Over 100 FREE Online Calculators

Saturday, December 11, 2010

Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney said Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin 'is not going to get a fair trial'

Read this excellent explaination of the fake obama certification of live birth from someone who understands "the fruit of selma's" deception. Excellent!

Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney predicts the incoming Republican-controlled House of Representatives will launch an investigation if Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin is convicted in next week's court martial.

Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin is on trial for refusing to obey orders to deploy to Afghanistan. He challenged the orders because he questions President Barack Obama's eligibility to serve as commander-in-chief of the armed forces. His court martial is scheduled to begin Dec. 14.

Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin had hoped through the discovery process to force Obama to produce documentary evidence demonstrating his birth and citizenship status so that Obama's authority to give orders as commander-in-chief would be demonstrated or disproven.

Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney called on Congress to "do its job" and determine whether Obama is constitutionally eligible to serve as president.

Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin is a constitutionalist," said McInerney. "Now it shouldn't be the job of a lieutenant colonel and flight surgeon in the U.S. Army to be the constitutionalist. It's the job of the Congress and the executive agency to do that.

But we've had 44 presidents of the United States and only one, the current president, has not shown a valid birth certificate."

Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney said the House Armed Services Committee could hold hearings to determine whether the military handled the case properly.

(Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin speaks for me and all Americans who want "the fruit of selama" barack obama to prove his citizenship. Gen. Thomas McInerney is correct obama has not shown a valid birth certificate to America. He has only displayed a "date filed by registrar" certification of live birth certificate. Note it does NOT say date ACCEPTED by registrar.) Story Reports

Why did the Hawaii Democratic Party refuse to certify Obama’s eligibility as they had always done to successfully place presidential candidates on the ballots before?

DNC Certification of Nomination Summary

In 2008 the HDP deliberately removed the eligibility language from their certificate, even though simply leaving it as it always had been would have made the documentation as secure and complete as possible. Why did they do that?

The HDP refused to certify Obama’s eligibility in 2008.

When Hawaii Department 2008 certificate was created, what legal counsel had approved the changes to the document, when, and why. If there was a reasonable explanation for the change there should be no reason to hide any of that information.

The only attorney who had represented the HDP in lawsuits in the last 15 years (3 different cases, 2 of which have now been scrubbed from the web and all of which are missing from the Hawaii court site) was William H Gilardy, Jr.

The same attorney who represented Obama’s mother in her divorce from Lolo Soetoro.

Chances are good that Gilardy has actually seen Obama’s birth certificate – not the late, amended Hawaii BC which has no legal value and couldn’t be used for any legal purposes, but the one Obama actually used for identification purposes for kindergarten and college entry, application for a social security number, selective service registration, etc. All the stuff Obama has hidden.

(Now we know why the Hawaii Department Of Health is in "the fruit of selma's" back pocket.

The same attorney that represented his muther in her divorce from Lolo Soetoro, William H Gilardy, Jr
) Story Reports.

I solemnly suggest that if nobody in law enforcement will compel answers before then, the 2011 House Ethics Committee – hopefully under Rep Darrell Issa – initiate an investigation into potential perjury by Nancy Pelosi, aided by the potential subornation of perjury by DNC Attorney Joseph Sandler.

Most likely they all know something the rest of the country deserves to know as well.

(They know obama is a HOAX and IMPOSTER) Story Reports

(Don't let the funny name below keep you from reading how Hawaii and the DNC FAKED obama's eligibility language in 2008.)

Certificate of Nomination Summary HOAX and FRAUD

Butterdezillion's Blog

Note to my readers: I have updated this post to reflect the true origin of the research and story about there being 2 different certifications signed by Pelosi and Germond. My apologies to blogger jbjd for wrongly attaching someone else’s name to her work.

Update: Based on new information, I can’t say whether the method of delivering the certificates to the Hawaii elections office was different in 2008, because the certs were delivered by the HDP rather than by the DNC in 2008. Without seeing date stamps for the certs in past years there is no way to know how the certs got to the Elections Office those years. Jbjd claims to have rebutted my theory. I responded to her rebuttal here. My response to the personal and professional allegations she made about me is here.

Why Pelosi and Germond Signed a Different Certificate of Nomination for Hawaii

Outstanding research by blogger jbjd here, here, here, and he re, with summary here, showed that Nancy Pelosi and Alice Travers Germond , as representatives of the Democratic National Committee, had signed one Certificate of Nomination for Obama and Biden that was sent to 49 states (correction: most states), and another that was sent only to Hawaii. Only the certificate sent to Hawaii included a statement that Obama and Biden were Constitutionally qualified to serve as President and Vice-President.

That certificate of nomination for Hawaii is the ONLY statement in this nation signed by somebody besides Obama which claims that Obama is Constitutionally eligible to be President. (Note: I am currently checking into whether the South Carolina Democratic Party also signed a statement of Constitutional eligibility. Will update later if this paragraph needs to be edited. The best place for info on this is probably at jbjd’s site; it may be a while before I get back to this.) Contrary to arguments that Congress certified Obama’s eligibility when they certified the results of the electoral vote, neither representatives of Congress nor any Secretary of State has signed a legal document saying that Obama is eligible. This one oath by Pelosi and Germond is the only legal claim that Obama’s eligibility was verified.

And there is a huge story about how this particular certificate came to be, which the House Ethics Committee, every state Attorney General, and the public at large need to know.

First off, they need to know that the Hawaii Department of Health has confirmed that neither Pelosi nor Germond, nor any leader of either the Democratic National Committee or the Hawaii Democratic Party, has ever even asked to see Obama’s birth certificate. So Pelosi and Germond did not sign this document because they saw a certified copy from the HDOH office. And in fact, if they had seen anything from the HDOH office they would have known his Hawaii birth certificate has been amended and has no legal value.

The HDOH has also confirmed that at no time since Obama declared his candidacy has either the HDP or DNC received a letter of verification confirming the facts of Obama’s birth. So the two legal means by which the HDP or DNC could have received confirmation from the HDOH were not utilized.

It’s been removed from the web, but shortly after CFP published their original article about the Certificates of Nomination, somebody claiming to represent the DNC stated on a discussion board that the DNC relies on the state parties to verify Constitutional eligibility for candidates, so the oath by Pelosi and Germond would just confirm that the state democratic parties had confirmed the Constitutional eligibility of the candidates.

But this is where the argument totally falls apart, because the Hawaii Democratic Party actually ignored their protocols in 2008 in order to specifically NOT certify Obama’s eligibility as they had done for candidates in the past. IOW, if Pelosi based her decision to certify on whether the state party would confirm eligibility, then she had a duty to NOT certify Obama’s eligibility, because the democratic party of the state supposedly holding Obama’s birth certificate REFUSED TO CERTIFY Obama’s eligibility.

I requested and received from the Hawaii Dept of Elections the certificates of nomination from both the DNC and Hawaii Democratic Party (HDP). I was told their records only go as far back as 2000. In 2000 and 2004 the HDP waited until about a month after the National Convention and then signed and hand-delivered to the Hawaii Elections Office their certification that the candidates 1) were chosen by both the state and national parties and 2) were Constitutionally eligible to be President and VP. That was the HDP’s standard procedure, fulfilling both of Hawaii’s 2 requirements for placement on the ballot. It complies with the requirements in HRS 11-113, which is also cited here.

A summary of the documents:

* 2000 DNC Cert - standard certificate with typed eligibility language added
* 2000 HDP Cert - standard certificate with eligibility language. Signed about a month after the National convention and received at Hawaii Elections Office the same day (hand-delivered)
* 2004 DNC Cert - standard certificate, no eligibility language
* 2004 HDP Cert - standard certificate with eligibility language. Signed about a month after the National Convention.
* 2008 DNC Cert - standard certificate with eligibility language
* 2008 HDP Cert - standard certificate with eligibility language removed. Signed during the National Convention one day before the DNC Cert was signed. Mailed to the Hawaii Elections Office by DNC Attorney Joe Sandler together with DNC cert and transmittal letter (NOTE: new information says the HDP actually forwarded this to the Elections Office)

In 2008 the HDP signed their certification – with the Constitutional eligibility language removed – at the National Convention, on the day BEFORE Pelosi and Germond signed the DNC certificate. They then apparently gave their HDP certificate to DNC Attorney Joseph Sandler, who then had a special certificate created and signed by Pelosi and Germond just for Hawaii (since the HDP refused to certify eligibility) and then sent both certifications, with his own letter of transmittal, to the Hawaii Elections Office (Correction: sent or gave his certification and transmittal letter to the HDP who relayed it to the Elections Office).

So instead of acting independently a month after the National Convention (NOTE: they didn’t have a month to get the certs in because of the late convention) and confirming Constitutional eligibility as in the past, the HDP acted before the Convention to take out the eligibility language from their standard certificate, signed it, and gave it to Joe Sandler before Pelosi had signed anything – signaling to the DNC that they were not going to certify eligibility. They coordinated their efforts with Joe Sandler, who sent both documents together to the HI Elections Office (again, the HDP forwarded everything together to the Elections Office). Apparently Sandler, Pelosi, and Germond all knew that Hawaii’s special certification was necessary because the HDP refused to certify Obama’s eligibility.

The question that begs an answer is: Why did the Hawaii Democratic Party refuse to certify Obama’s eligibility as they had always done to successfully place presidential candidates on the ballots before?

A former DNC official allegedly said the DNC added the eligibility language to be cautious, but that doesn’t explain why the HDP took OUT their certification which had always been sufficient in the past. Being “cautious” would mean either doing it the way it had always worked before, or ADDING to what had always worked before – not trying out an experiment that had never been tried before. In 2000 the DNC added eligibility language to the cert they sent to Hawaii alone, leaving the language off their certificates for other states. They did that in ADDITION to the eligibility certification by the HDP for that election. THAT is an example of caution on the part of the DNC – adding more documentation than needed, just in case. In 2008, though, the HDP certification that had always worked was simply swapped out for a DNC certification that had never been tried before. That isn’t caution; that’s an experiment. In 2008 the HDP deliberately removed the eligibility language from their certificate, even though simply leaving it as it always had been would have made the documentation as secure and complete as possible. Why did they do that?

Sandler had been counsel for the DNC in 1996, 2000 and 2004, and the Hawaii election law hasn’t changed since 1993 so there was no reason to believe the protocols always used weren’t sufficient. And if the DNC had questions they didn’t ask anybody about them; Deputy AG Aaron Schulaner didn’t remember anybody from the HDP or DNC asking about the requirement and said it doesn’t matter which of the 2 bodies certified eligibility.

I called the HDP headquarters on Nov 13, 2009, to ask who had authorized their change in procedures for 2008 and why. The person I spoke with had choice words for the “crazy birthers” but refused to answer questions about how the HDP’s 2008 certificate was created. I specifically wanted to know what legal counsel had approved the changes to the document, when, and why. If there was a reasonable explanation for the change there should be no reason to hide any of that information.

Before finding out I was a “birther” the HDP worker had said that they don’t have a specific attorney but take each issue as it comes up, with members of the Executive Committee sometimes pitching in their legal expertise. Looking online, the only attorney I was able to find who had represented the HDP in lawsuits in the last 15 years (3 different cases, 2 of which have now been scrubbed from the web and all of which are missing from the Hawaii court site) was William H Gilardy, Jr. The attorney who represented Obama’s mother in her divorce from Lolo Soetoro. Chances are good that Gilardy has actually seen Obama’s birth certificate – not the late, amended Hawaii BC which has no legal value and couldn’t be used for any legal purposes, but the one Obama actually used for identification purposes for kindergarten and college entry, application for a social security number, selective service registration, etc. All the stuff Obama has hidden.

Brian Schatz, HDP Chairman who signed the certificate, was Obama’s campaign spokesman in Hawaii who graduated from (and later taught at) Punahou School ,where Obama graduated from high school, and spent a year in Kenya in 1992 (which overlaps Barack and Michelle’s visit to Kenya shortly before their wedding; by that time Obama had been president of Harvard Law Review and had a book deal) . He is now running for lieutenant governor and has been endorsed by Obama’s half-sister, Maya.

The HDP refusing to certify Obama’s eligibility is bad enough as it is, but for the HDP’s usual legal counsel to be the very person who has probably seen Obama’s non-Hawaii birth certificate is explosive.

All this was presumably known by Nancy Pelosi and Alice Travers Germond when they signed that special certification for Hawaii. It was almost certainly known by Joe Sandler when he had the special certificate drawn up, counseled Pelosi and Germond to sign it, and sent the letter of transmittal with both certificates to the HI Elections Office (correction: to the HDP to have them forward it). Calls to Sandler’s law office have been unreturned.

The HDP refused to answer my questions because they ridicule “birthers”. I solemnly suggest that if nobody in law enforcement will compel answers before then, the 2011 House Ethics Committee – hopefully under Rep Darrell Issa – initiate an investigation into potential perjury by Nancy Pelosi, aided by the potential subornation of perjury by DNC Attorney Joseph Sandler.

Most likely they all know something the rest of the country deserves to know as well.

Remember Chief Justice Roberts having a private meeting with Obama when cases involving him were pending was another breach of ethics.

Don’t forget about Chief Justice John Roberts for knowingly and willingly swearing in a usurper…..The SCOTUS had already reviewed the suits brought by Donofrio and Wrotnowski….Roberts knew that Barry was ineligible…..The little charade of intentionally bungling the language during the swearing in ceremony isn’t going to provide him cover….He just thinks it will.

What serious attorney would be caught dead supporting Robertson’s claim that a case was frivolous because the issue had already been Twittered? Using Twitters to make a decision would be a breach of judicial ethics – ex parte communications. Every law scholar knows that, and not one serious law scholar would be caught dead supporting Robertson’s decision.

Butterdezillion Note to my readers: I have updated this post to reflect the true origin of the research and story about there being 2 different certifications signed by Pelosi and Germond.

MissTickly Says:
September 10, 2010 at 12:52 am

Outstanding. So interesting about the SAD divorce lawyer. Keen eyes on that one!

You are chip, chip, chipping away. Soon you will rip off his costume and show him for what he is!

(Miss Tickly has an excellent choice of words. Obama wears a costume. A costume is worn to portray the wearer as a character or type of character other than their regular persona. Obama wears the costume of president. It is only a costume to "the fruit of selma". A means to and end used by the usurper con man obama.) Story Reports

(Additional information that is truly eye opening when you understand what you are reading about the HOAX of "the fruit of selma" barack obama) Story Reports

butterdezillion Says:
September 11, 2010 at 2:20 pm

The documentation for Obama’s BC being amended is in my “Red Flags” post at – . HRS 338-17 (found at )says that the probative value of an amended and/or late BC must be determined by the judicial or administrative body or person before whom the BC is presented as evidence. IOW, the document is not considered prima facie evidence; the State of Hawaii does not vouch for the accuracy of information on a late or amended BC. Until it is presented as evidence and ruled to be probative it has no legal value.

Based on the responses the HDOH has given to me and on the fact that his name was missing from the 1960-64 birth index in March (and anomalies with what the HDOH is currently saying is their 1960-64 birth index while they refuse to actually release to anybody the genuine 1961 birth index)….

I believe that the amendment Obama made in 2006 was actually to add a missing piece of information, so that Obama never even HAD a BC from Hawaii until 2006. So anything genuine Obama could have shown Pelosi personally would have noted both that it was late and that it was amended. In which case, Pelosi would have immediately have known not only that Obama’s birth certificate was deficient but that the Factcheck COLB was a forgery. So if Obama showed Pelosi anything genuine then she is complicit in not only perjury for herself, but also misprision of felony by not reporting Obama’s forgery.

The Factcheck COLB did not have a seal on it when it was photographed. The seal was added to the scan of the photo digitally. That’s evident because the so-called raised seal is on a fold but doesn’t distort with the fold like the pre-printed circle dissected by the other, simlar-angle fold on that page. And the COLB Obama posted on his own campaign website didn’t even have a seal on it, or a bottom fold on which the seal would have been placed if that document had matched the Factcheck version of Obama’s COLB.

So if Obama tried to show Pelosi either of those documents Pelosi would have immediately known they were forgeries because they lacked the authenticating seal. If Obama had a forged document with an authenticating seal on it he would have simply used that for his online scan, so I don’t think he had a forged one with seal that he could have shown Pelosi.

And if Pelosi had seen what she believed was Obama’s genuine birth certificate and refused to tell anyone that, then she’s a bigger jerk than even I can imagine. Given the very public claims of Factcheck being a forgery she should have known the only source she could trust would be the actual document certified to be from the HDOH itself.

(Personally I believe pelosi would have believed anything obama said. Pelosi is that STUPID!) Story Reports


More GOOD Stuff on obama. WOW! Details Of Butterdezillions excellent understanding of the HOAX and IMPOSTER obama's costume. EXCELLENT, read this info to understand the complex web of deception called the "certifaction of live birth"

butterdezillion Says:
September 12, 2010 at 1:52 am

It is lengthy and hard to follow. I don’t blame anybody if they get lost in the details. What makes it even more difficult is the fact that the bureaucrats sometimes give half-truths, sometimes quarter-truths, and sometimes total untruths. They have hidden documents which alone would allow us to know whether their responses are correct, and they keep no written records of anything (if you believe what they say).

If I go into the details of why I believe as I do I could totally lose you because it’s complicated. If I don’t go into the details it would be very easy for you to say it’s just my opinion so I could be pulling this out of my rear end for all you know. That’s the challenge I face. I’ll try to compromise as best I can.

The HDOH seems to have said that Obama does not have a DELAYED birth certificate, which is what he would have to have if the HDOH had nothing in their office for Obama at all within the first year. There was a period of time where a person could file a special form (delayed birth certificate) a year or more after the birth. At a certain point all delayed birth certificates were then called a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth. At some point after that they were called “late birth certificates”.

So it gives the HDOH a lot of ways to obfuscate based only on what name they call a certificate filed after a year. But the “delayed birth certificate” is a form that is different than a long-form birth certificate. The HDOH has generally always responded to requests for specific documents by saying they can’t tell the legal status of a birth certificate (whether it is delayed, late, pending, no records, amended, etc), but there was one time they did tell me that a delayed birth certificate for Obama does not exist.

However, even if a person did not fill out a “delayed birth certificate” they could have a long-form birth certificate that was delayed and had to have a notation on it saying it was “delayed”. If all the legally-required information for the BC was not entered on the BC by 30 days after the birth, the original long-form BC would be notated as “delayed”. Any changes to it after that point (besides adding a child’s name) were noted as amendments.

If a BC had note of being either delayed or amended Hawaii would not recognize the BC as prima facie evidence. It would have no legal value.

So if the HDOH was truthful on that response to me, it seems that somebody must have filed a long-form birth certificate for Obama sometime within the first 30 days after his birth.

But when a researcher looked in the 1960-64 birth index at the HDOH office in March he looked many times to quadruple-check what his eyes had seen, because Obama’s name was not in that birth index list. Since then their list has changed (imagine that!)

The handwritten list which would clarify what records they truly had for Obama as of the end of 1964 is required to be permanent and the HDOH is supposed to have it but they say they don’t (how convenient, and how convenient that nobody in the Hawaii government seems at all concerned that those permanent public health statistics records may have been illegally destroyed). All they have is the computerized list.

The computerized 1960-64 birth index list they currently have is different than all the other index lists – lacks something very important that all the other lists have; for the sake of ongoing investigation I’m not going to reveal that anomaly right now but it’s pretty blatant.

In addition, the list they have now has Obama’s name, which it didn’t have in March – which tells you that there’s been some monkey business there between March and now.

And the name directly above Obama’s name in the list now is “Obado, Duplicate Mae”. Nowhere else is there a Mae Obado, as it seems there should be by the use of the word “Duplicate”. What happened to the duplicate record for Mae Obado? Was a duplicate record created for Mae Obado and then Obama’s name substituted there just for this one print-out that they have in their office to show the public?

Those questions deserve answers but the only way we’ll get answers is if a criminal investigation is launched, and nobody in the government has the political guts to do that.

When all these things and a couple other things (I’m still investigating and so I can’t reveal yet) are taken into account, it seems highly likely that the 1960-64 birth index list that the HDOH shows the public in their office now is actually a printout based on the actual 1960-64 index but which has been manipulated in order to include Obama’s name. I haven’t posted about it yet, but the HDOH’s recent refusal to disclose the 1961 birth index which only a week earlier they had said they could disclose… makes the issue all the more suspicious.

I think you’re beginning to see why I haven’t included all my documentation and reasoning when I simply say “I believe” this or that. It is complicated, and every conclusion I eventually reach has taken literally hundreds of hours of research and sorting through dodgy answers from the HDOH.

Based on the evidence I have, I believe that somebody submitted a long-form birth certificate for Obama within the first month after his birth, but it was not fully completed by the end of 1964 (which explains why there is all this obfuscation and record-changing in the 1960-64 birth index). And based on the HDOH ruling out other amendments that could have been made in 2006, I believe the amendment in 2006 was actually to COMPLETE the birth certificate – and that he didn’t have any complete birth certificate from Hawaii before 2006. That would also explain why the certificate number and “date filed” are incompatible on the Factcheck COLB: Obama’s birth certificate number is a 2006 number so he had to steal somebody else’s number.

According to law and the rules, the certificate number for certificates issued before 1988 is supposed to be REQUIRED to be public information. But though the HDOH has indicated that either the certificate number, “date filed”, or both have been altered on Obama’s Factcheck COLB, they will not reveal Obama’s certificate number as required by law – nor will they release a non-certified abbreviated birth certificate for Obama, as their own rules allow (and thus the open records law requires) them to release to ANYBODY WHO ASKS TO SEE IT. And the HDOH denies the existence of a birth certificate for a specific person who is listed on their birth index and may well hold the certificate number that Obama stole to put on the Factcheck COLB.

So we’ve got the HDOH refusing to release required information – the 1961 birth index, certificate numbers for certificates issued before 1988, and non-certified abbreviated certificates. And we’ve got the HDOH claiming in 2 separate instances that permanent vital records which are absolutely critical to knowing what really happened in 1961… have been illegally destroyed: the handwritten birth index for 1961, and the birth certificate for a child on their birth index list, who may well hold the certificate number on the Factcheck forgery (which the HDOH has indirectly confirmed as a forgery in 2 different ways).

I hope you’re beginning to see why I and others are saying there is a big problem here.

So basically, in answer to what you brought up – the birth certificate that Obama mentioned in “Dreams” was almost certainly not a Hawaii BC because it is almost certain that he didn’t even HAVE a completed Hawaii BC until 2006.

He has never presented his amended Hawaii BC as evidence to anybody and has spent LOTS of taxpayer money to make sure it will NEVER be submitted it as evidence. The only way his amended BC could have any legal value once Obama’s name was on the ballots was through a court case, but Obama has fought every court case so a judge would never see his BC. Because of that, we know that he has no legally-valid (probative) BC at all from Hawaii, even now.

Pelosi could not have seen his 1961 birth certificate unless she saw one from Kenya or whatever BC he was using before 2006, because Obama only got his from Hawaii in 2006. And if she saw his Kenya BC then she knew he was not only ineligible to be president but that he had perjured himself to deceive the entire world. Not cool.

Sorry for the length of this. It’s sort of like tax evasion. Nobody goes into all the details of a politician’s tax returns in news reports because they don’t have to; law enforcement does the analysis and charges the person with a crime. The news reports have only to say that investigators found this crime and the details are sorted out in the trial.

But this particular case is complicated by the fact that the people who are supposed to be investigating the crime…. are actually helping to perpetrate the crime.

And that is why this is a big deal to me. In this long post I have given you a FEW of the many, many details on which I base my statements. You can see that there is evidence that the HDOH has altered and destroyed records and refused to reveal other records as required by law. It is inconscionable for this to remain uninvestigated by state and federal law enforcement. And that is my gripe.

It is possible that the HDOH has simply made mistakes in answering requests (although if so they have repeated those mistakes multiple times). It is possible that I am misinterpreting. But there are enough inconsistencies, anomalies, and outright alterations of records that aren’t supposed to be altered, that it deserves an investigation. If somebody had the power to subpoena the records they could tell in a day whether the thousands of hours I have put in scrounging around with details is accurate. Why won’t anybody do this?

(This is a good question. I would like to know the answer also. If what you say is true, and I believe it is, the HDOH lawyer you named William H Gilardy, Jr., obama's mother's attorney also, is keeping obama's identity hidden. The House Armed Services Committee could hold hearings to determine whether obama is a FRAUD by investigating Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin's case.) Story Reports

Case 1D00-0-17619 (117619) (Initiator ID: A1530) — Stanley Ann Soeroto vs Lolo Soetoro Divorce Ct — Initiation date: 08-20-1980 Case terminated 11-26-1988 — Attorney William H. Gilardy Jr

The attorney for Stanley Ann’s divorce in 1980, “Gilardy H William Jr,” went on to become Hawaii DNC state attorney, as said in this 1998 article: “High court asked to act in vote dispute” -

The attorney for Stanley Ann’s divorce in 1980, “Gilardy H William Jr,” went on to become Hawaii DNC state attorney

Ironically, in 2006, William Gilardy is listed by name here “Who’s Undoing the U.S. Constitution?”

Ironically, in 2006, William Gilardy is listed by name here “Who’s Undoing the U.S. Constitution?”

He’s still a Lawyer, still in Hawaii: “Gilardy William H, Esq” in Honolulu, (808) 237-4100.

Restated: The attorney that helps Obama’s mother get a divorce in 1980, goes on to be the DNC state attorney by 1998, listed in “Who’s Undoing the U.S. Constitution?” in 2006, and is today an Esquire in Hawaii. What are the odds of that???”

(Gilardy William H, Esq also represented the Hawaii Dept Of Health!!!!!! I'm sure he is representing obama also via the HDOH and making sure the USURPER has a hidden identity.) Story Reports


The Factcheck COLB is a forgery: 1) that Obama’s genuine birth certificate is amended (which their rules say has to be noted on any certificate the HDOH prints for that person, including a COLB, which is technically an “abbreviated birth certificate”); and 2) that the certificate number for Oahu birth certificates were always given by the HDOH on the “date filed”. The Factcheck cert# is later than the cert# for the Nordyke twins even though the “date filed” is 3 days earlier than theirs. So either the cert#, “date filed”, or both have been altered on the Factcheck COLB according to Okubo’s own statement.

There weren’t any computerized records back in 1961 so there must have been a long-form BC drawn up for him. Probably what happened is Obama’s grandma reported his birth to a local registrar, who was then supposed to round up the rest of the information so the BC could be completed. But to actually complete the BC required information that could only be gotten by a Hawaii doctor actually examining the child within the first 30 days after birth. That’s why it is so damaging for the BC to only be completed in 2006:

One immediately questions why Obama’s mom or grandma didn’t just take him to the doctor and have the BC completed. Considering that Obama did have a legally-valid BC that he used to get into kindergarten, etc, he had to use a BC other than a Hawaii BC – and that BC would probably tell us where Obama was for the first 30 days after his birth, that he wasn’t able to see a Hawaii doctor.

I believe that the reference to Obama’s birth certificate in “Dreams” was made so that people would assume it was a Hawaii birth certificate, when in reality the only birth certificate Obama had before 2006 was probably a Kenyan birth certificate. Hawaii could not have printed out anything for Obama at all until the BC was complete, which wasn’t until 2006.

he handwritten birth index was sort of like a receipt register. If anybody’s birth certificate was received it had to be entered in the book, along with all the cross-referencing like the child’s name, certificate number, etc. This would be the most complete record there would be anywhere, for what actually entered that office from 1960-64. It would be much harder to manipulate that data because it would have to be forged, as opposed to a computer record which can be easily manipulated. The manipulation would show up in the embedded computer transaction logs, which are the way that these records are audited. But the HDOH refuses to show those logs.

(I hope the new republican house will subpoena the Hawaii computer logs and expose the HOAX obama.) Story Reports

If somebody with subpoena power investigated they would need to look at those logs to get the whole story of what happened with the computer-generated data.

Their computer is able to find the information very easily, when they want to find the information. They have had the computerized system since the late 1980′s, when the archived information was added to the database. No names should be added or deleted from that historic information – especially not in 2010. I suspect that Obama’s name is in their system in the 2005-2009 birth index, since that would match the cert# he was given, since his BC was completed in 2006 (although it should actually only be in their index of LATE BC’s). They had to manipulate the 1960-64 birth index to try to get Obama’s name there, in order to hide that Obama’s was late. They couldn’t add a brand-new name so they added a duplicate record for Mae Obado and then manually changed it to Obama’s name just for that report that they printed out and call “the 1960-64 birth index”.

When I requested the 1961 birth index the official response estimated that they would need 4 15-minute increments of office-worker labor to “segregate” information. This is a list where they would simply tell the computer to print everything in the date parameter from 01-01-1961 to 12-31-1961. What “segregation” would they have to do after that list was printed out? I thought their response was revealing.

The DNC is not authorized to make a LEGAL determination of birth facts. Only an administrative or judicial person or body is authorized to do that, according to Hawaii laws. And our Constitution says in the “Full Faith and Credit” clause that the laws and documents of the states are to be honored by the federal government. When the DNC certified the candidates they were certifying that the candidates met the requirements of the Constitution. The Constitution requires that the documents be satisfactory according to HAWAII LAWS. Because nobody in the DNC nor Congress is a “judicial or administrative person or body”, none of them could satisfy Hawaii’s evidentiary standards for determining Obama’s birth facts. The ONLY way for the Constitutional requirement to be met legally would be for Obama to present the amended BC to a judicial or administrative person or body and have the probative value legally determined.

(Fat chance that will happen.) Story Reports

Before his name was placed on the ballot would have been the perfect time to do that – and the HDOH Administrative Rules would have allowed any Secretary of State from the individual states to have received a certified copy of Obama’s long-form BC for the purpose of putting Obama’s name on the ballot. But HDOH Director Fukino at that time was publicly saying that only Obama could authorize that release. My own Secretary of State told me that he could not get Obama’s BC because Obama had not authorized release. Fukino could get away with saying that blatantly-false statement because her office was illegally hiding the Administrative Rules which would have shown the error of her statements.

See, none of this could have happened if the laws and rules had been followed all along. They weren’t. One lie is never enough, and there is a tangled web of lies and deceit all along – which is why I say this is WAY beyond just Obama. This is really about the utter corruption that covered for Obama by breaking all these smaller rules and laws along the way.

We know there is no legally-valid BC because the HDOH has confirmed that Obama’s BC is amended. Amended BC’s have no legal value unless they are presented as evidence to a judicial or administrative person or body and determined to be probative. Obama refuses to do that. At this point ANYTHING genuinely from the HDOH – whether the original long-form or any computer-generated COLB (certified or non-certified) would show that his documentation has no legal value. That’s why the HDOH won’t print even a non-certified COLB for Obama – which their own rules allow anybody on the globe to ask for and receive. Even a non-certified COLB would have to show the 2006 cert#, the note of the 2006 amendment, and the notation that the BC is LATE.

At this point if everything was being done according to law in Hawaii, anybody on the globe could get confirmation from the HDOH that the President of the United States has no legally-valid birth certificate from Hawaii. That is how corrupt this system is.

I’m glad you agree this deserves an investigation. Ideally, a prosecuting attorney would be making the summary that I have such a difficult time making understandable. If I could make general statements it would be easy to summarize; it’s taking care of all the loopholes that could be argued which makes things so complicated. Sort of like a molecular biologist trying to explain the human genome project’s results so that both his colleagues who want proof of everything and the average housewife could all understand and be satisfied. It’s difficult to do that with something so complicated. But I will try to come up with a summary that is easier to follow for somebody coming to the issue fresh.

butterdezillion Says:
September 12, 2010 at 1:24 pm |

The Hawaii Democratic Party didn’t ever submit a letter of transmittal for their certificates. They hand-delivered theirs to the Hawaii Elections Office. So there is no place that Gilardy’s name would be included, since the attorney doesn’t sign the certificate. That’s why I tried to ask the HDP worker who their attorney is. All I had been able to find regarding who the HDP’s attorney was were articles on the web calling Gilardy the HDP’s attorney.

I had looked up as much as I could regarding how branches of political parties are formed, and what I found said that a political party needs an attorney to formulate and approve their forms and procedures. That’s why I wanted to find out what attorney had approved the changes to their standard certificate of nomination. The HDP worker said no way, no how was he going to tell me that.

(Well because of your excellent work butterdezillion, we know, we know) Story Reports

butterdezillion Says:
September 12, 2010 at 6:04 pm

The State of Hawaii can’t “verify” anything in regards to Obama’s birth certificate unless and until the birth certificate is presented as evidence to a judicial or administrative person or body. There is no process whereby Fukino would be presented a BC as evidence.

Hawaii has never been able to say where Obama was born, when, or to whom. That’s why it is such a serious thing that Obama’s BC is amended. It means that the State of Hawaii can’t verify Obama’s birth facts without going through a particular procedure – a procedure Obama has fought dozens of lawsuits to keep from happening.

(So here we learn how important it is to continue lawsuits to force Hawaii to go through the procedure to verify obama's birth facts. The state run media would have you believe its all for nothing. All it takes is just ONE lawsuit that will force Hawaii to strip the costume from obama.) Story Reports

This is the announcement that Fukino made in July 2009:
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai‛i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”

Notice that all she claims that SHE has done is to see the records.

(The HOAX DETECTOR has noted the above fact many times.)

What she claims “verifies” Obama’s Hawaii birth is the “original vital records”.

“Verifying” in a legal sense means to swear the truth of.”

Fukino is saying she has seen the records which swear that Obama was born in Hawaii. No more, no less.


She does not, herself, verify Obama’s Hawaii birth because she cannot. The State of Hawaii could have 100 sworn statements saying Obama was born in Hawaii and his BC would STILL have no legal validity if it was amended and/or late (and Obama’s is both).

As to why she issued that statement on that day, there is a whole back-story to that. “Terri K” (Miss Tickly on Free Republic) had made requests asking whether Fukino could verify that they had Obama’s “AMENDED birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures” – simply adding the word “amended” to the announcement Fukino had made in October of 2008. If the HDOH was able to reveal that they have an original birth certificate on file they should also be able to reveal whether they have an amended BC – particularly because the legal status of the BC is critical.

Okubo sent out the statement I quoted above to “Terri K” before she ever made it as a public announcement. The statement was originally a response to a question of whether Hawaii has Obama’s AMENDED birth certificate.

KEY FACT (This means it has no legal value without obama prsenting it as evidence!)Story Reports

And the use of the words “vital records” (plural) also confirms that the birth certificate is amended.

Fukino was all too happy to say in Oct of 2008 that they had a birth certificate for Obama, but in order to claim that there were documents swearing to a Hawaii birth they had to use the term “vital records” because without the documents used to amend the BC they didn’t even have a complete BC for Obama.

They had to refer to all the documents, not just the birth certificate itself, because without the supporting documents for the amendment the BC would be incomplete.

So what we’ve got is Hawaii officials who KNOW they can’t verify anything legally without Obama first presenting the amended BC as evidence – which Obama refuses to do.

Pelosi didn’t ask to see anything from Hawaii but even if she had there is nothing they could have given her and nothing they could have said which could have legally verified anything. That’s how serious that amendment in 2006 was (plus the BC being late).


The HDOH can NEVER verify Obama’s eligibility unless and until Obama goes through a court case in which that BC is examined by a judge. Obama refuses. And that’s where we’re at. Pelosi and Germond have sworn to something that cannot possibly be known until Obama yields and actually presents his documents to a judge, which he refuses to do.

That is precisely what Hawaii law says. The Constitution insists that Hawaii’s laws must be honored within the federal government. The “birthers” that Obama and his corrupt media buddies have so ridiculed are only standing on Hawaii law and the Constitution, asking Obama to do the only thing that could possibly have allowed him to qualify as President. He refuses, ridiculing all of us who want the laws to be followed instead. And the whole world joins him in that ridicule.

(I agree and this is why I continue to write and speak of "the fruit of selma", as obama calls himself as a HOAX, FRAUD IMPOSTER etc.) Story Reports

But people are waking up and are seeing not only that the emperor is naked, but that our entire government, media, and law enforcement system is naked too. And we are not one bit happy about it.

DITTOS Brother. Thank you for telling the truth.

butterdezillion Says:
September 12, 2010 at 8:39 pm

In my mind there is no question but that Fukino is guilty of the federal crime of concealment. Telling only half the truth when a matter of federal jurisdiction is involved is basically the same as perjury.

For Fukino to keep talking about them having a BC for Obama but concealing the fact that it is not legally valid is big-time concealment.

(Here is another great KEY FACT. If Hawaii has a BC for obama IT IS NOT LEGALLY VALID until it is actually presented to a judge for validation.) Story Reports

According to Hawaii law Fukino CAN’T determine where Obama was born. At this point only a judge can do that, and only when the amended BC itself is presented as evidence in a legal proceeding. All this was supposed to have been done BEFORE Jan 20, 2009 because the 20th Amendment to our Constitution says that if the President elect has failed to qualify by Jan 20 the Vice President elect is to “act as President until a President shall have qualified”. Right now Obama doesn’t even have any legally-determined age, birthplace, or parentage – all of which factor into eligibility – so there is no way he could have legally qualified by Jan 20, 2009. Our Constitution thus only allows Joe Biden to “act as President”

(Imagine joe "biteme" as president.) Story Reports

This puts our entire nation in jeopardy because we have somebody besides the Constitutional Commander-in-Chief giving orders to our military.

(Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin has put his life on the line to reveal that a HOAX is giving illegal orders to the military!) Story Reports

We’ve got appointments and Supreme Court nominations by someone who is not Constitutionally able to do those things. Basically we are a nation without a President, because Joe Biden is being kept from doing his Constitutional duty by Obama acting as if he can “act as President”. It’s like a 2-year-old grabbing the keys of the car from the parent and driving straight toward the nearest cliff. It’s not cute. It’s not imaginary. It’s not insignificant. And nobody is crazy for saying it has to be stopped.

Nancy Pelosi’s job was to stop such a thing from happening by simply checking the legal qualifications (and yes, her certification is a LEGAL oath). Routine type stuff. Instead, she did everything in her power to give the keys of the car to somebody she knew was not qualified. I believe that she herself has committed the crimes of perjury, concealment, and misprision of felony, and I believe what she has done rises to the level of treason as well, which I believe is a capital offense.

This is not a joke. This is not piddles. America will not be sold into slavery for a song and a dance, grinning all the way. A person can try to cover up anything – including rape, murder, and treason – by laughing it off, as Obama and his media minions have tried to do with this issue, but in the end murder is still murder and eventually when the people realize it’s happened they are going to demand justice. America is waking up and finding there’s been a murder in the house – the murder of our laws – and justice will be demanded.

(I know. I want justice. It is obvious obama is a HOAX.) Story Reports

butterdezillion Says:
September 19, 2010 at 8:41 pm

What Fukino has done could be used as a textbook case for a violation of the Federal General False Statement Act. Concealing when you have a duty to not conceal, in order to deceive.

We’ve been trying to find instances where Obama outright lied. He did so in the documents he signed to get on the ballot in Arizona, swearing that he was Constitutionally eligible. He could try to claim ignorance of the Constitutional requirements. I believe he took the forgery off his campaign website so he could claim that his campaign didn’t post a forgery, but by failing to tell the world that what Factcheck posted was a forgery he violated the concealment portion of the Federal General False Statement Act.

(Butterdezillion you have got to be a lawyer.) Story Reports

butterdezillion Says:
September 13, 2010 at 12:58 pm

By Hawaii law there is nothing left on a birth certificate that would embarrass a person. If Ann and Barack were married when Obama was born, Barack is listed as the father. If they weren’t married when Obama was born but married after, the BC is changed to look as if they were married. If he was adopted it has only the post-adoption information. If there was a gender change only the gender he is now is listed.

(WOW! If there was a gender change only the gender he is now is listed. This is an interesting fact. Could it be "he" was really a "she" who now is an IT!) Story Reports

There is nothing on there that could embarrass a person unless the person has been lying publicly about their story – in which case it is not the BC which embarrasses them, but their own lies and (perhaps) perjury.

This is way beyond embarrassment. And even if there was something that Obama could be embarrassed by on the BC, the fact remains that his BC is not legally valid and he has thus failed to qualify by Jan 20, 2009 as required by our Constitution.

Fukino is actually REQUIRED to reveal the legal status of birth certificates. That’s why anybody on the globe is supposed to be able to ask for and receive a non-certified COLB for Obama – which would reveal the legal status of his BC. If Fukino had kept that law for even one person requesting that document, the whole world would know all we need to know about Obama’s BC – that it is not legally valid. No more search, no more embarrassing disclosures. That’s all we need to know. It’s what we are legally entitled to know.

The fact that it’s been illegally concealed shows that this is an illegal COUP.

OH YA! Story Reports

butterdezillion Says:
September 13, 2010 at 1:49 pm

There is no other procedure they could have followed to find out the legal facts of Obama’s birth.

The democratic party is owned by George Soros (according to his own declaration that he has bought and paid for it), who has said he’s afraid that America will win the war on terror because then America and capitalism will be strong, and he believes those are the ultimate evils in this world. IOW, Soros is aligning himself with the Islamists in order to bring down America – and he tells the democratic party what they will do.

The communists in America through a couple of Columbia University professors – Richard Cloward and his wife, Frances Fox Piven – created a plan to destroy America and take it over as a communist country which would be divided with other worldwide communists including Fidel Castro.

(Excellent truth butterdezillion. Out of all the stuff I have ever read about obama you make it so crystal clear. You truly have revealed the HOAX obama) Story Reports

They had several legal planks to their plan, including corrupting the electoral process by allowing voters to register without documentation and breaking the capitalist economy by forcing banks to do subprime lending because of racial quotas.

Those 2 legal agendas were carried out by a lawyer in Chicago. His name was Barack Obama, and those 2 cases are the only substantial legal efforts he ever used his law degree for.

They have broken the capitalist economy in exactly the way they described, which is what the world economy experienced in September of 2007. And they have corrupted the electoral integrity in America, which may be part of the reason they got moderate democrats to go along with a radical agenda as if they would never face the angry voters and be voted out. The ability to corrupt the elections gets rid of the accountability to the people.

This is the same Barack Obama who told the Egyptian ambassador that he “was and still is a Muslim who supports the Muslim agenda.”

When Prince Charles got together moderate Muslims a few years ago to denounce terrorism he wanted them to denounce Muslim radicals’ claim that the Koran requires non-Muslims to be executed. He ran into problems because NOT ONE of these moderate Muslims would denounce that. They all said that the Koran requires a worldwide Islamic caliphate which oversees the execution and/or slavery of all non-Muslims. I would say that if the “moderates” say that is the Muslim agenda and nobody would say otherwise… that’s probably the Muslim agenda. That, and the destruction of the Great Satan (America) and the Little Satan (Israel).

The Egyptian ambassador was on TV in the Middle East saying that Obama had told him privately that he was and still is a Muslim who supports the Muslim agenda, and that Obama first has to do some domestic things like healthcare reform, and then he can devote himself to the worldwide Muslim agenda.

That’s not some right-wing extremist claiming this. This is the Egyptian ambassador telling his Muslim people to be patient because Obama has confirmed that once he gets the job of destroying America out of the way he can really concentrate on the Muslim agenda.

So we’ve got Obama, who has carried out the chief 2 legal planks in the communists’ Cloward-Piven Plan to destroy America, telling the Egyptian ambassador that he supports the Muslim agenda. And we’ve got Soros – the self-proclaimed owner of the democratic party, including Obama, Hillary, Pelos, Reid, etc – saying that he is uniting the powers of world communism and world Islam in order to overthrow America and capitalism.

This is all in the public record now.

So why should we doubt them when they say they are working together to destroy America and capitalism? It fits everything we’ve seen them do. If anybody is a conspiracy theorist it is THEM – because they’ve publicly admitted it already. And they’ve walked the talk in front of the whole world. Why does anybody still have questions about this?

butterdezillion Says:
September 13, 2010 at 2:05 pm

The time for Obama to prove anything is long past. That had to be done by Jan 20, 2009. The only point in proving anything now is so Congress will remove him and let Joe Biden do what he should have been doing all along – and to sort out who all was responsible for this mess so they can have justice served on them and we can prevent this from ever happening again.

The Constitution doesn’t say who is supposed to verify eligibility. It only says that the judiciary is to decide all cases, both in fact and in interpretation, arising from the laws and the Constitution.

So the documentation isn’t a problem unless somebody raises a case about it. And there have been dozens of cases raised regarding this. SCOTUS refuses to hear any of the cases.

(This of course is what obama knows. His "documentation" isn’t a problem unless somebody raises a case about it. Obama the HOAX is home free as long as his "documentation" is never validated in a court of law. Thank you butterdezillion for informing me of the fact obama's documentation is not legally valid until it is validated in a court of law.

I knew it was a HOAX but didn't understand that it was a HOAX because it had not been validated in a court of law.)
Story Reports

Four of the SCOTUS justices have created anomalies that seem to protest what SCOTUS itself has done in allowing Obama to become President. Three conservative justices and Justice Stevens, who retired shortly after Obama was in office. I can’t prove it, but there are enough anomalies that I believe SCOTUS, GW Bush, VP Cheney, and at least one or two of the eligibility judges have been told by the Soros machine that if they don’t allow Obama’s coup by playing along with the charade of legally installing Obama, Soros and the Islamists will make another electronic run on the bank and create a financial panic that will destroy the worldwide capitalist economy.

(This is an interesting thought. I agree it is also a possiblility. It is in the mould of obama. Just the threat of another panic could be enough for obama to HOLD AMERICA HOSTAGE!) Story Reports

Sounds crazy, but ask the Chinese, Russians, and French about the economic terrorism Soros is willing to do. It’s all he’s been doing the last 20 or so years. Taken together with Soros’ own statements of alignment with Islam with the goal of destroying America and capitalism, you see that Soros has both the desire and the ability to do exactly that. And the bizarre behavior by conservatives and the willingness of even moderate democrats to jump off the cliff with Obama doesn’t make sense unless there is more to the story than meets the eye.

f you remember back to September of 2007 when there was the electronic run on the bank, George W Bush was saying that it would be the end of the western world if we didn’t pass TARP. That wasn’t because the market was acting like it was going to collapse. The debate over TARP went on some time without the markets collapsing from fear. But GW Bush who told the terrorists to “make my day” was in full panic mode believing that the entire western world was at risk. Why?

At the same time, we had Chavez and Castro suggesting that since worldwide capitalism had failed, the world should try communism. And we had Ahmadinejad saying that since worldwide capitalism had failed the world should try Sharia-compliant Islamic financing.

Indeed, the very week after the electronic run on the bank Bernanke and Paulson began having seminars on Islamic financing.

?????????????????? WOW

butterdezillion Says:
September 13, 2010 at 2:17 pm

You have very quickly grasped America’s vulnerability in a way that Americans themselves don’t. Or at least haven’t until now.

What should prevent something like this is the American electorate. But the electorate can be deceived by a lying media and by corrupt government that breaks laws and rules while everybody thinks only a conspiracy nut would distrust the government and media.

We can look at the documents from both the communists and Islamists which say how they intend to defeat America. And they are playing exactly by their playbook. To those of us who have seen what’s in those playbooks it is maddening to see the calculated moves and realize that the American people have been conditioned to think that we have no real enemies, that our enemies are as blase’ and ho-hum about life as the laziest of our people are. While the enemies are seizing vital infrastructure we are watching “Dancing with the Stars”.

I don’t know what country you’re from, but what is happening to America will ultimately affect the entire world economy. They are not just holding America hostage. They are holding YOUR future hostage as well. Your future is in many ways in the hands of an American society more interested in “Dancing with the Stars” than in defending itself from enemies that have been planning for a long time how to kill and eat the wandering seemingly-defenseless sheep, oblivious to the danger with a wolf acting as shepherd.

When America saw what had happened with Russia and China, in particular, we should have seen what was coming. We should have stood with Russia and China against the economic terrorism that hit them. I believe both those countries feel betrayed by us, and I can understand that. I’m not a financial wiz so I don’t know the details and could be mistaken on this, but I believe the world has to stand together against economic terrorism just like we have to stand together against any other kind of terrorism. I think the only way we can do that is if we identify that there ARE economic terrorists and that the entire world is vulnerable.

butterdezillion Says:
September 15, 2010 at 11:47 pm

I’m not sure how far they would go. I do know that they claim that permanent records have been destroyed. If that is true, and not just a lie, then they are willing to do blatantly illegal things. But I don’t know whether they’re destroying records, or just lying about having destroyed them.

I do know that they’ve altered the 1960-64 birth index so they can present what they CLAIM is the 1960-64 birth index to the public which also has Obama’s name in it, so that’s alteration of records and passing off an altered document as authentic.

It seems extreme to think they would totally fabricate a birth certificate, but given what we’ve seen I’m not sure it’s beyond what they would do. And that’s a sad and scary thing to have to realize about a government agency.

butterdezillion Says:
September 18, 2010 at 4:31 am

Blogs are about the only places where the facts are seriously researched and information/documentation disseminated.

The difficulty is that a lot of it is very complicated, as you’ve seen. If a person makes generalized statements people write them off as “crazy birthers”. If they go into the details they lose most people. Many of us have tried to find a happy medium by giving summaries but allowing conversation to clear up questions and by posting links to the more detailed analysis and documentation. I know it’s not perfect but I don’t know of a better way to do it.

butterdezillion Says:
September 18, 2010 at 2:22 pm

Wow, you’ve really pinpointed the oh-so-human parts of this issue which get in the way. People are so prone to be defensive when they can’t immediately win someone over to their side. And the Obama administration has hired people to go onto forums and provoke divisions, give disinformation, and pretend to be someone they’re not. The result is that nobody knows who they can trust so there’s not as much latitude for people to doubt. If they doubt they are often viewed as “Obots” or “anti-birthers”.

(Its called obama disinformation.) Story Reports

The media ridicules the concerns, calls us wacky, unintellectual, racist conspiracy theorists who will never be convinced by evidence. The real problem is that the evidence they want us to blindly accept has been confirmed by the HDOH as a forgery, and there is a lot of evidence that laws and rules have been (and continue to be) broken. I’ve tried to post on so-called “news” websites, and have had my postings blocked. I don’t think I’ve ever been able to post on Fox News or Wall Street Journal websites, even though they are owned by the same company and are supposedly “conservative”. I’ve posted on places like but found very few there who were willing to engage with the actual evidence rather than just calling me a “bat-guano crazy birther”. Dialog is a two-way street, and there don’t seem to be very many who are willing to really do it.

So the doubters are caught in the middle. Two sides are shooting at each other and neither side believes there could be anybody legitimately undecided. I think the option most people in the middle have had to use is just to watch the shooting and quietly make up their mind based on what they see and then join whatever side makes most sense to them. What I really, really crave is a chance for honest questions to be fielded, to keep things factual. Sounds like that’s what you’d like too.

butterdezillion Says:
September 23, 2010 at 12:39 pm

hey’re probably not worried at all because no matter how many people know their shenanigans we can’t force the US attorney or the HI AG to do anything about it, so they’re scott free.

That’s why I think we need to figure out a way to fix the law enforcement system. When the only people who can investigate cases are political appointees or elected (IOW, who need the political machine to get where they’re at) there are no checks and balances built in to protect the interests of the people.

So that wipes out the possibility of criminal investigations. And the “standing” issue can always be used to wipe out the possibility of civil lawsuits. The machine has effectively wiped out the ability of the people to “bite”. All we have is bark, and the HDOH knows that. They’ll let me bark all I want because they know it’s all I have as long as their cronies in the law enforcement system are covering their arses.

The system is broken.

butterdezillion Says:
September 24, 2010 at 7:26 pm u

Unless the Lord builds the house, they who build it labor in vain.

Just yesterday I started thinking about some terminology that somebody posted over on Free Republic. Sandbagging and gaslighting. I hadn’t known that terminology before, but it’s exactly what the government agencies are doing.

I was thinking more about “gaslighting” – which I understand to be switching things around so people have nothing they can count on. It makes people crazy. It’s a way to break the will of people under interrogation such as terrorists.

It’s what Obama is doing to this country. We can’t count on the Constitution any more, can’t count on the courts to even hear our cases, much less decide them correctly. We can’t count on the media because Obama has threatened them. We can’t count on government agencies because when they openly lie and break laws they laugh and say, “Sue us then”. We can’t count on the free market. Businesses have no idea whether the rug is going to be pulled out from underneath them, since nothing is impossible to government when there are no enforced rules or laws. That’s why the economy is dying. Business owners have to have some expectation of what the ground rules are, but Obama is gaslighting the entire country – leaving us all with no reasonable expectation of anything.

There is no law and no foundation which this guy seems to be unable to pull out from under us, with the help of a corrupt government, media, and law enforcement.

If we don’t get the rule of law back it will make us all crazy. That’s what it is supposed to do. This is what the communist propaganda agents call subversion or demoralization, which is to lead to an ultimate crisis which topples freedom and ushers in the rule of communism.

That’s why Obama is pushing one heinous agenda after another, cramming it all down our throats. He’s not after re-election; he’s after subversion, to prepare us for a crisis. It’s all in the communist game plan. Michael Savage was talking about this one time and it makes perfect sense. Obama is trying to overwhelm us by hitting one piece of infrastructure after another. Gaslighting.

And then the media is supposed to tell us how crazy the conservatives are. But there is an unintended consequence they weren’t bargaining on: gaslighted liberals become crazy too. Conservatives are still holding onto the Constitution and the rule of law, and many of them also hold on to the constancy of the Lord. So conservatives don’t have to become crazy because of the gaslighting. The liberals don’t necessarily have the protections that conservatives have in that regard. So the liberals are going crazy, going on rampages. The media would like to frame it as conservatives but it’s not. I don’t know if some of that is people pretending to be conservative in order to frame conservatives, like the mosque shooter, or if liberals are genuinely going over the deep end. But that’s what the actions of the Obama Administration seem to be particularly geared to doing.

God help us! Amen.

butterdezillion Says:
September 26, 2010 at 1:06 am

I know it sounds crazy, but when you consider that it’s what Soros has spent his whole life doing and it’s what both the communists and Islamists have in their playbook… is it really so far-fetched to believe that they intend to play the game they’ve been coaching their whole life?

Probably I should just keep quiet about what I’m thinking until I have my ducks in a row so I can document what factors into my thoughts. I was sort of hoping that if somebody was going to try to convince me it’s a crazy thought they’d give me some reasons besides the usual “it can’t be true if it’s a conspiracy” kind of thing.

It’s sort of like saying we’re crazy if we think that the opposing football team actually has plays they intend to use against us, even after we’ve looked at the films from the last 4 games they won using those plays. lol

butterdezillion Says:
September 27, 2010 at 12:04 pm

So much of this issue is really about the rule of law, and whether we the people can do anything to make sure the rule of law is followed. We are definitely in serious, serious times. I hope and pray that as the public becomes more aware of the fraud that the entire system has perpretrated on the American public, the judges will realize they need to confront this head-on if America is still America.

Thank you for everything you’re doing. Just last night my bedtime prayer with my daughter was that the judges who have critical cases before them will have wisdom, courage, and a need to do what’s right. You had so much information for the judges back before Obama was inaugurated; their refusal to deal with it is unconscionable. We’ll keep plugging away at it from all corners; eventually something has to happen.

Thursday, December 9, 2010

Black farmers are getting reparations through your tax money simply because they missed deadlines for filing

(The National Black Farmers Association’s own data, indicates 18,000 black farmers exist in the United States.

Under Pigford II 94,000 claims of racial discrimination have been filed thus far.

94,000-18,000= 76,000 HOAX or FRAUD claims

16,000 claims have been paid so far averaging about $50,000

The new money is intended for people who were denied earlier payments because they missed deadlines for filing. Tens of thousands of new claims are expected, and the amount of money each would get depends on how many are successful.

Black farmers are getting your tax money simply because they missed deadlines for filing.

When a taxpayer misses a deadline for filing the government will fine you and add an additional tax penalty.

This additional tax penalty in effect is going to black farmers who were denied earlier claims because they missed deadlines for filing for REPARATIONS

$1.2 billion more is to be paid out in reparations to black farmers in future claims.

This is the "fruit of selma" using his administration to legally pay backdoor UNDOCUMENTED payments to black farmers that don't exist.

18,000 black farmers have been payed 16,000 claims.

This means almost all of them have played the race card to get payed back door reparations.

76,000 "black farmers" have already filed claims and obama sets ups a 1.2 billion slush fund for them to be paid and additional "black farmers" that don't exist!) Story Reports
Bachmann Urges Colleagues to Investigate Pigford before Funding Claims

Washington, Nov 29 - Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (MN-06) issued the following statement today regarding the Claims Settlement Act, expected to be voted on in the House of Representatives this week:

“I urge my colleagues to consider what the Claims Settlement Act truly presents before voting on the bill this week. This legislation includes over a billion dollars to settle the Pigford II discrimination claims with black farmers.

Unfortunately, Pigford is rife with fraudulent claims and to settle before an investigation can take place does the American taxpayer a disservice. Justice should be served to those who experienced discrimination, but settlement funds should only go to those wronged.

“By the National Black Farmers Association’s own data, only 18,000 black farmers exist in the United States, but under Pigford II 94,000 claims of racial discrimination have been filed thus far.

A number of individuals involved in Pigford, ranging from USDA officials to black farmers themselves, are ready and willing to appear as witnesses before Congress to bring these allegations into the light.


For the black farmers, it is the second round of funding from a class-action lawsuit originally settled in 1999 over allegations of widespread discrimination by local USDA offices.

The government already has paid out more than $1 billion to about 16,000 farmers, with most getting payments of about $50,000. The new money is intended for people who were denied earlier payments because they missed deadlines for filing. Tens of thousands of new claims are expected, and the amount of money each would get depends on how many are successful.

The case is known as Pigford after Timothy Pigford, a black farmer from North Carolina who was an original plaintiff.

Lawmakers voted 256-152 to send the measure to President Barack Obama, whose administration brokered the settlements over the past year.

(I would use another word instead of "brokered". The "fruit of selma" contrived the hoax settlements.) Story Reports

$1.2 billion would go to African-Americans who claim they were unfairly denied loans and other assistance from the Agriculture Department.

Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, likened the black farmers program to "modern-day reparations" for African-Americans and argued along with Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., that the claims process is rife with fraud.

Rep King: "The new Congress should make an investigation of Pigford fraud a top priority."

Washington D.C.- Congressman Steve King (R-IA) today issued the following statement after the lame duck Congress passed legislation appropriating $1.15 billion to fund the controversial and fraud-plagued Pigford settlement program.

Although estimates suggest that the total universe of black farmers who could qualify for Pigford compensation only encompasses 18,000 people, over 94,000 people have submitted claims under the program. The Pigford funding request was included in H.R. 4783, the Claims Resolution Act of 2010, which passed the House of Representatives on a 256-152 vote yesterday afternoon. Congressman King voted against the legislation.

“The unaccountable lame duck Congress has irresponsibly voted to spend $1.15 billion on a Pigford settlement program that is severely compromised by fraud,” said King.

“This means that people who have never farmed and people who have never been discriminated against by the USDA will be receiving tens of thousands of dollars in cash and debt relief simply for having filed a false claim.

By ignoring Pigford fraud, Congress has allowed the program to change from one designed to address black farmers’ discrimination claims to one that now serves as a modern day slavery reparations program.

The American people should be outraged by this vote and the new Congress should make an investigation of Pigford fraud a top priority.”

(I agree with Rep King. Its a modern day slavery reparations program via the HOAX "president" aka "the furit of selma".) Story Reports

Open letter to Rep King

I agree obama or as he calls himself "the fruit of selma", should be investigated not only for the Pigford settlement program but also his identity.

The DNC certified obama as a legitimate candidate to run for president.

Please investigated how the DNC certified obama under the US Constitution to be a candidate knowing he was a dual citizen at birth.

Also the certification of live birth posted on the web as proof obama is a US citizen cannot be verified by anyone in America except the DNC.

Don't you think that is a reason for obama and the DNC to be investigated for fraud?

Thanks for your time.

Wednesday, December 8, 2010

Baltimore Orioles outfielder Luke Scott said Obama has no legal documentation

Baltimore Orioles outfielder Luke Scott said say Obama has no legal documentation.

Baltimore Orioles outfielder Luke Scott said Obama has no legal documentation

(Thank you Luke Scott for exposing the HOAX of "the fruit of selma". You are so correct obama has no VALID legal documentation to prove he is a US citizen.) Story Reports

(WJZ) Baltimore Orioles outfielder Luke Scott wasn’t only talking baseball at the winter meetings on Tuesday. He questioned President Barack Obama’s birthplace and claimed he did not represent the United States.

“Obama does not represent America. Nor does he represent anything what our forefathers stood for,” Scott said in an interview with David Brown of Yahoo’s Big League Stew.

The 32-year-old went on to say Obama has no legal documentation.

“He was not born here. That’s my belief. I was born here,” Scott said. ”If someone accuses me of not being born here, I can go — within 10 minutes — to my filing cabinet and I can pick up my real birth certificate and I can go, ‘See? Look! Here it is. Here it is.’ The man has dodged everything. He dodges questions, he doesn’t answer anything. And why? Because he’s hiding something.”

Luke Scott

The real issue behind these people who are gun grabbers, the truth is — based on fact — the reason why is, they want control. They want control of the people. That's what socialism is and communism.

David Brown

So how's Obama doing?

Luke Scott

Obama ... hmm ... Obama does not represent America. Nor does he represent anything what our forefathers stood for. This country is basically built on an attitude. It's a way of life. It's not because you're born here. It's not that you're supposed to take from those who have and give to those who haven't. That kills a country. It killed Russia.

I have friends of mine who are in the ministry who [work] in churches in Russia. If they can describe [the country] in one [phrase], it's "messed up beyond repair."

That's what communism does. Cuba, Venezuela. People are trying to escape these lands like a plague. What would make a human being swim 90 miles in shark-infested waters on a raft made of tires and planks? To leave their culture, their family, their language, their way of life. Everything they've ever known. What would make someone do that?

You don't see people in America doing that. There's no one here in America swimming the Pacific Ocean — or the Atlantic, or the Caribbean — to leave this place. The reason why is because of the freedom. Freedom for a man to mark out his own destiny. It's not, "Hey, you have so much." Hey, that person worked for that. That's not to be taken and given to someone who didn't put in the time, the effort, and do his part.

Obama, he doesn't represent that. He represents, "Hey, everyone. Give me votes and I'll give you stuff." And there's even people on TV who [are asked], "Hey, who you voting for?"

"I'm voting for Obama."


"So I can get more free stuff."

That's not what makes this country great. That's what tears down a people, tears down nations. Hence, the problem we're having in this country, where we're experiencing unemployment. We're experiencing all of these negative things that are happening in our land as a direct result of that type of attitude — of too much government involvement, of moral decay, and of people lacking honor and integrity.

Eighty years ago, 50 years ago, a man would walk up to another man and go in for loan. He'd extend his hand, he'd shake it and he'd look at the man and he'd say, "I'll pay this back." He would do it. You couldn't even ... to even mention that [scenario] today ... is that a cartoon fantasy? That's how far we are removed.

David Brown

Word was bond.

Luke Scott

Yeah. We had a bond. That type of attitude has disappeared as a whole. Now, it's OK for me to cheat, to steal, to step on somebody, to cheat somebody, to do something to make someone [else] fall, so I can get ahead in life. And people accept that and they go home and they sleep at night. Whereas, the former attitude of America was, "I'm going to work my tail off, and if it doesn't work out for me ... "

You know, I didn't have the same opportunity growing up, as some people. I also had more opportunity than others. Whatever is given to that person, whatever you do with it is what makes the difference. And that's what has happened in this country: People want the same result, but they don't want to pay the same price. They want equality, but not by earning it — they want it given to them.

It's a recipe for disaster and it will kill the entire nation.

David Brown

You don't think that Obama wasn't born in the United States, do you?

Luke Scott

He was not born here.

Luke Scott

That's my belief. I was born here. If someone accuses me of not being born here, I can go — within 10 minutes — to my filing cabinet and I can pick up my real birth certificate and I can go, "See? Look! Here it is. Here it is." The man has dodged everything. He dodges questions, he doesn't answer anything. And why? Because he's hiding something.

You know what? People who have bad intentions, people that are deceivers or are not of honor and integrity — that's how they act. I've seen it in every — it doesn't matter what level. It can be in politics, it can be in business, it can be in sports, it can be in the construction field. Doesn't matter. It's all the same attitude. It's the same thing.

People who tell the truth, they're very easy to ... their actions prove it. Something as simple providing a birth certificate. Come on. If you're born here, there's plenty of documents. But you know what? There's no documentation of him. No legal documentation of him. There's been lie after lie after lie exposed, but people put it under the carpet. Hence, the problem we have in this country.

Luke Scott

There needs to be accountability for the truth. I don't care if you're the president of the United States, you need to be held accountable. If you're involved in treacherous acts, or you're saying things that are against, or are selling out our country, you should be brought to trial.

I mean, no one's above the law. There's a lot of people that fought for their country and that's not something to be taken lightly. They gave their life, everything they had, they gave their lives, to give us what we have. That's why I'm so passionate about my beliefs -- because someone died. They gave their life, their blood was spilled, so I had an opportunity to chase a dream and play baseball for a living.

For me, that's not something, "Oh, thank you." No. "THANK YOU." Let me honor you for that by actions by sticking up for what you fought for and passing it on to the next generation and doing my part.

The "Fruit Of Selma" Takes America Hostage Again

The "Fruit Of Selma" Takes America Hostage Again.

Phyllis Schlafly

EPA's aggressive overregulation is forcing the electric industry to choose between continuing to operate while taking on major capital costs of complying with heavy new burdens or closing down and building new plants that use more expensive sources such as natural gas. The public will surely end up paying higher electric rates (aka a big tax increase).

Since Barack Obama, "the fruit of selma", moved into the White House, the EPA has proposed or finalized 29 major regulations and 172 major policy rules. The EPA is, for the first time, simultaneously toughening the regulations on all six major traditional pollutants such as ozone and sulfur dioxide.

Before Climate-gate exposed the politics behind the "false science" of global warming, a 5-to-4 Supreme Court ordered the EPA to consider regulating emissions based on that unsubstantiated and now largely discredited theory.

(Since the supreme court ruling global warming has been exposed as a total HOAX. The "fruit Of Selma" AKA barack obama has been busy pushing the global warming lie though money, threats, spying, cyberwarfare and a secret global diplomatic offensive to overwhelm opposition to the controversial "Copenhagen accord", the unofficial document that emerged from the ruins of the Copenhagen climate change summit in 2009.

Without the secret obama administration thugs supporting the "copenhagen accord "there would have not been the "copenhagen accord" HOAX of global warming or "climate change".)
Story Reports

Obama And Hillary Seek Dirt On Nations Opposed To The HOAX Of Global Warming

The Senate's environmentalism expert, Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., warns us that the Obama administration is trying to implement cap-and-trade anyway by bureaucratic regulations. Directives issued by the Environmental Protection Agency are coming down the pike to increase energy costs and kill jobs.

(America has been and still is being held HOSTAGE by "the fruit of selma" aka barry soetoro. The HOAX "president" continues to deny any access to any valid documentation of his American citizenship.) Story Reports

Obama admits he is the "fruit of selma"

Climate Depot exposes The TOTAL HOAX OF GLOBAL WARMING


Is Barack Obama constitutionally eligible for the presidency?

We don't know.

Obama is hiding the fact he was born outside of the US and was an illegal alien until 1994, or he is hiding the fact his muther didn't qualify him to be a us citizen at birth because of the Nationality Act of 1940, revised June, 1952 and she would have had to apply for him to become a NATURALIZED CITIZEN in 1961.

Obama has never proven his eligibility. And, even more tragic, he has never been asked by any controlling legal authority to do so.

The citizens of the United States have a right to know if their president is constitutionally eligible to hold the office.

Obama's hospital of birth, birth documents, passport and Social Security number are all in question, and his legal defense never addresses the merits of the eligibility challenges.

Instead, Obama relies on procedural objections and compliant judges to get the cases thrown out of court.

Despite a virtual blackout by the mainstream media, Obama's eligibility troubles have spread across America, and public opinion has gradually turned against the "president".

Obama's "Certification of Live Birth" posted on the Internet and falls short of providing proof he is a US citizen.

Why has no doctor or hospital come forward to speak of Obama's birth?

Obama's "official account of his identity and background is riddled with inaccuracy and unanswered questions," the report says. "Even Obama's Social Security number may very well be fraudulent. He has literally spent a fortune in legal efforts to avoid producing the documents that would verify his eligibility."

Lending credibility to the concerns being raised is the intense war fought by attorneys trying to keep information about Obama secret. Besides his original birth certificate, still concealed are his kindergarten records, Punahou School records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, client list from his time in private practice, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, Illinois State Bar Association records, his baptism records and his adoption records.

Obama has gone to great efforts to sell the public on his own version of his life, but his story has been inconsistent.

Assuming Obama's parents were Barack Obama Sr., a British subject of Kenyan origin, and Stanley Ann Dunham, an eighteen-year-old American woman, neither of his parents were qualified to transmit automatic U.S. citizenship to him.

(The law required any U.S. citizen having a child with a non-citizen to have been physically present in the United States for at least five years after the age of fourteen to automatically transmit American citizenship. Neither parent could confer automatic American citizenship to their son if he was born outside of the US.

(1) At least one parent is a citizen of the United States, whether by birth or naturalization.

So obama would qualify to be a NATURALIZED citizen because of his mother. The question is did he ever become a NATURALIZED citizen in 1961?

Story Reports

If the fruit of selam did not apply to become a naturalized citizen in 1961 or 1994 he is today an illegal alien

Obama’s "American citizen parent", Ann Dunham, had to have been a resident of the United States for 10 years, at least five of which were over the age of 14. Dunham did not meet that requirement (of the Nationality Act of 1940, revised June, 1952) until her 19th birthday in late November of 1961, almost four months after Obama was born.

Explaination of why obama's "mother" giving birth to obama almost four months after she turned 19, didn't qualify obama jr to be a US citizen because she was 18 years 8 months old at the time of his "birth"

A naural born citizen of the US must have been born to parents who were both citizens at the time of birth.

Obama was an illegal alien because of these facts if his mother didn't apply for him to become a naturalized citizen in 1961.

YES I said obama was an ILLEGAL ALIEN.

Now your probably really confused but let me make it simple for you to understand.

Obama says he was citizen of Kenya and a British subject at birth.

Obama was not an American citizen at birth because his mother did not meet the requirement of the nationality act of 1940 revised jun 1952.

Obama's "father" was a Kenyan citizen at the time of the fruit of selma's birth".

Neither parents qualified barack obama to be a automatic US citizen in 1961 if he was born outside of the US.

So what is he now?

Did his Kenyan citizenship expire at age 21?

The Kenyan Constitution prohibits dual citizenship for adults. Kenya recognizes dual citizenship for children, but Kenya's Constitution specifies that at age 23, Kenyan citizens who possesses citizenship in more than one country automatically lose their Kenyan citizenship unless they formally renounce any non-Kenyan citizenship and swear an oath of allegiance to Kenya.

Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4, 1984.

So what is the citizship status of obama?

It would seem from all the evidence obama was possibly an illegal alien until October 25, 1994. Obama was an illegal alien for 33 years if he was born outside of the US. His mother did not qualify him to be a "citizen" at the time of his birth because of her age! This was because obama was subject to the Nationality Act of 1940, revised June, 1952.

The question is did she apply for him to become a NATURALIZED citizen in 1961? We don't know because there is NO paper trail to validate the fruit of selma's citizenship status.

The immigration law currently in effect under the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act, U.S. Code, Title 8, Section 1401, Sec. 301 (g), as amended by the Immigration and Nationality Corrections Act (Public Law 103-416) on October 25, 1994:


Obama was possibly a naturalized citizen and we know a citizen of Kenya as he has indicated. A dual citizen or possibly an illegal alien. No one in America can verify any documentation in support of "the fruit of selma's" citizenship.

Again obama's parents did not qualify him to be classified as an American citizen but only a naturalized citizen if he was born in the US.

Obama is hiding the fact he was born outside of the US and is an illegal alien or he is hiding the fact his muther didn't qualify him to be a us citizen at birth because of the Nationality Act of 1940, revised June, 1952 and she would have had to apply for him to become a NATURALIZED CITIZEN in 1961.

This means if obama was born outside of the united states he was an illegal alien until Aug 4, 1994 if his mother didn't apply for him to become a NATURALIZED citizen in 1961.

14th Amendment

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

The Fourteenth Amendment is not conferring “natural born” status on anyone, it only confers simple citizenship and the universal rights given to all citizens, “native born” and naturalized.

(If obama was born outside of the US he was possibly an illegal alien until 1994. If he was born in Hawaii as he claims he possibly became a naturalized citizen in 1994 if he swore an oath of allegiance as required by this Act of an applicant for naturalization.

So obama is either a NATURALIZED citizen or an ILLEGAL alien if he never applied to become a naturalized citizen because of the 1994 Immigration and Nationality Corrections Act (Public Law 103-416) on October 25, 1994. Also the fruit of selama is today an ILLEGAL ALIEN if he didn't apply to become a NATURALIZED citizen when the (Public Law 103-416) on October 25, 1994 went into effect.

Ne is not a NATUAL BORN CITIZEN as required by the Constitution.

This is what I believe obama is hiding. After all the research and thought about obama's birth identity it has come down to this.

Obama is hiding the fact he was born outside of the US and is an illegal alien or he is hiding the fact his muther didn't qualify him to be a us citizen at birth because of the Nationality Act of 1940, revised June, 1952 and she would have had to apply for him to become a NATURALIZED CITIZEN in 1961.

So obama possibly became a NATURALIZED citizen in 1961 or (1994 if he was born outside of the US).

If he didn't become a NATURALIZED citizen in 1961 he was an illegal alien for 33 years until 1994 when the 1994 Immigration and Nationality Corrections Act (Public Law 103-416) on October 25, 1994 went into effect and he could have also applied to become a NAturalized citizen then if he was born in Kenya, for example.

If the fruit of selma didn't apply to become a NATURALIZED US citizen in 1961 or 1994 he is today an ILLEGAL ALIEN!!!!!

(b) Upon approval of the application (which may be filed abroad) and, except as provided in the last sentence of section 337(a), upon taking and subscribing before an officer of the Service within the United States to the oath of allegiance required by this Act of an applicant for naturalization, the child shall become a citizen of the United States and shall be furnished by the Attorney General with a certificate of citizenship.

Naturalized is the key word. The only citizenship obama could have obtained would be NATURALIZED citizenship.

The US constitution makes it clear you can be a us senator or congressman if Naturalized but Not a US President!

Obama is a HOAX. I have detected this. I am The HOAX detector.

Rush is right, the "fruit of selma" wants credit for the promises he tried to keep to the subversive radical left. Rush also said obama held a "wet diaper" news conference.

Rush is right, obama is a narcissist that just can't understand why the media asked him a few questions they normally would not have asked him. He studdered several times. He repeated the same word for or five times while he was "thinking".

The facade of obama's media makeover is needing attention.

The HOAX who calls himself obama is just a media facade or empty suit employed by the radical Liberal left.

A NO RECORD because the "fruit of selma" can't afford to display any of his records to the public.

Obama Records leave no paper trail that can validate "the fruit of selama" as a legitimate US citizen

Congress must investigate who the "fruit of selma" really is.