On Tuesday, January 25, 2011 our usurper president, Barack Hussein (Soetoro) Obama, son of a foreign national father and an under age American mother, gave a State of the Union (SOTU) address to the country.
It was more notable for the fact that he began to try to appear as though he was once again looking to provide some “CHANGE that you can believe in” as he did on the campaign trail in 2008. The catch this time is that the CHANGE was now projected to appear that he would be moving away from the CHANGE that he wanted to bring in 2008.
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
It long has been documented that when Barack Obama was picked by the Democratic Party to be its 2008 presidential candidate, only one state – Hawaii – was sent a document from Nancy Pelosi certifying that he was qualified under the requirements of the U.S. Constitution.
Now a series of blogs reports are heating up the issue again, this time revealing documents that showed it apparently was Hawaii’s local Democratic Party that refused to include that certification on its paperwork naming Obama as its candidate.
Even today, the Hawaii Democratic Party was staying mum, declining attempts by WND to obtain a comment on why it handled the 2008 presidential race paperwork as it did.
The American Spectator
WASHINGTON — Not so long ago there arose on the American political scene something called, the Angry Left. It was an indignant group of ritualistic liberals whose appearance the mainstream media apprised us augured well for Democratic victory in 2008, and so it did. The Angry Left turned out the vote for the Prophet Obama. At the time, do you recall any public figure on the right stepping forward and warning against possible violence from the indignados of the Angry Left? Did, say, the Hon. Newt Gingrich step forward at a conservative forum, say the Heritage Foundation, and remind his fellow Americans of the bombings of government buildings, the burning of university libraries, the robbing of banks by angry leftists in years gone by? I cannot recall any such warnings from any conservative eminence.
It is not as though such lawlessness is unknown in American history. Politically motivated bombings, burnings, and bank robberies actually have been committed in America by leftists. Some of those leftists are still with us, for instance, Bill Ayers and his wife Bernardine Dohrn who were fugitives from justice for such antics and went on to become friends of the present president of the United States. In fact, lawlessness on the left is still being committed, for instance at universities where speakers who offend the left — the Angry Left or simply the Fastidious Left — are regularly shouted down or barred from scheduled appearances as Ann Coulter recenly was, at least, in Canada. Yet Newt has remained mum about the danger posed by the Angry Left, and it is not easy for Newt to remain mum.
Now just the other day, ex-President Bill Clinton — some of us still call him The Groper — rose up at the Center for American Progress, and drew parallels between the Tea Partiers (call them the Caffeinated Right) and the homicidal maniacs who participated in the Oklahoma City bombing of the Murrah Federal Building, killing 168 people and injuring hundreds more. Clinton’s charge was typically duplicitous. “This Tea Party movement can be a healthy thing if they’re making us justify every penny of taxes we raised and every dollar of public money we spend,” Clinton opined. “But when you get mad, sometimes you wind up producing exactly the reverse result of what you say you are for,” said the president famous for among other things his temper tantrums. He also said, “Before the [Oklahoma] bombing occurred, there was a sort of fever in America,” which I guess depends on the meaning of the word fever. I recall no fever, but then I was not impeached for lying and obstruction of justice.
A longstanding conceit of American liberals has been to lecture conservatives on how to conduct themselves. They are famous for telling us what we can and cannot say. They tell us we cannot call them socialists even when they take over industries and transform the federal budget into a simulacrum of European social democracy. Yet they can call us racists and enemies of the poor when we advance alternatives to such failed policies as affirmative action or welfare. In fact, much of the liberals’ stance toward conservatives in our ongoing dialogue with them is an insult. The most recent politician to dabble in race-baiting was not a conservative but Bill Clinton in the 2008 Democratic primaries.
What Clinton depicts as a precursor to more bombings modeled on the vile Oklahoma City bombing is nothing more than a civic upheaval inspired by American constitutional liberties. The Tea Partiers are no cause for alarm. For Clinton to suggest that these generally peaceful and good natured libertarians are opening the door to domestic terror is Clinton at his reckless worst. In doing so he has given would-be bombers cover for their evil acts. If more bombings of federal buildings follow, we can thank Clinton for his speech of encouragement. Ironically federal investigators looking for the perpetrators might begin their investigations with Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. No Tea Partier I know has their record of violence.
Tips to Dancing Czars
March 1, 2010
Albert Gore arrived in Geneva, Switzerland aboard flight 777 Swissair at 10:00 PM last evening. According to today’s issue of the Knoxville Sentinel, A recent indictment by a Tennessee grand jury for the perpetration of fraud with the intent to deceive by bilking millions for his personal financial gain. This has apparently resulted in his fleeing the United States.
According to Tipper Gore, the wife of the former vice-president, the exact date of the jury trial of his peers has not been set.
According to Police Captain, Sven Haza Frozenswance, of the Geneva Police dept, Mr. Gore has not violated any laws at this point. Frozenswance mused that it may be difficult to find a jury of his peers as few people if any would admit to being one.
Once the trial date is set, Mr. Gore faces a probable death sentence, much the same as his hysteria over global warming. (see climitategate) This could result in his flight to countries, such as Mexico, Canada and most European nations, which will not allow extradition if the death penalty may be imposed. Mr. Gore could avoid this possible eventuality if in a plea agreement, he admitted to his creation of the greatest hoax in history prior to the election of Barack Hussein Obama.
Should he do so, some are calling for him to spend the rest of his life in the same cell with Bernie Madoff the master mind of the largest Ponzi scheme in history. Correction, private Ponzi scheme, Social Security is clearly the largest.
According to Interpol, Mr. Gore has taken a loft within walking distance to Crédit Lyonnais Suisse. He was seen leaving the establishment this morning. (further updates to follow)
1. Fraud to Attain Office
. . Citizenship Status
. . Foreign Campaign Funding
. . Use of Multiple SS#s
. . Lying (video of who he is)
. . Deception wrt Name (Barry Soetero)
2. Bribery, High Crimes & Misdemeanors
. . Dismissing Inspector General w/o Cause
. . 30+ Czars (COTUS advice & consent?)
. . Executive Orders (COTUS = legislative)
. . Intimidation of the Media
. . Intimidation of the Courts
. . Unsavory Relationships (ACORN, SEIU)
. . Pot. Funding for Favors wrt ACORN, SEIU
. . Theft – Owning America Businesses
. . Signing Treaties w/o COTUS advice & consent
. . Looking to Foreign Law
. . Treating Foreign Terrorists like US Citizens
. . Appointing Pot. Islamists to Security Posts
. . Believing in Fantasies about Islam
. . Believing in Fantasies about Economics
. . Swearing False Oath
. . Interfering with War Effort (Ft Hood).
. . Aid & Funding to Palestinians (HAMAS)
. . Words & Deeds to Support our Enemies
. . Words & Deeds to Weaken the US
. . Appointing an Envoy to Enemies (OIC)
4. Utter Unsuitability & Marxism
. . Spread the Wealth Around
. . The Cairo Speech & Mentality (#2?)
. . Appointing Marxists & Communists
. . Contempt for the US Constitution
. . Contempt for America & Americans
. . Refusal to Release Records (#1?)
. . ‘I know nothing, but the police acted stupidly’
The academic at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information.
Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers.
Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.
The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.
Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.
And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.
The admissions will be seized on by sceptics as fresh evidence that there are serious flaws at the heart of the science of climate change and the orthodoxy that recent rises in temperature are largely man-made.
Professor Jones has been in the spotlight since he stepped down as director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit after the leaking of emails that sceptics claim show scientists were manipulating data.
The raw data, collected from hundreds of weather stations around the world and analysed by his unit, has been used for years to bolster efforts by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to press governments to cut carbon dioxide emissions.
CASE INVOLVES FOIA REQUEST FOR RECORDS OF BARRY SOETORO & FAMILY
The Post & E-Mail
by John Charlton
(Feb. 13, 2010) — Just how long does it take to get information from the Federal Government via the Freedom of Information Act? That question is being answered by the proceedings in the case Allen vs. Soetoro. Mr. Ken Allen of Tuscon, AZ sought all information about Barry Soetoro, Lolo Soetoro, his adopted father, and Stanley Ann Dunham-Soetoro, his alleged mother, in the possession of the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security.
The case was summarized accurately by Linda Bently of the Sonoran News on July 15, 2009. Mr. Kenneth L. Allen appealed his case to the 9th Circuit Court following a denial of his original complaint with the U.S. District Court in Tuscon as regards documents of Barry Soetoro.
Allen’s basic argument is that privacy rights of illegal aliens cannot be invoked in his case on the grounds that Obama’s citizenship status has not been proven by documentation, and that therefore his FOIA request for all the documents he has requested should be granted.
While this appeal regards the exclusion of Barry Soetoro (and all aliases) from the FOIA request, the case in the District Court continues for the documents of Lolo Soetoro and Stanley Ann Soetoro. In that case, U.S. District Court Judge Frank R. Zapata, on Feb. 9, ordered limited discovery prior to hearing a motion for dismissal. Such discovery would begin by March 19.
On the same day, Feb. 9, 2010, Molly C. Dwyer, Court Clerk for the 9th Circuit Court, set the schedule for filing of the Appellant’s Brief (i.e., Mr. Allen’s argument giving reasons for his appeal). The date is May 24, 2010.
Defendants (a.k.a. “Appellees”) in this case are Barry Soetoro, aka, Barack H. Obama, aka Barry Obama; Eric H. Holder, Jr., U.S. Attorney General; Hillary Rodham Clinton, U.S. Secretary of State; Janet Napolitano, Director of the Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; the Department of Homeland Security; and the U.S. Department of State.
The Ninth Circuit Court has given the defense until June 21 to reply to Mr. Allen’s Appellant’s brief.
Mr. Allen requests that the public not contact the Ninth Circuit Court in regard to his case.
DOCUMENT CONFIRMS INVESTIGATORS SUSPICIONS, EXPOSES DOH AS LYING
The Post & E-Mail
by John Charlton
(Feb. 10, 2010) — Miki Booth, a native Hawaiian, and candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives for the State of Oklahoma shocked and awed Obama supporters during the recent Tea Party Nation convention in Memphis, TN, when she publically disclosed the Certificate of Live Birth for her son, Alan Paliko Booth, born on Nov. 24, 1981, at 7:55 AM, at Kapiolani Children’s Medical Center, the same hospital that Obama has claimed to be his own place of birth, nearly 20 years before.
The actual document contains a wealth of information, such as the signature of the Attending Physician or Midwife, a field for evidence presented for an Amended Birth Filing, race for Parents and child, a signature and date stamp, certifying the copy as an authentic representation of the information on file with the HI Department of Health.
Importantly, the actual document, which you can view through this link, contains the fields, “Date received by Local Registrar” and “Date accepted by the State”, and the name of the Local Registrar. In recent months, Miss Janice Okuo has insisted that the terms mean the same thing, and that she has no knowledge of what terms were used previously to the alleged Obama COLB.
The now widely recognized, crude forgery, which Obama claims to be his own Certification of Live Birth, bearing date of 2007, but without the seal and confirmatory signature of the State Registrar, does not contain information regarding the race of the child, or the date accepted.
This has led private researchers to speculate that Obama’s original vital records, which Dr. Fukino claims to have seen, and who herself admits are several, might contain a delayed birth filing, an amended birth filing, adoption record, or other changes regarding the name of the child and parents, and location or nation in which the child was purported to be born.
The details of this actual 1981 “long form” “birth certificate” indicate more precisely the possible motives Obama might have for refusign to disclose his own real certificate, that is, if he was in fact born in Hawaii in the first place. Because the actual form might indicate
1) Race of Child: Negro or White — in the former case, Obama’s racism might take offense; in the latter case his race politics might be undone;
2) Race of Parent: Father might be indicated as Negro rather than African, which would gut the prima facie evidentiary value of his own alleged BC.
3) Parents might not be who they are claimed to be — there has been a lot of speculation on that;
5) No father might have been indicated originally, because Obama’s mother might not have been sure who the father was, at the precise moment of the original filing — which would reflect badly on his mother’s morals, and cast doubt upon any evidentiary value of whomsoever was subsequently claimed to be the real father; because doubt in such cases is prima facie evidence that there was more than one man who could have been the father.
6) Name of child might not be Barack Hussein Obama II, which, in the absence of name changes, would make Obama’s usage of his current name unlawful.
The Post & E-Mail
On Thursday, February 4, 2010, Barack Obama admitted that his “citizenship” is in question.
A poll completed last August revealed that at that time, just over half of the registered voters in the state of North Carolina believed that Obama was born in the United States.
The survey, conducted by PublicPolicyPolling, indicated that 54% of the state’s voters believed that Obama’s birthplace was the United States. While 26% said they did not believe he was born in the U.S., 20% said “they were not sure.”
The article, dated August 11, 2009, referenced a statement made by the Hawaii Director of Health, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, on July 27, 2009, confirming Obama’s birthplace as Hawaii. The statement reads: “I, Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai’i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai’i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai’i and is a natural-born American citizen…”,
However, The Post & Email reported earlier this week that the Hawaii Attorney General will not confirm the veracity of Dr. Fukino’s statement.
Questions arose about Obama’s constitutional eligibility during the 2008 campaign. At that time, Hawaii Health Department officials had insisted that privacy laws prohibited them from revealing any information about Obama or any other citizen’s birth there. In a Chicago Tribune article from October 30, 2008, Janice Okubo, Public Information Officer for the Health Department, was quoted as saying “she was not permitted to confirm the authenticity of the certificate released by the Obama campaign.”
On May 27, 2009, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs asserted that “the State of Hawaii provided a copy with the seal of the president’s birth” after ridiculing the WorldNetDaily reporter who asked why Obama would not release his long-form birth certificate to the public. It still has not been released from the candidate who campaigned vigorously on the theme of “transparency.”
At the National Prayer Breakfast on February 4, Obama had been discussing the topic of “civility” when he stated, “Now, I am the first to confess I am not always right. Michelle will testify to that. But surely you can question my policies without questioning my faith, or, for that matter, my citizenship.” The quip drew laughter and applause from the audience and a smile from Obama.
He went on to say, “”Challenging each other’s ideas can renew our democracy. But when we challenge each other’s motives, it becomes harder to see what we hold in common. We forget that we share at some deep level the same dreams – even when we don’t share the same plans on how to fulfill them.”
Obama’s statement on Thursday, his first public acknowledgement of the controversy raging about whether or not he is a “natural born citizen” as required by Article II, Section 1, paragraph 5 of the U.S. Constitution, indicates that he is aware of the doubts surrounding his eligibility. Yet he refuses to release any documentation about himself.
According to a January 8, 2010 article from “Political Insider,” Rep. Nathan Deal (R-GA) wrote, and the White House confirmed receiving, a letter requesting that Obama prove that he was constitutionally qualified to serve as president. Deal is running for governor of Georgia. No response to the letter has been reported.
While the speculation focuses on Obama’s birthplace, it is not the only factor in determining “natural born” citizenship. Emmerich de Vattel, Swiss jurist and scholar, upon whose work “The Law of Nations” was relied heavily when the Framers wrote the Constitution, defines “natural born citizen as “those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” He goes on to say, “As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights…The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent…I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
Therefore, because Obama claims a foreign national as his father, contrary to Dr. Fukino’s public statement, he never met the definition of “natural born American citizen.”
Obama acknowledges having spent at least part of his childhood in Indonesia, calling Jakarta his “old home town.” At that time, Indonesian law required a child to be a citizen of that country in order to attend school. If Obama was or still is a citizen of another country, how can he be considered a “natural born [American] citizen?”
More than a year after his taking office, the American people are still waiting.