AnyCalculator.com
Over 100 FREE Online Calculators

Saturday, June 5, 2010

Barack Obama carries a series of good luck charms that are idols



Photo of his Chicago home with Hanuman on the walls

Monkey hindu idol in obama's pockets

Ahmadi Nezhad says Obama is the mehdi or their twelfth imam. The mehdi or 12 imam is the ANTI CHRIST OF THE BIBLE. Is Iran telling us Obama is the anti christ? Nezhad called obama the "Imam of the Rightfulness"
.........................................................................................
Jesus called Judas Iscariot a "son of perdition," meaning that Judas was like the Antichrist in that he did not believe that Jesus was the Son of God; Judas denied Jesus as God. Judas didn't claim himself to be Christ -- that would have made him a pseudo-Christ, a false Messiah. Instead, Judas denied who Jesus was, and I think that is a strong clue for understanding and identifying THE Antichrist of end-times events.

Judas appeared to be a Christian, or at least a follower of Christ since the term "Christian" had not been coined yet. In fact, he was considered a disciple.

That may be true of the Antichrist -- he may appear to be Christian, and in fact, try to appear to be a devout Christian.

But Judas didn't really believe that Jesus was the Son of God; there was no evidence of the fear of God in Judas' life. It is believed from Scripture that Judas held the money purse for Jesus and the disciples and took money from it.

That may also be true of the Antichrist -- he most likely won't really believe that Jesus is the Son of God; therefore, there will be no real evidence of the fear of God in his life. And like Judas, the Antichrist may be in a position to be in charge of sums of money that he has no qualms about using for his own ideological purposes.

(Does this sound like an entity that is in the news almost everyday? It does to me.)

Jesus, Himself, called Judas the son of perdition. And since the Antichrist is also called the son of perdition, it appears to me that Jesus was giving us clues to understanding the Antichrist by deliberately using the same name for Judas. Therefore, understanding Judas is probably a key to understanding something of the Antichrist.
.........................................................................................

Thoth is the Egyptian form of the monkey god Hanuman that Obama carries with him.

Idols are not without attachment, and it appears that Obama has chosen Hanuman. It is in his pocket, he has a 2-foot idol (inscribed with his name: SHRI BARACK OBAMA, which means LORD or MASTER BARACK OBAMA)

August 20, 2008 – The Chicago Tribune reported in late June, 2008 that Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) carries a series of good luck charms with him. One of those charms is a Hindu brass monkey king. The charm is an image of Hanuman, Hinduism’s monkey god.Brij Mohan Bhama, a politician associated with the ruling party in India, is a follower of Hanuman and presented the Senator with a 2-foot-high gold-plated Hanuman idol, which had been blessed by a dozen Hindu priests in a special prayer service.According to Bhama, “Obama has deep faith in Lord Hanuman and that is why we are presenting an idol of Hanuman to him.” Bhama also told The Hindu news: “We will ensure that Mr. Obama receives the idol by August 24, a day before the Democratic National Convention in Denver, Colorado.” In addition to the idol, Obama will also receive a Hindu hymn book called the Hanuman Chalisa.

Hanuman is a Hindu god worshipped as a symbol of physical strength, perseverance and devotion. Hanuman’s exploits are recounted in a Hindu epic called Ramayana.

Sen. Obama also carries an American Eagle pin given to him by a Native American woman and a poker chip given to him by one of his supporters, a Madonna and child, and a bracelet belonging to a soldier deployed to Iraq.

“This seems to be an odd assortment of trinkets to carry around,” said TVC Executive Director Andrea Lafferty. “Perhaps this collection of lucky charms is symbolic of Obama’s buffet-style religious belief system, nurtured as a child in an Islamic school in Indonesia and for 20 years under the teachings of Black Liberation Theology racist Rev. Jeremiah Wright.”

Obama was depicted by Egyptians this past June as the New King Tutankhamon of the World.

The Antichrist is called the SON OF PERDITION. That must mean his father is the one who went into perdition.

Perdition is "utter damnation," something terrible chilling considering that at the White House Correspondents' Dinner in May 2009, Obama stated that Michael Steele, chairman of the Republican Party, had just found himself "in the heezy," which is slang for "utter damnation," or perdition.

Jesus called Judas Iscariot a "son of perdition," meaning that Judas was like the Antichrist in that he did not believe that Jesus was the Son of God; Judas denied Jesus as God. Judas didn't claim himself to be Christ -- that would have made him a pseudo-Christ, a false Messiah. Instead, Judas denied who Jesus was, and I think that is a strong clue for understanding and identifying THE Antichrist of end-times events.

Obama's idols

(All this could explain why obama can't cough up his real identity.)

Friday, June 4, 2010

An objection to Hawaiian electorial votes should have taken place in Jan 6, 2009


The second form appears identical, although the signatures are different, including the same strategic typographical error. But in this one, the verification of eligibility under the requirements of the U.S. Constitution is included.

Hawaiian DNC document.


3 USC 15 - Sec. 15. Counting electoral votes in Congress

Congress shall be in session on the sixth day of January succeeding every meeting of the electors.

The Senate and House of Representatives shall meet in the Hall of the House of Representatives at the hour of 1 o'clock in the afternoon on that day, and the President of the Senate shall be their presiding officer.

Two tellers shall be previously appointed on the part of the Senate and two on the part of the House of Representatives, to whom shall be handed, as they are opened by the President of the Senate, all the certificates and papers purporting to be certificates of the electoral votes, which certificates and papers shall be opened, presented, and acted upon in the alphabetical order of the States, beginning with the letter A; and said tellers, having then read the same in the presence and hearing of the two Houses, shall make a list of the votes as they shall appear from the said certificates; and the votes having been ascertained and counted according to the rules in this subchapter provided, the result of the same shall be delivered to the President of the Senate, who shall thereupon announce the state of the vote, which announcement shall be deemed a sufficient declaration of the persons, if any, elected President and Vice President of the United States, and, together with a list of the votes, be entered on the Journals of the two Houses.

Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received.

.........................................................................................
Why didn't at least one US Senator and one US Congressman call for an objection to the electorial votes? What states would they have objected to? Could the objection have been to question the natural born citizenship of obama?

The state that should have had its electorial votes objected to was Hawaii.

Hawaii was the only state in the United States that was certified by the DNC, to comply with Hawaiian law, that obama was a natural born citizen. No other state was certified by the dnc that obama was a natural born citizen except Hawaii.

An objection to require the dnc to explain how obama was certified a natural born citizen for Hawaii only.

Only the dnc knows how they certified obama a natural born citizen for the State of Hawaii only.

When officals in Hawaii state obama is a natural born citizen, they could be referring to the dnc certificate of nomination.

The dnc certificate of nomination for Hawaii was different for Hawaii only.

This should have been objected to by every other state in the union.

Every other state in the union was given a certificate of nomination that did not state obama was a natural born citizen. Certification was “implied” only. Other states don’t require certification of constitutional standing for office. Only Hawaii has a state statute requiring such language.

Hawaii was an exception. The dnc had to comply with hawaiian law in 2008 to get obama on the ballot.

The dnc certified obama as a natural born citizen. Obama was certified as a natural born citizen in one state only, Hawaii.

I find this extremely strange.

The only proof Hawaii has that obama was a natural born citizen is the fact the dnc provided that state with a unique certificate of nomination in 2008.

This is what obama and the dnc don't want you to know.

1. Why did the DNC certify Obama’s eligibility only in Hawaii?
2. Why did no state DNC office, DNC elector, or Election Commission office catch it?
3. Since the DNC made no such certification, on what basis do we assume Obama to be eligible?
4. Without any such certification, isn’t it more important than ever to see the actual birth certificate and ask the courts to make an official ruling on the definition of “natural born citizen?”
5. Why did the DNC use TWO different docs, one incomplete, when the RNC used the same complete doc nationwide?
6. On what basis will the media continue to claim that Obama is eligible?
7. Why did Nancy Pelosi show signs of stress in her Hawaii certification of Obama?
8. When will every American demand answers to these and many more questions?

The DNC drafted, signed and notarized TWO slightly different versions of their Official Certification of Nomination documents, not just one. One of those documents had complete legal language, for Hawaii, and one of them was missing the text concerning the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama, for the other 49 states.

The version which is absent any certification of constitutional standing for the office of president is the version that was filed with every state in the country, except Hawaii.

The fact that TWO DNC Certifications exist, both signed, dated and notarized by the same individuals on the same day, means that a very real conspiracy to commit election fraud was under way, and since it took until six months after the election to uncover it, the conspiracy was indeed successful.

The documents show the "Official Certification of Nomination" of Obama, of "5046 South Greenwood Avenue" in Chicago and Joe Biden, of "1209 Barley Mill Road" in Wilmington, Del., as the party's candidates.

They were signed by Pelosi as chair of the Democratic National Convention as well as Alice Travis Germond, the secretary of the Democratic National Convention at its nominating meetings in Denver a year ago.

They were notarized by Shalifa A. Williamson of Denver.

I would like all the "naturals" as I call them to tell a "birther" why this is not election fraud.

........................................................................................

When all objections so made to any vote or paper from a State shall have been received and read, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and such objections shall be submitted to the Senate for its decision; and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, in like manner, submit such objections to the House of Representatives for its decision; and no electoral vote or votes from any State which shall have been regularly given by electors whose appointment has been lawfully certified to according to section 6 of this title from which but one return has been received shall be rejected, but the two Houses concurrently may reject the vote or votes when they agree that such vote or votes have not been so regularly given by electors whose appointment has been so certified.

If more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State shall have been received by the President of the Senate, those votes, and those only, shall be counted which shall have been regularly given by the electors who are shown by the determination mentioned in section 5 of this title to have been appointed, if the determination in said section provided for shall have been made, or by such successors or substitutes, in case of a vacancy in the board of electors so ascertained, as have been appointed to fill such vacancy in the mode provided by the laws of the State; but in case there shall arise the question which of two or more of such State authorities determining what electors have been appointed, as mentioned in section 5 of this title, is the lawful tribunal of such State, the votes regularly given of those electors, and those only, of such State shall be counted whose title as electors the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide is supported by the decision of such State so authorized by its law; and in such case of more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State, if there shall have been no such determination of the question in the State aforesaid, then those votes, and those only, shall be counted which the two Houses shall concurrently decide were cast by lawful electors appointed in accordance with the laws of the State, unless the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide such votes not to be the lawful votes of the legally appointed electors of such State.

But if the two Houses shall disagree in respect of the counting of such votes, then, and in that case, the votes of the electors whose appointment shall have been certified by the executive of the State, under the seal thereof, shall be counted.

When the two Houses have voted, they shall immediately again meet, and the presiding officer shall then announce the decision of the questions submitted.

No votes or papers from any other State shall be acted upon until the objections previously made to the votes or papers from any State shall have been finally disposed of.

Read more: http://vlex.com/vid/sec-counting-electoral-votes-congress-19216383#ixzz0pvohkEHE

Thursday, June 3, 2010

5 ways to get a "birth certificate" from Hawaii


Rod Blagojevich, Barrack Obama and Richard Daley during a rally in Chicago, April 16, 2007. Photo Reuters
Barrack Obama, quote "I only saw Rod Blagojevich one time ... and that was in the stands and from a distance at a Chicago Bears Football Game" unquote.

(A bold face lie. Documented. I believe obama is telling another bold face lie about where he was born in the form of a "certificate of live birth" generated out of thin air.) The elements of fraud on the nation have been met.

So many questions but no solid validated answers. "Offical" statements from Hawaii cannot be validated by anyone seeking to verify obama is a US citizen. Therefore "offical" statements from Hawaii mean nothing.

There are 5 ways to get a birth certificate from Hawaii.

5 ways to get a "birth certificate" from Hawaii

There is not way on earth to verify what if anything is on file or was on file in Hawaii if obama applied for a "birth certificate" that was never issued in the first place.

BC4 could have been conjured up by obama. If so there is no birth certificate on file in Hawaii and never was.

BC4. If a child is born in Hawaii, for whom no physician or mid wife filed a certificate of live birth, and for whom no Delayed Certificate was filed before the first birthday, then a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth could be issued upon testimony of an adult (including the subject person [i.e. the birth child as an adult]) if the Office of the Lieutenant Governor was satisfied that a person was born in Hawaii, provided that the person had attained the age of one year.

(See Section 57-40 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961.) In 1955 the "secretary of the Territory" was in charge of this procedure. In 1960 it was transferred to the Office of the Lieutenant Governor ("the lieutenant governor, or his secretary, or such other person as he may designate or appoint from his office" §338-41
[in 1961]).

5 ways to get a birth certificate from Hawaii


"a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth could be issued upon testimony of an adult (including the subject person [i.e. the birth child as an adult]) if the Office of the Lieutenant Governor was satisfied that a person was born in Hawaii" Obama could have given, "testimony" to the Hawaiian Lt Governor that he was born in 1961. If the Lt Governor believed obama, he was then issued a "certificate of live birth". So it is also possible obama himself had a "certificate of live birth" issued.

I would call this a super delayed "birth certificate". This "certificate of live birth" cannot be the same as the "certificate of live birth" issued by a hospital because it would not include any signatures or the doctor, parents or registrar. So what is issued? A "certification of live birth". Keep in mind this flavor of "birth certificate" is generated out of thin air with NO original "certificate of live birth" to get the information from. The testimony of an adult (including the subject person [i.e. the birth child as an adult]), OBAMA, is all that is needed. Statements from obama to a Lt governor. It doesn't indicate any documents need to be presented as valid proof only "testimony of an adult (including the subject person [i.e. the birth child as an adult]), OBAMA. This is a "birth certificate" created out of thin air!

What I would like to know is what would satisfy the Lt governor of Hawaii to issue a "certificate of live birth" years later? It doesn't say. It just says if the Lt governor is satisfied. This sounds like anything could satisfy the Lt governor, especially if a US senator requested a copy of his "birth certificate".)

Oh ya I forgot about this one a sure fire way for obama to have obtained a birth certificate from Hawaii if he was born in Kenya. This was made for a thug from chicago.

In 1982, the vital records law was amended to create a fourth kind of birth certificate for children born outside of the Territory or State of Hawaii. HRS Chapter 338 was amended to add a new section authorizing the Director of the Department of Health to issue a birth certificate for a person NOT born in Hawaii either as a Territory or State, upon sufficient proof that the legal parents of such individual had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth of such child.

So heck, you didn't need to be born in Hawaii to get a Hawaiian birth certificate if your parents lived in Hawaii for at least 1 year prior to the birth.

THIS IS ALSO A BIG POSSIBILITY. How can anyone prove Hawaii did not create a "birth certificate" for little bo just because his parents lived in Hawaii 1 year prior to his birth outside the state of Hawaii?

Okubo, who said that she gets weekly questions from Obama ‘Birthers’ that are “more like threats,” explained that the certificate of live birth reproduced by Obama’s campaign should have debunked the conspiracy theories. “If you were born in Bali, for example,” Okubo explained, “you could get a certificate from the state of Hawaii saying you were born in Bali. You could not get a certificate saying you were born in Honolulu. The state has to verify a fact like that for it to appear on the certificate. But it’s become very clear that it doesn’t matter what I say. The people who are questioning this bring up all these implausible scenarios. What if the physician lied? What if the state lied? It’s just become an urban legend at this point.”

“If you were born in Bali, for example,” Okubo explained, “you could get a certificate from the state of Hawaii saying you were born in Bali.

HRS Chapter 338 amended indicates Hawaii in 1982 would issue a birth certificate for a person NOT born in Hawaii either as a Territory or State, upon sufficient proof that the legal parents of such individual had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth of such child.

So ya you could get an Hawaiian "birth certificate" if you were born in Bali but the "birth certificate" would not indicate you were born in bali it would indicate your were born in Hawaii as the law says. Okubo knows Hawaii is not going to issue an Hawaiian "birth certificate" saying you were born in Bali. It would indicate the subject person was born in Hawaii because the parents had lived in Hawaii 1 year prior to the birth of the child.

A "birth certificate", or "certificate of live birth" created out of thin air just because the birthers lived in Hawaii 1 year prior to the birth of BO.

AMAZING!

Obama Cloward Piven Government

(Obama and his regime are the "enemy" sabotaging our society and ripping the guts out of our private economy. Government control of the private economy is the ultimate goal. Every obama initiative is destructive. This EVIL must be rooted out in Nov 2010. Otherwise the regime will be too entrenched. The enemy are traitors to America. The enemy must be defeated.) Story Reports
..........................................................................................
James Simpson Article On cloward-piven-government

Obama Cloward-Piven Government

James Simpson

"It is high time we overcome the denial...."

Excerpt 1

In September of last year, American Thinker published Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis. Part of a series, it connected then presidential candidate Barack Obama to individuals and organizations practicing a malevolent strategy for sabotaging our society. Since then the story of that strategy has found its way across the blogosphere, onto the airwaves of radio stations across the country, the Glenn Beck television show, Bill O’Reilly and now Mark Levin.

Excerpt 2:

The real goal of “healthcare” legislation, the real goal of “cap and trade,” the real goal of “stimulus” is to rip the guts out of our private economy and transfer wide swaths of it over to government control. Do not be deluded by the propaganda. These initiatives are vehicles for change. They are not goals in and of themselves, except in their ability to deliver power, and will make matters much worse, for that is their design.

Excerpt 3:

It is time to acknowledge that these people are our enemies. They don’t use guns, yet, but they are just as dangerous, determined and duplicitous as the communists we faced in the Cold War, Korea, Vietnam and bush wars across the globe, and the Nazis we faced in World War II. It is high time we overcome the denial, and fully digest and internalize this fact, with all its ugly ramifications.

Excerpt 4:

Every single citizen who cares about this country should be spending every minute of his/her spare time lobbying, organizing, writing and planning. Fight every initiative they launch. It is all destructive. If we are to root out this evil, it is critical that in 2010 we win competent, principled leaders willing to defend our constitution and our country. Otherwise the malevolent cabal that occupies the seat of government today will become too entrenched.

James Simpson Article On Cloward-Piven Government

Wednesday, June 2, 2010

In the State of Hawaii, back in 1961, there were four different ways to get an "original birth certificate" on record

In the State of Hawaii, back in 1961, there were four different ways to get an "original birth certificate" on record.

They varied greatly in their reliability as evidence. They will be referred to as BC1, BC2, BC3, and BC4. There is also a BC5.

BC1. If the birth was attended by a physician or mid wife, the attending medical professional was required to certify to the Department of Health the facts of the birth date, location, parents’ identities and other information. (See Section 57-8 & 9 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961).

BC2. In 1961, if a person was born in Hawaii but not attended by a physician or midwife, then all that was required was that one of the parents send in a birth certificate to be filed. The birth certificate could be filed by mail. There appears to have been no requirement for the parent to actually physically appear before "the local registrar of the district." It would have been very easy for a relative to forge an absent parent’s signature to a form and mail it in. In addition, if a claim was made that "neither parent of the newborn child whose birth is unattended as above provided is able to prepare a birth certificate, the local registrar shall secure the necessary information from any person having knowledge of the birth and prepare and file the certificate." (Section 57-8&9) the Dept of Health was contacted and asked what they currently require (in 2008) to back up a parent’s claim that a child was born in Hawaii. The answer was all they required was a proof of residence in Hawaii (e.g. a driver’s license [We know from interviews with her friends on Mercer Island in Washington State that Ann Dunham had acquired a driver’s license by the summer of 1961 at the age of 17] or telephone bill) and pre-natal (statement or report that a woman was pregnant) and post-natal (statement or report that a new-born baby has been examined) certification by a physician. On further enquiry, an employee explained that the pre-natal and post-natal certifications had probably not been in force in the ‘60s. Even if they had been, there is and was no requirement for a physician or midwife to witness, state or report that the baby was born in Hawaii.

BC3. In 1961, if a person was born in Hawaii but not attended by a physician or midwife, then, up to the first birthday of the child, a "Delayed Certificate" could be filed, which required that "a summary statement of the evidence submitted in support of the acceptance for delayed filing or the alteration [of a file] shall be endorsed on the certificates", which "evidence shall be kept in a special permanent file." The statute provided that "the probative value of a ‘delayed’ or ‘altered’ certificate shall be determined by the judicial or administrative body or official before whom the certificate is offered as evidence." (See Section 57- 9, 18, 19 & 20 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961)."

[In other words, this form of vault birth certificate, the Delayed Certificate, required no more than a statement before a government bureaucrat by one of the parents or (the law does not seem to me clear on this) one of Barack Obama’s grandparents. If the latter is true, Ann Dunham did not have to be present for this statement or even in the country.]

BC4. If a child is born in Hawaii, for whom no physician or mid wife filed a certificate of live birth, and for whom no Delayed Certificate was filed before the first birthday, then a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth could be issued upon testimony of an adult (including the subject person [i.e. the birth child as an adult]) if the Office of the Lieutenant Governor was satisfied that a person was born in Hawaii, provided that the person had attained the age of one year. (See Section 57-40 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961.) In 1955 the "secretary of the Territory" was in charge of this procedure. In 1960 it was transferred to the Office of the Lieutenant Governor ("the lieutenant governor, or his secretary, or such other person as he may designate or appoint from his office" §338-41
[in 1961]).

("a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth could be issued upon testimony of an adult (including the subject person [i.e. the birth child as an adult]) if the Office of the Lieutenant Governor was satisfied that a person was born in Hawaii" Obama could have given, "testimony" to the Hawaiian Lt Governor that he was born in 1961. If the Lt Governor believed obama he was then issued a "certificate of live birth". So it is also possible obama himself had a "certificate of live birth" issued. I would call this a super delayed
"birth certificate". This "certificate of live birth" cannot be the same as the "certificate of live birth" issued by a hospital because it would not include any signatures or the doctor, parents or registrar. So what is issued? A "certification of live birth". I believe this is also a real possiblility.

What I would like to know is what would satisfy the Lt governor of Hawaii to issue a "certificate of live birth" years later? It doesn't say. It just says if the Lt governor is satisfied. This sounds like anything could satisfy the Lt governor, especially if a US senator requested a copy of his "birth certificate".) Story Reports

BC5 In 1982, the vital records law was amended to create a fifth kind of "original birth certificate". Under Act 182 H.B. NO. 3016-82, "Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that the proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child." In this way "state policies and procedures" accommodate even "children born out of State" (this is the actual language of Act 182) with an "original birth certificate on record." So it is even possible that the birth certificate referred to by Dr Fukino is of the kind specified in Act 182.

This possibility cannot be dismissed because such a certificate certainly satisfies Dr Fukino’s statement that "I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures." If this is the case, Dr Fukino would have perpetrated so unusually disgusting a deception that I find it practically incredible (and I greatly doubt that anyone could be that shameless). On the other hand, if the original birth certificate is of types 2, 3, or 4, Dr Fukino’s statement would be only somewhat less deceptive and verbally tricky. I only bring up this possibility to show how cleverly hedged and "lawyered" and basically worthless Dr Fukino’s statement is.

Sections 57-8, 9, 18, 19, 20 & 40 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act explain why Barack Obama has refused to release the original vault birth certificate. If the original certificate were the standard BC1 type of birth certificate, he would have allowed its release and brought the controversy to a quick end. But if the original certificate is of the other kinds, then Obama would have a very good reason not to release the vault birth certificate. For if he did, then the tape recording of Obama’s Kenyan grandmother asserting that she was present at his birth in Kenya becomes far more important.

As does the Kenyan ambassador’s assertion that Barack Obama was born in Kenya, as well as the sealing of all government and hospital records relevant to Obama by the Kenyan government. And the fact that though there are many witnesses to Ann Dunham’s presence on Oahu from Sept 1960 to Feb 1961, there are no witnesses to her being on Oahu from March 1961 to August 1962 when she returned from Seattle and the University of Washington. No Hawaiian physicians, nurses, or midwives have come forward with any recollection of Barack Obama’s birth.

The fact that Obama refuses to release the vault birth certificate that would instantly clear up this matter almost certainly indicates that the vault birth certificate is probably a BC2 or possibly a BC3.

It is almost certainly a BC 3 or even a BC 4 if the "Certification of Live Birth" posted on the Daily Kos blog and the fightthesmears.com website by the Obama campaign is a forgery.

(The bottom line is if obama was born outside of the US his mother did not quality him to be a US citizen in 1961. He was an illegal alien for 33 years until 1994 when the law changed. Hawaiian officals could have issued several kinds of "birth certificates, or certifications to him or his "parents" depending on what kind was applied for. The document obama has presented cannot be verified by Americans who want to know if obama is a US citizen. They want to see real proof. They don't want to see a document that can't be verified. They don't rely on any statements from Hawaiian officals. Only the real deal counts. Obama is not the real deal. Obama is a FRAUD!) Story Reports

Tipper saw herself walking into the "global warming" sunset. She decided to pull the plug and cut al loose


Al gore is stunned after he is told his wife tipper is a closet denier of "climate change" or "global warming". She also said their bed was so cold even global warming could not have warmed it up. Al gore offered to deny global warming to reconcile with his wife. She told him the sun would freeze over before they would reconcile.

Then al gore offered to return his academy award, nobel peace prize, berkeley medal, roger revelle prize, NAACP image award, grammy award, national civil rights museum freedom award, honorary doctorate in humane letters, primetime emmy award, prince of asturias award, quill award and webby award. Gore said, "Our love story marriage has broken up because george bush stole the 2000 election."

Tipper told him his awards didn't mean anything to her. She said, quote: "I lived with an IDIOT for 40 years, acting as if he deserved his awards. I would like to give my husband an award, its the frankenstein award because he has been a frankenstein of a husband and a cold fish of a lover."
.........................................................................................

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — Former Vice President Al Gore and his wife, Tipper, are separating after 40 years of marriage.

According to an e-mail circulated among the couple's friends and obtained by The Associated Press on Tuesday, the Gores said it was "a mutual and mutually supportive decision that we have made together following a process of long and careful consideration."
Friends of the couple said that they had grown apart.

Al Gore is 62 and Tipper Gore is 61. No specifics were given in the Gores' statement about their separation. Friends of the couple said that they had grown apart.

Coontz quoted an AARP study of divorces after long marriages that found men often initiate divorce proceedings because they have found someone else, while women pull the plug because they are tired of "putting up with stuff."

The Lilac Tree in Evanston hosts a program called Divorce University, which brings women going through divorce together with lawyers, mediators and other experts. Carol Patinkin, executive director of The Lilac Tree, said half of the 101 participants who answered a survey at the program in April were leaving relationships of 20 or more years. Of those, 14 percent had been together more than 30 years.

Ila Chaiken, a social worker at The Lilac Tree, saw her marriage to her high school sweetheart unravel after 25 years. She knows all too well the terrain that Tipper Gore is traversing.

"Most women think it's going to be forever," Chaiken said.

Chaiken has had numerous clients in the same age range as Tipper Gore, many of whom "see themselves walking into the sunset … and then they are cut loose."

.......................................................................................
Tipper saw herself walking into the "global warming" sunset. She decided to pull the plug and cut al loose.

"Love means never having to say you're sorry" is a line from the novel and 1970 film Love Story starring Ali MacGraw and Ryan O'Neal.

Tommy Lee Jones moved to New York to become an actor, making his Broadway debut in 1969's A Patriot for Me in a number of supporting roles. In 1970, he landed his first film role, appropriately playing a Harvard student in Love Story (Erich Segal, the author of "Love Story," said that he based the lead character of Oliver on the two undergrad roommates he knew while teaching at Harvard, Tommy Lee Jones and AL Gore).

(Eric segal the author of love story based his lead character on tommy lee jones and al gore. Did tipper marry a closet light in the loafers, light on his toes frankenstein?)

Monday, May 31, 2010

S 510, the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2010, may be the most dangerous bill in the history of the US.


Obama and his wife want to control what you eat

There are 2 versions of Bill Number S.510 for the 111th Congress.

1 . FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (Introduced in Senate)[S.510.IS]
2 . FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (Reported in Senate)[S.510.RS]

The Snake Has Two Heads Or Two Versions This is weird don't you think?


By Steve Green

S 510, the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2010, may be the most dangerous bill in the history of the US.

It is to our food what the bailout was to our economy, only we can live without money.

“If accepted [S 510] would preclude the public’s right to grow, own, trade, transport, share, feed and eat each and every food that nature makes.

(Obama not only wants to control health care through government panels that determine if you are worthy of life, he also wants to control your right to grow food in your own garden. The FRAUD obama is not just a fraud but is evil!) Story Reports

It will become the most offensive authority against the cultivation, trade and consumption of food and agricultural products of one’s choice. It will be unconstitutional and contrary to natural law or, if you like, the will of God.” ~Dr. Shiv Chopra, Canada Health whistleblower

It is similar to what India faced with imposition of the salt tax during British rule, only S 510 extends control over all food in the US, violating the fundamental human right to food.

Monsanto says it has no interest in the bill and would not benefit from it, but Monsanto’s Michael Taylor who gave us rBGH and unregulated genetically modified (GM) organisms, appears to have designed it and is waiting as an appointed Food Czar to the FDA (a position unapproved by Congress) to administer the agency it would create — without judicial review — if it passes. S 510 would give Monsanto unlimited power over all US seed, food supplements, food and farming.

History

In the 1990s, Bill Clinton introduced HACCP (Hazardous Analysis Critical Control Points) purportedly to deal with contamination in the meat industry. Clinton’s HACCP delighted the offending corporate (World Trade Organization “WTO”) meat packers since it allowed them to inspect themselves, eliminated thousands of local food processors (with no history of contamination), and centralized meat into their control. Monsanto promoted HACCP.

In 2008, Hillary Clinton, urged a powerful centralized food safety agency as part of her campaign for president. Her advisor was Mark Penn, CEO of Burson Marsteller*, a giant PR firm representing Monsanto. Clinton lost, but Clinton friends such as Rosa DeLauro, whose husband’s firm lists Monsanto as a progressive client and globalization as an area of expertise, introduced early versions of S 510.

S 510 fails on moral, social, economic, political, constitutional, and human survival grounds.

1. It puts all US food and all US farms under Homeland Security and the Department of Defense, in the event of contamination or an ill-defined emergency. It resembles the Kissinger Plan.

2. It would end US sovereignty over its own food supply by insisting on compliance with the WTO, thus threatening national security. It would end the Uruguay Round Agreement Act of 1994, which put US sovereignty and US law under perfect protection. Instead, S 510 says:

COMPLIANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS.

Nothing in this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) shall be construed in a manner inconsistent with the agreement establishing the World Trade Organization or any other treaty or international agreement to which the United States is a party.

3. It would allow the government, under Maritime Law, to define the introduction of any food into commerce (even direct sales between individuals) as smuggling into “the United States.” Since under that law, the US is a corporate entity and not a location, “entry of food into the US” covers food produced anywhere within the land mass of this country and “entering into” it by virtue of being produced.

SEC. 310. SMUGGLED FOOD. (d) Definition- In this subsection, the term `smuggled food' means any food that a person introduces into the United States through fraudulent means or with the intent to defraud or mislead.

(Its says ANY FOOD a person introduces into the US with the intent to defraud or mislead. Do you see the words ANY FOOD? This bill would make ANY FOOD the government, obama and his thugs, want to declare 'smuggled food'. This is made to order for the 666 symbol that everyone must display to buy or sell. Its just like the bible says. In the last days people will have iching ears to listen to false teachers. Obama is not only a FRAUD his is as this bill shows setting up food rationing by the government as it sees fit. 666=obama) Story Reports

4. It imposes Codex Alimentarius on the US, a global system of control over food. It allows the United Nations (UN), World Health Organization (WHO), UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and the WTO to take control of every food on earth and remove access to natural food supplements. Its bizarre history and its expected impact in limiting access to adequate nutrition (while mandating GM food, GM animals, pesticides, hormones, irradiation of food, etc.) threatens all safe and organic food and health itself, since the world knows now it needs vitamins to survive, not just to treat illnesses.

5. It would remove the right to clean, store and thus own seed in the US, putting control of seeds in the hands of Monsanto and other multinationals, threatening US security.

6. It includes NAIS, an animal traceability program that threatens all small farmers and ranchers raising animals. The UN is participating through the WHO, FAO, WTO, and World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) in allowing mass slaughter of even heritage breeds of animals and without proof of disease. Biodiversity in farm animals is being wiped out to substitute genetically engineered animals on which corporations hold patents. Animal diseases can be falsely declared. S 510 includes the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), despite its corrupt involvement in the H1N1 scandal, which is now said to have been concocted by the corporations.

7. It extends a failed and destructive HACCP to all food, thus threatening to do to all local food production and farming what HACCP did to meat production – put it in corporate hands and worsen food safety.

8. It deconstructs what is left of the American economy. It takes agriculture and food, which are the cornerstone of all economies, out of the hands of the citizenry, and puts them under the total control of multinational corporations influencing the UN, WHO, FAO and WTO, with HHS, and CDC, acting as agents, with Homeland Security as the enforcer. The chance to rebuild the economy based on farming, ranching, gardens, food production, natural health, and all the jobs, tools and connected occupations would be eliminated.

9. It would allow the government to mandate antibiotics, hormones, slaughterhouse waste, pesticides and GMOs. This would industrialize every farm in the US, eliminate local organic farming, greatly increase "global warming" a farce, from increased use of oil-based products and long-distance delivery of foods, and make food even more unsafe. The five items listed — the Five Pillars of Food Safety — are precisely the items in the food supply which are the primary source of its danger.

10. It uses food crimes as the entry into police state power and control. The bill postpones defining all the regulations to be imposed; postpones defining crimes to be punished, postpones defining penalties to be applied. It removes fundamental constitutional protections from all citizens in the country, making them subject to a corporate tribunal with unlimited power and penalties, and without judicial review. It is (similar to C-6 in Canada) the end of Rule of Law in the US.

(The bill talks about penalties but just like the stimulus bill does not define what is included in the bill. Imagine a bill passed by congress then modified later to include anything. Its the obama way. Its the chicago thug criminal way. Like I said obama is evil.) Story Reports

For further information, watch these videos:

Food Laws – Forcing people to globalize

State Imposed Violence … to snatch resources of ordinary people

Corporate Rule and the corporation exists in the district of columbia

Reclaiming Economies

Oak snake image at Alfred B. Maclay Gardens State Park, Florida

Food Safety: The Worst of Both Bills (HR 2749 and S 510)

The snake is hissing in the grass and its obama's mentor (Article source)

Oregon's small-scale farms worry about sweeping food safety bill

Sunday, May 30, 2010

Obama’s Dreams From My Father, Are Composites Of People Made Up


Obama could not have filed a selective service registration form from Hawaii on September 4, 1980 as he was attending Occidental College in California, the classes of which commenced August 24, 1980.
........................................................................................

England’s the New Statements, also reviewed Obama’s biographical record and concluded that

"background is strikingly dysfunctional but by no means economically underprivileged."

The article also noted that Obama’s Dreams From My Father were a:

…a personal and political résumé that, in places, seemed almost unbelievable - so I [Andrew Stephen of New Statesmen] was not surprised to read in his [Obama’s] introduction to the reissued edition of “selective lapses of memory” and “the temptation to colour events in ways favourable to the writer”.

Having Dreams on hand, I double-checked Andrew Stephen’s passage, and lo-and behold, after having his book remaindered in 1995, Obama’s new 2004 edition boasted the following paragraph:

…there are the dangers inherent in any autobiographical work: the temptation to color events in ways favorable to the writer…. selective lapses of memory. … Although much of this book is based on contemporaneous journals or the oral histories of my family, the dialogue is necessarily an approximation of what was actually said or relayed to me. For the sake of compression, some of the characters that appear are composites of people I’ve known, and some events appear out of precise chronology. With the exception of my family and a handful of public figures, the names of most characters have been changed for the sake of their privacy. [7]

That’s called insurance. As with everything Obama does, it comes after the fact, after the lies are told, and sold. His 2004 caveats are telling:

1) Obama admits that his dialogs are contrived in places.
2) Some of his characters are composites
3) Their names are fake
4) The chronology is invented or wrong

Basically, Obama is telling us that in Dreams From My Father some events are colored by selective lapses of memory.

A great deal of Obama’s supposed cases of racism are fabricated for his political purposes.

On Page 26 of “Dreams of My Father”, first published in 1995 , Obama writes:

“I discovered this article, folded away among my birth certificate and old vaccination forms, when I was in high school,”

(What is the birth certificate obama is talking about? If it was a long form birth certificate with hospital name and doctor name, signatures etc, why did obama present a short form birth certificate missing an important embossed seal and signature on his web site? What happened to this "birth certificate" obama found? It must be fabricated as a "composite" "birth certificate" for his book. The certificate he was talking about was fabricated as is his unverified "certification of live birth" with no hospital name, no doctor name, no signatures, no embossed seal and signature.) Story Reports

While this brief quote does not state WHAT article it is that Obama found, it does mention that he found it WITH his BIRTH CERTIFICATE. This would have been in the mid 70′s, so this birth certificate would not have been a computer generated document.

This statement shows that Obama has seen the original, and that it was in the apartment where he lived, and where his grandmother lived.

(This is what obama wants you to believe. If he had an original hospital generated "certificate of live birth" he fabricated it for his book. There would have been no need to apply for a "certification of live birth" short form. Obama has only applied for a short form. The form he has posted on the web has not been accepted by registrar only filed with registrar. This indicates Hawwian officals wanted more evidence of obama's birth in Hawaii before accepting it. If it was accepted by the registrar it would have an offical seal and signature and would state, "accepted by registrar". It does not indicate this. Obama's evidence is totally FAKE!) Story Reports

(Bottom line, obama's book is a faked. Obama admits this in the revised 2004 edition. This is the same year he actually became a US citizen. Prior to this time obama was an illegal alien because his mother gave birth to him outside of the US. She did not convey US citizenship.

Obama is a composite of fake "dreams". The one Social Security number Obama most frequently used, the one beginning with 042, is a number issued in Connecticut sometime during 1976-1977, yet there is no record of Obama ever living or working in Connecticut. Indeed, during this time period Obama would have been 15-16 years old and living in Hawaii at the time.) Story Reports

Did President-elect Barack Hussein Obama commit a federal crime in September of 2008? Or did he never actually register and, instead, did friends of his in the Chicago federal records center, which maintains the official copy of his alleged Selective Service registration commit the crime for him? It’s either one or the other, as indicated by the release of Barack Obama’s official Selective Service registration for the draft.

* The Selective Service Data Mgt. Center Stonewalled for Almost a Year on Obama Registration, Until Right Before the Election. Then, they suddenly found the record on September 9, 2008. They stated that his record was filed on September 4, 1980. Obama could not have filed it in Hawaii on September 4, 1980 as he was attending Occidental College in California, the classes of which commenced August 24, 1980.

Obama has also faked his selective service registration

Obama is a retroactive citizen and not a natural born citizen

Obama revised his own history of himself to hide the fact he was an illegal alien at birth.

I don't believe obama has a hospital certificate of live birth. I don't believe obama is a US citizen as he says he was in 1961. Obama only became a citizen in 1994 because of a 1952 law was changed to make him a citizen retroactively. Obama is a retroactive citizen. He was an illegal alien from birth until 1994.


U.S. CITIZENSHIP LAW AND OVERSEAS AMERICANS

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.

Obama was an ILLEGAL ALIEN for 33 years until The Immigration and Nationality Corrections Act (Public Law 103-416) on October 25, 1994 was revised. On this date obama became a US citizen but not a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

This makes obama a RETROACTIVE US citizen. This also makes obama a FRAUD because he said he was born in Hawaii at birth. The "certification of live birth" obama has presented to the world is issued to persons who are not born in hospitals and most likely were born outside of the US. This is why his "birth certification" does not list a hospital, doctor or registrar name.

Friday, May 28, 2010

If obama was born outside of the US he became an illegal alien at birth and for 33 years until 1994 when he became a citizen

This information is hard to find on the web. The government only wants you to see the latest revisions of U.S. CITIZENSHIP LAW AND OVERSEAS AMERICANS.

What is imposrtant is the law that was in effect at the time of Barack Obama's birth to his parents. The law in 1961.

...........................................................................................

U.S. CITIZENSHIP LAW AND OVERSEAS AMERICANS

1790 First Congress, Act of March 26th, 1790, 1 Stat. 103.


"And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States".


1795 Act of January 29, 1795. Section 3, 1 Stat. 414, 415. (Same general provisions as above).


1802 Act of April 14, 1802. Section 4, 2 Stat. 153, 144. (Same general provisions as above).


1855 Act of February 10, 1855. Section 1, 10 Stat. 604.


"All children heretofore born or hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or may be at the time of their birth citizens thereof, are declared to be citizens of the United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to children whose fathers never resided in the United States."


1878 Section 1993, Revised Statutes of 1878. (Same general provisions as 1855 Act).


1907 Act of March 2, 1907, Section 6, 34 Stat. 1228, 1229.


"That all children born outside the limits of the United States who are citizens thereof in accordance with the provisions of section nineteen hundred and ninety-three of the Revised Statutes of the United States and who continue to reside outside the United States shall, in order to receive the protection of this Government, be required upon reaching the age of eighteen years to record at an American consulate their intention to become residents and remain citizens of the United States and shall be further required to take the oath of allegiance to the United States upon attaining their majority."


1934 Act of May 24, 1934, Section 1, 48 Stat. 797.


"Any child hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose father or mother or both at the time of birth of such child is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States: but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to any such child unless the citizen father or citizen mother, as the case may be, has resided in the United States previous to the birth of such child. In cases where one of the parents is an alien, the right of citizenship shall not descend unless the child comes to the United States and resides therein for at least five years continuously immediately previous to his eighteenth birthday, and unless, within six months after the child's twenty-first birthday, he or she shall take an oath of allegiance to the United States of America as prescribed by the Bureau of Naturalization."


1940 The Nationality Act of 1940, Section 201, 54 Stat. 1137.


"Section 201. The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:


"(g) A person born outside the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, has had ten years' residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, at least five of which were after attaining the age of sixteen years, the other being an alien: Provided, That in order to retain such citizenship, the child must reside in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling five years between the ages of thirteen and twenty-one years: Provided further, That, if the child has not taken up a residence in the United States or its outlying possessions by the time he reaches the age of sixteen years, or if he resides abroad for such a time that it becomes impossible for him to complete the five years' residence in the United States or its outlying possessions before reaching the age of twenty-one years, his American citizenship shall thereupon cease.


(h) The foregoing provisions of subsection (g) concerning retention of citizenship shall apply to a child born abroad subsequent to May 24, 1934."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(If 17 year old Ann Dunham gave birth to a child on foreign soil whose father was not an American citizen, then the Immigration and Nationality Act at that time denied Barack Obama any right to American citizenship of any kind. Obama's mother Stanley Ann Dunham was born Nov 29, 1942. Obama was born on Aug 4, 1961 as his undocumented "cerfication of live birth" shows. Obama was born 18 years 8 months after his mother was born.

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.

Obama was an ILLEGAL ALIEN for 33 years until The Immigration and Nationality Corrections Act (Public Law 103-416) on October 25, 1994 was revised. On this date obama became a US citizen but not a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

This makes obama a RETROACTIVE US citizen. This also makes obama a FRAUD because he said he was born in Hawaii at birth. The "certification of live birth" obama has presented to the world is issued to persons who are not born in hospitals and most likely were born outside of the US. This is why his "birth certification" does not list a hospital, doctor or registrar name. Story Reports

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(7) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States, who prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1952 The Immigration and Nationality Act of June 27, 1952, 66 Stat. 163, 235, 8 U.S. Code Section 1401 (b). (Section 301 of the Act).


"Section 301. (a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:


"(1) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;


"(7) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States, who prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years.


(b) Any person who is a national and citizen of the United States at birth under paragraph (7) of subsection (a), shall lose his nationality and citizenship unless he shall come to the United States prior to attaining the age of twenty-three years and shall immediately following any such coming be continuously physically present in the United State(s) for at least five years: Provided, That such physical presence follows the attainment of the age of fourteen years and precedes the age of twenty-eight years.


(c) Subsection (b) shall apply to a person born abroad subsequent to May 24, 1934: Provided, however, That nothing contained in this subsection shall be construed to alter or affect the citizenship of any person born abroad subsequent to May 24, 1934, who, prior to the effective date of this Act, has taken up a residence in the United States before attaining the age of sixteen years, and thereafter, whether before or after the effective date of this Act, complies or shall comply with the residence requirements for retention of citizenship specified in subsections (g) and (h) of section 201 of the Nationality Act of 1940, as amended."


1956 Fee v. Dulles (236 F.2nd 855 (C.A. 7, 1956), (355 U.S. 61)). A child born abroad on or after May 24, 1934, who acquired U.S. citizenship through one citizen parent had to comply with certain conditions for establishing American residence in order to retain his American citizenship. In Fee v. Dulles, the lower courts upheld the original administrative position that a person who had not complied with the conditions prescribed by previous statutes had lost his citizenship and derived no benefit from the more generous retention provisions of the 1952 act. However, upon consideration of this issue when it reached the Supreme Court the Solicitor General confessed error, taking the position that a person who could comply with the terms of section 301 (b) and (c) would retain his American citizenship, even though he had not fulfilled similar provisions of the earlier statutes. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court, and thus adopted the view projected in the Solicitor General's confession of error.


1956 The Act of March 16, 1956, (70 Stat. 50), provided as follows:


"That section 301 (a) (7) of the Immigration and Nationality Act shall be considered to have been and to be applicable to a child born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions after January 12, 1941, and before December 24, 1952, of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has served in the Armed Forces of the United States after December 31, 1946, and before December 24, 1952, and whose case does not come within the provisions of section 201 (g) or (i) of the Nationality Act of 1940".


1957 Act of September 11, 1957 (71 Stat. 644), provides as follows:


"Section 16. In the administration of section 301 (b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, absences from the United States of less than twelve months in the aggregate, during the period for which continuous physical presence in the United States is required, shall not be considered to break the continuity of such physical presence."


1961 Montana v. Kennedy (366 U.S. 308 (1961)). The court ruled that a child born abroad prior to May 24, 1934, to an American citizen mother did not acquire American citizenship at birth, since at that time citizenship at birth was transmitted only by a citizen father. Although subsequent legislation conferred upon American women the power to transmit citizenship to their children born abroad, such legislation was not retroactive and did not bestow citizenship on persons born before the enactment of such legislation.


See also: Wolf v Brownell (253 F.2nd 141 - (C.A. 9, 1958)-certiori denied (358 U.S. 859)). and D'Alessio v. Lehmann (289 F.2nd 371 - (C.A. 6, 1961)-certiori denied (368 U.S. 822)).


1964 Schneider v. Rusk (377 U.S. 163 (1964)). Mrs. Schneider, a German national by birth, acquired United States citizenship derivatively through her mother's naturalization in the United States. She came to the USA as a small child with her parents and remained there until she finished college. She then went abroad for graduate work, was engaged to a German national, married in Germany, and stayed in residence there. She declared that she had no intention of returning to the United States. In 1959, she was denied a passport by the State Department on the ground that she had lost her United States citizenship under the specific provisions of Paragraph 352 (a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. Paragraph 1484 (a)(1), by continuous residence for three years in a foreign state of which she was formerly a national. The Court, by a five-to-three vote, held the statute violative of Fifth Amendment due process because there was no like restriction against foreign residence by native-born citizens. The dissent (Mr. Justice Clark, joined by Justices Harlan and White) based its position on what it regarded as the long acceptance of expatriating naturalized citizens who voluntarily return to residence in their native lands; possible international complications; past decisions approving the power of Congress to enact statutes of that type; and the Constitution's distinctions between native-born and naturalized citizens.


1966 Act of November 6, 1966 (80 Stat. 1322), amended Section 301 (a) (7) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 to read as follows:


"Section 301 (a) (7) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided*, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (59 Stat. 669; 22 U.S.C. 288) by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date.


1967 Afroyim v. Rusk (387 U.S. 253 (1967)). Mr. Afroyim, a Polish national by birth, immigrated to the United States at age 19 and after 14 years in the USA acquired United States citizenship by naturalization. Twenty-four years later he went to Israel and voted in a political election there. In 1960, he was denied a passport by the State Department on the ground that he had lost his United States citizenship under the specific provisions of Section 349 (a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (8 U.S.C. Section 1481(a)(5), by his foreign voting. The Court, by a five-to-four vote, held that the Fourteenth Amendment's definition of citizenship was significant; that Congress has no "general" power, express or implied, to take away an American citizen's citizenship without his assent," (387 U.S. at 257); that Congress' power is to provide a uniform rule of naturalization and, when once exercised with respect to the individual, is exhausted, citing Mr. Chief Justice Marshall's well-known but not uncontroversial dictum in Osborn v. Bank of the United States (9 Wheat. 738, 827 (1824)); and that the "undeniable purpose" of the Fourteenth Amendment was to make the recently conferred "citizenship of Negroes permanent and secure" and "to put citizenship beyond the power of any government unit to destroy," (387 U.S. at 263). Perez v. Brownell (356 U.S. 44 (1958)), a five-to-four holding within the decade and precisely to the opposite effect, was overruled. In dissent (Mr. Justice Harlan, joined by Justices Clark, Stewart and White) took issue with the Court's claim of support in the legislative history, elucidated the Marshall dictum, and observed that the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment did not deprive Congress of the power to expatriate on permissible grounds consistent with "other relevant commands" of the Constitution. (387 U.S. at 292).


1971 Rogers v. Bellei (401 U.S. 815 (1971)). Bellei challenged the constitutionality of Section 301 (b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which provided that one who acquires United States citizenship by virtue of having been born abroad to parents, one of whom is an American citizen, who has met certain residence requirements, shall lose his citizenship unless he resides in this country continuously for five years between the ages of 14 and 28. A three-judge District Court held the section unconstitutional, citing Afroyim v. Rusk and Schneider v. Rusk. The Supreme Court, in a five-to-four decision, held that Congress has the power to impose the condition subsequent of residence in the country on Bellei, who does not come within the Fourteenth Amendment's definition of citizens as those "born or naturalized in the United States", and its imposition is not unreasonable, arbitrary or unlawful. Justice Black filed a dissenting opinion in which Justices Douglas and Marshall joined. Justice Brennan filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice Douglas joined.


1972 Act of October 27, 1972 (87 Stat. 1289), amended the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 by changing section 301 (b) to the new text below; by repealing Section 16 of the Act of September 11, 1957; and by adding the new section 301 (d) below.


"Section 301 (b) Any person who is a national and citizen of the United States under paragraph (7) of subsection (a) shall lose his nationality and citizenship unless (1) he shall come to the United States and be continuously physically present therein for a period of not less than two years between the ages of fourteen years and twenty-eight years; or (2) the alien parent is naturalized while the child is under the age of eighteen years and the child begins to reside permanently in the United States while under the age of eighteen years. In the administration of this subsection absences from the United States of less than sixty days in the aggregate during the period for which continuous physical presence in the United States is required shall not break the continuity of such physical presence."


"Section 301 (d) Nothing contained in subsection (b) as amended, shall be construed to alter or affect the citizenship of any person who has come to the United States prior to the effective date of this subsection and who, whether before or after the effective date of this subsection, immediately following such coming complies or shall comply with the physical presence requirements for retention of citizenship specified in subsection (b) prior to its amendment and the repeal of section 16 of the Act of September 11, 1957."


1978 Act of October 10, 1978 (92 Stat. 1046) repealed subsections (b), (c) and (d) of section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, effective as of October 10, 1978. It also struck out "(a)" after "Section 301" and redesignated paragraphs (1) through (7) as subsections (a) through (g) respectively.


1980 Vance v. Terrazas: upheld the constitutionality of Section 349(c) of the INA. Under this provision, the party claiming that citizenship has been lost has the burden of proving such loss by a preponderance of the evidence. Moreover, a person who commits a statutory act of expatriation is presumed to have committed the act voluntarily, but the presumption may be overcome upon a showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the act was not performed voluntarily. The Court expressly rejected the contention that expatriation must be proved by clear and convincing evidence.


The Supreme Court reaffirmed and explained its holding in Afroyim v. Rusk that in order to find expatriation, "the trier of fact must...conclude that the citizen not only voluntarily committed the expatriating act prescribed in the statute, but also intended to relinquish his citizenship". The court declared that it would not be consistent with Afroyim "to treat the expatriating acts specified in the statute as the equivalent of or as conclusive evidence of the indispensable voluntary assent of the citizen". As the Court explained: "In the last analysis expatriation depends on the will of the citizen rather than on the will of Congress and its assessment of his conduct."


1986 Act of November 14, 1986 (PL 99-653) amended section 301(g) (8 U.S.C. 1401(g)) by striking out "ten years, at least five" and inserting in lieu thereof "five years, at least two". This reduced the prior residence time in the United States necessary for a U.S. citizen married to an alien to be able to automatically transmit U.S. citizenship to a child born abroad from the former period of ten years, five of which after the age of 14, to five years, two of which after the age of fourteen years.


This act also: (a) amended Sec 340(d) of the code reducing the period of time after naturalization before a naturalized citizen can reside abroad from five years to one year; (b) amended section 349 of the code so that a child who obtained a foreign nationality upon the application of the parent before the child reached age 21 years, no longer has to return to the United States to establish permanent residence in the United States prior to age 25; (c) amends section 349 so that a U.S: citizen who is a national of a foreign country and who performs an expatriating act under the provisions of section 349 is no longer presumed to have acted "voluntarily" if the individual has resided in this foreign country more than ten years. This reinforces the importance of the individual's intent in performing such an act as a deliberate intent to lose U.S. citizenship, rather than a mere automatic presumption that such intent existed.


1994 The Immigration and Nationality Technical Corrections Act of 1994 amended several sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and took effect on March 1, 1995.


Amended Section 322 permits children born overseas of a U.S. citizen parent to be eligible for a certificate of citizenship if either their U.S. citizen parent or a U.S. citizen grandparent had been physically present in the United States for at least five years, two of which after the age of 14, prior to the child's birth abroad. This provision also applies to a child adopted abroad.


Amended Section 301 (h) gives back U.S. citizenship to a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.


Amended Section 324 (d) (1) allows former U.S. citizens who lost their citizenship through failure to meet the former conditions of physical presence in the United States to retain their citizenship to regain their citizenship without having to file an application for naturalization.


The law also allows U.S. citizen parents to apply for U.S. citizenship from abroad for their foreign-born children under the age of 18, provided the child is physically present in the United States pursuant to a lawful admission when the citizenship is granted.


1998 In Miller vs Albright (decided April 22, 1998), the Supreme Court in a 6:3 decision held that it was constitutional for Section 309 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. Section 1409) to give U.S. citizen mothers more rights to transmit U.S. citizenship to a child born out of wedlock abroad than to U.S. citizen fathers. There were three separate opinions on the majority side and two opinions on the dissenting side.


2000 PL 106-365, "The Child Citizenship Act of 2000" (or Delahunt Act) signed on 30 October 2000, and which takes effect on 27 February 2001 modifies the Immigration and Nationality Act by making it easier for minor children of US citizens (both foreign-born and adopted abroad) to become citizens of the US. The law has the following effects: (a) A child adopted abroad becomes a US citizen immediately upon entry into the US as a lawful permanent resident; and (b) A child born abroad to parents, one or both of whom are US citizens, but who is not recognized as a US citizen for various reasons, can also benefit from the new law, i.e. that child also becomes a US citizen immediately upon entry into the US as a lawful permanent resident. In the case of US parents residing permanently abroad with no immediate intention of returning to the USA with their children (either natural or adopted), it is also possible to file from abroad for immediate naturalization under a revised Section 322 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (also modified by the new law). This procedure enables Americans abroad to obtain US citizenship for their children, not otherwise eligible to be citizens at birth abroad, through a special naturalization procedure, which does not require that they move back to live permanently in the United States. All the papers are filed from abroad, and the American parent and child/children then travel to the chosen District Office in the United States to finalize the process on the day of a previously arranged appointment.

Kenyan Birth Allegations


U.S. CITIZENSHIP LAW AND OVERSEAS AMERICANS

Thursday, May 27, 2010

Barack obama the retroactive citizen


American Patriot Foundation's Legal Defense Fund will pay for all of LTC Lakin's attorneys fees and costs, and so we urgently need your tax deductible contribution. A noted civilian California trial lawyer has now been hired to be LTC Lakin's lead counsel. It is expected these fees and costs will exceed $500,000 and therefore it is essential that LTC Lakin's supporters come to his aid NOW.

MAKE A TAX DEDUCTIBLE CONTRIBUTION NOW TO TERRY'S DEFENSE FUND....CLICK HERE

Safeguard our Constitution

LTC Terry Lakin has tried in vain to get the same verification from our President that he has been asked to provide countless times in his career, for many jobs, and to obtain a security clearance for the trusted positions he has held within the U.S. Armed Forces.


He has put his life on the line all over the world and served with honor, and will be glad to do so again, but only under a Commander in Chief he knows is legally eligible to lead.

(Obama has put his mouth on the line and stumbled through a teleprompter speech. Obama has not served with honor but is a traitor. Obama is commander in chief in title only. He is but a figurehead acting as commander in chief.) Story Reports

LTC Lakin has questioned the President's "natural born" status, as mandated by the U.S. Constitution's Article II, Section 1. After months of seeking answers, he has not received a definitive response either from the Department of Defense or from his Congressional delegation that would assure him of the President's Constitutional eligibility.

LTC Lakin knows Americans want obama to prove he is a US citizen, a natural born citizen, and come out of the closet. LTC Lakin knows obama is a FRAUD and he is trying to force obama to prove he is not a FRAUD. A vigorous defense of this case presents the ONLY present hope that Americans will finally learn whether their president lawfully holds office. In facing court-martial, LTC Lakin is just the latest victim of the determined effort of the President not to provide simple proof of his eligibility under the constitution to hold office.

(Obama can't provide "simple" proof. This is what is really going on. Obama cannot verify nor prove he is eligibile for office, mandated by the Constitution. Its obama VS LTC Lakin. If obama was forced to verify or prove he is a US citizen or natural born citizen LTC would win the case and obama would be removed from office. Obama's orders are null and void as is any document he has signed while in office. Why? Simple, obama is not eligible to be president because he is NOT a natural born citizen. I also believe he was an illegal alien for 33 years until 1994 when he became a citizen because of US law. I said citizen. I did not say natural born citizen as the US Constitution requires.) Story Reports

Is obama eligible to be president? NO

Obama is Not a natural born citizen but a retroactive citizen.

Sufficient questions have been raised to justify a call for Barack Obama to release his original birth certificate. (There are no doctors, nurses, midwives or other witnesses to Ann Dunham giving birth to Barack Obama in Hawaii. In fact, from mid-February 1961 through August 1962, there are no witnesses to or evidence that Ann Dunham was in Hawaii at all.) If the American people are not shown the original birth certificate, his birth in Kenya or elsewhere becomes a clear possibility. And if Obama continues to refuse to allow the state of Hawaii to release the original birth certificate, it begins to look like he was not born in a hospital in Hawaii (as his campaign has claimed) or at home with the assistance of a doctor or midwife.

My conclusion is obama was born outside of the US. The NATURAL BORN CITIZEN issue is back on the back burner. Its a side show as I had previously concluded. Obama has admitted he was born to a Kenyan father and American mother. This alone makes him a FRAUD because obama and the DNC both claim that he is a natural born citizen. This is an impossible fact. Not only is obama NOT a "natural born citizen" obama was an illegal alien at birth because his mother did not qualify him to be an American citizen. Obama was issued a "certification of live birth". A Certification of Live Birth simply says a woman who has a mailing address in Hawaii for at least a year, gave birth and the child is alive. It is not proof of where the child was born. His mother did not qualify him to be an American citizen because of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.

If obama was born in Kenya this would explain why he has spent millions hiding his original birth certificate, if one exists. If he was born in Kenya because of The Immigration and Nationality Corrections Act (Public Law 103-416) on October 25, 1994 revised obama would be a US citizen now but was an illegal alien for 33 years!

If obama was born in Kenya in 1961 he was not a US citizen because the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, applied to stanley ann dunham at the time of obama's birth. So obama was a man without a country for 33 years. This is what I believe obama is covering up. This is why obama does not want to provide an original birth certificate including hospital name and doctor name. I don't think this documment exists. Imagine if America would find out they elected a man in Nov 2, 2004 Senator and he only became a citizen in Oct 1994. A retroactive citizen. Not a natural born citizen but a "retroactive citizen:!

This is what obama fears. Obama fears his former "life" as an illegal alien being exposed. Obama was most certainly an illegal alien if he was born outside of the US to a parent who did not qualify for him to be a US citizen at the time of his birth. His mother did not qualify him to be a US citizen at the time of birth. This is what I believe obama fears will come out. Obama claims he was a US citizen from birth but if he was born in Kenya for example he was not born a US citizen because of his mother. If obama was born in Kenya in 1961 he was not a US citizen because the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, applied to stanley ann dunham at the time of obama's birth.

If obama was born in the US he has nothing to hide except the hospital and doctors name.

Obama has not produced evidence of either. There have been statements about his birth at a hospital in Hawaii but NO evidence whatsoever.

This is why I question obama's citizenship. This is why LTC Lakin is betting everything on the fact obama is a FRAUD and his "trial" to expose obama will shed some light on the dark side of obama's origins.

Is obama eligible to be president? NO