Skip to comments.Who is behind quashing the birth certificate issue?
Posted on 08/31/2009 12:41:17 AM PDT by moonpie57
In an explosive interview by Dr. Laurie Roth on her syndicated West Coast radio show on August 7th with Douglas Hagmann a respected journalist, director of the Northeast Intelligence Network, and longtime private investigator, and Judi McLeod, a prolific journalist and the managing editor of Canada Free Press the reason for the media blackout about the birth-certificate issue was nothing less than organized Mafia-like dire threats to members of the media issued not only from the heads of major TV and radio stations but also from Federal Communication Commission officials!
According to Hagmann and McLeod, who conducted a nine-month investigation and documented their findings scrupulously, after Obama was elected but before he was inaugurated:
A major TV talk-show host reported that he was ordered not to raise the birth certificate issue or risk losing his job.
FCC officials threatened to yank broadcasting licenses, break up conglomerates, and make the enactment of the Fairness Doctrine "look mild" in comparison to other consequences.
In at least one corporate TV headquarters, memos were circulated to all on-air employees not to mention the birth certificate issue, as well as other specific subjects like Obama's Illinois lawyer's license, his college records, etc., under both implied and explicit threats.
(Excerpt) Read more at renewamerica.com ...
“Sorry but I cannot believe any more of these birther stories until at least one of them actually make a difference.”
I take it you didn’t read the article or listen to the mp3s. This isn’t a “birther” story. Rather it is a story about coercion of the media by the Federal Government (FCC) and the White House. Threats have evidently been made to the anchors of FOX, NBC et al as well as the big name radio hosts. Coulter was also mentioned. Read, listen, learn.
What Alinsky sycophant came up with the term “birther” anyway?
How about the Peoples' Republic of China? (And for military and economic advantage.)
I think the questions that mckenzie7 ask should be answered. Yes, they should have been answered before the election.
Bummer is not being believed. He sees his future and it is Jimmy Carter.
If laughing at Bummer makes me a birther, count me in.
No active U.S. statute (law) defines or modifies what a natural-born citizen is. The definition stated in at least ten supreme court cases, and probably more, is “...born in the country of parents who are its citizens.” (Chief Justice John Marshall in The Venus, 12 U.S. 253). This definition can only be changed by an amendment. There has been no such amendment, though at least 24 attempts have been made to start the process - which never got out of the congress.
Barack Obama, by his own admission, was born of a British father. He is simply not a natural born citizen. There is not need for school records or birth certificates, though it angers me that we elected someone who has hidden all his legal papers. He may or may not be a citizen. By British law, it seems quite clear that Barack is a British subject, and probably a citizen. But we don't care. Our constitution, for very good reasons, disallows anyone with competing allegiances, from becoming president. A dual citizen, as Barack describes himself, is inelligible to be president and commander in chief, with emphasis by John Jay and Joseph Story on the latter, of the world's most powerful army.
Why he was proffered as a presidential candidate is a puzzle? He is being protected by possibly traitorous Republicans such as Oren Hatch, who knows the constitution, and even Republicans I've respected such as James Imhofe, who also mis-states the constitution, and by all Democrats. Every Senator signed a worthless and deceptive Senate Resolution in 2008 asserting that John McCain was a natural-born citizen because he was born of citizen parents (Senate Res. 511). It wasn't true, but shows that are being represented by a collection of people not one of whom cares enough about our government to tell the truth. For McCain, they refer to the citizen parents clause; for Obama they explain that "citizen of the U.S." is natural-born. When pay-to-play is in force truth is a casualty. Perhaps they are afraid, but their fear is costing our freedom.
The Honduran legislature and supreme court had the integrity to remove a president who chose to ignore his constitution. He wanted to run for another term in office, and was about to ignore his constitution, using Chavez thugs to scare voters and probably stuff ballots. Obama has, not surprisingly, taken a stand against a representative republic, their legislature, and their constitution, and, with Hugo Chavez, Daniel Ortega and Fidel Castro, is helping to overthrow the representative democracy in Honduras, as he is ignoring the U.S. Constitution and demolishing separation of our branches of government. I think it quite possible that Obama is so confident in the success of his second American revolution that he is not afraid of being held to our legal standard. He intentionally ignored our Constitution - thumbed his nose at it by declaring his dual citizenship status before being sworn in. He might claim that Chief Justice John Roberts, fully knowing of Obama's status, gave the court's approval by swearing him in on Jan 20th.
I could refer you to John Jay requiring stronger requirements for president than “Citizen of the U.S.”; requesting that Washington change it to “natural-born citizen.” I could suggest you read Joseph Story's article in Article II Section 1. I would recommend visiting Mario Apuzzo’s site, since his pending law suits provide a clear exposition of the legal issues at http://puzo1.blogspot.com . Read the analysis by Leo Donofrio, who “discovered” that Chester Arthur had succesfully hidden the fact that his father too was a British citizen when Arthur was born - Arthur had all of his personal document burned just before his death. Read John Bingham, co-author of the 14th Amendment, speaking in 1866 to a joint session of congress where he is unequivocal obout the definition of natural-born citizen. Finally, read Alexander Hamilton explaining the origins of the body of laws from which natural-born citizen is drawn in his paper on Leibnizian Natural Law. Hamilton exlains the inherent weakness in British Law, lacking a constitution, and explaining the importance of Vattel's Law Of Nations, based upon Leibnizian Natural Law, to the founders as they wrote our Constitution.
We need to stop being distracted by the soap opera of Obama’s birthplace and childhood and help the public understand that he, with his allegiance to a Muslim Marxist father, actively involved with Kenyan politics, is just the sort of person our founders required natural-born citizenship to keep from occupying our highest office. It appears that all of our institutions lack the courage to raise this blatant betrayal of our constitution. People must drive this. Otherwise the battles around cap-and-trade and healthcare and defense will be moot. As unbelievable as it seems to many, Obama is supporting Zelaya’s insistence on his being allowed to “run” for president of Honduras as many times as he likes, just like Hugo Chavez, just like Fidel Castro. Chavez will supply the Acorn clones. He will “win” just as Ahmadinejad, and Fidel (the name of Obama’s cousin Odinga’s son) and Chavez have won. And Obama too will have such a grip on our institutions, with his Czars, corrupt judges, corrupt justice department, and corrupt legislature, that he too may be president for life.
Being a pathological narcissist, Obama tries to charm most people. When rebuffed by the leaders of Russia and most of the middle east, he has shifted to subservient ingratiation. When he has chosen to take offense at Britain, Israel, Poland, the Czech Republic, and most of America, he has shifted to attempting intimidation. These two (or three?) behaviors — common to all bullies — are the only communication modes he knows. [None help him govern.]
Most of our media moguls have not backed Obama down, so the question is, are they his pets or his prisoners, whipped by his words into unquestioning obedience? In either case, they’ve abdicated their responsibility to inform the public, becoming at best drones and at worst parasites that the public will squash if Obama ever falls out of power.
If Obama’s thugs can quash dissent enough, skew the census and the 2010 elections enough, and keep Obama and liberals in power beyond 2010 — not 2012, but 10 — the One may be able to destroy this nation. If enough of the worst of his supporters get thrown out in 2010, he will very probably be ripe for impeachment.
Our problems? What can do about thugs at town halls and, presumably, any other public gatherings? How can we keep ACORN/SEIU from double or triple counting inner city blacks during the census? And how can we contain the fraud that will — not may, will — be attempted in November, 2010?
I wrack my old brain for answers... unsuccessfully. I’ll try any sensible tasks asked of me, but you who are younger will, or won’t, do the heavy lifting. Semper Fi. *Always.*
Funded by the same people who got him elected. If they spent $1B to elect him, then spending 1.3M to hide any sordid past (or disqualification) is cheap. The theory that fits the facts the best is that he was born in Seattle. That would make the most sense considering the statements of the Hawaiian officials.
The Media has been controlled by the Left for years and Fox is slowly being bought out by the Saudis. Many lefties in the Congress are pushing to take over the Internet and shut down Talk Radio.... Anything wrong with this picture? By chance do you see a problem with all of this ????
That picture has been there for over a year despite the “pressure to take it down”.
This explains why the usual stalwarts (Coulter, Limbaugh) seem so low-key on the issue. I suppose this sort of power might even be able to put out a contract on Limbaugh. I have noticed that even calling and raising doubts on the subject on a conservative radio show brands one a “birther,” even if one is only raising questions. Indeed, aren’t the questions about his various hidden records a legitimate example of what Beck calls “reasonable questions?”
People willing to accept a complete enigma for a president
One "Obama supporter" posting that graphic last summer is pretty meaningless. I could care less what the MSM thinks about conservatives. If they didn't have birthers to pick on, they would invent something similar.