Monday, April 18, 2011

The Three "Straws" That Break AKA Obama’s Back

The Three Straws That Break AKA Obama’s Back
(with a little help from Congress)

  1. There is enough evidence to seek a federal indictment against AKA Obama for Social Security fraud
  2. AKA Obama has admitted that he is not a “Natural Born Citizen” which is a requirement for the Office of President under Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution
  3. AKA Obama has never been properly vetted as being born in the United States, and many other aspects of his history have been hidden from the citizens of the United States.
* * * * * * * * * * *
Let’s take a closer look at each of these three “straws”:

1. The Social Security Issue

AKA Obama - We've Got Your Number - 042-68-4425

Update: just to make things more solid look at this: Click for full image

 

This application (Thomas Louis Wood) is only one number off from AKA Obama’s (or Jean Paul Ludwig’s) number (042-68-4425) and was applied for on 3/21/77 in Hartford, CT.  Thomas Louis Wood died at age 19 but that probably isn’t relevant.

Now AKA Obama uses this number 042-68-4425 on his selective service application. 

I don’t know quite what to make of this in total.  But we do know that the selective service application displays a SS# that couldn’t possibly be Obama’s.

 

If I can figure this out I will take a crack at Unified Field Theory.  Actually I have a better grasp of Unified Field Theory than I do of AKA Obama’s fraudulent Social Security number.

There isn't any doubt about the social security number AKA Obama used when he filed for a selective service number. 


Here is a close up crop of Obama’s Selective Service card.

 The full document is available at

http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2011/04/aka-obama-weve-got-your-number-042-68.html

The only thing that is causing confusion for some of my readers is the identity of who legitimately was assigned the social security number 042-68-4425. 


There are so many SS#s and addresses assigned to AKA Obama that it is very confusing.  It appears that multiple SS# and addresses were created by someone deliberately attempting to frustrate investigators. Private investigator Neil Sankey conducted research on Obama’s prior addresses and Social Society numbers. Using Intelius, Lexis Nexis, Choice Point and other public records, Sankey found around 25 Social Security numbers connected with Obama’s name and over 200 addresses.

For instance:
Look at http://www.scribd.com/doc/20976501/Neil-Sankey-Barack-Obama-Addresses-SS-Numbers
Neil Sankey – Barack Obama Addresses and SS Numbers
Page 20 of 39
Name – OBAMA, BARACK
Street Address –  OBAMA LN City, State, Zip – FRANKLIN WI 53132
Probable Current Address – No
Telephone –
Telephone Accountholder –
Social Security –
Age –
Date of Birth –
Deceased – No
Date Record Verified – Feb 08 – Jun 08

Barack Obama living on Obama Lane?
There is no such street in Franklin WI

There is so much “confetti” in the air that you can’t see the parade.

So, I may not fully understand all the aspects of this mystery but that is why indictments lead to investigations.

However, with Eric Holder serving as Attorney General what are the chances of there being a federal indictment against AKA Obama for Social Security fraud?  And holding a trial for AKA Obama in Washington DC has as much chance of resulting in a conviction as a trial for O. J. Simpson with a jury selected from East Los Angeles.

* * * * * * * * * * *

2. AKA Obama is not a “Natural Born Citizen”

http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2010/05/aka-obama-ineligible-if-he-was-born-on.html

Now what part of Vattel’s clear and concise Definition of a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN do Communists, Socialists, Liberals and Democrats not understand?


If we take BHO Jr. at his word then there is no doubt that he is not a Natural Born Citizen of the United States as required by the Presidential Qualifications Clause of Article II Section 1 Paragraph 5 of the United States Constitution. The Constitution requires that to be the President of the United States, a person must be born in the United States of two parents who are citizens of the United States. By BHO Junior’s own admission his father was a British/Kenyan subject (citizen) at the time of his birth. Thus BHO Jr. is disqualified for the Presidency.

There is a clear, concise definition of the term "Natural Born Citizen" in Vattel's Law of Nations which was the principal legal reference book used by the Founding Fathers in writing the Constitution.
"The natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens...it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."

There have been innumerable United States Supreme Court Decisions that have referenced Vattel’s Law of Nations as a resource in interpreting the original intent of the Founding Fathers when writing the Constitution.

Just a Reminder - Before he was nominated AKA Obama Signed Resolution Describing Him As Ineligible

Even though only one of AKA Obama’s parents was a United States Citizen at the time of his birth, somehow the Obots continue to insist that he is still eligible to serve as Commander-in-Chief.

On April 10, 2008, Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO) introduced a resolution to make clear that the US Senate deemed presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), born of two American citizens, on American soil, a Natural Born Citizen of the US as specified in the Constitution, and eligible to run for president. Sen. McCaskill knew Obama was not a U.S. Citizen, which is why she introduced this bill -- dressing it up to look like it was in Sen. John McCain's cause.

It was during the bill's hearing that Sen. Patrick Leahy, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, made the following statement:

"Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen," said Leahy. "I expect that this will be a unanimous resolution of the Senate."

At a Judiciary Committee hearing on April 3, Leahy asked Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, himself a former Federal judge, if he had doubts that McCain was eligible to serve as President.

"My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen," Chertoff replied.

"That is mine, too," said Leahy.

What's interesting here is that Sen. Leahy, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary, confirms that a "natural born" citizen is the child of American citizen parents.

Parents -- that's two. That's BOTH parents.

Every time the words, "citizen" and "parent," are used by Sen. Leahy and Sec. Chertoff, the plural case, "citizens" and "parents," is used. The plural case is the operative case.

It is Sen. Leahy's opinion -- his own recorded words, in a formal Senate Resolution, and on his U. S. Senate website -- that Barack Obama is not a "natural born" citizen, and therefore not eligible to serve as Commander-in-Chief, regardless of his birthplace.

Obama had one American parent --singular -- his mother. His father was a citizen of Kenya, and a subject of Great Britain.

Obama, himself, "at birth," was a citizen of Kenya, and a subject of Great Britain. He says so on his own campaign website. This fact introduces the concept of "divided loyalties," -- the reason the founders created the eligibility requirement in the first place -- a fact that further underlines Obama's ineligibility.

The source of this information is Sen. Leahy's own website. The webpage contains a statement about the resolution; the resolution, itself; the Statement of Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.); and an excerpt of Sec. Chertoff's testimony.

The plural word "parents" is used four times. When used to identify the parents, the word "citizens" is used five times. That's nine times that Sen. Leahy, on his own website describes the eligibility requirement. There is NO PLACE in any of these four documents where the singular case of "parent" or "citizen" is used.

The real purpose of this bill was to change article II, section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States with reference to the requirements of being a "natural born citizen" by the Democratic Party leadership -- paving the way for an Obama run.

Both Leahy and Chertoff avoid addressing the "in the US mainland" (jus solis) element of the eligibility requirement and focus solely on parentage (jus sanguinis) in making their arguments and by doing so bring focus to the fundamental reason Obama is not qualified. He had one American parent and one foreign parent. Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen -- no matter where he was born.

Obama is a co-signer of this resolution. So, I guess he too agrees that one needs two American parents to be eligible for POTUS -- except he doesn't care -- after all, he's the Obamamessiah. Rules don't apply to him.

Here is the “however”:

Even though the United States Senate unanimously passed the resolution declaring Senator McCain a “natural born citizen,” based on the above testimony, a resolution is not the same thing as legislation.  So, it will probably take a Supreme Court decision to provide an official definition of “natural born.”  Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas openly stated that the Supreme Court is “evading” the eligibility issue.  VIDEO: Justice Thomas: We are evading the eligibility issue

* * * * * * * * * * *

3. AKA Obama has never been properly vetted as being born in the United States

“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barrack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago….”

I don’t doubt that Dr. Fukino is accurately reporting that the document she saw says that AKA Obama was indeed born in Hawaii.  The question is what kind of document is it?  Hawaii has four different kinds of birth documents
Laws of the Territory of Hawaii ACT 96 To Provide For The Issuance Of Certificates Of Hawaiian Birth http://tiny.cc/254e6 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 through the records of hospitals and delivery doctors. Not the least of these was the president of the first Chinese republic. 
Sun Yat-sen was born to a peasant family in the village of Cuiheng, China, but 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.”

There is a small textural difference between COLBs issued to those who were born in hospitals with full documentation and those who were given Hawaiian birth status through an affidavit process:

And be sure to see this documented evidence that AKA Obama's COLB is different than other COLBs

"Obama released his Hawaiian birth certificate and had it verified by an independent organization, and the results were posted online for everyone to see." Repeating this false propaganda over and over does not make it true. No matter what you might think, there is no escaping that AKA Obama is not practicing the virtue of full disclosure.

Which is most likely;

(a) AKA OBAMA is hiding documents that are innocuous?
(b) AKA OBAMA is hiding documents that are damaging?

In 1961, the Public Health Services, U. S Department of Health, Education and Welfare, National Center for Health Statistics, National Vital Statistics Division published the "Vital Statistics of the United States.

Here is a blank copy of the Standard Certificate of Live Birth used by all states including Hawaii. This is the information being hidden by Obama.
http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/07/blank-birth-certificate-form-aka-obama.html

Plus, read the article that is included with the blank copy.

Here is what a real Hawaiian Birth Certificate looks like:
http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2010/02/obama-faces-fellow-hawaiian-with-real.html

Who Certified AKA Obama as "Natural Born"? http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/11/this-from-obama-file-one-of-best.html

Do you really think AKA Obama would have won the election if all the things he is hiding were made known?

Do you really think AKA Obama will be able to finish his first term if all the things he is hiding are made known?

The only conspiracy is the media and the Obots who suppress the revelation of AKA Obama's history.

Obama is keeping the best available evidence secret.  Let's just add suppression of evidence to the other charges of election fraud, campaign finance violations, and filing fraudulent documents in all 50 states. 

No matter what else you might think, there is no escaping the fact that AKA Obama is not practicing the virtue of full disclosure.

The entire reason there is a professional field known as forensic document examination is that a great deal can be told from examination of the original document itself. Far, far less can be told by looking at a photocopy of a document, and very little, if anything at all, can be told from looking at a digital image that purports to be an image of an original document. Too much opportunity for adulteration, no opportunity to examine the paper, the ink, any impressions made on the paper, etc. These online arguments discussing images (especially photographic images) are like people studying animals by examining scat.


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:

“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. 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 also posted at U. S. Law Blog.

Excerpted from a full spectrum examination into the eligibility issue:

Here is a very good Q and A document covering the eligibility issue:

Obama Eligibility Q&A

http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2011/04/obama-eligibility-q.html

  1. What is a “birther”?
    2. What are the eligibility requirements for President?
    3. Why do birthers think Barack Obama is not eligible to be President?
    4. How is “natural born citizen” defined?
    5. In a nutshell, what is the Obama eligibility controversy?
    6. Does the birthers’ viewpoint have any historical or legal merit?
    7. What was the original purpose of the presidential “natural born citizen” requirement?
    8. What is the difference between a “Constitutional” and a “statutory” natural born citizen?
    9. Wouldn’t the most recent modern-day statutory meaning of “natural born citizen” take precedence over the original Constitutional meaning?
    10. If Obama is not a “Constitutional natural born citizen”, so what? Why should anyone care?
    11. Why has every birther lawsuit been dismissed?
    12. What is a 14th Amendment natural born citizen?
    13. In the 14th Amendment, what does “jurisdiction” mean?
    14. Doesn’t the Wong Kim Ark decision make Obama a “natural born citizen”?
    15. Doesn’t the Julia Lynch case show that Obama is a “natural born citizen”?
    16. Could “natural born citizen” be based on the British Common Law principle of jus soli?
    17. What’s the “beef” with President Obama’s birth certificate?
    18. Didn’t the State of Hawaii recently verify that President Obama was born in Hawaii?
    19. Doesn’t the mere existence of Barack Obama’s original Hawaiian birth certificate prove that he was born in Hawaii?
    20. If President Obama’s birth certificate shows conclusively that he was born in Hawaii, would it end the eligibility controversy?
    21. Where do we go from here?

By now you have learned to anticipate the “however.”  The courts have ruled numerous times that “we the people” do not have standing in court to address the eligibility issue in civil or criminal cases.

The Citizen Grand Jury movement got off to a bad start and discredited other attempts to bring direct citizen action to the issue.  To examine what went wrong please see HERE. Why citizen grand juries haven’t worked up until now.”
* * * * * * * * * *
Here is the “with a little help from Congress” part:

Is he or Isn't he an American citizen? - Charles E. Rice Professor Emeritus at the Law School of Notre Dame University recently suggested that the solution to all the “howevers” can be found in the United States Congress.  He says in part:

“It is the proper duty of a representative body to look diligently into every affair of government and to talk much about what it sees. It is meant to be the eyes and the voice, and to embody the wisdom and will of its constituents. Unless Congress have and use every means of acquainting itself with the acts and the disposition of the administrative agents of the government, the country must be helpless to learn how it is being served; and unless Congress both scrutinize these things and sift them by every form of discussion, the country must remain in embarrassing, crippling ignorance of the very affairs which it is most important that it should understand and direct. The informing function of Congress should be preferred even to its legislative function...[T]he only really self-governing people is that people which discusses and interrogates its administration. (p. 198)

Wilson later retreated from his affirmation of Congressional supremacy. He said in 1900 that the president, rather than Congress, "is now at the front of affairs." (Congressional Government, preface to 15th edition, 1900, p. 22.) In his 1908 book Constitutional Government in the United States, four years before he was elected to that office, he described the president as "the political leader of the nation." (pp. 67ff.) Wilson's second thoughts on congressional supremacy, however, do not negate Congress's "informing function." The investigatory power has remained as an essential role of Congress.

The Constitution nowhere expressly grants to either House of Congress a general power to investigate in aid of legislation, or in aid of overseeing the Executive Branch. However, the Supreme Court has long recognized that such a power is implied as an essential concomitant to Congress's legislative authority. John E. Nowak and Ronald D. Rotunda, Constitutional Law (2004), 280. See McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135 (1927).

The investigative power of Congress has multiple purposes. "The ability to gather information has been regarded as a predicate to effective legislation and as important to providing a legislative check on executive actions. The Supreme Court has explained that Congress thus may conduct ''inquiries concerning the administration of existing laws as well as proposed or possibly needed statutes. It includes surveys of defects in our social, economic or political system for the purpose of enabling the Congress to remedy them.'' The power to investigate also includes ''probes into departments of the Federal Government to expose corruption, inefficiency or waste''..... The authority to investigate necessarily requires the power to compel testimony." Erwin Chemerinsky, Constitutional Law (2006), 310. (Internal citations omitted).

It is difficult to imagine, to borrow Wilson''s phrase, a more pressing "affair of government" than the question of whether a sitting president obtained his office illegally, and perhaps even by fraud. An investigating body must not prejudge the case. Its concern must be, first, to put the facts on the record and then to consider whatever legislation or other remedy might be appropriate in light of those facts.

The House of Representatives is an appropriate body to inquire into the facts and legal implications of a President's disputed eligibility for the office. The House itself has a contingent but potentially decisive role in the election of a president. The 12th Amendment to the Constitution governs the counting of the electoral votes as certified by the states:

The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; — The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice.

The power to investigate can be exercised by a House committee provided that the investigation is within that committee's authorization as determined by the House. An investigation into Obama''s eligibility by a committee or subcommittee of the House could have several legitimate objectives, including among others:

1. To ascertain the facts, compelling by subpoena the production of all the available records relevant to Obama's eligibility, including the complete Hawaiian records of his birth; his passport records to ascertain whether he traveled to Pakistan in 1981 on an American or other passport; the records from Occidental College, Columbia University and Harvard Law School to determine whether Obama described himself as a foreign student; and such other records as may be relevant. The disclosure of such information to the public would be an appropriate exercise of Congress's "informing function."

2. The consideration of legislation to require candidates for a federal elective office to produce, at an appropriate time, evidence of their eligibility for that office. There is now no federal law or regulation that requires such disclosure.

3. The consideration of legislation to define the constitutional term, "a natural born citizen."

The American people do not know whether the current president achieved election by misrepresenting, innocently, or by fraud, his eligibility for that office. I neither know nor suggest the answer to that question. But it would be a public service for the House of Representatives to employ its authority to determine those facts, and to recommend any indicated changes in the law or the Constitution.

Charles E. Rice is professor emeritus at the Law School of Notre Dame University in South Bend IN. He is the author of What Happened to Notre Dame? “
This article, IT’S TIME FOR A NEW APPROACH, has gone viral and is now on numerous sites.  By this time your Congressperson probably knows about it.  But just in case, how about sending him/her a copy of the article or a copy of this link?


1 comment:

Robert said...

Problems: As of yet, there is no documented evidence that Jean Paul Ludwig was ever assigned 042-68-4425 in 1977. Also Jean Paul Ludwig IS in the SS Death index under SS# 045-26-8722 as having died in HI (also under this SS# in the California death index).
This man is simply very interesting because he resided in both CT and HI and was born in 1890 (a year of birth associated with 042-68-4425).
Ludwig died June 19, 1981. The year on AKA Obama's Selective Service registration is 1980. So either AKA Obama used the number BEFORE Ludwig died (seems to rule out Toot obtaining it from probate records), or the Selective Service record was created fraudulently much later and post-dated 1980. I've read that AKA Obama was attending Occidental College in CA in 1980 under the name Barry Soetoro. AKA Obama's next use of the number shows up in 1986, per historical records researched by Susan Daniels.