Obama Birth Certificate Updates - Part II

[Protean]

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/05/manning-trial-update-obama-columbia_524.html

Manning Trial Update: The Obama Columbia University Trial - Summary of Day four -

Via the Conservative Monster, 5/17/10; Today was a very busy day, but I will make it as brief as possible. First, I want to say that I believe Pastor Manning and his witnesses are proving without a doubt that Obama did not ever attend Columbia University physically. Some of Pastor Manning's witnesses are members of his congregation, but they have been very credible with their testimony. It is their community and they know every nook and cranny of their neighborhood, unlike Obama.

Obama stated in his book "Dreams From My Father" (rumored to be written by Bill Ayers) that he briefly lived at 109th Street and Broadway in Spanish Harlem while he says he attended Columbia University. The only problem is that address in not located in Spanish Harlem and for someone to say that after living in the area and attending the University shows that they do not know the area. So, you figure that one out.

Remember that the purpose of this trial is to prove that Obama never attended Columbia University and that his degree that he obtained was allegedly bought, not earned. Columbia University refuses to comment on this issue or respond to questions. What are they so afraid of? Do you mean to tell me that these records are also sealed? Interesting...

Dr Allan Keyes and Wayne Allyn Root

Pastor Manning stated that he had spoken on the phone with both Dr. Keyes and Wayne Allyn Root about their possible assistance with this trial. Dr. Keyes stated that his lawyers advised him not to testify and pastor Manning understood completely. Wayne Allyn Root, was supposed to testify on Sunday, but there was a mix up and he did not. Mr. Root was willing to testify, but Pastor Manning felt that it was not necessary due to the testimony from Sunday by witnesses.

Plus, there was a massive smear campaign on the Internet by fellow Libertarians that were shouting the "bither" name at Root for even thinking about participating in the Columbia trial. Glenn Beck has many of the libertarians split on this issue and I am sure that Barry and Soros are very happy for Glenn's assistance in undermining the eligibility movement.

Fox New video

Pastor Manning then submitted into evidence a documentary done by Bill Hemmer of Fox News on Obama, prior to the election. The video stated that "over 400 students and faculty were questioned and not one of them knew of Obama or the fact that he even attended Columbia University".


1. The video also showed Obama's school records from Indonesia where it stated that his name was Barry Soetoro and that his religion was Islam. Obama's "Fight the Smears" website once stated that Obama never was a Muslim, but this school records proves that to be untrue.

2. The Fox News documentary stated Obama lived in 96th Street and 1st Ave in NYC, but that seems to contradict his book where he states that he lived in 109th street and Broadway.

3. Obama traveled to Pakistan when he was just 20 years old (more on this later)

4. Obama's roommate was an illegal alien (Pakistani) named Saddiqi.

Witnesses Sabbath La Fleur and her sister Precious La Fleur

Both testified that they checked the Columbia University archives and yearbooks dating from 1980-1985 and they could find no evidence or photos of any Barack Obama or Barry Soetoro. They also testified that they could not find any Phil Bonner either. Obama stated in his book that Bonner was a friend of his that attened Columbia University with him, after a transfer from Occidental college.


1. The professor that Obama named in his book also could not be found in the archives accorded to their testimony.

2. Nothing related to Obama's name could be found in the Political Science dept.

3. Teachers spoke of Obama in his elementary school, his High School, Occidental College and Harvard as well, but no professors have ever mentioned him from Columbia University.

4. Obama stated that he used to hide in the Butler Library, but the witness stated that Library is a major meeting place and it is always very crowded. There is no way to hide there without meeting someone. Yet, nobody ever saw Barry in the Butler Library.

5. There was also a theory that Obama attended the Latrice Mudumba school in Moscow during that time he claimed he was in Columbia, but this has never been proven. This school was created by the Russians to teach radical Marxism to students to help spread communism throughout the world. Witness Al Landry - Investigative Reporter

1. Al Landry states that Passport office was broken into on March 21, 2008 and that the operation was amateur compared to the Wategate break in. This break in involved the passport records of Hillary Clinton, John McCain and Barack Obama. It was interesting how at first the report did not include Obama in the report of passports that were breached.

Landry believes that this break in was possibly done to cleanse Obama's passport records or possible evidence.

2. Lt. Harris found murdered (gun shot) on April 17th, 2008. Lt. Harris worked for the State Department and he was in charge of the Social Security numbers and passport information. Harris was supposedly cooperating with investigators about the break in. Landry suggests that Harris was "at the wrong place at the wrong time".

The Harris murder has never been solved.

3. Landry then states that it was interesting that Obama's mother Stanley Dunham Soetoro lived in Pakistan for 5 years in an exclusive Hotel called the Hilton International. Obama most likely set up his mother with a job working for the Asian Development Bank. Pastor Manning alleges that this Bank was a front for the CIA.

4. SHOCKING DETAIL - Landry states that he read the Public Service registry in Pakistan and on that registry it stated - "44th President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama and in parenthesis it said (Kenyan Born).

Video on Obama's Community Organizer days

Manning stated that he wanted to submit this video as evidence due to it's claim that Obama handed in many resumes during the two year span after he claims that he graduated from Columbia University.

Pastor Manning then questions "Why is Columbia University so silent on this issue?" I am sure that we all know that answer.


Tuesday, Day Five update:


1. The trial will begin at 9:30am

2. I will send brief cell phone messages to The Conservative Monster with LIVE updates from the trial. Please spread them. The posts will be brief comments, not articles.

3. There will be a march at 116th Street and Broadway in NYC (Across from Columbia University) at 7pm

4. I will be unable to attend the march due to my obligation to report about the days events on The Conservative Monster due to the overwhelming response.

[attietewd]

this is a nail biter

[H0llyw00d]

Dean of Columbia U


IMO, The yearbooks alone are the proof positive he never attended there!!

[Protean]

Dean of Columbia U


IMO, The yearbooks alone are the proof positive he never attended there!!

http://savannahnow.com/opinion/2010-04-17/letters-editor-sunday#comment-68489

Obama's past
By Mister Jimmy | 04/18/10 - 06:14

Obama's picture does not appear in the Columbia University yearbook for 'his' class and there is no student ranking of him or any mention of him in that yearbook or any previous, nor does his name appear anywhere in the records of the day. There is no visible copy of his 'degree' from Columbia, however Columbia now tells people he graduated there, though no one remembers him. Another question is why was he disbarred from practicing law? His wife Michelle is also a disbarred lawyer. His 'friend' actor Kal Penn of the Harold and Kumar movies ( and some television shows) has now resigned from his job at the White House and Obama's constant companion these days is a young black man, Reggie Smith, who travels with Obama and appears in most current photographs of Obama. Reggie Smith has no role in the government. What is his function, other than playing hoops in the gym now and then with the president? It is said that Obama was 'editor' of the Harvard Law Review, yet no one has been able to find any article he wrote. Why?

Mister Jimmy

[Protean]

http://www.nysun.com/new-york/obamas-years-at-columbia-are-a-mystery/85015/

Obama's Years at Columbia Are a Mystery
He Graduated Without Honors

By ROSS GOLDBERG, Special to the Sun | September 2, 2008

Senator Obama's life story, from his humble roots, to his rise to Harvard Law School, to his passion as a community organizer in Chicago, has been at the center of his presidential campaign. But one chapter of the tale remains a blank — his education at Columbia College, a place he rarely speaks about and where few people seem to remember him.

Contributing to the mystery is the fact that nobody knows just how well Mr. Obama, unlike Senator McCain and most other major candidates for the past two elections, performed as a student.

The Obama campaign has refused to release his college transcript, despite an academic career that led him to Harvard Law School and, later, to a lecturing position at the University of Chicago. The shroud surrounding his experience at Columbia contrasts with that of other major party nominees since 2000, all whom have eventually released information about their college performance or seen it leaked to the public.

For better or worse, voters have taken an interest in candidates' grades since 1999, when the New Yorker published President Bush's transcript at Yale and disclosed that he was a C student. Mr. Bush had never portrayed himself as a brain, but many were surprised to learn the next year that his opponent, Vice President Gore, did not do much better at Harvard despite his intellectual image. When Senator Kerry's transcript surfaced, reporters found that he actually had a slightly lower average at Yale than Mr. Bush did.

Some political observers cite such disclosures as proof that candidates' intelligence cannot be judged solely by their political careers or the schools they attended. Grades provide a rare measure of intellect that is immune to political spin, proponents say.

"We like to pretend IQ doesn't matter, but it really does with a lot of jobs, including the presidency," a professor at Smith College who studies the effects of human intelligence on the economy, James Miller, said. "We can't trust the information that candidates give us, so it's important to look for objective data that they can't falsify or distort."

Mr. Miller acknowledged that Mr. Obama displayed academic achievement at Harvard, where he graduated magna cum laude and led the Harvard Law Review. Still, Mr. Miller said, he would like to see information about how Mr. Obama performed in various subjects at Columbia.

That view is not shared by other election observers, including some who have themselves indulged the public's interest in candidates' academic records. One of them is Geoffrey Kabaservice, a political historian who in 2000 published Senator Bradley's relatively low score of 485 on the verbal SAT. Mr. Bradley, a Rhodes Scholar who was a star basketball player at Princeton, was running for the Democratic presidential nomination.

"It's awfully hard to correlate anything, really, about a person on the basis of their grades," Mr. Kabaservice said, explaining that he published Mr. Bradley's score to highlight limitations in intelligence testing. He said he doubted that candidates' grades have affected the outcome of any recent presidential elections.

"For people who didn't like George W. Bush, for example, the grade aspect only confirmed what they thought about him," Mr. Kabaservice said. "And for everybody else, it made him more of a regular guy."

The Obama campaign declined to comment for this article and did not offer an explanation for why his transcript has not been released. But observers speculated that one reason might be the racially charged nature of the election. Mr. Obama has acknowledged benefiting from affirmative action in the past, and details about his academic performance might open him up to critics eager to accuse him, probably unfairly, of receiving a free ride, Mr. Kabaservice said.

"Anyone who is a minority and who's come up partially through the meritocracy — getting into good colleges, and subsequently good law schools — is going to come under suspicion that there was some kind of affirmative action boost," he said. "I suspect this is an area of discomfort for Obama."

In contrast with the rest of Mr. Obama's life story, little is known about his college experience. He attended Occidental College in Los Angeles for two years before transferring to Columbia in 1981. The move receives only a mention in Mr. Obama's 1995 memoir, "Dreams from My Father," which instead devotes that chapter to his impressions of race and class struggles in New York.

An article in a Columbia University publication, Columbia College Today, reported that Mr. Obama has portrayed Columbia as a period of buckling down following a troubled adolescence. He did not socialize much, he has said, instead spending a lot of time in the library, "like a monk." He has also stated that he was involved to some extent with the Black Students Organization.

Federal law limits the information that Columbia can release about Mr. Obama's time there. A spokesman for the university, Brian Connolly, confirmed that Mr. Obama spent two years at Columbia College and graduated in 1983 with a major in political science. He did not receive honors, Mr. Connolly said, though specific information on his grades is sealed. A program from the 1983 graduation ceremony lists him as a graduate.

More is known about Mr. McCain's experience at the United States Naval Academy, where he was a self-described troublemaker and graduated in the bottom 1% of his class. The McCain campaign has declined to release his transcript, saying that his performance at the academy can only be viewed in the context of his larger military career.

"His record stands on its own," a McCain spokesman, Peter Feldman, said. "His time spent in college was part of the transformative years that made him who he was."

[Protean]

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/05/could-this-be-obamas-waterloo.html

Could this be Obama's Waterloo!?

Tuesday, May 18, 2010

Obama’s Waterloo - Jayme Evans - If recently published reports are true, and I have no reason to doubt they are, then the judgment, reputation and credibility of many a journalist and politician have been irrevocably destroyed along with the myths planted by Barack Obama, who apparently has a great deal of explaining to do about who he is, where he came from and why he’s using another person’s Social Security number.

In a May 11, 2010 article, WorldNetDaily’s Jerome Corsi reports that two independent investigations by two different investigators in two different states (using two different data sources) discovered that the Social Security number used by Barack Obama mysteriously coincides with Social Security numbers verified to have been issued by the state of Connecticut between 1977 and 1979, a full two years after Obama’s first, publicly-documented record of employment at a Hawaii Baskin-Robbins back in 1975. OUCH.

For over a year, those who value the Constitution and still possess critical thinking skills have insisted that something in Barack Obama’s records (or, rather what isn’t in Obama’s records) stinks to High Heaven. As a result of that public skepticism, we’ve been viciously attacked by so-called “journalists”, politicians, pundits and Obama’s base. Some who dared question, like Lt. Col. Terry Lakin, even face career-ending prosecutions as a result.

Lakin’s story has been completely ignored by the mainstream media. A US Army officer defying orders, challenging the legitimacy of the President of the United States and facing court-martial is a huge international story by any measure. It garnered 196,008 hits on Yahoo and 146,000 hits on Google. But, for the Associated Press, it’s quite a different story. Despite their empty protestations of the people’s right to know, not one single hit on the search term “Lt. Col. Terry Lakin” was found in the AP’s exhaustive, world-wide archives:

It matters not if Barack Obama stonewalls, if the AP ignores the story or if Bill O’Reilly wishes it away; for it does appear that the smoking gun pointing to Obama’s illegitimacy may have finally been located, although O’Reilly’s journalistic giblets and his apology to the good Lt. Col. remain MIA. O’Reilly’s dismissal of those wanting Obama to prove his eligibility is no different than politicians dismissing Tea Party concerns over health care cost or effects without reading the bill; willful ignorance. Unfortunately for the O’Reillys of the world who have staked their professional reputations on the silly notion that the issue had been resolved by a newspaper ad, it hasn’t.

The evidence uncovered by these two private investigators was arrived at independently and fits perfectly with the numerous allegations of forged documentation made previously, particularly Obama’s Selective Service registration.

•Those who dismissed this issue poo-pooed the Constitutional question as trite and irrelevant.

•They said the election decided the issue.

•They said Barack Obama had been vetted.

•They said the issue of his eligibility had been “raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America’s vigilant citizenry”.

•They said we were kooks; that there were more important issues we needed to consider.

•They alleged a huge “birther” conspiracy cooked up by racist Neanderthals who also believed the Earth was flat.

If this report is true, Barack Obama committed the crime of identity theft and quite likely used the poison fruits of that crime to usurp the office of President of the United States, just like I and others who had the courage to go on record had said he did.

But I’ll go a step further: He couldn’t pull something like this off alone. He would have needed help forging documents and forming the alleged conspiracy. Besides his inner circle, that help would have lurked within Health and Human Services, the Social Security Administration or another federal agency. His co-conspirators must be tracked down, arrested, tried and if found guilty, they must be thrown in the US Army’s Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth along with this phony. All social security numbers used by the usurper must be traced to their points of origin and any discrepancies must be investigated, punished and fully disclosed in a public forum.

These two investigators stand solidly behind their claims. The time for concrete answers to the questions surrounding just who America elected in 2008 are long overdue. The evidence that he isn’t who he says he is has now become too overwhelming to ignore. The damage he’s doing to our economy and social structure is far too extensive to allow this evil charade to continue any longer.

Senator Jim DeMint said that health care legislation would be Obama’s Waterloo. DeMint was right that there would be a Waterloo, but health care wasn’t it. Nor will it be energy, jobs, taxes, Cap and Trade, free speech, or any other 1,000-page legislative priority. It won’t even be his birth certificate. It will quite likely be two other pieces of documentation, both of which he subverted for his own twisted aims; a social security number and the US Constitution. - end.

Jayme Evans is a veteran of the United States Navy, military analyst, conservative columnist and an advocate and voice for disabled and other veterans. He has served for many years as a Subject Matter Expert in systems software testing, and currently serves as a technical lead in that capacity. He has extensively studied amateur astronomy and metallurgy, as well as military and US history.

Source: War of Wits, also published at

CanadaFreePress.com.

BirtherReport.com

[citizenx]

I worked at an ice cream store in 1978 for months without a social security number in Michigan.  It could be done back then, in fairness.  However, if he was working without one then, he should have said so.

I was thirteen, BTW, I am a "natural born citizen" and I earned a whole 1.00$ an hour to start, but I got a raise of 10 cents after a couple of months.

The couple I was working for witheld S.S. even before I got my number. It's O.K., they fired me for stealing, which in fact I was guilty of.  I've stopped doing that.

[Protean]

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/05/manning-trial-update-obama-columbia_18.html



Via the Conservative Monster, 5/18/10;

The verdict is in - the jury found
Obama and Columbia University
GUILTY of ALL CHARGES.

[Protean]

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/05/pay-attention-obots-and-misinformed.html

Monday, May 17, 2010

Pay Attention Obots and Misinformed Conservatives, it's natural-born Citizen, class time. Got Schooled!?



The first comment below is from a "conservative commenter" at one of my ORYR Facebook groups. [ Editor's  note: commenter added "natural born" in front of Citizen as if it's in the law. ]  The comment is typical misinformation posted by the paid  Obots across the web.  The second comment is a rebuttal courtesy of Attorney Mario Apuzzo.

The misinformation that is being spread must be flushed out with facts.  The Obots, and the misinformed, never leave any links to back their claims up and when you respond with facts they just attack and run.

It's not hard to figure this issue out, it's elementary!

I do find most people's comments on what a "natural-born Citizen" is IS the same as birthers aka duelers aka constitutionalers. Enjoy!

Thanks Attorney Apuzzo for your time to set the record straight on the legal aspect of this issue.

comment from the "conservative" commenter; Obama's citizenship will be determined under the 1952 version of the Immigration and Nationality Act since he was born in 1961 and the Act wasn't updated again until 1966. [ Editor's note: As you will see in Attorney Mario Apuzzo's rebuttal below the words added and shown in brackets by the commenter are NOT in that section of the 1952 law and in fact are not even in the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 at all. The words "natural born Citizen" appear nowhere in the 1952 Act. ]



Attorney Mario Apuzzo's response to the above misleading comment.

Sec. 301(a)(5), cited by the commentator, is not applicable to Obama because if Obama were not born in the United States, there is no information that he may have been "born in an outlying possession of the United States." Rather, the information is that he may have been born in Kenya, which is not an outlying possession of the United States. If Obama were born in Kenya, the only statute that could apply to give him United States citizenship is Sec. 301 (a)(7). That section provides:

"SEC. 301.

(a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

***

(7) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: /Provided,/ That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States by such citizen parent may be included in computing the physical presence requirements of this paragraph."



As we well know, Obama's 18 year-old mother was too young to give him U.S. citizenship under this statute or any other Congressional Act. Additionally, even if Obama could obtain U.S. citizenship "at birth" under this statute or any other Congressional Act, it would not make him an Article II "natural born Citizen." A person obtaining U.S. citizenship under such a Congressional statute would be a naturalized citizen "at birth," not an Article II "natural born Citizen."

The commentator also misquotes Sec. 305 which correctly quoted provides in pertinent part: "A person born in Hawaii on or after April 30, 1900, is a citizen of the United States at birth." This statue would apply to Obama only if he were born in Hawaii. Also, even if so born, the statute does not make him an Article II "natural born Citizen," but rather only a "citizen of the United States" "at birth." Additionally, if Obama were born in Hawaii, the Fourteenth Amendment would also make him a born "citizen of the United States." This status is also not necessarily that of a "natural born Citizen," for one could be granted that status under that amendment as currently interpreted even though at the time of birth one was born in the United States to one or two alien parents. Born United States citizen status under the Fourteenth Amendment, which only constitutionalized a Congressional Act known as the Civil Rights Act of 1866, is no different from Congress granting through its naturalization powers born "citizen of the United States" status except that one is receiving that status from the Constitution rather than a Congressional Act. As it relates to federal citizenship, the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to grant born "citizen of the United States" status to those who were born in the United States while "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Its purpose was not to amend the definition of an Article II "natural born Citizen" which would have changed the eligibility requirements to be President (like changing the age or residency requirements). Such a drastic change to the Constitution and to the eligibility requirements to be President and Commander in Chief would have had to be done by explicit constitutional amendment and not by stealth.

The commentator is rather dishonest to, for his convenience, misquote the Congressional Acts by injecting into them the phrase "natural born Citizen." There is no such Act (except for the Naturalization Act of 1790 that contained the phrase but which was repealed in 1795) which contains the clause. Congress only has the constitutional power under Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 to make uniform the naturalization laws. While that power includes making persons naturalized citizens "at birth," that power does not include making anyone an Article II "natural born Citizen," which status is not made by operation of positive or municipal law but rather by natural law and the law of nations and which is one of the requirements for Presidential eligibility and like age and residency, cannot be changed by Congress without a constitutional amendment.



BIRTHER REPORT RECAP & UPDATES: As previously reported HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE. Obama's campaign & supporters posted 4 different images of a Certification of Live Birth on the Internet.  Several document and computer image experts have deemed the Obama COLB(s) as fakes. If you have not yet researched the Obama COLB then this report from the Post & Email will explain it point by point. More from previous reports below the P&E report.

Via the Post & Email; - Obama’s Forged “Certification of Live Birth”: The Evidence - DID FACTCHECK PROVIDE THE LINK BETWEEN THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN AND THE 2008 PASSPORT FILE BREACHES? ...must read report HERE. ...and HERE & HERE & HERE.

Before you go there check out the 4 different Obama COLBs posted online by Obama's campaign. Also, if you missed it, meet the only 2 people to examine the Factcheck.org COLB(s), and one of them wasn't Bill O'Reilly;


1) Daily Kos COLB; http://palabre.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/bo_birth_certificate-kos.jpg


2) Fight the Smears COLB;
http://www.fightthesmears.com/images/28.jpg


3) Factcheck.org COLB with seal;
http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg


4) Factcheck.org COLB without seal;
http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_3.jpg


Everyone must view all the research compiled at this site;
http://nobarack08.wordpress.com/

5/12/10 - Obama's 'CERTIFICATION of Live Birth' form reveals Birth Registration FILED but never fully ACCEPTED!



The two FactCheck.org employees who were granted access to Obama’s bogus Certification of Live Birth (COLB) are NOT document examiners or experts. Joe Miller has a Ph. D. in Political Philosophy — so he’s a political operative — while Jess Henig has an M.A. in English Literature — I’m not sure her dye-job is a political or esthetic statement.They are a couple of partisan Obots — just what you’d expect — Jess took the photos presented on their webpage and did all of the writing, while Bob basically held the COLB open for Jess to photograph — suitable work for a Ph. D.

Those two are completely unqualified to perform any kind of forensic examination of any document, and FactCheck.org knows it — and so do Henig and Miller.

FactCheck does say their, “representatives got a chance to spend some time with the ‘birth certificate,’ and we can attest to the fact that it is real and three-dimensional and resides at the Obama headquarters in Chicago.” In my mind, that clearly shows they were working with and for the Obama Campaign and that Obama and his people are involved in this lie. Much more HERE.

And this; - Blogger manipulates birth certificate image, undermining Obama claims - Jay McKinnon, a self-described Department of Homeland Security-trained document specialist, has implicated himself in the production of palpably fake Hawaii birth certificate images similar to the one endorsed as genuine by the Barack Obama campaign, and appearing on the same Daily Kos blog entry where the supposedly authentic document appears. Much more HERE and HERE.

And this oldie; Hawaii Officials refuse to verify president's online COLBs images released by Obama's campaign and FactCheck.org...
In response to a direct question from WND, the Hawaii Department of Health refused to authenticate either of the two versions of President Obama's short-form Certificate of Live Birth, or COLB, posted online – neither the image produced by the Obama campaign nor the images released by FactCheck.org. Janice Okubu, the public information officer for the Hawaii DOH, also had no explanation for why Dr. Fukino's initial press release last October and subsequent press release also avoided declaring the posted images to be of authentic documents.

FactCheck.org, an organization funded by the same left-leaning Annenberg Foundation that also employed Barack Obama and former Weatherman radical bomber Bill Ayers, produced a short-form Obama COLB that was very different in appearance than the campaign released. Source. And much more HERE.

Forgery is nothing new to the Obama campaign, via Debbie Schlussel; Obama’s Selective Service Draft Registration Raises Serious Questions.
Did President-elect Barack Hussein Obama commit a federal crime in September of this(last) year? Or did he never actually register and, instead, did friends of his in the Chicago federal records center, which maintains the official copy of his alleged Selective Service registration commit the crime for him?
It’s either one or the other, as indicated by the release of Barack Obama’s official Selective Service registration for the draft. The full investigative report is HERE.

/11/10 - About time WND; Investigators: Obama using Connecticut issued Soc. Sec. Number... - Source.

And via Give us Liberty; EXPLOSIVE...more proof that AKA OBAMA is a fraud and very likely not even an American citizen!... - Obama conspiracy – It’s no longer just a theory - A man who fails to register with SS before turning 26 may find that some doors are permanently closed. This is a must read HERE.



Bonus; CONFIRMED: Factcheck.org Published Bogus Fact Regarding Obama’s British/Kenyan Citizenship. We can report that it has been conclusively established – the Factcheck.org report contains false information. Factcheck.org – Inaccuracy #1: Obama’s Kenyan Citizenship did not expire on Aug 4, 1982. Factcheck.org was absolutely wrong when they reported Obama’s Kenyan citizenship expired on Aug 4, 1982.

Factcheck.org – Inaccuracy #2: While Obama’s status as a British citizen may have been short lived, Factcheck.org failed to state that his status as a British subject was not short lived. Research has discovered multiple legal mechanisms which have the potential to establish that Obama is now a full citizen of Kenya as well as the United Kingdom, the European Union, the Commonwealth of Nations and the Republic of Indonesia. Source.

Will any person in the media ever mention what is going on in Hawaii?

News Recap: We don't care what you or the State of Hawaii says. WE HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW THE BACKGROUND OF THE PERSON WE EMPLOY! Hawaii is obligated by their own laws to release records they used to make public statements that Obama is a "natural born Citizen."

Via the Associated Press; By MARK NIESSE, Associated Press Writer – 3/17/10 - Hawaii considering law to ignore Obama 'birthers' -

HONOLULU – Birthers beware: Hawaii may start ignoring your repeated requests for proof that President Barack Obama was born here.



As the state continues to receive e-mails seeking Obama's birth certificate, the state House Judiciary Committee heard a bill Tuesday permitting government officials to ignore people who won't give up.

"Sometimes we may be dealing with a cohort of people who believe lack of evidence is evidence of a conspiracy," said Lorrin Kim, chief of the Hawaii Department of Health's Office of Planning, Policy and Program Development.

So-called "birthers" claim Obama is ineligible to be president because, they argue, he was actually born outside the United States, and therefore doesn't meet a constitutional requirement for being president. [NOT TRUE, IT REALLY DOESN'T MATTER WHERE OBAMA WAS BORN.]

Hawaii Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino issued statements last year and in October 2008 saying that she's seen vital records that prove Obama is a natural-born American citizen.

But the state still gets between 10 and 20 e-mails seeking verification of Obama's birth each week, most of them from outside Hawaii, Kim said Tuesday.

A few of these requesters continue to pepper the Health Department with the same letters seeking the same information, even after they're told state law bars release of a certified birth certificate to anyone who does not have a tangible interest. Responding wastes time and money, Kim said.

Both Fukino and the state registrar of vital statistics have verified that the Health Department holds Obama's original birth certificate.

The issue coincides with Sunshine Week, when news organizations promote open government and freedom of information.

"Do we really want to be known internationally as the Legislature that blocked any inquiries into where President Obama was born?" asked Rep. Cynthia Thielen, R-Kaneohe-Kailua. "When people want to get more information, the way to fuel that fire is to say, 'We're now going to draw down a veil of secrecy.'"

Nobody at the hearing questioned the fact that the president was born in Hawaii.

Attorney Peter Fritz asked why the state would pass a law punishing repetitive requests for open records. Instead, the state could simply say it would only answer each person's question once.

If the measure passed, the state Office of Information Practices could declare an individual a "vexatious requester" and restrict rights to government records for two years.

The committee will schedule a vote on the measure, said Chairman Jon Riki Karamatsu, D-Waipahu-Waikele. The measure is SB2937. On the Net: Hawaii Legislature, http://capitol.hawaii.gov -end Source.



The problem is Mark(ap) is only reporting about the law that is about to be passed(or not). He ignores the fact the law will be used to further obfuscate laws already on the books. Below are reports compiled from the past year on the Hawaii DoH(not in order).

UPDATE(5/13/10) - Hawaii Gov Linda Lingle Does Away with Freedom of Information, Signs Law Denying Access to Obama's Birth Records. - More here.


- Hawaiian Law Demands Obama records be made public - Hawaii officials are breaking Hawaiian law in not disclosing how they came to the public declarations made on October 31st, 2008 and July 27th, 2009 and now May 2nd, 2010. The hole Hawaiian officials had dug themselves with these declarations is deep, and there is no legal ladder out, other than to make public the resources and information they used in order to come to their conclusions. more HERE.

- Barack Obama and State of Hawaii on the ropes - According to law, the State of Hawaii must now disclose how it came to the decision that is found in Director Fukino’s July 27th Press Release that was approved by the State’s Attorney General. Haw. Rev. Stat. 28-4 states very clearly that formal opinions of the Attorney General must be made public. Further, the Hawaiian Office of Information Practices in 1991 formally set out the requirements that informal opinions of the AG must also be made available for public inspection. According to Donofrio, under the Uniform Rules of Evidence (Rule 510): “when the conclusions of an informal Attorney General opinion are made public by the agency/client, then the accompanying record of that opinion must also be disclosed to the public:” more HERE.

- HI Officials Don’t Like Questions; Stats In; Complaint Filed; Attorney: Questions OK - more HERE. more archives at the Right Side of Life HERE.

- HI Director of Department of Health Perjures Herself before HI Senate Committee - STATEMENTS SEEN AS ATTEMPT TO DEFEND HERSELF AND DEPARTMENT FROM INQUIRIES REGARDING CONFLICTING PUBLIC STATEMENTS ON OBAMA’S VITAL RECORDS. more HERE.

- HI Department of Health Publicly rebuffs inquiries for Obama’s vital records - DOSSIER OF EXCUSES APPEARS ON WEB IN LAST 6 HOURS? more HERE.

- HI Department of Health refuses OIP’s request -
THAT THEY DISCLOSE PUBLIC DOCUMENTS BY DEC. 21st. more HERE. Complete archive of reports from the Post & Email can be viewed HERE.

Leo Donofrio's reports; TerriK INVESTIGATION – PART 1: Hawaii Department of Health Directors Fukino and Okubo Are Guilty of Misdirection. more HERE.

TerriK INVESTIGATION, PART 2: OIP Staff Attorney Linden Joesting’s Response to TerriK’s Appeal Appears To Confirm That The DoH Maintains Amended Vital Records For President Obama. more HERE.

TerriK INVESTIGATION, Part 3: Hawaii AG Mark Bennett Approved Fukino’s Natural-Born Citizen Statement; All Records Should Be Made Public According To Law. more HERE.

DoH Reverses Course – Releases Index Data For President Obama, Stanley Ann and Barack, Sr; No Records For Maya Exist. more HERE.

OKUBO CAUGHT AGAIN: Admits Providing False Information Regarding DoH Maintenance Of Divorce Records. more HERE.

Complete archive of Donofrio's reports can be viewed HERE. More HERE at Butterdezillion Blog.

Before the above proposed law; - Bill would force Obama to reveal birth documents - Hawaii senator: 'Why wouldn't they be available to the public?' Hawaii state Sen. Will Espero, a Democrat, has confirmed plans to introduce legislation through which the state's lawmakers would force the public disclosure of all President Obama's birth documents held by the Hawaii Department of Health, including President Obama’s long-form original birth certificate.

Espero told WND his bill is aimed at "giving citizens access to birth records" under a standard of government transparency which would permit journalists to request in writing the public disclosure of vital birth records including long-form birth certificates of all persons born in Hawaii. He said it would include the release of birth records on those previously born in Hawaii. more HERE.

- Officials confirm 'Obama document' not necessarily accurate - The online image posted by the Obama campaign of a "Certification of Live Birth" continues to be used as a source of documentation for the president's birth place, even though previous reports have revealed there is little proof that can be derived from the document.

A new example came just as news broke of the statement by Hawaii State Health Director Chiyome Fukino that she had reviewed the "records" and confirmed that "Barrack Hussein Obama" was born in Hawaii. more HERE.

- Hawaii Officials refuse to verify president's online COLBs images released by Obama's campaign and FactCheck.org - In response to a direct question from WND, the Hawaii Department of Health refused to authenticate either of the two versions of President Obama's short-form Certificate of Live Birth, or COLB, posted online – neither the image produced by the Obama campaign nor the images released by FactCheck.org. Janice Okubu, the public information officer for the Hawaii DOH, also had no explanation for why Dr. Fukino's initial press release last October and subsequent press release last week also avoided declaring the posted images to be of authentic documents. more HERE.

Let us see what some have said about this issue over the last year;

"Hawaii state law won't allow them to release it unless the president authorizes it. So what's the problem here? Release the original and let's be done with this madness. John McCain faced similar questions and promptly responded by releasing his original birth certificate. That's how normal people with nothing to hide handle these things" - Mark Joseph - July 30, 2009 - Huffington Post columnist Source.

Huffington Post Blogger Carol Swain, a professor of political science and law at Vanderbilt University, says President Obama should just release his original long-form birth certificate and have done with the dispute. "I believe that the president should end the speculation by being transparent about all aspects of his background," Swain said. "In fact, it can be argued that the president belongs to the people and to scholars, biographers and others who are entitled to know every aspect of his past. Swain said the president is inexplicably fueling the controversy.

"The very fact that Obama has fought tooth and nail to prevent any release of his original long-form birth certificate- as well as other documentation- "suggests there's something that the president has decided not to share with the public." Source.

Feminist Camille Paglia: Birthers have a point. Tells radio audience 'there are legitimate questions about the documentation'. Feminist icon Camille Paglia, a Salon.com columnist who earlier wrote about the ambiguities of President Barack Obama's birth certificate, now has told a National Public Radio audience that those who have questions about his eligibility actually have a point.

Talking to the NPR program "On Point" this week, she provided a defense to the citizens who carried protest signs asking "Where's The Birth Certificate" at the recent protests that drew hundreds of thousands to Washington.

Paglia, a professor of humanities and media studies at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia and Salon.com columnist, earlier wrote, "Yes, there were ambiguities about Obama's birth certificate that have never been satisfactorily resolved. And the embargo on Obama's educational records remains troubling." Source. More HERE and HERE from World Net daily.

My favorite; Media actually probed other candidates Records except Obama's. In the last 18 years, highly personal information has been published about presidential candidates, including divorce and alimony details, drunk driving arrest records, college grades, urinalysis results, prostate cancer surgery- even details about George W. Bush's hemorrhoid troubles.

The media have dredged up medical, military, college and detailed records for Republican and Democratic Party candidates in at least the last five elections. Candidates were subject to intense scrutiny of their health conditions, academic performance and military careers.

However, while such private information about other candidates was divulged, we still have yet to see President Obama present his elusive long-form birth certificate and most other documents that remain unreleased or otherwise blocked from the public eye. Source.

Previous reports on the Hawaii DOH, HERE. Check back daily for updates!

Member of the Kenyan Assembly on March 25th, 2010, admits that Obama was born in Kenya. See page 31

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/05/pay-attention-obots-and-misinformed.html

[attietewd]

I dont know if anyone posted this already, but is this the missing site?  If they already posted it sorry I didnt see it.

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=150157.msg1019237#msg1019237

[Protean]

I dont know if anyone posted this already, but is this the missing site?  If they already posted it sorry I didnt see it.

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=150157.msg1019237#msg1019237

Thanks. but I think you mean this one:

Holy Shit! Chris Matthews accidently exposes the NWO birth certificate agenda!!!
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=121171.0

This was the original thread started by Sane when the MSM was going bat shite crazy to discredit the Birther Movement.

[Protean]

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/05/manning-trial-update-obama-columbia_18.html

Manning Trial Update: The Obama Columbia University Trial - Summary of Day five - GUILTY of ALL CHARGES!

Tuesday, May 18, 2010



Via the Conservative Monster, 5/18/10; The verdict is in - the jury found Obama and Columbia University GUILTY of ALL CHARGES.

The past few days have been very intense on all of us that took part in this very interesting event. The jury deliberated for over 3 hours until they came up with the verdict. The defendants were found guilty on all charges and there were so many, but I will basically give you all a quick review.

Mail fraud, wire fraud, Obstruction of Justice and Sedition were the main charges. I would have found Columbia University not guilty of any charges that involved them knowingly undermining the country. I just do not think they knew back in 1981 that they were taking part in a conspiracy to undermine the Government. Their silence about Obama attending Columbia University during his campaign does not meet that level of conspiracy in my opinion. I do not think that was proven, but they can appeal it if they like


Day 5 - Witness Miki Booth


Miki Booth is a Hawaiian born native that is running for congress in Oklahoma, District 2. Booth held up birth certificates that were real long form birth certificates from Hawaii. She then explained the difference between a certificate of Live Birth and a Certification of Live Birth (what Obama posted on Factcheck.org).

Booth testified that anyone could get a Certification of Live Birth, it does not prove ANYTHING. Then she discussed the birth announcements and she stated that anyone could put that in the paper if they want to notify the town about a new baby in the family.


Wayne Allyn Root


Manning discussed his phone call with Wayne Allyn Root and about the article that Root posted on the Internet . many libertarians attacked Root for even considering to testify at this trial. Also, many Columbia University Alumni contacted him as well. What are they afraid of? Root said he never saw or heard of any student named Barack Obama at Columbia University at that time that Obama claims he attended the school. Root had the same major as Barry, but still never heard of him.


Manning submitted the article as evidence.


Next, Manning described a letter that he got from a former KGB agent that was also a double agent with the CIA. The informant Mike, stated that Obama worked with the CIA for 4 years (1981-1985) in Pakistan assisting the Mujahadeen fighters during the Soviet-Afghan war.

Manning then stated that factions of the CIA and the KGB are working together to install a socialist government and that Bill Clinton, Leon Panetta, Rahm Emanuel and Obama are all in on it. This means that there has been a conspiracy for at least the past 20 years to create a super spy agency. This spy agency would blackmail and assassinate the opposition, the Republicans were targets.

This was called "The Professional System". A KGB like security force that will undermine freedom and elections in the United States, to shove this nation into a socialist state.

This KGB agent claimed that the CIA was more interested in American citizens, rather than foreign enemies. Basically he is saying that they have been compromised by the enemy.


Manning - They put out a hit on me


Pastor Manning then stated that he was informed by a disgruntled CIA agent that a hit was put on his head by the CIA. This was by an anonymous caller and it was just two days after the CIA, Homeland Security and the NYPD visited Manning's church. Manning claims that the hit was called off when the assassin refused to accept the order to kill Pastor Manning. Pastor Manning is calling for the Justice Department to investigate this alleged conspiracy to assassinate him.

Manning then claimed that the CIA Operative told him to dig into Columbia University rather than the birth certificate issue, because it was clear that Obama never attended Columbia University, because he was working with the CIA in Pakistan at the time that he was allegedly attending the University.


Pastor Manning then stated that "Columbia University did not cover their tracks well". Then he commented "If John McCain is not qualified, I know for sure that Barack Hussein Obama is not qualified for the office either."

Obama said that his father was Kenyan in his book and the debate ends right there, he is NOT a natural born citizen.

Manning also stated that Obama traveled to Pakistan with a Kenyan Passport, not a Indonesian passport that has been speculated the past 22 months.


Obama's records are not sealed by the courts, they are sealed by the CIA.


Manning then shouted, "What are you hiding Mr. Obama? The people need to ask this question. Only criminals hide themselves and Obama is the most notorious criminal that ever walked the earth."

Then Manning solemnly said, "My life was challenged by MY GOVERNMENT. Obama is a Muslim and the Church failed this nation to allow this to take place."

Pastor Manning then told the jury "If a guilty verdict is rendered today, it will rock the world. You will save this nation, save my life and the lives of YOUR CHILDREN. Every dollar that Obama has collected was under fraudulent pretenses, because he is not a natural born citizen.


The Verdict


I am sure that Pastor Manning will release an official copy in the near future of all of the charges and the verdict. The church erupted with applause and cheers after the final guilty verdict was announced. Pastor Manning was very excited and he did an excellent job with this entire trial, aided by his assistant Anthony Jones (an attorney).

Manning will most likely submit all of the evidence and the verdict to the US Attorney General and demand that they investigate, validate the decision by the jury and move forward with possible arrests. I do agree that fraud was committed, Manning proved that to the entire audience and the jury.

[menace]

Steve Cooper of Conservative Monster has been diligently reporting out what has gone on since last Friday at ATLAH World Ministries and conducted by Birther Minister, James David Manning, pastor of the church in Harlem. The “court”  found President Obama and Columbia University guilty of all “charges” yesterday afternoon.

http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=10359

Obama's aunt granted asylum -

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/05/obamas-kenyan-aunt-granted-asylum-she.html


Orly: Obama Persecuting Me with Placenta Painting!

http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=10379


Former KGB officer testify at Columbia Trial

http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/05/18/report-former-kgb-officer-to-testify-at-columbia-trial/


The Senate defined “natural born Citizen” in 2008, and Obama didn’t qualify

http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/05/17/the-senate-defined-natural-born-citizen-in-2008-and-obama-didnt-qualify/

[Protean]

From Menace's above post--

Former KGB officer testify at Columbia Trial

http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/05/18/report-former-kgb-officer-to-testify-at-columbia-trial/


HAS THE CIA CREATED A PAST FOR OBAMA TO HIDE HIS ACTIVITIES FROM 1981 TO 1983?

by Sharon Rondeau

Columbia University claims that it awarded Obama an undergraduate degree in 1983

(May 18, 2010) — Columbia University claims here that Obama was a graduate of that institution in 1983.  However, to date, none of his college records or theses have been made available to the public.  Columbia’s statement places equal emphasis on Obama’s being the “first African American elected President of the United States” and his alleged graduation from the institution, and it does not discuss Obama’s coursework or contributions to Columbia while attending.

SHARON: How many people would you say marched with you around Columbia University this morning?

MIKI: I think about 50-60.  We were 25-30 deep.

SHARON: What time did you arrive?

MIKI: We were there at 8:30 a.m. and the march started at 9:00 and took about an hour.  After that we went to the church and the trial started at about 10:30 or perhaps 11:00.

SHARON: Who is acting as prosecutor?

MIKI: That would be Rev. Manning.

SHARON: I heard that he has some lawyers serving or helping with the proceedings.

MIKI: Yes, but I don’t know who they are yet.  I haven’t met the members of the jury.  I can tell you that Alan Keyes was supposed to testify and he had a long talk with Rev. Manning after he spoke with his lawyers, who said that because he has a number of cases ongoing, attending the trial might hurt him.  So we didn’t come, and then there was someone else with the same situation where they wanted to be here, but again, it wouldn’t be in their best interest to attend the trial, so they bowed out as well.  That goes for anyone who has an open case.  However, they all gave their support to Rev. Manning, the trial, and for all of us.

I got to meet Capt. Pamela Barnett here.  I don’t know if she has testified during the past few days or so, but Rev. Manning gave a briefing of some of the other things that went on.

SHARON: This was your first day there, correct?

MIKI: Yes.  Getting back to the march, it was the most spiritual thing…it made me feel so happy inside to be walking hand-in-hand with people who, if not for all of this that has happened, I never would have seen myself in Harlem, being among the local folks there, whose hearts are so big and they’re such good people, and they know that this is wrong.  They’re praying to God that we break this open and prove this guy is a fraud.  It was just such a spiritual thing, and I felt good inside.  I was noticing that it’s a liberal town, and people were looking at us with raised eyebrows and strange looks and yet, you would also see the people who felt good about seeing us in the march.

SHARON: Do you think most passersby not associated with Dr. Manning’s church know what’s going on?

MIKI: No, I don’t think they do.  There’s a member of American Grand Jury named Rudy who brought the signs depicting a Taliban member on it who made signs out of the flyers and there were about four of them, and he passed them out and some of Dr. Manning’s parishioners carried those.  One of the jurors brought a gigantic American flag.  There were probably about 10 or 15 American flags that parishioners brought as well, and they passed those out, so you could definitely tell by looking at us that it was a patriotic group.  Patriotic and religious because of Rev. Manning leading.

SHARON: Going back to what you said at the beginning about blacks holding hands with whites:  because of that, it would seem that there really isn’t a racism problem in this country.

MIKI: Yes, there were just as many blacks in our group who believe Obama is a phony.

SHARON: Do you know how Dr. Manning or any of the witnesses prove that Obama did not attend Columbia?  Can he actually prove that he was in Pakistan or wherever he was instead of at Columbia?

MIKI: I don’t know how we prove it, but the only thing that makes sense is that it’s all the CIA.  That would explain why all the records are scrubbed.  There’s one thing that they can’t hide, and that’s the Social Security numbers.  Again, how do you prove that he used those to launder money?

SHARON: Is the theory that the CIA gave Obama a new identity?

MIKI: Absolutely.

SHARON: Did they actually assign him all of these social security numbers, or do you think he did that on his own?

MIKI: Again, if the CIA was behind it, they would be involved in every single aspect of it, because the money that he was getting went to help the Mujahadeen fight the Russian invasion.  Here’s another really interesting thing:  the story is out there that he attended Patrice Lamumba University.  About three weeks ago, I finally found the website for Patrice Lamumba, and it said, “Distinguished Alumni,” and on the list was “Barry Soetoro.”

SHARON: Really?

MIKI: Yes.  And it took you to the Wikipedia page all about “President” Barack Obama and his history.

SHARON: Could that have been set up as a hoax?

MIKI: That was set up as a red herring to throw everyone off the trail of the Pakistan connection.  Anyway, I saw it, and they mentioned that, and someone might have testified about it earlier in the trial.  However, it was brought up again today, and I remember when I first heard about that, it was right after Rev. Manning put out the word about the trial, and right after that, he did a YouTube video where he said, “They’re lying.  They’re going to say that he was actually in Russia attending Patrice Lamumba University” to throw us off.  He also said, “You watch; they’re not going to deny it; they’re going to let you think that that’s where he was, but don’t fall for it.  He was really in Pakistan.”

SHARON: If the CIA gave Obama a new identity or identities, why was he not stopped when he put his hat in the ring to run for president?  Has anyone discussed how he got as far as he did if all his records were scrubbed?

MIKI: We can probably find out.  I heard that he signed an Executive Order to seal all of his records.

SHARON: He did; I recall reading about it shortly after his “coronation.”

MIKI: So no one can get his Punahou or other records.  The ones that they absolutely don’t want anybody seeing are those that were scrubbed such as the passport records which involved Brennan, who worked for that company which worked with the CIA.  They have the means, the wherewithal, to be able to scrub those passport records, and it’s known and reported about that breach where all three, McCain, Clinton and Obama’s records were breached.  So the theory is that the late Lt. Quarles Harris knew something and he was supposedly working with the investigator, but which investigators we don’t know; perhaps just the local cops.  And then he ended up being murdered.  The only person who had a key to open that door was snuffed out.  So that was discussed, and this is material that we had already heard.  But again, there is the CIA connection.  There’s Brennan, and now what’s Brennan doing now?  So it’s just all too cozy.

SHARON: No one could have known 20 years ago that Obama was going to run for president.  Is there a theory that he was recruited by the CIA because he could speak the language?

MIKI: Yes.

SHARON: Why would there have been a need to provide Obama with a fake past?  Others have worked undercover for the CIA but the CIA perhaps doesn’t go to these lengths to hide it.  What is your theory about that?

MIKI: Well, tomorrow they’re calling a witness who is an ex-KGB agent who wants to talk and feels that his life is in danger and he may as well get it out there.  But getting back to the CIA, we know that the United States was financing the pushback against the Russian invasion.  We were working with them and gave them money and guns.  So where do you find these people to recruit to get them to do that?  You look for someone who will fit, with a Muslim background who can speak at least a dialect of their language.  And where do they recruit these people?  They find these loners like Barack Obama at Occidental who are on a foreign-student status (again, those records were scrubbed), but he probably held a passport under the name of “Barry Soetoro” from Indonesia.

SHARON: Has any evidence come out about that yet that you’ve heard?

MIKI: No. There again, those records were either scrubbed…it’s all hidden.  And it’s only the CIA that can do all of this.  No matter how much they did, things have still leaked out.  Almost everything that we’re hearing now we already knew.  It had been leaked out, or we knew about it, and they couldn’t hide that.  But wherever they could hide stuff, they did.  But I think what happened was that they never expected that he would run for president.  First he was a state senator in Illinois, and he used thug techniques to knock off the competition.

SHARON: So nobody was asking about his background then?

MIKI: Not really, because nobody had any reason to wonder about this guy.  So if he didn’t go to Columbia and he was in Pakistan instead, the kind of identity that they would give to him, they pretty-much just remade him.  He had a good start by already having the name “Barack Obama.”  They just tried to get rid of anything that said “Barry Soetoro” so any records with that name such as a passport or anything like that is long gone.

Supposedly the story that they made up was that he attended Columbia and from there, he got into Harvard.  There was another interesting piece of evidence, and I can’t remember his name, but he wrote the letter recommending Obama for Harvard.  That’s another thing that’s been out there but nobody really did anything with it.  So all of these things need to be brought back up so that when people see the timeline, how can they deny that all of this really happened?

How does a “C” student get into a law school like Harvard which only accepts the cream of the crop?  And out of 1,000 applicants or so, how many do they pick?  Fewer than 100, probably.

SHARON: Has the evidence shown so far that he did attend Harvard, or is that in question also?

MIKI: We believe he really did attend Harvard, but the only connection for him to get in there seems to be the president of the school.  Everyone thinks we’re just nuts because they wonder we got this person or that person or all of these people to commit to this conspiracy?  But really, when you narrow it down, it’s really just a few select people from Hawaii.  You’re really looking at one person.  Okubo, is that her name?

SHARON: Okubo is the Health Department spokeswoman and Dr. Fukino is the Director of the Health Department.  How about Governor Lingle, who recently declared that the Health Department’s initial press release stated that Obama was born at Kapiolani?  The press release did not say that.

MIKI: That’s right.  And the hospital will not verify that Obama was born there.

SHARON: Has anything come out on the birthplace that you know of?

MIKI: No.  In fact, Rev. Manning was saying that this whole trial will not address the birthplace because it’s focusing on the Pakistan/CIA/Columbia issue.  We’re focusing on Obama’s character.  Another issue to be covered is that both he and his wife surrendered their law licenses.  They’re trying to find out what happened with Michelle Obama’s license, because it’s been reported that it was revoked, but they’re trying to find out why.  We want to know why both of them apparently lost their law licenses.  You probably have heard this, but after Obama got out of Harvard, he was inspired to help in the poor areas of Chicago.  But before he did that, he said he sent out (and this is in his book), hundreds of resumes for community organizing but couldn’t find a job until he met two ladies in Chicago who helped him get a job.  So that’s his story, but it would seem that he could have acquired any assignment at any prestigious law firm who would want someone with Obama’s background.

SHARON: One would think so.

MIKI: He ended up passing the bar and got his law license and everything, but we think the reason that he went to work for Michelle Robinson’s law firm was that she could manipulate his past, whereas if he had applied to any other law firm, they wouldn’t have hired him because of his sketchy past.

SHARON: Perhaps they might have asked to see his college transcripts?

MIKI: Yes.

SHARON: And if he didn’t attend Columbia, then he wouldn’t have had a legitimate undergraduate degree to show them.  If he didn’t go to Columbia and graduate, how could he have gotten in to Harvard?  Was this also the CIA’s doing?

MIKI: Absolutely.  We believe that’s the deal they made.  Plus he has an unlimited supply of money from the Arabs and everyplace else.

SHARON: Do you know if many reporters been covering the trial?

MIKI: Someone from The New York Times showed up.  At first, Rev. Manning said he didn’t want the press there, but he reversed that position.  However, the Times reporter didn’t stay; he just came in, looked around quickly and looked.  So he missed Al Landry’s testimony on Skype.

Another thing we’re going to pursue which might not come out during the trial is the issue of voter fraud.

© 2010, The Post & Email, Inc.

[Protean]

Again from Menace's above post----

The Senate defined “natural born Citizen” in 2008, and Obama didn’t qualify

http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/05/17/the-senate-defined-natural-born-citizen-in-2008-and-obama-didnt-qualify/

DEMOCRAT SENATOR PATRICK LEAHY AND OTHERS “RESOLVED” THAT IT TOOK TWO CITIZEN PARENTS TO BE A “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN”

by Tim DeJong


Sir William Blackstone, English law scholar whose philosophy was based on the Ten Commandments

(May 17, 2010) —  The simple truth in evidence is Obama’s own declaration that he was born of a British father and is therefore not a “natural born Citizen.”

The Constitution is a modest document. Much of its meaning is in what is usually called common law. Some assume common law refers to Blackstone or English Common Law. The framers and many justices, Joseph Story among them, have referred to Vattel as our common law. Given that the first school of law established at a college in the Congress United (between the Revolution and the ratification) was that created at William and Mary by Thomas Jefferson, when James Madison was its president, and among its first students was John Marshall, and the stated structure of the curriculum was Law of Nations based upon Vattel and Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations. Can there be any doubt about the intent of the framers when justices including subsequent Chief Justice John Marshall cited Vattel when quoting “born on the soil of parents who are its citizens?” When the principal author of the 14th amendment, John Bingham, cites Vattel “about which there has never been doubt,” the meaning of “natural born Citizen” is confirmed for at least the twentieth time.

James Madison said:

I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution. And if that be not the guide in expounding it, there can be no security for a consistent and stable, more than for a faithful exercise of its powers. If the meaning of the text be sought in the changeable meaning of the words composing it, it is evident that the shapes and attributes of the Government must partake of the changes to which the words and phrases of all living languages are constantly subject. What a metamorphosis would be produced in the code of law if all its ancient phraseology were to be taken in its modern sense. And that the language of our constitution is already undergoing interpretations unknown to its founders, will I believe appear to all unbiased Enquirers into the history of its origin and adoption.” Madison’s words define “the time-honored canons of statutory interpretation.” The words of our framers citing Vattel, and the subsequent use of the term coined by Vattel, “natural born Citizen” – not “subject.”

Framer Dr. David Ramsay pointed out in 1791:

A citizen of the United States means a member of this new nations. The principle of government being radically changed by the revolution, the political character of the people was also changed from subjects to citizens.

The difference is immense. Subject is derived from the Latin words, sub and jacio, and means one who is under the power of another; but a citizen is an unit of a mass of free people, who, collectively, possess sovereignty.

The Constitutional power to define “natural born Citizens” was not intended to be left to the states.  It was our common law, understood by every jurist of the time in the most quoted, the most cited, and the most important legal document in the framing of our Republic. The  Law of Nations was the most cited legal reference by almost a factor of four between 1789 and 1821 (followed by Bynkeshoek and Pufendorf).

The notion of “sovereign legal instruments” is a new twist.” We don’t need “sovereign legal instruments” to tell us that the four chief justices and dozens of justices of the Supreme Court who cite Vattel on “natural born Citizen,” and hundreds who cite Vattel on other legal matters (try to count the Vattel citations in James Wilson’s Philadelphia Lectures) have established our common law. There are well over 100 terms used in articles and amendments not defined in the body of the document. That was intentional. Madison, above, determined to keep the Constitution concise. A major role of the Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution’s provisions.

Some of those submitting smoke are actually being paid by the White House, which in itself is a frightening testament to how close to tyranny we are.

Of course one could turn to that great legal scholar, Sen. Patrick Leahy, who agreed with former judge and HSA Secretary Michael Chertoff in 2008 when Chertoff said, “It is my understanding that a natural born citizen has two parents who are citizens.” This was, of course, part of the plot culminating in Senate Resolution 511 to insure that John McCain would be perceived as eligible to run against Obama, thereby silencing any questions about Obama’s failure to satisfy the “citizen parents” attribute of natural born citizenship.

Clever law professors such as Larry Tribe, for whom Obama was a research assistant, and whom Elena Kagan pardoned after Tribe was exposed as a plagiarist, will try to confuse the issue, but our framers said it simply and clearly, citing Vattel. A natural born citizen is born on our soil of citizen parents. Obama is ineligible, and if we have to have another revolution to return to the values which make our republic great, we will prevail.

Read the original sources. They are understandable. When Wong Kim Ark is raised, that is a common Obot smokescreen. Horace Gray was appointed by the only other usurper to sit in the White House, Chester Arthur, and his decision only applied to citizens, not natural born citizens. It is a confusingly-written document, but eventually cites Minor v. Happersett in which Vattel is cited. Since Wong Kim was never presumed to be a natural born citizen – he was born in San Francisco but of non-citizen parents – natural born citizenship was not at issue, and not determined. Some think Gray was creating smoke to protect his appointee.

Someone found an article written in a New York newspaper in 1789 describing a visit to George Washington’s New York office. Washington hadn’t yet entered the office when the reporters were admitted. Being reporters they noted that Washington, on his his first day as president had one book open on his desk, Vattel’s Law of Nations. Law of Nations is a readable compendium of what was described as natural law drawing from and citing philosophers from Aristotle to Vattel’s contemporaries. Read it online or from Amazon or the library. Several of our framers, including Alexander Hamilton, describe it as our common law.

© 2010, The Post & Email, Inc.

[citizenx]

Protean, I think everything the supposed double CIA/KGB agent said could well have been true.

The CIA has sealed the doc.'s because he (Soetoro/Obama) was an agent or operative/asset.

He may have been born in U.S.-- before Hawaii statehood, which would also make him not a "natural born citizen" as his mother was eighteen at his birth.  This would explain why his Kenyan citizenship was pulled or withdrawn in 1982, two years early before the anniversary of Hawaii's statehood.  The KGB/CIA officer may be giving a good tip re. the whole "born outside of the country" thing as a "red-herring" (pardon the pun). That could be why the supposed double agent is saying to look into his Coulumbia (CIA) years rather than the birth certificate, which may be a goose-chase by design.

Bottom line:  I think Manning is on the right track.

[Protean]

Protean, I think everything the supposed double CIA/KGB agent said could well have been true.

The CIA has sealed the doc.'s because he (Soetoro/Obama) was an agent or operative/asset.

He may have been born in U.S.-- before Hawaii statehood, which would also make him not a "natural born citizen" as his mother was eighteen at his birth.  This would explain why his Kenyan citizenship was pulled or withdrawn in 1982, two years early before the anniversary of Hawaii's statehood.  The KGB/CIA officer may be giving a good tip re. the whole "born outside of the country" thing as a "red-herring" (pardon the pun). That could be why the supposed double agent is saying to look into his Coulumbia (CIA) years rather than the birth certificate, which may be a goose-chase by design.

Bottom line:  I think Manning is on the right track.

It is the Patrice Lamumba school in Moscow that they mean for the red herring.

From above post----

"
SHARON: Did they actually assign him all of these social security numbers, or do you think he did that on his own?

MIKI: Again, if the CIA was behind it, they would be involved in every single aspect of it, because the money that he was getting went to help the Mujahadeen fight the Russian invasion.  Here’s another really interesting thing:  the story is out there that he attended Patrice Lamumba University.  About three weeks ago, I finally found the website for Patrice Lamumba, and it said, “Distinguished Alumni,” and on the list was “Barry Soetoro.”

SHARON: Really?

MIKI: Yes.  And it took you to the Wikipedia page all about “President” Barack Obama and his history.

SHARON: Could that have been set up as a hoax?

MIKI: That was set up as a red herring to throw everyone off the trail of the Pakistan connection.  Anyway, I saw it, and they mentioned that, and someone might have testified about it earlier in the trial.  However, it was brought up again today, and I remember when I first heard about that, it was right after Rev. Manning put out the word about the trial, and right after that, he did a YouTube video where he said, “They’re lying.  They’re going to say that he was actually in Russia attending Patrice Lamumba University” to throw us off.  He also said, “You watch; they’re not going to deny it; they’re going to let you think that that’s where he was, but don’t fall for it.  He was really in Pakistan.”
"

In a nutshell: Barry Soetoro was running money to the CIA rebels in Pakistan during his Columbia years. His Mother was also involved in clandestine finances for the intelligence community, probable helped get her son get recruited.

The birth certificate quest is only one of the documents that needs to be produced. Odds are, Barry was getting financial aid for college as a foreign student because he could use a foreign passport (Kenyan or Indonesian.) But we need to see those school records, of course, like the passport ones, they may already have been altered by The Company.

[Protean]

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/05/calling-all-journalists-obamas-multiple.html



Obama's Social Security Number(s) - Jerome Corsi on the Jeff Kuhner Show - 5/18/10 -

Video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRt64dO0opE

Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Calling all Journalists, Obama's multiple social security numbers, Obama's mama's mama had access to dead people's social security numbers.

As reported here, here, & now here, Barack Obama is reported to have multiple social security numbers tied to his name. Last year, two investigators searched numerous data bases and found that the social security number Obama is currently using is a Connecticut issued number and it was issued between 1977-79.

Further, the social security number assigned to Barack Obama may have been previously assigned to someone born in 1890.

It's important to note that Obama’s grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, was a volunteer at the Oahu Circuit Court probate department and had access to Social Security numbers of dead people.

With this issue alone, you'd think this would be enough to warrant some type of investigation from the so-called free press.

[Protean]

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/05/time-for-class-us-constitution-article.html

Time for class; A U.S. Constitution Article II “natural born Citizen” Is Not the Same As an English Common Law “natural born subject”.
Thursday, May 20, 2010



I have already written an essay explaining that the Founders and Framers relied upon natural law, the law of nations, and Emer de Vattel, Sec. 212, for their Article II definition of a “natural born Citizen” and not upon the English common law. That essay is entitled, 'The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law' as U.S. Federal Common Law Not English Common Law Define What an Article II Natural Born Citizen Is. This essay will address the related specific question of whether the Framers gave to the “natural born Citizen” clause the same meaning that the English common law gave to a “natural born subject.”

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States provides in pertinent part: “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President . . .” The Constitution does not define the clause “natural born Citizen.” We do however have a definition of a “natural born subject.” William Blackstone (1723-1780), frequently cited for English Common Law, defined a “natural born subject” as follows:

“The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it. Allegiance is the tie, or ligamen, which binds the subject to the king, in return for that protection which the king affords the subject. The thing itself, or substantial part of it, is founded in reason and the nature of government; the name and the form are derived to us from our Gothic ancestors.
***
The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is an alien.” William Blackstone, Commentaries 1:354, 357--58, 361—62, http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_4_citizenships1.html.

As we can see, for children born within the King’s dominions and allegiance, they were considered “natural born subjects” without any consideration for the citizenship of their parents. On the question of what the Framers meant when they inserted the “natural born Citizen” clause in Article II, putative President Obama supporters argue that the Framers simply used the “natural born Citizen” clause in place of the English common law “natural born subject” clause. Hence, they argue that the clauses mean the same exact thing. In practical terms, they therefore argue that in the mind of the Framers mere birth on United States soil without any reference to the citizenship of the child’s parents (with exceptions for children of diplomats and of invading soldiers) made one a “natural born Citizen.” In support of their argument, they cite language in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). The quote is:

“‘And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the king, and under the king's obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary.' ‘Subject' and 'citizen' are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives; and though the term 'citizen' seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, 'subjects,' for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.' Id. 258, note.” United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 664-65 (1898). (quoting Chancellor Kent’s Commentaries). I submit that both Wong Kim Ark and Obama’s supporters are wrong in concluding that a “natural born Citizen” is the same thing as an English common law “natural born subject.”

The Framers did not use the definition of an English common law “natural born subject” to define a “natural born Citizen.” The text of the Constitution itself reveals that there is a difference between a “citizen” and a “subject.” The historical context in which the Framers wrote the Constitution would not have motivated them to rely on the English common law to define who would be eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military of the new nation. The way the English common law defined a “natural born subject” and the Constitution itself reveal that for the Framers these two clauses did not have the same meaning. Additionally, there is direct evidence from the Founding period that shows that the Founders and Framers did not give the same meaning to the two clauses.

Let us start with the text of the Constitution to see if it distinguishes between a “citizen” and a “subject” and if it does let us consider the meaning of the terms during the Founding era and what any contemporaneous court decisions said regarding the terms. "The language of the Constitution recognizes a distinction between "citizens" and "subjects." For example, Article III, section 2 differentiates "citizens" of the several states from "citizens" or "subjects" of foreign states. In the framing era, these terms reflected two distinct theories of the relationship between individual members of a political community and the state. In feudal or monarchical constitutional theory, individuals were the subjects of a monarch or sovereign, but the republican constitutional theory of the revolutionary and post-revolutionary period conceived of the individual as a citizen and assigned sovereignty to the people. The distinction between citizens and subjects is reflected in Chief Justice John Jay’s opinion in Chisholm v. Georgia, [2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419 (1793) the first great constitutional case decided after the ratification of the Constitution of 1789: [T]he sovereignty of the nation is in the people of the nation, and the residuary sovereignty of each State in the people of each State . . . .[A]t the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects (unless the African slaves among us may be so called) and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty. . . . Sovereignty is the right to govern; a nation or State-sovereign is the person or persons in whom that resides. In Europe the sovereignty is generally ascribed to the Prince; here it rests with the people; there, the sovereign actually administers the Government; here, never in a single instance; our Governors are the agents of the people, and at most stand in the same relation to their sovereign, in which regents in Europe stand to their sovereigns. [Id. 471-72 (Jay, C.J.)].

Jay’s articulation of the opposition between subjects and citizen confirmed by Justice James Wilson’s opinion in Chisholm. Wilson noted that with the exception of Article III, the Constitution refers to “citizens” and “persons,” and not subjects: “[t]he term, subject, occurs, indeed, once in the instrument; but to mark the contrast strongly, the epithet ‘foreign’ is prefixed.'” Lawrence B. Solum, Originalism and the Natural Born Citizen Clause, Michigan L.Rev. 9-10 (working draft created on April 18, 2010) (footnotes omitted). "Justice Wilson explained that “in one sense, the term sovereign has for its correlative, subject, In [sic] this sense, the term can receive no application; for it has no object in the Constitution of the United States. Under that Constitution there are citizens, but no subjects. ‘Citizen of the United States.’ ‘Citizens of another State.’ ‘Citizens of different States.’ ‘A State or citizen thereof.’” (footnotes omitted). Id. at 456 (Wilson, J.). Additionally, Article III, Sec. 2 refers to “foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.”

Solum continues in his essay: Both Jay and Wilson’s opinions suggest that usage in the founding era reflected a significant conceptual distinction between the words “subject” and “citizen”—a distinction that was strongly associated with the ideas about the nature of sovereignty. The term “citizen” reflects the notion that individual citizens are sovereign in a republic, whereas the term “subject” reflects feudal and monarchical conceptual of the monarch as sovereign and the individual as the subject, owing a duty of allegiance and duty to the monarch. This conceptual distinction may be relevant to the original understanding of the phrase “natural born citizen” which was used instead of “natural born subject,” the phrase that served as a term of art in English legal usage. The notion of a natural born subject may reflect a feudal understanding of political obligation: those born in the kingdom owed a natural duty of allegiance to their king and were his natural subjects. Given a republic theory of popular sovereignty, citizens are sovereign and the notion of a “natural born subject” would be anathema. This leaves a gap in the theory of citizenship—a gap that the Constitution fills with the concept of a natural born citizen.” Id. at 10-11.

In his earlier version of this essay, Solum stated: “Anyone born on American soil whose parents are citizens of the United States is a "natural born citizen." In this updated version, Solum explains that some readers misread what he wrote. Now he concludes that “based on my reading of the historical sources, there is no credible case that a person born on American soil with one American parent was clearly not a “natural born citizen.” I agree with Solum’s previous statement but disagree with his current one. See my essay entitled, The Natural Born Citizen Clause of Our U.S. Constitution Requires that Both of the Child’s Parents Be U.S. Citizens At the Time of Birth for my reasons. Additionally, Solum does not cite what those “historical sources” are. What is also strange is that while the debate over Obama’s “natural born Citizen” status is currently raging, Solum, while now taking a position which benefits Obama does not even acknowledge that the issue exists. His essay is all about analyzing the eligibility of John McCain who was born in Panama to two United States citizen parents who were in military service which circumstances present a more defensible case per Vattel Sec. 217 than that of Obama whose place of birth has not been confirmed and who was born in 1961 to only one United States citizen parent (18 years old at the time of his birth).

In order to understand what the Framers meant by terms they inserted in the Constitution, we have to consider the historical context in which they wrote. They had recently won a revolution with Great Britain and now had the task of constituting a new nation, including identifying who the original citizens were and who the future citizens were going to be. The definition of “natural born subject” as found in the English common law simply did not work for the Framers. Great Britain was a monarchy and the new nation was a Constitutional Republic with a representative government. Great Britain did not have a President to be democratically elected by the people but the new nation did. Great Britain was not concerned with foreign influence making its way into the hereditary monarchy but the Framers were concerned about the Office of President being attacked from within and without with foreign influence infecting not only the voters but also the political leaders themselves. The Framers understood that citizenship and allegiance went together. Vattel’s born-in-country-to-two-U.S.-citizen-parents formula was the best way for them to assure that only a person with undivided allegiance and loyalty to the United States would be eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military. This test was not tied to the physical territory alone, which the Framers understood and which Lord Coke explained did not assure anyone’s natural allegiance when he said “liegance, and faith and truth, which are her members and parts, are qualities of the mind and soul of man, and cannot be circumscribed within the predicament of ubi.” (p. 76). Calvin’s Case (1608) (7 Coke, 1, 6 James I.) Coke believed that liegance was a function of natural law which he maintained was part of the common law of England. Daniel J. Hulsebosch, "The Ancient Constitution and the Expanding Empire: Sir Edward Coke's British Jurisprudence," Law and History Review Fall 2003 (18 May 2010). The Founders learned from Vattel that under the law of nature, the condition of a child follows the condition of his parents and not the place of his birth. Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations; or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns, Sections 212-215 (1758 French) (1759 first English translation). Hence, their test combined both the soil with the allegiance of the child’s parents into the child at the time of birth. For the Founders, this was the best way to assure sole and absolute allegiance in the new-born child. Charles Pinckney, who was the first delegate at the Constitutional Convention to raise the issue of presidential qualifications, in a statement made in the U.S. Senate in 1800, said that the "natural born citizen clause" was designed "to insure ... attachment to the country." The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 (Farrand's Records), CCLXXXVIII, Charles Pinckney in the United States Senate, March 28, 1800, p. 387. http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?hlaw:10:./temp/%7Eammem_jwJ2 . These citizenship concepts provided the basis for their definitions of the original citizens and the citizens of future generations.

The English common law did not distinguish between a “natural born subject” and a naturalized subject. "The English common law provided that an alien naturalized is “to all intents and purposes a natural born subject.” Co. Litt. 129 (quoted and cited in United States v. Rhodes, 27 F.Cass. 785, 790 (1866).). Under English common law, once a person became naturalized, he or she was deemed to be a “natural born subject.” Hence, under English common law a naturalized citizen was considered a “natural born subject.” Hence, giving the “natural born Citizen” clause the same meaning as a “natural born subject” would have allowed a naturalized citizen to be eligible to be President of the new Republic. But Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 mandates that only a “natural born Citizen” is eligible to be President. The clause is written as “No person except . . . shall be eligible . . .” which means that one must be a “natural born Citizen” in order to be eligible to be President, with no exceptions. The way we have interpreted the “natural born Citizen” clause since the beginning of the Republic, a naturalized citizen is not eligible to be President. But assuming the “natural born Citizen” clause had the same meaning as a “natural born subject,” with the Constitution as written it would not have conveyed in any manner that a naturalized citizen was not eligible to be President. No where do we find in the Constitution any direct statement that a naturalized citizen is not eligible to be President. To reach this conclusion, we have always relied upon the “natural born Citizen” clause itself which we have compared with the fact that the Framers prescribed in Article I that naturalized citizens were eligible to be Senators (“nine Years a Citizen of the United States”) and Representatives (seven Years a Citizen of the United States”) . The manner in which the Framers provided that Senators and Representatives needed to be “Citizen of the United States” for only a certain amount of years shows that the naturalized citizen class was included within “Citizens of the United States” and not within “natural born Citizens.” This shows that naturalized citizens were not part of “natural born Citizens.”

Hence, equating the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” to a “natural born subject” would have allowed naturalized persons to be President, a result that we have rejected from the beginning of the Constitutional Republic. Such a meaning would have created an exception to the “natural born Citizen” clause which would have eviscerated the clause itself. Additionally, since Congress has the power under Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 to make uniform the naturalization laws, such a meaning would have given Congress the power to decide who could be President by simply changing the naturalization requirements. The Framers, fearing that Congress would allow foreign influence to creep into the office of President if it were given the power to select the President, did not give Congress such power.



A letter that John Jay wrote to then-General Washington (transcription can be viewed here) also provides evidence that the Framers did not equate a “natural born Citizen” with a “natural born subject.” We have seen that if a “natural born Citizen” meant the same thing as a “natural born subject,” a naturalized citizen would have been eligible to be President of the new Republic. Giving the two clauses the same meaning would have produced a clear contradiction and a condition which the Framers rejected. We know that the Founders considered a naturalized citizen to be only a “citizen of the United States” (able to be President under Article II’s grandfather clause and Senator or Representative under Article I) and not a “natural born Citizen,” which status was required of a would-be President for births after 1787. How the English common law converted naturalized persons into "natural born subject" retroactively to the time of birth can explain why John Jay underlined the word "born" when recommending to General Washington in his famous letter of July 25, 1787 that it was both “wise and seasonable” for the purpose of providing a “strong check” against foreign influence invading the new national government that the Constitution “declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born citizen” (underlining the word “born”). Jay’s underlining of the word “born” is evidence that he rejected a naturalized citizen as being eligible for that office. This is further evidence that the Founders rejected the meaning of a “natural born subject” which was not necessarily tied to the time of actual birth. Not being a “natural born Citizen,” the Founders did not permit naturalized citizens to be President. The Framers, after 1787 (when the grandfather clause expired and Article II required a child to be a “natural born Citizen” and not only a “Citizen of the United States”) did not allow naturalized citizens to be President, for they would have been included in the class of “Citizens of the United States” and not in the class of “natural born Citizens.” This rejection of a naturalized citizen as equivalent to a "natural born Citizen" was consistent with the law of nations. Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations; or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns, Sections 212-214  (1758 French) (1759 first English translation). The Fourteenth Amendment citizenship clause as originally intended (not the way that it has come to be interpreted by giving “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” a territorial meaning rather than an allegiance and political one) also made the same recognition.

Further evidence that the Founders and Framers did not consider the two clauses as meaning the same thing can be found in the writings of David Ramsay, who published A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen (1789). David Ramsay (April 2, 1749 to May 8, 1815) was an American physician and historian from South Carolina and a delegate from that state to the Continental Congress in 1782-1783 and 1785-1786. He was one of the American Revolution’s first major historians. Ramsay “was a major intellectual figure in the early republic, known and respected in America and abroad for his medical and historical writings, especially for The History of the American Revolution (1789)…” Arthur H. Shaffer, Between Two Worlds: David Ramsay and the Politics of Slavery, J.S.Hist., Vol. L, No. 2 (May 1984). In his 1789 essay, while not using the phrase “natural born Citizen,” Ramsay described the original citizens that existed during the Founding and what it meant to acquire citizenship by birthright after the Founding. The Constitution itself shows that the Framers called the original citizens “Citizens of the United States” and those that followed them “natural born Citizens.” He said concerning the children born after the declaration of independence, “[c]itizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who have taken part in the late revolution; but this is confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens….” Id. at 6. He added that “citizenship by inheritance belongs to none but the children of those Americans, who, having survived the declaration of independence, acquired that adventitious character in their own right, and transmitted it to their offspring….” Id. at 7. He continued that citizenship “as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776….” Id. at 6. Here, Ramsay referred to “natural right,” which ties into the Framers’ use of the clause “natural born Citizen.” By focusing on citizenship that occurs by “natural right,” Ramsay distinguished citizenship that occurs naturally versus citizenship that occurs by operation of law. But Ramsay also explained that there is an “immense” difference between a British “subject” and a United States “citizen,” with the former being “under the power of another” and the latter being “a unit of mass of free people, who, collectively, posses sovereignty.” He informed that “Republics, both ancient and modern, have been jealous of the rights of citizenship.” He then explained that the “original citizens” of the United States were those who were parties to the Declaration of Independence and thereby adhered to the revolutionary cause. It is evident from his writing that in defining a “citizen of the United States” and a “natural born Citizen,” Ramsay did not look to English common law but rather to natural law, the law of nations, and Vattel, Sec. 212. Ramsay’s dissertation presents valuable evidence of how the Founding generation defined the original citizens and the future generation of citizens which the Framers called “natural born Citizens.” It is valuable because it is evidence of the public meaning of these terms at the time they were framed and ratified, if not among the general population then at least among those learned in the law. For further information on David Ramsay and the “natural born Citizen” clause, see my essay entitled, Founder and Historian David Ramsay Defines a Natural Born Citizen in 1789.

A “natural born subject” under English common law if born within the domain and allegiance of the King did not need any connection to citizen parents. But Jefferson in 1799 wrote the citizenship laws of Virginia which provided as follows:

"A Bill Declaring Who Shall Be Deemed Citizens of This Commonwealth: May 1779

Papers 2:476--78

Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth and all who have resided therein two years next before the passing of this act, and all who shall hereafter migrate into the same; and shall before any court of record give satisfactory proof by their own oath or affirmation, that they intend to reside therein, and moreover shall give assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth; and all infants wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed: And all others not being citizens of any the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens…. And in order to preserve to the citizens of this commonwealth, that natural right, which all men have of relinquishing the country, in which birth, or other accident may have thrown them, and, seeking subsistance and happiness wheresoever they may be able, or may hope to find them: And to declare unequivocably what circumstances shall be deemed evidence of an intention in any citizen to exercise that right, it is enacted and declared, that whensoever any citizen of this commonwealth, shall by word of mouth …openly declare to the same court, that he relinquishes the character of a citizen,…such person shall be considered as having exercised his natural right of expatriating himself, and shall be deemed no citizen of this commonwealth from the time of his departure. The free white inhabitants of every of the states, parties to the American confederation, paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be intitled to all rights, privileges, and immunities of free citizens in this commonwealth, and shall have free egress, and regress, to and from the same, and shall enjoy therein, all the privileges of trade, and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions and restrictions as the citizens of this commonwealth…. " http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a4_2_1s4.html. His citizenship law of 1783 was similar to his 1779.

As we can see from his law, Jefferson provided different criteria for two different classes of citizens. For the first class, who were adults and already in existence, he provided one requirement (jus soli would be sufficient). He grandfathered these adults to be the first citizens. But for those who were infants and to be born in the future, he provided a different requirement. For this latter group, only jus sanguinis tied to both parents would be sufficient to make them citizens. It is important to understand the historical context in which Jefferson wrote his citizenship law because the Framers wrote within the same historical context when they drafted the grandfather clause in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. This historical context was one of a new state rising from revolution. It is the historical context of the “infant state” (Jefferson in the 1783 citizenship laws) which is the genesis for the Framers distinction in Article II and other sections of the Constitution between a “Citizen of the United States” and a “natural born Citizen,” a distinction that our United States Supreme Court carried forward throughout American history. It is only because Jefferson and the other Founders were creating citizenship for a new state having just emerged from revolution that they had the need to first identify who were the first citizens and who were going to be the future citizens. The Framers also grandfathered the first citizens as did Jefferson. They called these persons “citizens of the United States.” These would have been the adults already in being at the time that the Constitution was adopted in 1787. These were adults who were either born or naturalized in the colonies or states or simply inhabiting there and adhered to the Revolution. But the Framers provided that for those persons who were infants after 1787, they would have to be “natural born Citizens” in order to be eligible to be President. The historical evidence, United States Supreme Court cases, and Congressional Acts show that this second generation citizens, like Jefferson’s second generation citizens, would come into being as “natural born Citizens” but only if they descended from persons already citizens of the United States.

English statutes also considered children born abroad to parents who were “natural born subject” to be themselves “natural born subjects.” Again, Blackstone explained that by some modern English statutes: “[A]ll children, born out of the king's ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.” As can be seen, these statutes granted “natural born subject” status to such children regardless of, with the exceptions noted, in which type of service the parents were engaged. Jefferson wrote for citizenship in Virginia and so in his 1779 law he did not require that the child be born in the State. The Framers wrote for national citizenship and they did require birth in the United States to be considered an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Note that the Naturalization Act of 1790 (Act of March 26, 1790, ch. 3, Sec. 1, 1 Stat. 103, 103-04 (1790)), itself a naturalization act passed by the First Congress under its naturalization powers of Article I, Section 8, Clause 4, only provided that “children of citizens of the United States” born “out of the limits of the United States” were “considered as natural-born citizens . . . .” By passing this law and using this language, the First Congress, which included twenty members who had been delegates to the Constitutional Convention eight of whom were members of the Committee of Eleven that drafted the “natural born Citizen” clause, told us that these children were not in fact “natural born Citizens” but rather only made such through Congress’s naturalization powers. The Constitution only gave Congress the power to make uniform the naturalization laws which did not include the power to define a “natural born Citizen.” These children were only given the rights of “natural born Citizens” and were not actually “natural born Citizens.” The Third Congress confirmed that these children born abroad to United States citizen parents did not have actual Article II “natural born Citizen” status (to be distinguished from such status being granted by a naturalization act of Congress) when in 1795 it changed their status from being “natural born citizens” to “citizens of the United States.” If these children were Article II “natural born Citizens,” Congress would not have had the power to take away through any statute their constitutional “natural born” status. Unlike the Fourteenth Amendment which contains the jurisdiction and the necessary and proper clauses, Article II does not provide Congress with any way to define a “natural born Citizen.” It should be noted that a valid constitutional argument can be made that a child born abroad to United States citizen parents who are serving the armies of the state or even in some other government service are Article II “natural born Citizens,” for they “are reputed born in the country.” Vattel, Sec. 217. Children born abroad under such circumstances will most likely not attach their allegiance to the foreign country in which they may be born and rather through their relationship with their United States citizen mother and father become loyal only to the United States.

A “natural born subject” under English common law could never renounce his or her allegiance. Mannie Brown explained the “old common-law doctrine Nemo potest exuere patriam by quoting Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case: “Ligeance is a true and faithful obedience of the subject due to his Sovereign. This ligeance and obedience is an incident inseparable to every subject; for as soon as he is born he oweth by birth-right ligeance and obedience to his Sovereign.” Mannie Brown, Expatriation of Infants, University of Toronto Press 97 (1939). But as we have seen above, in his 1799 citizenship law Jefferson wrote that a person could exercise his “natural right of expatriating himself” “whensoever” he saw fit to do so. Jefferson included in his law a right in a person to relinquish his citizenship in a manner prescribed by law. This right was known as the right to expatriate which was not only alien to English common law but forbidden by it. Jefferson’s idea that a person could renounce allegiance to the country of his or her birth was so accepted by early Congresses and society that Congress codified this right by passing the Naturalization Act of 1795 (1 Stat. 414, c. 20), which provided persons naturalizing in the United States to absolutely renounce and abjure all allegiance to any foreign prince or state and to support the Constitution. Over the years, there continued a debate in the courts whether an American citizen could expatriate himself or herself. The matter was finally settled in 1868, when Congress passed the Expatriation Act of 1868 and Representative Woodward of Pennsylvania proclaimed that by doing so Congress had driven feudalism from our shores.

Jefferson’s views on a person having a right to expatriate reveal that he looked to natural law and the law of nations and Vattel rather than the English common law on questions of citizenship. In a letter dated June 12, 1817, to Dr. John Manners, Jefferson made his views on whether the English common law applied to such questions well known:

"To Doctor John Manners.

Monticello, June 12, 1817.

SIR

Your favor of May 20th has been received some time since, but the increasing inertness of age renders me slow in obeying the calls of the writing table, and less equal than I have been to its labors.

My opinion on the right of Expatriation has been, so long ago as the year 1776, consigned to record in the act of the Virginia code, drawn by myself, recognizing the right expressly, and prescribing the mode of exercising it. The evidence of this natural right, like that of our right to life, liberty, the use of our faculties, the pursuit of happiness, is not left to the feeble and sophistical investigations of reason, but is impressed on the sense of every man. We do not claim these under the charters of kings or legislators, but under the King of kings. If he has made it a law in the nature of man to pursue his own happiness, he has left him free in the choice of place as well as mode; and we may safely call on the whole body of English jurists to produce the map on which Nature has traced, for each individual, the geographical line which she forbids him to cross in pursuit of happiness. It certainly does not exist in his mind. Where, then, is it? I believe, too, I might safely affirm, that there is not another nation, civilized or savage, which has ever denied this natural right. I doubt if there is another which refuses its exercise. I know it is allowed in some of the most respectable countries of continental Europe, nor have I ever heard of one in which it was not. How it is among our savage neighbors, who have no law but that of Nature, we all know. . . . " http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/7897401/jefferson/1817.html. We can see how Jefferson was clear in stating the right to expatriate, like the right to life, liberty, and to pursue happiness, was a natural right that came from God and not from the English common law. He also explained that the English common law was adopted by the states and was applied by them on local issues. But when it came to the national government, he stated that no such law was adopted. Hence, the right to expatriate could have come only from natural law rather than the English common law. As Jefferson applied natural law to the question of expatriation, he would have also applied it to defining a “natural born Citizen.” These historical writing show that Jefferson surely would not have considered a “natural born Citizen” to have the same meaning as an English common law “natural born subject.”

All this leads us to the inescapable conclusion that the Founders and Framers did not give the “natural born Citizen” clause the same meaning that the English common law gave to a “natural born subject.” For further information explaining that the Framers did not rely upon English common law but rather natural law, the law of nations, and Vattel to define a “natural born Citizen,” see my essay entitled, 'The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law' as U.S. Federal Common Law Not English Common Law Define What an Article II Natural Born Citizen Is.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
May 19, 2010
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####

P.S. For more on natural born Citizenship to constitutional standards, see Apuzzo's essay: Obama - Maybe a Citizen of the United States but Not a "natural born Citizen"

The timeline ... connecting the dots ... hmmh ...

25 Mar 2010: (A problem for Obama's eligibility issue cover up surfaces in Kenya)
James Orengo in Kenya makes statement in Parliament that Obama "born here in Kenya", "not a native American".

[menace]

Say It Isn’t So, Lucas The KBC2 is in danger from the government, Lucas Smith posts to his YouTube channel:

Good morning everyone. I was detained at the Miami Internstional Airport the other week upon entering the United States. I was released yesterday. I have been threatened by the FBI and other employees of the federal government, I don’t feel safe anymore. I have now seen just how? much power the federal governent has as they can alter information in any government database in the country. A person can disappear forever and there would never be any trace of what happened to them.

[T]here is no one to help either. Just about all of the “birther” attorneys are only seeking money and fame. I can’t say that for certain? about all of them but, just about all of them. There’s not much more I can do. The birth certificate is in a “strorage” along with my suitcase in Florida. I’m hundreds of miles away from there and the “storage” (thanks to Homeland Security) is raking up daily “rental” fees.

As everyone knows I have a criminal record which causes most serious attorneys (i.e., NOT a birther attorney, even though a “serious” attorney is still a liar and probably maybe even more egregiously worse than and a “birther” attorney anyways) to distance themseves from me.

I’m just about out of ideas on how to fight the federal government especially when they can crush your whole life in one day.

http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=10438


Taitz files new motion in the Taitz v Obama Quo Warranto, submits transcript from Kenya and Obama's Multiple Social Security Numbers.

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/05/taitz-files-new-motion-in-taitz-v-obama.html

[Protean]

http://www.examiner.com/x-37620-Conservative-Examiner~y2010m5d19-Guilty-verdict-in-Obama-trial-more-questions-than-answers?cid=examiner-email

Guilty verdict in Obama trial: more questions than answers



May 19, 2010
Conservative Examiner
By Anthony G. Martin

Dr. James Manning's now-famous trial of Barack Obama in Harlem, New York has ended.  The jury found Obama and Columbia University guilty on all charges.

The trial, however, unveils many more questions than it provides answers.

(AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais).

But first, a few observations are in order about the nature of this event.

Obviously the event was a 'public' rather than a 'court' trial.  No court sanctioned it.  The legality of public trials apart from court sanction has not been established.  While the Constitution does, indeed, maintain that the ultimate power of government rests with 'we, the people,' and while a case can be made that under the 10th amendment the people, acting under the auspices of local and state authorities, can engage in certain acts of self-governance apart from the sanction and control of the federal government, it has not been established that any local entity in Harlem granted state or local legal status to the trial.

In that sense the trial and the verdict have no binding legal authority.

However, should a legal authority, a court, a law enforcement agency, an Attorney-General either at the state or national level, decide that the evidence presented at the Manning trial is overwhelming enough to launch a full investigation, then ultimately the results of the trial could carry the full weight of legal authority.

Dr. Manning has stated that he intends to present the evidence and the verdict to U.S. Attorney-General Eric Holder.  At that point the ball will be in the 'court' of the Department of Justice.  If no action is taken on the verdict, then there is not much further that can be done.

But if action is taken and an official investigation ensues, then perhaps the goal of this event will have been met.  The problem is that under the present circumstances it is next to impossible for that to happen.  Holder is Obama's choice and Congress is held in the grip of Obama's Party.  End of story.

Serious, unanswered questions remain, however--questions that the trial did an excellent job of bringing to the surface.

These questions are as follows:

Why didn't Barack Obama have a Social Security Number issued in his name when he was first employed as a 14-year-old in Hawaii?  Why was there such a long delay after his first job before an application was made for a Social Security Number?  And why was he given a Connecticut Social Security Number previously used by a man born in the late 1800s, given that Obama never lived in Connecticut to begin with?

The first instance of Obama's use of the Connecticut number was when he started to work as a Community Organizer in Chicago--a very long way from Connecticut.

Further, why was Obama given a degree from Columbia University when no one in Harlem ever remembers him being there, and although witnesses have testified that he was never a student on campus?  And the address given by Obama as the one that he used while a student in Harlem does not exist.

But perhaps the most telling question of all is, why did Obama use a Kenyan passport to travel to Pakistan in 1981?  Wouldn't a U.S. citizen normally be given an American passport?  It seems to be  standard procedure--and the law--that passports are given only to citizens of the country in which they reside.

And what has the CIA got to do with all of this mess?

The fact is we may never know for sure unless somebody in authority in the government decides to investigate and discover the answers.

But one thing is for sure--Obama is an enigma, a shadow, a persona created out of the murky circumstances of his past, which is being carefully hidden.  Why would it even need to be hidden?

These questions are disturbing to anyone who takes our Constitution and our way of life seriously.  Our form of government, as delineated in the Constitution, is dependent upon the honesty and transparency of those who hold public office.  And if a fraud is elected, a charlatan, a person who presents himself as something he is not, then the entire American system of government is in grave danger.

Better to err on the side of utmost caution than to glibly dismiss all of these questions as 'mere coincidences.'  Coincidences do happen, no doubt, but this many and this often--all revolving around one man?

The odds are that the country is in grave danger.

[Protean]

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=157093

Harlem 'trial' finds Obama 'guilty'
Pastor says incriminating information to be given to 'authorities'

Posted: May 22, 2010
12:45 am Eastern

By Stewart Stogel
© 2010 WorldNetDaily


James Manning

NEW YORK – The controversial Harlem pastor who led a days-long "trial" of President Obama says the resulting "guilty" verdict and corroborating evidence will now be turned over to appropriate authorities, congressional and otherwise.

The event was held at Atlah World Missionary Church over the past few days, and its pastor, James Manning, claimed it to be the first "legal verdict" against Obama since he took office.

Focusing on allegations regarding Obama's status as a "natural born citizen" of the United States as well as the allegedly illegal "award" of a diploma from Columbia University, Manning insists new legal ground was broken.

The activist pastor says that under the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, citizens can legally hold a trial and arrive at a verdict, with the results turned over to appropriate government bodies for enforcement.

Manning claims the fact that the Secret Service, charged with protecting the president and investigating threats, allowed the "trial" to take place constitutes evidence it was legitimate.



"If the trial did not have legal standing, then why did the federal or city authorities not intervene to halt [the proceeding]?" he said. "We did not hide the trial, in fact we did our best to promote it. So if the authorities had any problems why did they not act?"

Not only was there no government interference during or after the trial, Manning boasts the NYPD had officers in the neighborhood to protect the church when the trial was under way.

Coincidentally, Obama was less than 4 miles away at a Democratic Party fundraiser in mid-town Manhattan the night before the 5-day trial began May 14.

Just four blocks from the church that hosted the Obama trial stands the Harlem office of former President Bill Clinton.

Ironically, the conservative Manning heaped praise on the 42nd president: "He was (and still is) a friend of the Harlem community. He and Hillary did a lot of good things here and for that we thank them."

Now that the Obama trial is over, Manning said, he will pass on the verdict and the evidence presented to the appropriate congressional authorities for their own "review."

"Just like a civilian who witnessed a crime, we will report our findings to Congress. ... Let's see what they do," he said.

Regarding Manning's allegation that Obama never actually attended Columbia, the New York times blogged mockingly:

"When we asked a Columbia spokesman whether the president did in fact attend the school, he replied, 'We’re not commenting on the Reverend Manning or the trial.' Denial or confirmation? You decide."

Manning, undeterred, says, "The ball is their (Congress') court. The verdict is in, the trial is over.

"Of course they (Congress) will try and ignore it and hope I will go away. .. but anyone who knows me knows I will not go away."

[menace]

The HDOH Has Destroyed Original Records Required to be Kept Permanently?


http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/05/18/hdoh-has-destroyed-original-permanent-records/



Index of Foreign Births Destroyed

http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/05/18/index-of-foreign-births-destroyed/


Orly at Tea Party Event. Asked to remain quiet

http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2010/05/21/orly-at-tea-party-event-asked-to/


Rhodes v McDonald – Letter informing Orly of collection of sanctions

http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2010/05/20/rhodes-v-mcdonald-letter-informing-orly-of-collection-of-sanctions/

 

[Protean]

Also posted here:
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=170732.msg1023084#msg1023084

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=156573

U.S. Selective Service in Obama cover-up?
Mysterious Social Security Number now wreaks havoc in online search


Posted: May 23, 2010
4:37 pm Eastern

By Joe Kovacs
© 2010 WorldNetDaily



Is the U.S. Selective Service System now blocking access to President Barack Obama's online registration records?

Members of the public searching the federal database for the commander in chief's registration are suddenly finding new difficulty, possibly due to the startling revelation of Obama's alleged use of a Connecticut-based Social Security Number.

The Selective Service System, or SSS, collects names of Americans for use by the Department of Defense in the event of a national emergency. On its website, it says it provides the nation "with a structure and a system of guidelines which will provide the most prompt, efficient, and equitable draft possible, if the country should need it."

Regarding President Obama, "He is registered. There is no doubt in our minds that he has, and we're quite prepared to say so," SSS public-affairs specialist Dan Amon told WND.

The hottest book in America is the one that exposes the real Obama and all his men (and women)! Get your autographed copy only from WND!

But the agency's online search engine now appears to be precluding the public from seeing Obama's record after allowing unfettered access.

The database allows people to search for registrants as long as a correct name, Social Security Number and date of birth are entered.

On May 5, WND entered the criteria for President Obama, using his date of birth as Aug. 4, 1961, and his Social Security Number, which begins with the Connecticut-issued prefix of 042.

The Selective Service database instantly issued a "matched record" without a problem that day, indicating Obama's Selective Service Number is 61-1125539-1. It lists date of registration as Sept. 4, 1980.




This May 5, 2010, screenshot of the Selective Service System's website shows President Obama's Selective Service record was able to be searched and located using his name, date of birth and Social Security Number (the last four digits of which have been redacted by WND).

However, when WND re-entered the same information on May 20, the database did not provide the matched record, but instead posted a message, stating, "Error. Sorry, your request cannot be processed at this time because you have exceeded the daily limit for the verification of these credentials."



This May 20, 2010, screenshot of the Selective Service System's website shows the results of the exact same search for Obama's record, on WND's first attempt that date, The system displayed an error message, suggesting too many verification requests exceeding the daily limit.

WND asked Selective Service what was causing the sudden problem in retrieving records.

Amon said it's likely because many people across the nation are now searching for Obama's records.

"If you run into problems, others have, too," he said.

Amon says a hacking attempt several years ago prompted the agency to beef up security to prevent future electronic attacks. He initially said the agency created a limit of three verification requests per day for any given record.

"If someone in Omaha, Neb., does it on a whim, then someone in Ohio does it, then that's two times."

He said when more than three requests are submitted – no matter where they're entered from – people would see the error message noting the daily limit has been exceeded.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=156573

[menace]

Fitzpatrick – Request for new Grand Jury to be convened

http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2010/05/25/fitzpatrick/


Bill Clinton rips 'birthers'

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/05/bill-impeached-clinton-attacks-birthers.html


U.S. Justice Department is in violation of court order and its own policy in Allen v. Soetoro

http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/05/24/motion-to-compel-filed-against-state-dept-and-dhs/

[Protean]

From Menace's above post---
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/05/bill-impeached-clinton-attacks-birthers.html

If Slick Willie is defending Obama's BC--then you know it is ALL LIES!



Bill Clinton rips 'birthers'



Andy Barr - Former President Bill Clinton is taking the so-called “birthers” to task for ignoring evidence that President Barack Obama was born in the United States. [ What evidence!? A freakin image of a COLB posted on a BLOG? The real evidence is below. ]

Clinton made the comments during a commencement address at Yale University on Sunday as part of a critique of American media consumption habits.

“The only place where we’re bigoted now is we only want to be around people who agree with us,” Clinton said. “In our media habits, we go to the television shows, we go to the radio talk shows we go to the blog sites [ hopefully BirtherReport.com ] that agree with us. And it can have very bizarre consequences.”

The former president pointed to the “birthers” an example of one of those “bizarre consequences.”

“Hawaii, the state where President Obama was born, has done everything they can to debunk this myth that he wasn’t born in America,” Clinton said. “They’ve done everything but blow up his birth certificate, put it in neon lights and hang it on the dome in the Capitol.” [ Yes, they even made a law to ignore their own law that says they MUST release Obama's records. ]

“But 45 percent of registered Republicans still believe that he is serving unconstitutionally,” Clinton insisted, though he did not identify the poll.

“Why?” he asked. “Because they’ve been told that by the only place they go to get information.”

Responding to rumors during the presidential campaign about Obama’s place of birth, Hawaii state officials posted his birth certificate online. [ That is a LIE, it was Obama's campaign that posted numerous IMAGES of a COLB which is NOT a birth certificate, which are also known forgeries, and which Hawaii refuses to verify. ]

The move, however, did not stop lawsuits and other queries examining Obama’s birth, prompting Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle, a Republican, to recently sign into law legislation allowing state employees to ignore requests for proof of the president’s citizenship. Source. [ IT'S NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, NOT CITIZEN, STUPID!!! ]

[Rebelitarian]

Anyone who still thinks Soetero was born in Hawaii...

Alex Jones - Phil Berg interview !!!

Obama's Birth Certificate Issue

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6laVQp3j3Y

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdkhqyRY2j4&feature=related

Obama Forgery Exposed (Dr. Polarik Official Use)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDIVEfVGLBQ

Michelle Obama speaking at the LGBT Delegate (The World as it Should Be)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxh1PvjP0Ug

Grandmother says Obama born in Kenya

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bloHSojeLAw

Kenyan Ambassador admits Obama born in Kenya

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zH4GX3Otf14


Obama in 1980 said he was born in Mombasa, Kenya

http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/12/03/obama-in-1980-said-he-was-born-in-mombasa-kenya/

[Damascus]

I hate to say it but I am starting to think that the momentum of this is coincidentally running along side of Berry's usefulness. By the time public opinion builds to the point of action Berry will already be spent like a booster rocket and ejected. This is why they are making him sprint with all the NWO agenda now so they can then put Sarah Palin in to say all is well we won now everyone go home. Let us not fall for this, as important as the issue is, remember he is just a puppet. Our goal should be the men behind the curtain.

[Shroom!]

Any truth to the stories of him being a blood relative to the UK Royal family?

[Rebelitarian]

He's Cheney's cousin 5th or 6th generation removed.

[Protean]

I hate to say it but I am starting to think that the momentum of this is coincidentally running along side of Berry's usefulness. By the time public opinion builds to the point of action Berry will already be spent like a booster rocket and ejected. This is why they are making him sprint with all the NWO agenda now so they can then put Sarah Palin in to say all is well we won now everyone go home. Let us not fall for this, as important as the issue is, remember he is just a puppet. Our goal should be the men behind the curtain.

And just how are you going to do that?  What's your strategy to go after "the men behind the curtain?"

The men behind the curtain do not show themselves--their puppets do.
Expose their most important puppet for the usurper that he is and you'll get the men behind the curtain.
 
Once the majority/general public knows they have been had, you've got a real shot at:

1. getting votes behind a third party and kicking out most of the Dems and Repubs
2. repealing un-Constitutional laws an un-Constitutional President signed
3. sentencing government officials, bankers, and others involved with this high level treason and fraud
4. exposing the mainstream media for its involvement, causing it to lose all credibility and hold on the general public

and in doing so----you'll get the men behind the curtain

Obama is the Achilles Heel of the NWO. It is their weak spot.


 

[Damascus]

I am not saying to stop! Just be aware that they are going to try to pin all the blame on him. We have to try look ahead and see the next move in the gigantic chess game. The NWO has been doing this for many years and they are very good at it. Just look what they are doing to the tea party, Now it is mostly neocon and they say it has always been so.

[Protean]

I am not saying to stop! Just be aware that they are going to try to pin all the blame on him. We have to try look ahead and see the next move in the gigantic chess game. The NWO has been doing this for many years and they are very good at it. Just look what they are doing to the tea party, Now it is mostly neocon and they say it has always been so.

They may try, but all the blame will be placed on-- all those involved, not just Barry Soetoro, who is the invention of many.
Barry's origin, his creators, and facilitators will be exposed in the process.
Please re-read my post above.

[menace]

Barney Frank calls on reporters to demand to see the birth certificate of Hawaii Rep. Charles Djou.
 
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/05/barney-frank-calls-on-reporters-to.html

[Protean]

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=159317

Poll shocker! Majority wants Obama records
Maintain president should be chased from office if he doesn't come clean

Posted: May 31, 2010

By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Editor's note: This is another in a series of monthly "WND/WENZEL POLLS" conducted exclusively for WND by the public-opinion research and media consulting company Wenzel Strategies.
President Barack Obama pauses as he listens to a question during a news conference in the East Room of the White House in Washington

At a time when Barack Obama is getting heat for stonewalling information about an alleged administration bribery scandal, a new poll shows more Americans than ever suspect the president is hiding information about his own background and want him to come clean.

Questions about Obama's eligibility to be president, exacerbated by his refusal to answer questions, release ordinary background documentation and his extraordinary legal maneuvers to keep his background hidden, have been on the radar of a number of top-level investigative reporters and news organizations since before his election.

Essentially, while the Constitution requires a president to be a "natural born citizen," none of the questions about Obama's qualifications – or lack thereof – under that requirement have yet been answered.

It's working! Sign the petition that will force Obama to prove he's eligible for office

"Simply put, this question about Obama's legitimacy as president is undermining everything he does in the minds of millions of Americas," wrote Fritz Wenzel of Wenzel Strategies in an analysis of his results.

"Our latest polling shows a majority of Americans – 55 percent – want Obama to release all records relating to his childhood and his education, including college records, Harvard Law School papers, passport records, travel records, and other similar documentation," he said.

"Asked what should be done should it be found that Obama does not meet the qualifications to be president, 59 percent said he should be removed from office, and 35 percent said all bills signed into law by Obama should be repealed," he said.

The poll said when asked about whether Obama's background documentation – the school records, birth records and others – should be released, the 55 percent who said yes included more than 82 percent of the GOP, 55 percent of independents and nearly 28 percent of Democrats.

Further, another 17.1 percent of Americans said Obama should release some of his documentation, making it nearly three in four Americans who want the president to unlock the steel door on some or all of his background information.

Despite his campaign promises of transparency while in office, there has been no shortage of disputes over secrecy in the Obama administration. He's already argued in court for more secrecy in the White House, claimed his work is "privileged" and apparently got rid of an inspector general who was applying heat to a friend.

The survey indicates Obama's orchestrated efforts to marginalize "birthers" who are raising questions about him and his background have failed totally. The fact that only 65 percent of the members of his own party will agree that he's been transparent is a "red flag," the analysis said.

"When Barack Obama was campaigning for the U.S. presidency, he promised one of the most open and transparent administrations in the history of the county. Sixteen months into his term, a majority of Americans believe he has failed. That a majority of adults nationwide – 56 percent – said he has not run an open administration is a stern rebuke because there is so much power invested in the office of the presidency," said Wenzel.

"Forget that any modern president would have trouble standing up to a comparison with George Washington and other early presidents when it comes to honesty and integrity, Obama has taken steps throughout his administration that appear secretive," he said.

"Once elected, he appointed dozens of so-called 'czars' to oversee various parts of the federal government, which are extra-constitutional in that there is no provision for congressional approval of such appointees. To further complicate things, we have seen a flood of legislation that would make landmark changes to American society, all pushed by the Obama administration before congressional lawmakers had a chance to even read the bills," Wenzel noted.

"Then, when it was clear the public was displeased with the direction in which Washington was moving under Democratic party rule, President Obama ignored the national clamor to slow down. Instead, he pushed ahead with an even more aggressive agenda, even as voters rejected his agenda wherever they had the chance – in such Democratic strongholds as New Jersey and Massachusetts," he continued.

The opinion from only two-thirds of Democrats that Obama has been "open and transparent" is a "flashing red danger signal, but it is unclear the Obama administration is paying attention to such things," Wenzel said.

The fundamental question of his eligibility originally came up during his campaign.

"This is an issue that … is easily put to rest once and for all by his release of his long-form birth certificate," Wenzel said. "His refusal to do so has fed the idea that he has something to hide. Americans aren't asking him to prove a negative here – that he didn't do something illegal – but rather are simply asking that he prove a positive: that he was born on American soil.

"When required, every American citizen produces their birth certificate for a variety of reasons, and it is no big deal. This is why Obama's refusal to produce his is so baffling – and so troubling – to so many people," he said.

Aaron Klein's exposé of Barack Obama's notorious connections with extremists and America-haters is scorching the best-seller lists. Order your copy of "The Manchurian President" today.

Asked specifically if Americans believe Obama was born in the U.S. to two U.S. citizens – one accepted definition of a "natural born citizen," as required by the U.S. Constitution for a president – only 38 percent said yes.

Fifty-two percent agreed Obama is hiding something by refusing to release his documentation.

"Asked specifically about their beliefs about the place of Obama's birth, 39 percent said they suspect he was not born in the United States. This belies the efforts of the Obama administration to paint so-called 'birthers' as a right-wing fringe group. Even among Democrats, nearly one in four – 22 percent – said they either suspect he was not born in the U.S. or that they are not sure on the question," Wenzel said.

WND columnist David Limbaugh said even the "liberal New York Times has begun to notice" that Obama "is still playing hide-and-seek with the press."

"Not having a genuine news conference since July would be remarkable for the least transparent administration, let alone one that made openness a signature campaign issue," he wrote just days ago.

Likewise, WND founder and CEO Joseph Farah has noted Obama's secrecy in connection to the developing case of Rep. Joe Sestak, D-Pa.

Sestak has reported he was offered a job in the Obama administration in exchange for dropping out of the Pennsylvania senatorial primary race against Sen. Arlen Specter.

 "If he's telling the truth, and can prove it, a very serious crime has been committed by someone in the Obama administration – one that could lead right to the president's door," he wrote.

 "Of course, this calls for an independent investigation. A probe of this kind cannot be directed by anyone within the Obama administration. It cannot be conducted by the Democratic Congress in a critical election year. It requires the appointment of a special counsel with full subpoena power. It also requires some transparency and answers from a regime that has pledged to be the most open administration in history."

[menace]

Army refuses LTC Lakin's request for witnesses and evidence from Hawaii or elsewhere on Obama's eligibility, hearing to proceed 6/11/10.

All records pertaining to Obama were denied, including Hawaii officials. Major General Paul Vallely, Colonel William Rice, Colonel Dale Block, and Dr. Alan Keyes were "anointed" as witnesses. Full ruling embedded below.

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/06/army-refuses-ltc-lakins-request-for.html

[menace]

Obama's brother from another mother was denied entry in the United Kingdom due to a "false document"... Oh, and a fingerprint match linked Brother Obama to an alleged sexual attack on a British girl. A confirmed falsified document below and some... I wonder why the Drudge Report is just now running this year-old story... hmmm

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/06/obamas-brother-from-another-mother.html


It looks like LTC Lakin’s lawyers really screwed up his upcoming Article 32 hearing, scheduled for June 11.

http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=10699

[menace]

The National Writers Syndicate, a vast network of conservative intellectuals, Birfers and ‘Baggers, has endorsed Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. for California Secretary of State in today’s Republican primary.

http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=10748


Taitz Campaign: Don’t Count The Votes!

http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=10777


Fox News Military Analyst, Major General Paul Vallely Calls for the Resignation of Obama aka Soetoro, and New Elections

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/06/fox-news-military-analyst-major-general.html
 

[Protean]

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=165981

Election official: I'd testify Obama not born in Hawaii
Clerk willing to swear in court about no hospital birth record

Posted: June 13, 2010
5:10 pm Eastern

By Joe Kovacs
© 2010 WorldNetDaily



The former Honolulu elections clerk who says President Obama was "definitely" not born in Hawaii and has no birth certificate from any hospital in the Aloha State says he's willing to testify in court to those facts.

"The things I've said, I don't mind testifying in court," Tim Adams, the senior elections clerk for the city and county of Honolulu in the 2008 campaign, told WND in an exclusive interview.

"I was working there, and this is what it was. I'm not a lawyer, just a civil servant. I know what I know. I know what I was told by the hospitals and by my supervisors."

The hottest book in America is the one that exposes the real Obama and all his men (and women)! Get your autographed copy only from WND!

Adams, a Hillary Clinton supporter who now teaches English at Western Kentucky University while he works on his master's degree, burst onto the scene last week in a WND story in which he asserted Obama was not born in Hawaii as the White House claims and that a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Obama does not even exist there.

"There is no birth certificate," he said. "It's like an open secret. There isn't one. Everyone in the government there knows this."



"I had direct access to the Social Security  database, the national crime computer, state driver's license information, international passport information, basically just about anything you can imagine to get someone's identity," Adams explained. "I could look up what bank your home mortgage was in. I was informed by my boss that we did not have a birth record [for Obama]."

At the time, there were conflicting reports that Obama had been born at the Queen's Medical Center in Honolulu, as well as the Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women and Children across town. So Adams says his office checked with both facilities.



Tim Adams, the former senior elections clerk for Honolulu, says President Obama was "definitely" not born in Hawaii,and a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Obama does not exist in the state.

"They told us, 'We don't have a birth certificate for him,'" he said. "They told my supervisor, either by phone or by e-mail, neither one has a document that a doctor signed off on saying they were present at this man's birth."

To date, no Hawaiian hospital has provided documented confirmation Obama was born at its facility.

Adams, 45, stressed, "In my professional opinion, he definitely was not born in Hawaii. I can say without a shadow of a doubt that he was not born in Hawaii because there is no legal record of him being born there. If someone called and asked about it, I could not tell them that person was born in the state."

WND confirmed with Hawaiian officials that Adams was indeed working in their election offices during the last presidential election.

"His title was senior elections clerk in 2008," said Glen Takahashi, elections administrator for the city and county of Honolulu.

Adams oversaw a group of 50 to 60 employees and was responsible for verifying the identity of voters, especially absentee voters.

He now expects his former co-workers still working in the elections office to say little, if anything, about the non-existent birth certificate because they fear for their jobs.

"If you're working in the civil service and you say this, you're done," Adams said. "Don't expect to have a good career, especially since the governor is on the other side. Embarassing them is not good for your career."



Gov. Linda Lingle, R-Hawaii

Last month, as WND reported, Hawaii's Republican Gov. Linda Lingle reignited Obama's origin on a New York radio show.

"It's been an odd situation," Lingle said. "This issue kept coming up so much in the campaign, and again I think it's one of those issues that is simply a distraction from the more critical issues that are facing the country.

"So I had my health director, who is a physician by background, go personally view the birth certificate in the birth records of the Department of Health, and we issued a news release at that time saying that the president was, in fact, born at Kapi'olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii. And that's just a fact and yet people continue to call up and e-mail and want to make it an issue and I think it's again a horrible distraction for the country by those people who continue this."

Although the governor now claims she issued a news release stating Kapi'olani is Obama's birthplace, the actual release said no such thing, making no reference to Kapi'olani nor any other specific location of Obama's birth.

WND asked Adams about the governor's assertions about viewing a hospital-generated birth certificate from Hawaii.

"Then where is it? And why all the smoke and mirrors?" he responded. "They could end the controversy by producing the document, and they never have. It doesn't exist."

"Why would they say they've seen it and not produce it? I don't know," he added. "If they said they've seen the document, then why not produce the document? There's no need to put themselves out like that. I can't even begin to think why they did that except for some kind of political expediency. I'm too far down the totem pole [to know]."

While Adams, who noted he spent nearly 10 years in the islands and has a bachelor's degree from the University of Hawaii, says he's certain Obama was not born there, he also does think the president is indeed a U.S. citizen, since his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham was born an American.

He says he merely would like to see the truth come out and have the controversy over natural-born citizenship and presidential eligibility resolved once and for all.

"It's come to the point where it's a monster, and it's time to kill it," Adams said. "Solve the problem so that everyone can get back to cooperating to improve the country. People have lost sight that we're trying to make the country a better place."

WND's original report about Adams' claims has already been made into a YouTube video, getting thousands of hits:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wo3Aj2eqmS8

    

[menace]

TRSoL Exclusive: HI Elections Clerk: “I believe Obama is eligible to hold office” (Update 3)

http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2010/06/11/trsol-exclusive-hi-elections-clerk-i-believe-obama-is-eligible-to-hold-office/


Eligibility Update: HI Elections Clerk Would Answer Questions on Record; LTC Lakin Court Martial Reactions

http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2010/06/13/eligibility-update-hi-elections-clerk-would-answer-questions-on-record-ltc-lakin-court-martial-reactions/



Obama admits what we’ve known all along

http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/06/13/obama-admits-what-weve-known-all-along/