Who is Barack Obama?
Who is Barack Obama, II? Obama Release Your Records
H.G. Wells, who was a socialist, wrote The Invisible Man, which was published in 1897. In this revealing clip from the 1933 film, the invisible man says: "An invisible man can rule the world, no one will see him come and no one will see him go ..."
The irrefutably shocking answer is that he is the invisible man! Invisible in terms of his entire background and eligibility for the office of POTUS, and invisible in terms of even one objective record of his existence – here is the short list:
A “vault” (authentic) copy of Obama‟s birth certificate: not released.
Certificate of Live Birth: released but proven counterfeit (www.TheObamaFile.com).
Soetoro adoption records
Punahou School records (in Hawaii)
The Obama-Dunham marriage license
The Soetoro-Dunham marriage license
The Indonesian Soetoro adoption records
Certificate of Citizenship
Selective Service Registration, which has reported to be falsified.
Passport from Pakistan
Passport from Indonesia
College records from Occidental College in CA, Columbia University in NY, and Harvard
Harvard Law Review articles: None.
Baptism certificate: None.
Medical records
Illinois State Senate records
Illinois State Senate schedule
Law practice client list
University of Chicago Records
University of Chicago scholarly articles
Baptism certificate
University of Chicago scholarly articles
WHAT IS “BARACK OBAMA” REALLY HIDING?
Among the most investigated and controversial aspects of Obama‟s background has been his birth certificate, with countless numbers of Constitutional scholars, forensic document experts, experienced lawyers, and highly sophisticated everyday Americans, insisting that all the birth certificates the Obama regime has released – which they claim prove he was born in the United States – have been blatant forgeries.
Saturday, December 3, 2011
Friday, December 2, 2011
Is obama a National Socialist?
...........................................................................................
...........................................................................................
...........................................................................................
...........................................................................................
...........................................................................................
When there is no rule of law there is lawlessness. When there is a lawless congress and president there is tyranny you get a government in which a single ruler is vested with absolute power. This is centralized power. This is obama's goal and other Liberals who are useful idiots.
Socialism is an economic system in which "the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy." Socialism often attempts to eradicate class divisions. While the word "socialism" is sometimes used interchangeably with "communism," the two aren't the same -- communism is a more extreme form of socialism.
Communism advocates the "collective ownership of property and the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members." While communism is first and foremost an economic system, it's also a political ideology that rejects religion. And just as communism is a form of socialism, Marxism, Maoism, and Leninism are branches of communism.
Like socialism and communism, fascism uses a central authority to maintain control, but "terror and censorship" are common. It results from economic failure in democratic political systems. Interestingly, while socialism and communism are both on the left end of the political spectrum, fascism contains elements of both "left and right ideology" and rises from economic collapse. The most famous fascist was Italian dictator Benito Mussolini.
Two prevailing historical myths that the left has propagated successfully is that Hitler was a far right wing conservative and was democratically elected in 1933 (a blow at bourgeois democracy and conservatives). Actually, he was defeated twice in the national elections (he became chancellor in a smoke-filled-room appointment by those German politicians who thought they could control him. As head of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, he considered himself a socialist, and was one by the evidence of his writings and the his economic policies.
National Socialism differs from Marxism in its nationalism, emphasis on folk history and culture, idolization of the leader, and its racism. But the Nazi and Marxist-Leninists shared a faith in government, an absolute ruler, totalitarian control over all significant economic and social matters for the good of the working man, concentration camps, and genocide/democide as an effective government policy.
Gregor Strasser, National Socialist theologian, said:
We National Socialists are enemies, deadly enemies, of the present capitalist system with its exploitation of the economically weak … and we are resolved under all circumstances to destroy this system.
(Natioanl socialists are enemies of individual freedon. They exploit everyone by subversion, lies and false statements. They exploit people who are economically weak and depend on the government for everything. These people either don't care about their freedom or are incapable of realizing the real and present danger of the socialists in power. If they knew the truth about obama/socialist liberals and what their true agenda was some would start asking questions about obama and the DNC.) Story Reports
(Ask yourself what is obama? Is he a National Socialist? I Think he is. Everything obama and his liberal socialist comrades have done expands government control over you and has taken freedoms away from you. The "lone wolf" is a dangerous man to obama if he is an individual who doesn't depend on the government for everything and loves freedom. Ask yourself what will happen if obama declares himself absolute ruler by delaring martial law or suspending the elections? Will Americans fight for there freedom? I think so don't you?) Story Reports
Hitler Was A Socialist, (And Not A Right Wing Conservative)
Why didn't Orly Taitz get a valid court order, instead of a subpoena to validate an original birth certificate for obama, if it exists?
The law of the state of Hawaii does not allow the inspection or release of an ORIGINAL birth record. However with a court order from a judge, a "certified copy" of an original birth record can be released. (Hawaii Revised Statute 338-18 (b)
(Taitz should know Hawaii law 338-18 (b). A subpoena is NOT a valid court order. She is wasting her time and everybody involved unless she gets a valid COURT ORDER from a judge.
Martha Trowbridge is a fiction writer and has written about obama.
Orly Taitz is similar to martha trowbridge. Taitz acts like a person in a fiction story and Trowbridge could have written the fiction.
Why didn't Orly Taitz get a valid court order, instead of a subpoena to validate an original birth certificate for obama, if it exists?) Story Reports
A subpoena is NOT a valid court order. Thus far Orly Taitz and others have tried to get Obama's original birth certificate by subpoena and they have been refused but if a judge signs a court order, that would be a different matter entirely.
Orly is having some problems with her subpoena to be allowed to inspect the original of President Obama’s birth certificate. In her first attempt she failed to properly follow the rules and have the subpoena be issued by a Hawaiian court.
In her second attempt she signed the subpoena herself. In her third attempt, she had the subpoena signed by a court clerk, as she, as a pro-se plaintiff cannot issue subpoenas.
Note that contrary to some claims, this is NOT a court ordered subpoena.
In their reply to the first attempt, the defendant’s lawyers pointed out that under Hawaiian law, Orly was not allowed access to the information. The letter served as a written objection pursuant to rule 45(c)(2)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP)
So if Orly insists that her third subpoena was improperly objected to, she needs to move for the issuing court for an order. Why she filed a motion with Judge Lamberth’s court is beyond me.
In a weird chain of events, Orly, now that she believes that since the plaintiffs failed to once again respond to her subsequent subpoena, that she is allowed to inspect the document, even though the lawyers for the defendant pointed out why Orly’s request was in violation of Hawaiian law.
Orly was also informed not to directly contact Loretta Fuddy, the director of the department of health of Hawaii and that she should instead direct her communications to Deputy Attorney General of Hawaii, Jill T. Nagamine.
Orly and the Hawaiian subpoena
The Liberty Legal Foundation has filed a pair of lawsuits against the national Democratic Party
Liberty Legal files simultaneous state and federal lawsuits against the Democratic Party, requesting an injunction to prevent the DNC from certifying Obama for the 2012 ballot.
(Taitz should know Hawaii law 338-18 (b). A subpoena is NOT a valid court order. She is wasting her time and everybody involved unless she gets a valid COURT ORDER from a judge.
Martha Trowbridge is a fiction writer and has written about obama.
Orly Taitz is similar to martha trowbridge. Taitz acts like a person in a fiction story and Trowbridge could have written the fiction.
Why didn't Orly Taitz get a valid court order, instead of a subpoena to validate an original birth certificate for obama, if it exists?) Story Reports
A subpoena is NOT a valid court order. Thus far Orly Taitz and others have tried to get Obama's original birth certificate by subpoena and they have been refused but if a judge signs a court order, that would be a different matter entirely.
Orly is having some problems with her subpoena to be allowed to inspect the original of President Obama’s birth certificate. In her first attempt she failed to properly follow the rules and have the subpoena be issued by a Hawaiian court.
In her second attempt she signed the subpoena herself. In her third attempt, she had the subpoena signed by a court clerk, as she, as a pro-se plaintiff cannot issue subpoenas.
Note that contrary to some claims, this is NOT a court ordered subpoena.
In their reply to the first attempt, the defendant’s lawyers pointed out that under Hawaiian law, Orly was not allowed access to the information. The letter served as a written objection pursuant to rule 45(c)(2)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP)
So if Orly insists that her third subpoena was improperly objected to, she needs to move for the issuing court for an order. Why she filed a motion with Judge Lamberth’s court is beyond me.
In a weird chain of events, Orly, now that she believes that since the plaintiffs failed to once again respond to her subsequent subpoena, that she is allowed to inspect the document, even though the lawyers for the defendant pointed out why Orly’s request was in violation of Hawaiian law.
Orly was also informed not to directly contact Loretta Fuddy, the director of the department of health of Hawaii and that she should instead direct her communications to Deputy Attorney General of Hawaii, Jill T. Nagamine.
Orly and the Hawaiian subpoena
The Liberty Legal Foundation has filed a pair of lawsuits against the national Democratic Party
Liberty Legal files simultaneous state and federal lawsuits against the Democratic Party, requesting an injunction to prevent the DNC from certifying Obama for the 2012 ballot.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Under current US law obama is not a natural born citizen therefore he is a FRAUD "president"
What is a "natural Born" Citizen
Obama is not a "natural born" citizen because his father was a Kenyan national and a British subject, as was Obama, "at birth."
Obama is a "native-born," 14th Amendment citizen because his mother was an American and he was born in Hawaii -- assuming he was born in Hawaii.
Obama is a "citizen" because his mother was an American and he was born in Hawaii -- assuming he was born in Hawaii. If Obama was not born in Hawaii, all bets are off.
Natural Born status is mentioned in case law: Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168
"'At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents [plural] who were its citizens [plural], became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.' Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168."
Under Happersett, a natural born citizen is clarified to mean born citizen without a doubt. Doubt entered the picture due to Obama being born a British citizen under The British Nationality Act of 1948, in effect at the time of his birth. He cannot be, as a state of nature, considered a born citizen of the United States, when he was born British.
The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term "natural born citizen" to any other category than "those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof".
And that's why the Founders included Article II, Section I, Clause 5 in The U. S. Constitution.
The question that the courts or Congress must decide is whether a British subject and citizen of Kenya, a person governed by the laws of Great Britain at the time of their birth should be considered a natural "born citizen" of the United States as required by Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 of the United States Constitution.
Article II, Section I, Clause 5 in The U. S. Constitution.
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
No American court has been willing to hear witnesses or examine evidence in the matter of Barack Obama's eligibility to serve as President of the United States of America (POTUS).
(Under current US law obama is not a natural born citizen therefore he is a FRAUD "preisdent".) Story Reports
1. A "natural born" citizen is any person born of US citizen parents (that's two) in the U. S. mainland (includes Alaska and Hawaii) -- think Ronald Reagan -- in this case, there is no foreign entanglement via parentage AND there is no foreign entanglement via birthplace.
2. A citizen "by statute" is any person born of US citizen parent(s) outside the United States -- think John McCain -- in this case, there is no foreign entanglement via parentage BUT there is a foreign entanglement via birthplace (Colon, Panama).
3. A "native born" citizen, is any person born in the United States mainland -- think Barack Obama -- in this case, there is no foreign entanglement via birthplace (if he was born in Hawaii) BUT there is a foreign entanglement via his parentage (if Barak Obama is his father).
4. If you're not born here, or if your parents aren't Americans, then the only way you get citizenship is via marriage or naturalization -- a "naturalized" citizen is a citizen as the result of these processes -- think Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Persons, eligible for the presidency, have no first generation ties to a foreign nation, whereas ineligible persons always do.
ALL statutory citizens are born with a tie to another nation by birthplace and/or blood, but NEVER is that the case with any natural born citizens who are only American.
A statutory citizen (bestowed by man's pen) can never be a "natural born" citizen (bestowed by God/nature).
........................................................................................
The Liberty Legal Foundation has filed a pair of lawsuits against the national Democratic Party
The lawsuits don't ask anything about Obama's birth or for any determination from the court about his eligibility or his birth certificate.
The national Democratic Party is the defendant, and the court is asked to enjoin officials from certifying that Obama is eligible for the office for the 2012 election.
"This complaint does not request or require this court to find that President Obama is not qualified to hold the office of president of the United States. Instead, this complaint is directed toward defining the term 'natural-born citizen' under the Constitution of the United States, and toward negligence or intentional misrepresentations of the Democratic Party.
"This complaint requests this court to affirm the Supreme Court's definition of 'natural-born citizen' as 'all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens.'"
That definition comes from the U.S. Supreme Court's opinion in Minor v. Happersett from 1875.
"Natural Born Citizen" was defined by an 1875 Supreme Court ruling (Minor v. Happersett) as children born of two U.S. citizens – regardless of the location of the birth. It found: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.
The Liberty Legal Foundation has filed a pair of lawsuits against the national Democratic Party
Obama is not a "natural born" citizen because his father was a Kenyan national and a British subject, as was Obama, "at birth."
Obama is a "native-born," 14th Amendment citizen because his mother was an American and he was born in Hawaii -- assuming he was born in Hawaii.
Obama is a "citizen" because his mother was an American and he was born in Hawaii -- assuming he was born in Hawaii. If Obama was not born in Hawaii, all bets are off.
Natural Born status is mentioned in case law: Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168
"'At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents [plural] who were its citizens [plural], became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.' Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168."
Under Happersett, a natural born citizen is clarified to mean born citizen without a doubt. Doubt entered the picture due to Obama being born a British citizen under The British Nationality Act of 1948, in effect at the time of his birth. He cannot be, as a state of nature, considered a born citizen of the United States, when he was born British.
The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term "natural born citizen" to any other category than "those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof".
And that's why the Founders included Article II, Section I, Clause 5 in The U. S. Constitution.
The question that the courts or Congress must decide is whether a British subject and citizen of Kenya, a person governed by the laws of Great Britain at the time of their birth should be considered a natural "born citizen" of the United States as required by Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 of the United States Constitution.
Article II, Section I, Clause 5 in The U. S. Constitution.
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
No American court has been willing to hear witnesses or examine evidence in the matter of Barack Obama's eligibility to serve as President of the United States of America (POTUS).
(Under current US law obama is not a natural born citizen therefore he is a FRAUD "preisdent".) Story Reports
1. A "natural born" citizen is any person born of US citizen parents (that's two) in the U. S. mainland (includes Alaska and Hawaii) -- think Ronald Reagan -- in this case, there is no foreign entanglement via parentage AND there is no foreign entanglement via birthplace.
2. A citizen "by statute" is any person born of US citizen parent(s) outside the United States -- think John McCain -- in this case, there is no foreign entanglement via parentage BUT there is a foreign entanglement via birthplace (Colon, Panama).
3. A "native born" citizen, is any person born in the United States mainland -- think Barack Obama -- in this case, there is no foreign entanglement via birthplace (if he was born in Hawaii) BUT there is a foreign entanglement via his parentage (if Barak Obama is his father).
4. If you're not born here, or if your parents aren't Americans, then the only way you get citizenship is via marriage or naturalization -- a "naturalized" citizen is a citizen as the result of these processes -- think Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Persons, eligible for the presidency, have no first generation ties to a foreign nation, whereas ineligible persons always do.
ALL statutory citizens are born with a tie to another nation by birthplace and/or blood, but NEVER is that the case with any natural born citizens who are only American.
A statutory citizen (bestowed by man's pen) can never be a "natural born" citizen (bestowed by God/nature).
........................................................................................
The Liberty Legal Foundation has filed a pair of lawsuits against the national Democratic Party
The lawsuits don't ask anything about Obama's birth or for any determination from the court about his eligibility or his birth certificate.
The national Democratic Party is the defendant, and the court is asked to enjoin officials from certifying that Obama is eligible for the office for the 2012 election.
"This complaint does not request or require this court to find that President Obama is not qualified to hold the office of president of the United States. Instead, this complaint is directed toward defining the term 'natural-born citizen' under the Constitution of the United States, and toward negligence or intentional misrepresentations of the Democratic Party.
"This complaint requests this court to affirm the Supreme Court's definition of 'natural-born citizen' as 'all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens.'"
That definition comes from the U.S. Supreme Court's opinion in Minor v. Happersett from 1875.
"Natural Born Citizen" was defined by an 1875 Supreme Court ruling (Minor v. Happersett) as children born of two U.S. citizens – regardless of the location of the birth. It found: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.
The Liberty Legal Foundation has filed a pair of lawsuits against the national Democratic Party
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
