The Bluff by the Media, Pundits, and Government Officials Won’t Work

Posted by Bridgette

Blind Man's Bluff, c 1769, Jean Honoré Fragonard. It appears to abolish the boundary between truth and lies, reality and fiction.

The Media is Playing the Game of Blind Man’s Bluff

With all of the disinformation swirling and around about Obama and his ineligibility issue, it seems important to refresh the memories of those who may not understand the importance of the term, Natural Born Citizen, as a requirement for the president.  The  truth and value of the U.S. Constitution and the Rule of Law must be followed and can not be shoved under the media rug.  They know what they are doing, and are attempting to cover up their own ineptitude or complicity by playing a game of  Blind Man’s Bluff.

There is great value to having a presidential and vice presidential candidate follow the Rule of Law and our national security depends upon it.  It is on Obama’s shoulders to prove his eligibility.  The media can not do it, no matter how many lies they try to pass off on the citizens of this country.  The truth is Obama isn’t a Natural Born Citizen as required by our constitution.   If he was, he would prove it.  He can’t.

His lies and those of his compatriots are catching up to them, and those who support such fabrications of his history,  background, and faux documentation are committing perjury as they write.  If Soros and his minions associated with, Daily Kos,  Huffington Post, FactCheck,  Snopes, AP, former JournOlist members or their offshoot, Cabalist,  throngs of lying and distortion writers can purposely change the Constitutional meaning by their outward fabrications, they are sadly mistaken.  The Constitution stands, but they will fall.  Until an amendment changes the meaning, “Natural Born Citizen” as a requirement for presidential eligibility, is the Rule of Law.

Prior to Obama’s election, Dr. Edwin Vieira wrote an outstanding article that described the constitutional crisis that our country would suffer if Obama did not prove his eligibility.  He also outlined the crimes that Obama would be committing if he took the oath of office as a Usurper president.   As Dr. Vieira stated, “Obama Must Stand Up or Stand Down.”   A moral man would have done so;  Obama did neither.   Obama had  no integrity then,  nor does he now.   As it now stands, all those who are involved in this massive cover-up are committing treason in addition to other crimes.  They are all participants in a criminal cabal.

Obama in his righteous indignation  of being a usurper, allowed an innocent man, LtC. Terry  Lakin,  to go to jail for questioning his eligibility as president.    The judge at the stacked trial  stated, if Obama produced his documents it might prove embarrassing!  Indeed.   Instead, they court martialed a  decorated soldier for asking what millions are asking, “Prove your Eligibility, Obama!”

The work of Dr. Vieira should be read and understood by all patriotic Americans, so that the hoodwinking being done at every level of our government, and by the so called  jounalistic puppets and minions won’t be able to blind you to the Truth.  Obama has never proven his eligibility, and can not because his background that he wrote about renders him impotent and ineligible.   His parents were not citizens, and unless his lineage is not what he has written about in his books, Obama or whoever he is,  does not meet the requirements.  He must have two citizen parents and be born on U.S. soil;   Obama does not.   Obama does NOT meet the natural born citizen requirement.

We must continue to expose the liars who are trying to cover their own tracks by dishonestly writing, deceiving,  and saying things that are contrary to the truth.  They are anxiously trying to cover  their  own complicity and corruption by participating in this charade, and a  true charade it is.  The words of Dr. Vieira from October, and written before Obama took the Oath of Office still apply,



By Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.
October 29, 2008

America is facing potentially the gravest constitutional crisis in her history. Barack Obama must either stand up in a public forum and prove, with conclusive documentary evidence, that he is “a natural born Citizen” of the United States who has not renounced his American citizenship—or he must step down as the Democratic Party’s candidate for President of the United States—preferably before the election is held, and in any event before the Electoral College meets.   Because, pursuant to the Constitution, only “a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of th[e] Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President” (Article II, Section 1, Clause 4). And Obama clearly was not “a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of th[e] Constitution.”

Whether the evidence will show that Obama is, or is not, “a natural born Citizen” who has never renounced his American citizenship is an open question. The arguments on both sides are as yet speculative. But Obama’s stubborn refusal to provide what he claims is “his own” country with conclusive proof on that score compels the presumption that he knows, or at least strongly suspects, that no sufficient evidence in his favor exists. After all, he is not being pressed to solve a problem in quantum physics that is “above his pay grade,” but only asked to provide the public with the original copy of some official record that establishes his citizenship. The vast majority of Americans could easily do so. Why will Obama not dispel the doubts about his eligibility—unless he can not?

Now that Obama’s citizenship has been seriously questioned, the burden of proof rests squarely on his shoulders. The “burden of establishing a delegation of power to the United States * * * is upon those making the claim.” Bute v. Illinois, 333 U.S. 640, 653 (1948). And if each of the General Government’s powers must be proven (not simply presumed) to exist, then every requirement that the Constitution sets for any individual’s exercise of those powers must also be proven (not simply presumed) to be fully satisfied before that individual may exercise any of those powers. The Constitution’s command that “[n]o Person except a natural born Citizen * * * shall be eligible to the Office of President” is an absolute prohibition against the exercise of each and every Presidential power by certain unqualified individuals. Actually (not simply presumptively or speculatively) being “a natural born Citizen” is the condition precedent sine qua non for avoiding this prohibition. Therefore, anyone who claims eligibility for “the Office of President” must, when credibly challenged, establish his qualifications in this regard with sufficient evidence.

In disposing of the lawsuit Berg v. Obama, which squarely presents the question of Obama’s true citizenship, the presiding judge complained that Berg “would have us derail the democratic process by invalidating a candidate for whom millions of people voted and who underwent excessive vetting during what was one of the most hotly contested presidential primary in living memory.” This is exceptionally thin hogwash. A proper judicial inquiry into Obama’s eligibility for “the Office of President” will not deny his supporters a “right” to vote for him—rather, it will determine whether they have any such “right” at all.   For, just as Obama’s “right” to stand for election to “the Office of President” is contingent upon his being “a natural born Citizen,” so too are the “rights” of his partisans to vote for him contingent upon whether he is even eligible for that “Office.” If Obama is ineligible, then no one can claim any “right” to vote for him. Indeed, in that case every American who does vote has a constitutional duty to vote against him.

The judge in Berg v. Obama dismissed the case, not because Obama has actually proven that he is eligible for “the Office of President,” but instead because, simply as a voter, Berg supposedly lacks “standing” to challenge Obama’s eligibility:

regardless of questions of causation, the grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact. * ** [A] candidate’s ineligibility under the Natural Born Citizen Clause does not result in an injury in fact to voters. By extension, the theoretical constitutional harm experienced by voters does not change as the candidacy of an allegedly ineligible candidate progresses from the primaries to the general election.

This pronouncement does not rise to the level of hogwash.

First, the Constitution mandates that “[t]he judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution” (Article III, Section 2, Clause 1).   Berg’s suit plainly “aris[es] under th[e] Constitution,” in the sense of raising a critical constitutional issue. So the only question is whether his suit is a constitutional “Case[ ].” The present judicial test for whether a litigant’s claim constitutes a constitutional “Case[ ]” comes under the rubric of “standing”—a litigant with “standing” may proceed; one without “standing” may not.   “Standing,” however, is not a term found anywhere in the Constitution. Neither are the specifics of the doctrine of “standing,” as they have been elaborated in judicial decision after judicial decision, to be found there. Rather, the test for “standing” is almost entirely a judicial invention.

True enough, the test for “standing” is not as ridiculous as the judiciary’s so-called “compelling governmental interest test,” which licenses public officials to abridge individuals’ constitutional rights and thereby exercise powers the Constitution withholds from those officials, which has no basis whatsoever in the Constitution, and which is actually anti-constitutional. Neither is the doctrine of “standing” as abusive as the “immunities” judges have cut from whole cloth for public officials who violate their constitutional “Oath[s] or Affirmation[s], to support this Constitution” (Article VI, Clause 3)—in the face of the Constitution’s explicit limitation on official immunities (Article I, Section 6, Clause 1). For the Constitution does require that a litigant must present a true “Case[ ].” Yet, because the test for “standing” is largely a contrivance of all-too-fallible men and women, its specifics can be changed as easily as they were adopted, when they are found to be faulty.   And they must be changed if the consequences of judicial ignorance, inertia, and inaction are not to endanger America’s constitutional form of government.   Which is precisely the situation here, inasmuch as the purported “election” of Obama as President, notwithstanding his ineligibility for that office, not only will render illegitimate the Executive Branch of the General Government, but also will render impotent its Legislative Branch (as explained below).

Second, the notion upon which the judge in Berg v. Obama fastened—namely, that Berg’s “grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact,” i.e., if everyone is injured or potentially injured then no one has “standing”—is absurd on its face.

To be sure, no one has yet voted for Obama in the general election. But does that mean that no one in any group smaller than the general pool of America’s voters in its entirety has suffered specific harm from Obama’s participation in the electoral process to date? Or will suffer such harm from his continuing participation? What about the Democrats who voted for Hillary Clinton as their party’s nominee, but were saddled with Obama because other Democrats voted for him even though they could not legally have done so if his lack of eligibility for “the Office of President” had been judicially determined before the Democratic primaries or convention?

What about the States that have registered Obama as a legitimate candidate for President, but will have been deceived, perhaps even defrauded, if he is proven not to be “a natural born Citizen”? And as far as the general election is concerned, what about the voters among erstwhile Republicans and Independents who do not want John McCain as President, and therefore will vote for Obama (or any Democrat, for that matter) as “the lesser of two evils,” but who later on may have their votes effectively thrown out, and may have to suffer McCain’s being declared the winner of the election, if Obama’s ineligibility is established? Or what about those voters who made monetary contributions to Obama’s campaign, but may at length discover that their funds went, not only to an ineligible candidate, but to one who knew he was ineligible?

These obvious harms pale into insignificance, however, compared to the national disaster of having an outright usurper purportedly “elected” as “President.” In this situation, it is downright idiocy to claim, as did the judge in Berg v. Obama, that a “generalized” injury somehow constitutes no judicially cognizable injury at all. Self-evidently, to claim that a “generalized” grievance negates “the existence of an injury in fact” is patently illogical—for if everyone in any group can complain of the same harm of which any one of them can complain, then the existence of some harm cannot be denied; and the more people who can complain of that harm, the greater the aggregate or cumulative seriousness of the injury. The whole may not be greater than the sum of its parts; but it is at least equal to that sum! Moreover, for a judge to rule that no injury redressable in a court of law exists, precisely because everyone in America will be subjected to an individual posing as “the President” but who constitutionally cannot be (and therefore is not) the President, sets America on the course of judicially assisted political suicide. If Obama turns out to be nothing more than an usurper who has fraudulently seized control of the Presidency, not only will the Constitution have been egregiously flouted, but also this whole country could be, likely will be, destroyed as a consequence. And if this country is even credibly threatened with destruction, every American will be harmed—irretrievably, should the threat become actuality—including those who voted or intend to vote for Obama, who are also part of We the People. Therefore, in this situation, any and every American must have “standing” to demand—and must demand, both in judicial fora and in the fora of public opinion—that Obama immediately and conclusively prove himself eligible for “the Office of President.”

Utterly imbecilic as an alternative is the judge’s prescription in Berg v. Obama that,

[i]f, through the political process, Congress determines that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution’s eligibility requirements for the Presidency, then it is free to pass laws conferring standing on individuals like [Berg]. Until that time, voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that [Berg] attempts to bring * * * .

Recall that this selfsame judge held that Berg has no constitutional “Case[ ]” because he has no “standing,” and that he has no “standing” because he has no “injury in fact,” only a “generalized” “grievance.” This purports to be a finding of constitutional law: namely, that constitutionally no “Case[ ]” exists. How, then, can Congress constitutionally grant “standing” to individuals such as Berg, when the courts (assuming the Berg decision is upheld on appeal) have ruled that those individuals have no “standing”? If “standing” is a constitutional conception, and the courts deny that “standing” exists in a situation such as this, and the courts have the final say as to what the Constitution means—then Congress lacks any power to contradict them. Congress cannot instruct the courts to exercise jurisdiction beyond what the Constitution includes within “the judicial Power.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 173-180 (1803).

In fact, though, a Congressional instruction is entirely unnecessary. Every American has what lawyers call “an implied cause of action”—directly under Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the Constitution—to require that anyone standing for “the Office of President” must verify his eligibility for that position, at least when serious allegations have been put forward that he is not eligible, and he has otherwise refused to refute those allegations with evidence that should be readily available if he is eligible. That “Case[ ]” is one the Constitution itself defines. And the Constitution must be enforceable in such a “Case[ ]” in a timely manner, by anyone who cares to seek enforcement, because of the horrendous consequences that will ensue if it is flouted.

What are some of those consequences?

First, if Obama is not “a natural born Citizen” or has renounced such citizenship, he is simply not eligible for “the Office of President” (Article II, Section 1, Clause 4). That being so, he cannot be “elected” by the voters, by the Electoral College, or by the House of Representatives (see Amendment XII). For neither the voters, nor the Electors, nor Members of the House can change the constitutional requirement, even by unanimous vote inter sese (see Article V). If, nonetheless, the voters, the Electors, or the Members of the House purport to “elect” Obama, he will be nothing but an usurper, because the Constitution defines him as such. And he can never become anything else, because an usurper cannot gain legitimacy if even all of the country aid, abets, accedes to, or acquiesces in his usurpation.

Second, if Obama dares to take the Presidential “Oath or Affirmation” of office, knowing that he is not “a natural born Citizen,” he will commit the crime of perjury or false swearing (see Article II, Section 1, Clause 7). For, being ineligible for “the Office of President, he cannot “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States,” or even execute it at all, to any degree. Thus, his very act of taking the “Oath or Affirmation” will be a violation thereof! So, even if the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court himself looks the other way and administers the “Oath or Affirmation,” Obama will derive no authority whatsoever from it.

Third, his purported “Oath or Affirmation” being perjured from the beginning, Obama’s every subsequent act in the usurped “Office of President” will be a criminal offense under Title 18, United States Code, Section 242, which provides that:

[w]hoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States * * * shall be fined * * * or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined * * * or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, * * *, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined * * * or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Plainly enough, every supposedly “official” act performed by an usurper in the President’s chair will be an act “under color of law” that necessarily and unavoidably “subjects [some] person * * * to the deprivation of [some] rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution * * * of the United States”—in the most general case, of the constitutional “right[ ]” to an eligible and duly elected individual serving as President, and the corresponding constitutional “immunit[y]” from subjection to an usurper pretending to be “the President.”

Fourth, if he turns out to be nothing but an usurper acting in the guise of “the President,” Obama will not constitutionally be the “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States” (see Article II, Section 2, Clause 1). Therefore, he will be entitled to no obedience whatsoever from anyone in those forces. Indeed, for officers or men to follow any of his purported “orders” will constitute a serious breach of military discipline—and in extreme circumstances perhaps even “war crimes.” In addition, no one in any civilian agency in the Executive Branch of the General Government will be required to put into effect any of Obama’s purported “proclamations,” “executive orders,” or “directives.”

Fifth, as nothing but an usurper (if he becomes one), Obama will have no conceivable authority “to make Treaties”, or to “nominate, and * * * appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not * * * otherwise provided for [in the Constitution]” (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2). And therefore any “Treaties” or “nominat[ions], and * * * appoint[ments]” he purports to “make” will be void ab initio, no matter what the Senate does, because the Senate can neither authorize an usurper to take such actions in the first place, nor thereafter ratify them. One need not be a lawyer to foresee what further, perhaps irremediable, chaos must ensue if an usurper, even with “the Advice and Consent of the Senate”, unconstitutionally “appoint[s] * * * Judges of the Supreme Court” whose votes thereafter make up the majorities that wrongly decide critical “Cases” of constitutional law.

Sixth, and perhaps most importantly, Congress can pass no law while an usurper pretends to occupy “the Office of President.” The Constitution provides that “[e]very Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States” (Article I, Section 7, Clause 2). Not to an usurper posturing as “the President of the United States,” but to the true and rightful President. If no such true and rightful President occupies the White House, no “Bill” will or can, “before it become a Law, be presented to [him].” If no “Bill” is so presented, no “Bill” will or can become a “Law.” And any purported “Law” that the usurper “approve[s]” and “sign[s],” or that Congress passes over the usurper’s “Objections,” will be a nullity. Thus, if Obama deceitfully “enters office” as an usurper, Congress will be rendered effectively impotent for as long as it acquiesces in his pretenses as “President.”

Seventh, if Obama does become an usurper posturing as “the President,” Congress cannot even impeach him because, not being the actual President, he cannot be “removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” (see Article II, Section 4). In that case, some other public officials would have to arrest him—with physical force, if he would not go along quietly—in order to prevent him from continuing his imposture. Obviously, this could possibly lead to armed conflicts within the General Government itself, or among the States and the people.

Eighth, even did something approaching civil war not eventuate from Obama’s hypothetical usurpation, if the Establishment allowed Obama to pretend to be “the President,” and the people acquiesced in that charade, just about everything that was done during his faux “tenure in office” by anyone connected with the Executive Branch of the General Government, and quite a bit done by the Legislative Branch and perhaps the Judicial Branch as well, would be arguably illegitimate and subject to being overturned when a constitutional President was finally installed in office. The potential for chaos, both domestically and internationally, arising out of this systemic uncertainty is breathtaking.

The underlying problem will not be obviated if Obama, his partisans in the Democratic Party, and his cheerleaders and cover-up artists in the big media simply stonewall the issue of his (non)citizenship and contrive for him to win the Presidential election. The cat is already out of the bag and running all over the Internet. If he continues to dodge the issue, Obama will be dogged with this question every day of his purported “Presidency.” And inevitably the truth will out. For the issue is too simple, the evidence (or lack of it) too accessible. Either Obama can prove that he is “a natural born Citizen” who has not renounced his citizenship; or he cannot. And he will not be allowed to slip through with some doctored “birth certificate” generated long after the alleged fact. On a matter this important, Americans will demand that, before its authenticity is accepted, any supposed documentary evidence of that sort be subjected to reproducible forensic analyses conducted by reputable, independent investigators and laboratories above any suspicion of being influenced by or colluding with any public official, bureaucracy, political party, or other special-interest organization whatsoever.

Berg v. Obama may very well end up in the Supreme Court. Yet that ought to be unnecessary. For Obama’s moral duty is to produce the evidence of his citizenship sua sponte et instanter. Otherwise, he will be personally responsible for all the consequences of his refusal to do so.

Of course, if Obama knows that he is not “a natural born Citizen” who never renounced his American citizenship, then he also knows that he and his henchmen have perpetrated numerous election-related frauds throughout the country—the latest, still-ongoing one a colossal swindle targeting the American people as a whole. If that is the case, his refusal “to be a witness against himself” is perfectly explicable and even defensible on the grounds of the Fifth Amendment. Howsoever justified as a matter of criminal law, though, Obama’s silence and inaction will not obviate the necessity for him to prove his eligibility for “the Office of President.” The Constitution may permit him to “take the Fifth;” but it will not suffer him to employ that evasion as a means to usurp the Presidency of the United States.

© 2008 Edwin Vieira, Jr.


Note to the Complicit, Irresponsible, Dishonest  Media, Senators, Representatives and other members of Government: 

We are NOT blind, deaf, or dumb, and we won’t be bluffed!

103 responses to “The Bluff by the Media, Pundits, and Government Officials Won’t Work

  1. Two issues, three words each:
    1) Trust, but Verify
    2) “Natural” born citizen

  2. Constitution: Original Intent Vs Living Document – Ed Vieira
    May 9, 2007

  3. Edwin Vieira, Jr. on the Fed’s Transfer of Wealth
    Sep 30, 2008

  4. Check out the title of this article. Rebukes yet!
    White House rebukes Graham over Obama comments
    April 25 (AFP) Snips

    WASHINGTON — The White House scolded evangelical preacher Franklin Graham for making “preposterous charges” on Easter Sunday, after he cited conspiracy theories over President Barack Obama’s birthplace.

    Graham, son of famed pastor Billy Graham, an advisor to presidents for decades, described Obama as a “very nice man” but appeared to give credence to charges by some conservatives the president was not born in the United States.

    Asked about the charges on Monday, White House spokesman Jay Carney chose his words carefully. “I think it’s unfortunate that a religious leader would choose Easter Sunday to make preposterous charges,” Carney said.

    THE AP HAD THIS TRUTHFUL STATEMENT IN THEIR ARTICLE, WHY?: According to the US Constitution, presidents and vice presidents must be natural born citizens of the United States.

  5. As I said last night..there were so many lies stated in Anderson Cooper’s segment that it was hard to record all of them. It continues tonight.

    CNN Caught Lying About Obama’s Purported Birth Records – 4/25/11

    • CNN Caught Lying About Hawaii Law And The Release Of Obama’s Purported Records; Hawaii Law On The Side Of Birthers

      CNN’s Lies Debunked Below..

      First Off: “prima facie”: (pry-mah fay-shah) adj. Latin for “at first look,” or “on its face,” referring to a lawsuit or criminal prosecution in which the evidence before trial is sufficient to prove the case unless there is substantial contradictory evidence presented at trial…- It is fair to say there’s substantial contradictory evidence regarding Obama’s life narrative and birth… Too bad American voters have no “standing” to challenge the 0ne…

      What CNN Failed To Report: CNN showed two different Obama COLB’s. One with creases from and the redacted COLB with out creases posted at Obama’s

      The U.S. State Department web site clearly reads; “Please note, some short(abstract) versions of birth certificates may not be acceptable for passport purposes.”…

      The Birth Announcements: Even if Obama’s COLB is real it does NOT prove a Hawaiian birth. The same type COLB’s could also be issued to children not born in Hawaii, under Hawaii law, THEN and NOW. That also would have triggered the “birth” announcements as they were produced from a list sent from the HDOH, not the hospital or the parents/grandparents.

      Researcher Butterdezillion lays down the law regarding the release of vital records: All requests by those authorized by HRS 338-16 through 338-18 to receive either copies or abstracts MUST be fulfilled. (Note the word “SHALL”.) Unless disclosure is forbidden by the laws or rules the request as made must be fulfilled.

      HRS 338-13 says: (a) Subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18, the department of health shall, upon request, furnish to any applicant a certified copy of any certificate, or the contents of any certificate, or any part thereof.

      Contrary to the claims of the Hawaii Attorney General’s Office, that statute specifically allows photocopies:

      Cont. The Lies Stop Here, Demand CNN Report The Truth!

      • Good point! They showed as evidence a so-called document that says, right at the bottom of the document, that it’s INVALID if altered. It was altered because there’s a cross-out birth certificate number. Ergo, it’s NOT VALID so proves NOTHING. I did notice that CNN showed the bogus FactCheck carefully cropped photo of the so-called raised seal. Too bad that if you look right along the crease, you will also SEE VERY CLEARLY THAT THERE’S NO FATHER’S NAME ON THAT “document”. Ruh, oh. Who’s ur daddy?

        Did you hear Trump’s response to Robert De Niro, who waded in to say that unnamed persons (directed at Trump) shouldn’t say things without evidence? Trump said that De Niro’s “not the brightest bulb in the box.”

        Poor De Niro. I do like him but it’s sadly true, unless it’s just another case of a celeb living in a vacuous Hollywood bubble. Not reading. Not gathering his own evidence. Just repeating what he’s heard from other biased progressives. You know, how they all hate FOX News but NEVER watch it. Actors, however, aren’t known for their intelligence, with a few exceptions like Geena Davis, who’s in Mensa, or Hedy Lamarr, who was a genius.

        • Miri,

          I made this point last night..they showed the COLB certification number…it was NOT redacted as is shown on the internet. The black out was gone! It wasn’t on the screen long enough to see the number.

          They showed information from Factcheck, and Salon! I forgot what other excellent resources were on their documents. Will check the video.

          • I wasn’t sure which CNN article that referred to, but now I see that on the video, they show the photo of the FactCheck photo and they pan across it AS IF it’s a video. But it’s not because it stops at the exact spot in the BC# (which they partially obscure with a logo) where it’s cut off on one of the FactCheck photos. I didn’t see the COLB scan from FTS or Daily Kos with a BC#, though. Did you? I’m getting confused.

      • Wait a minute! In that film from ORYR, they have video of the COLB document WITH the unredacted BC number. Where did they get that? It’s NEVER been shown as video before. Oh, and Fukino is a RINO. Who cares? Who believes it, anyway? Lingle is a RINO. As they say, a Republican in Hawaii is to the left of most mainland Dems. Why don’t they interview the CURRENT officials? Fukino can say anything. She has no doubt, but we have plenty. Especially since they now have video of the COLB from FactCheck, they say. Is it Barry’s COLB? They don’t show anything identifying, not even the entire number. Why does she smile or laugh when she says he was born in Hawaii? But what does the document say? The reporter says it’s in a vault. Didn’t Fukino say it’s in a binder on the first floor of the HDOH? Fukino “felt” she had enough “tangible interest” to go look at the original bc. She “felt” so, even after many citizens were told by courts they have NO standing whatsoever?

        OMG: A new claim! Now this reporter claims Barry can get a copy of the long-form but they’re NO LONGER CERTIFIED BY THE STATE. So even if he gets a copy, THEY’RE NOT GOING TO CERTIFY OR VOUCH FOR IT. And only the computer generated one can be used as proof of anything for official purposes. This is beyond insane. How many times will they lie and move the goalpost and obfuscate and change the rules as they go along, just for this guy? They use a reporter, Dan Nakaso, to vouch for what supposedly happened with birth announcements in 1961, when his own stories say nobody knows how that worked.

        • So there you have it. If Hawaii can lie and say they won’t and can’t CERTIFY any long-form copy (which is proved to be a LIE because somebody got a CERTIFIED long-form just last month) then Barry’s peeps can rig one up, claim they got it from Hawaii, and they won’t have it certified because they can say they can’t get it certified.

          And the Hawaiians will play rope a dope with that forged document, too. They won’t have to say they did or didn’t give it to him. They won’t have to vouch for it, so they won’t have to LIE and risk their reputations, jobs, and possible future criminal charges if the TRUTH should ever come out. And they can and will still say that they can’t say “anything” about what’s on Barry’s birth records. Neither confirm nor deny the information he puts out on his newly discovered original long-form birth certificate. This is so ridiculous.

          About those birth announcements: Isn’t it just so coincidental that the person who first discovered them is conveniently dead?

    • Donald Trump makes more birther claims from CNN (edited?) No transcript available from Anderson’s telephone interviews.

      • You see? They’re investigating Trump and not Barry. They’re so worried about Trump’s investigators. They asked everybody they talked to in Hawaii whether they talked to Trump’s investigators. (Did they bother to ask them for evidence of anything about BARRY, though?) This is so freaking amazing! I suppose an investigator is going to go announce that he’s an investigator working for Trump. What the heck kind of PRIVATE detective would make such an announcement? I’m sure CNN’s “team” is talking to all the “usual suspects”. Ya think? This is just another case of Trump PROVING how corrupt the lamestream media are. First, they investigate Trump’s bc, but not Barry’s! Second, they investigate Trump’s investigators, but not Barry’s so-called history! In this video, Trump does say that the bc is “either missing or not there.” Missing? Right. Where’s the contemporaneous evidence that it EVER existed? THAT should still exist unless we’re supposed to believe that Barry’s long-form, that Fukino saw (did she swipe it?), AND the original hand-written birth index are missing from the HDOH “vault” AND from the State Archives. The media are still SO worried about Trump having investigators. Why should they worry? THEY should be investigating. They should be happy for the help. Are they afraid that Trump is going to “scoop them” three years after the fact?

        • Here’s a good article. h/t Renee, a member of a nest of birther researchers. 🙂


          “Appreciate as well that forgery is not an unknown practice among liberal Democrats. A recent example is the CBS News Bush/National Guard hoax, which relied entirely on forged documents. Al Sharpton’s public career began with a blatant hoax, and he has risen to the stature of party icon. John Edwards could easily have become president in 2008 but for a few percentage points in the Iowa primary, and his whole life was a fraud. Then there is Bill Clinton’s life.

          We could conjure up Republican examples, too, but the forgery aspect is not even essential to the story. The Certification of Live Birth conspicuously omits some vital information, such as attestation of delivery hospital and physician, or anything that would conclusively confirm U.S. birth and natural citizenship.

          In view of these troubling lacunae, and the lingering questions they allow, why wouldn’t Obama just produce the original? Is it not time for that question to merit an answer?

          The circumstances, which grow more bizarre almost daily, do not pass the smell test or the snicker test, and Obama is allowed to get away with it, especially by the media, which only selectively perform their political watchdog role these days. Unfortunately, because the implications are so ominous for our nation, this is not funny at all.”

          “(If George W. Bush or any other politician had used as many aliases as B.H. Obama has, he would have been laughed out of politics in short order. Need we even suggest the basis for the double standard, enforced primarily by a compliant media?)”

          “Now, however, things are really getting ridiculous — crowned, perhaps, by the newly missing birth certificate in (or not in) Hawaii. This is just too rich. First the officials have it, then they don’t. A Hawaii governor says he knows where it is and has seen it, then he doesn’t and hasn’t. (He also claims to remember Obama’s actual birth, which may be a stretch too far, even for political fakery.)”

          “Another tactical motive is that this recent episode gives the Obama forces an excuse to deny even the possibility of producing the birth certificate when the demand surfaces seriously next campaign year. A plausible excuse only in Obama’s contemptuous impression of the American public’s intelligence, that is.”

          This is a two-part article. Tomorrow he’s going to document “The cumulative evidence against our maybe-president’s citizenship.”

          The author, John F. Gaski, “is a professor at the University of Notre Dame’s Mendoza College of Business. His top research field is the nature of social and political power. He is the author of “Frugal Cool” and “The Language of Branding” and is a long-time, but former, registered Democrat.”

          • NOTE that this article is from Investor’s Business Daily. Not exactly a “birther” blog. It’s ranked “most viewed,” which seems to indicate that this issue IS a huge one in America. Will Anderson and his krewe of obfuscators succeed in pulling the wool over America’s collective eyes once again?

  6. The WH found time to respond to Rev. Graham but never found time to send an Easter message to the millions of Christians in this country? Too busy making Nowruz statements to Muslims in Arab countries?

    “charges?” What an odd choice of words. This is a “charge?”:

    “‘The president, I know, has some issues to deal with here. He can solve this whole birth certificate issue pretty quickly,’ Graham said.”

    Yup. That’s the truth; it’s not a “charge”. Barry can solve the whole issue in a NY minute. Just order a copy and release that long-form bc, Barry! Do it now! Do it today! The issue all goes away because you will then PROVE to everybody that you were born in Hawaii and ARE a natural born citizen. But wait! That’s not possible unless you lied about your parents. Nevermind.

  7. Does this law address the NBC issue or just require a vault form BC?

    Oklahoma to take swing at eligibility
    House to vote this week on plan that took 3-1 victory in Senate
    April 25, 2011

    Lawmakers in the Oklahoma House of Representatives this week will be taking up the issue of the eligibility of candidates, including presidential candidates, for office, several weeks after their fellow lawmakers in the state Senate gave their state’s planned demands overwhelming 34-10 approval..

    A spokesman in the office of House Speaker Kris Steele, a Republican from District 26, confirmed today to WND that Senate Bill 91 has been added to the list of bills to be considered this week and it will be up for a vote probably by Wednesday in the Oklahoma House. Support has been strong in Oklahoma for SB 91, which is written to assure that all candidates are eligible for the office they seek to occupy.

    The law provides that the secretary of the State Election Board in Oklahoma “shall promulgate rules to specify the documentation required to provide proof of eligibility…” and it requires an original birth document.

  8. Obama’s Long-form Birth Certificate Opens Twitter Account
    Jim Hoft on Tuesday, April 26, 2011

    Hah! Obama’s long-form birth certificate opened a twitter account this week.


    This one shows you how out of touch the Republican leadership is. The head of the RNC says of the BC issue: “Trump and the candidates can talk about it all they want, but my position is that the president was born in the United States. I don’t think it’s an issue that moves voters.”

    Earth to Reince Priebus: Yes it DOES move voters. Otherwise, why is it such a huge story? That reporter, Lynn Sweet, has done some fair reporting on this topic, iirc. I’ll see what more I can find by her. She’s been on this for a while. (Can’t find it now so maybe I was mistaken. I swear I read an article by her just today, from a while back, that seemed somewhat objective.)

  10. Hey. Lynn Sweet is the one who reported that Barry told her he has “more of a childhood” in Indonesia than Kenya.

    And she’s the one who clarified the title Barry had at that law school:

  11. I find it interesting that so much information is taking over the news and all of it is dishonest regarding the BC..all while no senators or reps are in their offices. Are they watching CNN for their BC information so they can answer constituents when they return?

    Will voters who are calling for an investigation of Obama’s eligibility show them we mean business? Will voters turn on those reps and senators that are to lazy to uphold the constitution and their constitutional duty to investigate?

  12. You must have been reading my mind. I was very discouraged today listening to Micheal Savage who I really like. He is very skeptical of the BC issue because he knows the fraud will produce a fake one but what disturbed me is how little everyone knows about the whole issue ….I THINK? I don’t know …..but the BC is one small part….

    More and more of these conservatives are coming out against the issue because thay are afraid they cant play the game at the same level…..but i say what game? Make the Supreme court decide..put it to them.

    I was listening to the callers…all agreeing with him that Trump’s handlers are setting him up..

    All I can do is pray…

  13. Fox News & White House Respond To Birthers: The American People And A Notre Dame Professor Strike Back At Media & Obama
    ObamaRelease YourRecords on 3:52 PM

    Video(s): Today the White House responded spun and dodged the birth certificate issue: The American People and a University of Notre Dame professor strike back at Obama and the Media. Even Glenn Beck was covering for Obama’s eligibility during his Fox News show today, following Shep Smith’s declaration yesterday that Fox News confirmed that Obama is a U.S. citizen, continuing to ignore the fact that this issue is whether Obama is a “natural born Citizen.” Not to mention all of the other records!

    What a bunch of manufactured malarkey. Watch their ratings continue to plummet…

    • White House Responds To Birthers – 4/26/11

      The Gibbs replacement Press Liar.. “CNN recently did a highly credible piece on an established fact that the president was born in the United States of America. This was a settled issue. ” It is a distraction. The birth certificate that the campaign put up on line has been available for everyone to see around the globe. Anybody that asks for a birth certificate from Hawaii gets the same thing. Anybody who is watching this exchange from the West Wing of the White House would be appalled; most Americans would be appalled that this is what concerns us…when there are so many issues to be addressed..

    • The Notre Dame professor he refers to is John Gaski, whose article I linked to above. It’s in Investors Business Daily online. Renee posted it on the research blog earlier today. There’s supposed to be a part two, which should be out tomorrow.

      • If Obama Is Natural-Born, Why Suppress Evidence?
        By JOHN F. GASKI Posted 05:24 PM ET
        Second Of Two Parts

        The conclusion: Barack Obama’s covered-up background is very likely sufficient to disqualify him from the presidency, perhaps or perhaps not constitutionally through noncitizenship, or more practically because of multiple acts of fraud and deceit over legal name and multiple citizenships. Full public knowledge would surely induce prompt impeachment or electoral pariah status, that is.

        Again, poignantly, and finally, if one disagrees: Prove it. You are welcome to try. It should be easy. So why is it so hard? Yes, that question is rhetorical.

  14. Shock poll: Only 38% believe Obama’s birth story
    USA Today/Gallup says 1 in 4 Americans suspect overseas nativity
    April 26, 2011

    A new poll today from USA Today/Gallup reveals the shocker that those who believe Barack Obama definitely was born in the United States make up only a little more than 1 in 3 of the population.

    The poll says only 38 percent of Americans are convinced Obama definitely was born in the U.S. and another 18 percent say he probably was.

    At the opposite end of the scale, 15 percent of those who responded to the USA Today assessment said he probably was born in another country, and 9 percent say he definitely was.

  15. Obama and Harvard: Is Donald Trump right?
    Jack Cashill
    April 26, 2011 Snips

    The irrepressible Donald Trump has raised still another question the major media have dared not to ask: Did Barack Obama qualify for Columbia and Harvard on his own accomplishments? “How does a bad student go to Columbia and then to Harvard?” asked Trump of the Associated Press. “I’m thinking about it, I’m certainly looking into it. Let him show his records.”

    New Yorker editor David Remnick… attempts here to illustrate Obama’s maturity on matters racial. In the process, however, he suggests one explanation for how Obama got into Harvard and how he became an editor of the Harvard Law Review (HLR).

    Wrote Obama to the Harvard Law Record:

    I must say, however, that as someone who has undoubtedly benefited from affirmative action programs during my academic career, and as someone who may have benefited from the Law Review’s affirmative action policy when I was selected to join the Review last year, I have not felt stigmatized within the broader law school community or as a staff member of the Review.

    Remnick refuses to concede Obama’s need for affirmative action, let alone any stigma attached to it. He boasts that this “inner sanctum of the establishment” accepted only the “brightest and most ambitious” first-year students and offers as explanation, “Obama’s grades were good.”

    • Remnick also told us that Obama’s mother’s name was Shirley.

    • His grades were “good!” Now there’s a glowing compliment. Good. Ha! That probably means adequate, considering the author. I like this by Cashill, “The fact is that Obama did not make the Law Review the old-fashioned way, the way HLR’s first black editor, Charles Houston, did 70 years prior.”

      Hmmmm. Don’t they say that Barry was the “first”? Forgot all about that guy, 70 years ago. You know, ’cause he did it the HARD way–effort, accomplishment, not using his race. btw, aren’t we told that blacks were discriminated against and couldn’t get into such schools? Whoops! Another meme bites the dust. Which is why it’s ignored. Doesn’t fit the narrative.

      • “To Obama’s good fortune, the HLR had replaced a meritocracy in which editors were elected based on grades – the president being the student with the highest academic rank – with one in which half the editors were chosen through a writing competition,” Cashill wrote.

        So did mom write that entry into the competition for him? Is that why the visit to Harvard, btw? Remember how she used to type up his Indonesian homework? I wonder if Barry had a ghostwriter all along? Where was Ayers when Barry was at Harvard? Well, there was still snail mail!

        • “Once elected, Obama contributed not one signed word to the HLR or any other law journal. As Matthew Franck has pointed out in National Review Online, ‘A search of the HeinOnline database of law journals turns up exactly nothing credited to Obama in any law review anywhere at any time.'”

          I just had to remind everybody of that inconvenient TRUTH.

          He’s a phony, people. A fraud, which we’ve known all along. It’s about time somebody like Trump, who people listen to, says it. We don’t dislike him because he’s black or because he’s a Muslim. We dislike him because he’s a fraud. A phony. A fake. Which should be apparent to anyone with eyes to really LOOK, instead of bury their heads in the sand.

  16. Remember how the Left operates when they get exposed they close operations, and then reopen/reorganize under a different name..ACORN is one example. Another found example is the infamous JournOlist.. who became the Cabalist! Shortly after closing down their operation of over 400 members, half of them reorganized under a different name. I just found this although almost a year old.

    Meet the New Journolist, Smaller Than the Old Journolist
    Jul 21 2010

    The 173 members are mainly veterans of Journolist, and don’t ask me what happened to the other 227; perhaps they were purged after being judged splitters in secret on-line show trials.

    Hence, the birth of the heretofore secret Cabalist, which unlike Journolist, has only 173 members, rather than 400, but which in other ways resembles Journolist (such as in the propensity of Cabalist members to leak ostensibly private information to non-Cabalist members, including to yours truly). The 173 members are mainly veterans of Journolist, and don’t ask me what happened to the other 227; perhaps they were purged after being judged splitters in secret on-line show trials.

    I don’t have any overwhelming moral, theological or political objections to the existence of either list, although my colleague Andrew Sullivan has a point when he wrote that some of what happened on Journolist smacked of secret plotting: “This collusion is corruption…



  17. Right on cue, the professor publishes his second article:

    If you believe that the artist formerly known as Barry Soetoro really is a natural U.S. citizen, prove it. If the subject of the controversy cannot, others are not likely to be able to either.”

    “Obama knows the cover-up only creates grave public suspicion about his constitutional eligibility, at least in responsible quarters, so if something else is the real secret, it must be something as bad or worse.”

    “In fact, evidence mounts that he has executed the most brilliant coup in world history. (This argument also rules out any likelihood that Obama is covering up just to be obstinate.)”

    “he knows U.S. voters would never abide a clandestine dual citizen as President.”

    two foreign citizenships out of three may be too much for the U.S. electorate to digest. Obama probably sees it that way, too; hence, the cover-up of other records, including collegiate, that would impinge on contemporary citizenship.”

    “Perhaps the most plausible scenario is that the presumed Mr. Obama never had his legal name changed from Barry Soetoro, and therefore has committed a form of fraud by signing official documents with a false alias, as well as perjury by falsely swearing to that effect on many occasions (as in legal application questions about past use of an alias).”

    “It is fact that Mr. Obama is hiding not only birth records but virtually all vital history, including medical and academic.”

    If and when Obama and his political handlers play the race card on this matter, that will confirm the absolute worst because that is what they do when they have nothing else. Sadly, we are beginning to witness this tactic already on TV talk shows. Case closed.”

    the elephant in the room can no longer be sensibly ignored — despite the wishes of the Obama-handmaiden media. (And thank you, Donald Trump.)”

    There is major and obvious doubt about the President’s most fundamental personal information and qualification for office, including skepticism by a large fraction of the citizenry (per poll results), and Mr. Obama refuses to prove something readily provable by mere release of his birth record! What is wrong with this picture? What is Obama hiding? Incredible.”

    “What if the worst is true? Proving citizenship is totally routine and simple for any U.S. citizen — except for Barack Obama, apparently.”

    The (presumed) president of the United States not only has not met that test but does not even try to — in his in-your-face, preternatural arrogance and audacity. Why not? What is really going on here? What game is being played? What ruse is being played on our country?”

    End of excerpts.

    It’s well worth reading the professor’s entire article. I feel vindicated that he hit upon nearly every point that we have been making, collectively, since this blog began and even before, at the blog where we first met. Is that writer Flynn going to call this Notre Dame professor “stupid”? I want him to answer this professor’s questions. And I’d also like to say, “Thank you, Donald Trump.”

  18. Good morning! Have you seen this email that is circulating? I just received it. It’s supposedly written by a former IRS investigator & it’s his perspective of the fraud. Kind of long, but interesting, nonetheless:

    This is an article written by an ex IRS investigator….very interesting.

    Trump is correct, Barry Soetoro, AKA Obama is hiding something in his past that is very bad… and it may not be his citizenship. (Trump would not say this if he did not know something and he has the money to get the dirt…)

    As an IRS tax examiner,one of many former federal jobs, I have seen what it appears Barry Soetoro has done, mostly by illegal aliens attempting to acquire a new identity in the U.S and/or criminals looking to acquire a new ID.

    Barry, AKA Obama, was lawfully adopted by a foreign national, Lolo Soetoro, and Barry’s name was legally changed to "Barry Soetoro”. (Barrys own admission) Barry Soetoro was also made an official legal Indonesian citizen. (again Barrys own admission) The adoption would be noted in Barry’s vital statistics record in Hawaii on his original birth certificate…

    OR Lolo Soetoro may have always been Barry’s legal birth farther. The public does not know for sure at this point who Barry’s father really was and Barry himself may not know.

    Barry was raised as a Muslim in Indonesia and attended a Catholic funded school that permitted all faiths to attend.

    Barry’s mother dropped him as a dependent for some reason, maybe even when Barry was adopted by Lolo Soetoro. His mother’s passport records dropped Barry as a dependent indicating Barry was no longer a legal dependent of his mothers. (The passport records of his mother have been produced showing Barry was no longer a dependent when Barry was permanently residing in Indonesia.) Barry went to Hawaii to live with his alleged grand parents after Lolo Soetoro and Barry’s mother divorced.

    A “certificate of live birth” can have names changed on it including a child’s birth name, and birth parents names. Even a modified date of birth can be on a “certificate of live birth”. This occurs frequently for adopted children where the birth parent does not want the child to know who they are. The public has no idea who Barrys real birth father is or who Barrys real birth mother is. (Barry could have been adopted by his mother) The original birth certificate is the only legal vital statistics record of a persons birth parents, birth location, birth date, etc… I can get a certificate of live birth for a dead person; I cannot get a birth certificate of a dead person without Deceased on it. (Ive tried)

    There is no evidence Barry Soetoro ever lawfully changed his name to Barrack Hussein Obama. There is no proof Barry Soetoro was born with the name “Barrack Hussein Obama”. Im willing to bet the name Barrack Hussein Obama is not present on the real birth certificate as Barrys birth name or as Barrys birth father. I have pictures of me with my mother and Jimmy Buffet… that doesnt make him my father even if I start using the name Jimmy Buffet.

    The public knows Barry Soetoro finished high school in Hawaii as Barry Soetoro and attended Occidental as Barry Soetoro where he did drugs and flunked out of school. After dropping out of Occidental, Barry showed up in New York, homeless and on drugs. (Barrys own admission) Barry then hooked up with a Pakistani to live with and traveled back to Indonesia on his new boyfriends dime to renew his Indonesian passport and traveled to Pakistan with him.

    Ask any law enforcement officer in a large city or detective and they will tell you homeless young men on drugs in large cities usually end up as male prostitutes. Barry ended up as a world traveler with a degree… (Not likely)

    Barry Soetoro returned to New York from Pakistan and began using the fictitious name Obama for some reason. (again Barry Soetoros own admission) One could only suspect that a person addicted to drugs returning from Pakistan to New York, the main route for Afghan heroin into the U.S., maybe Barry had a reason to start using a new name. There are literally over 1 million open warrants on file in New York… maybe Barry is one of them?….

    After spending some time in New York allegedly working under the name Obama, It appears Barry used the fictitious name “Barrack Hussein Obama” for the first time to file his federal taxes in Connecticut at a Post Office Box for the purpose of evading paying taxes in New York and /or to establish a new identity. (This is a felony with no statute of limitation.)

    When the IRS received Barry Soetoros federal tax filing, the IRS could not attach the name Barrack Hussein Obama to the SSI number provided or the address provided. So the IRS assigned the fictitious name “Barrack Hussein Obama” a tax ID number for a person from Connecticut (Where Barry unlawfully filed a federal tax form using a false name). Barry Soetoro began using the tax ID number as his SSI number when using the fictitious name Barrack Obama. This is why Barry Soetoro has a Connecticut SSI number. When I worked for the IRS, I saw this occur more than once and yes, it is a felony to knowingly file a fraudulent federal tax forms. Most of the politicians that cheat on their taxes claim it was an accident. That is how they get away with their tax cheat crimes. Using a fake name is no accident.

    It appears Barry fled New York to Chicago using his new identity to get a job . He likely ordered a fake diploma to bolster his new identity as “Obama”. Fake Diploma’s were very big in the 80’s and diploma mills were even being used by federal workers to get promotions. There is evidence his alleged attendance at Columbia was faked (Barry never attended Columbia) and Barry lied his way into Harvard (he had no transcripts to get in)… Including telling the Saudi royal family he was fighting in Afghanistan with the Muslim Jihad against the Russians, so they would help him get into a law school.

    The Saudi’s apparently loved Barry’s story of Jihad in Pakistan/Afghanistan and paid for Barry to attend Harvard under the name “Obama”. The Saudi family has admitted to paying for Obama to attend Harvard and gave Harvard a gift of $20 million dollars. Harvard in turn made their special attendy President of the law review a person that never wrote a single law review…. I guess that is what $20 million buys at Harvard.

    It is unlikely Barry was a Jihadist and was most likely a drug mule if anything, maybe even a CIA street hire to haul Afghan heroin back to New York, so the Afghans could buy U.S. made stinger missiles with U.S. dollars to shoot down Russian helicopters?… I hired people over seas to do work below my pay grade all the time, even foreign nationals… I think this is the story Barry told the Saudi’s, but he was most likely really just a drug mule/dealer and probably still wanted on an outstanding warrant in New York.

    Barrys selective service registration is not normal either……t-commander-in…..

    After I looked at Barrys selective service filing I noticed it was most likely fraudulent too based on the name he used. Barry did not start using the name “Obama” until he returned from Pakistan (long after he flunked out of school in California) His selective service record (maintained in Chicago coincidentally) shows he registered at a Hawaiian post office as Obama in Sept 1980… Problem, Barry was getting high in California at Occidental in Sept 1980 (Barry’s own admission) and was not using the fictitious name “Obama” at that time. Barry began using the fictitious name “Obama” only after he returned from Pakistan. The selective service filing is fraudulent.

    NEW NOTE – On the the Selective Service Registration, Barry did not have the Connecticut Tax ID number he used on the Registration until after he began using the name “Obama” in New York. More evidence his Selective Service filing is fraudulent.

    Barry returned to Chicago and attend a semi-christian radical black church with his first female love Michelle. Barry admits keeping in touch with Phil Boener, who traveled to New York from Occidental to be with Barry and was most likely Barry’s first love.

    Barry still could not get a real job, because he was still a fraud, even with his Harvard degree in hand he could lie and take the Bar exam, but he could not work as a lawyer for a major law firm without a back ground investigation and he would never pass one. So, Michelle got Barry a job at her law firm. Barry never filed a case alone and never filed a motion. He wrote lost of memos according to the law firm where Barry worked. (I think they know Barry is a fraud and don’t want to be sued by previous clients) Barry rescinded his law licenses, so as not to be disbarred for fraud. The Bar knows Barry lied on his application. Michelle also had to turn over her law license for her involvement in corruption with the Chicago mayors office.

    With time on his hands Barry, a well spoken black man, was able to get elected to a state office, oddly because he looked for fraud in his opponents voter registrations and got his opponent disqualified from running. Barry a well versed liar was a natural in state politics. He used his political influence to get himself a position as a lecturer at Chicago’s law school. Barry embellished this position as a “professor of law” which everyone knows is completely false. Barry was not a professor or even a specialist at anything but lying.

    On a whim Barry ran for United States Senate for the State of Illinois. Politicians do this all the time to make a name for themselves even if they can’t win. At the time the Republican Ryan was a shoe in for the Senate seat, so no real Democrat contenders entered the race, but Barry did. On a fluke after the primary Ryan’s wife Jeri Ryan (Seven of nine from Star Trek) went public that her husband was making her have sex with other people while he watched. Ryan dropped out and Alan Keys moved from Maryland to run against Barry Soetoro.

    The election got all kinds of press because there was no blacks in the U.S. Senate and one of these black men was going to be a Senator. Alan Keys did his best to warn everyone Barry was not who he claimed to be, but the public saw him as a carpet bagger. Barry kept the lie going and presented himself as a clean black man that talked like a white man… Illinois elected Barry to U.S. Senate. The Democrats had already began scrubbing Barry’s back ground when Ryan dropped out.

    Phil, Barry’s boy friend from Occidental, was found working in California as a communications specialist (receptionist) for a dental hygienist school and given a diploma from Columbia and cover story. The rest of Barry’s drug friends were all given jobs or money by the Democrat machine to keep quiet.

    Because Barry was such a news maker as the only Black in the Senate, and he could speak like a white man he was made key speaker for the Democrat convention. Barry then decided to run for President to keep the lie going. No one thought to question Barry’s back ground in the Democrt party… They helped cover up the ugly back ground. The only person jumping up and down warning Barry was not who he claimed to be was Alan Keys and he was discarded as just an angry loser.

    Now we have a complete fraud sitting in the Office of the President. Clearly the most corrupt, inexperienced, and ignorant President in the history of the United States who’s only quality is that he can lie with a straight face.

    Barry Soetoro is as much of a fraud as Bernie Madoff and his house of cards will soon fall down.

  19. Obama has released his supposed long form BC. Hmmmm………He’s going to speak soon. Hmmmmm……

    Click to access birth-certificate-long-form.pdf

    • Thanks for the link, Nancy. As you can see, it’s as bogus as can be.

      They had that exact same security paper in 1961?

      Why did they cut off the section where the certification goes on the ORIGINAL document?

      Where’s the embossed seal?

      What’s up with that surrounding framework, as if it’s on a roll? So was it supposedly on a roll of microfilm? If so, then WHY did Fukino say it’s in a “bound BOOK” in a vault on the first floor of the HDOH?

      When did he get it and how, considering that CNN just told us and the Attorney General’s spokesperson also told us that nobody can get a long-form anymore? If you believe the stamp, Onaka certified the BACKGROUND paper two days ago.

      Why doesn’t it resemble the Nordyke birth certificates? It should, since it was created, supposedly, the same week. Which leads to the next question:

      WHEN was this birth certificate created?

      David A. Smilam Sinclair (conveniently dead; see link below) was the doctor? I thought Babs Nelson told us it was Dr. Rodney West.

      Why didn’t he release it to the court, to SAVE LTC LAKIN’S CAREER AND HIS FAMILY’S SECURITY? That’s the bottom line.

      I saw a little of his live news conference, but the station cut away before he said much. All I did notice was the self-satisfied, belligerent, in-your-face smirk and his meme about needing to address more important things like the economy. HOWEVER, I did notice it looks as if he hadn’t slept all night. Big bags and circles under his eyes.

      They think they’re going to make fools of us because they’ll all say, “See, we told you that ‘birthers’ will question the long-form when it’s released.”

      But they deliberately put out a questionable document. This is 2008 redux. CNN set it up yesterday, when they said the long-form copies won’t be certified anymore. So, you see, this DIGITAL IMAGE has no evidentiary value. It’s a DIGITAL image AND it isn’t vouched for as authentic by the State of Hawaii.

      Post & Email has a story:

      • If you look closely (zoom in), there’s something that’s apparently supposed to be an embossed seal, that crosses over the background framing and the “document” itself (bottom left of the supposed certificate). It looks less like an official seal than on the original bogus COLB. Even I can see that the “stamp” was not stamped upon any paper but was photoshopped onto this image. Are they going to present the actual paper, now, to any of the courts or to anybody in the lamestream media? Will the WH let us visit it or only FactCheck phonies? They could put it on display at the Smithsonian, for example.

      • And…it was accepted by the registrar on Aug 8. The Nordykes were accepted on August 11. And STILL the file number is bigger on Obamas.

  20. Well, I hope Trump doesn’t let up now, because something’s amiss again. Guess what, no authentic long form either. Where’s the seal? I could print this one out. I think this was O’s best attempt ,hoping to squelch anymore investigations. I really think someone has hit on some facts or scenerios that are very near to getting to the truth and O is scared the real facts might be uncovered. On FOX this morning, I heard Obama’s little simple rant,that this is silliness,and of course an air of vindictiveness at Trump and who ever else is against him. I think we got a scared President. NancyDrew ‘s piece was downright so plausible and it is getting quite uncomfortable for the usurper. I have a suspicion that Ole Willy (this time as in William Ayers is reading here and maybe has even posted here.)
    Now with the newly touted birth certificate, it is not the time to let this matter go. Too much has been unearthed already.Information is swirling round and round . Your fact finding missions are paying off. Now is the time to push hard. Make O slip up or get pissed off at the American public. I think I detected in his short speech this morning his his angst. He’s saying leave me alone, bug off or I’ll sharpen my teeth and bite you. He of course this morning didn’t show us those pearly whites as his lips were more pursed and angry.

    • Oh Alf ! Today we get Breakfast in America ! What fun !
      Unveiling Of A New Birth Certificate ? Is This Real ? | Wtpotus Research Blog#comments#comments
      Renee | April 27, 2011 at 8:04 am | Reply
      11am today ! Breakfast in America !

  21. The race is listed as African, which I remember someone who did research on this when the COLB came out. They did not use “African” for race at all. Only had specific things that they would use. I think during that time period it was either colored or Negro. Can’t remember. It was one of the two.

    • Dr. David A. Sinclair, 81, of Honolulu , a retired physician, died Aug. 20, 2003, at home. He was born in Portland , Ore. He is survived by wife Ivalee; sons David, Karl and Brian; daughters Margaret Peterson, Rebekah Luke and Ruth and Katherine Sinclair; 11 grandchildren; and one great-grandchild. Services: 5:30 p.m. Wednesday at Central Union Church Atherton Chapel. Call after 4:30 p.m. Aloha attire. No flowers. Donations suggested to Alzheimer’s Association of Hawaii.

      From Post & Email.

    • Do you see how clever they are? They have the keypunch coding there. Obviously, 1 is for Caucasian. So now we need to figure out what 9 is for. It’s not Kenyan, East African. My guess would be that it’s “other”, but that’s not what his bogus COLB says, is it?

      Video of Barry at that link. LOTS of blinking going on when he talks about where he was born. Lots of ridiculing. He says he watched as the issue unfolded “with bemusement.” Gee, was he similarlly BEMUSED when he SENT A PATRIOT WHO SERVED THIS COUNTRY FOR OVER 17 YEARS IN THE ARMED FORCES TO PRISON RATHER THAN TO SHOW THAT MAN THIS SUPPOSED REAL DOCUMENT? What does that say about the kind of person this “president” is?

      “The president criticized what he characterized as a recent focus on ‘side shows’ and ‘carnival barkers. … We do not have time for this kind of silliness,’ he said.”

      “SILLINESS” to expect all candidates for the presidency to PROVE eligibility? He should know ALL about side shows, seeing as he himself has always been a “carnival barker.” In other words, a flim-flam man. He’s a phony, a fraud, a fake, just like this second of two bogus supposed authentic documents. Since Onaka stamped that document, then I dare anybody in the press to get THAT MAN ON CAMERA AND ASK HIM TO CONFIRM THAT WHAT’S ON THAT PAPER IS LEGALLY TRUE, AUTHENTIC, AND HE WOULD SWEAR TO IT UNDER OATH. They won’t ask and he won’t say. This is why all you see is Fukino, a FORMER official, talking on camera. The new head of the HDOH declines to speak.


      btw, so now, if that bc is authentic, all we need is proof that he’s the person whose information it is.

  22. The document that Obama released today says that it is an “abstract” of the record on file. We want the copy of the Record on File!

    The White House pdf file – larger view

    Click to access birth-certificate-long-form.pdf

  23. This is a sideshow…what a joke! Will Trump be the one to call it a fraud or forgery?

    The statement is a joke too..3 years later it finally became a distraction so he releases another forgery!

    “The President believed the distraction over his birth certificate wasn’t good for the country. It may have been good politics and good T.V., but it was bad for the American people and distracting from the many challenges we face as a country,” White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer said in a statement.”

    • Sharon at Post & Email said Trump was going to have a news conference. It may already have taken place. It is a sideshow by a carnival barker. It is a joke and would be funny, except that it’s so serious. As I said, 2008 redux and the press will run with it. I saw this on the morning news. Very early. The two local anchors had a dismissive attitude. I couldn’t tell whether they were disgusted that they had been ordered to cover it or what. They are usually somewhat conservative. I think all were under orders. This is probably what Shepard Smith was talking about last evening. They “confirmed” it because they got the heads up early on. And so now, as with the BOGUS COLB, they’ll say this is real. This is the end of the story. He’s legit, when of course he’s not.


  24. Why the difference in numbers? Why doesn’t it look like Miki Booth’s?

    The document released today bears the certificate number 151 61 10641 and can be found on the White House website here.

    The COLB presented by inn 2008 shows only a close-up of the number which cannot be confirmed as belonging to the paper document. That number is 151 1961-010641.

  25. They are right..we aren’t buying anything from the flim flam man!

  26. Guess what, folks? It’s a forgery. Go here:

    So here’s a few nutty points about the birth certificate sure to be seized upon by the nonbelievers:

    • If the original document was in a bound volume (as reflected by the curvature of the left hand side of the certificate), how can the green patterned background of the document’s safety paper be so seamless?

    • Why, if Obama was born on August 4, 1961, was the “Date Accepted by Local Reg.” four days later on August 8, 1961?

    • What is the significance of the smudges in the box containing the name of the reported attendant?

    • David A. Sinclair, the M.D. who purportedly signed the document, died nearly eight years ago at age 81. So he is conveniently unavailable to answer questions about Obama’s reported birth.

    • In the “This Birth” box there are two mysterious Xs above “Twin” and “Triplet.” Is there a sibling or two unaccounted for?

    • What is the significance of the mysterious numbers, seen vertically, on the document’s right side?

    • Finally, the “Signature of Local Registrar” in box 21 may be a desperate attempt at establishing the document’s Hawaiian authenticity. Note to forgers: It is spelled “Ukulele.”

    You can see exactly what they are talking about in the Adobe.

  27. Trump said he and others are still going to have to assess the document’s authenticity. We’re “going to look at it. We have to see if it’s real, if it’s proper,” Trump said. But he added that he’s “sure it’s the right deal” and is looking forward to moving on to more important issues such as OPEC and China.

    “You’re going to have many people looking at it …. It’s amazing that all of a sudden it materializes. Experts will look at it … and I’m very proud that I was able to bring this to a point.”

  28. btw, this PROVES that he’s not eligible to be POTUS. He’s NOT a “natural born” citizen. His legal father was NOT a US citizen, NOT even a US permanent resident, NOT even an aspiring immigrant. He was born a British subject, later was a Kenyan citizen, and later became an Indonesian citizen. As Professor Gaski of Notre Dame says, he may not even be a US citizen today, but he held at least dual citizenship AT BIRTH. He may still be Barry Soetoro, legally, an Indonesian citizen.

    All I can think of, considering that Barry looks like he had a long, sleepless night, is that Trump really shook them up asking for the school records. THOSE will PROVE whether or not he was, perhaps still is, an Indonesian citizen after the age of majority. HOW did a poor student get into schools like Columbia and Harvard Law School? The only way is if the skids were greased with a HUGE donation to the schools. BY WHOM? That’s the question.

    WHY did they cauterize the passport files, otherwise? Now we see the long-form. So what’s EMBARRASSING on it? NOTHING! So what was being cauterized in the passport files? It can only be that post-long-form BC, he got adopted, his name and citizenship were changed, AND he traveled on a foreign passport (maybe more than one) multiple times after the age at which he SHOULD HAVE affirmed his US citizenship and rejected, formally and legally, any foreign citizenships. My guess is that when he went to Kenya in 1983, he traveled there on a foreign passport.


  29. White House releases Obama ‘birth certificate’
    Cites Kapiolani as location, father’s race as ‘African’

    April 27, 2011

    The White House confirmed the document as “proof positive” the president was born in Hawaii.

    Obama, addressing the White House press corps, said, “Normally, I would not comment on something like this.”

    The Washington Times described Obama as “visibly frustrated” and noted that a recent CBS News-New York Times poll showed 45 percent of registered Republican voters believe Obama was not born in the U.S. [And how many DemocRats? ]

    “I know that there’s going to be a segment of people for which, no matter what we put out, this issue will not be put to rest, but I’m speaking to the vast majority of the American people,” Obama said. “We do not have time for this kind of silliness. We’ve got better stuff to do. I’ve got better stuff to do.”

    Obama was scheduled today to travel to Chicago to appear on the Oprah television show. Then on to 3 fund raisers! He is getting on to he business of the country..! This is his Better “stuff” to do!

  30. Nordyke Twins BC

    A close examination of the birth certificates issued by Kapi’olani to the Nordyke twins shows the registration number precedes the number given Obama, even though the future president was born a day earlier.

    Susan Nordyke was born at 2:12 p.m. Hawaii time and was given No. 151 – 61 – 10637, which was filed with the Hawaii registrar Aug. 11, 1961.

    Gretchen Nordyke followed at 2:17 p.m. and was given No. 151 – 61 – 10638, which was also filed with the Hawaii registrar Aug. 11, 1961.


    They can’t even get their lies (or as they call them “facts”) straight. First paragraph of press release:
    “In 2008, in response to media inquiries, the President’s campaign requested his birth certificate from the state of Hawaii. The state sent the campaign the President’s birth certificate, the same legal documentation provided to all Hawaiians as proof of birth in state, and the campaign immediately posted it on the internet. That birth certificate can be seen here (PDF).”

    Click to access birth-certificate.pdf

    That’s the link and now they put it on the WH website. It looks totally different from FTS, Daily Kos, FactCheck in that it’s not green. No background crosshatching AT ALL. WTF is this supposed to be?

    BUT THE FACT PROBLEM: In response to media questions they ASKED FOR THE BC IN 2008 and immediately put it on the Web? Uh, the COLB put on the Web was REQUESTED IN 2007!!!! In June, 2007! Unless somebody’s lying. That can’t be, can it?

  32. Allow me to add that THAT COLB on the WH website is ALSO invalid because it says it is! It has been altered–no background AND no BC#. Sheesh.

  33. “But we’re not going to be able to do it if we are distracted. We’re not going to be able to do it if we spend time vilifying each other. We’re not going to be able to do it if we just make stuff up and pretend that facts are not facts. We’re not going to be able to solve our problems if we get distracted by sideshows and carnival barkers.”

    That’s a quote from Barry, the barker. Alinsky 101. Vilify. Distract. Make stuff up. Pretend facts are not facts. Well, in the Obamanation, they aren’t FACTS.

  34. More from the WH spokesperson:
    “The President believed the distraction over his birth certificate wasn’t good for the country. It may have been good politics and good TV, but it was bad for the American people and distracting from the many challenges we face as a country.”

    He believed it wasn’t good for the country, so he let it go on for over three years. It was distracting, but he let it go on for over three years. You know who it wasn’t good for? LTC LAKIN AND HIS FAMILY. So why did Barry let this bad distraction go on for over three years, while he spent millions to keep from showing it to any court and WHILE HE SENT A PATRIOT TO PRISON SIMPLY FOR ASKING FOR THIS PROOF, WHICH BARRY CLAIMS HE HAD ALL ALONG?

  35. Wendell Goler, on Fox News (April 27, 2011 8:00 am PDT) said “the White House surprised us this morning by announcing the President had asked the state of Hawaii nearly a week ago to release the long form of his birth certificate. The document arrived last night and reporters were shown it this morning with the embossed seal of the state of Hawaii. Copies were passed out as well.”

    h/t Birdy at Post & Email.

  36. Supposedly a letter was sent from the White House to the DOH requesting the brand new COLB. Someone do a FOIA request for that letter! Anyone else read or hear this? I don’t know where I read it or if I heard Rush say it.

    Rush said that now Trump will be known for two things, “You are Fired” and “I Won!”

    Rush also said that Wolf Blitzer had seen Obama’s college records and that they were good. Now Wolf has to come up with how he saw them when they were sealed!

    “Trump does not eat crow, he eats other people’s lunches,” Rush Limbaugh said on his show today.

  37. Why wait?
    W.H.: Myth resurfaced ‘recently’
    By ABBY PHILLIP | 04/27/11 10:14 AM Updated: 04/27/11 1:12 PM

    A long copy of President Obama’s original birth certificate is now online for the world to see, but the question remains: Why wait?

    White House counsel Bob Bauer told reporters on Wednesday that Obama’s short-form certificate, which the so-called birthers had discounted as insufficient legal proof of the Obama’s birth, was the only legal document issued by Hawaii’s Department of Health after 1980.

    The White House is also claiming that until now, the status of Obama’s birth was not in question. “There was never an issue that that wasn’t a birth certificate from any credible media outlet,” White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer told reporters. “That was good enough for everyone until very recently.”

    Unmentioned was Donald Trump’s recent rise in polls and media coverage as the real estate mogul stoked the conspiracy theory that Obama wasn’t born in the United States.

    According to the documents the White House provided online, a request was first made for Obama’s “long form” certificate on April 22, less than a week ago. That request, by Obama’s personal counsel, Judith Corley of the Perkins Coie firm, was accompanied by a letter requesting two copies of the document from the president himself.

    After Hawaii public health officials waived the state’s documentation rules in recognition of Obama’s status as president, Corley returned from Hawaii with the documents Tuesday night.

    • Get Corley’s airline tickets and proof she was in Hawaii, along with her hotel records. Using the attorneys to make this sound authentic is a ruse.

      • What’s so slick about this is that they will be said to have handed it to her, so there’s no proof of delivery. No envelopes. No receipts. No payment for it, because it was done as a courtesy. One would think that Abercrombie might have waived this a long time ago. It’s all so bogus. Barry said there’s a segment who won’t believe it no matter what they put out. Well, yes. That’s true, so I suppose that explains them putting out an obviously fake “document.” Now, if we believe Wendell Goler, the press saw the REAL DEAL with the embossed seal. Considering that the press has been avoiding even learning the evidence for the past 3 years, is the press able to VET a document like that for authenticity? I think not. The embossed seal isn’t even visible on the digital image. By design, no doubt. Hey, where’s his birth weight?

        • Miki Booth’s BC is in the Photos above, but it is hard to see for comparison. I took it from her Facebook page awhile ago. She got it in March. The color is different. Will see if I can find a better photo.

          Here is one that was released in 1981 for Alan Booth

  38. Press Lies on Obama Eligibility Get Louder
    April 27

    But no matter where Obama was born, he is not a natural born citizen of the United States and that makes him not only a total fraud, but a usurper of the U.S. Constitution as well.

    This crime cannot stand in America. Sooner or later, no matter the massive media effort to silence the questions, the truth will be known. The more they work to conceal the truth, the more painful the truth will be when it is finally known.

    With the fraud successful, there is no easy way out of this corner. May God give Americans the strength to right this wrong and turn this nation away from the cliff! I join my dear friends in prayer for my country!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s