Category Archives: constitution

Commander in Chief and Lt. Col. Terry Lakin challenged Obama’s eligibility and birth certificate, Donald Trump in White House, Lakin spent six months in Leavenworth and was dishonorably discharged, Sign petition to pardon Lakin

Commander in Chief and Lt. Col. Terry Lakin challenged Obama’s eligibility and birth certificate, Donald Trump in White House, Lakin spent six months in Leavenworth and was dishonorably discharged, Sign petition to pardon Lakin

“These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.”…Thomas Paine

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and
defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to
the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental
reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully
discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.
So help me God.”…US Military officer’s oath of office

“Moore said he’s seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” and a lot of evidence that suggests he is not.”…Judge Roy Moore interview by WND

 

 

Donald Trump, now Commander in Chief, and Lt. Col. Terry Lakin both challenged Obama’s eligibility and birth certificate.

Trump now controls the White House.

Lakin spent six months in Leavenworth and was dishonorably discharged.

They were both doing their constitutional duty when they questioned Obama.

There is still zero proof of Obama’s US birth and eligibility to have been POTUS.

From Citizen Wells December 8, 2010.

“Which part of “Chain of Command” do they not understand?

From Citizen Wells September 5, 2010.

“From the US Army Study Guide.

Chain of Command List

Posted Monday, July 23, 2007

Commander-in-Chief  -President George W. Bush
Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff  -General Peter Pace
Army Chief of Staff
-General George W. Casey, Jr.
Theater Commander  –
Corps Commander  –
Division Commander  –
Brigade Commander  –
Battalion Commander  –
Company/Troop Commander  –
Platoon Leader  –
Section/Squad/Team Leader”

Read more:

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2010/09/05/lakin-court-martial-commander-in-chief-chain-of-command-citizen-wells-open-thread-september-5-2010/

LTC Terry Lakin memo dated November 20, 2009.

“MEMORANDUM FOR General Casey, Chief of Staff, U.S. Army

SUBJECT: Complaint of Wrongs Under Article 138, UCMJ (AR 27-10)

1. I would like to officially submit a complaint under Article 138, UCMJ against General Casey, Chief of Staff of the Army. I believe General Casey is following and promulgating invalid and/or illegal orders from a person that is not eligible to be the Commander-in-Chief of our Armed Forces.”

Read more:

http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/images/stories/documents/apf05-ucmjarticle138nov16.pdf

JAG letter to LTC Lakin dated December 11, 2009.
“This responds to your November 20, 2009, memorandum to General George Casey, Chief of Staff, U.S. Army, subject: Complaint of Wrongs Under Article 138 (AR 27-10).”
Army Regulation 27-10, paragraphs 20-4b and 20-4e define the terms “commanding officer” and “wrong,” respectfully. A “commanding officer” is “[a]n officer in the complainant’s chain of command, up to and including the first officer exercising general court-martial jurisdiction over the complainant, authorized to impose nonjudicial punishment (Article 15, UCMJ) on the complainant.” General Casey does not meet the definition of “commanding officer” because he is not a member of your chain of command and he does not have the authority to impose nonjudicial punishment on you.”

“Robin N. Swope
Colonel, US Army
Chief, Administrative Law Division”

Read more:

http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/images/stories/documents/apf06-jagletter0717_001.pdf

Which part of “Chain of Command” do they not understand?

Obama, if he were eligible to be president, would be in this chain of command. Since he is not eligible, he should immediately be arrested. If you are in the military, including, but not limited to General Casey, and you are not involved in removing or at least challenging the usurper in the White House, you should be court martialed, not LTC Lakin. If you are involved in preventing LTC Lakin from challenging the usurper, Obama, from doing his sworn duty as a military officer, you should be shot.”

https://citizenwells.com/2010/12/08/ltc-terry-lakin-court-martial-chain-of-command-us-army-study-guide-general-george-casey-chief-of-staff-citizen-wells-open-thread-december-8-2010/

From the Post & Email January 26, 2017.

“In a pre-recorded interview from Thursday morning between Fox News’s Sean Hannity and President Donald Trump, Trump said he is currently “looking at” the request for a pardon for U.S. Navy sailor Christian Saucier, who was convicted of mishandling classified information after taking photos with his cell phone of an area of the submarine on which he was stationed.”

“Hannity also mentioned 1st Lt. Clint Lorance, who was convicted at court-martial of murdering three Afghan men on motorcycles who he believed were about to launch a terrorist attack against his unit in July 2012.”

“Although given a much shorter sentence, Lt. Col. Terry Lakin, a former flight surgeon, spent six months in Leavenworth and was dishonorably discharged from the Army, with loss of pay and benefits, for questioning Barack Obama’s eligibility in 2010.

Lakin’s case was not mentioned by either Trump or Hannity, although Trump said he was examining “several” pardon requests which constitutionally, only the chief executive may grant.

In his final weeks, Obama issued pardons to a significant number of drug dealers, to individuals convicted of “conspiracy to embezzle” and mail fraud, and interestingly, to an individual convicted of “conspiracy to defraud the United States by knowingly and without lawful authority producing false identification documents.”

Obama’s identification documents were found to be fraudulent by a five-year criminal investigation whose findings were recently affirmed by two highly-respected forensics analysts as divulged in a December 15 press conference.

Obama’s alleged “long-form” birth certificate was released by the White House on April 27, 2011 “with the intent to deceive,” according to the probe’s chief investigator, Mike Zullo.

A petition referenced on a website established to tell Lorance’s story references a whitehouse.gov petition asking for a pardon which appears to no longer be available to the public.”

Read more:

http://www.thepostemail.com/2017/01/26/trump-looking-at-pardon-request-for-sailor-and-several-others/

PETITION:

“Reinstate Lt. Col. Terry Lakin into the U.S. Army with full rank, pay, benefits and pension immediately.”

“The former Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin was a highly-decorated Army flight surgeon who questioned whether or not the orders he received from Obama were legitimate. Court-martialed, imprisoned, expelled from the Army and denied pay, pension and benefits, Terry was merely following his officer’s oath and constitutional duty. It is an outrage that this was allowed to happen. Obama refused to answer Terry’s letter and ended up producing a forged birth certificate. Terry who was a medical doctor is a valuable asset to the American military and the fact that his military chain of command and his congressional representatives allowed him to be court-martialed and run out of the army is an outrage for all Americans. This grave injustice needs to be addressed and corrected ASAP.”

SIGN HERE:

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/reinstate-lt-col-terry-lakin-us-army-full-rank-pay-benefits-and-pension-immediately

 

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

 

 

Electoral college electors meet today December 19, 2016 to vote for president and vice president, Six Certificates of Vote paired with six Certificates of Ascertainment, January 6, 2017 congress meets to count and certify electoral votes

Electoral college electors meet today December 19, 2016 to vote for president and vice president, Six Certificates of Vote paired with six Certificates of Ascertainment, January 6, 2017 congress meets to count and certify electoral votes

“”My good friend Ann here actually got some sort of irritant in one of the letter. My son had his car vandalized,” said Mike Delk, President of the NC Electoral College. “Other people have received threats, attempted bribes.”

But the electors say they are not swayed by these actions. All 15 said they will cast their votes for Trump which will go toward the 270 elector votes required. Trump’s nationwide total is 306.

The members said they have a message for those protesting the results.

“It really shows a lack of understanding of our democracy,” said Dr. Glenn Pinckney, Secretary of the NC Electoral College. “It shows an honest lack and disrespect.””…WTVD

“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”…Abraham Lincoln

 

From the US Electoral College.

THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

“December 19, 2016

The Electors meet in their state and vote for President and Vice President on separate ballots. The electors record their votes on six “Certificates of Vote,” which are paired with the six remaining Certificates of Ascertainment.

The electors sign, seal, and certify six sets of electoral votes. A set of electoral votes consists of one Certificate of Ascertainment and one Certificate of Vote. These are distributed immediately as follows:

  • one set to the President of the Senate (the Vice President) for the official count of the electoral votes in January;
  • two packages to the Secretary of State in the state where the electors met—one is an archival set that becomes part of the public record of the Secretary of State’s office and the other is a reserve set that is subject to the call of the President of the Senate to replace missing or incomplete electoral votes;
  • two packages to the Archivist—one is an archival set that becomes part of the permanent collection at the National Archives and Records Administration and the other is a reserve set that is subject to the call of the President of the Senate to replace missing or incomplete electoral votes; and
  • one set to the presiding judge in the district where the Electors met—this is also a reserve set that is subject to the call of the President of the Senate to replace missing or incomplete electoral votes.

December 28, 2016

Electoral votes (the Certificates of Vote) must be received by the President of the Senate and the Archivist no later than nine days after the meeting of the electors. States face no legal penalty for failure to comply.

If votes are lost or delayed, the Archivist may take extraordinary measures to retrieve duplicate originals.

On or Before January 3, 2017

The Archivist and/or representatives from the Office of the Federal Register meet with the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House in late December or early January. This is, in part, a ceremonial occasion. Informal meetings may take place earlier.

January 6, 2017

The Congress meets in joint session to count the electoral votes. Congress may pass a law to change this date.

The Vice President, as President of the Senate, presides over the count and announces the results of the Electoral College vote. The President of the Senate then declares which persons, if any, have been elected President and Vice President of the United States.

If a State submits conflicting sets of electoral votes to Congress, the two Houses acting concurrently may accept or reject the votes. If they do not concur, the votes of the electors certified by the Governor of the State on the Certificate of Ascertainment would be counted in Congress.

If no Presidential candidate wins 270 or more electoral votes, a majority, the 12th Amendment to the Constitution provides for the House of Representatives to decide the Presidential election. If necessary the House would elect the President by majority vote, choosing from the three candidates who received the greatest number of electoral votes. The vote would be taken by state, with each state having one vote.

If no Vice Presidential candidate wins 270 or more electoral votes, a majority, the 12th Amendment provides for the Senate to elect the Vice President. If necessary, the Senate would elect the Vice President by majority vote, choosing from the two candidates who received the greatest number of electoral votes. The vote would be taken by state, with each Senator having one vote.

If any objections to the Electoral College vote are made, they must be submitted in writing and be signed by at least one member of the House and one Senator. If objections are presented, the House and Senate withdraw to their respective chambers to consider their merits under procedures set out in federal law.

January 20, 2017 at Noon—Inauguration Day

The President-elect takes the Oath of Office and becomes the President of the United States.”

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/key-dates.html

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

H. Brooke Paige v. State of Vermont, Secretary of State, James Condos, Attorney General William Sorrell, Rafael Edward Cruz and Marco Antonio Rubio oral argument November 30, 2016, Audio and transcript

H. Brooke Paige v. State of Vermont, Secretary of State, James Condos, Attorney General William Sorrell, Rafael Edward Cruz and Marco Antonio Rubio oral argument November 30, 2016, Audio and transcript

“To his kind of judge, Cruz ironically wouldn’t be eligible, because the legal principles that prevailed in the 1780s and ’90s required that someone actually be born on US soil to be a “natural born” citizen. Even having two US parents wouldn’t suffice. And having just an American mother, as Cruz did, would have been insufficient at a time that made patrilineal descent decisive.”…Laurence H. Tribe, Harvard Law Professor

“Ted Cruz wrote the forward for U.S. Constitution for Dummies which clearly reveals that he is not a natural born citizen.”…IL ballot challenger Bill Graham

“Moore said he’s seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” and a lot of evidence that suggests he is not.”…Judge Roy Moore interview by WND

 

From H. Brooke Paige.

H. Brooke Paige v. State of Vermont, Secretary of State, James Condos, Attorney General William Sorrell, Rafael Edward Cruz and Marco Antonio Rubio  November 30, 2016

Transcript:

https://www.scribd.com/document/332952543/H-Brooke-Paige-v-State-of-Vermont-Secretary-of-State-James-Condos-Attorney-General-William-Sorrell-Rafael-Edward-Cruz-and-Marco-Antonio-Rubio-Tr

From Mr. Paige today:

“With a Little Divine Intervention !

I know that many do not believe that “the big guy” keeps an eye out for us – even when we ask him to do so, today was one of those days that again confirmed, at least for me, that He most certainly does – truly the “invisible hand” rested firmly on my shoulder as I discussed the A/G’s procedural objections and the underlying merits of the case with the Vermont Supreme Court Justices

The justices were well read on the case and asked pointed question. primarily on the procedural issues of standing, venue, jurisdiction and timeliness (mootness/ripeness), One justice stated to AA/G Daloz that “I believe that we will get past the procedural questions” to the issues of the case and then asked several probing question that Daloz seemed ill-prepared to address. Rubio’s “K Street” attorney, Brady Toesing was in attendance but had informed the court that he would not participate in Oral Argument – a decision he may now regret (I suspect that Rubio cut the cash flow to Brady?).

Daloz suggested that if the court found in my favor, that the case should be returned to the lower court for further briefing – however the justices did not seem amused, enquiring how additional briefing could help to clarify the issues. Between the lower court and the Supreme Court docket, the combined parties, State Defendants, Cruz and Rubio and I have submitted over a three thousand pages of material (taking up two file drawers in the clerk’s office!) I believe that the Attorney General’s office fears that if the court proceeds to the merits the issue of the Sec. of State’s responsibility to prohibit unqualified candidates from ballot access, the court’s jurisdiction to decide and the underlying question of confirming the SCOTUS definition of the birth circumstances* will not go well for the opposition !

It was a Good Day for Justice in the Green Mountains !”

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

 

Paige v. State of Vermont et al Docket 2016-202 November 30,2016 – 10:30 am, Plaintiff H. Brooke Paige, Natural born citizen status of Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio challenged, Issue not moot since Rubio and Cruz are considering another run for president

Paige v. State of Vermont et al Docket 2016-202 November 30,2016 – 10:30 am, Plaintiff H. Brooke Paige, Natural born citizen status of Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio challenged, Issue not moot since Rubio and Cruz are considering another run for president

“To his kind of judge, Cruz ironically wouldn’t be eligible, because the legal principles that prevailed in the 1780s and ’90s required that someone actually be born on US soil to be a “natural born” citizen. Even having two US parents wouldn’t suffice. And having just an American mother, as Cruz did, would have been insufficient at a time that made patrilineal descent decisive.”…Laurence H. Tribe, Harvard Law Professor

“Ted Cruz wrote the forward for U.S. Constitution for Dummies which clearly reveals that he is not a natural born citizen.”…IL ballot challenger Bill Graham

“Moore said he’s seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” and a lot of evidence that suggests he is not.”…Judge Roy Moore interview by WND

 

 

From H. Brooke Paige today, November 29, 2016.

“Oral Arguments Before the Vermont Supreme Court in Paige v. State of
Vermont, et al* – Docket 2016-202 scheduled for November 30,2016 – 10:30
am

Justice moves slowly here in the Green Mountains, even when you are on an
expedited schedule. My ballot challenge which began last fall with a
complaint to the Secretary of State’s elections office was appealed to the
Vermont Superior Court last December. By February all necessary parties
had been enjoined and the process of briefs, reply briefs and sur-reply
brief were submitted in a timely fashion. The Superior Court ruled as
expected finding that, contrary to establishes precedents in the state,
that I had no standing, the court had no jurisdiction and the issues were
either moot or not yet ripe !  Judge Tomasi did not address the
“natural-born Citizen” issue directly, however did refer to and speak
approvingly of “the recent and exhaustive treatment of the natural-born
citizen issue by New Jersey Administrative Judge Jeff Masin in Williams v.
Cruz No. STE 5016-16,(April 12, 2016 Office of Admin. Law N.J.).” and thus
provided the opportunity to address the issue on appeal

The appeal process of principle brief, opposition briefs and finally my
reply brief were all completed by  appellee’s  State of Vermont and Mr.
Cruz. Mr. Rubio decided not to participate in the appeal process relying
on the Vermont State Attorney General to represent his interests. Nothing
in the Appellee’s briefs provided any new insight to the issue merely
reciting the well-worn writings of Jack Maskell’s  Congressional Research
Service” report, the latest version including his ever expanding
definition which attempts to be inclusive of the birth circumstances of
both Rubio and Cruz! Interestingly, a recent ruling on a local ballot
challenge, Noble v. Sec’y of State, is directly on point as standing,
jurisdiction, venue and timeliness, all ruled in the plaintiff’s favor
allowing the case to proceed to the merits. Additionally, since the Court
preciously noted that since  Rubio and Cruz are considering another run
for president the passage of the current election cycle does not make the
question of their “nbC” qualification moot.

So tomorrow is the day, I have spent a great deal of time reviewing the
briefs and related material and I guess I am as prepared as I can be.  It
is a daunting and challenging task for a pro se litigant to face off
against the resources of the state and two sitting U.S. senators. Please
ask your followers to say a prayer for me; a little divine intervention
would be most helpful.

All the Best,

Brooke”

Perhaps this will make it to the “Trump” US Supreme Court.

This issue must be settled for the good of the country.

Natural Born Citizen.

I salute Mr. Paige for his efforts.

 

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

 

Chuck Todd is not stupid, Todd is (along with media and Democrat Party) biased and colluding, Zero proof of Obama US birth, Chuck Todd and NBC staff attack Trump for insulting president, “Birth certificate” on Whitehouse.gov even if real does not prove HI birth

Chuck Todd is not stupid, Todd is (along with media and Democrat Party) biased and colluding, Zero proof of Obama US birth, Chuck Todd and NBC staff attack Trump for insulting president, “Birth certificate” on Whitehouse.gov even if real does not prove HI birth

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Moore said he’s seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” and a lot of evidence that suggests he is not.”…Judge Roy Moore interview by WND

“When asked where I believe Obama was born I answer, I don’t know. There is zero proof he was born in Hawaii. The only evidence of his birth location that we have is much circumstantial evidence and that points to Kenya.”…Citizen Wells

 

I switched channels between 5 networks election night and caught Chuck Todd lying again about Donald Trump insulting Obama regarding his birth certificate.

I vowed to write another article outing him.

I had already vowed to further expose the chicanery and collusion between the mainstream media and Democrat Party.

Last night I heard someone on Public Radio refer to challenges of Obama’ s eligibility as false rumors.

Don’t tread on me!

Once again, and with no disrespect to those explaining that to be a natural born citizen and eligible for the presidency, one must have 2 American parents (I agree with them), I will only address the alleged birth certificate as proof of US birth.

And also, the term citizen has been used interchangeably with natural born citizen. It is not the same thing.

WhiteHouseGovBC

The image placed on Whitehouse.gov is not the kind most of us are used to seeing. Instead of an embossed stamp and certification that this is an official copy, this image has the following at the bottom:

WhiteHouseGovAbstractVerbage

The phrase “or abstract” disqualifies this as proof positive of being an image of an original.

Abstract: “The term abstract is subject to different meanings, but in a legal sense, it refers to an abbreviated history of an official record.””

If the image was a “true copy” it would look like the following from the same year Obama was born.

HawaiiNordyke1961BCexample

Note “true and correct copy of the original record” and the embossing at the bottom.

This resembles what I have a copy of proving my birth in NC. A certified copy of my original birth certificate. Not an abstract.

Why is this important?

You do not have to be born in Hawaii to obtain what they call a birth certificate, an abstract.

From Western Journalism June 10, 2009.

“I think that I now understand the legal background to the question of where Obama was born.

Let’s begin with the statement that Dr. Chiyome Fukino, the Director of the Hawaii Department of Health released on October 31, 2008. The television and print media used this statement as a reason to prevent and treat with contempt any investigation into whether Barack Obama was not born in Hawaii. But the language of the statement was so carefully hedged and guarded that it should have had the opposite effect.

“There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law (Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record. Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.”

It is understandable that after such an apparently definitive statement most news outlets, whether conservative or liberal, would accept this as sufficient grounds to relegate the controversy to the status of a fringe phenomenon. Unless they happened to take the trouble to look into the “state policies and procedures” as laid down by the relevant statutes. If they had done so, they would have seen that Dr. Fukino’s press release was carefully hedged and “lawyered” and practically worthless. But the media in general should not be faulted. The statement seems to roll out with such bureaucratic certainty and final authority. I believed it to be significant until a Honolulu attorney mailed me the relevant statutes. I was so surprised that I laughed out loud.

Here is a summary of Hawaii’s “state policies and procedures” in 1961.

In the State of Hawaii, back in 1961, there were four different ways to get an “original birth certificate” on record. They varied greatly in their reliability as evidence. For convenience, I’ll call them BC1, BC2, BC3, and BC4.

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

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

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

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

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

In 1982, the vital records law was amended to create a fifth kind of “original birth certificate”. Under Act 182 H.B. NO. 3016-82, “Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that the proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.” In this way “state policies and procedures” accommodate even “children born out of State” (this is the actual language of Act 182) with an “original birth certificate on record.” So it is even possible that the birth certificate referred to by Dr Fukino is of the kind specified in Act 182. This possibility cannot be dismissed because such a certificate certainly satisfies Dr Fukino’s statement that “I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.” If this is the case, Dr Fukino would have perpetrated so unusually disgusting a deception that I find it practically incredible (and I greatly doubt that anyone could be that shameless). On the other hand, if the original birth certificate is of types 2, 3, or 4, Dr Fukino’s statement would be only somewhat less deceptive and verbally tricky. I only bring up this possibility to show how cleverly hedged and “lawyered” and basically worthless Dr Fukino’s statement is.

Sections 57-8, 9, 18, 19, 20 & 40 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act explain why Barack Obama has refused to release the original vault birth certificate. If the original certificate were the standard BC1 type of birth certificate, he would have allowed its release and brought the controversy to a quick end. But if the original certificate is of the other kinds, then Obama would have a very good reason not to release the vault birth certificate. For if he did, then the tape recording of Obama’s Kenyan grandmother asserting that she was present at his birth in Kenya becomes far more important. As does the Kenyan ambassador’s assertion that Barack Obama was born in Kenya, as well as the sealing of all government and hospital records relevant to Obama by the Kenyan government. And the fact that though there are many witnesses to Ann Dunham’s presence on Oahu from Sept 1960 to Feb 1961, there are no witnesses to her being on Oahu from March 1961 to August 1962 when she returned from Seattle and the University of Washington. No Hawaiian physicians, nurses, or midwives have come forward with any recollection of Barack Obama’s birth.

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

Clearing the Smoke on Obama’s Eligibility: An Intelligence Investigator’s June 10 Report

I defy Chuck Todd or anyone else to repudiate what is written above.

There is zero proof that Obama was born in the US.

Period!!!

 

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

 

Zero proof Obama born in US, Donald Trump don’t let them castrate you, Bettina Viviano: the original birthers were Bill & Hillary Clinton, Bettina heard it directly out of their mouths, Bettina told Citizen Wells in early 2009

Zero proof Obama born in US, Donald Trump don’t let them castrate you, Bettina Viviano: the original birthers were Bill & Hillary Clinton, Bettina heard it directly out of their mouths, Bettina told Citizen Wells in early 2009

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Barack Obama, show me the college loans.”…Citizen Wells

“Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.”…George Orwell, “1984″

 

 

Minimally, one must be a US citizen at birth to be eligible for the presidency.

There is no mention of a birth certificate.

What passes for a birth certificate in Hawaii does not pass muster in most if not all states.

Let’s pretend for a moment that the image placed on Whitehouse.gov is considered a birth certificate in Hawaii.

It does not prove US birth.

Why?

First of all it is not a certified copy of an original birth certificate.

Birth certificates did not look like that when Obama was born.

Secondly, at the time of his birth, one could be born elsewhere and have the birth recorded in Hawaii.

Family friend and Governor Abercrombie stated that he could find no birth certificate only a recordation.

Tim Adams signed an affidavit, a legal document, stating that there was no birth certificate for Obama.

Lastly, look at the bottom of the image.

WhiteHouseGovAbstractVerbage

It states or abstract.

Abstract: “The term abstract is subject to different meanings, but in a legal sense, it refers to an abbreviated history of an official record.”

There is apparently a notation of Obama’s birth recorded in Hawaii.

Where he was born is anyone’s guess.

However, there is extensive, compelling evidence that he was born in Kenya.

When people ask me, I honestly tell them I don’t know.

If I were a judge and had to make a ruling, in the absence of proof of US Birth, I would rule based on the vast circumstantial evidence and rule he was born in Kenya.

I defy anyone, the Clinton Campaign, Obama camp, media outlet to challenge me.

Now for the lies coming from Hillary, her campaign and the mainstream media.

From the Huffington Post September 16, 2016.

“Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump falsely claimed Friday that his opponent Hillary Clinton started the conspiracy theory that President Barack Obama was born in Kenya.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-hillary-clinton-started-birther-obama_us_57dc161fe4b04a1497b40c77

From the NY Times September 16, 2016.

“Trump Drops False ‘Birther’ Theory, but Floats a New One: Clinton Started It”

 

Bettina Viviano is a respected Hollywood Producer and a friend of mine.

By early 2009 she told me her story and part of it was hanging out with the Clintons in 2008. Her story about the Clintons telling her that Obama was not eligible directly to her has not changed over the years and has been consistent in multiple interviews.

From Citizen Wells March 21, 2012.

“I consider Bettina Viviano, a Hollywood Producer, a friend and a patriot. I have not spoken to her in a while so I left her a message a few minutes ago to thank her for her work and the interview.”

“1:00:15 – The ORIGINAL BIRTHERS were Bill & Hillary Clinton. Bettina heard it DIRECTLY out of their mouths.”

“1:44:30 – I heard it out of Bill Clinton’s mouth that Obama wasn’t legitimate.””

https://citizenwells.com/2012/03/21/bill-clinton-barack-obama-not-eligible-bettina-viviano-hollywood-producer-interview-dnc-pelosi-dean-reid-committed-fraud-obama-stole-2008-election/

 

So there you have it.

No proof of Obama US birth.

The Clintons were the first “birthers.”

Donald Trump, if you have any questions, I am at your service.

Don’t let them castrate you.

Wells

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/

http://citizenwells.net/

David Schippers report to House Judiciary Committee also scrubbed after Hillary Senate report, Not about sex or private conduct it is about multiple obstructions of justice perjury false and misleading statements witness tamperings and abuses of power all committed or orchestrated by the President of the United States

David Schippers report to House Judiciary Committee also scrubbed after Hillary Senate report, Not about sex or private conduct it is about multiple obstructions of justice perjury false and misleading statements witness tamperings and abuses of power all committed or orchestrated by the President of the United States

“the Democratic Party overlooked the ethical red flags and made a pact with Mr. Clinton that was the equivalent of a pact with the devil. And he delivered. With Mr. Clinton at the controls, the party won the White House twice. But in the process it lost its bearings and maybe even its soul.”…Bob Herbert, NY Times February 26, 2001

“I think that it was Hillary all the way. I think that she’s the mean-spirited one. She’s the ideologue, she’s the flaming left-wing socialist liberal. She’s a bad person with a criminal mind.”…Jerry Falwell

“The devil’s in that woman.”…Miss Emma, Clinton’s cook, governor’s mansion

 

 

I have uncovered and resurrected another document associated with David Schippers, majority chief investigative counsel for the impeachment of Bill Clinton, and like the Rosemary Jenks testimony, was scrubbed from the House Judiciary website just after the Senator Hillary Clinton report on Passage of The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, dated December 8, 2004.

The following are some of the more interesting remarks by Mr. Schippers along with a link to the entire report.

From the David Schippers report to the House Judiciary Committee.

“Unfortunately, because of the extremely strict time limits placed upon us, a number of very promising leads had to be abandoned. We just ran out of time. In addition, many other allegations of possible serious wrongdoing cannot be presented publicly at this time by virtue of circumstances totally beyond our control.

For example, we uncovered more incidents involving probable direct and deliberate obstruction of justice, witness tampering, perjury and abuse of power. We were, however, informed both by the Department of Justice and by the Office of the Independent Counsel that to bring forth publicly that evidence at this time would seriously compromise pending criminal investigations that are nearing completion. We have bowed to their suggestion.”

“When I appeared in this Committee Room a little over two months ago, it was merely to analyze the Referral and report. Today, after our investigation, I have come to a point that I prayed I would never reach. It is my sorrowful duty now to accuse President William Jefferson Clinton of obstruction of justice, false and deliberately misleading statements under oath, witness tampering, abuse of power, and false statements to and obstruction of the Congress of the United States in the course of this very impeachment inquiry. Whether these charges are high crimes and misdemeanors and whether the President should be impeached is not for me to say or even to give an opinion. That is your job. I am merely going to set forth the evidence and testimony before you so that you can judge.

As I stated earlier, this is not about sex or private conduct, it is about multiple obstructions of justice, perjury, false and misleading statements, witness tamperings and abuses of power, all committed or orchestrated by the President of the United States.

Before we get into the President’s lies and obstruction, it is important to place the events in the proper context. We have acknowledged all along that if this were only about sex, you would not now be engaged in this debate. But the manner in which the Lewinsky relationship arose and continued is important. It is illustrative of the character of the President and the decisions he made.”

“December 28, 1997 is a crucial date, because the evidence shows that the President made false and misleading statements to the federal court, the federal grand jury and the Congress of the United States about the events on that date. (Chart J) It also is critical evidence that he obstructed justice.

The President testified that it was “possible” that he invited Ms. Lewinsky to the White House for this visit. He admitted that he “probably” gave Ms. Lewinsky the most gifts he had ever given her on that date, and that he had given her gifts on other occasions. (Chart D) Among the many gifts the President gave Ms. Lewinsky on December 28 was a bear that he said was a symbol of strength. Yet only two-and-a-half short weeks later, the President forgot that he had given any gifts to Monica.

 

[DEPOSITION TAPE #1]

Now, as an attorney, he knew that the law will not tolerate someone who says “I don’t recall” when that answer is unreasonable under the circumstances. He also knew that, under those circumstances, his answer in the deposition could not be believed. When asked in the grand jury why he was unable to remember, though he had given Ms. Lewinsky so many gifts only two-and-a-half weeks before the deposition, the President put forth a lame and obviously contrived explanation.”

“Just how important was Monica Lewinsky’s false Affidavit to the President’s deposition? It enabled Mr. Clinton, through his attorneys, to assert at his January 17, 1998 deposition ” . . . there is absolutely no sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form with President Clinton . . . .””

“Do you think for one moment, after watching that tape, that the President was not paying attention? They were talking about Monica Lewinsky, at the time the most dangerous person in the President’s life. If the false Affidavit worked and Ms. Jones’ lawyers were not permitted to question him about her, he was home free. Can anyone rationally argue, then, that the President wasn’t vitally interested in what Mr. Bennett was saying? Nonetheless, when he was asked in the grand jury whether Mr. Bennett’s statement was false, he still was unable to tell the truth — even before a federal grand jury. He answered with the now famous sentence, “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”

That single declaration reveals more about the character of the President than perhaps anything else in this record. It points out his attitude and his conscious indifference and complete disregard for the concept of the truth. He picks out a single word and weaves from it a deceitful answer. “Is” doesn’t mean “was” or “will be”, so I can answer no. He also invents convoluted definitions of words or phrases in his own crafty mind. Of course, he will never seek to clarify a question, because that may trap him into a straight answer.

Can you imagine dealing with such a person in any important matter? You would never know his secret mental reservations or the unspoken redefinition of words. Even if you thought you had solved the enigma, it wouldn’t matter – – he would just change the meaning to suit his purpose.

But the President reinforced Monica’s lie. Mr. Bennett read to him the paragraph in Ms. Lewinsky’s Affidavit where she denied a sexual relationship with the President.”

“GRAND JURY TESTIMONY

On August 17, the last act of the tragedy took place. After six scorned invitations, the President of the United States appeared before a grand jury of his fellow citizens and took an oath to tell the truth. We all know what happened. The President equivocated and engaged in legalistic fencing, but he also lied. During the course of this presentation, I have discussed several of those lies specifically. Actually, the entire performance, and it was a performance, was calculated to mislead and deceive the grand jury and eventually the American people. The tone was set at the very beginning. Judge Starr testified that in a grand jury a witness can tell the truth, lie or assert his privileges against self incrimination. (Chart Y) President Clinton was given a fourth choice. The President was permitted to read a statement. Here it is. (Chart Z)

That statement itself is false in many particulars.

President Clinton claims that he engaged in wrong conduct with Ms. Lewinsky “on certain occasions in early 1996 and once in 1997.” Notice he didn’t mention 1995. There was a reason. On the three “occasions” in 1995, Monica was a twenty-one year old intern. As for being alone on “certain occasions,” the President was alone with Monica more than twenty times at least. (Chart A) The President also told the jurors that he “also had occasional telephone conversations with Ms. Lewinsky that included sexual banter.” Occasional sounds like once every four months or so, doesn’t it? Actually, the two had at least fifty-five phone conversations, many in the middle of the night and in seventeen of these calls, Monica and the President of the United States engaged in phone sex. (Chart B) I am not going into any details, but if what happened on these phone calls is banter, then Buckingham Palace is a house.

Here we are again with the President carefully crafting his statements to give the appearance of being candid, when actually his intent was the opposite. In addition, throughout the testimony whenever the President was asked a specific question that could not be answered directly without either admitting the truth or giving an easily provable false answer, he said, “I rely on my statement.” Nineteen times he relied on this false and misleading statement; nineteen times, then, he repeated those lies.”

“ABUSE OF POWER

As soon as Paula Jones filed her lawsuit, President Clinton, rather than confront the charges, tried to get it dismissed. To do so he used the power and dignity of the Office of President in an attempt to deny Ms. Jones her day in Court. He argued that, as President, he is immune from a lawsuit during his tenure in office. That is, that the President as president, is immune from the civil law of the land. As I recall a similar position was taken by King John just before the gathering at Runnymede when Magna Carta was signed. More interesting is the rationale given by the President for that immunity:

The broad public and constitutional interests that would be placed at risk by litigating such claims against an incumbent President far outweigh the asserted private interest of a plaintiff who seeks civil damages for an alleged past injury.

There you have it. Sorry, Ms. Jones, because William Jefferson Clinton occupies the Office of President, your lawsuit against him, not as President, but personally must be set aside. The President’s lawyers are referring to the most basic civil rights of an American citizen to due process of law and to the equal protection of the laws; those same rights that President Clinton had taken an oath to preserve and protect. Or is it that some people are more equal than others? Here is a clear example of the President abusing the power and majesty of his office to obtain a purely personal advantage over Ms. Jones and avoid having to pay damages. The case was, in fact, stalled for several years until the Supreme Court ruled. If there is one statement that might qualify as the motto of this Presidency, it is that contained in one of the briefs filed on behalf of Mr. Clinton: “In a very real and significant way, the objectives of William J. Clinton, the person, and his Administration are one and the same.”

The President was just getting started: He employed the power and prestige of his office and of his cabinet officers to mislead and to lie to the American people about the Jones case and the Monica Lewinsky matter. But more: throughout the grand jury investigation and various other investigations, the President has tried to extend the relatively narrow bounds of presidential privilege to unlimited, if not bizarre lengths.”

“C. Sidney Blumenthal

Later in the day on January 21, 1998, the President called Sydney Blumenthal to his office. It is interesting to note how the President’s lies become more elaborate and pronounced when he has time to concoct his newest line of defense. Remember that when the President spoke to Mr. Bowles and Mr. Podesta, he simply denied the story. But, by the time he spoke to Mr. Blumenthal, the President has added three new angles to his defense strategy: (1) he now portrays Monica Lewinsky as the aggressor; (2) he launches an attack on her reputation by portraying her as a “stalker”; and (3) he presents himself as the innocent victim being attacked by the forces of evil.”

“The media have reported that sources describe Lewinsky as “infatuated” with the president, “star struck” and even “a stalker.”

Listen to this on January 31:

One White House aide called reporters to offer information about Monica Lewinsky’s past, her weight problems and what the aide said was her nickname – “The Stalker.”

Junior staff members, speaking on the condition that they not be identified, said she was known as a flirt, wore her skirts too short, and was “A little bit weird.”

Little by little, ever since allegations of an affair between U.S. President Bill Clinton and Lewinsky surfaced 10 days ago, White House sources have waged a behind-the-scenes campaign to portray her as an untrustworthy climber obsessed with the President.

Just hours after the story broke, one White House source made unsolicited calls offering that Lewinsky was the “troubled” product of divorced parents and may have been following the footsteps of her mother, who wrote a tell-all book about the private lives of three famous opera singers.

One story had Lewinsky following former Clinton aide George Stephanopoulos to Starbucks. After observing what kind of coffee he ordered, she showed up the next day at his secretary’s desk with a cup of the same coffee to “surprise him.”

Sound familiar? It ought to because that is the exact tactic used to destroy Paula Jones. The difference is that these evil rumors were emanating from the White House, the Bastion of the free world. And to protect one man from being forced to answer for his deportment in the highest office in the land.”

“Stripped to its basic elements, the President’s submission merely states:

That the President lied. That it was okay to lie to the people, because it was nobody’s business but his own; that his conduct is not a “high crime or misdemeanor”; that he would never be convicted of perjury or obstruction in a court of law; that the Jones suit was bogus, therefore, his testimony did not matter (do you settle bogus suits for $700,000 after you have won?); Judge Starr was a prosecutor most foul; Judge Starr purposely failed to include relevant exculpatory evidence; and finally, impeachment is such a big step that this Committee should not put the country through it. By the way, who put the country through this? The President, by his actions.”

“Paula Jones is an American citizen, just a single citizen who felt that she had suffered a legal wrong.

More important, that legal wrong was based upon the Constitution of the United States. She claimed essentially that she was subjected to sexual harassment, which, in turn, constitutes discrimination on the basis of gender. The case was not brought against just any citizen, but against the President of the United States, who was under a legal and moral obligation to preserve and protect Ms. Jones’ rights. It is relatively simple to mouth high minded platitudes and to prosecute vigorously rights violations by someone else. It is, however, a test of courage, honor and integrity to enforce those rights against yourself. The President failed that test. As a citizen, Ms. Jones enjoyed an absolute constitutional right to petition the Judicial Branch of government to redress that wrong by filing a lawsuit in the United States District Court, which she did. At this point she became entitled to a trial by jury if she chose, due process of law and the equal protection of the laws no matter who the defendant was in her suit. Due process contemplates the right to a full and fair trail, which, in turn, means the right to call and question witnesses, to cross examine adverse witnesses and to have her case decided by an unbiased and fully informed jury. What did she actually get? None of the above.

On May 27, 1997, the United States Supreme Court ruled in a nine to zero decision that, “like every other citizen,” Paula Jones “has a right to an orderly disposition of her claims.” In accordance with the Supreme Court’s decision, United States District Judge Susan Webber Wright ruled on December 11, 1997, that Ms. Jones was entitled to information regarding state or federal employees with whom the President had sexual relations from May, 1986 to the present. Judge Wright had determined that the information was reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Six days after this ruling, the President filed an answer to Ms. Jones’ Amended Complaint. The President’s Answer stated: “President Clinton denies that he engaged in any improper conduct with respect to plaintiff or any other woman.”

Ms. Jones’ right to call and depose witnesses was thwarted by perjurious and misleading affidavits and motions; her right to elicit testimony from adverse witnesses was compromised by perjury and false and misleading statements under oath, and, as a result, had a jury tried the case, it would have been deprived of critical information.

That result is bad enough in itself, but it reaches constitutional proportions when denial of the civil rights is directed by the President of the United States who twice took an oath to preserve, protect and defend those rights. But we now know what the “sanctity of an oath” means to the President.

Moreover, the President is the spokesman for the government and the people of the United States concerning both domestic and foreign matters. His honesty and integrity, therefore, directly influence the credibility of this country. When, as here, that spokesman is guilty of a continuing pattern of lies, misleading statements and deceits over a long period of time, the believability of any of his pronouncements is seriously called into question. Indeed, how can anyone in or out of our country any longer believe anything he says? And what does that do to confidence in the honor and integrity of the United States?

Just a few brief quotations:

“The President must be permitted to respond to allegations . . . not only to defend his own personal integrity, but the integrity of the Office of the Presidency itself.”

That is because:

“The President, for all practical purposes . . . affords the only means through which we can act as a Nation.”

Finally,

“A President needs to maintain prestige as an element of Presidential influence in order to carry out his duties effectively. In particular, a President must inspire confidence in his integrity, compassion, competency and capacity to take charge in any conceivable situation. Indeed, it is scarcely possible to govern well in the absence of such confidence.”

I am not quoting from some law book or from an esoteric treatise on government. Those quotations are taken directly from pleadings and briefs filed in the Jones case on behalf of William Jefferson Clinton.

Make no mistake, the conduct of the President is inextricably bound to the welfare of the people of the United States. Not only does it affect economic and national defense, but even more directly, it affects the moral and law abiding fibre of the commonwealth, without which no nation can survive. When, as here, that conduct involves a pattern of abuses of power, of perjury, of deceit, of obstruction of justice and of the Congress and of other illegal activities; the resulting damage to the honor and respect due to the United States is, of necessity, devastating.

Again: there is no such thing as non-serious lying under oath. Every time a witness lies, that witness chips a stone from the foundation of our entire legal system. Likewise, every act of obstruction of justice, of witness tampering or of perjury adversely affects the judicial branch of government like a pebble tossed into a lake. You may not notice the effect at once, but you can be certain that the tranquility of that lake has been disturbed. And if enough pebbles are thrown into the water, the lake itself may disappear. So too with the truth seeking process of the courts. Every unanswered and unpunished assault upon it has its lasting effect and given enough of them, the system itself will implode.

That is why those two women who testified before you had been indicted, convicted and punished severely for false statements under oath in civil cases. And that is why only a few days ago a federal grand jury in Chicago indicted four former college football players because they gave false testimony under oath to a grand jury. Nobody suggested that they should not be charged because their motives may have been to protect their careers and family. And nobody has suggested that the perjury was non-serious because it involved only lies about sports; betting on college football games.

Apart from all else, the President’s illegal actions constitute an attack upon and utter disregard for the truth, and for the rule of law. Much worse, they manifest an arrogant disdain not only for the rights of his fellow citizens, but also for the functions and the integrity of the other two co-equal branches of our constitutional system. One of the witnesses that appeared earlier likened the government of the United States to a three legged stool. The analysis is apt; because the entire structure of our country rests upon three equal supports; the Legislative, the Judicial and the Executive. Remove one of those supports, and the State will totter. Remove two and the structure will either collapse altogether or will rest upon a single branch of government. Another name for that is tyranny.

The President mounted a direct assault upon the truth seeking process which is the very essence and foundation of the Judicial Branch. Not content with that, though, Mr. Clinton renewed his lies, half truths and obstruction to this Congress when he filed his answers to simple requests to admit or deny. In so doing, he also demonstrated his lack of respect for the constitutional functions of the Legislative Branch.

Actions do not lose their public character merely because they may not directly affect the domestic and foreign functioning of the Executive Branch. Their significance must be examined for their effect on the functioning of the entire system of government. Viewed in that manner, the President’s actions were both public and extremely destructive.”

Full report:

David Schippers Report House Judiciary Committee, Majority chief investigative counsel for impeachment, Probable direct and deliberate obstruction of justice witness tampering perjury and abuse of power leads abandoned due to strict time limits

The above are excerpts from the full report which is the tip of the iceberg.

As Mr. Schippers stated:

“For example, we uncovered more incidents involving probable direct and deliberate obstruction of justice, witness tampering, perjury and abuse of power. We were, however, informed both by the Department of Justice and by the Office of the Independent Counsel that to bring forth publicly that evidence at this time would seriously compromise pending criminal investigations that are nearing completion. We have bowed to their suggestion.”

Mr. Schippers uncovered Clinton abuse of INS naturalization of immigrants.

“My staff and I agreed that we needed to focus on the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), which appeared to be running out of control. By the time we came to the subject, investigations by the General Accounting Office (GAO) and congressional committees had already indicated that the White House used the INS to further its political agenda. A blatant politicization of the agency took place during the 1996 presidential campaign when the White House pressured the INS into expediting its “Citizenship USA” (CUSA) program to grant citizenship to thousands of aliens that the White House counted as likely Democratic voters. To ensure maximum impact, the INS concentrated on aliens in key states — California, Florida, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, and Texas — that hold a combined 181 electoral votes, just 89 short of the total needed to win the election.”

https://citizenwells.com/2016/08/27/hillary-clinton-2003-2004-immigration-i-am-adamantly-against-illegal-immigrants-acting-conservative-to-run-for-president-or-damage-control-for-clinton-administration-policies-senator-clinton-s/

Rapegate and Juanita Broaddrick rape and coverup.

“Are there other victims like Juanita Broaddrick in Bill Clinton’s past? The husband-and-wife team of Rick and Beverly Lambert say the answer to that question is yes.

Seasoned private investigators with a knack for success, the Lamberts were tapped by Paula Jones’ lawyers in September 1997 for the Jane Doe search. For six months, they traveled between Arkansas and D.C. looking for women whose account could bolster Jones’ allegation.

What they found horrified and nauseated the handful of congressmen familiar with their work product, which was turned over to the House Judiciary Committee after being subpoenaed by the Office of Independent Counsel. Arguably, President Clinton would never have been impeached had several House members not switched their votes after reviewing evidence in the Lamberts’ Jane Doe files.”

The Jane Doe Case Files — Part 1, Paula Jones’ Investigators Reveal their Secrets, Other victims like Juanita Broaddrick, House Judiciary Committee congressmen horrified and nauseated, 209 witnesses contacted, NewsMax February 24, 1999

Each of us can make a difference.

Myself, each of you can spread the word and help keep David Schippers’ words alive.

From David Schippers report:

“What I say here will be forgotten in a few days; but what you do here will be incised in the history of the United States for all time to come. Unborn generations – assuming those generations are still free and are still permitted to read true history – will learn of these proceedings and will most certainly judge this Committee’s actions. What will be their verdict? Will it be that you rose above party and faction, and reestablished Justice, Decency, Honor and Truth as the standard by which even the highest office in the land must be evaluated? Or will it be that you announced that there is no abiding standard and that public officials are answerable only to politics, polls and propaganda. God forbid that that will be your legacy.”

Why would the House Judiciary website scrub a document of such historical significance after Senator Clinton’s report on December 8, 2004?

 

More here:

https://citizenwells.com/