Barack Obama Was A Foreign Student – American Media Threatened Into Silence

On March 7th, 2012, Pravda called out the U.S. press for its deliberate neglect of the largest scandal in modern American history. Maricopa County, Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio released credible forensic evidence that Barack Obama, presumed President of the United States, presented to the world a forged Birth Certificate on April 27th, 2011.

Since then, the scandal has only expanded. Former United States Postal Service worker Allen Hulton has recently come forward with compelling testimony given under Oath, which leads to only one conclusion: Barack Obama attended College in the United States as a Foreign Student.

In the summer of 2008 the presidential primary season was winding down, and America could not help but note the fervor a significant number of media personalities expressed while supporting the candidacy Barack Obama. Indeed, it was collectively decided within the liberal media, that Obama’s associations with racist pastors and violent domestic terrorists was to be suppressed.

The exposure of the “Journolist” email scandal in 2010 made this glaringly clear: Stories like Obama’s ties to Reverend Jeremiah Wright Jr. of the Trinity United Church, and more relevant, to Bill Ayers and his radical past in the Weather Underground Organization were to remain largely un-reported and uninvestigated. Any realistic investigation into Barack Obama’s background was to be minimized, inquiries eventually mocked, and investigators labeled racists.
These tactics have isolated honest media who could and should have reported on these and other important stories yet have inexplicably remained silent. Now we know why. More on this in a moment.

The Postman
Retired United States Postal Worker Allen Hulton recently signed a sworn affidavit for the Maricopa County, Arizona Cold Case Posse convened by Sheriff Joe Arpaio, attesting under oath, to conversations with Mary Ayers, the mother of Bill Ayers. He made his testimony public in a three hour long taped interviewed on March 19th, 2012. Mr. Hutton, by signing an affidavit has subjected himself to laws regarding perjury, not something to be taken lightly as telling the truth is now for him a requirement of law.

His testimony states Mary and Tom Ayers (Parents of Bill ”I don’t regret setting bombs” Ayers) were sponsoring Barack Obama as a foreign student, and financially supporting his education.

Bill Ayers of dubious “Weatherman” fame, was not just “a guy who lives in my neighborhood”, as then candidate Obama brushed aside. The video linked here comes from a televised DNC Debate in the summer of 2008. As Hillary Clinton revealed then, Obama served in a paid position on the Woods Foundation with Bill Ayers and the two were involved in several projects dispersing millions of dollars over several years.

Realistically, the Ayers family could be said to have adopted Barack Obama, if not as a son then certainly as a kindred Marxist spirit, and treated him to one of the finest educations possible.

There is little doubt Mr. Obama has been less than honest with regard to the Ayers family and their significance in his life.
As disingenuous as this is, it is by no means the most important revelation.

If correct, and Obama was introduced to Hulton as a Foreign Student, this means Barack Hussein Obama would have been using a Foreign Passport to get and prove his foreign student status for entrance into Occidental College, Columbia, and later Harvard Universities. Because Hulton has signed an Affidavit, this cannot be disregarded as mere hearsay; it is instead evidentiary in nature.

The significance of this development may not be immediately apparent until one recognizes American law regarding citizenship status. Citizenship laws as expressed in Title 8 of the United States Code states the use of a Foreign Passport constitutes adult recognition of relinquishment of American Citizenship:
8 USC 1481

(a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality—
(1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application or upon an application filed by a duly authorized agent, after having attained the age of eighteen years; 8 USC 1481

Using a foreign passport in order to obtain status as a foreign student is precisely that, proof of naturalization in a foreign state.

The child Barack Obama became an Indonesian Citizen when he was adopted by his stepfather Lolo Soetoro and the family’s subsequent relocation to Indonesia.

Young Barack by law needed Indonesian Citizenship in order to attend school, and his adoption provided this. Indeed, in young Barack’s situation adoption was necessary to gain it.

In his defense, Obama supporters have claimed for years if the president had lost his American Citizenship as a child, he did not in fact lose it because the actions of a parent cannot permanently remove a child’s American natural born citizenship status. This fallacious argument once had some validity within the confusing morass that is American Citizenship law, the nature of which is a challenge for immigration attorneys even today.

However, Hulton’s story and sworn affidavit would confirm that Barack Obama renounced what American citizenship status he had as an adult over the age of 18, by attending college as a foreign student using a foreign passport.

This would explain the president’s refusal to release his college records. These records will easily prove or disprove his status as a Foreign Student. This is the importance of U.S. Postal worker Allen Hulton’s testimony. Unless Obama formally renounced that foreign citizenship, there is the distinct possibility he is not an American Citizen, let alone a Natural Born Citizen.

In reality, due to his father’s British heritage, Mr. Obama was never a Natural Born Citizen to begin with, and admitted precisely this on his “Fight the Smears” website, stating that he was born under the British Nationality Act of 1948. This website “http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/fightthesmearshome/” has since been removed from the live internet to re-direct to Attackwatch.com “http://www.attackwatch.com/”. Clearly Mr. Obama has relied upon confusing the American people as much as possible in order to make the truth as difficult as possible to ascertain.

Equally unreported by the U.S. media is that of the Selective Service Card which registered Barack Obama for the Draft in 1980. Sheriff Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse released information on March 1st 2012 that this document is also “Highly Suspicious” of being a forgery, along with Mr. Obama’s “Long Form Birth Certificate” which was released by the president in the White House press room on April 27th, 2011.

One of the few media outlets reporting fully on the Cold Case Posse is the Tea Party Tribune of Arizona. On March 21st, the Tribune reported that Sheriff Arpaio has asked the Selective Service headquarters in Virginia for the original card itself in an effort to determine its authenticity within the Selective Service System. According to the Tribune, Sheriff Arpaio expressed his confidence that the agency would investigate the matter. This remains to be seen.
Has the wider American media addressed any of this in context? It may be the largest scandal in American history, certainly the most significant constitutional crisis the nation has faced since the end of the Civil War…

Amendment I
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

The First Amendment will not prevent a few thugs funded by a private citizen or corporation from paying strategic individuals personal visits though, will it? Now we know why the remaining honest media has remained suspiciously silent.

Rumors of censorship of the American press have circulated at various times over the last several years. It seemed impossible that credible and realistic questions could exist concerning Barack Obama’s qualifications for President, yet be somehow missed by the main stream media. Indeed, the media in general is very aware of these questions, however they cannot ask them, let alone report on them. Just one example is Media Matters, funded by the George Soros Foundation, which has repeatedly and openly threated Talk Radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh and his advertisers. Many have given in to the threats merely to stay in business.
In late May 2011 Dr. Jerome Corsi PhD. published “Where’s the Birth Certificate?: The Case that Barack Obama is not Eligible to be President”. At about the same time, a concerted behind the scenes effort was made to silence the press with regard to the ever increasing questions about Barack Obama’s eligibility.

A telephone interview March 22nd with Cold Case Posse Lead investigator Mike Zullo revealed the Posse had received “highly credible” information from three separate, unrelated, credible sources detailing information regarding a nationally syndicated Conservative Talk Radio show. This major very well-known host had a fill-in the day the script called for a discussion of Barack Obama’s persistent and unanswered questions regarding his citizenship status.

The executive producers of the national show, 3 hours before air time, pulled the script literally leaving the temporary host with no script whatsoever.
For a nationally syndicated show, this is absolutely unheard of, particularly with a fill-in doing the show. Programing is scheduled days in advance as hours of work and preparation often go into them; it is after all a business and one which must inform accurately. To have a script tossed just hours before airing is simply not done without explanation or substitution.

Lead Investigator Zullo revealed in this conversation that several individuals have come forth to provide testimony; the identity of these witnesses is being withheld for their protection. They identify producers, reporters, T.V. and radio personalities who have been told specifically by intimidating individuals who state clearly, they are not going to report on this story. These witnesses have been told: “If you breathe a word about it on air, we will make certain you never work in this business again,” said Investigator Zullo. Apparently those making the threats have the power to carry through on them.

Some of these witnesses have been told this along with a sinister inquiry into how a family member is doing over at XYZ (details have been changed to protect witness identity), or some other means of letting that person know the powers that be know exactly where their family members are…

There are a few however with the courage to speak out and report on this story. Talk radio show host Rodger Hedgecock recently had Sheriff Joe Arpaio on his show. “This is probably the biggest censorship blackout in the history of the United States…” said Arpaio, “Why?” he continued, “Because it has to do with the White House? The President?”.

How can the American media possibly pass on a story so huge, and so important – fraud committed by a sitting president? – Simple, it has quite simply been threatened into silence, and law enforcement is now well aware of it.

Those who are threatening the media are apparently dead serious: to the extent that no member of the media who has been threatened is willing to admit publically to it. However, there are several who have given their witness testimony, but have done so under the very strictest of confidentiality agreements. Collectively they are afraid of losing their jobs, or of their employees being further threatened.

This is no game, this is no rumor. Sheriff Arpaio and the Cold Case Posse have the information directly from witnesses who have specific knowledge of the threats, and there are a significant number of informants. Whoever is making these threats has the power to make those threats happen. It is being taken so seriously that no major media outlet has dared to break the silence.

Lead investigator Zullo, mirroring the comments of Sheriff Arpaio commented, “This is probably one of the most concerning aspects of this investigation.” When asked if this was thuggery, the reply came without hesitation, “That’s exactly what it is.”

Media moguls at the levels of a Rupert Murdoch are justifiably nervous. The implicit threat – beyond the direct threats made to their employees – involve investigations of media outlets along with their websites and their parent companies by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

“During our investigation, we actually were told [that media] had been threatened with FTC investigations. Commentators [had been] threatened with their jobs.” Lead Investigator Zullo told Bob Unruh of World Net Daily on March 7th. These are the auspices of the federal government with the resources of a powerful nation backing them. The justifications for using such power are almost unlimited as RedState pointed out in August of 2011.

These federal agencies can yank broadcasting licenses, or take a variety of other actions which have the effect of making it impossible to do business let alone broadcast. It’s a brutal quid pro quo: don’t breathe a word on Barack Obama’s citizenship issues or constitutional qualifications for the office he has usurped, and we will let you stay in business.

To be brutally clear, the power and backing of the United States Federal Government is being used to silence the press about Barack Obama. Either outright or through coercion, the media is complicit in covering up the crimes of the fraud Barack Obama and his unconstitutional government. These patterns are clear and unmistakable.

Part two of this column will report on 9 State Attorneys General who have taken the unprecedented step of listing the continuing crimes of the Obama Administration with the clear intent to prosecute, which has also received little media attention.

Mrs. Cotter is a senior at American Military University, recipient of the Outstanding Student Essay of 2009, a member of Delta Epsilon Tau and Epsilon Pi Phi Academic Fraternities and on the Dean’s and President’s Lists for academic achievement. She has published at American Thinker, Examiner.com, Accuracy in Media, Family Security Matters, Post and Email, and English Pravda. The author can be contacted at Cotter.d.c@gmail.com, or at DiannaCotter.com

... "Hulton’s story and sworn affidavit would confirm that Barack Obama renounced what American citizenship status he had as an adult over the age of 18, by attending college as a foreign student USING A FOREIGN PASPORT"

(Emphasis mine)

Here's the whole package, as follows:

(NOTE: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE OF THE WORDS "INTENTION" INTENT" "INTEND(S)"AND "INTENDING" THAT I HAVE PUT IN CAPITAL LETTERS)

Advice about Possible Loss of U.S. Citizenship and Dual Nationality

httptravel.state.govlawcitizenshipcitizenship_778.html

The Department of State is responsible for determining the citizenship status of a person located outside the United States or in connection with the application for a U.S. passport while in the United States.

POTENTIALLY EXPATRIATING ACTS

Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481), as amended, states that U.S. citizens are subject to loss of citizenship if they perform certain specified acts voluntarily and with the INTENTION to relinquish U.S. citizenship. Briefly stated, these acts include:

(1)obtaining naturalization in a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (1) INA);

(2)taking an oath, affirmation or other formal declaration to a foreign state or its political subdivisions (Sec. 349 (a) (2) INA);

(3)entering or serving in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or serving as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer in the armed forces of a foreign state (Sec.349(a)(3)INA);

(4)accepting employment with a foreign government if (a) one has the nationality of that foreign state or (b) an oath or declaration of allegiance is required in accepting the position (Sec. 349 (a) (4) INA);

(5)formally renouncing U.S. citizenship before a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer outside the United States (sec. 349 (a) (5) INA);

(6)formally renouncing U.S. citizenship within the U.S. (but only under strict, narrow statutory conditions) (Sec. 349 (a) (6) INA);

(7)conviction for an act of treason (Sec. 349 (a) (7) INA). ADMINISTRATIVE STANDARD OF EVIDENCE

As already noted, the actions listed above can cause loss of U.S. citizenship ONLY if performed voluntarily and with the INTENTION of relinquishing U.S. citizenship. The Department has a uniform administrative standard of evidence based on the premise that U.S. citizens INTEND to retain United States citizenship when they obtain naturalization in a foreign state, subscribe to a declaration of allegiance to a foreign state, serve in the armed forces of a foreign state not engaged in hostilities with the United States, or accept non-policy level employment with a foreign government.

DISPOSITION OF CASES WHEN ADMINISTRATIVE PREMISE IS APPLICABLE

In light of the administrative premise discussed above, a person who:

is naturalized in a foreign country;

takes a routine oath of allegiance to a foreign state;

serves in the armed forces of a foreign state not engaged in hostilities with the United States, or accepts non-policy level employment with a foreign government, and in so doing wishes to retain U.S. citizenship need not submit prior to the commission of a potentially expatriating act a statement or evidence of his or her INTENT to retain U.S. citizenship since such an INTENT will be presumed.

When, as the result of an individual's inquiry or an individual's application for registration or a PASSPORT it comes to the attention of a U.S. consular officer that a U.S. citizen has performed an act made potentially expatriating by Sections 349(a)(1), 349(a)(2), 349(a)(3) or 349(a)(4) as described above, the consular officer will simply ask the applicant if there was INTENT to relinquish U.S. citizenship when performing the act. If the answer is no, the consular officer will certify that it was not the person's INTENT to relinquish U.S. citizenship and, consequently, find that the person has retained U.S. citizenship.

PERSONS WHO WISH TO RELINQUISH U.S. CITIZENSHIP

If the answer to the question regarding INTENT to relinquish citizenship is yes , the person concerned will be asked to complete a questionnaire to ascertain his or her INTENT toward U.S. citizenship. When the questionnaire is completed and the voluntary relinquishment statement is signed by the expatriate, the consular officer will proceed to prepare a certificate of loss of nationality. The certificate will be forwarded to the Department of State for consideration and, if appropriate, approval.

An individual who has performed any of the acts made potentially expatriating by statute who wishes to lose U.S. citizenship may do so by affirming in writing to a U.S. consular officer that the act was performed with an INTENT to relinquish U.S. citizenship. Of course, a person always has the option of seeking to formally renounce U.S. citizenship abroad in accordance with Section 349 (a) (5) INA.

DISPOSITION OF CASES WHEN ADMINISTRATIVE PREMISE IS INAPPLICABLE

The premise that a person intends to retain U.S. citizenship is not applicable when the individual:

formally renounces U.S. citizenship before a consular officer; serves in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities with the United States; takes a policy level position in a foreign state; is convicted of treason; or performs an act made potentially expatriating by statute accompanied by conduct which is so inconsistent with retention of U.S. citizenship that it compels a conclusion that the individual INTENDED to relinquish U.S. citizenship. (Such cases are very rare.) Cases in categories 2, 3, 4 and 5 will be developed carefully by U.S. consular officers to ascertain the individual's INTENT toward U.S. citizenship.

APPLICABILITY OF ADMINISTRATIVE PREMISE TO PAST CASES

The premise established by the administrative standard of evidence is applicable to cases adjudicated previously. Persons who previously lost U.S. citizenship may wish to have their cases reconsidered in light of this policy.

A person may initiate such a reconsideration by submitting a request to the nearest U.S. consular office or by writing directly to:

{SNIP}

Each case will be reviewed on its own merits taking into consideration, for example, statements made by the person at the time of the potentially expatriating act.

DUAL NATIONALITY

Dual nationality can occur as the result of a variety of circumstances. The automatic acquisition or retention of a foreign nationality, acquired, for example, by birth in a foreign country or through an alien parent, does not affect U.S. citizenship. It is prudent, however, to check with authorities of the other country to see if dual nationality is permissible under local law. Dual nationality can also occur when a person is naturalized in a foreign state without INTENDING to relinquish U.S. nationality and is thereafter found not to have lost U.S. citizenship: the individual consequently may possess dual nationality. While recognizing the existence of dual nationality and permitting Americans to have other nationalities, the U.S. Government also recognizes the problems which it may cause. Claims of other countries upon dual-national U.S. citizens often place them in situations where their obligations to one country are in conflict with the laws of the other. In addition, their dual nationality may hamper efforts to provide U.S. diplomatic and consular protection to them when they are abroad.

I am not sure that "USING A FOREIGN PASPORT" to attend college as a foreign student(a POTENTIALLY expatriating act) -- in and of itself -- would be enough to cause a loss of citizenship.

STE=Q

Those who are threatening the media are apparently dead serious: to the extent that no member of the media who has been threatened is willing to admit publically to it. – However, there are several who have given their witness testimony, but have done so under the very strictest of confidentiality agreements. – Collectively they are afraid of losing their jobs, or of their employees being further threatened.

This is no game, this is no rumor. – Sheriff Arpaio and the Cold Case Posse have the information directly from witnesses who have specific knowledge of the threats, and there are a significant number of informants. – Whoever is making these threats has the power to make those threats happen. It is being taken so seriously that no major media outlet has dared to break the silence.

Lead investigator Zullo, mirroring the comments of Sheriff Arpaio commented, “This is probably one of the most concerning aspects of this investigation.” – When asked if this was thuggery, the reply came without hesitation, “That’s exactly what it is.”

. . . . ! Check out Article, and # 29 .

Thanks, Seizethecarp; good find.

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.