Barack Obama and the CIA: why does President Pantywaist hate America so badly?
Posted By: Gerald Warner at Apr 24, 2009 at 18:41:00 [General]
Posted in: Foreign Correspondents , Politics , Eagle Eye
Tags:
Barack Obama, CIA, Condoleezza Rice, dick cheney, waterboarding
If al-Qaeda, the Taliban and the rest of the Looney Tunes brigade want to kick America to death, they had better move in quickly and grab a piece of the action before Barack Obama finishes the job himself. Never in the history of the United States has a president worked so actively against the interests of his own people - not even Jimmy Carter.
Obama's problem is that he does not know who the enemy is. To him, the enemy does not squat in caves in Waziristan, clutching automatic weapons and reciting the more militant verses from the Koran: instead, it sits around at tea parties in Kentucky quoting from the US Constitution. Obama is not at war with terrorists, but with his Republican fellow citizens. He has never abandoned the campaign trail.
That is why he opened Pandora's Box by publishing the Justice Department's legal opinions on waterboarding and other hardline interrogation techniques. He cynically subordinated the national interest to his partisan desire to embarrass the Republicans. Then he had to rush to Langley, Virginia to try to reassure a demoralised CIA that had just discovered the President of the United States was an even more formidable foe than al-Qaeda.
"Don't be discouraged by what's happened the last few weeks," he told intelligence officers. Is he kidding? Thanks to him, al-Qaeda knows the private interrogation techniques available to the US intelligence agencies and can train its operatives to withstand them - or would do so, if they had not already been outlawed.
So, next time a senior al-Qaeda hood is captured, all the CIA can do is ask him nicely if he would care to reveal when a major population centre is due to be hit by a terror spectacular, or which American city is about to be irradiated by a dirty bomb. Your view of this situation will be dictated by one simple criterion: whether or not you watched the people jumping from the twin towers.
Obama promised his CIA audience that nobody would be prosecuted for past actions. That has already been contradicted by leftist groups with a revanchist ambition to put Republicans, headed if possible by Condoleezza Rice, in the dock. Talk about playing party politics with national security. Martin Scheinin, the United Nations special investigator for human rights, claims that senior figures, including former vice president Dick Cheney, could face prosecution overseas. Ponder that - once you have got over the difficulty of locating the United Nations and human rights within the same dimension.
President Pantywaist Obama should have thought twice before sitting down to play poker with Dick Cheney. The former vice president believes documents have been selectively published and that releasing more will prove how effective the interrogation techniques were. Under Dubya's administration, there was no further atrocity on American soil after 9/11.
President Pantywaist's recent world tour, cosying up to all the bad guys, excited the ambitions of America's enemies. Here, they realised, is a sucker they can really take to the cleaners. His only enemies are fellow Americans. Which prompts the question: why does President Pantywaist hate America so badly?
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Second American Declaration - We The People
We The People
A Second American Declaration
Whereas: When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for We The People to reject the extra-constitutional activities of our elected officials and to assume the protections of our Declaration of Independence and of our Constitution and from among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle us, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that We The People should declare the causes which impel us to make this Declaration, and
Whereas: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, and
Whereas: That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, and
Whereas: That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness, and
Whereas: Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed, and
Whereas: When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security, and
Whereas: We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, have ordained and established a Constitution for the United States of America.
Whereas: Such has been the patient sufferance of We the People; and such is now the necessity which constrains us to RE-AFFIRM AND RE-ASSERT those protections that are our due from our System of State and Federal Government. The recent history of our Federal Government is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over We The People, and
Whereas: To prove this, let the Facts be submitted to a candid world.
1. The Federal Government has usurped the intended role of the Free and Sovereign States and has assumed powers not granted to it in The Constitution,
2. Our Senators and Congressmen have become professional politicians only interested in extending their incumbency,
3. Our Senators and Congressmen have failed to represent the best interests of and have become tyrants in their attitude to and treatment of We The People,
4. Our elected officials have failed to honor and have ignored their oath of office.
5. Our elected officials are actively seeking to pervert our voting system to dilute the vote of We The People for their own incumbency,
6. Our elected officials are more interested in serving their political party then the legitimate interests of We the People,
7. Our Federal Government refuses to and has failed to protect our borders,
8. Our elected Federal Officials and the Judiciary have been working to reduce and diminish the rights guaranteed to We The People in our Bill of Rights,
9. Our Federal Government, through abusive taxing and spending, is eroding the ability of We The People and our free and Sovereign States to secure the services that are our right,
10. Our elected Federal Officials have failed to restrain an activist Judiciary who regularly usurp the role of the Legislative Branch to create new laws and rights,
11. Our elected Federal Officials and the Judiciary are enforcing a separation of church and state which was never agreed to by We The People and are actively hostile to the religious nature of We the People,
12. Our elected Federal Officials are considering eliminating the Electoral College that provides protection to Free and Sovereign States with smaller populations.
13. Our elected Federal Officials are attempting to dismantle our capitalist economic system and replace it with a European Socialist State,
14. Our elected Federal Officials are creating debt that will bankrupt our nation and encumber our children and grandchildren.
15. Our press has abrogated its responsibility and professional standards and no longer serves the interests of We The People.
Whereas: We The People here determine that the labors and sacrifices of those who have gone before us shall not have been in vain and that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth, and
Now Therefore Be It Resolved That:
We The People of the United States of America, of our own volition, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of We The People, solemnly publish, declare and reaffirm, That the United States are Free and Sovereign States, that they need to re-assert their sovereignty; and that as Free and Sovereign States, they have full Power to do all things not specifically given to the Federal Government in the Constitution of the United States of America., and to do all other Acts and Things which Sovereign States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
It Is Therefore Agreed That,
We The People:
Hereby: declare and affirm that the United States of America is the “United States” not the Federal Government and is constituted by WE THE PEOPLE, and
Hereby: petition our duly elected officials in the Free and Sovereign States of this Union to re-affirm the supremacy of our Constitution and to re-assume and exercise the powers reserved to them in our Constitution, and
Hereby: demand that the Federal Government conform and limit its activities to the powers specifically granted to it in our Constitution and none other, and
Hereby: demand that our Free and Sovereign States take all steps necessary including the dissolution and re-constitution of the Federal Government to assure its compliance with the intentions of our founders and to limit and restrict the activities of the Federal Government to those specified in the Constitution and to protect the lawful interests of We The People, and
Hereby: revoke any and all authority given previously to the Federal Government and reaffirm that the rights of We The People are superior to our elected officials and can not be restricted by them..
Russell P. Rasche
How to enforce a people's Grand Jury Indictment
Thursday April 30, 2009
Time 9pm EST 8pm CST 7pm MST 6pm PST
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/Sentinel_Radio
Join the discussion by calling: (646) 727-2652
A Constitutional Scholar, Gerald Donaldson will explain:
How to enforce a people's Grand Jury Indictment
Robert DeBeaux and Dianna Nelson Diaz from Dallas - Ft. Worth
will talk about forming their Grand Jury.
US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia ruled:
"In fact, the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people."
Judges And Prosecutors Are Violating Our Constitution.
Listen to the discussion at:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/Sentinel_Radio
Join the discussion by calling: (646) 727-2652 Time 9pm EST 8pm CST 7pm MST 6pm PST
Mark S. McGrew
McGrewMX@aol.com
Mark S. McGrew Blog Spot
Time 9pm EST 8pm CST 7pm MST 6pm PST
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/Sentinel_Radio
Join the discussion by calling: (646) 727-2652
A Constitutional Scholar, Gerald Donaldson will explain:
How to enforce a people's Grand Jury Indictment
Robert DeBeaux and Dianna Nelson Diaz from Dallas - Ft. Worth
will talk about forming their Grand Jury.
US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia ruled:
"In fact, the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people."
Judges And Prosecutors Are Violating Our Constitution.
Listen to the discussion at:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/Sentinel_Radio
Join the discussion by calling: (646) 727-2652 Time 9pm EST 8pm CST 7pm MST 6pm PST
Mark S. McGrew
McGrewMX@aol.com
Mark S. McGrew Blog Spot
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
"NATIONAL GRAND JURY INDICTS OBAMA FOR FRAUD AND TREASON" - NEWS RELEASE
"NATIONAL GRAND JURY INDICTS OBAMA FOR FRAUD AND TREASON" - NEWS RELEASE
News Release
Press Contact:
Sam Sewell,
National Spokesperson for American Grand Jury
http://americangrandjury.org/
Email: writerpromo@comcast.net
Fax (239) 591-1987
Phone: Clinic Office – (239) 591-4565
Ask for Dr. Sam
“NATIONAL GRAND JURY INDICTS OBAMA FOR FRAUD AND TREASON”
No embargo: For immediate release
(United States of America) – April 29th 2009 - At 8 P.M, ET American Grand Jury convened and conducted a hearing with regard to CRIMINAL activity, complaints and allegations presented before said Jury.
After reviewing the evidence and voting, American Grand Jury members from many states issued the documents for presentment to jurisdictions throughout the nation recommending that person(s) known as Barack Obama, aka: Barack Obama, Jr., aka: Barack Hussein Obama, aka: Barry Soetoro, aka: Barry Obama, aka: Barack H. Obama, aka: Barack Obama II, presumed President of the United States, be tried in Criminal Court for charges of fraud (eligibility) and treason.
Said Grand Jury was convened under the power and authority vested with the people as guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States of America.
The American Grand Jury was served by people of the United States; said people being citizens as were sworn under Oath as to Eligibility for and Service in behalf of the Grand Jury.
The American Grand Jury used established public evidence and testimony of recognized by expert witnesses with a long professional history of forensic experience.
Caveat: Grand Jury hearings are secret and all proceedings will remain confidential until released by the courts.
For an unofficial review and summary of the issues that is available in the public domain see:
AKA Obama Fans: All together now – say OMG!!
http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/04/aka-obama-fans-all-together-now-say-omg.html
News Release
Press Contact:
Sam Sewell,
National Spokesperson for American Grand Jury
http://americangrandjury.org/
Email: writerpromo@comcast.net
Fax (239) 591-1987
Phone: Clinic Office – (239) 591-4565
Ask for Dr. Sam
“NATIONAL GRAND JURY INDICTS OBAMA FOR FRAUD AND TREASON”
No embargo: For immediate release
(United States of America) – April 29th 2009 - At 8 P.M, ET American Grand Jury convened and conducted a hearing with regard to CRIMINAL activity, complaints and allegations presented before said Jury.
After reviewing the evidence and voting, American Grand Jury members from many states issued the documents for presentment to jurisdictions throughout the nation recommending that person(s) known as Barack Obama, aka: Barack Obama, Jr., aka: Barack Hussein Obama, aka: Barry Soetoro, aka: Barry Obama, aka: Barack H. Obama, aka: Barack Obama II, presumed President of the United States, be tried in Criminal Court for charges of fraud (eligibility) and treason.
Said Grand Jury was convened under the power and authority vested with the people as guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States of America.
The American Grand Jury was served by people of the United States; said people being citizens as were sworn under Oath as to Eligibility for and Service in behalf of the Grand Jury.
The American Grand Jury used established public evidence and testimony of recognized by expert witnesses with a long professional history of forensic experience.
Caveat: Grand Jury hearings are secret and all proceedings will remain confidential until released by the courts.
For an unofficial review and summary of the issues that is available in the public domain see:
AKA Obama Fans: All together now – say OMG!!
http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/04/aka-obama-fans-all-together-now-say-omg.html
Obama delays court and justice again
More Delays. USA/Obama Say They Need 124-Days to Answer; Congress 117 Days
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/04/more-delays-usaobama-say-they-need-124.html
Tuesday, April 28, 2009More Delays. USA/Obama Say They Need 124-Days to Answer; Congress 117 Days
See the copy of the court documents electronically filed by the defendants on Monday, April 27, 2009:http://www.scribd.com/doc/14705757/
The lawyer for USA and Obama, Elizabeth A. Pascal, who works in the office of Ralph J. Marra, Acting United States Attorney, is now asking the Court a second time through her motion for more time to answer for the defendants.
Initially, Ms. Pascal only represented the USA and Obama, whose answers or motions were initially due on April 27, 2009. Ms. Pascal requested and obtained an extension to file her responses to May 5, 2009.
Now Ms. Pascal states in her declaration that former Vice President Cheney, the House of Representatives, and Speaker Pelosi have asked that the Department of Justice represent them in the action. She adds that the Justice Department is also deciding which Congressional defendants (meaning Congress, Senate, House, Cheney, and Pelosi) it will represent. Pending the Justice Department making that decision, she is moving the Court for an order allowing all the Congressional defendants more time to answer or otherwise move. She includes in her request additional time for the USA and Obama to answer, whose answers are now due on May 5, 2009.
Ms. Pascal made her motion returnable June 1, 2009 and is asking for an order that she be allowed to file an answer or otherwise move within 20 days of the date of the order to be entered by Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider. This means that if Magistrate Judge Schneider signs the extension order on June 1, 2009, the defendants' answers or motions will be due by June 21, 2009.
Whether or not the President of the United States is eligible for the Office he currently occupies is of utmost national importance. Every passing day Mr. Obama takes executive action that significantly impacts on the lives of Americans. The USA and Obama have already been granted one extension to answer to May 5, 2009. They have therefore been given 77 days to answer. This is enough time for them to answer. With an extension to June 21, 2009, USA and Obama are asking for 124 days and the Congressional defendants are asking for 117 days to answer. Court rules only allow them 60 days. Such delay is not in the national interest and not acceptable. As to the Congressional defendants, a twenty-day extension for them to answer is reasonable, making their answer due by May 18, 2009. Given the national importance of the issues, an extension for all defendants to answer by June 21, 2009 is not acceptable.
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/04/more-delays-usaobama-say-they-need-124.html
Tuesday, April 28, 2009More Delays. USA/Obama Say They Need 124-Days to Answer; Congress 117 Days
See the copy of the court documents electronically filed by the defendants on Monday, April 27, 2009:http://www.scribd.com/doc/14705757/
The lawyer for USA and Obama, Elizabeth A. Pascal, who works in the office of Ralph J. Marra, Acting United States Attorney, is now asking the Court a second time through her motion for more time to answer for the defendants.
Initially, Ms. Pascal only represented the USA and Obama, whose answers or motions were initially due on April 27, 2009. Ms. Pascal requested and obtained an extension to file her responses to May 5, 2009.
Now Ms. Pascal states in her declaration that former Vice President Cheney, the House of Representatives, and Speaker Pelosi have asked that the Department of Justice represent them in the action. She adds that the Justice Department is also deciding which Congressional defendants (meaning Congress, Senate, House, Cheney, and Pelosi) it will represent. Pending the Justice Department making that decision, she is moving the Court for an order allowing all the Congressional defendants more time to answer or otherwise move. She includes in her request additional time for the USA and Obama to answer, whose answers are now due on May 5, 2009.
Ms. Pascal made her motion returnable June 1, 2009 and is asking for an order that she be allowed to file an answer or otherwise move within 20 days of the date of the order to be entered by Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider. This means that if Magistrate Judge Schneider signs the extension order on June 1, 2009, the defendants' answers or motions will be due by June 21, 2009.
Whether or not the President of the United States is eligible for the Office he currently occupies is of utmost national importance. Every passing day Mr. Obama takes executive action that significantly impacts on the lives of Americans. The USA and Obama have already been granted one extension to answer to May 5, 2009. They have therefore been given 77 days to answer. This is enough time for them to answer. With an extension to June 21, 2009, USA and Obama are asking for 124 days and the Congressional defendants are asking for 117 days to answer. Court rules only allow them 60 days. Such delay is not in the national interest and not acceptable. As to the Congressional defendants, a twenty-day extension for them to answer is reasonable, making their answer due by May 18, 2009. Given the national importance of the issues, an extension for all defendants to answer by June 21, 2009 is not acceptable.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Barack's in the basement - Lower than Bush or Nixon
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
EDITORIAL: Barack's in the basement
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
President Obama's media cheerleaders are hailing how loved he is. But at the 100-day mark of his presidency, Mr. Obama is the second-least-popular president in 40 years.
According to Gallup's April survey, Americans have a lower approval of Mr. Obama at this point than all but one president since Gallup began tracking this in 1969. The only new president less popular was Bill Clinton, who got off to a notoriously bad start after trying to force homosexuals on the military and a federal raid in Waco, Texas, that killed 86. Mr. Obama's current approval rating of 56 percent is only one tick higher than the 55-percent approval Mr. Clinton had during those crises. (Clinton also split a three way vote with Bush I and Ross Perot and won the election with only 44,909,889 votes)
As the attached chart shows, five presidents rated higher than Mr. Obama after 100 days in office. Ronald Reagan topped the charts in April 1981 with 67 percent approval. Following the Gipper, in order of popularity, were: Jimmy Carter with 63 percent in 1977; George W. Bush with 62 percent in 2001; Richard Nixon with 61 percent in 1969; and George H.W. Bush with 58 percent in 1989.
It's no surprise the liberal media aren't anxious to point out that their darling is less popular than George W. Bush. But given the Gallup numbers, their hurrahs could be more subdued. USA Today's front page touted the April poll results as positive, with the headline: "Public thinks highly of Obama." The current cover of Newsweek magazine ponders "The Secret of His [Mr. Obama's] Success." The comparison with previous presidents is useful because they are usually popular during their first few months in office - and most presidents have been more popular than Mr. Obama.
The explanation for Mr. Obama's low approval is that he ran as a moderate but has governed from the far left. The fawning and self-deceiving press won't go there. On Sunday's "Meet the Press," host David Gregory asked a panel about critics who "would say one of the things that he's done in 100 days already is expand the role of government, the size of government." Historian Doris Kearns Goodwin claimed, "That's what he ran for the presidency in the first place for."
Perplexed about complaints over Mr. Obama's expansion of government, Newsweek editor Jon Meacham asked: "does no one listen during campaigns?"
It was these pundits who weren't paying attention during last year's campaign. In all three presidential debates, Mr. Obama promised to cut government spending and reduce the size of the deficit. He blamed the economic crisis on excessive deficits. At no time did candidate Barack Obama say that more deficit-spending was the solution.
Mr. Obama's popularity after 100 days is the second-lowest for a simple reason: He is more partisan and divisive than his predecessors - including Richard Nixon.
EDITORIAL: Barack's in the basement
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
President Obama's media cheerleaders are hailing how loved he is. But at the 100-day mark of his presidency, Mr. Obama is the second-least-popular president in 40 years.
According to Gallup's April survey, Americans have a lower approval of Mr. Obama at this point than all but one president since Gallup began tracking this in 1969. The only new president less popular was Bill Clinton, who got off to a notoriously bad start after trying to force homosexuals on the military and a federal raid in Waco, Texas, that killed 86. Mr. Obama's current approval rating of 56 percent is only one tick higher than the 55-percent approval Mr. Clinton had during those crises. (Clinton also split a three way vote with Bush I and Ross Perot and won the election with only 44,909,889 votes)
As the attached chart shows, five presidents rated higher than Mr. Obama after 100 days in office. Ronald Reagan topped the charts in April 1981 with 67 percent approval. Following the Gipper, in order of popularity, were: Jimmy Carter with 63 percent in 1977; George W. Bush with 62 percent in 2001; Richard Nixon with 61 percent in 1969; and George H.W. Bush with 58 percent in 1989.
It's no surprise the liberal media aren't anxious to point out that their darling is less popular than George W. Bush. But given the Gallup numbers, their hurrahs could be more subdued. USA Today's front page touted the April poll results as positive, with the headline: "Public thinks highly of Obama." The current cover of Newsweek magazine ponders "The Secret of His [Mr. Obama's] Success." The comparison with previous presidents is useful because they are usually popular during their first few months in office - and most presidents have been more popular than Mr. Obama.
The explanation for Mr. Obama's low approval is that he ran as a moderate but has governed from the far left. The fawning and self-deceiving press won't go there. On Sunday's "Meet the Press," host David Gregory asked a panel about critics who "would say one of the things that he's done in 100 days already is expand the role of government, the size of government." Historian Doris Kearns Goodwin claimed, "That's what he ran for the presidency in the first place for."
Perplexed about complaints over Mr. Obama's expansion of government, Newsweek editor Jon Meacham asked: "does no one listen during campaigns?"
It was these pundits who weren't paying attention during last year's campaign. In all three presidential debates, Mr. Obama promised to cut government spending and reduce the size of the deficit. He blamed the economic crisis on excessive deficits. At no time did candidate Barack Obama say that more deficit-spending was the solution.
Mr. Obama's popularity after 100 days is the second-lowest for a simple reason: He is more partisan and divisive than his predecessors - including Richard Nixon.
Organizational Chart for USA
When Harry Truman left the White House he was asked how it felt to leave the White House and become an ordinary citizen, Harry replied. "I'm glad for the promotion."
Every one of us citizens outranks any employee of the government including the President. Don't ever forget that because our employees have forgotten it.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Pouring Oil on Troubled Waters
Pouring Oil on Troubled Waters
The calming effect of oil was known to the ancient Greeks. In 1762, Benjamin Franklin repeated an experiment first performed by Pliny, which he reported in A Letter from Benjamin Franklin to William Brownrigg, 1773:
“I then went to the windward side where they (the waves) began to form; and there the oil, though not more than a teaspoonful, produced an instant calm over a space several yards square which spread amazingly and extended itself gradually till it reached the lee side, making all that quarter of the pond, perhaps half an acre, as smooth as a looking glass.”
A strong wind that goes by many names is troubling the waters in America. I don’t have enough metaphorical oil to calm the metaphorical troubled waters of all America. However, maybe I have enough oil to calm the trouble stirred up by issues surrounding the Grand Jury effort to indict AKA Obama.
Something as dramatic as citizens themselves deciding to take action by forming Grand Juries to indict a President is certain to stir up emotions on both sides of the issue. My goal in this essay is to replace impulsive emotions with facts and reason.
Let me start with the dangers that emotions can present as a component to solving problems.
Every thought we think changes the activity of specific chemicals in the brain called neuropeptides. What we are thinking about determines what our emotions are.
Interestingly, certain kinds of thinking produce more emotional chemicals than other types of thinking. Analytical, organizational, logistical, and mathematical thinking produces very few emotions. That is why accountants, technical professionals, and mathematicians seem to be so emotionally flat.
Conversely, creative, poetic, descriptive, and interpersonal thinking produces many emotions. People like actors, writers, musicians, and artists frequently have enough emotions for a family of four all by themselves.
Emotions cloud our thinking, cause us to be impulsive, and alienate others. Problem solving is better served by reason than by feelings.
So let’s begin with all of those irrational fear mongers who are trying to discourage people from participating in a Grand Jury. From them, we are hearing things like: “People can’t go around just starting their own ‘pretend’ Grand Juries. That has got to be against the law. You’ll get arrested. You will go to jail for falsifying a court document and impersonating a court official. You have no right to do such a thing!”
Compare such scare tactics aimed at frightening citizens to this clearly stated, rational wording in the Handbook of Texas:
“The grand jury's investigation of any matter may be initiated by the court, the district attorney, its own members, or any credible person. The grand jury may summon witnesses by subpoena and examine them under oath. On completion of an investigation the grand jury determines by vote whether or not an indictment should be presented to the court; nine votes are necessary for a decision to indict, and nine members also constitute a quorum.”
I have also heard anti-grand Jury people making emotionally driven arguments like: “Ordinary people can’t just go around making decisions in Grand Juries without being supervised by a lawyer. The whole justice system will fall apart if lawyers aren’t supervising Grand Juries. Who knows what horrible injustices they will commit without a lawyer to guide them?”
In many states governmental lawyers are not only NOT welcome in Grand Jury sessions, they are actually banned by law from any participation in Grand Jury sessions. Take Virginia, for example. The mere presence of a lawyer representing the government will invalidate any decision of a Grand Jury. Without the dramatic rhetoric, see how the State of Virginia explains the Grand Jury’s relationship to any such attorneys.
"To keep the Grand Jury free from any pressure from the State, Virginia makes it illegal for any attorney representing the State to appear before the Grand Jury, except as a witness.
If, however, members of the Grand Jury have questions about their duties, they may ask the Commonwealth's Attorney for advice.
Except for these two cases, if a Commonwealth's Attorney appears in the Grand Jury Room while the Grand Jury is there, any indictment returned "A True Bill" by the Grand Jury is invalid (no good). Therefore, while a Grand Jury may request the appearance of the Commonwealth's Attorney to testify as a witness or to explain some principle of law about the discharge of their duties, they cannot seek his advice as to whether they should return an indictment as "A True Bill." If a Grand Jury finds that it is in need of advice as to its duties but doesn't know if it can invite the Commonwealth's Attorney into the Grand Jury Room to explain, it should notify the judge that it desires further instructions, and it will receive such instructions in open court. "
So, far from citizens not having the authority to form Grand Juries, and far from citizens not being able to function in a grand jury without the advice of an attorney, we discover that the Grand Jury option is designed to be initiated by citizens and to function free from the influence of governmental attorneys.
Although the laws may vary from state to state, Grand Juries are viewed the way United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia sees them,
“In fact, the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people."
Also, United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia ruled in the case of United States vs. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 at 48 (1992):
“Rooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history, Hannah v. Larche, 363 US 420, 490 (1960) with J. Frankfurter concurring in result, the Grand Jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the three branches described in the first three Articles. It is a constitutional fixture in its own right.”
Clearly stated: The Grand Jury is a separate and equal Constitutional power.
The Grand Jury is not a tool for government to use against its citizens.
So my first teaspoon of rational oil is to still the waters roiled by those who intentionally promulgate unfounded rumors. They are so threatened by the constitutional power of the Grand Jury that they irresponsibly spread their reckless gossip in an attempt to frighten citizens away from exercising their legitimate constitutional rights.
My second teaspoon of rational oil is to be used to still all the angry anti-AKA Obama citizens who use more rhetoric than reason to express themselves.
There are not going to be any lynch parties for politicians. As much as we might mention ‘torches and pitchforks,’ the only revolution I support and the only revolutions supported by the leadership of the Grand Jury movement is a revolution as defined by the U. S. Constitution. Our forefathers had the wisdom to provide a way for citizens to redress their grievances in a peaceful way.
If you personally have any other intentions, please remove yourself from my email list and do not post on this blog. If you express irresponsible rhetoric that even hints of any action that is not covered by your constitutional rights, please disassociate yourself from the Grand Jury movement. Such attitudes are more of a liability than an asset to the cause.
We welcome and appreciate patriots who are committed to the principles of Constitutional Government.
A little reminder from some old friends of mine:
You say you got a real solution
Well, you know
We'd all love to see the plan
You ask me for a contribution
Well, you know
We're doing what we can
But when you want money
for people with minds that hate
All I can tell is brother you have to wait
Now read this. Sit back, relax and enjoy. It is 3800 hopeful words
AKA Obama Fans: All together now – say OMG!!
The calming effect of oil was known to the ancient Greeks. In 1762, Benjamin Franklin repeated an experiment first performed by Pliny, which he reported in A Letter from Benjamin Franklin to William Brownrigg, 1773:
“I then went to the windward side where they (the waves) began to form; and there the oil, though not more than a teaspoonful, produced an instant calm over a space several yards square which spread amazingly and extended itself gradually till it reached the lee side, making all that quarter of the pond, perhaps half an acre, as smooth as a looking glass.”
A strong wind that goes by many names is troubling the waters in America. I don’t have enough metaphorical oil to calm the metaphorical troubled waters of all America. However, maybe I have enough oil to calm the trouble stirred up by issues surrounding the Grand Jury effort to indict AKA Obama.
Something as dramatic as citizens themselves deciding to take action by forming Grand Juries to indict a President is certain to stir up emotions on both sides of the issue. My goal in this essay is to replace impulsive emotions with facts and reason.
Let me start with the dangers that emotions can present as a component to solving problems.
Every thought we think changes the activity of specific chemicals in the brain called neuropeptides. What we are thinking about determines what our emotions are.
Interestingly, certain kinds of thinking produce more emotional chemicals than other types of thinking. Analytical, organizational, logistical, and mathematical thinking produces very few emotions. That is why accountants, technical professionals, and mathematicians seem to be so emotionally flat.
Conversely, creative, poetic, descriptive, and interpersonal thinking produces many emotions. People like actors, writers, musicians, and artists frequently have enough emotions for a family of four all by themselves.
Emotions cloud our thinking, cause us to be impulsive, and alienate others. Problem solving is better served by reason than by feelings.
So let’s begin with all of those irrational fear mongers who are trying to discourage people from participating in a Grand Jury. From them, we are hearing things like: “People can’t go around just starting their own ‘pretend’ Grand Juries. That has got to be against the law. You’ll get arrested. You will go to jail for falsifying a court document and impersonating a court official. You have no right to do such a thing!”
Compare such scare tactics aimed at frightening citizens to this clearly stated, rational wording in the Handbook of Texas:
“The grand jury's investigation of any matter may be initiated by the court, the district attorney, its own members, or any credible person. The grand jury may summon witnesses by subpoena and examine them under oath. On completion of an investigation the grand jury determines by vote whether or not an indictment should be presented to the court; nine votes are necessary for a decision to indict, and nine members also constitute a quorum.”
I have also heard anti-grand Jury people making emotionally driven arguments like: “Ordinary people can’t just go around making decisions in Grand Juries without being supervised by a lawyer. The whole justice system will fall apart if lawyers aren’t supervising Grand Juries. Who knows what horrible injustices they will commit without a lawyer to guide them?”
In many states governmental lawyers are not only NOT welcome in Grand Jury sessions, they are actually banned by law from any participation in Grand Jury sessions. Take Virginia, for example. The mere presence of a lawyer representing the government will invalidate any decision of a Grand Jury. Without the dramatic rhetoric, see how the State of Virginia explains the Grand Jury’s relationship to any such attorneys.
"To keep the Grand Jury free from any pressure from the State, Virginia makes it illegal for any attorney representing the State to appear before the Grand Jury, except as a witness.
If, however, members of the Grand Jury have questions about their duties, they may ask the Commonwealth's Attorney for advice.
Except for these two cases, if a Commonwealth's Attorney appears in the Grand Jury Room while the Grand Jury is there, any indictment returned "A True Bill" by the Grand Jury is invalid (no good). Therefore, while a Grand Jury may request the appearance of the Commonwealth's Attorney to testify as a witness or to explain some principle of law about the discharge of their duties, they cannot seek his advice as to whether they should return an indictment as "A True Bill." If a Grand Jury finds that it is in need of advice as to its duties but doesn't know if it can invite the Commonwealth's Attorney into the Grand Jury Room to explain, it should notify the judge that it desires further instructions, and it will receive such instructions in open court. "
So, far from citizens not having the authority to form Grand Juries, and far from citizens not being able to function in a grand jury without the advice of an attorney, we discover that the Grand Jury option is designed to be initiated by citizens and to function free from the influence of governmental attorneys.
Although the laws may vary from state to state, Grand Juries are viewed the way United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia sees them,
“In fact, the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people."
Also, United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia ruled in the case of United States vs. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 at 48 (1992):
“Rooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history, Hannah v. Larche, 363 US 420, 490 (1960) with J. Frankfurter concurring in result, the Grand Jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the three branches described in the first three Articles. It is a constitutional fixture in its own right.”
Clearly stated: The Grand Jury is a separate and equal Constitutional power.
The Grand Jury is not a tool for government to use against its citizens.
So my first teaspoon of rational oil is to still the waters roiled by those who intentionally promulgate unfounded rumors. They are so threatened by the constitutional power of the Grand Jury that they irresponsibly spread their reckless gossip in an attempt to frighten citizens away from exercising their legitimate constitutional rights.
My second teaspoon of rational oil is to be used to still all the angry anti-AKA Obama citizens who use more rhetoric than reason to express themselves.
There are not going to be any lynch parties for politicians. As much as we might mention ‘torches and pitchforks,’ the only revolution I support and the only revolutions supported by the leadership of the Grand Jury movement is a revolution as defined by the U. S. Constitution. Our forefathers had the wisdom to provide a way for citizens to redress their grievances in a peaceful way.
If you personally have any other intentions, please remove yourself from my email list and do not post on this blog. If you express irresponsible rhetoric that even hints of any action that is not covered by your constitutional rights, please disassociate yourself from the Grand Jury movement. Such attitudes are more of a liability than an asset to the cause.
We welcome and appreciate patriots who are committed to the principles of Constitutional Government.
A little reminder from some old friends of mine:
You say you got a real solution
Well, you know
We'd all love to see the plan
You ask me for a contribution
Well, you know
We're doing what we can
But when you want money
for people with minds that hate
All I can tell is brother you have to wait
Now read this. Sit back, relax and enjoy. It is 3800 hopeful words
AKA Obama Fans: All together now – say OMG!!
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Typical Grand Jury Information
The oath taken by each Grand Juror is as follows:
You shall diligently inquire, and true presentment make, of all such matters as may be given you in charge, or come to your knowledge, touching the present service. You shall present no person through prejudice or ill will, nor leave any unpresented through fear or favor, but in all your presentments you shall present the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So help you God.
To "diligently inquire" means to make an honest and earnest consideration of all the circumstances involved in the matter, and a common sense decision based upon the facts.
Your oath requires you to be impartial (fair to both sides)-the foundation of justice and equality.
The requirement for "truthfulness" is a pledge of honesty in the performance of your duties.
If you follow the conditions of your Oath of Office, you will have met your full requirement as a member of the Grand Jury, and you will have performed your responsibilities in accordance with the law.
You shall diligently inquire, and true presentment make, of all such matters as may be given you in charge, or come to your knowledge, touching the present service. You shall present no person through prejudice or ill will, nor leave any unpresented through fear or favor, but in all your presentments you shall present the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So help you God.
To "diligently inquire" means to make an honest and earnest consideration of all the circumstances involved in the matter, and a common sense decision based upon the facts.
Your oath requires you to be impartial (fair to both sides)-the foundation of justice and equality.
The requirement for "truthfulness" is a pledge of honesty in the performance of your duties.
If you follow the conditions of your Oath of Office, you will have met your full requirement as a member of the Grand Jury, and you will have performed your responsibilities in accordance with the law.
Before I closed comments
One of the non- Obot commentators asked about indictments and subpoenas at the local level. One of my advising attorneys thought it was important for all people involved in the Grand jury movement to know about this tactic.
It is very important that Patriots know to do this:
1) Find the CROOKED politicians in your City or Town that supported BO.
2) Link these CROOKED politicians to crimes committed by the BO Campaign.
3) Charge CROOKED politicians and BO as co-conspirators in the commission of campaign crimes and you have a Criminal Case against BO that can be prosecuted in Court in your County Seat.
4) Of course, you add all the other Crimes that BO committed elsewhere to your INDICTMENT also. But to prosecute BO in your State you have to link him as a co-conspirator to crimes committed in your State.
It is very important that Patriots know to do this:
1) Find the CROOKED politicians in your City or Town that supported BO.
2) Link these CROOKED politicians to crimes committed by the BO Campaign.
3) Charge CROOKED politicians and BO as co-conspirators in the commission of campaign crimes and you have a Criminal Case against BO that can be prosecuted in Court in your County Seat.
4) Of course, you add all the other Crimes that BO committed elsewhere to your INDICTMENT also. But to prosecute BO in your State you have to link him as a co-conspirator to crimes committed in your State.
So important it
bears repeating
1) Find the CROOKED politicians in your City or Town that supported BO.
2) Link these CROOKED politicians to crimes committed by the BO Campaign.
3) Charge CROOKED politicians and BO as co-conspirators in the commission of campaign crimes and you have a Criminal Case against BO that can be prosecuted in Court in your County Seat.
4) Of course, you add all the other Crimes that BO committed elsewhere to your INDICTMENT also. But to prosecute BO in your State you have to link him as a co-conspirator to crimes committed in your State.
Flopping Aces - Vetts :Seal Pal" Somalia Storu
Thank you so very much, Flopping Aces:
Obama’s Order Not To Rescue Hostage Confirmed by National Security Advisor and Pentagon [Reader Post]
Posted by: Alec Rawls @ 3:38 pm in Barack Obama, MilitaryVisited 1874 times, 873 so far today
Stung by the widely circulated “SEAL pals” account of what really happened in Somalia (discussed here last Friday), the Obama administration had National Security Advisor James L. Jones and a number of anonymous Pentagon sources give their side two days ago in a Washington Times exclusive.
Their mission, according to reporter Bill Gertz, was:
… to dispel Internet reports that the military was delayed from taking action by indecision inside the White House.
Clintonesque parsing of words is evident throughout the Jones-Pentagon account, amounting on more than one occasion to outright dishonesty. Yet the actual information they provide (as opposed to the lawyerly spin they try to put on it) actually confirms the most damning details in BooBooFan’s purported SEAL report.
Exhibit 1: The Rules Of Engagement.
BooBooFan states the ROE this way:
Once [SEAL teams] arrived, BHO imposed restrictions on their ROE that they couldn’t do anything unless the hostage’s life was in “imminent” danger.
The Pentagon’s rebuttal states the ROE without any requirement that the danger be “imminent”:
“It took awhile to get facts and then to get the military on scene,” said one senior military official, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of discussing special forces operations. “As the picture got more clear and commanders’ requests went back down the chain, the guidance was: ‘We would like a peaceful resolution. However, if Captain Phillips’ life is in danger you can take appropriate action.’
But we know from Vice Adm. William E. Gortney, speaking at the time of the incident, that the ROE did specify “imminent danger,” and that this was interpreted literally:
Navy officers aboard the USS Bainbridge were in the midst of a drawn-out hostage negotiation when Navy snipers saw one of the pirates aim his AK-47 machine gun at Capt. Richard Phillips’s back and concluded the American was in “imminent danger,” said Vice Adm. William E. Gortney, commander of naval forces in the Middle East.
Gertz’ report includes Gortney’s earlier statement, but without any comment on its inconsistency with the current rebuttals. Intead, Gertz just relays the interpretation that is presented to him, where the Pentagon dismisses the “imminent danger” claim by denying that the ROE was in any way restrictive:
The posting also stated that rules of engagement imposed by the president prevented action unless the hostage’s life was in imminent danger.
The military official said the commander had authority to take action at all times because Mr. Phillips was being held at gunpoint.
Yes, but as soon as the pirates took their weapons OFF of Philips, our sailors were barred from taking action. This is exactly the opportunity they would have been waiting for in order TO take action. So the ROE was, you are free to take action, UNTIL you have an opportunity, then you can’t, as actually occurred when Philips briefly escaped his captors.
Jones and the Pentagon spokesman try to cover this up, Jones by mis-stating the ROE, the Pentagon spokesman by pretending that the ROE did not really restrict anyone, but Vice Admiral Gortney’s statement makes perfectly clear that the crazy ROE was followed to the letter. Instead of taking out the pirates at a moment of minimum risk to Captain Philips, they actually waited until Philips was in maximum peril. With all due credit to our soldiers for following orders, that is absolutely insane.
Exhibit 2: The passed-up rescue attempts
Here our anonymous Pentagon spokesman takes the lawyerly parsing of language to new heights, pulling off an amazing bait-and-switch.
BooBooFan’s claim is devastating if true:
The first time the hostage jumped, the SEALS had the raggies all sighted in, but could not fire due to ROE restriction.
The Pentagon’s reply seems to be equally devastating:
However, military officials at the Pentagon involved in the operation said Navy SEAL snipers had not arrived on board the Bainbridge at that time and therefore could not have fired on the pirates.
Except BooBooFan never said it was the SEAL sniper team that had the Islamofascist pirates sighted in, and the Pentagon’s own account verifies that regular SEAL teams were already on site. In Gertz’ paraphrase:
Mr. Obama first authorized a few Navy SEALs from a base in Africa to deploy to the Bainbridge and take necessary action. The team was flown by transport aircraft and parachuted to waters near the warship, officials said.
The arrival of the first SEAL team gave the military an emergency capability if the pirates holding the ship’s captain became violent. Mr. Jones said the Pentagon requested a second, more complete SEAL team to be dispatched from the United States and Mr. Obama approved that request as well.
Once Captain Phillips leapt in the water, it did not require snipers to take out the pirates. As I put it in my own initial remarks on the subject:
WTF? No one was ready at the machine gun to waste the pirates when this guy got clear?
According to BooBoo, a SEAL team WAS ready, and Jones’ account confirms this detail. It is only some slippery use of language on the part of the Obama-defending military spokesmen that make this sound like a debunking, when it is actually a confirmation.
Exhibit 3: It was either Obama himself, or his immediate underlings, who devised the ROE
The administration’s rebuttal effort takes pains to paint the controversial Rules of Engagement as coming from CENTCOM, not the president:
At the Pentagon, military officials said the rules of engagement were set by military commanders at Central Command and were more limited than combat rules because the Navy regarded the operation as countering criminal activity, namely piracy.
But this is a distinction without a difference. As Commander In Chief, Obama has his own men at CENTCOM, and being the president’s men, they would have gotten their way.
Thus BooBoo’s claim that the prohibition on taking any propitious opportunity to rescue the hostage came from BHO is borne out. Thanks to Jones et. al., we now know that this crazy ROE did come the top, if not from BHO himself then from his immediate underlings.
The distinction that does make a difference is the clear Obama stamp. The Obamatons declare outright that their preferred outcome was to negotiate with the pirates!
Authorities went through “a deliberate, slow deliberate process to let the negotiation process work itself out to a nonviolent end,” he said. “And unfortunately, that did not occur.”
BooBoo never leveled that accusation, but I did. I was trying to tear the cover off when I titled my first commentary, “Obama WANTED to negotiate with the pirates.” Now, thanks to Jones et. al., we have confirmation of that too.
This is what the crazy ROE was really all about. The order was: if you see that the pirates have left Captain Philips unguarded, giving you an opportunity to rescue him by killing them, DON’T TAKE IT. They (the Obama people at CENTCOM) preferred to have the pirates alive and in possession of Captain Philips. They even have the gall to call it “unfortunate” that the Islamofascist hijackers ended up getting taken out!
For two years now I have been working with Tom Burnett Sr. (father of murdered Flight 93 hero Tom Burnett Jr.) to stop the Park Service from planting a giant Mecca-oriented crescent atop his son’s grave. Unlike the new Obama CENTCOM, we do not find the violent termination of an Islamofascist hijacking (with no loss of life to the hostages this time) to be “unfortunate.” Good grief.
Exhibit 4: No more War On Terror
A second Obama stamp is that decision to treat the Islamofascist pirates as engaged in criminal activity instead of acts of war. Technically, they are engaged in both. Some of the Somali pirates are linked to al Qaeda. ALL of them are practicing their religion of Islamic supremacy, which encourages the taking of booty. From Muhammad’s biographer Ibn Ishaq (at 326):
Allah said, ‘No Prophet before Muhammad took booty from his enemy nor prisoners for ransom.’ Muhammad said, ‘I was made victorious with terror. The earth was made a place for me to clean. I was given the most powerful words. Booty was made lawful for me. I was given the power to intercede. These five privileges were awarded to no prophet before me.’
The Koran grants similar allowance to Muhammad’s followers:
So enjoy what you have gotten of booty in war, lawful and good. [Koran verse 8.69]
To al Qaeda, piracy is a core part of their religion, just like that “made victorious with terror” part. Fighting piracy is part and parcel of fighting al Qaeda and fighting terror. That makes it clearly covered by our 2001 declaration of war against those who attacked us on 9/11. But while they are still waging war on us, Obama has unilaterally decided to put the War on Terror into retirement. The official term now is “Overseas Contingency Operations,” and along with the language change, the tools of war are also being abandoned in favor of treating Muslim acts of war as criminal activity only.
As the Pentagon admits, the don’t-rescue-if-you-can-possibly-help-it ROE derived directly from this signature Obama policy choice. Here it is again:
At the Pentagon, military officials said the rules of engagement were set by military commanders at Central Command and were more limited than combat rules because the Navy regarded the operation as countering criminal activity, namely piracy.
The pretense that this somehow came from our military rather than from the White House, when it obviously got into the military through the White House, is completely disingenuous.
Exhibit 5: the delay
With all the misleading language employed by Jones and his Obama-defense crew, it is hard to put much stock in their claim that Obama and/or his CENTCOM dopplegangers were not behind the two days or so that it took before the order was even given to get SEAL teams moving to the site. Gertz’ Pentagon sources talk about the time it took to actually move the SEALS from the East Coast to the Middle East , but that isn’t the issue. The issue is why it took so long to authorize the move.
BooBooFan said that the commander on the site wanted the SEALS en route ASAP:
BHO wouldn’t authorize the DEVGRU/NSWC SEAL teams to the scene for 36 hours going against OSC (on scene commander) recommendation.
The rebuttal consists of insisting that once CENTCOM asked Obama to authorize the SEAL teams to go in, “the request to use the forces was approved in a matter of hours.”
Yes, but how long did it take Obama’s CENTCOM underlings to get around to asking for authorization? Again, the Pentagon rebuttal relies on the distinction between CENTCOM and Obama, but there is no difference between the two. Obama has his dopplegangers at CENTCOM. After all, he IS the president.
The actual information provided by Jones et. al. supports BooBooFan’s time-line. The SEAL teams were apparently not authorized to get moving until sometime after the Bainbridge arrived on the scene (more than a day after the American flagged Maersk was commandeered).
Does that sound like our military? Steaming into a crisis situation without getting all necessary men and material en route? What would be hard to believe is that the commander on the scene did try to insure that SEAL teams were en route as soon as he got underway, yet according to the new information, SEALs were not authorized for something like a day and a half, just as BooBooFan claims.
Why the delay? Why did there need to be special presidential authorization at all? Do we treat SEAL teams like nukes now? They can’t be moved without orders from the highest level? The more likely scenario is that when Obama’s men at CENTCOM got the request to send over the SEAL teams, they held it up, giving Obama a chance to mull it over, then after much insistence from commanders on the scene, they decided to ask Obama for formal permission to send over the SEAL teams, which Obama authorized after the unspecified “few” additional hours.
In sum, Jones et. al. manage to corroborate in detail almost all of BooBooFan’s information, indicating that his purported SEAL sourcing is accurate. So thanks very much to the Obamagangers, and a big thumbs down to Bill Gertz for helping them to elide the numerous inconsistencies between their information and their spin.
At first blush, the Gertz article reads like an effective rebuttal, until you start paying attention to the actual information content instead of how it is characterized. Under scrutiny, not one point of the supposed rebuttal stands.
Epilogue: Obama’s numerous unreported Islamofascist ties
It might be unfair to insist on the logical implications of the Obama administration’s ROE (that they WANTED to negotiate with the pirates), because we all know that Democrats are not logical. To a “violence only begets violence” sloganeer like Obama, it might seem axiomatic that we should not take action unless at the final instant it becomes absolutely necessary.
Of course that too is a form of wanting to negotiate with the pirates. It is a world view in which negotiating is always seen as the better or higher course. But Obama might not be this kind of well-meaning Democrat. The more worrisome possibility is that what looks like a kumbaya-type penchant for negotiation with everybody may only be a ruse. After all, Obama is certainly not interested in negotiating with his real enemies: the Republicans, yet he is interested in negotiating with Syria and Iran, with Hamas, with the mythical “moderate Taliban,” and every other Islamic supremacist entity he can find, including a dingy-full of Islamofascist pirates.
Is it just coincidence that, except for his racial-separatist wife and the communist pedophile who mentored him as a child, every single one of Obama’s long-time mentors and confidants is not just Muslim, but is actually Islamofascist? Count ‘em up. If the media had properly reported ANY of these Islamofascist connections, Obama would never have been elected.
1. William Ayers, the proud domestic terrorist who gave Obama a resume by picking him for the board of the Annenberg Challenge (where the two of them funneled education funds to Afro-centric racists like Obama’s pastor/mentor Jeremiah Wright). In addition to being a communist, Ayers apparently converted at some point to Islam, giving his children Nation of Islam names and adopting for himself the Muslim honorific “Abu Zayd,” meaning “father of Zayd.” Thus Ayers named both his son and himself after Black Panther/Nation of Islam thug Zayd Malik Shakur, who murdered NJ policeman Werner Forrester in 1973.
Obama told documented lies about his relationship with Ayers, at first denying any significant relationship, before it came out that they worked together for many years, and that Obama’s “coming out party” in Chicago electoral politics was hosted at Ayers’ home.
2. Raila Odinga, Kenyan Prime Minister and a Obama’s fellow Luo tribesman. (Odinga says he is Obama’s cousin. Obama says not quite.) Like Obama, Odinga calls himself a Christian, but in late 2007 he was outed by Kenya ’s Muslim leaders nya for signing a secret Memorandum of Understanding with them where he begins by declaring Islam to be the only true religion and ends by promising to impose Sharia law on Kenya . (Odinga recently removed his rationalizations for the MoU from his “Odinga for President” website, but I saved a copy.)
During a 2006 trip to Kenya , Obama campaigned extensively for Odinga. The interference in Kenyan politics becoming so grating to Kenyan President Mwai Kibaki that he ended up calling Obama a “stooge” of Odinga.
3. Jeremiah Wright, the racist, America-hating, “ex-Muslim” pastor at Obama’s Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago . Wright earned a masters degree in the study of Islam, where he presumably learned Muhammad’s teaching that Muslims who reside in Infidel territory are supposed to pretend to be infidels, if by doing so they can advance the cause of Islamic conquest. (See Koran verse 16:106, and the hadiths of Tabari 8:23 and Sahih Muslim, book 19, 4436.)
Wright’s “Christian” church celebrates Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan and teaches the Islamic version of the law of love: to love members of your own group while hating outsiders. In particular, Wright teaches hatred of white people, as NOI leader Louis Farrakhan does.
4. Khalid Al-Mansour, who managed Obama’s admission to Harvard Law, is another radical Nation of Islam racist, who once declared that God wanted blacks to go around cutting white people’s noses off.
5. Rashid Khalidi, Obama’s best dinner buddy, is a PLO terror supporter.
6. Frank Marshall Davis The only identifiable mentor/confidante of Obama who is not a known Islamofascist is Frank Marshall Davis, the communist pedophile who shepherded Obama as a boy in Hawaii . ( Davis wrote in his memoirs that he didn’t want to “disappoint” a 13 year old girl by not having sex with her.)
7. Obama’s father Then there is Obama’s Muslim/Communist/racist father, who Obama never met, but does dream about. Barrack Sr. was a member of a Kenyan opposition party when he slammed the sitting regime for not being socialist enough or Afro-centric enough, calling instead for “Europeans” and “Asians” to be stripped of their property.
8. Obama’s wife Last and probably least is Michelle, whose Princeton thesis favored a black-separatist viewpoint, and is lauded as a “fellow traveler” by her communist-conversant husband.
Tangential other Islamofascist connections abound. Obama had Nation of Islam personnel on his senate staff. The primary financial backer of Obama “cousin” and confidant Raila Odinga is Moammar Ghadaffi. (Ghadaffi calls Obama a Muslim, and if anyone should know, it is this confidant of Obama’s own secret-Muslim confidant). Hugo Chavez, who has a long relationship with Obama mentor William Ayers, also has ties to al Qaeda, and uses the Islamic salutation “inshallah.”
Obama himself seems to have told some very bold lies about his own Muslim upbringing, denying that he was raised Muslim at all, and that he ever prayed in a mosque, while childhood friends recall praying in the mosque with him, and say that he was “previously quite religious in Islam.”
Obama’s grandmother was also caught lying about her religion, telling USA Today that she is a Christian, just a year after telling the New York Times that she is “a strong believer in the Islamic faith.”
Thus we have Obama, his cousin and his grandmother, all caught lying about their religion. What accounts for it? Well, the Islamic religion does not just permit lying about religion. It actively calls for deception, wherever it can help the goal of Islamic conquest. “War is deception,” was one of Muhammad’s guiding principles, and infidel territory is called in Islam “dar al harb,” or “the world of war.”
Obama is turning out to be a liar about many things. He denied, for instance, that he ever worked for the ACORN vote-fraud group, despite documentary proof to the contrary, but the only ones who exposed it are bloggers.
The Obamatons are so confident that our dishonest media will cover up for them that they don’t even seem to care if their lies are plausible, like the lunatic claim that Obama’s deep bow to Saudi King Abdullah was just a two handed handshake, when the video clearly shows his left hand draped across his knee. Immediately after signing the trillion dollar porkulus spending bill, Obama declared himself to be a crusader for fiscal responsibility, out to slash the deficit, and the media switched to the newspeak without a ripple.
Thanks the malfeasance of the press, refusing to report on ANY of Obama’s extensive Islamofascist ties, we are now stuck with a president of suspect loyalties. He presents himself as pursuing the pacifistic, appeasement minded policies of his Democratic Party cohorts, and that may well be the real explanation for his fecklessness and dishonesty. But bad as that would be, it is not the most likely explanation.
Not surprisingly, Obama is able to find yes-men in the Pentagon who are willing to cover up for him too, while those who are skeptical will have to be wary of getting purged. If Obama IS a secret Islamic supremacist, will our military be able to preserve itself, and the nation? There are some mistakes that are not recoverable, and handing the presidency to a man with extensive Islamofascist ties may well be one of them.
Obama’s Order Not To Rescue Hostage Confirmed by National Security Advisor and Pentagon [Reader Post]
Posted by: Alec Rawls @ 3:38 pm in Barack Obama, MilitaryVisited 1874 times, 873 so far today
Stung by the widely circulated “SEAL pals” account of what really happened in Somalia (discussed here last Friday), the Obama administration had National Security Advisor James L. Jones and a number of anonymous Pentagon sources give their side two days ago in a Washington Times exclusive.
Their mission, according to reporter Bill Gertz, was:
… to dispel Internet reports that the military was delayed from taking action by indecision inside the White House.
Clintonesque parsing of words is evident throughout the Jones-Pentagon account, amounting on more than one occasion to outright dishonesty. Yet the actual information they provide (as opposed to the lawyerly spin they try to put on it) actually confirms the most damning details in BooBooFan’s purported SEAL report.
Exhibit 1: The Rules Of Engagement.
BooBooFan states the ROE this way:
Once [SEAL teams] arrived, BHO imposed restrictions on their ROE that they couldn’t do anything unless the hostage’s life was in “imminent” danger.
The Pentagon’s rebuttal states the ROE without any requirement that the danger be “imminent”:
“It took awhile to get facts and then to get the military on scene,” said one senior military official, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of discussing special forces operations. “As the picture got more clear and commanders’ requests went back down the chain, the guidance was: ‘We would like a peaceful resolution. However, if Captain Phillips’ life is in danger you can take appropriate action.’
But we know from Vice Adm. William E. Gortney, speaking at the time of the incident, that the ROE did specify “imminent danger,” and that this was interpreted literally:
Navy officers aboard the USS Bainbridge were in the midst of a drawn-out hostage negotiation when Navy snipers saw one of the pirates aim his AK-47 machine gun at Capt. Richard Phillips’s back and concluded the American was in “imminent danger,” said Vice Adm. William E. Gortney, commander of naval forces in the Middle East.
Gertz’ report includes Gortney’s earlier statement, but without any comment on its inconsistency with the current rebuttals. Intead, Gertz just relays the interpretation that is presented to him, where the Pentagon dismisses the “imminent danger” claim by denying that the ROE was in any way restrictive:
The posting also stated that rules of engagement imposed by the president prevented action unless the hostage’s life was in imminent danger.
The military official said the commander had authority to take action at all times because Mr. Phillips was being held at gunpoint.
Yes, but as soon as the pirates took their weapons OFF of Philips, our sailors were barred from taking action. This is exactly the opportunity they would have been waiting for in order TO take action. So the ROE was, you are free to take action, UNTIL you have an opportunity, then you can’t, as actually occurred when Philips briefly escaped his captors.
Jones and the Pentagon spokesman try to cover this up, Jones by mis-stating the ROE, the Pentagon spokesman by pretending that the ROE did not really restrict anyone, but Vice Admiral Gortney’s statement makes perfectly clear that the crazy ROE was followed to the letter. Instead of taking out the pirates at a moment of minimum risk to Captain Philips, they actually waited until Philips was in maximum peril. With all due credit to our soldiers for following orders, that is absolutely insane.
Exhibit 2: The passed-up rescue attempts
Here our anonymous Pentagon spokesman takes the lawyerly parsing of language to new heights, pulling off an amazing bait-and-switch.
BooBooFan’s claim is devastating if true:
The first time the hostage jumped, the SEALS had the raggies all sighted in, but could not fire due to ROE restriction.
The Pentagon’s reply seems to be equally devastating:
However, military officials at the Pentagon involved in the operation said Navy SEAL snipers had not arrived on board the Bainbridge at that time and therefore could not have fired on the pirates.
Except BooBooFan never said it was the SEAL sniper team that had the Islamofascist pirates sighted in, and the Pentagon’s own account verifies that regular SEAL teams were already on site. In Gertz’ paraphrase:
Mr. Obama first authorized a few Navy SEALs from a base in Africa to deploy to the Bainbridge and take necessary action. The team was flown by transport aircraft and parachuted to waters near the warship, officials said.
The arrival of the first SEAL team gave the military an emergency capability if the pirates holding the ship’s captain became violent. Mr. Jones said the Pentagon requested a second, more complete SEAL team to be dispatched from the United States and Mr. Obama approved that request as well.
Once Captain Phillips leapt in the water, it did not require snipers to take out the pirates. As I put it in my own initial remarks on the subject:
WTF? No one was ready at the machine gun to waste the pirates when this guy got clear?
According to BooBoo, a SEAL team WAS ready, and Jones’ account confirms this detail. It is only some slippery use of language on the part of the Obama-defending military spokesmen that make this sound like a debunking, when it is actually a confirmation.
Exhibit 3: It was either Obama himself, or his immediate underlings, who devised the ROE
The administration’s rebuttal effort takes pains to paint the controversial Rules of Engagement as coming from CENTCOM, not the president:
At the Pentagon, military officials said the rules of engagement were set by military commanders at Central Command and were more limited than combat rules because the Navy regarded the operation as countering criminal activity, namely piracy.
But this is a distinction without a difference. As Commander In Chief, Obama has his own men at CENTCOM, and being the president’s men, they would have gotten their way.
Thus BooBoo’s claim that the prohibition on taking any propitious opportunity to rescue the hostage came from BHO is borne out. Thanks to Jones et. al., we now know that this crazy ROE did come the top, if not from BHO himself then from his immediate underlings.
The distinction that does make a difference is the clear Obama stamp. The Obamatons declare outright that their preferred outcome was to negotiate with the pirates!
Authorities went through “a deliberate, slow deliberate process to let the negotiation process work itself out to a nonviolent end,” he said. “And unfortunately, that did not occur.”
BooBoo never leveled that accusation, but I did. I was trying to tear the cover off when I titled my first commentary, “Obama WANTED to negotiate with the pirates.” Now, thanks to Jones et. al., we have confirmation of that too.
This is what the crazy ROE was really all about. The order was: if you see that the pirates have left Captain Philips unguarded, giving you an opportunity to rescue him by killing them, DON’T TAKE IT. They (the Obama people at CENTCOM) preferred to have the pirates alive and in possession of Captain Philips. They even have the gall to call it “unfortunate” that the Islamofascist hijackers ended up getting taken out!
For two years now I have been working with Tom Burnett Sr. (father of murdered Flight 93 hero Tom Burnett Jr.) to stop the Park Service from planting a giant Mecca-oriented crescent atop his son’s grave. Unlike the new Obama CENTCOM, we do not find the violent termination of an Islamofascist hijacking (with no loss of life to the hostages this time) to be “unfortunate.” Good grief.
Exhibit 4: No more War On Terror
A second Obama stamp is that decision to treat the Islamofascist pirates as engaged in criminal activity instead of acts of war. Technically, they are engaged in both. Some of the Somali pirates are linked to al Qaeda. ALL of them are practicing their religion of Islamic supremacy, which encourages the taking of booty. From Muhammad’s biographer Ibn Ishaq (at 326):
Allah said, ‘No Prophet before Muhammad took booty from his enemy nor prisoners for ransom.’ Muhammad said, ‘I was made victorious with terror. The earth was made a place for me to clean. I was given the most powerful words. Booty was made lawful for me. I was given the power to intercede. These five privileges were awarded to no prophet before me.’
The Koran grants similar allowance to Muhammad’s followers:
So enjoy what you have gotten of booty in war, lawful and good. [Koran verse 8.69]
To al Qaeda, piracy is a core part of their religion, just like that “made victorious with terror” part. Fighting piracy is part and parcel of fighting al Qaeda and fighting terror. That makes it clearly covered by our 2001 declaration of war against those who attacked us on 9/11. But while they are still waging war on us, Obama has unilaterally decided to put the War on Terror into retirement. The official term now is “Overseas Contingency Operations,” and along with the language change, the tools of war are also being abandoned in favor of treating Muslim acts of war as criminal activity only.
As the Pentagon admits, the don’t-rescue-if-you-can-possibly-help-it ROE derived directly from this signature Obama policy choice. Here it is again:
At the Pentagon, military officials said the rules of engagement were set by military commanders at Central Command and were more limited than combat rules because the Navy regarded the operation as countering criminal activity, namely piracy.
The pretense that this somehow came from our military rather than from the White House, when it obviously got into the military through the White House, is completely disingenuous.
Exhibit 5: the delay
With all the misleading language employed by Jones and his Obama-defense crew, it is hard to put much stock in their claim that Obama and/or his CENTCOM dopplegangers were not behind the two days or so that it took before the order was even given to get SEAL teams moving to the site. Gertz’ Pentagon sources talk about the time it took to actually move the SEALS from the East Coast to the Middle East , but that isn’t the issue. The issue is why it took so long to authorize the move.
BooBooFan said that the commander on the site wanted the SEALS en route ASAP:
BHO wouldn’t authorize the DEVGRU/NSWC SEAL teams to the scene for 36 hours going against OSC (on scene commander) recommendation.
The rebuttal consists of insisting that once CENTCOM asked Obama to authorize the SEAL teams to go in, “the request to use the forces was approved in a matter of hours.”
Yes, but how long did it take Obama’s CENTCOM underlings to get around to asking for authorization? Again, the Pentagon rebuttal relies on the distinction between CENTCOM and Obama, but there is no difference between the two. Obama has his dopplegangers at CENTCOM. After all, he IS the president.
The actual information provided by Jones et. al. supports BooBooFan’s time-line. The SEAL teams were apparently not authorized to get moving until sometime after the Bainbridge arrived on the scene (more than a day after the American flagged Maersk was commandeered).
Does that sound like our military? Steaming into a crisis situation without getting all necessary men and material en route? What would be hard to believe is that the commander on the scene did try to insure that SEAL teams were en route as soon as he got underway, yet according to the new information, SEALs were not authorized for something like a day and a half, just as BooBooFan claims.
Why the delay? Why did there need to be special presidential authorization at all? Do we treat SEAL teams like nukes now? They can’t be moved without orders from the highest level? The more likely scenario is that when Obama’s men at CENTCOM got the request to send over the SEAL teams, they held it up, giving Obama a chance to mull it over, then after much insistence from commanders on the scene, they decided to ask Obama for formal permission to send over the SEAL teams, which Obama authorized after the unspecified “few” additional hours.
In sum, Jones et. al. manage to corroborate in detail almost all of BooBooFan’s information, indicating that his purported SEAL sourcing is accurate. So thanks very much to the Obamagangers, and a big thumbs down to Bill Gertz for helping them to elide the numerous inconsistencies between their information and their spin.
At first blush, the Gertz article reads like an effective rebuttal, until you start paying attention to the actual information content instead of how it is characterized. Under scrutiny, not one point of the supposed rebuttal stands.
Epilogue: Obama’s numerous unreported Islamofascist ties
It might be unfair to insist on the logical implications of the Obama administration’s ROE (that they WANTED to negotiate with the pirates), because we all know that Democrats are not logical. To a “violence only begets violence” sloganeer like Obama, it might seem axiomatic that we should not take action unless at the final instant it becomes absolutely necessary.
Of course that too is a form of wanting to negotiate with the pirates. It is a world view in which negotiating is always seen as the better or higher course. But Obama might not be this kind of well-meaning Democrat. The more worrisome possibility is that what looks like a kumbaya-type penchant for negotiation with everybody may only be a ruse. After all, Obama is certainly not interested in negotiating with his real enemies: the Republicans, yet he is interested in negotiating with Syria and Iran, with Hamas, with the mythical “moderate Taliban,” and every other Islamic supremacist entity he can find, including a dingy-full of Islamofascist pirates.
Is it just coincidence that, except for his racial-separatist wife and the communist pedophile who mentored him as a child, every single one of Obama’s long-time mentors and confidants is not just Muslim, but is actually Islamofascist? Count ‘em up. If the media had properly reported ANY of these Islamofascist connections, Obama would never have been elected.
1. William Ayers, the proud domestic terrorist who gave Obama a resume by picking him for the board of the Annenberg Challenge (where the two of them funneled education funds to Afro-centric racists like Obama’s pastor/mentor Jeremiah Wright). In addition to being a communist, Ayers apparently converted at some point to Islam, giving his children Nation of Islam names and adopting for himself the Muslim honorific “Abu Zayd,” meaning “father of Zayd.” Thus Ayers named both his son and himself after Black Panther/Nation of Islam thug Zayd Malik Shakur, who murdered NJ policeman Werner Forrester in 1973.
Obama told documented lies about his relationship with Ayers, at first denying any significant relationship, before it came out that they worked together for many years, and that Obama’s “coming out party” in Chicago electoral politics was hosted at Ayers’ home.
2. Raila Odinga, Kenyan Prime Minister and a Obama’s fellow Luo tribesman. (Odinga says he is Obama’s cousin. Obama says not quite.) Like Obama, Odinga calls himself a Christian, but in late 2007 he was outed by Kenya ’s Muslim leaders nya for signing a secret Memorandum of Understanding with them where he begins by declaring Islam to be the only true religion and ends by promising to impose Sharia law on Kenya . (Odinga recently removed his rationalizations for the MoU from his “Odinga for President” website, but I saved a copy.)
During a 2006 trip to Kenya , Obama campaigned extensively for Odinga. The interference in Kenyan politics becoming so grating to Kenyan President Mwai Kibaki that he ended up calling Obama a “stooge” of Odinga.
3. Jeremiah Wright, the racist, America-hating, “ex-Muslim” pastor at Obama’s Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago . Wright earned a masters degree in the study of Islam, where he presumably learned Muhammad’s teaching that Muslims who reside in Infidel territory are supposed to pretend to be infidels, if by doing so they can advance the cause of Islamic conquest. (See Koran verse 16:106, and the hadiths of Tabari 8:23 and Sahih Muslim, book 19, 4436.)
Wright’s “Christian” church celebrates Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan and teaches the Islamic version of the law of love: to love members of your own group while hating outsiders. In particular, Wright teaches hatred of white people, as NOI leader Louis Farrakhan does.
4. Khalid Al-Mansour, who managed Obama’s admission to Harvard Law, is another radical Nation of Islam racist, who once declared that God wanted blacks to go around cutting white people’s noses off.
5. Rashid Khalidi, Obama’s best dinner buddy, is a PLO terror supporter.
6. Frank Marshall Davis The only identifiable mentor/confidante of Obama who is not a known Islamofascist is Frank Marshall Davis, the communist pedophile who shepherded Obama as a boy in Hawaii . ( Davis wrote in his memoirs that he didn’t want to “disappoint” a 13 year old girl by not having sex with her.)
7. Obama’s father Then there is Obama’s Muslim/Communist/racist father, who Obama never met, but does dream about. Barrack Sr. was a member of a Kenyan opposition party when he slammed the sitting regime for not being socialist enough or Afro-centric enough, calling instead for “Europeans” and “Asians” to be stripped of their property.
8. Obama’s wife Last and probably least is Michelle, whose Princeton thesis favored a black-separatist viewpoint, and is lauded as a “fellow traveler” by her communist-conversant husband.
Tangential other Islamofascist connections abound. Obama had Nation of Islam personnel on his senate staff. The primary financial backer of Obama “cousin” and confidant Raila Odinga is Moammar Ghadaffi. (Ghadaffi calls Obama a Muslim, and if anyone should know, it is this confidant of Obama’s own secret-Muslim confidant). Hugo Chavez, who has a long relationship with Obama mentor William Ayers, also has ties to al Qaeda, and uses the Islamic salutation “inshallah.”
Obama himself seems to have told some very bold lies about his own Muslim upbringing, denying that he was raised Muslim at all, and that he ever prayed in a mosque, while childhood friends recall praying in the mosque with him, and say that he was “previously quite religious in Islam.”
Obama’s grandmother was also caught lying about her religion, telling USA Today that she is a Christian, just a year after telling the New York Times that she is “a strong believer in the Islamic faith.”
Thus we have Obama, his cousin and his grandmother, all caught lying about their religion. What accounts for it? Well, the Islamic religion does not just permit lying about religion. It actively calls for deception, wherever it can help the goal of Islamic conquest. “War is deception,” was one of Muhammad’s guiding principles, and infidel territory is called in Islam “dar al harb,” or “the world of war.”
Obama is turning out to be a liar about many things. He denied, for instance, that he ever worked for the ACORN vote-fraud group, despite documentary proof to the contrary, but the only ones who exposed it are bloggers.
The Obamatons are so confident that our dishonest media will cover up for them that they don’t even seem to care if their lies are plausible, like the lunatic claim that Obama’s deep bow to Saudi King Abdullah was just a two handed handshake, when the video clearly shows his left hand draped across his knee. Immediately after signing the trillion dollar porkulus spending bill, Obama declared himself to be a crusader for fiscal responsibility, out to slash the deficit, and the media switched to the newspeak without a ripple.
Thanks the malfeasance of the press, refusing to report on ANY of Obama’s extensive Islamofascist ties, we are now stuck with a president of suspect loyalties. He presents himself as pursuing the pacifistic, appeasement minded policies of his Democratic Party cohorts, and that may well be the real explanation for his fecklessness and dishonesty. But bad as that would be, it is not the most likely explanation.
Not surprisingly, Obama is able to find yes-men in the Pentagon who are willing to cover up for him too, while those who are skeptical will have to be wary of getting purged. If Obama IS a secret Islamic supremacist, will our military be able to preserve itself, and the nation? There are some mistakes that are not recoverable, and handing the presidency to a man with extensive Islamofascist ties may well be one of them.
The Obots have their orders re: Grand Juries
Those misguided persons who are subject to the hypnotic power of "The One" have been alerted and given their orders.
The Grand Jury tactic really has their leaders concerned. They have been ordered to spread rumors that people who participate in Constitutional Grand Juries are breaking the law and will go to jail. They will use any weak argument and select real or imagined criminal codes to scare people.
Remember this important fact: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
Getting together to examine evidence of possible crimes by politicians and presenting evidence of such alleged crimes to the judiciary is "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances".
Given the significant increase in warnings and delusional, irrational, obscene, threatening comments from Obama supporters I would conclude that Obama's lawyers and administration propagandists think the Grand Jury tactic is a real threat.
Finally, something we can agree upon!
Don't you listen to him Dan, he's a devil not a man, and he spreads our beloved land with lies.
The Grand Jury tactic really has their leaders concerned. They have been ordered to spread rumors that people who participate in Constitutional Grand Juries are breaking the law and will go to jail. They will use any weak argument and select real or imagined criminal codes to scare people.
Remember this important fact: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
Getting together to examine evidence of possible crimes by politicians and presenting evidence of such alleged crimes to the judiciary is "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances".
Given the significant increase in warnings and delusional, irrational, obscene, threatening comments from Obama supporters I would conclude that Obama's lawyers and administration propagandists think the Grand Jury tactic is a real threat.
Finally, something we can agree upon!
Don't you listen to him Dan, he's a devil not a man, and he spreads our beloved land with lies.
COLB - receipt is in the mail?
From a correspondent of mine:
Here is another thing to consider. The COLB that Obama offers as his proof (and has been deemed unreliable) just showed up without explanation. There is nothing from the State of Hawaii about Obama requesting a copy of his BC. Obama, nor the DNC has come forward with evidence of a request for the copy so where did it come from? These cost $10 to get and if requested via the phone would have had to use a credit card or sent a check or money order by mail, yet, nothing is, or ever has been, offered as proof of even a request for the copy. Someone could have said here is a CC receipt, or a canceled check, or the remitters copy of a MO.
Someone should have this without a doubt.
This is something that could even be forged easily but not even a forged receipt of any kind has been offered.
The reason for this is that Obama’s COLB is a forgery and no one even thought to forge a receipt for it from Hawaii.[/quote]
Really good point. Why didn’t I think of that?
Q: Is that COLB a false document like some people are claiming?
A: No, of course not, here is the receipt for the COLB from the State of Hawaii.
Here is another thing to consider. The COLB that Obama offers as his proof (and has been deemed unreliable) just showed up without explanation. There is nothing from the State of Hawaii about Obama requesting a copy of his BC. Obama, nor the DNC has come forward with evidence of a request for the copy so where did it come from? These cost $10 to get and if requested via the phone would have had to use a credit card or sent a check or money order by mail, yet, nothing is, or ever has been, offered as proof of even a request for the copy. Someone could have said here is a CC receipt, or a canceled check, or the remitters copy of a MO.
Someone should have this without a doubt.
This is something that could even be forged easily but not even a forged receipt of any kind has been offered.
The reason for this is that Obama’s COLB is a forgery and no one even thought to forge a receipt for it from Hawaii.[/quote]
Really good point. Why didn’t I think of that?
Q: Is that COLB a false document like some people are claiming?
A: No, of course not, here is the receipt for the COLB from the State of Hawaii.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Part of the solution or the problem?
"The penalty good men pay for
indifference to public affairs is
to be ruled by evil men."- Plato -
indifference to public affairs is
to be ruled by evil men."- Plato -
How to disagree!
The web is turning writing into a conversation. Twenty years ago, writers wrote and readers read. The web lets readers respond, and increasingly they do—in comment threads, on forums, and in their own blog posts.
Many who respond to something disagree with it. That's to be expected. Agreeing tends to motivate people less than disagreeing. And when you agree there's less to say. You could expand on something the author said, but he has probably already explored the most interesting implications. When you disagree you're entering territory he may not have explored.
The result is there's a lot more disagreeing going on, especially measured by the word. That doesn't mean people are getting angrier. The structural change in the way we communicate is enough to account for it. But though it's not anger that's driving the increase in disagreement, there's a danger that the increase in disagreement will make people angrier. Particularly online, where it's easy to say things you'd never say face to face.
If we're all going to be disagreeing more, we should be careful to do it well. What does it mean to disagree well? Most readers can tell the difference between mere name-calling and a carefully reasoned refutation, but I think it would help to put names on the intermediate stages. So here's an attempt at a disagreement hierarchy:
DH0. Name-calling.
This is the lowest form of disagreement, and probably also the most common. We've all seen comments like this:
u r a fag!!!!!!!!!!
But it's important to realize that more articulate name-calling has just as little weight. A comment like
The author is a self-important dilettante.
is really nothing more than a pretentious version of "u r a fag."
DH1. Ad Hominem.
An ad hominem attack is not quite as weak as mere name-calling. It might actually carry some weight. For example, if a senator wrote an article saying senators' salaries should be increased, one could respond:
Of course he would say that. He's a senator.
This wouldn't refute the author's argument, but it may at least be relevant to the case. It's still a very weak form of disagreement, though. If there's something wrong with the senator's argument, you should say what it is; and if there isn't, what difference does it make that he's a senator?
Saying that an author lacks the authority to write about a topic is a variant of ad hominem—and a particularly useless sort, because good ideas often come from outsiders. The question is whether the author is correct or not. If his lack of authority caused him to make mistakes, point those out. And if it didn't, it's not a problem.
DH2. Responding to Tone.
The next level up we start to see responses to the writing, rather than the writer. The lowest form of these is to disagree with the author's tone. E.g.
I can't believe the author dismisses intelligent design in such a cavalier fashion.
Though better than attacking the author, this is still a weak form of disagreement. It matters much more whether the author is wrong or right than what his tone is. Especially since tone is so hard to judge. Someone who has a chip on their shoulder about some topic might be offended by a tone that to other readers seemed neutral.
So if the worst thing you can say about something is to criticize its tone, you're not saying much. Is the author flippant, but correct? Better that than grave and wrong. And if the author is incorrect somewhere, say where.
DH3. Contradiction.
In this stage we finally get responses to what was said, rather than how or by whom. The lowest form of response to an argument is simply to state the opposing case, with little or no supporting evidence.
This is often combined with DH2 statements, as in:
I can't believe the author dismisses intelligent design in such a cavalier fashion. Intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory.
Contradiction can sometimes have some weight. Sometimes merely seeing the opposing case stated explicitly is enough to see that it's right. But usually evidence will help.
DH4. Counterargument.
At level 4 we reach the first form of convincing disagreement: counterargument. Forms up to this point can usually be ignored as proving nothing. Counterargument might prove something. The problem is, it's hard to say exactly what.
Counterargument is contradiction plus reasoning and/or evidence. When aimed squarely at the original argument, it can be convincing. But unfortunately it's common for counterarguments to be aimed at something slightly different. More often than not, two people arguing passionately about something are actually arguing about two different things. Sometimes they even agree with one another, but are so caught up in their squabble they don't realize it.
There could be a legitimate reason for arguing against something slightly different from what the original author said: when you feel they missed the heart of the matter. But when you do that, you should say explicitly you're doing it.
DH5. Refutation.
The most convincing form of disagreement is refutation. It's also the rarest, because it's the most work. Indeed, the disagreement hierarchy forms a kind of pyramid, in the sense that the higher you go the fewer instances you find.
To refute someone you probably have to quote them. You have to find a "smoking gun," a passage in whatever you disagree with that you feel is mistaken, and then explain why it's mistaken. If you can't find an actual quote to disagree with, you may be arguing with a straw man.
While refutation generally entails quoting, quoting doesn't necessarily imply refutation. Some writers quote parts of things they disagree with to give the appearance of legitimate refutation, then follow with a response as low as DH3 or even DH0.
DH6. Refuting the Central Point.
The force of a refutation depends on what you refute. The most powerful form of disagreement is to refute someone's central point.
Even as high as DH5 we still sometimes see deliberate dishonesty, as when someone picks out minor points of an argument and refutes those. Sometimes the spirit in which this is done makes it more of a sophisticated form of ad hominem than actual refutation. For example, correcting someone's grammar, or harping on minor mistakes in names or numbers. Unless the opposing argument actually depends on such things, the only purpose of correcting them is to discredit one's opponent.
Truly refuting something requires one to refute its central point, or at least one of them. And that means one has to commit explicitly to what the central point is. So a truly effective refutation would look like:
The author's main point seems to be x. As he says:
But this is wrong for the following reasons...
The quotation you point out as mistaken need not be the actual statement of the author's main point. It's enough to refute something it depends upon.
What It Means
Now we have a way of classifying forms of disagreement. What good is it? One thing the disagreement hierarchy doesn't give us is a way of picking a winner. DH levels merely describe the form of a statement, not whether it's correct. A DH6 response could still be completely mistaken.
But while DH levels don't set a lower bound on the convincingness of a reply, they do set an upper bound. A DH6 response might be unconvincing, but a DH2 or lower response is always unconvincing.
The most obvious advantage of classifying the forms of disagreement is that it will help people to evaluate what they read. In particular, it will help them to see through intellectually dishonest arguments. An eloquent speaker or writer can give the impression of vanquishing an opponent merely by using forceful words. In fact that is probably the defining quality of a demagogue. By giving names to the different forms of disagreement, we give critical readers a pin for popping such balloons.
Such labels may help writers too. Most intellectual dishonesty is unintentional. Someone arguing against the tone of something he disagrees with may believe he's really saying something. Zooming out and seeing his current position on the disagreement hierarchy may inspire him to try moving up to counterargument or refutation.
But the greatest benefit of disagreeing well is not just that it will make conversations better, but that it will make the people who have them happier. If you study conversations, you find there is a lot more meanness down in DH1 than up in DH6. You don't have to be mean when you have a real point to make. In fact, you don't want to. If you have something real to say, being mean just gets in the way.
If moving up the disagreement hierarchy makes people less mean, that will make most of them happier. Most people don't really enjoy being mean; they do it because they can't help it.
http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html
http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html
Many who respond to something disagree with it. That's to be expected. Agreeing tends to motivate people less than disagreeing. And when you agree there's less to say. You could expand on something the author said, but he has probably already explored the most interesting implications. When you disagree you're entering territory he may not have explored.
The result is there's a lot more disagreeing going on, especially measured by the word. That doesn't mean people are getting angrier. The structural change in the way we communicate is enough to account for it. But though it's not anger that's driving the increase in disagreement, there's a danger that the increase in disagreement will make people angrier. Particularly online, where it's easy to say things you'd never say face to face.
If we're all going to be disagreeing more, we should be careful to do it well. What does it mean to disagree well? Most readers can tell the difference between mere name-calling and a carefully reasoned refutation, but I think it would help to put names on the intermediate stages. So here's an attempt at a disagreement hierarchy:
DH0. Name-calling.
This is the lowest form of disagreement, and probably also the most common. We've all seen comments like this:
u r a fag!!!!!!!!!!
But it's important to realize that more articulate name-calling has just as little weight. A comment like
The author is a self-important dilettante.
is really nothing more than a pretentious version of "u r a fag."
DH1. Ad Hominem.
An ad hominem attack is not quite as weak as mere name-calling. It might actually carry some weight. For example, if a senator wrote an article saying senators' salaries should be increased, one could respond:
Of course he would say that. He's a senator.
This wouldn't refute the author's argument, but it may at least be relevant to the case. It's still a very weak form of disagreement, though. If there's something wrong with the senator's argument, you should say what it is; and if there isn't, what difference does it make that he's a senator?
Saying that an author lacks the authority to write about a topic is a variant of ad hominem—and a particularly useless sort, because good ideas often come from outsiders. The question is whether the author is correct or not. If his lack of authority caused him to make mistakes, point those out. And if it didn't, it's not a problem.
DH2. Responding to Tone.
The next level up we start to see responses to the writing, rather than the writer. The lowest form of these is to disagree with the author's tone. E.g.
I can't believe the author dismisses intelligent design in such a cavalier fashion.
Though better than attacking the author, this is still a weak form of disagreement. It matters much more whether the author is wrong or right than what his tone is. Especially since tone is so hard to judge. Someone who has a chip on their shoulder about some topic might be offended by a tone that to other readers seemed neutral.
So if the worst thing you can say about something is to criticize its tone, you're not saying much. Is the author flippant, but correct? Better that than grave and wrong. And if the author is incorrect somewhere, say where.
DH3. Contradiction.
In this stage we finally get responses to what was said, rather than how or by whom. The lowest form of response to an argument is simply to state the opposing case, with little or no supporting evidence.
This is often combined with DH2 statements, as in:
I can't believe the author dismisses intelligent design in such a cavalier fashion. Intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory.
Contradiction can sometimes have some weight. Sometimes merely seeing the opposing case stated explicitly is enough to see that it's right. But usually evidence will help.
DH4. Counterargument.
At level 4 we reach the first form of convincing disagreement: counterargument. Forms up to this point can usually be ignored as proving nothing. Counterargument might prove something. The problem is, it's hard to say exactly what.
Counterargument is contradiction plus reasoning and/or evidence. When aimed squarely at the original argument, it can be convincing. But unfortunately it's common for counterarguments to be aimed at something slightly different. More often than not, two people arguing passionately about something are actually arguing about two different things. Sometimes they even agree with one another, but are so caught up in their squabble they don't realize it.
There could be a legitimate reason for arguing against something slightly different from what the original author said: when you feel they missed the heart of the matter. But when you do that, you should say explicitly you're doing it.
DH5. Refutation.
The most convincing form of disagreement is refutation. It's also the rarest, because it's the most work. Indeed, the disagreement hierarchy forms a kind of pyramid, in the sense that the higher you go the fewer instances you find.
To refute someone you probably have to quote them. You have to find a "smoking gun," a passage in whatever you disagree with that you feel is mistaken, and then explain why it's mistaken. If you can't find an actual quote to disagree with, you may be arguing with a straw man.
While refutation generally entails quoting, quoting doesn't necessarily imply refutation. Some writers quote parts of things they disagree with to give the appearance of legitimate refutation, then follow with a response as low as DH3 or even DH0.
DH6. Refuting the Central Point.
The force of a refutation depends on what you refute. The most powerful form of disagreement is to refute someone's central point.
Even as high as DH5 we still sometimes see deliberate dishonesty, as when someone picks out minor points of an argument and refutes those. Sometimes the spirit in which this is done makes it more of a sophisticated form of ad hominem than actual refutation. For example, correcting someone's grammar, or harping on minor mistakes in names or numbers. Unless the opposing argument actually depends on such things, the only purpose of correcting them is to discredit one's opponent.
Truly refuting something requires one to refute its central point, or at least one of them. And that means one has to commit explicitly to what the central point is. So a truly effective refutation would look like:
The author's main point seems to be x. As he says:
But this is wrong for the following reasons...
The quotation you point out as mistaken need not be the actual statement of the author's main point. It's enough to refute something it depends upon.
What It Means
Now we have a way of classifying forms of disagreement. What good is it? One thing the disagreement hierarchy doesn't give us is a way of picking a winner. DH levels merely describe the form of a statement, not whether it's correct. A DH6 response could still be completely mistaken.
But while DH levels don't set a lower bound on the convincingness of a reply, they do set an upper bound. A DH6 response might be unconvincing, but a DH2 or lower response is always unconvincing.
The most obvious advantage of classifying the forms of disagreement is that it will help people to evaluate what they read. In particular, it will help them to see through intellectually dishonest arguments. An eloquent speaker or writer can give the impression of vanquishing an opponent merely by using forceful words. In fact that is probably the defining quality of a demagogue. By giving names to the different forms of disagreement, we give critical readers a pin for popping such balloons.
Such labels may help writers too. Most intellectual dishonesty is unintentional. Someone arguing against the tone of something he disagrees with may believe he's really saying something. Zooming out and seeing his current position on the disagreement hierarchy may inspire him to try moving up to counterargument or refutation.
But the greatest benefit of disagreeing well is not just that it will make conversations better, but that it will make the people who have them happier. If you study conversations, you find there is a lot more meanness down in DH1 than up in DH6. You don't have to be mean when you have a real point to make. In fact, you don't want to. If you have something real to say, being mean just gets in the way.
If moving up the disagreement hierarchy makes people less mean, that will make most of them happier. Most people don't really enjoy being mean; they do it because they can't help it.
http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html
http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html
My Retort Post to Irrational Posters
My Retort Post to Irrational Posters
When posters use name calling or ridicule as a response to me I have this prepared to post as a retort to their irrational rants.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The trademark personal insult, name calling, ridicule, and ad hominem attacks characterize the debate style of Obama’s people That tactic has worked quite well on the ignorant and those who value feeling more than reason. Uninformed voted Obama - http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2008/12/uninformed-voted-obama-informed-voted.html
This is not new, transformational politics. This is the rise of a New American Fascism.
You might consult an article on this blog entitled. Spot false arguments and make strong ones. http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2008/11/spot-false-arguments-and-make-strong.htmlA free hint on how to improve your posts. You will note that ad hominem arguments are at the lower end of the scale on the pyramid chart at the above link; only one step above name calling which is the other part of your content. Do you honestly expect to get somewhere with a post like that when many of the readers on this blog have triple digit IQs?
In case you need a little help with your Latin: An ad hominem argument, consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.
Have you had a logic class yet?
You might take a look at this site: http://www.austhink.org/critical/pages/fallacies.html
Ridicule - Also Known as: Appeal to Mockery, The Horse Laugh.
Description of Appeal to Ridicule
The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an " argument." This line of " reasoning" has the following form:X, which is some form of ridicule, is presented (typically directed at the claim).Therefore claim C is false.This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because mocking a claim does not show that it is false. This is especially clear in the following example: "1+1=2!
"That's the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard!"
Examples of Appeal to Ridicule
"Sure my worthy opponent claims that we should lower tuition, but that is just laughable."
"Support the ERA? Sure, when the women start paying for the drinks! Hah! Hah!"
"Those wacky conservatives! They think a strong military is the key to peace! There’s a tin foil hat idea"
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
http://images7.cafepress.com/product/278928847v114_350x350_Front.jpg
This link is the surprise visual I hope they click
When posters use name calling or ridicule as a response to me I have this prepared to post as a retort to their irrational rants.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The trademark personal insult, name calling, ridicule, and ad hominem attacks characterize the debate style of Obama’s people That tactic has worked quite well on the ignorant and those who value feeling more than reason. Uninformed voted Obama - http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2008/12/uninformed-voted-obama-informed-voted.html
This is not new, transformational politics. This is the rise of a New American Fascism.
You might consult an article on this blog entitled. Spot false arguments and make strong ones. http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2008/11/spot-false-arguments-and-make-strong.htmlA free hint on how to improve your posts. You will note that ad hominem arguments are at the lower end of the scale on the pyramid chart at the above link; only one step above name calling which is the other part of your content. Do you honestly expect to get somewhere with a post like that when many of the readers on this blog have triple digit IQs?
In case you need a little help with your Latin: An ad hominem argument, consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.
Have you had a logic class yet?
You might take a look at this site: http://www.austhink.org/critical/pages/fallacies.html
Ridicule - Also Known as: Appeal to Mockery, The Horse Laugh.
Description of Appeal to Ridicule
The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an " argument." This line of " reasoning" has the following form:X, which is some form of ridicule, is presented (typically directed at the claim).Therefore claim C is false.This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because mocking a claim does not show that it is false. This is especially clear in the following example: "1+1=2!
"That's the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard!"
Examples of Appeal to Ridicule
"Sure my worthy opponent claims that we should lower tuition, but that is just laughable."
"Support the ERA? Sure, when the women start paying for the drinks! Hah! Hah!"
"Those wacky conservatives! They think a strong military is the key to peace! There’s a tin foil hat idea"
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
http://images7.cafepress.com/product/278928847v114_350x350_Front.jpg
This link is the surprise visual I hope they click
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Mark McGrew Radio for tonight
Thursday April 23, 2009
Time 9pm EST 8pm CST 7pm MST 6pm PST
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/Sentinel_Radio
Join the discussion by calling: (646) 727-2652
US Constitution Says A People's Grand Jury Can Subpoena Obama's Birth Records
Citizen's Grand Jury Rights and Abilities Discussion
Carl Swensson of http://riseupforamerica.com/ explains:
How a Georgia Grand Jury Indicted Obama.
Robert DeBeaux and Dianna Nelson from Dallas - Ft. Worth
will talk about forming their Grand Jury.
US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia ruled:
"In fact, the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people."
Judges And Prosecutors Are Violating Our Constitution.
Listen to the discussion at:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/Sentinel_Radio
Join the discussion by calling: (646) 727-2652 Time 9pm EST 8pm CST 7pm MST 6pm PST
If you do not want emails from us, please click on reply and type "NO" in the subject line.
We will delete you immediately.
Mark S. McGrew
McGrewMX@aol.com
Mark S. McGrew Blog Spot
Time 9pm EST 8pm CST 7pm MST 6pm PST
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/Sentinel_Radio
Join the discussion by calling: (646) 727-2652
US Constitution Says A People's Grand Jury Can Subpoena Obama's Birth Records
Citizen's Grand Jury Rights and Abilities Discussion
Carl Swensson of http://riseupforamerica.com/ explains:
How a Georgia Grand Jury Indicted Obama.
Robert DeBeaux and Dianna Nelson from Dallas - Ft. Worth
will talk about forming their Grand Jury.
US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia ruled:
"In fact, the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people."
Judges And Prosecutors Are Violating Our Constitution.
Listen to the discussion at:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/Sentinel_Radio
Join the discussion by calling: (646) 727-2652 Time 9pm EST 8pm CST 7pm MST 6pm PST
If you do not want emails from us, please click on reply and type "NO" in the subject line.
We will delete you immediately.
Mark S. McGrew
McGrewMX@aol.com
Mark S. McGrew Blog Spot
FACTS on fake torture expose!
Starting in 2002, key Congressional leaders, including Democrats, were fully briefed by the CIA about its activities, amounting to some 30 sessions before “torture” became a public issue. None of them saw fit to object. In fact, Congress has always defined torture so vaguely as to ban only the most extreme acts and preserve legal loopholes. At least twice it has had opportunity to specifically ban waterboarding and be accountable after some future attack. Members declined.
WSJ 12.19.08 *
WSJ 12.19.08 *
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
IMPORTANT: Grand Juries don't need Judicial approval -
Geez! This is so powerful and straight to the point. No kidding, Grand Juries have the power to subpoena!
Patriot Grand Jurors need look no further than Bill of Rights to find their Supreme Right to form Citizen Grand Juries with or without Judicial approval.
In the First Amendment, we the People are given the unalienable right "peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
In the Ninth Amendment, it is unequivocally stated that, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
In the Tenth Amendment, it is clearly stated, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people.
What does that mean in the context of the power of Citizen Grand Jurors?
Simply stated it means that Citizens can form Grand Juries with or without the consent of any branch of the Judiciary, Federal or State. Furthermore, it means that any and all Federal or State Rules or Laws of Criminal Procedure are unconstitutional to the extent that they limit the formation of Citizen Grand Juries to prior or post approval by any Branch of the Judiciary, Federal or State.
It gets better for the Power of the People over their Judiciary in the Eleventh Amendment, "The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one the United States by Citizen of another State..."
In reading the Eleventh Amendment as it pertains to Citizens Grand Juries, one must remember the legal context under which it was written. At the time of the ratification of the Eleventh Amendment, most Criminal prosecutions were commenced by Citizens utilizing the services of private Citizen Attorneys.
Seen in its true, original context, the Eleventh Amendment clearly states that Citizens can form Federal or State Grand Juries without interference by the Federal Government.
Furthermore, the Citizen Grand Juries can subpoena any and all of Barack Hussein Obama's personal records held in any State or Federal Government Office or Department and said Office or Department is compelled by the Supreme Law of the Land, Our Constitution, to produce said records for said Grand Juries.
Remember Patriots, the case against Barack Hussein Obama will be over in Discovery, therefore, let us commence with Our Discovery of the Truth regarding the suspect commonly known to us Citizens as Barack Hussein Obama of unknown Citizenship, Allegiance and Alliances.
"Leo the Lawyer"
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The subpoena will be issued to the entity that holds the records; State of Hawaii, Occidental, Columbia, Harvard, State Department, etc.
Of course Obama will challenge it. My advisors say don't worry because then it goes straight to SCOTUS upon Original Jurisdiction and the Patriots will win.
No questions about standing, No sanctions. No dismissals, Nada. Straight win in SCOTUS. We have the United States Constitution on our side and that is the Supreme Law of the Land.
Patriot Grand Jurors need look no further than Bill of Rights to find their Supreme Right to form Citizen Grand Juries with or without Judicial approval.
In the First Amendment, we the People are given the unalienable right "peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
In the Ninth Amendment, it is unequivocally stated that, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
In the Tenth Amendment, it is clearly stated, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people.
What does that mean in the context of the power of Citizen Grand Jurors?
Simply stated it means that Citizens can form Grand Juries with or without the consent of any branch of the Judiciary, Federal or State. Furthermore, it means that any and all Federal or State Rules or Laws of Criminal Procedure are unconstitutional to the extent that they limit the formation of Citizen Grand Juries to prior or post approval by any Branch of the Judiciary, Federal or State.
It gets better for the Power of the People over their Judiciary in the Eleventh Amendment, "The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one the United States by Citizen of another State..."
In reading the Eleventh Amendment as it pertains to Citizens Grand Juries, one must remember the legal context under which it was written. At the time of the ratification of the Eleventh Amendment, most Criminal prosecutions were commenced by Citizens utilizing the services of private Citizen Attorneys.
Seen in its true, original context, the Eleventh Amendment clearly states that Citizens can form Federal or State Grand Juries without interference by the Federal Government.
Furthermore, the Citizen Grand Juries can subpoena any and all of Barack Hussein Obama's personal records held in any State or Federal Government Office or Department and said Office or Department is compelled by the Supreme Law of the Land, Our Constitution, to produce said records for said Grand Juries.
Remember Patriots, the case against Barack Hussein Obama will be over in Discovery, therefore, let us commence with Our Discovery of the Truth regarding the suspect commonly known to us Citizens as Barack Hussein Obama of unknown Citizenship, Allegiance and Alliances.
"Leo the Lawyer"
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The subpoena will be issued to the entity that holds the records; State of Hawaii, Occidental, Columbia, Harvard, State Department, etc.
Of course Obama will challenge it. My advisors say don't worry because then it goes straight to SCOTUS upon Original Jurisdiction and the Patriots will win.
No questions about standing, No sanctions. No dismissals, Nada. Straight win in SCOTUS. We have the United States Constitution on our side and that is the Supreme Law of the Land.
Obama “I have nothing to hide but I’m hiding it.”
Special update April 11, 2011
AKA Obama - We've Got Your Number - 042-68-4425
“I have nothing to hide but I’m hiding it.”
Or:
AKA Obama Fans: All together now – say OMG!!
by Aristotle the Hun
(AKA - Also Known As: an acronym used to describe suspicious persons who use more than one name)
Somehow, you know its coming. That OMG moment is just around the corner. You can feel the inescapable reality creeping up on you. Something will leak. Someone will spill the beans.
“For nothing is hid that shall not be made manifest, nor anything secret that shall not be known and come to light.” Luke 8:17
1. Oh what a tangled web we weave . . .
2. Please get this straight:
3. The Birth Document published on AKA Obama’s Web Site Isn’t Adequate Evidence of Place of Birth Even if it Isn’t a Forgery
4. No Evidence of a Hawaiian Birth for AKA Obama – What About Kenya?
5. The Crux of the Legal Straw That Can Break AKA Obama’s Back
6. Enough on the Hidden Birth Certificate and Forged Documents. What if AKA Obama was Actually Born in Hawaii?
7. THE CATALOG OF HIDDEN DOCUMENTS FROM AKA OBAMA’S PAST
8. THE MISSING KINDERGARTEN RECORDS AND THE MYSTERIOUS NEWSPAPER BIRTH ANNOUNCEMENT
9. What we know for sure that makes AKA Obama ineligible
10. Pay attention to this next quoted paragraph:
11. AKA Obama’s crimes
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
1. Oh what a tangled web we weave . . .It isn’t hard to imagine the gnawing anxiety that AKA OBAMA lives with, day in and day out. Much has been written about AKA OBAMA’s behavior that reminds mental health experts and others of NPD (Narcissistic Personality Disorder.) A frequent manifestation of such a disorder is The Narcissist, as Liar and Con-man.
This disorder is frequently misunderstood as “self-love.” A more accurate understanding is love of a reflection of one’s self. Abused, abandoned and neglected children will compensate for damaged egos by creating an ideal reflection of themselves that they then embellish and vigorously defend. A person with NPD is quite capable of a mind twisting position like, “I have nothing to hide, but I am hiding things anyway.” AKA OBAMA certainly fits the model of having such a childhood. While I am not in the position to deliver an official In Absentia diagnosis of a full strength NPD case, many of the indicators are present.
If AKA OBAMA were not in a position of public trust, most of us would probably overlook such deception and secrecy. For those of us who care about our Constitution and the rule of law, the issue becomes clear in this article that appeared in on-line Pravda by international columnist Mark S. McGrew, The Mysterious Shadow: Code Name Obama.
Most Americans do not want their president to be secretive about his past. However, if one is living a lie to preserve the ego compensating, idealized reflection of self, one will go to great lengths to hide things that most would routinely reveal.
For the person who has NPD tendencies, the lies used to create the reflection become so numerous that eventually the man in the mirror cracks, and so does the real human being hiding behind the reflection.
A useful tool in evaluating things that are not known with certainty is Occam’s razor. When multiple competing hypotheses are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood. I condense this to the simple question: what is most likely? In our discussion of the documents which AKA has hidden, most of this article is an examination of which explanation is most likely.
For example, which is most likely;
(a) AKA OBAMA is hiding documents that are innocuous?
(b) AKA OBAMA is hiding documents that are damaging?
What we know with certainty is that AKA OBAMA is not practicing the virtue of full disclosure. “ The biggest question, and the biggest reason for asking more questions, is the fact Obama has enlisted law firms across the nation to battle every attempt to access, among other documents, his birth, schooling, immigration or passport records.” New Jersey attorney Mario Apuzzo
There are so many potential sources that can end AKA OBAMA’s Presidency that it is impossible to keep them all quiet. It’s just a matter of time. As columnist Davvy Kidd says, IMPOSTOR PRESIDENT OBAMA: VICTORY WILL BE SHORT LIVED. First, let’s think of all the lawyers and support staff involved in keeping the birth certificate issue quiet. Isn’t it likely that some of them know what they are hiding? Isn’t it likely that several people at the Hawaiian Department of Public Health know what is, or is not, on the original birth certificate that AKA OBAMA refuses to release? Did you know that there is a one million dollar reward offered for AKA OBAMA’s Hawaiian birth certificate?
2. Please get this straight:
Hawaiian officials have not validated AKA OBAMA’s place of birth. What they have said is that they “have the original document” on file. They haven’t offered a clue as to what information is in that document nor have they said what kind of birth certificate is on file; a conventional birth certificate issued by a hospital with a doctor’s signature or the kind of birth certificate issued by Hawaii on the basis of an affidavit? The Hawaiian officials are not part of a cover-up. They can not legally validate what is on that document without a court order or permission from “our” Chicago con-man. Recently a Hawaiian government official stepped over the legal line and overtly stated that AKA Obama’s “vital records” showed that he was born in Hawaii. It is entirely possible for the “vital records” of Hawaii to show than a person was born in Hawaii when in fact that person could have been born elsewhere.
Laws of the Territory of Hawaii ACT 96 To Provide For The Issuance Of Certificates Of Hawaiian Birth was in effect from 1911 until 1972 and allowed someone who was born outside the Hawaiian Islands to be registered as though he were born in Hawaii. Under that law, someone simply would have presented herself to the Hawaiian authorities and declared that the child was born in Hawaii. The person could have sworn under oath and presented witnesses and other evidence. If the authorities accepted it, that was the end of it. All a person had to do was file a false statement and Hawaii took them at their word.
One could not just say "My kid was born in Des Moines but I want him to have a Hawaiian birth record". But if you lied no investigation was conducted to validate your claim and the Hawaiian birth record was issued no questions asked.
Knowledge of this practice was wide spread and there are probably thousands of people who obtained Hawaiian birth records between 1911 and 1972 through the process of affidavits and witnesses rather than hospitals and delivery doctors.
One high profile example of the Hawaiian birth certificate policy was the president of the first Chinese republic. Sun Yat-sen was born on 12 November 1866 to a peasant family in the village of Cuiheng, China, but by 1904 he had a Hawaiian birth certificate and was officially a citizen of the United States. The wording on Sun Yat-sen’s Hawaiian birth certificate reveals that at age 18 he “made application for a Certificate of Birth. And that it appears from his affidavit and the evidence submitted by witnesses that he was born in the Hawaiian Islands.” Appears? It also appears that AKA Obama was born in Hawaii. Does the AKA Obama birth certificate on file with the State of Hawaii have language similar to the birth certificate of SunYat-sen?
The only way to know where AKA OBAMA was actually born is to view AKA OBAMA's original birth certificate on file in Hawaii to see what kind of birth certificate it is, and to examine what corroborating evidence supports what it says about AKA OBAMA's alleged place of birth. If the birth was in a hospital, as AKA OBAMA has maintained, such evidence would be the name of the hospital and the name and signature of the doctor who delivered him.
Here is the information on Hawaiian law that makes it clear why we will never know the truth until we see the actual birth certificate.http://www.westernjournalism.com/?page_id=2697
The records of hospitals in Hawaii have been searched and there is no record of Stanley Ann Obama ever having given birth to a child. In a November 2004 interview with the Rainbow Newsletter, Maya Soetoro told reporters her half-brother Sen. Barack Obama was born on Aug. 4, 1961, at Queens Medical Center in Honolulu. After it was concluded that Obama and his mother were never there in February 2008, Maya told reporters for the Honolulu Star-Bulletin that Obama was at the Kapiolani Medical Center for Women and Children. Obama and Mom were never there either. AKA Obama has said he was born at Kapiolani Medical Center yet no hospital official has suggested that their facility should be designated as the birth place of a President. Odd!
Which is most likely?
AKA Obama is hiding a conventional birth certificate issued by a hospital and signed by a doctor?
AKA Obama is hiding a birth certificate attested to by witnesses with no hospital or doctor mentioned?
3. The Birth Document published on AKA Obama’s Web Site Isn’t Adequate Evidence of Place of Birth Even if it Isn’t a Forgery
The Certification of Live Birth that was published on AKA OBAMA’s campaign web site is not a Birth Certificate. It is easy to tell the difference between the two types of documents. It is very likely that the COLB used by AKA OBAMA’s campaign is a fraudulent document. Several forensic document examiners have carefully scrutinized the COLB and declared it suspicious or an obvious forgery.
Forensic document examiner Sandra Ramsey Lines, a Former Federal Examiner with a long history of expert testimony in state and federal courts, has testified in an affidavit that states, in part:
Sandra Lines says, “I can state with certainty that the COLB presented on the internet by the various groups, which include the “Daily Kos,” the Obama Campaign, “Factcheck.org” and others cannot be relied upon as genuine. Dr. Polarik raises issues concerning the COLB that I can affirm. Software such as Adobe Photoshop can produce complete images or alter images that appear to be genuine; therefore, any image offered on the internet cannot be relied upon as being a copy of the authentic document.” Sandra Ramsey Lines summary is posted at U. S. Law Blog.
Who Certified AKA Obama as "Natural Born" at FactCheck?
Joe Miller and Jess Henig, that's who! They are a couple of partisan Obots -- just what you'd expect -- Jess took the photos presented on their webpage and did all of the writing, while Bob basically held the COLB open for Jess to photograph. Those two are completely unqualified to perform any kind of forensic examination of any document, and FactCheck.org knows it -- and so do Henig and Miller.
Here is another thing to consider. Birth Certificates might be protected by privacy laws in Hawaii but transactions for purchase should be available as public record. The COLB that AKA Obama offers as his proof (and has been deemed unreliable) just showed up without explanation. There is nothing from the State of Hawaii about AKA Obama requesting a copy of his BC.
Obama, nor the DNC has come forward with evidence of a request for the copy so where did it come from? These cost $10 to get and if requested via the phone someone would have had to use a credit card or sent a check or money order by mail, yet, nothing is, or ever has been, offered as proof of even a request for the copy. Someone could have said here is a CC receipt, or a canceled check, or the remitter’s copy of a money order.Someone should have this without a doubt. Has anyone asked the State of Hawaii if there is a record of payment for a COLB from AKA Obama?This is something that could even be forged easily but not even a forged receipt or record of payment of any kind has been offered.Could the reason for this be that Obama’s COLB is a forgery and no one even thought to forge a receipt for it from Hawaii?
Q: Is that COLB a false document like some people are claiming?
A: No, of course not, here is the receipt for the COLB from the State of Hawaii.
And be sure to see this documented evidence that AKA Obama's COLB is different than other COLBs
AKA Obama COLB Filed But Never Accepted - Click Image For Full View
AKA Obama Eligibility - Important Research I missed on my previous updates.
4. No Evidence of a Hawaiian Birth for AKA Obama – What About Kenya?
As for AKA Obama’s birth in Kenya we hear this from attorney Mario Apuzzo “We have not heard from one international, federal, state, or local police or security agency that Obama's birth place has been officially confirmed.An Investigator working for Philip Berg, Esq. learned the following which is contained in the investigator's affidavit dated October 30, 2008, that was filed with a Federal District Court in the case of Berg v. Obama, O8-cv-04083: Obama's step-grandmother, Sarah Obama, told Bishop McRae, who was in the United States, during a telephonic interview on October 12, 2008, while she was in her home located in Alego-Kogello, Kenya, that was full of security police and people and family who were celebrating then-Senator Obama's success story, that she witnessed Obama's birth in Kenya, not the United States (the English and Swahili conversation is recorded and available for listening). She was adamant about this fact not once but twice. The conversation which was placed on speaker phone was translated into English by "Kweli Shuhubia" and one of the grandmother's grandsons who were present with the grandmother in the house. After the grandmother made the same statement twice her grandson intervened, saying "No, No, No, He was born in the United States." During the interview, the grandmother never changed her reply that she was present when Obama was born in Kenya. The fact that later in the same interview she change her statement to say that Obama was born in Hawaii does not change the fact that she at first stated twice that she was present when Obama was born in Kenya. I cannot imagine a grandmother not knowing whether she was present or not at the birth of her American Senator and U.S. Presidential candidate grandson.
The investigator then personally went to the hospital in Mombassa, Kenya. He spoke with the Provincial Civil Registrar and he learned that there were records of Ann Dunham giving birth to "Barack Hussein Obama, III" in Mombassa, Kenya on August 4, 1961. The investigator then "spoke directly with an Official, the Principal Registrar, who openly confirmed the birthing records of Senator Barack H. Obama, Jr. and his mother were present, however, the file on Barack H. Obama, Jr. was classified and profiled. The Official explained Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. [sic] birth in Kenya is top secret. [H]e was further instructed to go to the Attorney General's Office and to the Minister in Charge of Immigration if [he] wanted further information."
It is alleged that the Kenyan government authorities have refused to cooperate and have thwarted all efforts by anyone to obtain any documents concerning Obama.”
That is a real mind bender. Let’s see; AKA Obama wasn’t born in Kenya but his birth place is declared to be “top secret” by Kenyan officials. There are no records of AKA Obama being born in Kenya and those nonexistent records are being withheld and are “top secret”. That sounds so much like what the official position of AKA Obama could be; “I have nothing to hide but I’m hiding it.”
5. The Crux of the Legal Straw That Can Break AKA Obama’s BackAnother piece of information that many fail to realize is that in the birth certificate cases, all that is needed is for the case to be heard. This case will be over in the “Discovery” phase. Before a trial starts, both sides are required by the court to put all their cards on the table to avoid “trial by ambush.” The judge orders all evidence to be presented by both sides. Since this case is about discovering documents that are hidden, the case will be decided by court-ordered presentation of all relevant records. Lawyers in birth certificate cases don’t need to win a trial; they only need to get a trial.
For those of you who think ridicule and name calling are effective debate tactics, I refer your kool-aid drenched, tin foil protected brains (a dose of your own medicine) to this article from American Thinker: Why the Barack Obama Birth Certificate Issue Is Legitimate .
6. Enough on the Hidden Birth Certificate and Forged Documents. What if AKA Obama was Actually Born in Hawaii?What about the legal team that is keeping AKA OBAMA’s college records hidden? Several people probably know what they are hiding. The best guess as to what is so secret isn’t likely to be bad grades. More likely his admission papers will say he was a foreign student, or that he was receiving financial aid as a foreign student. How many people do you estimate already know what is on AKA OBAMA’s college documents? Those records were handled routinely for more than 20 years. How many personnel in the registrar’s offices of Occidental College, Columbia University, and Harvard University have seen AKA OBAMA’s records and know what is in them? How many of those people would be willing to talk about it, or maybe even “leak” just one sheet of paper that would put even more cracks in AKA OBAMA’s mirror? Is that number likely to be zero? Do you think that AKA OBAMA worries about how many people know something that could destroy his career? Fear of being “found out” is an obsession for NPD types. The Cost to hide Obama's past now 1.35 million.
7. THE CATALOG OF HIDDEN DOCUMENTS FROM AKA OBAMA’S PAST
So far we have only talked about the original birth certificate, supposedly locked up in Hawaii, and AKA OBAMA’s draft and college records. Already the potential sources for leaks are numerous. And you can bet that AKA OBAMA and his lawyers are concerned about many more possible leaks than these.There is a long list of vulnerability points for leaks, and there is a story behind every one of them. This list is one of many available and comes from one of my favorite blogs
Original, vault copy birth certificate — Not released — Lawyers fees — greater than $1,000,000 — birth certificate — $15.
Certification of Live Birth — Released – Counterfeit – Case and Affidavits
Admitted British citizenship at birth — Confirmed via FactCheck.org/FightTheSmears.com
Birth Announcement — Alleged to be a forgery
Obama/Dunham marriage license — Not released
Obama/Dunham divorce – Released (by independent investigators)
Soetoro/Dunham marriage license — Not released
Soetoro adoption records — Not released
Fransiskus Assisi School School application — Released (by independent investigators)
Punahou School records — Not released
Soetoro/Dunham divorce – Released (by independent investigators)
Selective Service Registration — Released – Counterfeit – Document Locator Number update – another FOIA request
Occidental College records — Not released
Passport — Not released and records scrubbed clean by Obama’s terrorism and intelligence adviser
Columbia College records — Not released
Columbia thesis — “Soviet Nuclear Disarmament” – Not released
Harvard College records — Not released
Harvard Law Review articles — None
Illinois Bar Records — Not released.
Baptism certificate — None
Medical records — Not released
Illinois State Senate records — None
Illinois State Senate schedule — Lost
Law practice client list — Not released
University of Chicago scholarly articles — None
Kindergarten records – this” lost or hidden” incident deserves more detail:
8. THE MISSING KINDERGARTEN RECORDS AND THE MYSTERIOUS NEWSPAPER BIRTH ANNOUNCEMENT
“Obama began his education in Hawaii's public schools. He was enrolled in Ms. Sakai’s kindergarten class at Noelani Elementary School in 1967. He was only there a couple or three months before he was off to Indonesia.
Click photo for full image
The first little boy in the third row, left is "Barry Obama." Obama’s sister Maya Soetoro-Ng confirms that the boy is Obama.
The two white girls in the same row are probably the Nordyke twins. They were not identical twins, but they did have the same smile. They were born the same time as Obama. I still want to know what happened to their birth announcement. Twins, being born to a prominent physician is news. More specifically, I want to know what happened to the space their birth announcement was in.Or am I expected to believe that Vital Statistics included Obama's name on their announcement list, and forgot the Nordyke Twins? Born within hours of Obama according to Eleanor Nordyke, their names should be here: Birth Announcement here -- expand to regular size to read.
Those who strive to legitimize AKA Obama have made much of the questionable “birth announcement” that may have been published in the Hawaiian newspapers. This “evidence” if so flimsy that refuting it may actually lend substance to the claim.
There are literally dozens of anti-Birther articles in the media that continue to claim that AKA Obama's birth announcement was in "two different newspapers". These two newspapers are printed by the same publisher and share the same stories and sources. The purpose of this “two newspaper” claim is to falsely imply that these newspapers are independent of each other, and therefore, unlikely to run the same birth announcement.
Birth announcements were called in or mailed in all the time. The Nordyke twins were announced, then recently (about a year ago) that announcement was replaced with the AKA Obama one. And the original owner of the “birth” residence died about 2 years, before the newly discovered birth announcement was touted by the Obama campaign after AKA Obama's Hawaiian 'birth” was challenged. There is also evidence of splicing in the microfilm. The most likely scenario is that the Nordyke twin’s birth announcement was spliced out and replaced by a post-dated AKA Obama announcement. The fact that the home address in the fake AKA Obama announcement was never occupied by Ann Dunham and Barack Obama, and that the birth announcement just happened to appear right after the actual tenant of the home died, pretty much drives a stake though the heart of this story. Here is WND's story about the birth address.
A more comprehensive analysis debunking the birth announcement claim; Here is “jbjd’s” answer:
There isn't one single, credible source that has any concrete facts whatsoever, that Obama was born in Hawaii.
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?template=zoom&Site=M1&Date=20090728&Category=NEWS01&ArtNo=907280345&Ref=V3
Eleanor Nordyke of Manoa shows the birth certificates of her twin daughters. They were born at Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital the day after Obama was born
Here's a surprise! Hawaii's Department of Education has been unable to find AKA Obama’s Kindergarten records. By this time maybe you are no longer surprised.
Obama's Noelani Elementary School Kindergarten records, oddly missing from the State of Hawaii Department of Education, is the first in a series of chronological "coincidences" that obscure AKA Obama’s history.Although Obama has had a first-class education that spanned 25 years, there is only a single document that has ever been released, the application for entrance to the Franciscus Assisi Primary School (next item) -- and that document was discovered by independent investigators.
This is an important feature because Kindergarten records for original school entry would have contained the following:
1. Obama's REAL Birth Certificate.
2. An application with the following:
• His Legal name.
• Parents or Legal Guardians’ names.
• Date of Birth
• Place of Birth
• Vaccination Records (revealing a timeline to the place and DOB.)
It also is important for two additional reasons:
A. The Department of Education does not "lose" the records of one particular student. (So, who paid whom what sum to make this record disappear?)
B. There would have been NO shameful low-test scores, NO embarrassing Equal Opportunity advancements, and NO trails of fraudulent funding to hide that could possibly "excuse" the quashing of public school Kindergarten entry records. For the rest of his life he attended very expensive private schools and has had his records legally sealed to deny the public his true life story.
This is different. Hawaii should be able to verify he attended their school since he is featured in class photographs. State and federal tax dollars paid for his initial year of education. Why is there no documentation?
This is the beginning of an intentionally erased life of a fraud and conman and it reeks of complicity by officials within the State of Hawaii’s Dept. of Health and Dept. of Education.” Hat tip to Don Fredrick at http://www.colony14.net/
International columnist Mark S. McGrew sums up AKA Obama’s missing history succinctly: “With all of Obama’s different names, with his documented long term relations to convicted criminals, with his active efforts to prohibit us from knowing where he was born, with his active efforts to keep us from seeing his credentials, with his documented registration to practice law, professing to have only one name, with his being an ex-attorney not authorized to practice law, but representing himself as such, with his non-existent “Office of The President Elect,” with the dozen or so lawsuits against him to determine his citizenship status, with the various promises he made to voters and on which he has since reneged, with his documented lack of respect to America, with his refusal to salute the American flag with others on stage or even to stand at attention, and his other disrespectful actions, with his many millions of dollars in campaign funds suspected to be from foreign sources, with campaign donations accepted from possible terrorists groups, . . . Obama has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he can not in any way, shape or form be trusted.”
I would ask the reader to accept the premise that there are many potential leaks from those things that are being kept hidden by a man who promised transparency in government. But there are other problems from sources that are not hidden.
9. What we know for sure that makes AKA Obama ineligible
AKA OBAMA himself has made it known that his father was from Kenya.
We know that records indicate that AKA OBAMA’s biological father was Barack Obama SR, a Kenyan native, and a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948.
That same act governed the status of Obama SR’s offspring. We know that the geographical location of AKA OBAMA’s birth is not considered by British law. Who the father was determines citizenship, not where you are born. Had AKA OBAMA been born in Tokyo or Texas he would still be a citizen of the United Kingdom under The British Nationality Act. A similar practice governs who is considered a citizen in several countries. Judaism is matrilineal, meaning that your mother’s, lineage determines whether you are a Jew. That is why Jews from all over the world can claim Israeli citizenship.
British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.In other words, at the time of his birth, AKA OBAMA might have been a U.S. citizen (by virtue of his allegedly being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.Obama’s British citizenship was short-lived. On Dec. 12, 1963, Kenya formally gained its independence from the United Kingdom. Chapter VI, Section 87 of the Kenyan Constitution specifies that:
1. Every person who, having been born in Kenya is, on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963…
2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya is, on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), becomes a citizen of Kenya on the 12th of December, 1963.
As a citizen of the UKC who was born in Kenya, Obama’s father automatically received Kenyan citizenship via subsection (1). So given that Obama qualified for citizen of the UKC status at birth and given that Obama’s father became a Kenyan citizen via subsection (1), it follows that Obama did in fact have Kenyan citizenship after 1963.
So we know for sure that, if OBAMA Sr is in fact his legal father, then AKA OBAMA was a citizen of the United Kingdom and then Kenya. Given all the efforts to keep his birth certificate hidden, it is reasonable to assume that he is not a citizen of the United States, but even if he were born in downtown Denver he would still have triple citizenship, and is thus ineligible to hold the office of President.
There is a similar problem with AKA OBAMA’s possible Indonesian citizenship. School records have surfaced that clearly indicate AKA OBAMA being listed as a "Muslim" with "Indonesian" citizenship.
So AKA OBAMA has been a citizen of the UK, Kenya, and there are inconclusive documents indicating that he was also a citizen of Indonesia. The missing birth certificate may be a false clue that leads away from the big crime. Even if Obama were born in Hawaii* he would still be ineligible to serve as President because of his dual (perhaps triple) citizenship.
*not likely, given the effort expended to keep the information about his birth a secret. By AKA OBAMA's and Bob Bauer, AKA OBAMA's Lead Lawyer's, own reports, AKA OBAMA has spent Hundreds of thousands of Dollars on legal fees defending against lawsuits claiming that he is not eligible. Why would AKA OBAMA spend that much money to hide a $10 Birth Certificate?
10. Pay attention to this next quoted paragraph:
"Don’t be distracted by the birth certificate and Indonesian issues. They are irrelevant to Senator Obama’s ineligibility to be President. Since Barack Obama’s father was a Citizen of Kenya, and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of Senator Obama’s birth, then Senator Obama was a British Citizen “at birth,” just like the Framers of the Constitution, and therefore, even if he were to produce an original birth certificate proving he were born on US soil, he still wouldn’t be eligible to be President." Leo C. Donofrio
The facts are clear, and the law is clear. All it will take is for a judge to issue a ruling. Do you think AKA OBAMA and his lawyers fret about this? They certainly are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to fight this issue. So far, no court or judge has issued a ruling on the merits of any legal case against AKA OBAMA. Cases have been dismissed on legal technicalities, but no actual case has yet been heard.
There are other potential leaks that come from AKA OBAMA’s international history. If Obama was born in Kenya, there should be a record of that birth in UK records. There are probably people in England and Kenya who already have information that would put cracks in AKA OBAMA’s distorted reflection of himself, and there is other information that can be mined from archives. The same is true for Indonesia.
In the unlikely outcome that none of the people talk, and none of the documents surface, would AKA OBAMA than be free of obsessive fear of being found out? No, even if none of his secrets are revealed and none of his lies are exposed, he will continue to remain vulnerable.
11. AKA Obama’s crimes
Because of the way AKA OBAMA ran his campaign; donations from Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse, donations from illegal foreign sources, and ACORN’s crimes; More than half the voter registrations turned in by ACORN canvassers during the last election were not valid, according to testimony to be presented before a House Judiciary subcommittee, etc, AKA Obama is subject to criminal violations of the Internal Revenue Code, federal campaign finance laws, and laws against voter registration fraud, according to a memo by Cleta Mitchell, co-chairman of the Republican National Lawyers Association. In spite of all this Congressional Democrats still want ACORN to be eligible for federal money.
This is the first president in history to flout election campaign laws and receive millions from foreign countries (including Gaza), blockbusting stories that broke at Atlas all during the campaign.
“Obama’s overseas (foreign) contributors are making multiple small donations, ostensibly in their own names, over a period of a few days, some under maximum donation allowances, but others are aggregating in excess of the maximums when all added up.”
The contributions had come from over 50 specifically named countries and major cities.
“Thousands of Obama’s foreign donations ended in cents.” U.S. contributors very rarely contribute in anything other than whole dollar amounts, so the reason why contributions would end with anything other than “.00″ would almost always involve foreign currency translation.
Regardless of how lively an election season might be, a new study shows that more 3.3 million voters on current registration rolls across the country are dead. Another 12.9 million remain on voter registration lists in an area where they no longer live. The analysis was conducted by the Aristotle International Inc., a technology company specializing in political campaigns, developing software and databases for politicians. In total that means about 8.9 percent of all registered voters fall under the category of "deadwood" voters on the rolls, the term for voters who should no longer be eligible to vote in a precinct. The data is here . . .
You may have noticed that the usual role of the media in ferreting out high jinks in high places has not been mentioned. There is no “All the President’s Men” movie in the making. No one is being considered for a Pulitzer Prize for investigating AKA OBAMA. Is journalism dead in America? Well no, not quite.
Somebody, a major news outlet executive, has done the Pulitzer research. On his To The Point News website, Dr. Jack Wheeler said he will “Let the source of the information reveal it, in his own time. "...the details of what he told me are for him to reveal when he chooses, not me. I can tell you it is OMG wild."So get ready folks. One of these days I will be asking all of you AKA Obama fans to, “All together now, say OMG!”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Citizen Grand Juries Are the Power of the people when the government is corrupt
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
In United States vs. Williams (USSC 1992) Justice Scalia :
“Rooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history...the Grand Jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the three branches described in the first three Articles. It is a constitutional fixture in its own right.” In other words the power of the Grand Jury is assigned to We the People in order that we may maintain a "more perfect Union."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Obama has been indicted by Citizens Grand Juries in several States. It is just a matter of time before our judiciary is compelled to issue arrest warrants pursuant to the First, Fifth, Ninth, Tenth and Eleventh Amendments of the United States Constitution. Keep in mind that the role of a grand jury is to determine if enough evidence exists to refer a case to the courts for trial. Can any objective person review information like that presented above and reject the premise that this case needs to be referred to the courts for prosecution?
One example of state laws defining the power of Grand Juries is Texas: “The grand jury's investigation of any matter may be initiated by the court, the district attorney, its own members, or any credible person. The grand jury may summon witnesses by subpoena and examine them under oath. On completion of an investigation the grand jury determines by vote whether or not an indictment should be presented to the court; nine votes are necessary for a decision to indict, and nine members also constitute a quorum.”
Constitutional scholar Gerry Donaldson has given speeches and conducted workshops on how citizens can form their own Grand Juries without judicial initiation or oversight.
It is very likely that the Citizens Grand Jury effort will result in an indictment by a conventionally impaneled Grand Jury.The Citizens Grand Jury was designed by our Founding Fathers to provide We the People with the Power to control our government.
A Sleeping Giant has been awakened in this Country with Patriots all across America voicing their outrage over the illegalities of the Obama campaign at Tea Parties and Town Hall meetings. Our Founding Fathers would be proud of these Patriots. Our Founding Fathers will be prouder still when these Patriots discover the Power of the Citizens Grand Jury.
Our Founding Fathers gave We the People the Fourth Branch of Government, the Citizens Grand Jury, in Our Bill of Rights. These 12 Simple Steps were created by an advising attorney and are the way for Patriots to keep control of the Government and Clean up Corruption in Washington:
“Do not even hint at the target of investigation or indictment. Grand Juries must be formed without bias. If a potential Grand Jury Member has any hint of who is about to be indicted that Grand Jury member may be biased and should not be allowed to serve.”
1) Advertise and Promote the Fact that you are forming a Grand Jury in Blogs, Local Newspapers and Community Organizations.
2) Form the Grand Jury and select a Foreman.
3) Select a Private Attorney General to make Presentments to Grand Jury, if local DA refuses to make presentments.
4) Select a convenient Meeting Place.
5) Communicate with all Citizens who have criminal information to present.
6) Schedule presentments by said Citizens.
7) Subpoena documents from Government Offices and Officials.
8) Schedule presentment of said Documents to Grand Jury by Grand Jury Attorney General.
9. Have Grand Jury Attorney General present said Documents to Grand Jury.
10) After investigation and deliberation is completed, vote and issue a True Bill (Indictment) or No True Bill.
11 Announce all Indictments to the Press.
12) Serve the Indictment on the Judiciary for the Issuance of Arrest Warrants.
One of my advising attorneys thought it was important for all people involved in the Grand jury movement to know about this tactic.It is very important that Patriots know to do this:
1) Find the CROOKED politicians in your City or Town that supported BO.
2) Link these CROOKED politicians to crimes committed by the BO Campaign.
3) Charge CROOKED politicians and BO as co-conspirators in the commission of campaign crimes and you have a Criminal Case against BO that can be prosecuted in Court in your County Seat.
4) Of course, you add all the other Crimes that BO committed elsewhere to your INDICTMENT also. But to prosecute BO in your State you have to link him as a co-conspirator to crimes committed in your State.
All we need is one jurisdiction to order “Discovery.” The case against AKA OBAMA is unique because it will be over in the Discovery phase, as the first step in a criminal complaint. The goal of the project I support is to discover what AKA OBAMA doesn’t want us to know, and why he doesn’t want us to know it. Our goal will be achieved before any trial or verdict. It will be achieved as soon as one honest judge in one State orders AKA to submit all of the documents that he has been hiding from the American People for the past two years.
Our goal is to present indictments in every jurisdiction of the union:
50 States
3,007 entities named “County”16 Boroughs in Alaska11 Census Areas in Alaska (areas not organized into Boroughs)64 Parishes in Louisiana42 Independent Cities (1 in Maryland, 1 in Missouri, 1 in Nevada, and the remainder in Virginia)1 District - the Federal District or District of Columbia.
For a total of 3,191 opportunities to bring criminal charges against offending politicians.
Even if an independently convened grand jury is mistakenly seen as merely people assembling to exercise their Constitutional right to “redress their grievances,” or report crimes, that is no small thing. Hundreds of people in such “assemblies” will be examining evidence and presenting the results of their investigation to appropriate county, state, and federal authorities, some of whom will almost certainly form more conventional grand juries to indict AKA OBAMA. Can one honestly surmise that there is not one prosecutor or judge in the entire nation who questions AKA OBAMA’s eligibility to be President? Once the Citizen Grand Jury presentments or indictments are issued, it is likely that many prosecutors and judges will want a copy of the evidence.
The Citizen Grand Jury Process with which I am affiliated is using recognized expert witnesses with a long professional history of forensic testimony. The guiding principles for the project are the usual protocols of epistemology, scientific methodology, and rules of evidence. Any prosecutor or judge who ignores such evidence and testimony is at risk of being seen as acquiescent.
Rev. Sewell, an ordained Christian clergyman, a Pastoral Psychotherapist, a member of Mensa, a U.S. Navy Veteran, and a Member of the Association For Intelligence Officers. He is a frequent commentator on religious and political issues.
For a discussion on the power of Citizen Grand Juries see: Pouring Oil on Troubled Waters
JOURNALISTS: If you read the articles at the three links below, and review the citations at the embedded links, you will be “literate” about the facts of the “eligibility” story and will be able to inform the public objectively.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
An attorney reviews the evidence relevant to Obama’s eligibility to serve:
Why Can’t Obama Give a Simple and Truthful Answer to the Birth Certificate Question?
by Mario Apuzzo
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
An objective view of both sides of the eligibility issue
Obama Presidential Eligibility – An Introductory Primer”
by Stephen Tonchen
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Complete factual biography scrupulously researched:
The Obama Timeline
by Don Fredrick
AKA Obama - We've Got Your Number - 042-68-4425
042-68-4425
“I have nothing to hide but I’m hiding it.”
Or:
AKA Obama Fans: All together now – say OMG!!
by Aristotle the Hun
(AKA - Also Known As: an acronym used to describe suspicious persons who use more than one name)
Somehow, you know its coming. That OMG moment is just around the corner. You can feel the inescapable reality creeping up on you. Something will leak. Someone will spill the beans.
“For nothing is hid that shall not be made manifest, nor anything secret that shall not be known and come to light.” Luke 8:17
1. Oh what a tangled web we weave . . .
2. Please get this straight:
3. The Birth Document published on AKA Obama’s Web Site Isn’t Adequate Evidence of Place of Birth Even if it Isn’t a Forgery
4. No Evidence of a Hawaiian Birth for AKA Obama – What About Kenya?
5. The Crux of the Legal Straw That Can Break AKA Obama’s Back
6. Enough on the Hidden Birth Certificate and Forged Documents. What if AKA Obama was Actually Born in Hawaii?
7. THE CATALOG OF HIDDEN DOCUMENTS FROM AKA OBAMA’S PAST
8. THE MISSING KINDERGARTEN RECORDS AND THE MYSTERIOUS NEWSPAPER BIRTH ANNOUNCEMENT
9. What we know for sure that makes AKA Obama ineligible
10. Pay attention to this next quoted paragraph:
11. AKA Obama’s crimes
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
1. Oh what a tangled web we weave . . .It isn’t hard to imagine the gnawing anxiety that AKA OBAMA lives with, day in and day out. Much has been written about AKA OBAMA’s behavior that reminds mental health experts and others of NPD (Narcissistic Personality Disorder.) A frequent manifestation of such a disorder is The Narcissist, as Liar and Con-man.
This disorder is frequently misunderstood as “self-love.” A more accurate understanding is love of a reflection of one’s self. Abused, abandoned and neglected children will compensate for damaged egos by creating an ideal reflection of themselves that they then embellish and vigorously defend. A person with NPD is quite capable of a mind twisting position like, “I have nothing to hide, but I am hiding things anyway.” AKA OBAMA certainly fits the model of having such a childhood. While I am not in the position to deliver an official In Absentia diagnosis of a full strength NPD case, many of the indicators are present.
If AKA OBAMA were not in a position of public trust, most of us would probably overlook such deception and secrecy. For those of us who care about our Constitution and the rule of law, the issue becomes clear in this article that appeared in on-line Pravda by international columnist Mark S. McGrew, The Mysterious Shadow: Code Name Obama.
Most Americans do not want their president to be secretive about his past. However, if one is living a lie to preserve the ego compensating, idealized reflection of self, one will go to great lengths to hide things that most would routinely reveal.
For the person who has NPD tendencies, the lies used to create the reflection become so numerous that eventually the man in the mirror cracks, and so does the real human being hiding behind the reflection.
A useful tool in evaluating things that are not known with certainty is Occam’s razor. When multiple competing hypotheses are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood. I condense this to the simple question: what is most likely? In our discussion of the documents which AKA has hidden, most of this article is an examination of which explanation is most likely.
For example, which is most likely;
(a) AKA OBAMA is hiding documents that are innocuous?
(b) AKA OBAMA is hiding documents that are damaging?
What we know with certainty is that AKA OBAMA is not practicing the virtue of full disclosure. “ The biggest question, and the biggest reason for asking more questions, is the fact Obama has enlisted law firms across the nation to battle every attempt to access, among other documents, his birth, schooling, immigration or passport records.” New Jersey attorney Mario Apuzzo
There are so many potential sources that can end AKA OBAMA’s Presidency that it is impossible to keep them all quiet. It’s just a matter of time. As columnist Davvy Kidd says, IMPOSTOR PRESIDENT OBAMA: VICTORY WILL BE SHORT LIVED. First, let’s think of all the lawyers and support staff involved in keeping the birth certificate issue quiet. Isn’t it likely that some of them know what they are hiding? Isn’t it likely that several people at the Hawaiian Department of Public Health know what is, or is not, on the original birth certificate that AKA OBAMA refuses to release? Did you know that there is a one million dollar reward offered for AKA OBAMA’s Hawaiian birth certificate?
2. Please get this straight:
Hawaiian officials have not validated AKA OBAMA’s place of birth. What they have said is that they “have the original document” on file. They haven’t offered a clue as to what information is in that document nor have they said what kind of birth certificate is on file; a conventional birth certificate issued by a hospital with a doctor’s signature or the kind of birth certificate issued by Hawaii on the basis of an affidavit? The Hawaiian officials are not part of a cover-up. They can not legally validate what is on that document without a court order or permission from “our” Chicago con-man. Recently a Hawaiian government official stepped over the legal line and overtly stated that AKA Obama’s “vital records” showed that he was born in Hawaii. It is entirely possible for the “vital records” of Hawaii to show than a person was born in Hawaii when in fact that person could have been born elsewhere.
Laws of the Territory of Hawaii ACT 96 To Provide For The Issuance Of Certificates Of Hawaiian Birth was in effect from 1911 until 1972 and allowed someone who was born outside the Hawaiian Islands to be registered as though he were born in Hawaii. Under that law, someone simply would have presented herself to the Hawaiian authorities and declared that the child was born in Hawaii. The person could have sworn under oath and presented witnesses and other evidence. If the authorities accepted it, that was the end of it. All a person had to do was file a false statement and Hawaii took them at their word.
One could not just say "My kid was born in Des Moines but I want him to have a Hawaiian birth record". But if you lied no investigation was conducted to validate your claim and the Hawaiian birth record was issued no questions asked.
Knowledge of this practice was wide spread and there are probably thousands of people who obtained Hawaiian birth records between 1911 and 1972 through the process of affidavits and witnesses rather than hospitals and delivery doctors.
One high profile example of the Hawaiian birth certificate policy was the president of the first Chinese republic. Sun Yat-sen was born on 12 November 1866 to a peasant family in the village of Cuiheng, China, but by 1904 he had a Hawaiian birth certificate and was officially a citizen of the United States. The wording on Sun Yat-sen’s Hawaiian birth certificate reveals that at age 18 he “made application for a Certificate of Birth. And that it appears from his affidavit and the evidence submitted by witnesses that he was born in the Hawaiian Islands.” Appears? It also appears that AKA Obama was born in Hawaii. Does the AKA Obama birth certificate on file with the State of Hawaii have language similar to the birth certificate of SunYat-sen?
The only way to know where AKA OBAMA was actually born is to view AKA OBAMA's original birth certificate on file in Hawaii to see what kind of birth certificate it is, and to examine what corroborating evidence supports what it says about AKA OBAMA's alleged place of birth. If the birth was in a hospital, as AKA OBAMA has maintained, such evidence would be the name of the hospital and the name and signature of the doctor who delivered him.
Here is the information on Hawaiian law that makes it clear why we will never know the truth until we see the actual birth certificate.http://www.westernjournalism.com/?page_id=2697
The records of hospitals in Hawaii have been searched and there is no record of Stanley Ann Obama ever having given birth to a child. In a November 2004 interview with the Rainbow Newsletter, Maya Soetoro told reporters her half-brother Sen. Barack Obama was born on Aug. 4, 1961, at Queens Medical Center in Honolulu. After it was concluded that Obama and his mother were never there in February 2008, Maya told reporters for the Honolulu Star-Bulletin that Obama was at the Kapiolani Medical Center for Women and Children. Obama and Mom were never there either. AKA Obama has said he was born at Kapiolani Medical Center yet no hospital official has suggested that their facility should be designated as the birth place of a President. Odd!
Which is most likely?
AKA Obama is hiding a conventional birth certificate issued by a hospital and signed by a doctor?
AKA Obama is hiding a birth certificate attested to by witnesses with no hospital or doctor mentioned?
3. The Birth Document published on AKA Obama’s Web Site Isn’t Adequate Evidence of Place of Birth Even if it Isn’t a Forgery
The Certification of Live Birth that was published on AKA OBAMA’s campaign web site is not a Birth Certificate. It is easy to tell the difference between the two types of documents. It is very likely that the COLB used by AKA OBAMA’s campaign is a fraudulent document. Several forensic document examiners have carefully scrutinized the COLB and declared it suspicious or an obvious forgery.
Forensic document examiner Sandra Ramsey Lines, a Former Federal Examiner with a long history of expert testimony in state and federal courts, has testified in an affidavit that states, in part:
Sandra Lines says, “I can state with certainty that the COLB presented on the internet by the various groups, which include the “Daily Kos,” the Obama Campaign, “Factcheck.org” and others cannot be relied upon as genuine. Dr. Polarik raises issues concerning the COLB that I can affirm. Software such as Adobe Photoshop can produce complete images or alter images that appear to be genuine; therefore, any image offered on the internet cannot be relied upon as being a copy of the authentic document.” Sandra Ramsey Lines summary is posted at U. S. Law Blog.
Who Certified AKA Obama as "Natural Born" at FactCheck?
Joe Miller and Jess Henig, that's who! They are a couple of partisan Obots -- just what you'd expect -- Jess took the photos presented on their webpage and did all of the writing, while Bob basically held the COLB open for Jess to photograph. Those two are completely unqualified to perform any kind of forensic examination of any document, and FactCheck.org knows it -- and so do Henig and Miller.Here is another thing to consider. Birth Certificates might be protected by privacy laws in Hawaii but transactions for purchase should be available as public record. The COLB that AKA Obama offers as his proof (and has been deemed unreliable) just showed up without explanation. There is nothing from the State of Hawaii about AKA Obama requesting a copy of his BC.
Obama, nor the DNC has come forward with evidence of a request for the copy so where did it come from? These cost $10 to get and if requested via the phone someone would have had to use a credit card or sent a check or money order by mail, yet, nothing is, or ever has been, offered as proof of even a request for the copy. Someone could have said here is a CC receipt, or a canceled check, or the remitter’s copy of a money order.Someone should have this without a doubt. Has anyone asked the State of Hawaii if there is a record of payment for a COLB from AKA Obama?This is something that could even be forged easily but not even a forged receipt or record of payment of any kind has been offered.Could the reason for this be that Obama’s COLB is a forgery and no one even thought to forge a receipt for it from Hawaii?
Q: Is that COLB a false document like some people are claiming?
A: No, of course not, here is the receipt for the COLB from the State of Hawaii.
And be sure to see this documented evidence that AKA Obama's COLB is different than other COLBs
AKA Obama COLB Filed But Never Accepted - Click Image For Full View
AKA Obama Eligibility - Important Research I missed on my previous updates.
4. No Evidence of a Hawaiian Birth for AKA Obama – What About Kenya?
As for AKA Obama’s birth in Kenya we hear this from attorney Mario Apuzzo “We have not heard from one international, federal, state, or local police or security agency that Obama's birth place has been officially confirmed.An Investigator working for Philip Berg, Esq. learned the following which is contained in the investigator's affidavit dated October 30, 2008, that was filed with a Federal District Court in the case of Berg v. Obama, O8-cv-04083: Obama's step-grandmother, Sarah Obama, told Bishop McRae, who was in the United States, during a telephonic interview on October 12, 2008, while she was in her home located in Alego-Kogello, Kenya, that was full of security police and people and family who were celebrating then-Senator Obama's success story, that she witnessed Obama's birth in Kenya, not the United States (the English and Swahili conversation is recorded and available for listening). She was adamant about this fact not once but twice. The conversation which was placed on speaker phone was translated into English by "Kweli Shuhubia" and one of the grandmother's grandsons who were present with the grandmother in the house. After the grandmother made the same statement twice her grandson intervened, saying "No, No, No, He was born in the United States." During the interview, the grandmother never changed her reply that she was present when Obama was born in Kenya. The fact that later in the same interview she change her statement to say that Obama was born in Hawaii does not change the fact that she at first stated twice that she was present when Obama was born in Kenya. I cannot imagine a grandmother not knowing whether she was present or not at the birth of her American Senator and U.S. Presidential candidate grandson.
The investigator then personally went to the hospital in Mombassa, Kenya. He spoke with the Provincial Civil Registrar and he learned that there were records of Ann Dunham giving birth to "Barack Hussein Obama, III" in Mombassa, Kenya on August 4, 1961. The investigator then "spoke directly with an Official, the Principal Registrar, who openly confirmed the birthing records of Senator Barack H. Obama, Jr. and his mother were present, however, the file on Barack H. Obama, Jr. was classified and profiled. The Official explained Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. [sic] birth in Kenya is top secret. [H]e was further instructed to go to the Attorney General's Office and to the Minister in Charge of Immigration if [he] wanted further information."
It is alleged that the Kenyan government authorities have refused to cooperate and have thwarted all efforts by anyone to obtain any documents concerning Obama.”
That is a real mind bender. Let’s see; AKA Obama wasn’t born in Kenya but his birth place is declared to be “top secret” by Kenyan officials. There are no records of AKA Obama being born in Kenya and those nonexistent records are being withheld and are “top secret”. That sounds so much like what the official position of AKA Obama could be; “I have nothing to hide but I’m hiding it.”
5. The Crux of the Legal Straw That Can Break AKA Obama’s BackAnother piece of information that many fail to realize is that in the birth certificate cases, all that is needed is for the case to be heard. This case will be over in the “Discovery” phase. Before a trial starts, both sides are required by the court to put all their cards on the table to avoid “trial by ambush.” The judge orders all evidence to be presented by both sides. Since this case is about discovering documents that are hidden, the case will be decided by court-ordered presentation of all relevant records. Lawyers in birth certificate cases don’t need to win a trial; they only need to get a trial.
For those of you who think ridicule and name calling are effective debate tactics, I refer your kool-aid drenched, tin foil protected brains (a dose of your own medicine) to this article from American Thinker: Why the Barack Obama Birth Certificate Issue Is Legitimate .
6. Enough on the Hidden Birth Certificate and Forged Documents. What if AKA Obama was Actually Born in Hawaii?What about the legal team that is keeping AKA OBAMA’s college records hidden? Several people probably know what they are hiding. The best guess as to what is so secret isn’t likely to be bad grades. More likely his admission papers will say he was a foreign student, or that he was receiving financial aid as a foreign student. How many people do you estimate already know what is on AKA OBAMA’s college documents? Those records were handled routinely for more than 20 years. How many personnel in the registrar’s offices of Occidental College, Columbia University, and Harvard University have seen AKA OBAMA’s records and know what is in them? How many of those people would be willing to talk about it, or maybe even “leak” just one sheet of paper that would put even more cracks in AKA OBAMA’s mirror? Is that number likely to be zero? Do you think that AKA OBAMA worries about how many people know something that could destroy his career? Fear of being “found out” is an obsession for NPD types. The Cost to hide Obama's past now 1.35 million.
7. THE CATALOG OF HIDDEN DOCUMENTS FROM AKA OBAMA’S PAST
So far we have only talked about the original birth certificate, supposedly locked up in Hawaii, and AKA OBAMA’s draft and college records. Already the potential sources for leaks are numerous. And you can bet that AKA OBAMA and his lawyers are concerned about many more possible leaks than these.There is a long list of vulnerability points for leaks, and there is a story behind every one of them. This list is one of many available and comes from one of my favorite blogs
Original, vault copy birth certificate — Not released — Lawyers fees — greater than $1,000,000 — birth certificate — $15.
Certification of Live Birth — Released – Counterfeit – Case and Affidavits
Admitted British citizenship at birth — Confirmed via FactCheck.org/FightTheSmears.com
Birth Announcement — Alleged to be a forgery
Obama/Dunham marriage license — Not released
Obama/Dunham divorce – Released (by independent investigators)
Soetoro/Dunham marriage license — Not released
Soetoro adoption records — Not released
Fransiskus Assisi School School application — Released (by independent investigators)
Punahou School records — Not released
Soetoro/Dunham divorce – Released (by independent investigators)
Selective Service Registration — Released – Counterfeit – Document Locator Number update – another FOIA request
Occidental College records — Not released
Passport — Not released and records scrubbed clean by Obama’s terrorism and intelligence adviser
Columbia College records — Not released
Columbia thesis — “Soviet Nuclear Disarmament” – Not released
Harvard College records — Not released
Harvard Law Review articles — None
Illinois Bar Records — Not released.
Baptism certificate — None
Medical records — Not released
Illinois State Senate records — None
Illinois State Senate schedule — Lost
Law practice client list — Not released
University of Chicago scholarly articles — None
Kindergarten records – this” lost or hidden” incident deserves more detail:
8. THE MISSING KINDERGARTEN RECORDS AND THE MYSTERIOUS NEWSPAPER BIRTH ANNOUNCEMENT
“Obama began his education in Hawaii's public schools. He was enrolled in Ms. Sakai’s kindergarten class at Noelani Elementary School in 1967. He was only there a couple or three months before he was off to Indonesia.
Click photo for full image
The first little boy in the third row, left is "Barry Obama." Obama’s sister Maya Soetoro-Ng confirms that the boy is Obama.The two white girls in the same row are probably the Nordyke twins. They were not identical twins, but they did have the same smile. They were born the same time as Obama. I still want to know what happened to their birth announcement. Twins, being born to a prominent physician is news. More specifically, I want to know what happened to the space their birth announcement was in.Or am I expected to believe that Vital Statistics included Obama's name on their announcement list, and forgot the Nordyke Twins? Born within hours of Obama according to Eleanor Nordyke, their names should be here: Birth Announcement here -- expand to regular size to read.
Those who strive to legitimize AKA Obama have made much of the questionable “birth announcement” that may have been published in the Hawaiian newspapers. This “evidence” if so flimsy that refuting it may actually lend substance to the claim.
There are literally dozens of anti-Birther articles in the media that continue to claim that AKA Obama's birth announcement was in "two different newspapers". These two newspapers are printed by the same publisher and share the same stories and sources. The purpose of this “two newspaper” claim is to falsely imply that these newspapers are independent of each other, and therefore, unlikely to run the same birth announcement.
Birth announcements were called in or mailed in all the time. The Nordyke twins were announced, then recently (about a year ago) that announcement was replaced with the AKA Obama one. And the original owner of the “birth” residence died about 2 years, before the newly discovered birth announcement was touted by the Obama campaign after AKA Obama's Hawaiian 'birth” was challenged. There is also evidence of splicing in the microfilm. The most likely scenario is that the Nordyke twin’s birth announcement was spliced out and replaced by a post-dated AKA Obama announcement. The fact that the home address in the fake AKA Obama announcement was never occupied by Ann Dunham and Barack Obama, and that the birth announcement just happened to appear right after the actual tenant of the home died, pretty much drives a stake though the heart of this story. Here is WND's story about the birth address.
A more comprehensive analysis debunking the birth announcement claim; Here is “jbjd’s” answer:
There isn't one single, credible source that has any concrete facts whatsoever, that Obama was born in Hawaii.
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?template=zoom&Site=M1&Date=20090728&Category=NEWS01&ArtNo=907280345&Ref=V3
Eleanor Nordyke of Manoa shows the birth certificates of her twin daughters. They were born at Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital the day after Obama was born
Here's a surprise! Hawaii's Department of Education has been unable to find AKA Obama’s Kindergarten records. By this time maybe you are no longer surprised.
Obama's Noelani Elementary School Kindergarten records, oddly missing from the State of Hawaii Department of Education, is the first in a series of chronological "coincidences" that obscure AKA Obama’s history.Although Obama has had a first-class education that spanned 25 years, there is only a single document that has ever been released, the application for entrance to the Franciscus Assisi Primary School (next item) -- and that document was discovered by independent investigators.
This is an important feature because Kindergarten records for original school entry would have contained the following:
1. Obama's REAL Birth Certificate.
2. An application with the following:
• His Legal name.
• Parents or Legal Guardians’ names.
• Date of Birth
• Place of Birth
• Vaccination Records (revealing a timeline to the place and DOB.)
It also is important for two additional reasons:
A. The Department of Education does not "lose" the records of one particular student. (So, who paid whom what sum to make this record disappear?)
B. There would have been NO shameful low-test scores, NO embarrassing Equal Opportunity advancements, and NO trails of fraudulent funding to hide that could possibly "excuse" the quashing of public school Kindergarten entry records. For the rest of his life he attended very expensive private schools and has had his records legally sealed to deny the public his true life story.
This is different. Hawaii should be able to verify he attended their school since he is featured in class photographs. State and federal tax dollars paid for his initial year of education. Why is there no documentation?
This is the beginning of an intentionally erased life of a fraud and conman and it reeks of complicity by officials within the State of Hawaii’s Dept. of Health and Dept. of Education.” Hat tip to Don Fredrick at http://www.colony14.net/
International columnist Mark S. McGrew sums up AKA Obama’s missing history succinctly: “With all of Obama’s different names, with his documented long term relations to convicted criminals, with his active efforts to prohibit us from knowing where he was born, with his active efforts to keep us from seeing his credentials, with his documented registration to practice law, professing to have only one name, with his being an ex-attorney not authorized to practice law, but representing himself as such, with his non-existent “Office of The President Elect,” with the dozen or so lawsuits against him to determine his citizenship status, with the various promises he made to voters and on which he has since reneged, with his documented lack of respect to America, with his refusal to salute the American flag with others on stage or even to stand at attention, and his other disrespectful actions, with his many millions of dollars in campaign funds suspected to be from foreign sources, with campaign donations accepted from possible terrorists groups, . . . Obama has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he can not in any way, shape or form be trusted.”
I would ask the reader to accept the premise that there are many potential leaks from those things that are being kept hidden by a man who promised transparency in government. But there are other problems from sources that are not hidden.
9. What we know for sure that makes AKA Obama ineligible
AKA OBAMA himself has made it known that his father was from Kenya.
We know that records indicate that AKA OBAMA’s biological father was Barack Obama SR, a Kenyan native, and a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948.
That same act governed the status of Obama SR’s offspring. We know that the geographical location of AKA OBAMA’s birth is not considered by British law. Who the father was determines citizenship, not where you are born. Had AKA OBAMA been born in Tokyo or Texas he would still be a citizen of the United Kingdom under The British Nationality Act. A similar practice governs who is considered a citizen in several countries. Judaism is matrilineal, meaning that your mother’s, lineage determines whether you are a Jew. That is why Jews from all over the world can claim Israeli citizenship.
British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.In other words, at the time of his birth, AKA OBAMA might have been a U.S. citizen (by virtue of his allegedly being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.Obama’s British citizenship was short-lived. On Dec. 12, 1963, Kenya formally gained its independence from the United Kingdom. Chapter VI, Section 87 of the Kenyan Constitution specifies that:
1. Every person who, having been born in Kenya is, on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963…
2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya is, on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), becomes a citizen of Kenya on the 12th of December, 1963.
As a citizen of the UKC who was born in Kenya, Obama’s father automatically received Kenyan citizenship via subsection (1). So given that Obama qualified for citizen of the UKC status at birth and given that Obama’s father became a Kenyan citizen via subsection (1), it follows that Obama did in fact have Kenyan citizenship after 1963.
So we know for sure that, if OBAMA Sr is in fact his legal father, then AKA OBAMA was a citizen of the United Kingdom and then Kenya. Given all the efforts to keep his birth certificate hidden, it is reasonable to assume that he is not a citizen of the United States, but even if he were born in downtown Denver he would still have triple citizenship, and is thus ineligible to hold the office of President.
There is a similar problem with AKA OBAMA’s possible Indonesian citizenship. School records have surfaced that clearly indicate AKA OBAMA being listed as a "Muslim" with "Indonesian" citizenship.
So AKA OBAMA has been a citizen of the UK, Kenya, and there are inconclusive documents indicating that he was also a citizen of Indonesia. The missing birth certificate may be a false clue that leads away from the big crime. Even if Obama were born in Hawaii* he would still be ineligible to serve as President because of his dual (perhaps triple) citizenship.
*not likely, given the effort expended to keep the information about his birth a secret. By AKA OBAMA's and Bob Bauer, AKA OBAMA's Lead Lawyer's, own reports, AKA OBAMA has spent Hundreds of thousands of Dollars on legal fees defending against lawsuits claiming that he is not eligible. Why would AKA OBAMA spend that much money to hide a $10 Birth Certificate?
10. Pay attention to this next quoted paragraph:
"Don’t be distracted by the birth certificate and Indonesian issues. They are irrelevant to Senator Obama’s ineligibility to be President. Since Barack Obama’s father was a Citizen of Kenya, and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of Senator Obama’s birth, then Senator Obama was a British Citizen “at birth,” just like the Framers of the Constitution, and therefore, even if he were to produce an original birth certificate proving he were born on US soil, he still wouldn’t be eligible to be President." Leo C. Donofrio
The facts are clear, and the law is clear. All it will take is for a judge to issue a ruling. Do you think AKA OBAMA and his lawyers fret about this? They certainly are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to fight this issue. So far, no court or judge has issued a ruling on the merits of any legal case against AKA OBAMA. Cases have been dismissed on legal technicalities, but no actual case has yet been heard.
There are other potential leaks that come from AKA OBAMA’s international history. If Obama was born in Kenya, there should be a record of that birth in UK records. There are probably people in England and Kenya who already have information that would put cracks in AKA OBAMA’s distorted reflection of himself, and there is other information that can be mined from archives. The same is true for Indonesia.
In the unlikely outcome that none of the people talk, and none of the documents surface, would AKA OBAMA than be free of obsessive fear of being found out? No, even if none of his secrets are revealed and none of his lies are exposed, he will continue to remain vulnerable.
11. AKA Obama’s crimes
Because of the way AKA OBAMA ran his campaign; donations from Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse, donations from illegal foreign sources, and ACORN’s crimes; More than half the voter registrations turned in by ACORN canvassers during the last election were not valid, according to testimony to be presented before a House Judiciary subcommittee, etc, AKA Obama is subject to criminal violations of the Internal Revenue Code, federal campaign finance laws, and laws against voter registration fraud, according to a memo by Cleta Mitchell, co-chairman of the Republican National Lawyers Association. In spite of all this Congressional Democrats still want ACORN to be eligible for federal money.
This is the first president in history to flout election campaign laws and receive millions from foreign countries (including Gaza), blockbusting stories that broke at Atlas all during the campaign.
“Obama’s overseas (foreign) contributors are making multiple small donations, ostensibly in their own names, over a period of a few days, some under maximum donation allowances, but others are aggregating in excess of the maximums when all added up.”
The contributions had come from over 50 specifically named countries and major cities.
“Thousands of Obama’s foreign donations ended in cents.” U.S. contributors very rarely contribute in anything other than whole dollar amounts, so the reason why contributions would end with anything other than “.00″ would almost always involve foreign currency translation.
Regardless of how lively an election season might be, a new study shows that more 3.3 million voters on current registration rolls across the country are dead. Another 12.9 million remain on voter registration lists in an area where they no longer live. The analysis was conducted by the Aristotle International Inc., a technology company specializing in political campaigns, developing software and databases for politicians. In total that means about 8.9 percent of all registered voters fall under the category of "deadwood" voters on the rolls, the term for voters who should no longer be eligible to vote in a precinct. The data is here . . .
You may have noticed that the usual role of the media in ferreting out high jinks in high places has not been mentioned. There is no “All the President’s Men” movie in the making. No one is being considered for a Pulitzer Prize for investigating AKA OBAMA. Is journalism dead in America? Well no, not quite.
Somebody, a major news outlet executive, has done the Pulitzer research. On his To The Point News website, Dr. Jack Wheeler said he will “Let the source of the information reveal it, in his own time. "...the details of what he told me are for him to reveal when he chooses, not me. I can tell you it is OMG wild."So get ready folks. One of these days I will be asking all of you AKA Obama fans to, “All together now, say OMG!”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Citizen Grand Juries Are the Power of the people when the government is corrupt
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
In United States vs. Williams (USSC 1992) Justice Scalia :
“Rooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history...the Grand Jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the three branches described in the first three Articles. It is a constitutional fixture in its own right.” In other words the power of the Grand Jury is assigned to We the People in order that we may maintain a "more perfect Union."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Obama has been indicted by Citizens Grand Juries in several States. It is just a matter of time before our judiciary is compelled to issue arrest warrants pursuant to the First, Fifth, Ninth, Tenth and Eleventh Amendments of the United States Constitution. Keep in mind that the role of a grand jury is to determine if enough evidence exists to refer a case to the courts for trial. Can any objective person review information like that presented above and reject the premise that this case needs to be referred to the courts for prosecution?
One example of state laws defining the power of Grand Juries is Texas: “The grand jury's investigation of any matter may be initiated by the court, the district attorney, its own members, or any credible person. The grand jury may summon witnesses by subpoena and examine them under oath. On completion of an investigation the grand jury determines by vote whether or not an indictment should be presented to the court; nine votes are necessary for a decision to indict, and nine members also constitute a quorum.”
Constitutional scholar Gerry Donaldson has given speeches and conducted workshops on how citizens can form their own Grand Juries without judicial initiation or oversight.
It is very likely that the Citizens Grand Jury effort will result in an indictment by a conventionally impaneled Grand Jury.The Citizens Grand Jury was designed by our Founding Fathers to provide We the People with the Power to control our government.
A Sleeping Giant has been awakened in this Country with Patriots all across America voicing their outrage over the illegalities of the Obama campaign at Tea Parties and Town Hall meetings. Our Founding Fathers would be proud of these Patriots. Our Founding Fathers will be prouder still when these Patriots discover the Power of the Citizens Grand Jury.
Our Founding Fathers gave We the People the Fourth Branch of Government, the Citizens Grand Jury, in Our Bill of Rights. These 12 Simple Steps were created by an advising attorney and are the way for Patriots to keep control of the Government and Clean up Corruption in Washington:
“Do not even hint at the target of investigation or indictment. Grand Juries must be formed without bias. If a potential Grand Jury Member has any hint of who is about to be indicted that Grand Jury member may be biased and should not be allowed to serve.”
1) Advertise and Promote the Fact that you are forming a Grand Jury in Blogs, Local Newspapers and Community Organizations.
2) Form the Grand Jury and select a Foreman.
3) Select a Private Attorney General to make Presentments to Grand Jury, if local DA refuses to make presentments.
4) Select a convenient Meeting Place.
5) Communicate with all Citizens who have criminal information to present.
6) Schedule presentments by said Citizens.
7) Subpoena documents from Government Offices and Officials.
8) Schedule presentment of said Documents to Grand Jury by Grand Jury Attorney General.
9. Have Grand Jury Attorney General present said Documents to Grand Jury.
10) After investigation and deliberation is completed, vote and issue a True Bill (Indictment) or No True Bill.
11 Announce all Indictments to the Press.
12) Serve the Indictment on the Judiciary for the Issuance of Arrest Warrants.
One of my advising attorneys thought it was important for all people involved in the Grand jury movement to know about this tactic.It is very important that Patriots know to do this:
1) Find the CROOKED politicians in your City or Town that supported BO.
2) Link these CROOKED politicians to crimes committed by the BO Campaign.
3) Charge CROOKED politicians and BO as co-conspirators in the commission of campaign crimes and you have a Criminal Case against BO that can be prosecuted in Court in your County Seat.
4) Of course, you add all the other Crimes that BO committed elsewhere to your INDICTMENT also. But to prosecute BO in your State you have to link him as a co-conspirator to crimes committed in your State.
All we need is one jurisdiction to order “Discovery.” The case against AKA OBAMA is unique because it will be over in the Discovery phase, as the first step in a criminal complaint. The goal of the project I support is to discover what AKA OBAMA doesn’t want us to know, and why he doesn’t want us to know it. Our goal will be achieved before any trial or verdict. It will be achieved as soon as one honest judge in one State orders AKA to submit all of the documents that he has been hiding from the American People for the past two years.
Our goal is to present indictments in every jurisdiction of the union:
50 States
3,007 entities named “County”16 Boroughs in Alaska11 Census Areas in Alaska (areas not organized into Boroughs)64 Parishes in Louisiana42 Independent Cities (1 in Maryland, 1 in Missouri, 1 in Nevada, and the remainder in Virginia)1 District - the Federal District or District of Columbia.
For a total of 3,191 opportunities to bring criminal charges against offending politicians.
Even if an independently convened grand jury is mistakenly seen as merely people assembling to exercise their Constitutional right to “redress their grievances,” or report crimes, that is no small thing. Hundreds of people in such “assemblies” will be examining evidence and presenting the results of their investigation to appropriate county, state, and federal authorities, some of whom will almost certainly form more conventional grand juries to indict AKA OBAMA. Can one honestly surmise that there is not one prosecutor or judge in the entire nation who questions AKA OBAMA’s eligibility to be President? Once the Citizen Grand Jury presentments or indictments are issued, it is likely that many prosecutors and judges will want a copy of the evidence.
The Citizen Grand Jury Process with which I am affiliated is using recognized expert witnesses with a long professional history of forensic testimony. The guiding principles for the project are the usual protocols of epistemology, scientific methodology, and rules of evidence. Any prosecutor or judge who ignores such evidence and testimony is at risk of being seen as acquiescent.
Rev. Sewell, an ordained Christian clergyman, a Pastoral Psychotherapist, a member of Mensa, a U.S. Navy Veteran, and a Member of the Association For Intelligence Officers. He is a frequent commentator on religious and political issues.
For a discussion on the power of Citizen Grand Juries see: Pouring Oil on Troubled Waters
JOURNALISTS: If you read the articles at the three links below, and review the citations at the embedded links, you will be “literate” about the facts of the “eligibility” story and will be able to inform the public objectively.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
An attorney reviews the evidence relevant to Obama’s eligibility to serve:
Why Can’t Obama Give a Simple and Truthful Answer to the Birth Certificate Question?
by Mario Apuzzo
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
An objective view of both sides of the eligibility issue
Obama Presidential Eligibility – An Introductory Primer”
by Stephen Tonchen
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Complete factual biography scrupulously researched:
The Obama Timeline
by Don Fredrick