From: Bruce Chesley
OK, FOLKS !!!!!
Finish chewing, drinking and swallowing before proceding.
Are you all set ? You don't want to projectile any oral matter.
Now, take some relaxing breaths.
Here we go.
Read the below item, especially what is at the "theory" link.
Accotding to this "theory", obama can't prove where he was born,
NOR whom were his parents. According to Attorney Orly Taitz,
two private incestigators have uncovered that obama has used
39 SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS throughout his life.
You may now dial 911 for that chest pain;-)))))
Bruce Chesley
Truth is a terrible cross to bear.
Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered. - Thomas Paine
The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws - Tacitus
Treason for $$$$. ALL "pro 2A" orgs.
Source: http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaLatest.htm
Obama’s Goose Is Double-Cooked
The Post and Email has an interesting theory, and in an editorial, says Obama’s goose is now double-cooked.
John Charlton says that synthesizing what is know indicates that Obama cannot prove his birth in any way, shape or form.
Obama cannot prove when or where he was born, nor who his parents were. This is the legal conclusion of the evidence he has released in his online COLB and Terrik’s investigation into terminology regarding "filed" and "received," as well as her own, Donofrio’s, Justin Rigg’s and KingsKid’s correspondence with the Director’s office at the Hawaiian Department of Health.
What I just said may not seem new, but to explain better here is my speculative reconstruction of what happened, based on my tweaked version of what Ramjet (www.thebirthers.org) suggested in a comment at Terrik’s blog, where I have posted this theory, in my own comment. Here I flesh it out.
----------------
Editorial: Oct. 5, 2009 — Now Obama’s Goose is double-cooked
October 4, 2009 by John Charlton
A SYNTHESIS OF WHAT IS KNOWN INDICATES THAT OBAMA CANNOT PROVE HIS BIRTH IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM
by John Charlton
.
[Note: The Post & Email has just published its exclusive pre-trial interview with Captain Pamela Barnett, lead plaintiff in the case to be heard today in California]
.
Obama cannot prove when or where he was born, nor who his parents were. This is the legal conclusion of the evidence he has released in his online COLB and Terrik’s investigation into terminology regarding “filed” and “received”, as well as her own, Donofrio’s, Justin Rigg’s and KingsKid’s correspondence with the Director’s office at the Hawaiian Department of Health.
What I just said may not seem new: but to explain better here is my speculative reconstruction of what happened, based on my tweaked version of what Ramjet (www.thebirthers.org) suggested in a comment at Terrik’s blog, where I have posted this theory, in my own comment. Here I flesh it out.
Note that this is speculation, not fact: as Leo Donofrio counsels, let’s not mix up the two, lest what we want to find keeps us from finding the truth.
WHAT SEEMS TO HAVE HAPPENED
Stanely Ann Dunham at a Friday night party on Nov. 4, 1960, meets Barrack Hussein Obama, Sr., and Barry Jr. is subsequently conceived.
Stanley Ann enrolls in the Russian Language course to give her a more reasonable motive for meeting Barrack Hussein Obama. She subsequently admits to her mother that he is the father, and Madelyn Dunham insists on a civil marriage to protect her daughter’s honor.
But as the months pass Madelyn cannot accept what she perceives as the shame that will occur when her grandchild is born, showing evident signs of an interracial marriage.
Stanley Ann also discovers that Barrack Hussein Obama has a first wife, and that her marriage to him in Hawaii is bigamous and invalid.
So mother and daughter plan to have the birth at home; and Stanley Ann stops seeing Obama Sr..
Barry is born Aug. 4, 1961.
A few days later Madelyn submits an at home birth form, with her own signature. Stanley Ann does not sign, because she refuses to swear to what her mother put on the form. Obama Sr. does not sign it either, because Madelyn won’t let him near the daughter, or have anything to do with the birth; let alone appear at an office with him.
Why? Because Marilyn is to submit an at-home birth form in which parents and child are declared to be WHITE.
This, in her mind, will save her and her daughter from the shame of giving birth to a mixed race child.
Upon receipt of the form, the Department of Health Registrar of Vital Records sends out a request for further corroborating information: signatures of father and mother, for example. But Madelyn has already had Stanley Ann sent to Washington State to study at college, so that she can get a degree and have the means to support the child. Neverthelss the birth annoucement is sent to the 2 Hawaiian newspapers, listing Aug. 4th, 1961, to Mr. & Mrs. Barack Hussein Obama. “Barack” and not “Barrack”, because Marilyn wouldn’t even pick up the phone to ask the father how to spell the name.
Neither Madelyn nor Stanley Ann ever take action further on this filing. It is classified as “filed” not “received” nor “accepted”.
Ramjet says: “She thus filed the birth registration after the (Nordyke) twins registration even though Obama was born before the twins. That would account for the out-of-order file numbers for Obama and the twins at first glance based simply on the dates of birth reported.”
Years later Barry Jr. finds this original filing document in a closet., along with his vaccination records and a newspaper article — this much he admits in Dreams of My Father. He has already been trained to hate the white race by Frank Marshal Davis (ibid., “I came to hate the white blood in my veins” ), so when he sees grandma’s filing he goes beserk, because it says that he is WHITE.
So sometime thereafter, he files an alteration request (Amendment is for adoptions only), and gets the AFRICAN race classification put on it, instead of the “white;” this is some time after “negro” is no longer used by the State of Hawaii to classify the predominate race of sub-saharan Africa.
But this filing is also not entirely accepted, because his father and mother are already dead.
So before granny conveniently dies, Obama Jr. tries to get her to give him an affidavit so that he can get his birth record accepted. He does get something, but HI still won’t “accept” it, because she is a third party.
So he is really in a fix, since he has no legal evidence of his birth, AND IN FACT CANNOT PROVE WHEN OR WHERE HE WAS BORN, LET ALONE HIS PARENTS IDENTITY.
This is why when he files his Selective Service Registration he does not show his BC, because he does not have one.
What he does do, is have his campaign issue a COLB to show the information claimed by Madelyn Dunham in her affidavit, that is why this online COLB image says date “filed”, not date “accepted”.
His lawyers give him this advice, since they believe that so long as there are no contrary affidavits outstanding, that he can legally claim a HI birth, with Dunham and Obama Sr. as parents.
This is why Kenya will not admit to having documents that prove Obama Sr. is his father; because there are none in existence anywhere.
And this is why his lawyers fight discovery in every jurisdiction where a suit is filed; because HI law explicitly states that the vital record will be authenticated by the court to which it is submitted as evidence; and the original unnotarized statement of Madelyn Dunham, without signatures of mother or father, is worthless hearsay evidence; and perjurious if notarized, since it contains false testimony. This is also why Obama supporters are so riled at Kenyan BC’s popping up everwhere: because these, even when unauthenticated, have just as much legal weight as Obama’s actual documentation.
What his lawyers did not count on is the NBC issue; because in his attempt to assert the truth of what his grandmom claimed, he has unwittingly asserted that he is not a natural born citizen, claiming, as he has done, a british subject as his father.
Hawaii officials are asked to be reticent on this issue of the original Madelyn Dunham filing, so that pesky citizens won’t connect the dots. Their reticence is secured through threats of prosecution and civil damages for damaging the reputation of their client. HI says there is a BC, by which they mean this at-birth-home filing which is not accepted; it also says there are vital records, because it includes Obama Jr.’s filing for an alteration, for his race, which also is not accepted because it lacks signatures of witnesses to the birth. In Oct. 2008, Fukino spoke of “a” birth certificate; in July 2009 she speaks of “vital records”, now in the plural, since Obama has subsequently filed a request to alter the original.
Now Obama’s goose is double cooked, because of those same pesky citizens who have outed the facts and connected the dots.
And this pesky citizen is sketching in the image produced by their work.
Obama is proven a liar regarding his birth story, and he has self-admitted the facts which disprove that he is eligible for holding the office of U.S. President.
I am also of the opinion that most of the virulent Obots on the net are paid employees of the Obama campaign or affiliate union/activist organizations, with specific instructions during the last 14 months to run cover for this glaring legal problem, and attack anyone who in any point of the story arrives near to the truth of what happened. By this deflective harrassment, the truth has been concealed these 14 months.
Posted in Law Cases, People in the News | Tagged Barack Hussein Obama, Barrack Hussein Obama Snr., Frank Marshall Davis, Madelyn Dunham, Obama, Obama's COLB, Obama's History, Obama's Vital Records, Racism in Obama's Family, Stanley Ann Dunham | 17 Comments
17 Responses
1.
on October 7, 2009 at 10:23 AM Slamdunk
The birth certficate may or may not be resolved, but Obama’s achilles heal is the issue. Even if he was born in Hawaii, that alone does not qualify him.
The following document the meaning of natural born citizen:
1. The U.S. Naturalization Act of 1790 – “And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.” (Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen, rather British subject). The Act was repealed in 1795, but not because of any dispute over the meaning of “natural born citizen.”
2. John Bingham, framer of the 14th amendment: “Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”
3. Emerich de Vattel’s “Law of Nations,” Book 1, Chap. 19, Sect. 212 – “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”
4. In 1814 the U.S. Supreme Court in THE VENUS relied upon and cited Vattel’s “Law of Nations” as the authority in determining the citizenship of a “domicil”. See U.S. Supreme Court, THE VENUS, 12 U.S. 253 and The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
5. “U. S. v. Rhodes (1866) – “All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural- born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. ”
6. Minor v. Happersett (88 U.S. 162 (1874)- The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.
7. Perkins v. Elg 307 U.S. 325 (1939) – “The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that Marie Elizabeth Elg, who was born in the United States of Swedish parents naturalized in the United States, had not lost her birthright U.S. citizenship because of her removal during minority to Sweden and was entitled to all the rights and privileges of that U.S. citizenship. In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the decree that declared Elg “to be a natural born citizen of the United States.”
8. John Jay letter to George Washington, July 25, 1787 – “Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government ; and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.”
9. Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964): “We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the
native-born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the ‘natural born’ citizen is eligible to be President.
10. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898): In this case, the majority of the Court held that a child born in U.S. territory to parents who were subjects of the emperor of China and who were not eligible for U.S. citizenship, but who had “a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China” was a U.S. Citizen. As long as the parents are natural born, naturalized, or have permanent residence in the U.S., their children are natural born citizens.
http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009/10/04/editorial-oct-5-2009-%E2%80%94-now-obamas-goose-is-double-cooked/
|
|