Tag Archives: Birther

A Call to Arms and Action

resistance
Socialism is not the Answer
Guest Author: D 1969
Well as I promised some confirmation and some things to blow your mind. First, confirmation. As I’m sure many of you have guessed Dragon and I are related. I too remember that night when my grandmother died, killed by a piece of garbage that used a gun as his chosen tool. I also remember my grandfather. A high ranking officer in the military, and he was proud of it. The only time he told me he loved me was when he couldn’t talk anymore, right before he died. My father, a military man, my mother, military intelligence.
So yes, you could say we come from a military family, but most importantly we come from a family of action. And that is what we need right now. The Democraps, liberals, left wing idiots- whatever you want to call them are very well organized. They know what to say and do without being told. Therefore they have been able to do damn near anything without reprisal.And we have let them do it. It has to change, and it has to happen now.
This is a call to every Patriot, Libertarian, Conservative, Birther, Tea Party member and the like. This is a call to arms and action. Right now The “Others” are scrambling among themselves because of the big 3 escapades, but moving in the shadows to complete their mission- the complete dis-mantling of this country. And they are doing well. Very well. We need to pull together as they are, and fight harder than they do. We need to do it now.
We can no longer afford the luxury of the different labels we give ourselves. Right now it is the biggest hinderance we have. We need to pull together under one banner, one ideal, one mission, and one label. Americans. Americans fighting in whatever way needed in order to save our country. If that means we march, then we march. If it means extreme political pressure, then so be it. If it means we arm ourselves, march on the capital and start making arrests, then lets do it. Because until we do we will continue to suffer fools, liars, murderers, thieves- you know- Politicians.
And  right now the worst of them are “In Power”, starting in the Oval Office. People, we sit by every day complaining about what is being or not being done. We complain about the lies, cover-ups, manipulations, intimidations, abuses of power, but we do nothing. We DO nothing. It must change. We are in a Police State, not a free nation. Our forefathers would be ashamed, especially after they sacrificed everything to build this nation. My grandfather would be pissed. How about yours?
Would your predecessors be happy with your actions (or lack thereof)? People, we need to fight, to get organized, to not “Take It” anymore. We must come together, under one cause, and make it happen. If not for ourselves, at least for our decendents, as was done for us.
Now, do I expect trouble because of this article- yes. Do I expect to be followed- yes( I have been anyway). Do I expect reprisal in the form of harrasment and police action- yes. Am I ready- You bet your Star Spangled Ass I am.

Jury Convicts Army ‘Birther’ Who Refused Deployment to Afghanistan

Lt. Col Terrence Lakin  questioned the authority of Mr Obama, he wanted him to prove who he is and for that he goes to prison. Now if we find out that Mr. Obama is unconstitutional, then the military will have their hands full convicting everyone of war crimes and not questioning Obama. Are we sheep being lead to slaughter, doing what the government wants? CNN said the other night on Anderson Cooper that people who question who Obama is, are insane. I knew there was a reason I don’t like watching CNN. I would much rather question Who, What, Where, When & Why like reporters use to do and be called a birther (Patriot) than follow the person in front of me being lead to slaughter.

Lt. Col. Lakin is a hero and has shown more courage than any member of Congress and for that courage he is punished. Where is the Justice?

1 Dragon

 

Fox News

A military jury has convicted an Army doctor who disobeyed orders to deploy to Afghanistan because he questions President Obama’s eligibility for office.

The jury on Wednesday found Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin of Greeley, Colo., guilty of missing a flight that would have gotten him to Fort Campbell, Ky., for his eventual deployment. He was convicted of a charge of missing movement by design.

His attorney had argued that he should be convicted of a lesser charge.

Lakin had already pleaded guilty to another charge against him. All told, he now faces up to three and a half years in prison.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/15/jury-convicts-army-birther-refused-deployment-afghanistan/#ixzz18IUsQGeg

Major League Birther

Fox Nation

Orioles designated hitter Luke Scott, long an outspoken advocate for the Second Amendment, went much, much further than defending the right to bear arms in a wide-ranging interview with Yahoo Sports that included Scott saying he believes President Obama was not born in the USA.

Scott, who chatted with Yahoo when he stopped by baseball’s winter meetings in Orlando for a meeting with his agent, says Obama “does not represent America.”

Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/birthers/2010/12/08/major-league-birther#ixzz17ZlhwOLi

About that birth certificate (which Obama refuses to produce)

One of the most ingenious things the Obama campaign did in 2008 was to nullify all questions about why he refused to produce his birth certificate, by stoking the “birther” conspiracy that he was not born in the United States and, thus, painting anyone who talked about his birth certificate as insane.

It’s classic magic trick distraction.

Whenever anyone questions why the current President of the United States refuses to release his original birth certificate, his followers immediately launch into an Alinsky-based attack on the person who brought the matter up — attacking that person as a “birther”.

This is a remarkably effective trick, because no one ever sees the REAL reason he does not want his birth certificate released. The “birther” screaming and yelling keeps attention focused away from what his original birth certificate would reveal about his father, Barack Hussein Obama Sr.

Continue reading

This is about a legal matter, call me a “Birther” if you like.

This is not about a Birth Certificate! As we can’t allow our U. S. Constitution to be selectively enforced.

President of the United States = POTUS You have to be A Constitutional Natural Born Citizen = NBC to be POTUS.

The Dual Citizen, Obama, lacks legal authority to be POTUS! or Look here for another way of saying what I say below.

POTUS, eligibility was never restricted to whites, males or anything else but what is listed in our Constitution. Consider these below source links from our United States Constitution as set in sequential order, and look at the clearly expressed systematics of the framers purpose and intent: Green links, you can click on it to go off my site, to that source record our United States Constitution.

1787- 17th, September: To be eligible for President; The United States Constitution, Article. II. section I. clause 5. says: No person except a ‘NATURAL Born Citizen,’ or a Citizen of the United States, ‘at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,’(grandfather clause) 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.” Off site to source record.

Article. I. Section. 2. clause 2. Eligibility for the House of Representatives: “No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a ‘CITIZEN’ of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.”

Article. I. Section. 3. clause 3. Eligibility for the Senate: “No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a ‘CITIZEN’ of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.”

Obama II is not a Constitutional, United States Natural Born Citizen. Because his father Obama Sr. was not and never was any type of United States Citizen but a British Subject an alien.

Obama II has said that his birth was governed by his father Obama Sr., citizenship status at his own birth. This then makes Obama II at the very best a dual citizen and maybe not even that as he as yet to prove that he is a born “citizen of the United States” .

For sure Obama is not a Constitutional NBC as required by our Laws to be POTUS. Obama has said he gave up his British Citizenship. This is not about being a US Citizen but about being a Natural Born Citizen. You can only get that status at your birth and if you are not born that way, then you will never be that way. It would require something unnatural to even suggest that you are what you are not.

Note the above are called source records and shows a clear difference between a U. S. Citizen and a Natural Born Citizen. The above is the law not an opinion or what some fool media talking head thinks.

Our limited constitutional republic, which is our form of government, is a government by laws and not by polls or what a few or many current people think it should be. We are or should be a Nation of Laws!

These men who wrote our United States Constitution while born on United States Soil were dual citizens because their parents were also British. Because they knew this and didn’t see themselves as being A Natural Born Citizen because their parents were not US Citizens at the time of their birth. These men who fought for and created the US Constitution were just Native Born Citizens of The United States like Obama is at best. These men wrote into and used the‘grandfather clause’ (see above) so they could be elected to be POTUS. It’s the way our founding fathers intended it to be. They have thus written it into our United States Constitution. If someone tells you this is not what they ment to say look for your own self at the above source record and see what you think it says.

Are we a Nation of Laws or a Nation of Fools?

SCOTUS 88 U.S. 162 Minor v. Happersett Argued: February 9, 1875 — Decided: March 29, 1875 “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 it’s ‘Citizens’ became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or Natural Born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” Off site to source record. 9th P. down.

Most probably recognize that United States citizens are created either at birth or at the moment of naturalization. The former is a native (using that term in its modern sense and not in the sense that the Founders used it) and the latter is not. Most probably also recognize that a naturalized citizen is not eligible to be President. But what many fail to recognize is that the event of birth has two natural elements which always have and always will be present in every birth: (1) the place where one was born and (2) the two parents who procreated the child.

Hence, some also fail to understand that there are two types of born citizens, one being a born “Citizen of the United States” and the other being a “natural born Citizen.” Under current law, a born “Citizen of the United States” is one granted that status under the 14th Amendment or Congressional Act (e.g. Title 8 Section 1401), both of which consider either (1) being born on United States soil or (2) being born to at least one United States citizen parent sufficient conditions for being granted the status of a born “Citizen of the United States.”

Never in our history has the United States Supreme Court or the Congress ever required that one needs to satisfy both of these conditions in order to be a “citizen of the United States.” But as to a “Natural Born Citizen,” we have a different story.

There is a legal way to change our Laws but it can’t be done by Congress passing a law of any kind. Go over to Thomas and do a seach and see how many times Congress has tried to change our Constitution in the correct way but got no place in trying to do it the lawful way.

Now they are doing it because they want to and no one will stop them. George Washington says it better than I ever could. He called it Usurpation! Don’t let these fools tell you what it says. You read it and it means what you think it means, not what someone tells you it means. In this matter the SCOTUS has stated what it takes to be a Natural Born Citizen of The United States, without any doubts. Congress can’t do away with it other than in the way the Constitution allows. They are trying to trash it and are doing a good job of it to this date.

No doubt in my mind every Congress person, every judge, every person who took and oath or affirmed to uphold the U.S. Constitution and didn’t. All, will be shown to be a traitor to the United States and our U.S. Constitution. That includes George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, my own Republican Congress men, all our State governors, including the so called news media. Because Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen, They all know it is unlawful, all of them have helped it to happen rather than trying to stop this unlawful act. Therefore nothing citizen obama does sitting as an unlawful POTUS is legal. I call Obama the prince of fools, if you voted for the prince of fools and your not, then fix it!

Tea Party…I just love these people!

“Interviews with Tea Partiers across the country paint a picture of a genuine, amorphous, conservative grassroots movement united by three core principles: constitutionally limited government, free market ideology ( not A corporate ideology ) and low taxes at least at the federal level. The American Constitution is a rallying cry and many now dub themselves “constitutional conservatives.”

People in the Tea Party are angry not just at what they describe as the socialist policies of Obama. They also feel Republican politicians have betrayed the party’s ideals of The US Constitution. For many in the movement, purging the party of moderate Republicans is a major goal.”

In Article. I. Section. 8. of The US Constitution, it lists all it allows our Congress to do. There are only 18 things and by law and their oath that is all that they can do. Why not take a look and read it.

“We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Did you know some people think George Washington was not the first President of the United States?

John Hanson was President of the Continental Congress and had quite the shoes to fill. No one had ever been President and the role was poorly defined. His actions in office would set precedent for all future Presidents. He took office just as the Revolutionary War ended. Almost immediately, the troops demanded to be paid.

Hanson, as President of the Continental Congress, ordered all foreign troops off American soil, as well as the removal of all foreign flags. This was quite a feat, considering the fact that so many European countries had a stake in the United States since the days following Columbus. Hanson established the Great Seal of the United States, which all Presidents have since used on all official documents. Hanson also established the first Treasury Department, the first Secretary of War, and the first Foreign Affairs Department. Lastly, he declared that the fourth Thursday of every November was to be Thanksgiving Day, which is still true today.

The Articles of Confederation only allowed a President of the Continental Congress to serve a one-year term during any three-year period, so Hanson actually accomplished quite a bit in such little time. He served in that office from November 5, 1781 until November 3, 1782. He was the first President of the Continental Congress to serve a full term after the full ratification of the Articles of Confederation – and like so many of the Southern and New England Founders, he was said to be strongly opposed to the U. S. Constitution when it was first discussed. He remained a confirmed anti-federalist until his untimely death.

Six other President of the Continental Congress, were elected after him – Elias Boudinot (1783), Thomas Mifflin (1784), Richard Henry Lee (1785), Nathan Gorman (1786), Arthur St. Clair (1787), and Cyrus Griffin (1788) – all prior to Washington taking office.

Why don’t we ever hear about the first seven President of the Continental Congress of the United States?

It’s quite simple – The Articles of Confederation didn’t work well. The individual states had too much power and nothing could be agreed upon. A new doctrine needed to be written – something we know as our Constitution.

Source:

Presidential Eligibility: Three Simple Requirements

The Post & E-Mail

by Sally Vendée

(Feb. 19, 2010) — Everyone knows, or should by now with all of the “birther” hullabaloo, Article II of the Constitution and its three requirements for the Commander-in-Chief:  He must be a “natural born Citizen,” at least thirty-five years old, and have resided for at least fourteen years within the United States.

Most Americans, according to the media, accept Obama’s alleged place of birth as Hawaii and his US citizenship. Many, though, especially in “tea party” circles, express frustration with his seeming lack of “transparency,” want to see more than the short-form birth certificate posted on the internet, and ask questions like: “Where do we put the plaque?” Everyday Americans must show a birth certificate and other credentials to get jobs, drivers’ licenses, loans, passports, play on sports teams, etc., and they wish that Obama would just present his so we can get on with it. These viewpoints earn them the dreaded label of “birther.”

The majority of “birthers” consider themselves “Constitutionalists,” and whether or not they have questions about Obama’s Hawaiian birth, they do have reservations about the “natural born” part— because of his Kenyan father, who was not an immigrant and never a US citizen, resulting in Obama Jr. admittedly being a dual citizen at birth. Scholars and attorneys could debate the definition of “natural born” for hours. Combine that question with the current political correctness of birthright citizenship, dual citizenship/allegiance and immigration, and the arguments become even more heated.

But what if the eligibility issue was much simpler to grasp: What if it had to do with the simplest of the three Presidential criteria—Age?

Imagine this:

A man runs for President, and the mainstream media doesn’t investigate, amid rumors and questionable statements and evidence, whether or not he is in fact at least 35 years old.  An online organization which calls itself a “fact-checker,” even though its employees have no actual credentials or legitimacy for doing so, posts a digital image purported to be his driver’s license showing he is 35 years old.  The media never directly asks this candidate his age, and he never directly offers it.

The man “seals” and/or relies on federal and state privacy laws in keeping his birth, medical, school and college records and other documents hidden from the public, making it impossible to verify his eligibility.  Friends, fellow students, and colleagues are strangely silent.

Concerned citizens, before the general election, before the electoral votes, before the inauguration and after, attempt to pursue every avenue of inquiry and protest.  Some urge their national party headquarters to raise questions and ensure he is properly “vetted.” Others file complaints with their secretary of state or state attorney general to ascertain that they verified that he was constitutionally eligible to be on the ballot.  Some petition their electors to ask questions.  They ask their senators and congressmen to object at the meeting of the Electoral College.

Complete Story:

In Hawaii, The DOH Lies

The Obama File

This information has been copied whole from butterdezillion blog — there are a ton of links associated with this stuff at butterdezillion blog — “DOH” is the acronym for Hawaii’s Department of Health.

People are asking how so many terrorist red flags could be overlooked by so many.  The same way these “birther” red flags were not only overlooked but ridiculed:

1.1.  DOH Director Fukino illegally hid until Nov 2009 the DOH Administrative Rules showing that election officials could have received a copy of Obama’s original birth certificate without his permission.  The DOH has said they can’t release any records without Obama’s permission.  But HRS 338-18(a) allows state laws and DOH rules to govern the disclosure of vital records, and the current rules — Chapter 8b, 2.5(A)(1)(f) — would allow any election officer transacting the placement of Obama’s name on the ballot to receive a certified copy.

1.2.  The DOH has falsely said that HRS 338-18 prohibits disclosure of government processing records. There are 2 kinds of records — records of the vital events themselves, and records of the government’s handling of those records.
Certificates are the record of the vital events.  HRS 338-18(a) says that information about the actual birth, death, marriage, and divorce events may only be released according to the provisions set by law or Department of Health rules, thus referring everyone to the DOH Administrative Rules to see how information on actual certificates may be disclosed and to whom.  Far from barring “any disclosure” as claimed by the DOH, current Administrative Rules allow a non-certified abbreviated copy of a birth (Chapter 8b, 2.5B), marriage (Ch 8b, 2.8C), or death (Ch8b, 2.6C) certificate to be released to anyone who asks for it.  However, a public statement of where someone was born — such as Fukino’s July 27, 2009 statement about Obama — is not allowed by the rules (Ch 8b, 2.1A).

All other records are public, except that neither direct viewing nor certified copies are allowed unless the requestor has a direct and tangible interest.  Non-certified copies, abstracts, and disclosure of information from the documents are not prohibited — which, according to Hawaii’s “Sunshine Law” (UIPA) means they must be disclosed upon request, except for certain exemptions, such as for information having privacy interest that outweighs the public interest in disclosure: date of birth, gender, and address .

Since a damaging disclosure of records processing was made in September (see #3), The DOH has been denying access to these records by claiming that ANY DISCLOSURE is forbidden.

1.3.  Though ridiculing “birthers” publicly, the DOH has PRIVATELY confirmed Obama’s online COLB’s as forgeries — a fact the DOH has known since the beginning.  Because processing information is subject to disclosure, the DOH was forced in Sept 2009 to reveal that Obama’s birth certificate has been amended (OIP interpretation) and that Obama or his representative has paid a fee to have his certificate amended.  Amendments must be noted on the certificate (Ch 8b, 3.1), so the DOH has known this entire time that both the Factcheck and Fight the Smears COLB’s are forgeries, since they have no amendment noted.

1.4.  Every government agency in Hawaii contacted thus far has explicitly denied that they have a responsibility to report known forgery and/or have refused to report suspected forgery to law enforcement.  This includes the Department Of Health, Office of Information Practices (OIP), lieutenant governor’s office, and every member of Hawaii’s House and Senate.  Janice Okubo of the DOH seems to have stated that law forbids her to disclose ANYTHING about a birth certificate — even that it’s a critical, very public forgery.  The Ombudsman’s Office has said they don’t investigate crimes and only report evidence they uncover themselves.  See no evil…

1.5.  The amendment made to Obama’s birth certificate renders it insufficient evidence for legal purposes.  Minor administrative errors (such as typos) don’t remove the prima facie evidentiary value of a birth certificate, but such no-fault errors don’t result in a fee (Ch 8b 3.5C, 3.11, 3.1, & HRS 338-17) and Obama was charged a fee.  Legal name changes also don’t affect the evidentiary value, but the lieutenant governor’s office has confirmed that there has been no legal name change for anyone named Obama, Dunham, Soetoro, or Sutoro.

1.6.  Kapiolani Hospital received a letter signed by Obama on White House stationery and with raised seal claiming Obama was born there, even though that could only be true if Obama’s amendment contradicted the doctor’s testimony.  If he had been born in a Hawaii hospital the hospital itself would have been responsible for the content on the birth certificate and the DOH responsible for any clerical typos.  The only way Obama would be charged for an amendment is:

a)  if he or his representative claimed to have filled out the certificate themselves and erred, or

b)  if Obama claimed the doctor’s testimony was wrong.

1.7.  The DOH has broken Hawaii law to make rule changes (see July 11 addendum at bottom) that would protect Obama.  In mid-June of 2009 the DOH stated that they will no longer issue long-form birth certificates (an action reported in real time by The Obama File).  This is in direct violation of the current rules, without following HRS 91-3 mandates for an open process for rule changes — the first of several such violations within the past year.

1.8.  Fukino stated on July 27, 2009 that Obama’s records verify his birth in Hawaii, but Hawaii law forbids her to conclude that, since all the DOH has is legal hearsay.  According to PHR Chapter 8b and HRS 338-17, only a judicial or administrative person or group can evaluate the accuracy of the claims when an amended document is presented as evidence.  Obama has had many, many opportunities to present his birth certificate as evidence in lawsuits.  He has refused — even going so far as rescinding military orders rather than risk a judge seeing his birth certificate.  There is no process by which Obama would present his records to Fukino as evidence.

1.9.  Having made the illegal statement, Fukino refused to obey UIPA which required her to release the documents on which her statement was based.

1.10.  The DOH has deleted documents required to be stored for at least 2 years.  The DOH says it no longer has the UIPA request or invoices showing Obama’s birth certificate was amended.  The DOH’s own “Rules of Practice & Procedure” (11-1-30) say that documents must be stored as long as the case can be contested — August, 2011 in this case.

1.11.  Fukino averted discipline against herself by promoting the OIP director, who was replaced by the attorney who has designed the DOH’s deceptive responses.  Six days after Leo Donofrio’s blog said he would ask OIP Director Tsukiyama for disciplinary action against Fukino and Okubo for their deception, Tsukiyama resigned from the OIP to take a promotion to a company on whose board of directors Fukino sits.  He granted Cathy Takase’s request to have control of all DOH matters and asked her to replace him.

Now OIP is leaving HRS 338-18 rulings up to the DOH.  All DOH responses contain deceptions #1 & 2, including disobeying their own rules for non-certified abbreviated copies of birth, marriage, and death certificates.  They deny that documents exist which are required by law, such as descriptions of their forms, procedures, and instructions which are mandated in HRS 91, etc..

Red flags.  This information has been given to every lawmaker in Hawaii, the OIP, DOH, Ombudsman’s office, HI lieutenant governor’ and governor’s offices, Nebraska’s US attorney (who says they won’t take reports from citizens), and Hawaii’s director of the Department of Public Safety, as well as to multiple news organizations.  The FBI thrice said they don’t investigate document fraud.  All refused to act.  Red flags.

Source: