The NY Times, long known to be biased, pulled a story about Barack
Obama’s campaign ties to ACORN. The story was pulled on October 21,
2008 because it would have been a “a game changer.”
“‘New York Times’ Spiked Obama Donor Story”
“Congressional Testimony: ‘Game-Changer’ Article Would Have Connected
Campaign With ACORN
By Michael P. Tremoglie, The Bulletin
Monday, March 30, 2009
A lawyer involved with legal action against Association of Community
Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) told a House Judiciary subcommittee
on March 19 The New York Times had killed a story in October that would
have shown a close link between ACORN, Project Vote and the Obama campaign
because it would have been a “a game changer.”
Heather Heidelbaugh, who represented the Pennsylvania Republican State
Committee in the lawsuit against the group, recounted for the ommittee what
she had been told by a former ACORN worker who had worked in the group’s
Washington, D.C. office. The former worker, Anita Moncrief, told Ms.
Heidelbaugh last October, during the state committee’s litigation against
ACORN, she had been a “confidential informant for several months to The New
York Times reporter, Stephanie Strom.”
Ms. Moncrief had been providing Ms. Strom with information about ACORN’s
election activities. Ms. Strom had written several stories based on
information Ms. Moncrief had given her.
During her testimony, Ms. Heidelbaugh said Ms. Moncrief had told her The
New York Times articles stopped when she revealed that the Obama presidential
campaign had sent its maxed-out donor list to ACORN’s Washington, D.C. office.”
““If true, The New York Times is showing once again that it is a not an
impartial observer of the political scene,” he said. “If they want to be a
mouthpiece for the Democratic Party, they should put Barack Obama approves
of this in their newspaper.””
There is plenty about Acorn, what their style of community organizing
really is and Obama’s ties to Acorn, voter fraud and socialism that
the MSM could have covered, but mostly chose to gloss over or ignore.
From the Citizen Wells blog:
I have been shopping at Barnes & Noble for many years. I have
a Barnes & Noble card and I use it regularly. Recently I noticed
on the Barnes & Noble internet site that they were allowing
“reviews”, actually Obama camp attacks and smears about Larry
Sinclair’s book, “Barack Obama and Larry Sinclair: Cocaine, Sex,
Lies and Murder?” Since I have covered the Larry Sinclair story
more than any other source and have witnessed first hand the
constant ongoing attacks against Larry Sinclair and anyone
questioning the “messiah”, Obama, I decided to counteract these
lies with the truth about Larry Sinclair. I posted the following
comment.
“CitizenWells
By the real Citizen Wells of the CitizenWells blog
Reader Rating See Detailed Ratings
Posted 03/16/09: From November 23, 2008 article: Larry Sinclair is publishing a book about his encounter with Obama in 1999 and the bigger story of his experience trying to get Obama to be held accountable and making the public aware. This is an incredible story that I have watched play out from a front row seat to my astonishment and disbelief. Up to this point in my life, I have only read about experiences like this happening in other countries. However, despite this all appearing surreal, it did indeed happen. As soon as Larry Sinclair produced his YouTube video, he received personal attacks and death threats on his person and family, website attacks and eventual incarceration in Delaware. This did not happen in the Soviet Union, Kenya or South America. This happened in America. I have followed, researched and written about the Larry Sinclair story probably more than any other source. I can state with authority that Larry Sinclair could not have made up this story. I hope to write a book in the near future and will elaborate on that and cover the other stories I have been associated with. However, only Larry Sinclair can tell his story. Here is a quick statement that I sent to Larry recently for possible inclusion in his book: “The Larry Sinclair story was the catalyst for me and many others to begin questioning the character and background of Barack Obama, a candidate that most of us knew little about. Mr. Sinclair’s allegations appeared preposterous at first but captured my curiousity. I began by examining the Official Illinois State Senate records for the period of November 3-8, 1999. I discovered that Obama was missing on November 4, 1999. I thought, “interesting.” I then read the transcripts from the Tim Russert, Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times. All three interviews asked Obama about his records during his tenure in the Illinois Senate. Obama was consistently vague and evasive in his answers. This piqued my curiousity more. One thing led to another and within a few days I knew that we had a problem with Obama. I had reached the point of no return and could not in good conscience abandon my efforts. I continued to follow the Larry Sinclair story and watched it play out in detail. I got to know Larry and we achieved a level of mutual trust that soon became a precious commodity. The Larry Sinclair story evolved into at least four large separate stories: 1. The initial encounter with Obama in 1999. 2. The Donald Young controversy. 3. The attacks made on Larry Sinclair, those following his story and anyone questioning the “messiah” Obama. 4. The changing and withholding of internet information and attempts to prevent Larry Sinclair and others from reporting the truth. I have come to know Larry Sinclair as a person and not just a story. I admire Larry for his persistence in the face of incredible odds, his integrity and his patriotism. If you want to know more about the real Barack Obama and what really happened during the 2008 election. If you want to read a book about real events that are so surreal they appear as fiction, order a copy of Larry Sinclair’s book here.”
Today I noticed my comment was not there. All
of the Obama camp smears were left there and
only one positive comment remained.
This is what I saw:
“There is no book to review! Just a scam
Rating
Posted March 9, 2009, 1:16 PM EST: Larry Sinclair is an ex-con and a well documented liar, This book is just another scam to make some fast cash, The Book originally was suppose to be in print over a month ago! Save your hard earned cash! He is a very sick and deranged individual just visit his website! He was first arrested on a larceny charge in 1981 in Denver, according to his Colorado arrest record, as filed in federal court. In 1985, he was convicted of theft and of forging a check in Florida, and sentenced to a year in jail, according to Florida records filed in federal court. After the Florida episode, according to the records, he returned to Colorado, where he faced check fraud and credit card charges in 1986. Then, in 1987, he was convicted in Colorado on more serious forgery charges, and sentenced to 16 years in jail. In prison, according to state records filed in federal court, Sinclair was disciplined 97 times for infractions including assault, threats, drug possession, intimidation, and verbal abuse, most recently in 1996. “He has not institutionalized well,” a spokeswoman for the Colorado Department of Corrections, Liz McDonough, told the Denver Post in 1996 after a month-long Sinclair hunger strike. She said he had served time in prisons in Buena Vista, Delta, Limon and Canon City before being transferred to the state’s maximum security penitentiary in 1993. In the summer of 1996, according to Colorado’s state court database, he began proceedings to formally change his name from LA Rye Viz. Avila to Larry Wayne Sinclair. By 1999, according to a mention in a local newspaper, he was out of jail and living in Pueblo, Colo. The Public Citizen investigator in Colorado stated that Sinclair’s outstanding legal troubles there appear to date from 2001, and that Sinclair’s effort to convince the judge in 2004 to dismiss those charges failed. The Pueblo County Sheriff’s website, which pictures Sinclair under the word “Wanted,” cites felony theft and forgery charges. Sinclair was also arrested and charged with disorderly conduct in South Carolina last September, according to state records filed in federal court.”
“Paranoid fantasy, far from “the truth”
Rating
Posted March 8, 2009, 9:19 PM EST: On the author’s blog, I have read several excerpts and all chapter titles from this libelous screed that the author, whose writing rarely rises to the level of amateur, announced plans to have printed by a vanity press. Lawrence Sinclair’s lurid tale of his supposed brief encounters with the now-president occupies only a small fraction of the book. The rest is free-form paranoia, as Sinclair grandiosely blames prominent people and institutions for persecuting him and causing his story to be ignored by the mainstream media for over a year. Readers in search of either sleazy fiction masquerading as nonfiction or a glimpse into the mind of a whining, manipulative sociopath would be well advised to skip these ravings of a career criminal (currently wanted on a felony charge in Colorado) and keep looking. This book (assuming that it is eventually printed, after numerous postponements) fails to satisfy on any level.”
Worth the Price I Paid!
Rating
Posted March 7, 2009, 3:49 PM EST: This debut novella from the author is part autobiography, part pornographic fiction. In this book, Sinclair discusses his early life and criminal enterprises which lands him in prison for years. After release, he continues on his criminal path by running drugs across the country for gangs and helping smuggle undocumented aliens into America. It’s during this period that the authors imagination comes to light as he writes of a bizarre chance meeting that includes drugs and gay sex. Frustrated with the “truth” he knows of a presidential candidate, Sinclair embarks on a crusade to save the country. After receiving no satisfaction from the candidate or the mainstream media, the author makes a YouTube video of his claims. He is offered a large sum of money to take a lie detector test, which Mr. Sinclair fails. Lacking any proof of his fantastic claims, Sinclair trudges on trying to spread the word and “make noise!” He is blocked at every turn by powerful politicians, the media, law enforcement, and a ruthless band of “Obots”(Obama paid bloggers). After a year of fighting, Sinclair was unable to stop the Obama-machine election victory and subsequent inauguration. Sinclair received tens of thousands in donations and payments over the year, while still collecting government SSI disability payments. Now, in one last effort to cash-in, Sinclair, who claims he is unable to work a job, has written a book and plans a cross-country book signing tour to promote it. Although still wanted in Colorado on a felony warrant for theft, Mr. Sinclair continues to claim he has paid his debt to society. This book, which is filled with distorted facts and outright libelous content, I cannot recommend for the simple reason that your money will go into the hands of a wanted career criminal. Or, as Keith Olbermann has referred to Mr. Sinclair, “a character assassin.””
“Larry Sinclair’s Book
Rating
Posted March 18, 2009, 2:19 AM EST: I was amused to see several book reviews for a book that hasn’t been published yet (I am writing this “review” on the 17th of March, 2009). This. then, is not a review of Sinclair’s book but it is a review about Mr. Larry Sinclair. I have followed his story since he first put a video on You Tube over a year ago. I have also seen his web site (WordPress) and his current one (http://larrysinclair-0926.blogspot.com/). If there is one thing that impresses me about Mr. Sinclair it is his consistency in dealing with the ‘facts’ of his story. He hasn’t wavered a bit in relating those ‘facts’ as he says he knows them. Many people who will read his book will cringe at his graphic discription pertaining to the subject matter. They will also judge Mr. Sinclair harshly, especially if they are fundamentalist religionists because of his life-style: This being said, if what he says is true then those same people who would judge him harshly must also, in the final analysis, jusdge the current President of the United States of America with that same judgment (and even more harshly) because you will read things alleged about Mr. Barack Hussein Obama that will turn your stomach in-side-out. I have pre-ordered a copy of Mr. Sinclair’s book for two reasons: 1) I believe what he alleges has a ring of truth concerning Mr. Obama and 2) this book will be a collector’s item no matter what the fall-out might be as a result of its publication. –jws”
“Author has already described the book’s contents thoroughly: lie after lie
Rating
Posted March 19, 2009, 2:21 PM EST: Those who have read the author’s website are already quite familiar with the contents of this book. It should be clear to any reader capable of critical thinking that Sinclair presents absolutely no credible evidence for his various melodramatic claims, and usually no evidence at all. Although he devotes a portion of the book to his early years as a criminal, he declines to take responsibility for the charges of felonious theft, fraud, or deceit that have repeatedly put him on the wrong side of the law right up through the present day. If this book ever makes it to publication, after several months’ delay, I will consider it just another one of his cons. Let the buyer beware.”
“A Scam By Any Other Name Is Still A Scam…
Rating
Posted March 19, 2009, 4:15 PM EST: What can I say about a book that was supposed to be in the Author’s BUYERS’ hands in December, January, February, March and now April. There is no book, there never will be a book. I can only give a review if the author and for that Ben Smith of Politico says it for me: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11164.html” Anyone following the 2008 election and the
Larry Sinclair story will recognize these
comments coming from the same liars and
smear specialists of the Obama camp.
The Obama thugs.
I am not accusing Barnes & Noble of anything yet, but it does look
very suspicious. I intend to get a straight answer from them. If
I do not. I will cancel my Barnes & Noble card and take my business
elsewhere. I will also encourage others to do likewise. I have
watched the Obama camp bring this country to a state not unlike
that of Nazi Germany and “1984” by George Orwell. Altering book
sales hits too close to home.
** UPDATE **
I just sent an email to Mary Ellen Keating,
Senior Vice President, Corporate Communications
for Barnes & Noble:
“I am writing to you from the Citizen Wells blog. I receive a high rate of readership.
I have followed closely events of the 2008 election and have covered the Larry
Sinclair story more than any other source. This includes, but is not limited to,
all of the hate filled attacks on Mr. Sinclair as well as myself and many others.
I have posted an article regarding the comments you have allowed and the one
by me that was removed. I am contacting you out of a sense of fairness and
seeking the truth. I noticed your reaction to a tampering episode at B&N that was
perceived as hate motivated.
“Barnes & Noble Outraged Over Tampering of Store Display in Coral Gables, Florida
New York, New York – March 6, 2009 – Barnes & Noble, Inc. (NYSE: BKS), the world’s largest bookseller, announced today
that it is the victim of a malicious act. The company is outraged over the tampering of a store display in its Coral
Gables, Florida store by a customer who placed an inappropriate title in the center of its Presidential display.
Barnes & Noble believes the incident occurred two weeks ago when a customer took a book from another part of the store
entitled Monkeys: A Captivating Look at These Fascinating Animals, placed it in the window display and then
photographed the altered display. When Barnes & Noble discovered the book in the display it immediately removed it.
Since then, the photograph has been widely distributed via email and over the Internet falsely claiming that Barnes &
Noble actually placed the book in the display.”
Dr. Orly Taitz, the courageous immigrant from Russia,
the true American, can be seen and heard confronting
Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, John Roberts,
at the conclusion of the Bellwood lecture at the
University of Idaho. Dr. Taitz is involved in multiple
lawsuits at the state and Supreme Court level that
state that Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen
and is ineligible to be president. Orly Taitz has
enlisted numerous military officers and soldiers as
plaintiffs in her lawsuits.
I received the following email request on December 26, 2008:
“XXXXX XXXXXX of TX has today gotten off the phone with Ron Paul.
Her parents live in the same city as RP.
Bad news. He does NOT intend at this time to stand up on Jan
8th. Part of the reason XXXXX mentioned was that RP said no
one knew the definition by either the law cases and Constitution
itself as to the real menaing of natural born.
Citizen Wells, I immediately thought of all your great research
on natural born that you’ve posted on our website. Its too much
to expect RP or any Congress critter to read it all BUT…
Here’s you assignment. Condense into no more than 3 pages with
full legal references on as many pages as needed. The more the
RELEVANT references the better. Can we have this done by Dec 28th?
I also ask that XXXXX, XXX and you coordinate the naturing of Ron
Paul. Your goal is to get him to agree to file the written
objection NLT Jan 3rd.
Are you’ll up to that challenge? If Ron Paul does sign on, he
will bring other Constitutionalists along in both the Senate and
House.”
Obviously Ron Paul is not paying attention.
I spent most of my time trying to debunk what I believed
about natural born citizen and after much reading posted
the following on the Citizen Wells blog on December 28,
2008:
Dean Haskins used this information to
produce this excellent video:
Exactly What IS a Natural Born Citizen?
Leo Donofrio has posted his most recent opinion about natural
born citizen and the influence of Vattel on the founding
fathers. Thanks to Phil at the Right Side of Life website
for the heads up.
“ONE FINAL POINT ABOUT THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN CLAUSE.
The more I read Vattel (pictured above), specifically the passage which defines “natural-born citizen”, the more convinced I become that the framers understood Vattel much better than we have on this issue. I now am firmly convinced that the framers relied on Vattel’s definition when they included the natural born citizen clause in Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5.
Yesterday, I had a revelation as to what Vattel meant and what the framers intended “natural born citizen” to mean in the Constitution. It’s obvious that the framers drew a distinction between the meaning of “citizen” and the meaning of “natural born citizen”. A “citizen” can be Senator or Representative, but in order to be President one must be a natural born citizen.
It’s the difference between a fact and a legal status.
Whether you are a natural born citizen is a fact of nature which can’t be waived or renounced, but your actual legal citizenship can be renounced. The difference is subtle, but so very important. “Natural born citizen” is not a different form of “citizenship”. It is a manner of acquiring citizenship. And while natural born citizens may end their legal tie to the country by renouncing citizenship, they will always have been naturally born into that nation as a citizen.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
Two different sentences. Two different civil groups are being discussed.
Examine the subject heading given by Vattel, “Natives and Citizens”. Two separate groups of the civil society are addressed in the heading. And here is the start of the greatest proof that the framers relied on Vattel as to the natural born citizen clause.
In the passage above, the first sentence defines who the “citizens” of a civil society are. Vattel states; “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages.”
In the very next sentence he describes a different set of people wherein he states, “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”
There are natives and citizens, just as the header says. All citizens are members of the civil society, but not all citizens are natives or natural-born citizens. A native can’t renounce his “nativeness”. He’s a native forever. He might renounce the citizenship he gained through being a native, but he can’t renounce the FACT of his birth as a native.
Vattel equates natives with natural-born citizens. They are the same. According to Vattel, in order to be a native, one must be born of the soil and the blood of two citizen parents.
He goes on as follows:
“As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights…I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
Some have argued that this passage indicates only one parent – the father – is necessary for one to be a natural born citizen. That is false. The above passage only mentions the word “citizen”. It says the children of the father are “citizens”, but it does not say they are “natives or natural-born citizens”. Vattel is discussing the legality of citizenship, not the fact of one’s birth as being native.
When Vattel wrote this in 1758, he wasn’t arguing for its inclusion in a future US Constitution as a qualification for being President. But the framers did read his work. And when it came to choosing the President, they wanted a “natural-born citizen”, not just a citizen. That is clear in the Constitution. Vattel doesn’t say that “natives or natural-born citizens” have any special legal rights over “citizens”. He simply described a phenomenon of nature, that the citizenship of those who are born on the soil to citizen parents (plural) is a “natural-born citizen”.
Citizen = legal status
Native or natural-born citizen = fact of birth which bestows citizenship.
Vattel also wrote:
“The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born.
Once again, he does not mention natives or natural-born citizens in this passage, just citizens. Furthermore, he states that the citizens may renounce their citizenship when they come of legal age. But nobody can renounce a fact of birth. The fact is true or it is not true. You’re either “born” a natural-born citizen or you are not. The legal citizenship which attaches to this fact of birth may be renounced, but the fact will be with you forever.
And it is that fact of birth the framers sought to guarantee for each President of the United States. The framers ruled that the commander in chief be a natural born citizen. Like Vattel, the framers purposely distinguished between “citizens” and “natural born citizens”. And to that distinction there can only be one effect:
ONLY A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN CAN BE PRESIDENT.
According to Chief Justice Marshall’s opinion in Marbury v. Madison, the 14th amendment cannot make the natural born citizen clause from Article 2 Section 1 superfluous. If being born as a 14th Amendment citizen was enough to be President, then the natural born citizen clause would have no effect. According to Marshall, that argument is inadimissible.
President Obama is not a natural born citizen of the United States whethe he was born in Hawaii or not.
FAREWELL.
I am not going to protest any longer. As a Christian, I’m somewhat convinced this nation has been judged by the almighty and his fury may be descending as we speak. Such fury appears to be in the form of Constitutional cancer. I have prayed over my continuing role in this battle and the answer to those prayers said I am done here. As a true believer in the Lord Jesus Christ, I place my faith not in any organized religion but in the words of the lamb and the voice of God. Peace be with you.
I respectfully disagree with Leo Donofrio on one important aspect.
Barack Obama is not president under the US Constitution. No amount
of swearing in makes one president. Only a combination of the
election process and being qualified under the US Constitution makes
one president.
Definition of lie from Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary:
lie 1a: an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker
to be untrue with intent to deceive
1b: an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be
believed true by the speaker
2: something that misleads or deceives
3: a charge of lying
Throughout the past election year, concerns of bias and political
agendas have pervaded the thoughts of millions of Americans. Many
have turned to the internet to escape the heavy bias and promotion
of Obama by MSM on TV and print media. Two conspicuously biased
internet websites are Huffington Post and Politico. The Citizen
Wells blog has called out Ben Smith of Politico before. Even though
the 2008 election is over, these two sites are apparently committed
to performing as front organizations for the Obama Camp. So the
question still begs to be answered. What motivates these 2 sites
to cover the behind of the illegal POTUS, Barack Obama. Please
respond and tell the American People which of the following apply:
In the tank for Obama.
Sloppy reporting.
Paid by the Obama Camp.
No regard for the truth.
If you have some information that has been hidden from us and the
American public, please provide it. For example, a real birth
certificate. If you have a justification for what you have written,
please supply and we will publish it. In the absence of a cogent
response from you, the intelligent and informed reader will easily
discern which of the above that apply to you.
Here is the latest spin and misinformation from
Huffington Post and Ben Smith of Politico:
“The Huffington Post Rachel Weiner February 22, 2009 10:18 AM”
“The Cullman Times reports that Alabama Sen. Richard Shelby, in a
meeting with constituents, appeared to give some thought to rumors
questioning President Obama’s citizenship.”
“According to the Associated Press, state officials in Hawaii checked
health department records during the campaign and determined there
was no doubt Obama was born in Hawaii.
Politico’s Ben Smith says he has emailed Shelby’s spokesman to ask if
the Senator actually believes there’s truth in the repeatedly
debunked rumor.”
Another local resident asked [Alabama Senator Richard] Shelby if
there was any truth to a rumor that appeared during the presidential
campaign concerning Obama’s U.S. citizenship, or lack thereof.”
“I emailed Shelby’s spokesman, Jonathan Graffeo, to ask if Shelby
believes there’s substance to this rumor, for which no supporting
evidence has ever emerge, and which has been debunked repeatedly
and in detail.”
“Another local resident asked Shelby if there was any truth to a
rumor that appeared during the presidential campaign concerning
Obama’s U.S. citizenship, or lack thereof.
“Well his father was Kenyan and they said he was born in Hawaii,
but I haven’t seen any birth certificate,” Shelby said. “You have
to be born in America to be president.”
According to the Associated Press, state officials in Hawaii checked
health department records during the campaign and determined there
was no doubt Obama was born in Hawaii.
The nonpartisan Web site Factcheck.org examined the original document
and said it does have a raised seal and the usual evidence of a genuine
document. In addition, Factcheck.org reproduced an announcement of
Obama’s birth, including his parents’ address in Honolulu, that was
published in the Honolulu Advertiser on Aug. 13, 1961.”
What Dr. Fukino of the Hawaii Health
Department really said.
Hawaii Health Dept. News Release October 31, 2008:
“DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
News Release
LINDA LINGLE
GOVERNOR
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CHIYOME LEINAALA FUKINO M.D.
DIRECTOR
Phone: (808) 586-4410
Fax: (808) 586-4444
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release: October 31, 2008 08-93
STATEMENT BY DR. CHIYOME FUKINO
“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.
“No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawai‘i.”
###
For more information, contact:
Janice Okubo
Communications Office
Phone: (808) 586-4442 ”
What the AP writer wrote to
misrepresent Dr. Fukino’s
statement in an Orwellian
tactic.
“State declares Obama birth certificate genuine
The Associated Press
Fri, Oct 31, 2008 (4:18 p.m.)
State officials say there’s no doubt Barack Obama was born in Hawaii.
Health Department Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said Friday she and
the registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, have personally
verified that the health department holds Obama’s original birth
certificate.
Fukino says that no state official, including Republican Gov. Linda
Lingle, ever instructed that Obama’s certificate be handled differently.
She says state law bars release of a certified birth certificate
to anyone who does not have a tangible interest.
Some Obama critics claim he was not born in the US.
Earlier Friday, a southwest Ohio magistrate rejected a challenge to
Obama’s citizenship. Judges in Seattle and Philadelphia recently
dismissed similar suits.” Notice the heading and first sentence implying that
the Hawaiian Health Department officials had stated
that Obama was born in Hawaii.
Next notice that there are no quotes from either
official that state that Obama was born in Hawaii.
Where I come from that is not just Orwellian, but
an outright lie.
From the Alan Keyes lawsuit
“A press release was issued on October 31, 2008, by the Hawaii Department
of Health by its Director, Dr. Chiyome Fukino. Dr. Fukino said that she
had “personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of
Health has Senator Obama’s original birth certificate on record in
accordance with state policies and procedures.” That statement failed to
resolve any of the questions being raised by litigation and press accounts.
Being “on record” could mean either that its contents are in the computer
database of the department or there is an actual “vault” original.”
“Further, the report does not say whether the birth certificate in the
“record” is a Certificate of Live Birth or a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth.
In Hawaii, a Certificate of Live Birth resulting from hospital documentation,
including a signature of an attending physician, is different from a
Certificate of Hawaiian Birth. For births prior to 1972, a Certificate of
Hawaiian Birth was the result of the uncorroborated testimony of one witness
and was not generated by a hospital. Such a Certificate could be obtained up
to one year from the date of the child’s birth. For that reason, its value
as prima facie evidence is limited and could be overcome if any of the
allegations of substantial evidence of birth outside Hawaii can be obtained.
The vault (long Version) birth certificate, per Hawaiian Statute 883.176
allows the birth in another State or another country to be registered in
Hawaii. Box 7C of the vault Certificate of Live Birth contains a question,
whether the birth was in Hawaii or another State or Country. Therefore,
the only way to verify the exact location of birth is to review a certified
copy or the original vault Certificate of Live Birth and compare the name of
the hospital and the name and the signature of the doctor against the
birthing records on file at the hospital noted on the Certificate of the
Live Birth.”
“No man can serve two masters.” (Matthew 6:24, KJV)
Congressman Ron Paul of Texas never made it to the US Constitution
Hall of Shame. However, Congressman Paul is of interest to the
Citizen Wells blog for several reasons. Late in December of 2008,
I was informed that Ron Paul had been notified of the eligibility
issues surrounding Obama and that Mr. Paul was uncertain about
the natural born citizen clause pertaining to the presidency. I
was asked to research the natural born citizen clause. I did so
and found what anyone searching the internet can find. It is clear
what the intent of the founding fathers was. And yes, Vattel’s
“The Law of Nation’s” obviously influenced the Founding Fathers.
There are several reasons why Obama is not eligible to be president.
However, most if not all congressmen were aware of numerous lawsuits
challenging Obama’s eligibility beginning with Philip Berg’s on
August 21, 2008. Many mistakenly stated that the lawsuits were
dismissed for lack of merit. That is patently false. However, since
the congressmen were aware of the lawsuits, they were also aware
that obama had employed an army of attorneys and spent enormous
amounts of resources to avoid proving that he was eligible.
That is the real smoking gun.
This is the reason that minimally, Congress should have demanded that
Obama prove that he was qualified. A single congressman could have
initiated this query before or when Congress convened to certify the
Electoral votes.
Not a single congressman stepped forward.
Congressman Ron Paul knew that there were serious issues surrounding
Obama’s eligibility. Congressman Ron Paul, who speaks of upholding
the US Constitution.
Late in December of 2008, Congressman Paul was asked if he would
challenge the Electoral votes in Congress. Here is his response:
“If I did that, I would be laughed out of Congress.”
I believe Congressman Paul’s response is typical of the position
of the entire Congress. However, Mr. Paul, we expected more from
you.
Consider the following
From Congressman Pauls’s link on the House of
Representives website
“Dr. Paul is the leading spokesman in Washington for limited
constitutional government,”
“Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure
is expressly authorized by the Constitution”
“Dr. Paul consistently voted to lower or abolish federal taxes,
spending, and regulation, and used his House seat to actively
promote the return of government to its proper constitutional levels.”
“He continues to advocate a dramatic reduction in the size of the
federal government and a return to constitutional principles.” Read more here:
http://www.house.gov/paul/bio.shtml
“For Rep. Paul, each piece of legislation must be examined for its
constitutionality; that is, on the basis of whether or not the US
Constitution allows the Congress or the Federal Government to engage
in the actions described by the proposed legislation. If the
Constitution does not allow it, then it must be opposed.”
“Congressman Paul’s consistent voting record prompted one of his
congressional colleagues to say, “Ron Paul personifies the Founding
Fathers’ ideal of the citizen-statesman. He makes it clear that his
principles will never be compromised, and they never are.” Another
colleague observed, “There are few people in public life who, through
thick and thin, rain or shine, stick to their principles. Ron Paul
is one of those few.””
Read more here:
http://www.ronpaul.org/ Near the end of the following video, Congressman Paul is
quoted as saying:
“The true patriot is motivated by a sense of responsibility
and out of self interest for himself, his family, and the
future of his country to resist government abuse of power.
He rejects the notion that patriotism means obedience to
the state.”
Congressman Ron Paul, I believe that you are a well meaning, decent
man. However, we deserve to know why you believed that Barack Obama
was eligible and why you did not at any time challenge Obama’s
eligibility. Is this the reason?
“If I did that, I would be laughed out of Congress.”
If so, remember:
“No man can serve two masters.” (Matthew 6:24, KJV)
Congressman Ron Paul, you have a second chance. A chance to stand
for what you speak of. Contact us for dialogue. Footnote:
Ron Paul will attend the first-ever Campaign for Liberty Regional
Conference On March 27-29.
“Campaign for Liberty members will gather at St. Louis’ Millennium
Hotel to network, learn, and build their local organizations as our
grassroots Revolution to reclaim our Republic and restore our
Constitution continues.”
Campaign for Liberty
Statement of Principles
“Americans inherit from our ancestors a glorious tradition of freedom
and resistance to oppression. Our country has long been admired by
the rest of the world for her great example of liberty and prosperity—a
light shining in the darkness of tyranny.
But many Americans today are frustrated. The political choices they
are offered give them no real choice at all. For all their talk of
“change,” neither major political party as presently constituted
challenges the status quo in any serious way. Neither treats the
Constitution with anything but contempt. Neither offers any kind of
change in monetary policy. Neither wants to make the reductions in
government that our crushing debt burden demands. Neither talks about
bringing American troops home not just from Iraq but from around the
world. Our country is going bankrupt, and none of these sensible
proposals are even on the table.
This destructive bipartisan consensus has suffocated American political
life for many years. Anyone who tries to ask fundamental questions
instead of cosmetic ones is ridiculed or ignored.
That is why the Campaign for Liberty was established: to highlight the
neglected but common-sense principles we champion and reinsert them
into the American political conversation.
The U.S. Constitution is at the heart of what the Campaign for Liberty
stands for, since the very least we can demand of our government is
fidelity to its own governing document. Claims that our Constitution
was meant to be a “living document” that judges may interpret as they
please are fraudulent, incompatible with republican government, and
without foundation in the constitutional text or the thinking of the
Framers. Thomas Jefferson spoke of binding our rulers down from
mischief by the chains of the Constitution, and we are proud to follow
in his distinguished lineage.”
Update, 2/14: THIS ATTACK UPON OUR ECONOMY OCCURRED ON 9/11/2008 That, according to Rep. Kanjorski of Pennsylvania (D); see video below.
I.O. had written below, “This is WAR UPON AMERICA, much more threatening than 9/11.What are we going to do about it?” We now have a kind of correction to make: This WAS 9/11. Comment to this article:
Anonymous said…
Please listen to the video closely. Kanjorski states that there was a closed meeting of Congress on about the 15th of September. This would be a MONDAY. Then he lets it slip out that the financial meltdown occurred on a Thursday… of the previous week.
This would be THURSDAY – SEPT. 11
Yes, a FINANCIAL TERRORIST ATTACK occurred on Thursday, September 11, 2008, the seventh anniversary of 9/11. And no one is telling us
about it!
To this, I will add, as reported yesterday in I.O.:
“We have a once in a generation chance to act boldly, to turn adversity into
opportunity, and use this crisis as a chance to transform our economy for the 21st century.”
– Barack Hussein Obama, 2/12/2009, according to email from grassfire.org
God help us, indeed. This outrageously unreported story will be discussed further on live net-radio this Monday, 2/16, 8pm ET,,, 5pm PT on “The Awakening, with Hanen & Arlen.”
____________________
Original post, 2/12/2009, evening:
It’s been published on other site(s) with my blessing [an email I sent, as below, slightly edited] and I hear it may be on its way to Sen. John McCain. Does he care? Feel free to spread it everywhere, too. I suggest that everyone who cares about America email this information, about the Kanjorski confession — to everyone who has an email address that he has or finds, everywhere in the world. Also, faxed, mailed, and otherwise shoved before the faces of everyone within reach.
AMERICA, ARE YOU AWAKE?
HEED WHAT REP. KANJORSKI HAS SAID
Or do you want to live on PLANET FASCIST-SOROS, subsector MARXOFASCIST-OBAMA?
This is about real treason, real economic terrorism, and real mega-tampering into the sacred process of The Sovereign American Citizens’ national election (getting us our illegitimate “president”). And the government/media cover-up is the second sedition.
This is WAR UPON AMERICA, much more threatening than 9/11.
What are we going to do about it?
This is the email I sent out last night, slightly edited.
Thursday, February 12, 2009 3:26 AM
From: “Arlen Williams”
Americans,
Congress knows. They all know (or should know) and just enough are cooperating to keep it happening. None of them are telling us — except for one, now.
Please read the attached and watch the video. It goes far, far beyond “important news.” After you do, please consider forwarding it to your entire email database — including business and professional contacts. (No apologies from me to my personal business contacts. It is urgent and vital.)
Mushroom management of Sovereign Americans must end NOW. It is time for glasnost in America. Please forgive the understatement of this title:
For more context, on Soros, Obama, and all — also for the obvious solution (along with investigation, prosecution, and a military intervention if necessary): how Barack Obama must rightfully be declared a fictitious “president,” since he is not a natural born Citizen, at http://investigatingobama.blogspot.com/
God save America from these apostate, fascist, self-made illegitimates,
Arlen Williams
PS: Add to this, the huge, consecutive Friday sell-offs into Wall St., during our pre-election “crisis,” well revealed to America at the time by Mike Huckabee — and the public “slips of the tongue” by apparently subversive Senators Charles Schumer and Harry Reid, contributing to the destruction of IndyMac, by Schumer — said to be the catalyst for the entire mortage meltdown — and in Reid’s case, exacerbating the crisis among critical insurance companies. Does it need to get clearer?
First the good news, The Chicago Tribune provided good coverage
of the Tony Rezko trial and actually provided some articles
critical of Obama and Blagojevich.
Now for the bad news.
The Chicago Tribune endorsed Obama and like most of the MSM
participated in slobbering over the “messiah”.
Now for the latest statement from the Tribune that leaves one
in a state of jaw dropping incredulity:
“We don’t know about the members of the Illinois Senate. But
we’ve heard enough.”
Ya think!!!!
The Chicago Tribune, located in, well duh, Chicago, has been well
aware of the corruption that Blagojevich and Obama were enmeshed
in and that is the best they can come with? No wonder readership
of most newspapers is down across the country.
Chicago Tribune editorial dated January 28, 2009:
“Let’s make a deal
January 28, 2009
For several days now, Rod Blagojevich has yodeled the same tune into
every microphone in sight (as opposed to any FBI microphones that
aren’t). You’ve heard his lyrics time and again: I haven’t listened
to the tapes . . . When you hear the whole story . . . The truth will
come out . . . If only I could call witnesses-witnesses-witnesses.
Now we’ve all heard four of the tapes. We’ve heard several elements
of one subplot in this debacle—the governor’s alleged effort to obtain
a contribution in return for signing a bill that would direct a
percentage of casino revenue to the horse-racing industry. More of the
truth now has come out. And we’ve heard one unwitting, unwilling
witness, the governor of Illinois: His voice boomed through the Illinois
Senate chamber Tuesday as senators listened to the recordings.
The tapes don’t sizzle with the melodrama a screenwriter would script.
Stitch these minutes of conversation into an episode of “24” and Jack
Bauer himself would doze off.
These conversations are, though, remarkable: They tug us inside the
dealing by which a governor allegedly agrees to trade an official act
for lucre. We’ll see what the state senators now conducting the
governor’s impeachment trial make of the tapes. To our ears, the
urgency and enthusiasm in the governor’s voice are as disturbing as
his evident desire to trade quid pro quo.”
“I 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.”
Congressional oath of office
US Constitution
Hall of Shame
2008 Man of the Year
Senator Barack H Obama
Barack Obama is named the US Constitution Hall of Shame Man of the Year
for obvious reasons. Obama, whose father was a Kenyan citizen and under
British rule, and therefore not a natural born citizen and not eligible
to be president, has worked all of the 2008 election year to steal the
presidency. What is even more scary, is that Obama was probably born
in Kenya, not a US citizen at all and therefore an illegal alien.
Barack Obama has thumbed his nose at the US Constitution, rule of law
and American people. His arrogance and “me me me” attitude is a product
of the “government owes me” mentality and Chicago crime and corruption
that engenders a position of being above the law. Obama has looked
down upon the US Constitution despite taking an oath to “support and
defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
foreign and domestic”
Obama’s disregard for the rule of law goes back for many years to strong
ties to crime and corruption in Chicago and Illinois involving such
corruption figures as Rezko, Levine, Blagojevich and many others and
continues as he attempts to avoid proving he is eligible to be
president. Here are some prominent examples of Obama’s flagrant disregard
for the US Constitution and Rule of law.
Barack Obama has run for the office of President of the United States and
is clearly not eligible. For his own selfish gain he has ignored the US
Constitution, unfairly impacted other candidates and disenfranchised
millions of voters. He has also obtained millions of dollars of campaign
donations under fraudulent circumstances and caused many others to spend
enormous amounts of time and money trying to expose Obama’s fraud.
Here are some facts regarding Obama’s eligibility:
One of the hallmarks of the Obama camapaign was repeated attempts to
discredit those questioning Obama. This included massive internet armies
utilized by the Obama camp to make personal attacks on internet users
and websites, prominent people like Jon Voight and many others as well
as scrubbing internet data and attempts at revisionist history. Many
voters and campaign workers were harrassed and theatened during the
primaries and general election. The Obama camp even threatend news
organizations.
Consider the following from Missouri Governor Matt Blunt:
“What Senator Obama and his helpers are doing is scandalous beyond words……
abusing the justice system and offices of public trust to silence political
criticism with threats of prosecution and criminal punishment. This abuse
of the law for intimidation insults the most sacred principles and ideals
of Jefferson. I can think of nothing more offensive to Jefferson’s thinking
than using the power of the state to deprive Americans of their civil
rights. The only conceivable purpose of Messrs. McCulloch, Obama and the
others is to frighten people away from expressing themselves, to chill free
and open debate, to suppress support and donations to conservative
organizations targeted by this anti-civil rights, to strangle criticism of
Mr. Obama, to suppress ads about his support of higher taxes, and to choke
out criticism on television, radio, the Internet, blogs, e-mail and daily
conversation about the election. “Barack Obama needs to grow up……Enlisting
Missouri law enforcement to intimidate people and kill free debate is
reminiscent of the Sedition Acts
– not a free society.”
In Obama’s own words:
“I want you to argue with them and get in their face…You are my Ambassadors”
Obama quoted in San Francisco Gate, by Kathleen Hennessey, September 17, 2008
Philip J Berg states:
“Defendants (Obama and DNC) are attempting to change our United States
Constitution without proper due process of law by allowing Obama to continue
his campaign and continue seeking election as the President of the United States,
knowing he is not a “natural born” citizen and the fact he may not even be a
“naturalized” citizen.”
Barack Obama visited Kenya in 2006 and campaigned for his far left leaning
cousin Raila Odinga. Obama was in possible violation of the Logan Act but at
the very least was guilty of “High crimes and misdemeanors.” Here is an exerpt
from the official Kenyan Government response to Obama’s visit:
“RESPONSE TO AMERICAN SENATOR BARACK OBAMA’S POORLY INFORMED COMMENTS
ABOUT TERRORISM, WANTED GENOCIDE CRIMINALS AND GOVERNANCE IN KENYA”
“Senator Barack Obama indicated that he was visiting Africa to help nurture
relations between the continent and the United States. His mission, therefore,
was warmly welcomed by the Government and the people of Kenya. The fact that
he has roots in Kenya endeared him to the people of this country.
However, during his public address at the University of Nairobi, Senator Obama
made extremely disturbing statements on issues which it is clear, he was very
poorly informed, and on which he chose to lecture the Government and the people
of Kenya on how to manage our country.”
Dr. Alfred N. Mutua
PUBLIC COMMUNICATION SECRETARY &
GOVERNMENT SPOKESPERSON
Obama lied on his Illinois Bar Application by not listing his aliases
and having multiple oustanding traffic tickets. He then relinquished
his law license early to avoid prosection.
The following videos reveal much about what Obama
thinks about the US Constitution.
Obama speaks about fundamental flaws in the
Constitution .
Constitutinal Lawyer’s perspective on exactly WHAT
Obama said during his 2001 radio interview.
Rating
Rating
Citizen WElls 