side tell me 'if only we had a candidate like that.' "
Bibi Netanyahu can't run for president of the United States. But he showed those who are running how to get the better of Mr. Obama: Talk straight. Talk substance. Go directly at him.
While Congress was applauding Mr. Netanyahu, Mr. Obama was showing us what leadership isn't. On a visit intended more to advance his re-election campaign than the interests of the United States, Mr. Obama played Ping-Pong with British Prime Minister David Cameron, signed the wrong date in the distinguished visitors' log at Westminster Abbey and botched a toast to the Queen.
The fluffiness of the agenda didn't prevent Mr. Obama and Mr. Cameron -- pygmies who imagine themselves giants -- from comparing themselves to Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.
We should bear this in mind when Obamaphiles in the news media bemoan the alleged weakness of the Republican presidential field. Jay Cost, perhaps the premier psephologist in American today, noted that the three most plausible declared candidates -- former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty and former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman -- all have more impressive resumes than Barack Obama did when he ran for president. And -- unlike Mr. Obama, who voted "present" more than 100 times in the Illinois legislature -- all can boast significant accomplishments.
They are likely to be joined soon by former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who takes a back seat to no one in the straight talk department. And a strenuous effort will be made to push Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis. -- who gets as deeply under Mr. Obama's skin as Mr. Netanyahu does -- into the race. (Wisconsin law would permit Mr. Ryan to run for president and for re-election to the House at the same time.)
The GOP field arguably is weak ... compared to Bibi Netanyahu. But Republicans are running against Barack Obama, who's made a hash of the economy and foreign policy, and who seems to spend more time golfing and partying and campaigning than attending to his duties. The weaker candidate in 2012 won't be the Republican nominee.
By Jack Kelly - Real Clear Politics
As they say… a photo is worth a thousand words…
It is still early and not unusual for people to feel uncertain by the party not in the White House to feel uncertain about their field of candidates.
It is also time to consider why we feel uncertain about some of strongest contenders… because Hollywood and the media have made them look bad… because the media has told us that Obama can’t be beaten and our field is weak… because we have actually become such a Nanny State that when the good candidates tell us the truth we aren’t willing to make the needed sacrifices?
Rush Limbaugh said last week that it is the left who was pushing Mitch Daniels, that Obama is beatable as long as we watch the fraud, intimidation and cheating and Sarah Palin is the one they are afraid of so they keep belittling and pounding on her… because she could beat Obama!
The 2012 Election is the GOP’s to lose, so let’s not beat ourselves! Let’s fight like Hell for our first choice candidate in the primaries and then unite around whomever the GOP candidate against Obama ends up being. America and Israel… freedom around the world cannot survive four more years of Barack Obama and his handlers and cronies!!
In Germany... When the Nazis came for
the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.Then they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.Then they came for the trade unionists,
I did not protest;
I was not a trade unionist.Then they came for the Catholics,
I did not protest;
I was a Protestant.Then they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.
Click here to read the "Your Life, Your Choices" guide. - Being Given to Veterans (Duty To Die Pamphlet)
Click Here to See ObamaCare Chart: Republicans unveil chart depicting bureaucratic nightmare of Dem government-run health care... Developing...
Call the United States Capitol switchboard today... everyday at (202) 224-3121 and keep them on their toes!
Call the White House at 202-456-1414 or 1111 and tell President Obama you have had enough!
If you choose not to go this route… call and fax your Senator and as many of them on the list yourself, but don’t sit idly by!!
United States Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121
Also, check in regularly with PetitionPelosi.com - Petions Always Changing, fighting Pelosi’s liberal and unconstitutional bills and actions.
Wow... They Did It To Us Again...
Glenn Beck... Who Is He? - Crash Course Review (2011)
KCP Test Yourself Quiz and Answers
Fall of the Republic - The Presidency of Barack Obama... Full Length Movie - The Big Picture
We Have Until December... 2009 Says Author of Welcome to Obamaland
The Dumbing Down of America Series
Warning: "We Are At the 11th Hour!" - A Must Read/Watch
Decline Is A Choice - Charles Krauthammer
Pulling No Punches - John McCain
We Figured Him Out - Ben Stein
Listening To A Liar – Thomas Sowell
The Manchurian Candidate - David Horowitz
C'Mon That Will Never Happen in America - Rep Ron Paul
Cloward-Piven Strategy of Economic Recovery (or Demise) - Nancy Coppock
The Rise of the Black Conservative Voice
America's Ruling Class and the Perils of Revolution - Important Read
Agenda 21 - The Ending of Liberty in America
Must See Collection of Videos and Resources
Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/AskMarion
