Posted on 03/07/2012 8:10:30 AM PST by Danae
Rebecca Cook’s reply to your article is very good....here is a excerpt:
“” I admit I gasped when his posse told of the National Archives not being able to explain how only the week of Obama’s birth Immigration and Naturalization Service cards that airline passengers had to fill out are missing out of the ten years they requested. The media showed their true colors when asking questions after the damning evidence of fraud was presented by the cold case posse. Over and over they asked, “are you calling the president a liar?”. They were having a meltdown. “”
Brewer already stabbed us in the back.....it won’t happen in AZ.
PING
Herein lies the problem. The first thing Obama did when he became TOTUS, is remove or scrub his entire life from the public records (see post 21)all the way back to....(no including) the fetus. Where are his college applications?...transcripts? ANYTHING? Did he apply as a foreign student? I think Obama played “foreign student” when it suited his purposes, and “American citizen” when THAT suited his purpose. This guys whole life is a FRAUD.
No, they found that this document WAS inconsistent with other documents that have been scanned, including those using OCR and optimization. They showed a video of how a real paper document acts when scanned, optimized, and/or used with OCR software.
And they found that the draft registration has a date stamp that lacks the first 2 digits that were used by that post office at that time.
They also have a witness who heard Bill Ayers’ mother introduce Barack Obama as a foreign student around 1980 - a foreign student that they were helping to get an education.
They also have evidence that the newspaper birth announcements included names for children who were 3 years old (not newborns as presented in the paper) and children who were foreign-born. The people who claimed that those announcements HAD to come from the HDOH were dead wrong. Either they didn’t know what they were talking about or they were spreading disinformation. Since that is the whole basis for both O’Reilly and Beck arguing that Obama was born in HI, they need to adjust their excuses now.
Watch the videos, they could not reproduce the effects in a control document, and they tried.
Apparently one of the posse’s witnesses agrees with you, since he says that around 1980 he heard Bill Ayers’ mother introduce Obama as a foreign student they were helping to get an education.
That says 2 things: he was a foreign student, and his undergraduate education was orchestrated by the Ayers family. What we’ve all been suspecting is now being voiced by a witness from around 1980. Seems like this jives with what Race Bannon has reported as well.
Race, was that in the summer of 1980 that Obama told you he was born in Mombassa, grew up in Indonesia, and was going to be President someday? Looks like the posse found somebody in Chicago who is willing to sign an affidavit that reinforces the basic idea of your claims. With the added piece of information that it was specifically Bill Ayers’ parents who were orchestrating his education... And that suggests that the other guy, who said that Obama becoming POTUS was the communists’ plan far in advance, fits right in with the other evidence we’ve got.
Obama has control of the dirt pile... If anyone gets close to the answer he’ll pile on the dirt until they give up, give the outcome he wants or uhhh.. “go away”...
Barack Obama’s Visit to the Other Ayers House
KING HARVEST ^ | SEPTEMBER 25, 2009 | by STEPHEN DIAMOND
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2373561/posts
Mr. Obama explained that he had taken the train out from Chicago to visit the Ayers’ in order to thank them for their help with his “education.” At this time, Mr. Obama had recently graduated from Columbia and would soon enter Harvard Law School. Hulton and Obama “spoke for a few minutes, first chatting about the Ayers family,” Hulton said. Hulton said he did not learn whether the help Obama received from the Ayers’ was financial or in some other form.
snip
Mr. Hulton recalls that he probably asked what Mr. Obama was studying in school and at one point Mr. Obama said that he intended to become President of the United States. Mr. Hulton said he was “taken aback” by the statement but recalls that he did not think Mr. Obama was “arrogant, but just self assured and a person with a lot of self confidence.” “It was not said with hubris,” Hulton recalled, “but with an air of self-assuredness.”
Soviet Acknowledged Obama One of Them
National Writers Syndicate ^ | 10/31/2008 | Tom Fife
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2122714/posts
“Yes, it is true. This is not some idle talk. He is already born and he is educated and being groomed to be president right now. You will be impressed to know that he has gone to the best schools of Presidents. He is what you call “Ivy League”. You don’t believe me, but he is real and I even know his name. His name is Barack. His mother is white and American and his father is black from Africa. That’s right, a chocolate baby! And he’s going to be your President.”
There are a great many who fear what would happen if Obama were forced to resign. The threats about race riots being the first and worst. I however, do not cave in to blackmail.
B U M P
Riots and martial law; suspension of the Constitution would be the wet dream of the Ayres cabal imo.
He found that the documents, both the selective service and lfcolb, failed every test for authenticity,and their certifying seals were improper. The Sheriff stated these documents were probable cause of a felony.
The title is not misleading.
In the words, or um, word, of Andrew Breitbart, “So?”
I don’t understand why people keep posting this stuff.
It’s over. We lost. Get over it.
Talking about Obama’s citizenship at this point is like arguing about whether or not Reggie Jackson stole the World Series from the Dodgers by cheating in that World Series back in the 1970’s.
yes, but I dont have a witness
August 1980
Nonsense. If he is a fraud and there’s a lot to suggest he is, we need to know, and the sooner the better. This is not a ball game. This is the future of our country, and President Obama is going to destroy our nation if we let him. He’s working on it day by day.
Well heck, why should I be surprised that this nation is in the state it is with attitudes like that.
Hell, we ought to let ANYBODY run for POTUS here. WTF does it matter? RIGHT?
It does matter.
Because if the sob’s in the government refuse to follow the CONSTITUTION we are all screwed and we may as well line ourselves up for the re-education camps, disavow our religions, and hand over our guns now. ‘Cause it don’t matter right?
Bull$**t.
Either the constitution matters or it doesn’t. Now, which is it?
It would be folly not to respect the capabilities of legal researchers who understood the subtle difference in in the US Code as it applies to Hawaii. It would be no surprise to find they were students of a Harvard Con Law professor we have come to know, but the law schools are full of progressive law professors to whom the Constitution is an obstacle - just watch Soros-sponsored law.gov symposia at major law schools on Youtube. Good defense attorneys are expert at research to find a technicality, a loophole in the law to circumvent original intent and justify their employment. For academia, acceptance into the inner circle of Marxists who know we aren't capable of knowing what is good for us, is probably job security.
There are some guideposts when reading about legal obfuscation to protect Obama. I never forget that Barack has never, himself, claimed natural born citizenship. He claimed 14th Amendment Citizenship, “Native-born citizen of the U.S.” which is sufficiently confusing to quiet the majority, who, including myself three years ago, don't know the difference. That is probably why so many Obama supporters are now pitching jus soli, or 'native-born' citizenship as equivalent to 'natural-born.' Obama supporters, and many Republicans including all who support Rubio's nomination for VP, conflate the two definitions, even after every senator signed SR.511 in Apr. 2008, affirming the requirement for two citizen parents. They either don't know, or have chosen what they feel is the more powerful side to ally with.
The significance of “Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” seemed irrelevant at first, in the context of Minor, since it applies to birthright citizens, not natural born citizens. For some, Barack Sr. was under US jurisdiction while he was here. Others argue that 'jurisdiction' means 'not owing allegiance to any other authority' - complete jurisdiction' - Senator Trumbell, who supported John Bingham's bill, which became the 14th Amendment, through the Senate. Trumbell's interpretation means baby Barry did not necessarily qualify for birthright citizenship, was not born a citizen, but since Hawaii didn't require jurisdiction, he became a citizen at birth, though not a natural born citizen. That is my attempt to interpret Danae's concise recital of US Code, 8 (1405).
Wong Kim Ark's parents were Chinese subjects, but Justice Gray's court made him a citizen anyway, perhaps because of a special treaty we had with China that isn't discussed in the decision, a decision which Leo Donofrio has made an excellent case for being ill-formed, and politically motivated. We accept anchor babies as citizens, jus soli babies born to illegal aliens. We know nothing of their allegiances. I know I'm still missing something important about 8 USC (1405). But US Code naturalizes citizens, so the baby would be naturalized at birth, but never natural born? I will ponder it, and perhaps Danae will clarify (assuming I'm not the only one in her class who doesn't understand the significance).
We can be pretty sure that the the parents of Sudanese Jihadi's don't have allegiance to the U.S., though if they are picked up by Sheriff Arpaio's soldiers, our new ICE rules will guarantee them Halal food, prayer rugs, Korans, transgender drug treatment if they claim to be changing sex, athletic facilities and their own Bluetooth headphones so that they can listen to entertainment from the Muslim Brotherhood Network or Al Jazeera.
If Obots could convince people that native born and natural born citizens were synonymous, then citizens born to one or more aliens could be claimed natural born. The Minor definition is logically inconsistent with that notion, but if the purpose is to defer judgment until the left destroys what remains of an independent judiciary, perhaps delay is the objective?
Danae, for those who have followed the Justia saga, revealed something else I didn't know, and which is very interesting. The connection of Justia CEO Tim Stanley to Soro’s Center for American Progress was already clear. If they remain on Youtube, you can find a dozen videos in CAP conference rooms with Tim Stanley as a panel member or principal lecturer. The new fact is that Carl Malamud, who was almost appointed Director of the US Printing Office, and was/is CIO of Center For American Progress, used his access to government archives to populate for-profit Justia.com’s constitutional archives. That sounds like a felony, becuase, while I don't know Justia's profitability, from the number of employees, 50 to 100 million seems reasonable. Whether it was Stanley or Malamud who edited the documents in 2008, documents which previously were displayed correctly on Justia.com, they knowingly falsified Supreme Court cases, and benefited financially from those fraudulent documents. Their purpose was clearly to derail efforts to use the Internet to learn about the previously obscure laws covering natural born citizenship, but in the process, defrauded users of the site who were told the two dozen supreme court decisions were accurate digitized reproductions. Perhaps it was just a dirty little secret among law school professors - "Don't cite Justia's cases which might cite Minor, because they are protecting Obama."
Danae also presents a different analysis of the Minor construction, which probably means she is correct, and which should be carefully read. That Mrs Minor could not be made a citizen by the 14th because she was natural born is an assertion I will have to ponder, because being a natural born citizen, the US certainly had jurisdiction over her parents, and thus over Virginia. I did not realize that the 14th bestowed suffrage on former slaves, and presume voting remained a state's rights issue, meaning post 14th former slave women would not have acquired suffrage?
I don't recall where I got my interpretation - probably from Donofrio or Apuzzo: Before the 14th, Mrs Minor's was the only Constitutionally defined class of citizen, and she didn't have voting rights then. The 14th didn't address suffrage. The Minor court had no problem with the assertion that being a natural born citizen made Mrs Minor a citizen. She didn't need 14th Amendment certification, but the court did need to affirm the definition in order to use it in a case, making it precedent, since they cited no other authority than natural law - "It was never doubted."
Danae observes that Equal Protection applied to male citizens would include suffrage. Why should gender be excluded? The 14th didn't address gender explicitly, which is why there was a 19th Amendment, but women would seem to have been included in "All persons born or Naturalized in the United States?" Still, we don't really care whether Obama was or was not a native-born citizen if we believe Chief Justice Waite and his court meant what they told us about natural born citizens. Of course, if Barry was not born a citizen at all, a claim made by Arizona Professor Gabriel Chin about John McCain, then he cannot be natural born either - the inverse relationship used by Justice Waite to assert that because Mrs Minor was a Natural Born Citizen, she was a citizen. That may be the reason Hawaii's loophole was so important. Barry's father was never under "complete jurisdiction", and Hawaii never asked because of US 8 (1405).
Our nation wouldn't know about Chester Arthur's usurpation but for Leo Donofrio. Politics keep his amazing discovery from being recognized by legal academia, while courts are fully aware and have already used it in decisions such as Indiana Supreme Court's abysmal Ankeny decision. It is no longer surprising that pundits and businesses like Hillsdale College censor their exposition of our Constitution, while their self-proclaimed expertise pays their bills and lots of books filled with the wisdom of our framers, unless that wisdom might be a threat to the current regime.
Until our books are burned, as has happened in many totalitarian dictatorships, the truth can be found on paper. Sadly, while digital documents are so easily corrupted and removed as Soros and Justia demonstrated, paper archives remain. There is an analog with our voting technology. Electronic voting is entirely unverifiable, which is why Germany has returned to paper ballots. Neither politcal party wants paper ballots, which sadly affirms their complicity, and may also mean that our votes may not insure the removal of the man who wants to destroy our form of government. Only programmers and clients know how votes are counted, because the process and the machines are opaque, and that opacity has been protected by the court. The thought police cannot yet prevail, but you'll know when they really burn books.
Thank you Danae. There is some irony that you got published by Pravda. It is clear that the Obama regime finds the 1st Amendment an inconvenient obstacle, just as Obama told us he found the the Constitution an obstacle to the changes he thought were needed in the U.S.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.