Barack Obama is possibly the son of cousins, Stanley Ann Dunham and Frank Marshall Davis — and Hawaiian royalty — perhaps heir to the Hawaiian throne.
Obama called himself “king Obama” while a student in the late 1970s. Barack Obama carved his name in the pavement outside the cafeteria of Punahou School.
Imagine the Hawaiian Homestead lands and the Hawaiian Crown Lands are like an insular government. It’s an insular foreign government found on U.S. soil in a way. But the trust and treaty say that land is under the local foreign government’s jurisdiction. Much like a Native American reservation.
MORE reason to suspect FMD has the bloodline, too. Possibly Obama is VERY closely related or he wouldn’t have had the help and motivation to do what he’s done! Possibly both his mother and father are part of the bloodline.
“My mom not being an arranged birth like my grandpa and grandma–makes me not from that origin of Papa and Wakea.”
Arranged birth, possibly, this is what happened with BHO!
The point is that the Crown Lands and Homestead lands are SOVEREIGN without the rest of the state being sovereign.
There’s a hawaiian tradition of Hanai, an adoption of royal children at birth to other chiefs and family. Most often to GRANDPARENTS for raising. All of the last queen’s ten siblings were adopted out in a hanai.
It’s the Homestead Lands and Crown Lands that are under their own government that’s important to understand.
I think Obama was born, perhaps, on some of that land.
Emma Dunham could be related to the Dunhams. I think SAD is the mother and in the tradition of hanai, his grandparents mostly raised BHO. However, I think F M DAVIS is the biological father with the bloodline, too. Possibly BHO Sr. was chosen as a ’second father’ in the Tradition of Queen Ruth, because of his indigenous ties to the luo tribe and experience with colonialization. Possibly BHO Sr. was adopted into the tribe in the tradition of hanai too while he was a student in Hawaii.
About Emma Bernice Bishop Dunham, born April 7, 1861, at Drytown, California-died Jan. 19,1924 at oakland, california (from Mormon website). Only had one sibling that lived to adulthood-George Lewis Dunham. Please note Gabriella Clark, on Obama family tree Chicago Sun-Times, born 1877. Question: could she be hanai? Notice Harry Ellington Armour’s mother’s name? Anne? Just conjecture–completely tinfoil–if Gabriella is Emma Bernice’s hanai, then Stanley Armour Dunham has a name that traces the connection. In this scenerio the unknown Anne would trace back to Elizabeth Davis, who I am guessing would trace back to Caroline Elizabeth Gilliland who could be related to Bernice Paki. Brother’s marrying sisters? it happened a lot back then.
It especially happened with the Hawaiian Royals.
Remember the act where they were trying to give those of foreign birth Hawaiian birth certificates?? Obama could theoretically have been born anywhere in the world, but had familial lines in Hawaii and would be considered native Hawaiian, and thus a Natural born American citizen as defined by Hawaiians.
A Hawaiian can collect additional names with age. The name given at birth might reflect prophesy or a hope that the child will grow to develop certain qualities. As they grow and change, Hawaiians are sometimes given new names in addition to their first name as their circumstances change throughout life.
As with King Kamehameha, his first name was Pai’ea, which meant crab, because he would cling to his caregiver like a crab. Once he became more outgoing, he was called Kamehameha because of his brassy qualities. He carried both names throughout his life, and collected many more along the way. ”
“The Hawaiian language is based on about 200 words, which makes naming a child tricky. A parent has to be careful when choosing the name to avoid a “kaona” (pronounced “cow-na”), or hidden meaning”
Remember how it was pointed out that Lolo’s name meant ‘Crazy’ or ‘crazy head’ or something like that?
Islamic Tactics of Taqqiya teaches Muslims to practise Deception , Fraud & Double Standards to spread Islam…
Frank Marshall Davis and the Dunhams were from Kansas.
Remember obama has left a record carved in concrete. It says, “king obama”.
(What does all this mean? I guess it could possibly mean obama was born in Hawaii but not in the state of Hawaii. He could have been born on “tribal land” and is possibly some kind of descendant of the royal hawaiian family or something. If so it means he again is not a US citizen because he was not born in this country. This is speculation but hey we have a “record in concrete”. A concrete record written by obama himself declaring his royal roots. If this is true it wouldn’t suprise me because obama is a con man after all.
Obama Has No kindergarden records from Ms. Sakai’s kindergarten class at Noelani Elementary School in 1967.
Born within hours of Obama according to Eleanor Nordyke, their names should be just
below obama's
The picture is from Winifred (Wakai) Otaguro, who was in Ms. Sakai’s kindergarten class at Noelani Elementary School in 1967. Otaguro’s mother, Betty Wakai, had written the names of most of the kids in the class on the back of the picture. Her writing identifies the first little boy in the third row as “Barry Obama.” Obama’s sister Maya Soetoro-Ng confirms that the boy is Obama, however, the Department of Education has been unable to find his records.
Obama began his education in Hawaii’s public schools. He was enrolled in Ms. Sakai’s kindergarten class at Noelani Elementary School in 1967. He was only there a couple or three months before he was off to Indonesia.
The two white girls in the same row are probably the Nordyke twins. They were not identical twins, but they did have the same smile. They were born the same time as Obama. Their their birth announcement is missing. Twins, being born to a prominent physician is news. What happened to the space their birth announcement was in.
We are expected to believe that Vital Statistics included Obama’s name on their announcement list, and forgot the Nordyke Twins? Odd?
Born within hours of Obama according to Eleanor Nordyke, their names should be here:
Born within hours of Obama according to Eleanor Nordyke, their names should be here just below obama's but for some strange reason are not?
Obama’s Noelani Elementary School Kindergarten records, oddly missing from the the State of Hawaii Department of Education, is the first in a series of “coincidences.”
This is an very important because Kindergarten records for original school entry would have contained the following:
1. Obama’s REAL Long Form Birth Certificate.
2. An application with the following:
• His Legal name.
• Parents or Legal Guardians’ names.
• Date of Birth
• Place of Birth
• Vaccination Records (revealing a timeline to the place and DOB.)
The Department of Education does not “lose” the records of one “particular student”.
In kindergarden there would have been NO shameful low-test scores, NO embarrassing Equal Opportunity advancements, and NO trails of fraudulent funding to hide what could possibly “excuse” the disapperance of public school Kindergarten entry records. There would be only:
• His Legal name.
• Parents or Legal Guardians’ names.
• Date of Birth
• Place of Birth
• Vaccination Records (revealing a timeline to the place and DOB.)
Which would be very revealing.
Hawaii should be able to verify he attended their school since he is featured in class photographs. Why is there no documentation?
Obama joked during the primary campaign that his opponent (Hillary) was even digging into his Kindergarten records. He knows what they would contain and why they must be kept unavailable.
The elephant in the room in a BIG NO RECORD. Obama’s life is a NO RECORD.
If it was just his kindergarden records missing it would be different but its ALL his education records and any other documentation that could verify who he is.
This in itself is beyond ODD. The fact the national news media, dnc and all of congress have ignored this fact is beyond ODD also.
Obama has produced nothing to prove who he is except a “certification of live birth” from Hawaii that can’t be confirmed by the public. The “colb” produced by obama has not been certified by an Hawwain registrar. It contains no signatures, no hospital, no doctor and no parents signatures. It is worthless as evidence obama is who he says he is. It is worthless in verifying where obama was born. Just because an Hawaiian offical states she has seen his original colb means nothing also. It is only a statement that CAN’T BE CONFIRMED by anyone! Who is obama? What is obama?
A quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military. The proceedings shall be deemed a civil action.
Chapter 35 SUBCHAPTER I
ACTIONS AGAINST OFFICERS OF THE UNITED STATES
§ 4.19 STANDING — PRIVATE PERSONS SUING IN OWN NAME UNDER STATUTES PERMITTING WITH LEAVE OF COURT
It is now fairly common for states by statute or court rule to allow private individuals, under certain circumstances at least, to bring actions in quo warranto (or its modern equivalent) with leave granted by court.’
Frequently by statute or rule the individual seeking leave must be an “interested person.”
Other courts have often said that “a person who has no greater interest than the public generally cannot maintain an action….”4 Generally claimants to the public office involved have been accepted as “interested persons,”5 and there has been expressed at times the unfortunate notion that only such claimants are “specially interested.”6
Statutes authorizing private persons to bring quo warranto in their own names customarily require them to post security for costs.17
§ 4.21 STANDING – PRIVATE PERSONS BRINGING IN OWN NAME UNDER STATUTES AUTHORIZING SAME AFTER ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS REFUSED TO BRING ACTION
Statutes and rules of court in a number of jurisdictions permit private individuals to bring quo warranto, either in their own name or in the name of the state, after they have requested the attorney general to commence such action and he has refused.l
Notwithstanding the unqualified language of the statutes, e.g. “a private person,” “any citizen,” “any elector”, courts operating under these statutes have been inclined to rule that persons generally cannot bring quo warranto under these statutes, but that the action can be brought only by individuals with special interests.2
The appellate courts add: “The private interest alleged must be directly, substantially and adversely affected by the action sought to be challenged in the quo warranto proceeding. The damage to that private interest must be then occurring or certain to occur; the petitioner cannot rely on an expected damage to his private interest.” Significantly, the court adds that “the private interest of one citizen may be an interest shared by other members of the community for purposes of establishing quo warranto standing.”6
§ 4.26 THE INITIAL PLEADING OF THE APPLICANT – THE COMPLAINT, PETITION OR INFORMATION
Generally, as in other civil actions, the initial pleading of an applicant for quo warranto or its statutory equivalent is denominated a complaint.1 Occasionally it is referred to as a petition,2 or an information.3
When the attorney general brings the action in quo warranto in vindication of a public right, it has customarily only been necessary that he allege in general terms that the defendant is unlawfully usurping a public office or franchise, there being no need to set forth the particular facts.4 Even when a private individual is bringing this kind of action to vindicate public rights, it has not ordinarily been necessary for him to do more than allege the defendant was usurping the public office or franchise without lawful authority.5 The rule permitting such broad pleading has often been criticized, and modern statutes have been drawn so as to require greater specificity.6
When an individual is the real party in interest in bringing action for quo warranto, his pleading must positively, with certainty and specificity set forth the facts on which he relies.7 They must be set forth clearly and without ambiguity,8 sufficient to indicate the unlawful nature of the defendant’s actions.9 Legal conclusions are not sufficient.10 In some states the complaint must allege that the individual seeking relief has a private interest in the matter and that the action sought to be challenged by quo warranto has harmed that interest.11When an individual making application for quo warranto is able, as under many statutes, to assert his own claim to the office occupied by the incumbent defendant, the plaintiff must set forth facts indicating his own right to the office.12
(Record Master)
Who can allege their interests were harmed? Who has a private interest? Who can assert their own claim to the office occupied by the incumbent defendent? Who can set forth the facts and is considered a “real party” in interest in bringing action for quo warranto?
SARAH PALIN
She is an individual that is the real party in interest in bringing action for quo warranto.
Sara Palin could file a complaint/petition via the federal quo warranto statute at 16-3501:
“A quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military. The proceedings shall be deemed a civil action.”
Leo D.
As you can see, the statute is very specific. The office of President is in the District of Columbia. The District Court for the District of Columbia is the only court which has the authority to hear a quo warranto complaint to remove a US national office holder from the District of Columbia .
The only remaining statute which controls quo warranto is the District of Columbia Code. And all actions brought thereunder must be brought in the District Court for the District of Columbia.
Judge Carter: “The writ of quo warranto must be brought within the District of Columbia because President Obama holds office within that district.”
………………………………………………………………………………………………………. C. Quo Warranto Claims (Judge Carter Ruling)
Plaintiffs encourage the Court to issue a quo warranto writ against President Obama
challenging the President’s right to hold his office. The Complaint recognizes that the District of Columbia would be the appropriate district in which to bring this writ, but alleges that bringing this request to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia would be futile because the United States Attorney is biased and Judge Robertson within that district had already rejected a similar case in which President Obama’s qualifications were challenged.
Compl. ¶¶ 32 – 35.
The writ of quo warranto must be brought within the District of Columbia because
President Obama holds office within that district. The quo warranto provision codified in the District of Columbia Code provides, “A quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military.” D.C. Code §§ 16-3501 – 16-3503. Should a person other than the Attorney General of the United States or the United States Attorney wish to bring a quo warranto claim, that person must receive leave of court to do so. Id. at § 16-3502. This leave of court must be granted, according to the text of the statute, by the District Court for the District of Columbia.
At oral argument, Plaintiffs encouraged the Court to apply the District of Columbia’s quo
warranto statute pursuant to California choice-of-law provisions because the District of
Columbia is the residence of Defendants. Plaintiffs’ contention is wholly misplaced because,
while this Court can apply the law of other jurisdictions where appropriate, it is precluded from robbing the D.C. court of jurisdiction as to any quo warranto writ against President Obama because the D.C. Code grants exclusive jurisdiction to the District Court for the District of Columbia. Plaintiffs’ quo warranto demand is hereby DISMISSED for improper venue.
Congress is the branch the Constitution empowers to remove a sitting President. The power to judicially enforce any review of POTUS eligibility is a pre-requisite to judicial involvement as the federal courts do not have the power to issue simple advisory opinions. A declaratory judgment is more than an advisory opinion. This is because a declaratory judgment must have the power of enforcement attached whereas an advisory opinion does not.
The declaratory judgment requests of plaintiffs in the Barnett case had to be dismissed because the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to grant the requested relief. It’s really that simple. Judge Carter’s analysis of this issue was perfect.
QUO WARRANTO
Because a quo warranto is the only proper action to review the eligibility of a sitting President – and because such an action requires a trial of facts – Congress empowered the DC District Court to hold such a trial (by jury if requested by either party) when the eligibility of the President (or any US national office holder) is called into question.
There is no political question doctrine defense available to a sitting President for a quo warranto brought in the DC District Court. This is because Congress properly exercised its Constitutional authority to review a President’s eligibility via the quo warranto statute which also provides for the removal of an ineligible person from that office if necessary.
The US Attorney General and the US attorney have been empowered by Congress to institute a quo warranto on their own volition. Furthermore, any person may request that these officers do the same. If consent is not given by the DOJ, section 3503 of the quo warranto statute allows an “interested person” to petition the DC District Court on its own. The Barnett plaintiffs failed to avail themselves of this option.
Additionally, the Department of Justice has created a genuine conflict of interest as to 3502 requests by any “third person” (meaning any citizen). By defending the President in this eligibility litigation involving quo warranto, it isn’t possible for the Department of Justice to remain impartial.
Therefore, either a special prosecutor must be named for purposes of allowing the Congressional intent of the quo warranto statute to be realized, or the DC District Court may waive the requirement and examine any verified petition on its own consent.
The conflict will eventually be tested in the DC District Court.
JUDGE CARTER DID NOT HOLD THAT QUO WARRANTO WAS IMPROPER TO CHALLENGE THE ELIGIBILITY OF A SITTING PRESIDENT.
This was the most extraordinary part of today’s ruling. It opens the door wide for a proper eligibility challenge in the DC District Court where the hurdle for standing is different from ordinary federal cases.
Please take note that the Department of Justice attorneys argued before Judge Carter that quo warranto – even if brought properly in the DC District Court – could not be used to challenge the eligibility of a sitting President. Judge Carter’s ruling did not support the Department of Justice position.
The ruling today affirms that the proper venue for challenging the eligibility of a sitting President is the DC District Court.
This is a very encouraging ruling for those contemplating a quo warranto challenge to President Obama’s eligibility in the DC District Court.
Here is Judge Carter’s correct ruling on the quo warranto issue:
C. Quo Warranto Claims…
The writ of quo warranto must be brought within the District of Columbia because President Obama holds office within that district. The quo warranto provision codified in the District of Columbia Code provides, “A quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military.” D.C. Code §§ 16-3501 – 16-3503. Should a person other than the Attorney General of the United States or the United States Attorney wish to bring a quo warranto claim, that person must receive leave of court to do so. Id. at § 16-3502. This leave of court must be granted, according to the text of the statute, by the District Court for the District of Columbia.
Nothing in today’s ruling appears to question the power of the DC District Court to issue a writ of quo warranto to President Obama which would require him to prove his eligibility to hold the office of President. I must commend Judge Carter for his exercise of judicial restraint on this issue. (Leo Donofrio)
………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
(Record Master)
Sarah Palin could today bring obama to his knees if she would petition the DC District Court by using the Quo Warranto Federal Law In Washington DC.
Sarah Palin can challenge obama as an ursurper to the office of the President and succeed.
Sarah why have you not done this? I have not heard you speak of any challenge to Obama.
America is waiting for you to take action.
America needs you to seek to remove obama because he was not a natural born citizen at birth.
You have standing with the DC District Court through Quo Warranto.
“The Attorney General of the United States or the United States attorney may institute a proceeding pursuant to this subchapter on his own motion…”
“By virtue of their position, they, at their discretion and acting under the sense of official responsibility, can institute such proceedings in any case they deem proper.”
“IN ANY CASE THEY DEEM PROPER.”
- There is no qualification that there be a certain amount of evidence one way or the other.
- There is no qualification that the officials must consider public opinion or political party affiliation.
- There is no “standing” to prove. If your title is US Attorney General or United States attorney, you have standing.
- There is no need to consult with Congress because, as SCOTUS noted in their opinion, Congress has already acted on the issue by enacting the quo warranto statute.
All that is required is that the official deems a quo warranto statute proper. His discretion is unassailable judicially.
Even if both officials are convinced Obama is eligible, it’s still proper for them institute a quo warranto proceeding because the evidence emerging now is that, by leaving the controversy as is, a floodgate of litigation will ensue. And like the waters over New Orleans levees, this floodgate has the ability to wreak havoc on our nation.
Regardless of whether one believes Obama’s online COLB is real, no citizen can tell the Government to check a web site for their birth certificate rather than bring it in to the DMV or send it to the federal Government for a passport. You have to actually mail your BC in to them if you don’t bring it in person.
I recognize that the Constitution does not require a birth certificate as a qualification, but that’s not the issue anymore.
The issue is whether the Attorney General and/or a United States attorney deems it proper for Obama to provide the same proof of identity as ordinary citizens in order to avoid FORESEEABLE complications which are destined to rot public faith.
Obama ought to encourage these officials to institute an action in quo warranto for the good of the nation and for the good of his own legacy.
THREE WAYS TO BRING QUO WARRANTO
1. The US attorney and/or the US Attorney General institute the case on their own motion – which is the best way this could happen. No leave of the court need be requested. There will be a hearing and a trial of facts.
2. If no authorized Government attorneys will bring the action on their own motion, then any citizen may join a law suit as “third persons” and such law suit, by way of verified petition, shall be brought to the US Attorney and/or the Attorney General to ask their consent to use the name of the United States. If the Government gives consent, then you must request permission from the court to bring the suit as well. And if the Court says yes, you will have a hearing on the merits.
3. If the Government will not give consent, then “interested persons” may request leave of the court to institute the action in quo warranto. But standing will be – according to SCOTUS in Newman – restricted to anybody who was ousted from the office of POTUS (and nobody is going to meet that requirement) or, in the alternative there might by cases under the civil service laws which provide standing.
3. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF TITLE 16 CHAPTER 35 (Quo Warranto) OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CODE.
Chapter 35 is entitled “QUO WARRANTO”. Subchapter I is entitled “Actions Against Officers of the United States.” Subchapter II is entitled “Actions Against Officers or Corporations of the District of Columbia“. Please note that the original DC quo warranto statute was first enacted in 1901. While SCOTUS interpreted that statute as controlling national officers, Congress modified the statute in 1963 to its current form which erases any possible doubt that the statute applies to all Officers of the United States.
Furthermore, the District of Columbia Code is federal law. It’s enacted by Congress and the actual United States Constitution is included in the District of Columbia code. I have seen the most erroneous comments online wherein it has been argued that a “local DC code is not federal law”. Besides the ultimate federal law – the Constitution – being placed directly in the DC code, SCOTUS has stated – in the seminal quo warranto DC code case, Newman v. United States ex Rel. Frizzell, 238 U.S. 537 (1915) – that the District Code applies to all…
“…actions in quo warranto instituted by authorized parties against national officers of the United States, they are general laws of the United States, and not merely local laws of the District of Columbia…”
I must reiterate that the code’s text does not provide any exceptions for any public office, not even POTUS.
CONCLUSION: The District of Columbia Code is the only means by which a federal quo warranto action can be instituted and its application is strictly limited to public offices of the United States or local DC offices within the ten square miles of the District of Columbia. No public office, ie POTUS, is exempt by the statute.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Obama Blues: A Parody About The Imposter “O”bama Obama Blues MP3 Right Click, Save As, If You Want A Copy
…………………………………………………………………………………………………….. A pig in a poke
Meaning
An offering or deal that is foolishly accepted without being examined first.
Origin
‘Don’t buy a pig in a poke’ might seem odd and archaic language. It’s true that the phrase is very old, but actually it can be taken quite literally and remains good advice.
The advice being given is ‘don’t buy a pig until you have seen it’. This is enshrined in British commercial law as ‘caveat emptor’ – Latin for ‘let the buyer beware’. This remains the guiding principle of commerce in many countries and, in essence, supports the view that if you buy something you take responsibility to make sure it is what you intended to buy.
A poke is a small sack or bag and is the origin of the word pocket. The word is still in use in several English-speaking countries, notably Scotland and USA. A poke is just the sort of bag that would be useful for carrying a piglet to market.
A pig that’s in a poke may turn out to be no pig at all. If a merchant tried to cheat by substituting a lower value animal, the trick could be uncovered by letting the cat out of the bag. The advice has stood the test of time and people have been repeating it for getting on for five hundred years, maybe longer.
”The phrase “pig in a poke” originated in 16th century London where it stood as the standard warning for consumers buying their future ham feast: “When ye proffer the pigge open the poke.” Traditionally, pig traders would enclose their pigs in a sack as the packaging for sale. Unscrupulous merchants attempting to swindle their buyers would put a cat in the bag instead, hoping the ruse would not be discovered until the purchaser returned home and opened the sack. (Kinda like after the election polls of obama) Smart buyers would therefore heed the warning and check the bag before buying, thus “letting the cat out of the bag.”
……………………………………………………………………………………………………….
This blog is my endeavor to reveal obama as the “pig in the poke”.
Obama’s records are in the “poke”. America has bought the “pig” obama without knowing what really is in the “poke”.
The “poke” is an empty “sack” of records that obama wants you to believe exists.
The “poke” of records are hidden from view. The biggest “poke” is in the DOH in Hawaii or is it?
The big “poke” record is obama’s certificate of live birth long form.
This “poke” has not been made available to the public to view.
The big “poke” has been spoken of by Hawaiian officials.
In effect they have said, Ya we have seen the “poke” and will state that it exists.
Remember the “poke” is a sack that contains the “pig”.
No one except the DOH has stated they have seen the “pig” in the “poke”.
America has bought a pig in the poke. America in effect was told by a fellow buyer ya I have seen what is in the “poke” and it is a “pig”.
America must ask the fellow buyer what kind of “pig” did your see in the “poke”
Was the “pig” big or small? Was the “pig” alive or dead? Was it a “pig” or something else?
The fellow buyer is the Hawaiian DOH. The seller of course is Obama.
America has “bought” a “pig” in the “poke” Obama has sold to them.
America did not examime the “pig” in the “poke” to see if the “pig” was real.
Now America is stuck with an empty SOS in effect to put it bluntly.
Obama is still selling “pigs” in his “pokes” to America.
America is still buying.
As long as America doesn’t insist on seeing Obama’s “pokes” to examine the SOS he is selling, Americans will continue to “purchase” the empty no record of obama.
Obama is a NO RECORD. His “poke” is empty. He sells his records with out America demanding to see the “pig” in the “pokes”.
If America demands Obama open his “poke” in Hawaii, if it really exists, then maybe we can say with certainty that Obama’s “pig” is a real “pig” that if purchased would be worth the money spent.
To date America has only purchased Obama’s SOS which is worthless to America but is priceless to Obama and his fellow communists.
Now you know what a “pig” in a “poke” Obama is because the (Record Master) has let the “Cat Out Of The Bag”.
Congress has not defined “natural born citizen” while they have defined “naturalized citizen” and “citizen by statute”. Since neither the Congress nor the courts have defined “natural born citizen”, we are left without a legal working definition.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………….
(Record Master)
(US District Court Northern California No. C 08-03836WHA) This order finds it highly probable, for the purpose of this motion for provisional relief , that Senator Mccain is a natural born citizen. Judge Alsup referenced 8 U.S.C. 1403 (a) and stated it rectoractively rendered Senator Mccain a “natural born citizen”.
The judge’s order is not valid. 8 U.S.C. 1403 became law on Aug 4, 1937. John Mccain
was born 29 Aug 1936. http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/mccain%20birth.JPG 8 U.S.C. became law a year AFTER Mccain was born. Because Senator John McCain was not a citizen at birth, he is not a “natural born Citizen” and thus is not “eligible to the Office of President” under the Constitution.
Leo Donofrio is correct in stating: Congress has not defined “natural born citizen” while they have defined “naturalized citizen” and “citizen by statute”. Since neither the Congress nor the courts have defined “natural born citizen”, we are left without a legal working definition.
Faced with a sitting President who admits to having been a British citizen at birth, the need for a quo warranto to be instituted is of the utmost importance to the future of this nation.
“The DC District Court”, has the power, “to issue a writ of quo warranto to President Obama which would require him to prove his eligibility to hold the office of President.”
JUDGE CARTER DID NOT HOLD THAT QUO WARRANTO WAS IMPROPER TO CHALLENGE THE ELIGIBILITY OF A SITTING PRESIDENT.
This was the most extraordinary part of today’s ruling. It opens the door wide for a proper eligibility challenge in the DC District Court where the hurdle for standing is different from ordinary federal cases.
QUO WARRANTO
Because a quo warranto is the only proper action to review the eligibility of a sitting President – and because such an action requires a trial of facts – Congress empowered the DC District Court to hold such a trial (by jury if requested by either party) when the eligibility of the President (or any US national office holder) is called into question.
There is no political question doctrine defense available to a sitting President for a quo warranto brought in the DC District Court. This is because Congress properly exercised its Constitutional authority to review a President’s eligibility via the quo warranto statute which also provides for the removal of an ineligible person from that office if necessary.
The US Attorney General and the US attorney have been empowered by Congress to institute a quo warranto on their own volition. Furthermore, any person may request that these officers do the same. If consent is not given by the DOJ, section 3503 of the quo warranto statute allows an “interested person” to petition the DC District Court on its own.
The Department of Justice has created a genuine conflict of interest as to 3502 requests by any “third person” (meaning any citizen). By defending the President in this eligibility litigation involving quo warranto, it isn’t possible for the Department of Justice to remain impartial.
Therefore, either a special prosecutor must be named for purposes of allowing the Congressional intent of the quo warranto statute to be realized, or the DC District Court may waive the requirement and examine any verified petition on its own consent.
The conflict will eventually be tested in the DC District Court.
……………………………………………………………………………. Here is Judge Carter’s correct ruling on the quo warranto issue:
…………………………………………………………………………….
C. Quo Warranto Claims…
The writ of quo warranto must be brought within the District of Columbia because President Obama holds office within that district. The quo warranto provision codified in the District of Columbia Code provides, “A quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military.” D.C. Code §§ 16-3501 – 16-3503. Should a person other than the Attorney General of the United States or the United States Attorney wish to bring a quo warranto claim, that person must receive leave of court to do so. Id. at § 16-3502. This leave of court must be granted, according to the text of the statute, by the District Court for the District of Columbia.
Nothing in today’s ruling appears to question the power of the DC District Court to issue a writ of quo warranto to President Obama which would require him to prove his eligibility to hold the office of President. I must commend Judge Carter for his exercise of judicial restraint on this issue. (Leo Donofrio)
……………………………………………………………………………..
Quo Warranto For “Interested Persons
Section 16-3503 of the federal quo warranto statute allows an “interested person” to approach the DC District Court concerning a quo warranto trial (by jury) without requiring the permission of the US Attorney General or the US Attorney for DC.
An “interested person” may sign a “certified complaint” which states facts and those facts must be sworn to under penalty of perjury. Only facts may be sworn to, not allegations. The “interested person” gathers up all facts known to him/her and puts them in the petition, swears to them under oath and hands that in to the Court. Pretty simple, folks.
One fact which could safely be sworn to is that Obama was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 and that he was – at birth – a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. These are facts admitted by Obama. These facts have never been laid before the DC District Court.
16-3503 states:
If the Attorney General or United States attorney refuses to institute a quo warranto proceeding on the request of a person interested, the interested person may apply to the court by certified petition for leave to have the writ issued. When, in the opinion of the court, the reasons set forth in the petition are sufficient in law, the writ shall be allowed to be issued by any attorney, in the name of the United States, on the relation of the interested person…
All citizens are considered “third persons” under 16-3502, but all citizens don’t have unique standing and therefore 16-3502 requires permission by the Department of Justice to use the name of the US – ex relator – ina quo warranto proceeding.
If you are an “interested person” under 16-3503 – aka a person with unique standing – then you do not need permission from the Department of Justice for the quo warranto.
The DC District Court examines the certified petition prior to allowing the suit to go forth based upon that petition. If the court is satisfied that the person issuing the petition is an “interested person” then that person is not needed any longer for the trial.
Once the name of the United States is allowed to be used, the “interested person” may step off, and the facts alleged are to be tried independently.
The trial is brought against the alleged usurper in the name of the United States.
Quo warranto can only be invoked against somebody holding an office under false title.
Quo warranto only applies to actual usurpation not possible usurpation. It is the legislature’s sole enactment which allows judicial review of the President’s eligibility. And it appears that serious attempts are being made to avoid it. Before going off point and trying to force this issue upon courts which have not been given such authority, an action should have been brought – and still can be – under 16-3503.
The DOJ is now in direct conflict of interest by defending him in the Barnett case. But for 16-3503 their permission is not necessary. The statute says the case may be prosecuted by “any attorney”.
Everyone needs to read this report. It’s truly one of the best articles ever written on the natural born citizen issue. Leo D.
……………………………………………………………………………..
What a citizen can do.
Apply to DOJ is first step. If they refuse and you are an “interested person” then according to 16-3503 you may go before the court without their permission to use the name of the US…if the court finds your petition sufficient in law then the writ will issue and the President will stand trial.
……………………………………………………………………………..
Remember:
All citizens are considered “third persons” under 16-3502, but all citizens don’t have unique standing and therefore 16-3502 requires permission by the Department of Justice to use the name of the US – ex relator – ina quo warranto proceeding.
What a citizen can do.
Apply to DOJ is first step. if they refuse and you are an “interested person” then according to 16-3503 you may go before the court without their permission to use the name of the US…if the court finds your petition sufficient in law then the writ will issue and the President will stand trial.
(Lets All Petition The DOJ as “third persons” under 16-3502 and get permission of the DOJ to use the name of the US in a quo warranto proceeding!)
NOTE HOW TO EXPOSE THE FRAUD OBAMA IN DC COURT!
Section 16-3503 of the federal quo warranto statute allows an “interested person” to approach the DC District Court concerning a quo warranto trial (by jury) without requiring the permission of the US Attorney General or the US Attorney for DC.
An “interested person” may sign a “certified complaint” which states facts and those facts must be sworn to under penalty of perjury. Only facts may be sworn to, not allegations. The “interested person” gathers up all facts known to him/her and puts them in the petition, swears to them under oath and hands that in to the Court. Pretty simple, folks.
One fact which could safely be sworn to is that Obama was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 and that he was – at birth – a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. These are facts admitted by Obama. These facts have never been laid before the DC District Court.
16-3503 states:
If the Attorney General or United States attorney refuses to institute a quo warranto proceeding on the request of a person interested, the interested person may apply to the court by certified petition for leave to have the writ issued. When, in the opinion of the court, the reasons set forth in the petition are sufficient in law, the writ shall be allowed to be issued by any attorney, in the name of the United States, on the relation of the interested person…
All citizens are considered “third persons” under 16-3502, but all citizens don’t have unique standing and therefore 16-3502 requires permission by the Department of Justice to use the name of the US – ex relator – ina quo warranto proceeding.
Don’t get confused. Unless your an intersted person under 16-3503 you need permission to go before the court.
Everybody: 16-3502
Petition The DOJ as “third persons” under 16-3502 and get permission of the DOJ to use the name of the US in a quo warranto proceeding! Then you become an “interested person” and sign a “certified complaint” which states facts and those facts must be sworn to under penalty of perjury. One fact which could safely be sworn to is that Obama was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 and that he was – at birth – a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. These are facts admitted by Obama. These facts have never been laid before the DC District Court.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………….
The landmark case of Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997) has set the precedent that a sitting President is not immune from prosecution for acts committed before taking office.
Obama’s refusal to release his long form ‘Certificate of Live Birth’ original long form from Hawaii, his manipulation of facts, his own statements can only lead a sensible person to believe that he intentionally has mislead the United States of America into a Constitutional Crisis by not verifying his online ‘certification of live birth’. The ‘certification of live birth’ does not contain ANY information that can be verfied with out knowing what documents Hawaii has to back it up, if any.
However, this can now be resolved by the state court of the State of Arizona, if there is one sheriff, one prosecutor, one judge, one state representative loyal to the Constitution, because on December 13, 2007 at 3:01 PM Mountain Time, Barrack Hussein Obama, II fraudulently filed a notarized sworn affidavit in his own hand that declared himself to be a natural born citizen of the United States of America, and that he has fulfilled the requirements under the Constitution. The landmark case of Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997) has set the precedent that a sitting President is not immune from prosecution for acts committed before taking office.
……………………………………………………………………………..
A NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT SIGNED BY OBAMA SWEARING AND CERTIFYING HE IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. HIS SIGNATURE IS ON THIS DOCUMENT TESTIFYING HE IS “A NATURAL BORN U.S. CITIZEN.”
This document is “the smoking gun” because obama has committed fraud by his signature on notarized form A.R.S. 16-242 and swearing he is a NATURAL BORN US CITIZEN. He indicates, “i do solemnly swear I am a natural born U.S. citizen”.
……………………………………………………………………………..
The question now is can America find one honest public servant in Arizona who believes in the supremacy of the US Constitution. Write, Call, Email and Fax these people to Inforce 520 U.S. 681 (1997) precedent that a sitting President is not immune from prosecution for acts committed before taking office.
# U.S. Senator Jon Kyl Junior Seat
# 1st District – U.S. House Representative – Kirkpatrick, Ann (R)
# 2nd District – U.S. House Representative – Franks, Trent (R)
# 3rd District – U.S. House Representative – Shadegg, John (R)
# 4th District – U.S. House Representative – Pastor, Ed (D)
# 5th District – U.S. House Representative – Mitchell, Harry (D)
# 6th District – U.S. House Representative – Flake, Jeff (R)
# 7th District – U.S. House Representative – Grijalva, Raul M. (D)
# 8th District – U.S. House Representative – Giffords, Gabrielle (D)
# Arizona Governor Jan Brewer
# Attorney General Terry Goddard
# Corporation Commissioner Kristin K. Mayes – Chairman
# Corporation Commissioner Gary Pierce
# Corporation Commissioner Paul Newman
# Corporation Commissioner Sandra D. Kennedy
# Corporation Commissioner Bob Stumpl
# Secretary of State Ken Bennett
# State Mine Inspector Joe Hart
# Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne
# Treasurer Dean Martin
I want to know WHY I haven’t heard of any lawyer talking about requesting or filing a lawsuit to force Arizona to explain how the state certified obama’s sworn affidavit in his own hand that declared he is a natural born citizen of the United States of America.
******************************************************************************************
****************************************************************************************** Clinton v. Jones, U.S. Supreme Court Case Summary & Oral Argument
******************************************************************************************
******************************************************************************************
Paula Corbin Jones sued President Bill Clinton. She alleged that while she was an Arkansas state employee, she suffered several “abhorrent” sexual advances from then Arkansas Governor Clinton. Jones claimed that her continued rejection of Clinton’s advances ultimately resulted in punishment by her state supervisors. Following a District Court’s grant of Clinton’s request that all matters relating to the suit be suspended, pending a ruling on his prior request to have the suit dismissed on grounds of presidential immunity, Clinton sought to invoke his immunity to completely dismiss the Jones suit against him. While the District Judge denied Clinton’s immunity request, the judge ordered the stay of any trial in the matter until after Clinton’s Presidency. On appeal, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the dismissal denial but reversed the trial deferment ruling since it would be a “functional equivalent” to an unlawful grant of temporary presidential immunity.
Question:
Is a serving President, for separation of powers reasons, entitled to absolute immunity from civil litigation arising out of events which transpired prior to his taking office?
Conclusion:
NO!!!! In a unanimous opinion, the Court held that the Constitution does not grant a sitting President immunity from civil litigation except under highly unusual circumstances. After noting the great respect and dignity owed to the Executive office, the Court held that neither separation of powers nor the need for confidentiality of high-level information can justify an unqualified Presidential immunity from judicial process. While the independence of our government’s branches must be protected under the doctrine of separation of powers, the Constitution does not prohibit these branches from exercising any control over one another. This, the Court added, is true despite the procedural burdens which Article III jurisdiction may impose on the time, attention, and resources of the Chief Executive.
Decision: 9 votes for Jones, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 7, Paragraph 2: Separation of Powers
……………………………………………………………………………… Clinton v. Jones – Oral Argument Read This Or Listen
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
Supreme Court Ruling Quote: The opinion of the Court in No. 95-1853, Clinton against Jones will be announced by Justice Stevens.
We therefore hold that the doctrine of separation of powers does not require Federal Courts to stay all private actions against the president
until he leaves office.
——————————————————————————————
What this means is a civil law suit can be brought against obama for fraud because he claims to be a “natural born citizen”.
If Obama claims to be a “natural born citizen” he must prove he is and state how he has come to this decision. On what does he base his fact? No federal law in existance at his birth will make him a natural born citizen. Obama has stated on his web site he was a dual citizen at birth because of his father. He father was a Kenyan citizen at obama’s birth so he states he was too until age 21. Obama says he was an American citizen and a Kenyan citizen at birth. A dual citizen at birth. A dual citizen at birth is NOT A NATUAL BORN CITIZEN! (TO be a natural born citizen at birth both of his parents must be US citizens at birth) Obama is a FRAUD and IMPOSTER.
Instead of concentrating Exclusively on the “birth certificate” issue, the Supreme Court Ruling should be used to expose obama as an IMPOSTER in Arizona and if possible in any federal or state court.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________ PHOENIX – Oct. 19, 2009 – Arizona Attorney magazine will co-sponsor an Oct. 26 program, the Principles of Constitutional and Statutory Interpretation, with the William H. Rehnquist Center at the University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law. U.S. Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer will participate in the program.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-1853. Argued January 13, 1997-Decided May 27,1997
JUSTICE BREYER, concurring in the judgment.
I agree with the majority that the Constitution does not automatically grant the President an immunity from civil lawsuits based upon his private conduct. Nor does the “doctrine of separation of powers … require federal courts to stay” virtually “all private actions against the President until he leaves office.” Ante, at 705-706. Rather, as the Court of Appeals stated, the President cannot simply rest upon the claim that a private civil lawsuit for damages will “interfere with the constitutionally assigned duties of the Executive Branch … without detailing any specific responsibilities or explaining how or the degree to which they are affected by the suit.” 72 F.3d 1354, 1361 (CA8 1996). To obtain a postponement the President must “bea[r] the burden of establishing its need.” Ante, at 708.
In my view, however, once the President sets forth and explains a conflict between judicial proceeding and public duties, the matter changes. At that point, the Constitution permits a judge to schedule a trial in an ordinary civil damages action (where postponement normally is possible without overwhelming damage to a plaintiff) only within the constraints of a constitutional principle-a principle that forbids a federal judge in such a case to interfere with the President’s discharge of his public duties. I have no doubt that the Constitution contains such a principle applicable to civil suits, based upon Article II’s vesting of the entire “executive Power” in a single individual, implemented through the Constitution’s structural separation of powers, and revealed both by history and case precedent.
The landmark case of Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997) has set the precedent that a sitting President is not immune from prosecution for acts committed before taking office.
…………………………………………………………………………….. ASK OBAMA THIS QUESTION THROUGH THE COURTS
—————————————————————————————–
(This Question Needs to be Asked During Or After The Principles of Constitutional and Statutory Interpretation Program?)
My specific question asks if Supreme Court Ruling No. 95-1853, case of Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997) , would apply to any State or Federal Court Case that would involve the question of “natural born citizenship” that Obama has indicated on State Of Arizona Presidential Preference Election Candidate Nomination Paper (A.R.S. 16-242) but has not been validated by law. In other words can I or any other US citizen file a civil suit claiming obama committed fraud before the election and expect obama to answer the suit.
……………………………………………………………………………..
—————————————————————————————–
On December 13, 2007 at 3:01 PM Mountain Time, Barrack Hussein Obama, II fraudulently filed a sworn affidavit in his own hand that declared himself to be a natural born citizen of the United States of America, and that he has fulfilled the requirements under the Constitution. The landmark case of Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997) has set the precedent that a sitting President is not immune from prosecution for acts committed before taking office.
Ref: State Of Arizona Presidential Preference Election Candidate Nomination Paper (A.R.S. 16-242)
We As Americans Are Playing A Deadly Game With The Imposter Obama
Each initial, “advanced estimate”, GDP report will be revised twice before the final figure is settled upon: the “advance” report is followed by the “preliminary” report about a month later and a final report a month after that.
The Bureau emphasized that the third-quarter advance estimate released
today Oct 29,2009 is based on source data that are incomplete orsubject
to further revision by the source agency.
The GDPreport is released at 8:30 am EST on the lastday of each
quarter and reflects the previous quarter.
The GDP formula is: C+I+G+(X-M)
C= Private Consumption I= Gross Investment G= Government Spending
X= Exports M= Imports
The GDPreport is released at 8:30 am EST on the lastday of each quarter
and reflects the previous quarter. 2nd quarter 09 Government spending,
(G) was 42.1%.
This very large % increase reflected the vast amount of government
spending in 2nd quarter 09. This large number has skewed the GDP
numbers. The 3.5% is "cooking the books" to make it seem as if
the Gross Domestic Product, The total market value of all
final goods and services produced in a country in a given year
equal to total consumer, investment and government spending,
plus the value of exports, minus the value of imports, is
reflecting growth in the US economy.
The (advance estimate) just released by
http://bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2009/txt/gdp3q09_adv.txt
THIS MAINLY REFLECTS A VAST INCREASE IN GOVERNMENT SPENDING!!
It is a FARSE or INCOMPLETE preliminary report that is similar
to an Obama "no record."
The only thing this GDP reflects is government spending!
Obama wants you to believe the economy is improving.
The only thing that is improving is the ability of
the "state run media" to parott obama when he explains
how the economy is improving. According to the bureau
of economic analysis government is growing the
economy! Obama is jerking your chain if you believe the
economy is improving. Obama's 'welcome news'
is just like him, an "imposter", who produced an
Imposter GDP report.
http://www.investorwords.com/2153/GDP.html
Excellent Accurate No Spin Facts About The Economy
………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Peter Schiff
The GDP numbers out yesterday, which showed economic growth at 3.5% in the third quarter, brought a deafening chorus from public and private economists who all agreed that the recession is officially over. With such a strong report, they are happy to tell us that not only has the Fat Lady finished her aria, but she has left the building and is sipping champagne in the bath. As usual, it falls on me to rain on the parade.
Even the giddiest commentators admit that the upside GDP surprise resulted almost entirely from government interventions. But, by pushing up public and private debt, expanding government, deepening trade deficits, and pushing down savings rates, these interventions have succeeded only in putting our economy back on an unsustainable path of borrowing and spending. Accordingly, they have prevented the rebalancing necessary for long-term health. Could there be a simpler illustration of trading long-term pain for short-term gain?
Rather than asking these pre-K economists to make such a three dimensional leap, it may be easier just to give them a brief history lesson.
During the decade that corresponds to the Great Depression, annual GNP expanded for six years and contracted for four. After nose-diving in the early years of the decade, GNP turned positive in 1934 and then logged three more years of solid growth (the four year average annual growth rate was 8.5%). But does anyone really believe the Great Depression ended in 1934, when the economy first stopped contracting? Unemployment reached 19% in 1938, nearly the peak of the entire Depression, almost a full decade after the stock market crashed! Why will we be so much luckier this time around?
The unpopular truth is that rather than curing the economy, government stimulus has made it sicker. The Bush Administration and the Greenspan Fed pursued this policy recipe in the 2002-2003 recession. The result was four years of phony growth, greater global imbalances, and the development of unsupportable asset bubbles. Clearly we have learned nothing from those mistakes.
Third quarter ‘growth’ was largely driven by a 23% increase in residential construction (the largest quarterly increase since 1986) and a 3.1% increase in consumer spending, which included a 22% jump in durable goods purchases – mostly automobiles – and 2.3% gain in government spending. Since the increase in consumption outpaced the increase in production, the trade deficit expanded, reversing the positive trend for most of 2008 and 2009. Because the increase in spending outpaced the increase in incomes, the savings rate plunged from 4.9% in the prior quarter to 3.3%.
The sizzling numbers for housing and autos resulted from heady cocktail of policy stimulants: near-zero interest rates, government-guaranteed mortgages, Federal Reserve purchases of mortgaged-backed securities, tax credits for homebuyers, bailouts for auto finance companies and ‘cash for clunkers’ for car buyers.
But the last thing our economy needs is for scarce resources to be wasted through uneconomical incentives.
If the government were not ’stimulating the economy,’ higher interest rates and falling home prices would have hamstrung residential construction. That would have been the right move. Instead, based on the false economic signals of the ’stimulus,’ we continue to build houses for which no legitimate demand exists.
The same is true for cars. Because of stimulus money, Americans are buying cars that they otherwise would not have. In a free market, the money would have been used for a more constructive purpose. Perhaps it would have been saved, used to pay off existing debt, or spent on a less expensive mode of transport, like a used motorcycle.
The economy ran into a wall in 2008 because consumers bought houses and cars that they really could not afford. That is why the institutions that provided the loans, such as banks, Fannie & Freddie, and GMAC, went bankrupt. It should be obvious that the solution to our economic problems will not be found by redoubling these efforts. This is akin to a drunk having a few more drinks in order to get sober!
A recent article in the Wall Street Journal detailed the myriad ways in which Senators and Congressman are now compelling General Motors to make business decisions that are solely driven by the legislators’ own political considerations, not the best interest of the taxpayers who now own the company. Such a dynamic is now underway in nearly every facet of our economy. An efficient allocation of resources – the only path to economic growth – is only possible when market forces, not Beltway bureaucrats, call the shots.
In the end, this stimulus, just like prior doses, will only worsen the condition it is meant to cure. When it wears off, the resulting recession will be even bigger than the one that everyone assumes has just ended. Until the impulse to fight recessions with government stimulus is quashed, genuine economic growth will never return. A string of ever-worsening recessions will eventually lead to what will be the next Great (Inflationary) Depression. But for now, enjoy the bubbly.
Obama/Dunham divorce — Released (by independent investigators
Soetoro/Dunham marriage license — Not released Soetoro adoption records — Not released
Punahou School records — Not released
Soetoro/Dunham divorce — Released (by independent investigators)
Selective Service Registration — Released — Probable counterfeit
Occidental College records — Not released and vigorously defended
Passport records — Not released and official government passport files possibly scrubbed clean by John O. Brennan — now Obama’s terrorism and intelligence czar
Columbia College records — Not released
Columbia thesis — “Soviet Nuclear Disarmament” — Not released
Harvard College records — Not released
Harvard Law Review articles — None
Illinois Bar Records — Not released
Baptism certificate — None
Medical records — Not released
Law practice client list — Not released
University of Chicago scholarly articles — None
Annenberg Challenge Board Minutes — None
Illinois State Senate records — None
Illinois State Senate schedule — Lost
Hawaiian Certification Of Live Birth — Cannot be verified without knowing what is actually indicated on obama’s, Certificate Of Live Birth Original Long Form Hidden From Public View In Hawaii. The Certificate Of Live Birth Hidden In Hawaii Indicates, Hospital, Doctor, Parents Names and Registrar, Including Validating Signatures.
“I don’t have – I don’t maintain – a file of eight years of work in the state Senate because I didn’t have the resources available to maintain those kinds of records,” he said at a recent campaign stop in Iowa. He said he wasn’t sure where any cache of records might have gone, adding, “It could have been thrown out. I haven’t been in the state Senate now for quite some time.”
Obama’s statement that he has no papers from his time in the Illinois statehouse – he left in 2004 – stands in stark contrast to the massive Clinton file stored at the National Archives: an estimated 78 million pages of documents, plus 20 million e-mail messages, packed into 36,000 boxes. While any file from Obama’s time in the state Senate would be far smaller, the idea that no papers exist at all is questioned by one historian.
“Most of those guys do keep this stuff, especially the favorable stuff. They’ve all got egos,” said Taylor Pensoneau, a historian who has written about Illinois legislators and governors and worked with them as a lobbyist for the coal industry. “It goes in scrapbooks or maybe boxes. I don’t think it’s normal practice to say it’s all discarded.”
The question arises why were his “cache of records” discarded?
Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt said Obama did not keep any correspondence with the general public. Letters to or from state associations and lobbyists, memos on legislation and correspondence with Illinois state agencies are all hidden fromthe public view. This makes perfect sense if you want to hide your true identity. Obama does not want his past associations etc revealed. Where are the memos on legislation if any? Where is the correspondence with Illinois state agencies and his constituents? Where are the memos or correspondence with lobbyists? Where is any evidence obama did anything while in the Illinois state senate. There is NO evidence. Just like there is No evidence obama ever did anything while he was “president” of the Harvard Law Review. Obama is a NO RECORD of huge proportions.
Obama has provided no evidence he did anything while in the state senate of Illinois!
He might as well never have been a state senator. If he was there is NO evidence of what he accomplished, when he accomplished it and how he accomplished it except for this limited information obtained from judicial watch.
Washington, DC — October 6, 2008
Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has obtained documents detailing earmarks submitted by Barack Obama on behalf of his family and political supporters during his time in the Illinois State Senate. The documents were obtained under the Illinois Freedom of Information Act. Among the projects detailed in the documents uncovered by Judicial Watch:
Blue Gargoyle: Barack Obama helped secure a $25,000 grant for the Blue Gargoyle in August 2000, an organization that was headed by Capers C. Funnye, Jr., Michelle Obama’s first cousin once removed.
Garden to Nowhere: Judicial Watch uncovered evidence of a $100,000 grant obtained by Obama for a garden project in Englewood, Illinois, spearheaded by Obama’s former campaign volunteer Kenny Smith. The “Englewood Botanical Garden” project never happened. In fact, according to the Chicago Sun Times, “today the garden site is a mess of weeds, chunks of concrete and garbage.” State records show that $65,000 of the grant money obtained by Obama went directly to Smith’s wife Karen. Smith also wrote an additional $20,000 check to a construction company owned by Karen D. Smith, K.D. Contractors which is no longer in business.
Community of St. Sabina: In July, 2000, Obama helped secure a $100,000 grant for the Community of St. Sabina, a church headed by Father Michael Pfleger, a controversial and radical Catholic priest and Obama campaign contributor. Pfleger made news in March, 2008, for mocking then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton from the pulpit of Trinity United Church of Christ, formerly run by Obama’s personal pastor the Reverend Jeremiah Wright.
FORUM: Run by Yesse Yehudah, Barack Obama gave a $75,000 grant to the organization in 2000. Although Yehudah ran against Obama in a 1998 election, five people from FORUM donated $1000 to Obama’s campaign after receiving the grant. FORUM also contributed another $5,000 to help pay Obama’s debt after failing to be elected to congress in 2000. In 2002, the State sued Yehudah for failure to account for hundreds of thousands of dollars he received from Obama’s grant.
“Barack Obama’s earmark for his wife’s cousin, Rabbi Funnye, raises ethical questions. Some of these earmarks show that Barack Obama may have abused his office in the Illinois State Senate,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
No wonder obama threw away or keeps secret his past associations while he was a state senator from Illinois. Obama has a lot to hide if the few records above are an example of what he “accomplished” while a state senator.
Record Master:
It is very clear to me obama is an imposter. A No record. A fraud who wants you to believe he is a product of his own skill. I see only the skill of deception. In fact obama is a product of his own skill but not the product he is selling to the public. Obama is a defective “product” that has been recycled to look like someone who can accomplish what he says. Obama is a rabid failure. A failed “product” of affirmative action. Only a “failed product” of affirmative action would hide his state senate record because it lacks the facts to promote the “mith” of obama. Anything and everything he touches becomes tainted with the stench of failure. This is who obama is, a failure packaged as a success. If this were not so his own state senate records would refute my words. He cannot nor will he refute the fact he has not provided any evidence of what he did in the state senate. His state senate records mimmic his original certificate of live birth which he also will not produce to validate his certification of live birth.
Research indicates that people lie better when they have had time to plan. Obama has had a lot of time to plan.
Obama Passport Viewed By Contractor That Was Shot Dead
Shot dead because he knew to much?
In March 2008, embarrassed State Department officials admitted that three employees working for private contractors and one department employee had breached the passport files of Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton and John McCain. The information could be used to access social security numbers and credit reports, as long with other private information. Sixty percent of people who process passports are contractors. The contract employees worked for Stanley Inc. of Arlington, Virginia, and The Analysis Corp. (TAC) of McLean, Virginia. On September 22, 2008, Lawrence Yontz, a fromer analyst for the State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research, pleaded guilty to reading the passport applications of about 200 politicians and celebrities.
A series of 2008 security breaches at the US State Department may indicate that someone knows Barack Obama’s true status as a natural born citizen – and is waiting for the right time to reveal it. The breaches, which occurred on January 9, February 21 and March 14 of 2008, were done by two “low level” contractors and another in a mid-level position with no management role.
According to a CNN report of the incident, “a State Department source said passport files contain scanned images of passport applications, birth date and basic biographical information, records of passport renewal, and possibly citizenship information.”
It was shortly after this security breach that Internet rumors that questioned the “natural born” status of Barack Obama began circulating.
Sources who tracked the investigation tell Newsmax that the main target of the breach was the Obama passport file, and that the contractor accessed the file in order to “cauterize” the records of potentially embarrassing information.
“They looked at the McCain and Clinton files as well to create confusion,” one knowledgeable source told Newsmax. “But this was basically an attempt to cauterize the Obama file.”
On March 22, 2008, The Washington Times reported the investigation, lead by Acting Inspector General William E. Todd and the chief IG branch investigator, James B. Burch, a former U.S. Secret Service agent, focused on the mid-level employee of The Analysis Corp. who was not terminated. The employee inadvertently triggered alarms that finally alerted State Department officials after he looked into the passport files of both McCain and Obama.
On April 5, 2008, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Passport Services Ann Barrett resigned from her post after a credit card scheme using US passport date was uncovered by the security probe. State Department Spokesman Tom Casey told The Washington Times that 24-year-old Lieutenant Quarles Harris Jr. told federal authorities he obtained “passport information from a co-conspirator who works for the U.S. Department of State.”
The investigation began after Metropolitan Police on March 25 pulled over Mr. Harris in Southeast on suspicion that the windows of his vehicle were tinted too darkly.
After searching Mr. Harris and his vehicle, police found marijuana and 21 credit cards that were not issued in his name or the name of a female passenger with him. Police also found eight printouts of State Department passport applications, and four of the names on the applications matched four of the credit cards.
Upon questioning by agents from the U.S. Secret Service, U.S. Postal Service and State Department, Mr. Harris “admitted he obtained the passport information” from a State Department employee, court documents say.
Mr. Harris also said the fraud ring submitted credit-card applications using the names and “identifying information” of the persons listed on the passport applications, and that a postal service employee then would intercept the cards before they were delivered to the appropriate residences.
Then, on April 17, 2008, Lt. Harris was found fatally shot dead slumped over the steering wheel of his car in front of the Judah House Praise Baptist Church in Northeast DC. The Washington Times reported that Lt. Harris was a key witness cooperating with the federal probe into the State Department security breach. Lt. Harris’ mother, Cleopatra Harris, told ABC affiliate WJLA-TV that she believed her son’s murder may have been due to his role in the federal investigation.
……………………………………………………………………………………..
OBAMA USED GENERAL DYNAMICS CORP. TO “TAMPER” WITH HIS PASSPORT RECORDS !! TOM AYERS IS BOARD MEMBER. Tom Ayers, father of Obama friend, communist and unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers.
Just after the election, State Dept. awarded same company that breached the initial passports to come up with a new Passport technology. (Of course this company was used to destroy or conceal obama’s passport records. Record Master)
This guy Lieutenant Quarles Harris Jr. got in way over his head, he used his credit card scheme connection to access the passport records and stumbled into something way out of his league. Obama’s passport records must have shown him being born in Kenya and he was going to cooperate with investigators, he was found dead. But what happened to the passport records Lt Harris had! Was Obama’s passport information among them?
We have all the elements of a major cover up of TREASON here…breached passport files at the State Dept, murder, former CIA agent with connections to the breach and to Obama, who writes about granting political legitimacy to the terrorist organizations Hezbollah and Hamas.
Police also found eight printouts of State Department passport applications, and four of the names on the applications matched four of the credit cards.
“8 passport applications with matching 4 credit cards. Why just 4 matching creidt cards? What were the other 4 passport applications?” You can bet one or more of the 8 was not obama’s. How do I know? Because Lt. Harris was a key witness cooperating with the federal probe into the State Department security breach. I don’t think if he was cooperating with federal officals he would be using or selling credit cards. I believe the murder was a hit. A setup to make it look like he was murdered at random and to hide obama’s true identity. What is beyond strange is the fact he still had passport applications and credit cards in his possession. It seems the government is trying to make it look like Lt Harris stole the passports just to obtain fake credit cards but remember the most likely reason Lt Harris obtained the obama passport(s) was not to sell credit cards. Why did he obtain the obama passort information? I believe it was to hide some critical information about obama. What else? What did Lt Harris really do with the obama information. I’m sure all the information he had in his possession was confiscated by the feds. The only thing the feds could not confiscate was what Lt Harris had seen with his own eyes. The only way to wipe that record clean was to murder Lt Harris. Did Lt Harris relate what was on the obama passport(s) to anyone? I’m sure he did. Did Lt Harris make any copies of the obama passport? I hope so. Maybe obama’s passport(s) will show up somewhere exposing the imposter obama.
This also sent a message to anyone who does know about obama to keep quiet or else. Obama must hide his true identity at all costs.
A key witness in a federal probe into passport information stolen from the State Department was fatally shot in front of a District church, the Metropolitan Police Department said yesterday.
Lt. Quarles Harris Jr., 24, who had been cooperating with a federal investigators, was found late Thursday night slumped dead inside a car, in front of the Judah House Praise Baptist Church in Northeast, said Cmdr. Michael Anzallo, head of the department’s Criminal Investigations Division.
Cmdr. Anzallo said a police officer was patrolling the neighborhood when gunshots were heard, then Lt. Harris was found dead inside the vehicle, which investigators would describe only as a blue car.
Emergency medics pronounced him dead at the scene.
City police said they do not know whether his death was a direct result of his cooperation with federal investigators.
“We don’t have any information right now that connects his murder to that case,” Cmdr. Anzallo said.
Enter obama’s name and you will find nothing. search for any article or any proof of scholarship of obama and you will find ZERO results
Harvard Law Review articles
In 1990, Obama beat out 18 other contenders to become the first black president of the Harvard Law Review, where he spent at least 50 hours a week editing submissions from judges, scholars and authors.
According to Politico, there were “eight dense volumes produced during his time in charge there – 2,083 pages in all.” No published writing from obama?
According to Politico, Obama’s name does not appear on any legal scholarships during his time at Harvard.
Why Didn’t Obama Publish anything in the law journal he edited?
Change in Selection System of The Harvard Law Review in the 1980’s.
Mr. Obama was elected after a meeting of the review’s 80 editors that convened Sunday and lasted until early this morning, a participant said.
Until the 1970’s the editors were picked on the basis of grades, and the president of the Law Review was the student with the highest academic rank. Among these were Elliot L. Richardson, the former Attorney General, and Irwin Griswold, a dean of the Harvard Law School and Solicitor General under Presidents Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard M. Nixon.
That system came under attack in the 1970’s and was replaced by a program in which about half the editors are chosen for their grades and the other half are chosen by fellow students after a special writing competition. The new system, disputed when it began, was meant to help insure that minority students became editors of The Law Review.
………………………………………………………………………………
Obama was a “minority student” He was chosen by fellow students through a “special writing competition”.
No “special writing competition” by the “minority student” obama has been published or released by Harvard that would explain or justify how obama was chosen by fellow students for his “writing skills”.
This is how obama was chosen to be the president and editor in chief of the Harvard law review. Though writing skills competition. Yet obama DID NOT PUBLISH ANYTHING OF HIS OWN!
Let me review. Obama has NO RECORD of ANY WRITING SKILLS or PUBLISHED ANY WORK of HIS OWN WHLE AT HARVARD!
OBAMA HAS PUBLISHED NOTHING AT HARVARD YET HE WAS THE PRESIDENT OF THE HARVARD LAW REVIEW AND WORKED AS AN “EDITOR IN CHIEF” 50 HOURS A WEEK?
Obama was chosen because of affirmative action and because he was a “minority student”. Obama was not chosen because of any published writing skill. No published work equals ZERO proof obama is a “skilled writer”. There is no EVIDENCE obama ever did ANYTHING to qualify for the position of president of the Harvard Law Review except though AFFIRMATIVE ACTION for his minority.
Obama seems to have had affirmative action help but there is NO evidence he EVER QUALIFIED for any help through his WRITING SKILLS! Obama ONLY qualifed because he was a MINORITY!
This is why there is no record of any published works from obama while he was the “president” of the Harvard law review.
AGAIN I HAVE PROVED OBAMA IS A TOTAL FRAUD AND IMPOSTER!
………………………………………………………………………………
I believe obama has used his”affirmative action plan” to move through the shadows of his hidden “education”. In other words I believe obama has used the system to ingratiate himself into the affirmative action system to promote himself. THIS IS WHY HE WILL NOT RELEASE ANY TRANSCRIPTS,THESIS STATEMENTS,OR RECORDS OF ANY KIND from the various schools he says he attended. I believe obama is a low grade empty suit. Obama has proven he is not a scholar by not publishing or releasing ANY records of his college education or any interview with the Harvard Law Record Newspaper. He has in effect revealed himself as an imposter.
Looking for evidence of Obama’s past, Fox News contacted 400 Columbia University students from the period when Obama claims to have been there, but none remembered him. (Editor I will state for the record I believe obama did attend Harvard but will not reveal his “writings”.)
Wayne Allyn Root was, like Obama, a political science major at Columbia who also graduated in 1983. In 2008, Root says of Obama, “I don’t know a single person at Columbia that knew him, and they all know me.
I don’t have a classmate who ever knew Barack Obama at Columbia. Ever! Nobody recalls him. I’m not exaggerating, I’m not kidding.” Root adds that he was also, like Obama, “Class of ‘83 political science, pre-law” and says, “You don’t get more exact or closer than that. Never met him in my life, don’t know anyone who ever met him.
At the class reunion, our 20th reunion five years ago, who was asked to be the speaker of the class? Me.
No one ever heard of Barack! And five years ago, nobody even knew who he was. The guy who writes the class notes, who’s kind of the, as we say in New York, the macha who knows everybody, has yet to find a person, a human who ever met him. Is that not strange?
It’s very strange.” Obama’s photograph does not appear in the school’s yearbook and Obama consistently declines requests to talk about his years at Columbia, provide school records, or provide the name of any former classmates or friends while at Columbia.
NOTE: Root graduated as Valedictorian from his high school, Thornton-Donovan School, then graduated from Columbia University in 1983 as a Political Science major (in the same class as President Barack Obama WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEEN IN)
………………………………………………………………………………
Various copied comments about Obama
………………………………………………………………………………
It’s a little odd that he had no friends or anyone else who remembered him. So true. It’s human nature for people who knew a famous person before they were famous to come out of the woodwork. Kind of like a lottery winner all of the sudden having thousands of friends they never knew about. You would think there would be a lot of hanger oners who want to be the one who knew Barry when.
Who is paying the attorneys to keep his past hidden? If he is such an amazing person, why is his past hidden? What are ALL of his records sealed? Why is his team attacking the “birthers”? Other presidents have historical markers at their birthplaces. Where is ozeros?
Look for “famous” graduates of Columbia. The only mention of obama I have found so far is on Wikipedia.
It’s hard to imagine a man like Obama didn’t Network somewhere on campus.
He didn’t belong to any Fraternities? He didn’t join any student organizations? No photos?
Zero?
I’m just wondering exactly what program he was doing in his one year there, such as a dedicated study with his mentors in Third World Marxism, union thuggery, and how to bring down this country by using its own laws against it.
Yeah you would think that Columbia would be crowing like hell that one of their alums is now occupying the White House. And then he makes a commencement speech at notre dame instead of his alma matter. Wonder why?
It is possible he did the minimium to graduate and spent the rest of the time with the likes of Bill Ayres and/or radical Isamists.
It’s quite amazing. Nobody remembers him. They don’t remember him sitting in class.
“It’s very strange.” Obama’s photograph does not appear in the school’s yearbook and Obama consistently declines requests to talk about his years at Columbia, provide school records, or provide the name of any former classmates or friends while at Columbia.”
Doesn’t pass the BO smell test. There couldn’t have been more than a handful blacks at Columbia at that time. Don’t you find it just a little curious that Obummer went from total obscurity and completely under the radar at Columbia to top of the heap at #1 rated Harvard Law School where he served as President of the Harvard Law Review?
(A possibility?)
My guess is that he nevrer actually went to “Columbia University,” but rather, he went to “Columbia College.” Columbia Colege is technically part of Columbia University, but is geared to students who do not fit the traditional mold. Many of them are older or come from impoverished or challenged backgrounds, and may not meet the standards that one would normally associate with the Ivy League.
A comment:
(“this clown has been “running a game” on the system all his life…various SS#’s, aliases, no medical records, no college transcripts, no birth certificate…”
Nobody scrubs their life history clean for no reason. Obama is dirtier than dirt itself.)
Sometimes he sounded like he was already running for public office, giving studied, measured responses in interviews with The Harvard Law Record. Asked in 1991 if he could do one thing differently in his last year at the Review, Obama said, “I don’t know that it was possible to do it any other way than I did it, but I would have liked to have had the luxury of being more strategic about my tenure.”
This is interesting. Obama gave “studied, measured responses in INTERVIEWS with the Harvard Law Record.” So where are any evidence of these published interviews? NONE!!!!!!!!!!!
Search for Obama Interviews here. You will find NONE. ZERO!
My Email:
Are reprints available for articles in 1991.
How many times was the Harvard Law Record Newspaper published in 1991?
Are copies available?
Thank You
Ps do you have a copy of “Asked in 1991 if he could do one thing differently in his last year at the Review, Obama said, “I don’t know that it was possible to do it any other way than I did it, but I would have liked to have had the luxury of being more strategic about my tenure” or any other quotes by the former president of your law review in 1991?
Let me try to analyze what obama said. What one thing would you do Mr Obama differently in your last year at the Harvard Review?
Obama said: I don’t know that it was possible to do it any other way than I did it.
In this statement he is saying EXACTLY NOTHING.
Obama said: But I would have liked to have had the luxury of being more strategic about my tenure.
In this statement obama is saying EXACTLY NOTHING ALSO.
The question was “what one thing would you do differently in your last year at the Harvard review?”
He seems to have said he would do “it” the same way. I guess it depends on what IT means!
Disinformation that is useless as obama.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
I sent an email to the Harvard Law record editor and got an answer today.
My question to editor in chief Harvard Law Record:
Are reprints available for articles in 1991.
How many times was it published in 1991?
Are copies available?
The Answer:
Articles from 1991 are available through the microfilm edition of our newspaper, which is available through interlibrary loan at most academic libraries.
Law Stat Man http://volokh.com/posts/1202117776.shtml (Obama is a AA STRAW MAN)
Obama’s vol. 104 is the least-cited volume of the Harvard Law Review in the last 20 years
Electronic searches made to determine the number of times Obama’s volume 104, and every other volume of the Harvard Law Review published during the last 20 years, has been cited in all law reviews during each subsequent year for which full data is available (starting in the year after the last issue of each volume appeared, and running through 2006, the last year for which full citation data is currently available).
The results of searches are in a PDF which you can download here:
Some highlights, using only the first 12 years of citations to each volume, where available (obviously, the more recent volumes have fewer years of citations available):
1. Obama’s volume 104 (1990-91) has been cited an average of 170 times a year. That is, it was cited 2045 times in the first 12 full years after publication (i.e., 1992 to 2003). It has been cited at the lowest rate of any volume published in the past 20 years.
2. By comparison, for all other volumes published during the past twenty years for which at least a year’s worth of data is available (vols. 101 to 103, and vols. 105 to 118), they have been cited an average of 262 times a year — a rate 54% higher than the citation rate for Obama’s volume.
Remember Obama spent at least 50 hrs a week determining what would be included in the harvard law review. He also edited the work of other editors.
(Finally a real record of something obama has done and it is a FAILURE that can be attributed to him personally as the president and final “editor’ of the Harvard Law Review)
Considering obama is also a failure as president of the US it is no surprise he has hid his past performance records that would indicate a track record of minimum performance.
Rocco Landesman is President Obama’s handpicked chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts. Last week he gave the keynote address to the 2009 Grantmakers in the Arts Conference. Those of us concerned about the politicization of life and art in the Age of Obama will not be consoled by a reading of Landesman’s speech.
The speech bears examination in its entirety, but Landesman’s tribute to Obama is especially worth a look:
This is the first president that actually writes his own books since Teddy Roosevelt and arguably the first to write them really well since Lincoln. If you accept the premise, and I do, that the United States is the most powerful country in the world, then Barack Obama is the most powerful writer since Julius Caesar. That has to be good for American artists.
Landesman compares Obama favorably with Julius Caesar as “a powerful writer.” Landesman is not referring to Obama’s skills as a writer, but rather to the power he holds by virtue of his office. Some might think that the literary comparison sells Obama short. Caesar was something of a self-promoter and propagandist in his writing.
Yet Landesman knows Obama is like Caesar, somehow — a friend asks, is it in the transformation of a republic into an empire with a divine ruler? Perhaps if Landesman had his wits about him, he would note instead that Obama is the most powerful speaker since the other JC when the telepromter is prompting him to utter.
(Like I said Obama is an AA Straw Man with no record of accomplishment published to reference his “powerful writing”) A Fraud and Imposter exposed by the Imposter Detector
