?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Previous Entry Share Next Entry
To Honest People, Here and Abroad
Jenab6
jenab6
The Usurper, Barack Hussein Obama II, has held the office of US President for too many days.
*since JD 2454852
Every day he's in office, he endangers the nation on account of the fact he cannot legally command its Armed Forces; he corrupts its government with laws that will have to be annulled; and he wastes its resources on projects that will have to be undone. NO OTHER DANGER to the national security is as grave as Obama's illegal occupancy of the office of President of the United States.

The mainstream media in the United States is a fifth column, hostile to the interests of the American people. The US federal judiciary may have been almost entirely suborned by enemies of the American people
.

To the governments of every country in the world. As long as Barack Obama is acting as President of the United States, and has not proved his Constitutional eligibility to do so, he should be presumed a Usurper of the powers of the United States to whose acts the United States cannot be legally bound. It is in your interests, as it is in ours, for you to forsake all ties with the United States until such time as it once again has a head-of-state of proven legality. Please, do not conduct any business with the United States until then, nor enter into any treaty, nor collaborate in any venture which Barack Obama or his agent may propose. Shun the United States as a rogue nation until we have a lawful chief executive once more.

To the US Armed Forces. Please support and defend our Constitution and entertain no pretenses that you are doing so when you are not.

As long as the one who hold the office of President is constitutionally ineligible, you are in a dangerous dilemma. The moment you get an order that originated with the Usurper, or resulted from one of his policies, you will have to choose whether to be called a "traitor" in the press and on legal papers or else be a traitor for real. If you obey the order, then you really are a traitor, even if nothing bad happens to you. If you disobey the order, rightly pointing out that you are forbidden to obey illegal orders, then you will be called a traitor and probably punished as if you were one, even though the exact opposite will be true.

To date, very few of your comrades in the ranks and in the officer corps have demonstrated a willingness to do their duty to preserve the Constitution in the face of an outlaw president. It's as if Jesse James were running a bank, and all the bank guards were pretending not to notice the stealing he was doing, just as long as their own paychecks and retirement benefits were left alone.

Did you not think that the time might come when you would have to fight for your country? Didn't you consider that the danger to your country might come from an unusual direction?
What kind of soldier are you?

To the top military leaders: How does it feel, Generals, Admirals, Chiefs of Staff, to be caught so unprepared for the communist assault when it finally happened? There you have been, these past 60 years, bristling with your modern weapons, ready to fight anyone who might be tempted to start a war with the United States, loud in your declarations of "preparedness," and then watching without any meaningful challenge as your enemy walks boldly and openly into the office of your Commander-in-Chief. Do you have enough sense to know when you have been mocked?

I mean, thanks for nothing, fellows. Do you know what you are? Let me just tell you. You probably watched the movie Braveheart. It was a good movie, with Mel Gibson playing William Wallace. Do you remember how, in the crucial battle for Scottish Independence, the Scottish nobles, who figured they could get a better deal from the enemy king than they'd have in an independent Scotland, betrayed their country by failing to charge into battle at the pivotal moment? That's you.


This farce of an illegal alien's presidency has convinced me that the Constitution of the United States has, in fact, no defenders and is dead. This travesty should have been dealt with, either by the courts before Obama's inauguration or by the military before the sun set on that day. Since the Constitution is the device by which the United States came into existence, and by which it lived, it follows that there is no more United States of America. There's just a criminal gang in possession of the trappings of power. The noble experiment with the American Republic has run its full course and has fallen in the end to internal corruption. May our next effort to create a "Jeffersonian" Republic, if there can ever be another, have longer life and better fortune.

Edit: It seems I was wrong. The Constitution of the United States has one defender: Lt. Scott Easterling, who is defying the orders of Barack Obama until such time as Obama proves that he is eligible to serve as his Commander-in-Chief. One man in uniform actually meant it when he swore his oath. One, single US Army officer didn't just say the words to get a paying job and a chance at federal retirement benefits.

Easterling had been too old to join the US Army until the Army raised its maximum enlistment age to 40. Up to that time, he had been working for a defense contractor to do what he could to support American troops. When it became possible for him to enlist, Easterling did so, leaving his former job. He applied for and was accepted to Officer Candidate School, passed, and became a 2nd Lieutenant in August 2007.

Now. Watch the traitors tear him apart. Because that's what will happen. Even the cowards who share Easterling's belief that Obama must prove that his presidency is legal by the Constitution will stand by and watch as the one American with courage gets torn apart by the powerful criminal gang in Washington.

Or will they? A second American soldier in Iraq (name withheld) and (retired) Maj. Gen. Carroll D. Childers have joined Easterling in a lawsuit that seeks to require Obama to prove that he is qualified to hold office as the President of the United States. So there is some small movement in progress, though at present it appears somewhat hesitant and diffident.

US Representative Bill Posey proposed a bill that would require future US presidential candidates to prove their constitutional eligibility to hold officesomething that is theoretically a part of constitutional law anyway (it comes from the idea of reserved and enumerated powers). Posey suggested that there be a federal law to make the theory more explicit, so that in the future political candidates and their parties can't miss it. Certain Media Jews took Posey to task for his proposal, with one of them saying, "What you should do is stop embarrassing yourself and take the Reynolds Wrap off your head." Such typical Jew sass.

Here's what Representative Posey said in response:

"Why'd I do this? Well, for a number of reasons and the more and more I get called names by leftwing activists, partisan hacks and political operatives for doing it, the more and more I think I did the right thing. I've been called some pretty nasty things. That's fine. But none of these tolerant people actually want to discuss the issue at hand … whether or not a presidential candidate should have to file these documents with the government. I could easily fill up a page listing all the activities an American needs to show their ID for … everything from playing youth soccer to getting a drivers license, buying cigarettes and alcohol, to opening bank accounts and even playing little league. So I was pretty surprised to find out that to run for president, despite the constitutional requirement and the media scrubbing that goes on, it's not required for a candidate to file these documents when they submit their statement of candidacy with the FEC."

It sounds like Bill Posey understands a valid principle of modern politics, to wit: The more often and the more vociferously you are the target of leftist smear attacks, the more likely it is that you are right, or in the right, and not merely "on the right."

A retired U.S. Navy officer, Walter Francis Fitzpatrick III, has filed a criminal complaint against Barack Obama, calling him an "impostor" who illegally holds the office of President of the United States. The charge is filed with the U.S. Attorney's office for the Eastern District of Tennessee. Fitzpatrick accused Obama of "treason," though this might not be strictly correct, since before one may be a traitor, one must first have a basis for a fealty that can be betrayed. Since Obama is not a US citizen, he has no such fealty, hence he isn't a traitor. He is, however, a Usurperand that's plenty bad enough.

On the other hand, someone with an obligation of fealty, especially if combined with a position of public trustsuch as, for example, being a federal judge or the governor of Hawaiiwho knowingly aided or abetted Obama's illegal pursuit of power contrary to the clear provisions of the US Constitution, is indeed guilty of treason, and that is a capital crime.

A grand jury, led by Georgia resident Carl Swensson, has criminally indicted Barack Obama on charges pertaining to his ineligibility to hold office.

Lyle Rapacki is a security analyst who advises police about circumstances that could lead to civil disorder. He has written, and publicly released, a "white paper" that the issue of Barack Obama's ineligibility to hold the office of US President could trigger domestic unrest. But descriptions of his wording leave something to be desired, honestywise.

For example, Rapacki said, "This could create a constitutional crisis." Wrong. The time to say that was before Obama was inaugurated. Now that he occupies the President's office as a Usurper, the constitutional crisis is already here. The only thing that hasn't started yet is its remedy.

Rapacki suggested that there would be confusion over which of Obama's orders, laws, and actions "should be valid." The correct answer is that NONE of Obama's orders, laws, and actions is valid.

Rapacki said, "The economic crisis could with this type of constitutional crisis could prove to be a 'flashpoint' that would test conventional law enforcement and elements of homeland security."

Did you notice the implicit assumption that law enforcement and homeland security would be on the Usurper's side? Perhaps they would be. But that's the exact opposite of what their job is. The mission of law enforcement is to uphold the law, not prop up a Presidential Usurper, thereby aiding and abetting the biggest malefactor in the country. If the police and security apparatchiks were to do their jobs correctly, there wouldn't need to be a civil war. All that would happen is that Mr. Obama and his accomplices would be arrested and given a fair trial, following the due process of law.

Rapacki asks a loaded question. "What does [Obama's ineligibility to be President] do to the decisions that already have been made, already done for the economic issues that can't be taken back?"

What does he mean "can't be taken back"? Anyone who takes the money of the American people from the hand of a Usurper, to do the Usurper's will, is a traitor. The penalty for treason is death. It has always been death, throughout history and in every country that has ever existed. If a traitor is permitted to give back his ill-gotten money and escape with no other penalty, then he is getting off lightly.

Jerry Abbott


"Most codes extend their definition of treason to acts not really against one’s country. They do not distinguish between acts against the government and acts against the oppressions of the government; the latter are virtues; yet they have furnished more victims to the executioner than the former; because real treasons are rare; oppressions frequent. The unsuccessful strugglers against tyranny, have been the chief martyrs of treason laws in all countries." (Thomas Jefferson)


Part 2. How much of Obama's opposition is genuine?

I've noticed a very over-proportionate fraction of Jews among Obama's outspoken critics who are lawyers agitating for him to be investigated for eligibility. Experience has taught me that the Jews are very clever people who have ways of keeping races much larger than theirs divided and confused, and one of those ways is the adroit use of shills. A shill is a pretender to being someone he isn't, or to pretend to a purpose which he intends to sabotage. A seller in an eBay auction might, for example, use a phony account to bid on his own item to attract attention as well as get a higher final price from someone else.

Just so, Jews sometimes use shills to control a debate. They'll send some of their own number to represent their own opposition. The Jewish owners of the mass media are wise to the scam, of course, but they abet the shills by pretending to take them as serious opponents to the main Jewish opinion on an issue. The public never finds out, or at least never can prove, that the whole ballyhoo on TV and in the press is controlled by a single plan, that people with the same agenda are running both sides of the debate, that the fuss is phony, that the appearance of considering all sides of an issue is an illusion, that the result of the debate is predetermined, that the side which is to win will win and the side which is to lose will rant and bellyache... but loseby design.

The remarkable lack of success by any of the mostly Jewish ostensible opponents of Barack Obama (Alan Keyes is Black) makes me wonder whether they aren't all a bunch of very high-level shills. Perhaps not, but where there are Jews, there's nearly always a certain amount of deception. Sometimes there's a great deal of deception. It would be consistent with what I've learned to expect from Jews if most, if not all, of the Jews (and perhaps some of their imitators) who are loudly clamoring to see Obama's papers and filing lawsuits supposedly aimed at getting Obama to release his birth certificate are doing so in bad faith. That is, many of them might not really be out there to win, but merely to be seen seeming to struggle.

The alleged AP article that appeared in April 2009, concerning Obama's allegedly receiving financial aid as a foreign student while enrolled at Occidental College in California, might be a hoax. However, I doubt that this particular hoax was invented by anyone seriously challenging Obama's eligibility to act as US president. Rather, this hoax (if such it is) was probably invented by persons on Obama's side. It's one of the simplest of propaganda tricks, and it has a categorical name: Setting Up A Strawman.

When Obama's educational records are finally made public, I do indeed expect to see evidence that Obama attended school as a foreign student. The real evidence will say the same thing the strawman does, except that it won't be such an obvious hoax that it could not have been manufactured by anybody who had hoped to do a seriously good job of hoaxing. Likewise, when Obama's longform birth certificate is finally brought up to the light from the Hawaii state archives, I do indeed expect to see that the document is a copy of a Kenyan birth certificate.

Jerry Abbott


Part 3. The Way Back: Undoing the Damage after Obama Is Deposed.

Barack Obama, the orangutan that currently occupies the White House, is a Usurper of the powers of the United States in violation of the eligibility requirements for US President specified in the Constitution of the United States. Everything he does with his office is illegal, his least official act is a felony. He never should have been permitted to take office. The sooner he is ousted, the less the total damage will be.

The rule of law in the United States begins with the Constitution of the United States. As long as the laws are well-constituted and enforced without political favor or sacrificed to a social agenda, they establish a kind of justice in a country and safeguard it from chaos. When there is a controversy over who is entitled to wield power, the laws must be followed strictly to the letter. A man who is legally ineligible to an office, even if the ineligibility seems a picky one, must never be allowed to hold it. In a sense, Obama's inauguration destroyed the United States, inasmuch as it put an end to the Constitution as the definitive authority on who may act as the country's head of state. The only chance to restore the United States is for Obama either to resign or to be removed.

After Obama is removed, the job of tracking down all of the illegal expenditures of America's money and requiring all recipients of illicit cash to repay it to the US Treasury will begin. That goes for individuals, corporations, and foreign countries. All of the laws and treaties signed by Obama will have to be identified and anulled as void ab initio. All of Obama's policy changes must be discovered and reversed to what they were before he changed them.

Also, the people responsible for putting a Usurper into the office of US President will have to be tracked down, arrested, held for trial, and, if convicted, punished appropriately. Every person who aided or abetted Obama, by concealing the truth about him, or by carrying his lies for him, or by giving him money used in his criminal pursuit of power, must face trial for sedition and/or for treason.

Every military officer who obeyed Obama's orders must be dishonorably discharged from the service without pay or benefits, and, where appropriate, also tried for sedition or for treason. Every judge who evaded his duty to make judicial inquiry into the legitimacy of Obama's candidacy or his presidency must be stripped of his office, arrested, and tried for treason. Every police officer who enforced a law that would not have existed had Obama never taken the President's office must be investigated for civil rights violations and for complicity in treason.

A Civil War is not too high a price to pay for removing Obama the Usurper. The consequence of not removing him is to destroy the authority of the Constitution and to lose the country therefore.

Jerry Abbott



Part 4. Barack Hussein Obama II is probably not a citizen of the United States.

Prologue. When leftists want to deceive the people, but fear that the truth will come out despite their attempts to block discovery by the general public, they use the phrase 'conspiracy theory' to describe all truthful summaries of the facts. The average person is meant to believe that 'conspiracy theory' is a synonym for 'lie,' but really it's only an equivocation. Leftists relentlessly use this term to deceive, avoiding the shorter and simpler term of 'lie,' so that if the truth becomes widely known they can claim never to have engaged in deception. They never called it a lie, they will tell us, but only described it as a 'conspiracy theory' and hope that no one remembers the smirks, sneers, jeers, and sarcasm that accompanied their uses of that phrase.

Americans are in a media-suppressed constitutional emergency. The US President-Elect, Barack Hussein Obama II, seems to have been born on 4 August 1961 in the Coast Provincial Hospital of Mombasa, Kenya, upon which birth he was given the name "Barry Obama." His father's relatives have claimed to have been present for his birth in Kenya, and I believe them. When they spoke, they might not have been aware that Obama could be disqualified from becoming President of the United States because of his birth outside the territory of the United States.

"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States." (US Constitution, Article II, Section 1.)

Our Constitution requires that the US president be a natural-born US citizen, and Obama's foreign birth legally disqualifies him to hold the office for which he has won a popular election.

Wikipedia, which is supposedly the encyclopedia constructed by its users, but which in reality is thoroughly under the control of liberals and Zionists, has been censoring all references to Obama's questionable citizenship status and banning members who attempt to include mentions of those issues in the Wikipedia article on Barack Obama, which as it stands is a political whitewash filled with lies.

Source: "Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility: Mention of citizenship issues deleted in minutes, 'offending' users banned," by Aaron Klein in World Net Daily.

In fact, Wikipedia has recently "locked" the article to all except approved members. The lies are in. The truth is out. And the liberals in control of Wikipedia intend to keep it that way.

There was an exception that applied in 1961 to some foreign births of babies to American parents, but it does not apply to Obama's birth. The law stated that if at least one of the parents had been a US citizen AND resident for at least 10 years, at least five of which years with the parent above the age of 14, then the parent was empowered to bequeath US citizenship to her baby. But Obama's mother, Ann Dunham, was only 18 years old when Obama was born, so she was not able to transmit US citizenship to Obama.

Ann Dunham, a White woman, had traveled to Kenya to visit with the family of the Black male who was her husband at that time. She had wanted to return to the United States to have her baby, so that it would receive US citizenship. But she waited too long, and the airline refused, because of her advanced pregnancy, to board her for a flight to Hawaii, fearing that she might go into labor during the trip. Obama was subsequently born in Kenya, and his paternal grandmother has stated that she was present at his birth.

A week or so later, Ann Dunham and her baby returned to Hawaii. It is possible that a fake Hawaiian birth event was staged, as some immigrant Mexican women have done for their Mexico-born babies.

Alternatively, it is possible that Hawaii issued a "certification of live birth" for Obama in 1961. That may be the document that Hawaii Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino allegedly found. Obama supporters are trying to make it seem as if this COLB is the mysterious long-form birth certificate that Obama can't be bothered to retrieve and publish. But the two documents are not the same. The certification of live birth is a shorter form does not prove birth in the United States. It only indicates that the state issuing it has NOTICED that a US citizen has had a baby. The line on the COLB that indicates the "location of birth" merely reflects what someone told the state official who made the record. Nobody really checks.

Barack Obama's sister has identified two different Honolulu hospitals, Kapiolani Hospital and Queens Hospital, as being the location of Obama's birth. So the US-resident part of Obama's family has not been consistent about which hospital Obama was supposedly born in, while the African side of his family seems very sure that Obama was born in their presence in Kenya.

Hospitals in Hawaii to Obama: You Were Not Born Here!, at EarthFrisk Blog.

A pro-Israel website, Israpundit, says that Peter Ogego, Kenyan Ambassador to the United States, admitted in a radio interview that Barack Obama was born in Kenya.

Kenyan Ambassador confirms Obama was born in Kenya, at Israpundit.

Fellhauer: “One more quick question, President-elect Obama’s birthplace over in Kenya, is that going to be a national spot to go visit, where he was born?”

Ogego: “It’s already an attraction. His paternal grandmother is still alive.”

Fellhauer: “His birthplace, they’ll put up a marker there?”

Ogego: “It would depend on the government. It’s already well known.”


The Kenyan government has not denied the existence of Obama's Kenya birth records. Rather, it has SEALED those records. More recently, the government of Kenya has issued a gag-order to restrain Obama's African relatives from speaking again to reporters (this was reported in the Nairobi Star for 11 Dec 2008).

Kenyan Government Imposes Gag Order on Obama Family, at World Net Daily. "No media contact: 'We are doing this because we want to ensure better flow of information', says government."

The Kenyan government yesterday heightened its war on the media, arresting 11 journalists even as Prime Minister Raila Odinga promised to intervene in the matter. The journalists, who included Kenya Times reporter George Kebasso, were arrested when police fired teargas canisters to disperse a demonstration staged to oppose the punitive Communications (Amendment) Bill 2008 presently awaiting presidential assent.

Reliable police sources said that the order to arrest the scribes came directly from Police Commissioner Major Gen. (rtd) Mohamed Hussein Ali through the Nairobi Provincial Police Officer (PPO) Njue Njagi. And hours after the arrest, Cabinet Ministers James Orengo (Lands) and Mutula Kilonzo criticised the harassment on journalists and urged police to allow them to press for their rights.


Just what, exactly, Kenya's government hopes to accomplish with this gag-order, other than embarrassing itself, isn't clear. The Obama family has ALREADY given copious, documented, eyewitness testimony that Barack Hussein Obama (junior) was born to Ann Dunham, in their presence, in Kenya in 1961. Nothing more, really, is required or needed of them. So it's not easy to see why Kenya's officials are locking the barn door after the cows have escaped already. Maybe they can pretend that what Grandmother Obama said earlier simply "doesn't count." On the contrary, it does. It always will count as testimony given freely with no motive other than expressing family pride. The Obama family's original testimony is what they said before the forces of corruption began their perverse and evil work. That's why it "counts."

A notice in the Honolulu Sunday Advertiser for 13 Aug 1961 reads "Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama, 6085 Kalanianaole Hwy., son, Aug. 4." It is not known who provided the information for the notice, but a private investigator hired by World Net Daily,
Jorge Baro, has released an affidavit that questions whether Barack Obama's family ever lived at the address listed in the published notice of his birth in 1961. An elderly neighbor of Obama's alleged former residence, Beatrice Arakaki, has stated that she has lived in her home since before 1961 and remembers no mixed racial family ever living next door. Further, none of the investigators could locate any current or past resident of Kalanianaole Highway who could recall Obama or his family living at the address listed in the announcement. Read more about it here.

Here's what a priest named Father Joe wrote about Obama's birth.

Apparently this is what happened:

Obama’s family did not take to Ann Dunham Obama (his mother) very well, because she was white, according to Sarah Obama. Shortly after she arrived in Kenya, she decided to return to Hawaii because she did not like how Muslim men treated their wives in Kenya. However, because she was near delivery term the airline would not let her fly until after the birth of her baby. Obama’s grandmother said the baby—Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.—was born in Kenya and that shortly after he was born, his mother rushed him back to Hawaii.

Immediately after she got home, his birth was REGISTERED on or about August 8, 1961, in the Hawaiian public records office. Evidently some have tried to cover up these facts with listing the hospital of his birth. However, two hospitals in Hawaii have been given, the Kapiolani Medical Center and the Queen’s Medical Center. Now it appears that neither was correct and that he was born in Kenya, coming to an American hospital later only for a checkup. At least one case of a researcher trying to get records about Obama’s birth in Kenya was arrested at the airport and deported. This whole business is shaping up like a bad movie. But alas, sometimes truth is stranger than fiction!

Father Joe Jenkins is the pastor of the Church of the Holy Spirit and a Catholic priest in the Archdiocese of Washington, DC.


During Barry Obama's school days, his mother divorced his Kenyan father and married an Indonesian male named Lolo Soetoro, who probably adopted Barry, since the boy's name was changed to Barry Soetoro. The Indonesian school's records list Lolo Soetoro as Barry Soetoro's father, and Indonesia permits only its own citizens to attend its schools, so Barry Soetoro (a.k.a. Barack Hussein Obama II) seems to have acquired Indonesian citizenship through his adoption by Lolo Soetoro.

Indonesia does not permit dual citizenships. If Obama became a citizen of Indonesia as a child, then Indonesia's laws would declare that he lost whatever prior country citizenships he might have had at that time. However, US laws evidently would ignore Obama's assumption of Indonesian citizenship, unless his mother had expatriated both herself and him in favor of Indonesian citizenship (U.S. Nationality Act of 1940). I don't know anyone who can answer that question one way or the other.

It has been claimed that Obama (then "Barry Soetoro") traveled to Pakistan in 1981, when he was 20 years old. Pakistan was under martial law that year and was subject to a US State Department travel ban. Barry Soetoro probably would not have been admitted to Pakistan if he were traveling with a US passport, and the only other passport he might have had would have been one from Indonesia. If Obama had used a Pakistani passport as an adult, it might be arguable that he forsook US citizenship by that act or by whatever oath he had to take in order to get Indonesia to give him a passport.

Since then, Barry Soetoro changed his name to Barack Dunham, then to Barack Obama, and he now styles himself as Barrack Hussein Obama, after his Kenyan father.

Obama has been challenged to provide a certified copy of his vault, or long-form birth certificate, which would be signed (if it exists) by his mother and by the attending physician, would identify the hospital in which Obama was born, and would provide facts that could be checked.

Instead of doing that, Obama merely released a copy of his short-form Hawaiian "certification of live birth," which proves nothing because Hawaii was giving these COLB's even to foreign-born babies in 1961. Even if this document were genuine, it would not prove that Obama was born in Hawaii, but only that the State of Hawaii knew that he had been born... somewhere or other. Furthermore, estimates of what Obama has spent to hire legal firms to defend himself from being ordered to present his documentary bona fides to the public have exceeded $500,000. Why would Obama spend so much on legal help, when a simple and inexpensive act would have made those legal costs unnecessary?

And this particular COLB might not be genuine. Notice that the child's name is given as "Barack Hussein Obama II"? Obama was named Barry when he was born. His name was changed to Barack later. Notice the way his father's race is identified as "African"? In 1961, states were officially using the word Negro to refer to Blacks.

The document provided by Obama (or by his campaign managers) to "prove" his US citizenship doesn't do any such thing. He undoubtedly meant to fool us into believing the contrary. But that document would not prove his natural-born US citizenship even if it were genuine, as it is the wrong document for that purpose. Experts in detecting fraud in computer graphics say that they've detected signs of digital tampering. They are documented by these articles:

Rathergate II: Certification of Live Birth a clear forgery, by Janet Porter of WorldNetDaily.
The Greater Evil, by Ron Polarik, Ph.D., at Townhall (many large images).

On the other hand, other sources say that Obama's COLB is a genuine COLB, and that the defects noticed in the Hawaii Health Department seal and in the green patterned security paper are scanning artifacts. But they agree with WND that it doesn't establish that Obama is a natural born US citizen, as the Constitution requires US Presidents to be. The very fact that Obama holds out as proof a document that does not do any proving weighs against his credibility.

Several affidavits from Kenya's citizens assert that Obama was born in Kenya. Hawaii's "Statute 338" permits foreign-born children of Hawaii residents to get Hawaiian COLBs of the same kind that Obama has shown us via Factcheck, Snopes, and "Fight the Smears." In other words, a COLB isn't good enough. It never was good enough to establish the eligibility of a candidate for President of the United States. It certainly and doubly wasn't good enough the moment Obama's grandmother and Kenyan Ambassador Peter Ogego gave us testimony that Obama was born in Kenya. None of the hospitals in or near Honolulu have any record of Obama or his mother. The birth certificate allegedly found in the Hawaii state archives by Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle could be originally from Kenya
Governor Lingle has never said anything to rule this out, and accordingly there is a reasonable suspicion that Governor Lingle was being deliberately ambiguous.

Shocker: Why Obama will NOT be President in January, at EarthFrisk Blog.

There's a very good chance that Obama has deceived Americans so that they would accept him as the next US President. He has been repeatedly challenged to divulge his long-form birth certificate, the genuine signed document that that really would prove whether or not he had US citizenship at birth, but he has refused to do so on each occasion. Instead, he has spent thousands of dollars (estimates say about $500,000) to fight lawsuits against him to make his birth records known.

It is rather obvious that every US citizen has direct and tangible interests in making sure that their next head-of-state is legally qualified to hold that job: taxes, wars, the impact of law-enforcement upon public morals, just to name three. It is a fact that a federal judge in Pennsylvania at first agreed with Berg in Berg vs. Obama, and, on 29 September 2008, ordered Barack Obama to turn over a copy of his "vault" birth certificate within 72 hours. Citing the earlier case FEC vs. Akins, the court found that
"the injury pertaining to voting, the most basic of political rights, is sufficiently concrete" and ruled that Berg did have standing to sue Obama, and that his standing had six separate grounds, being pursuant to all of the following:

[1] 5 USC 702
[2] FEC vs Akins
[3] 524 US 11 (1998)
[4] 5 USC 148(b)
[5] 28 USC 1343, Civil Rights and Elective Franchise
[6] Federal Question Jurisdiction

Judge Surrick wrote: "Plaintiff [Berg] is within the zone of interest protected by the statute or constitutional provision."

The judge then ordered Obama to turn over these items to Berg within three days:

[a] A certified copy of Obama's "vault" version ("original" long version) Birth Certificate.
[b] A certified copy of Obama's Certification of Citizenship.
[c] A certified copy of Obama's Oath of Allegiance.

And then something happened. Less than a month later (24 October 2008), without any introduction of evidence, testimony, or affidavits from the Obama/DNC side, the court reversed itself. We don't know what caused the reversal, or what the judge's reasoning was. All we know is that the court, after giving a carefully-reasoned opinion against Obama and in favor of Berg, and after ordering Obama to turn over his "vault" birth certificate (which, presumably, Obama defied), the judge changed his mind and ruled that Berg did not have standing to sue Obama.

Apparently, the judge decided that he was mistaken on each of those six grounds which he previously believed gave Berg standing, since any one of them would have been sufficient all by itself.

Those were the circumstances under which Berg vs. Obama was dismissed by the federal judge in Pennsylvania.


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

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

Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.



Judge R. Barclay Surrick knows he was correct the first time, when he told Obama to prove his citizenship. His reversal suggests that he was corrupted by some means, though we don't know what the means was. Bribery? Blackmail? A threat of some kind? Perhaps time will reveal the details. But two things are certain: Judge Surrick knows that his first decision, to require proof of natural born US citizenship from Obama, was the correct decision, and he also knows that his reversed, amended decision was spurious, dishonest, and in conflict with established laws, precedents, morals, and common sense. It might even be treason.

Obama's paternal family have raised reasonable doubts about the location of Obama's birthplace by stating that they were present at his birth in Kenya. It is now reasonable to demand of Obama that he prove that his relatives in Kenya are mistaken and that he is right, instead, when he claims he was born in Hawaii. The simplest and best way for him to do that is to publish his original long-form Hawaiian birth certificate, if it exists.
No rhetoric or substitute in lieu of that document will suffice.

So there is reason to believe that our country is in danger of being ruled by a usurper, one of the most dangerous kinds of criminal there can be, beginning at 12h EST on 20 January 2009. Why is it important? Well, for one thing, the sitting of a usurper as US President can start another American civil war, if US military commanders become divided regarding whether to support an unconstitutional President, or whether to support the Constitution by removing the usurper.

On 17 December 2008, the US Supreme Court did two things: (1) It denied a petition for injunction by Philip Berg which would have prevented Obama from taking office as President, and (2) it scheduled the legal case Berg vs. Obama for conference on 9 January 2009. Immediately, almost every organ of the Jewish-controlled mass media began telling the same lie, namely, that the Supreme Court had contemptuously dismissed the Berg vs. Obama case. To get the truth of things, someone would have to read right-wing blogs on the Internet (which isn't unusual in such matters as this). Why the Jews are doing this kind of thing, I can only guess, and my best guess is that they are trying to increase the SHOCK value of their hiss & screech news coverage that they have planned if things don't go their way in the Supreme Court. That is, the Jewish media bosses are trying to fix things, PR-wise, so that the Justices will look like villains if they find Obama constitutionally ineligible to take office.

The oath of office for every military officer is to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Obeying a LEGITIMATE President is SECONDARY to obeying the Constitution. It is true that some of our commanding generals are nothing but political bureaucrats who would only burp and shrug and act as if a presidential usurper were of no matter. But other US military leaders would react as their oaths and US law require them to do. A usurper's every act as US President is a violation of law. A usurper acting as President is ipso facto an enemy of the Constitution, and all who obey his orders are traitors to their country.

So unless Obama proves that he is, in fact, a natural born US citizen who has never renounced his US citizenship, there could be a civil war in the United States at some point in the future. The facts are circulating on the internet despite the strenuous efforts of the Obama campaign people to discredit them. The mainstream news media were silent on Obama's doubtful US citizenship for months, which ensured that most Americans would remain ignorant on the matter until it was too late, or nearly too late, to protest.

Why the Barack Obama Birth Certificate Issue is Legitimate, at American Thinker.
Obama Citizenship Accusations Come to a Head, by Kurt Williamsen.

Also, the Internet's largest search engine, GOOGLE, apparently has done something to reduce the amount of "Berg vs Obama" citizenship challenge information as possible. At some point, the responses from relevant web searches fell off sharply, while responses from other search engines did not.

On 5 Dec 2008, the US Supreme Court refused to give certiorari to one case challenging Obama's eligibility to be US President, namely Donofrio vs. Wells. Another such case, Berg vs. Obama, has yet to be discussed by the high court. You'd think that the Justices would assign Berg a very high priority, due to the fact that the Electoral College will vote on 15 Dec 2008 (it is 12 Dec as I write this updated paragraph). But there are suspicions aired that the SCOTUS may be acting on a political agenda, that it is their intention to delay their consideration of Berg and thereby avoid delaying the EC vote.

If the Electors vote BEFORE any discovery that Obama is constitutionally ineligible to be President, then by law the Electors will be required to cast their votes for him, since he won the popular election. However, if the Electors vote AFTER it is confirmed that Obama is ineligible to be President, then the Electors will be required to vote for the runner up in the popular election: John McCain. If the SCOTUS Justices were acting upon a liberal political bias, then delay is exactly what you'd expect them to do. Let the Electors vote first for the Obama-Biden ticket. Let Obama become US President. Then, if it seems the politically smart thing to do, "discover" that Obama isn't qualified and have his presidency anulled, leaving another liberal, Biden, as acting US President. Whether Obama is later determined to have, or not to have, US citizenship, there will be a liberal President who will nominate liberal Justices to the Supreme Court when the present Justices retire.

Of course, this is only a theory. But it is a plausible theory, a theory which makes sense, a theory about a quiet conspiracy of political preference on the part of persons who should be, and would like to SEEM TO BE, above such politics.

Furthermore, it is known that Obama met secretly with eight of the nine Justices (
Samuel Alito was absent) in January 2009 shortly before his inauguration, at a time when cases were pending against him in the Supreme Court. That's a fundamental legal ethics violation. What happened in that closed meeting between Defendant Obama and those Justices? Did he give them a large bribe? Did he threaten their grandchildren? Did they, for political partisan reasons, give Obama coaching on how to "get by" the SCOTUS without unduly embarrassing them on account of malfeasance? The American people have a right to be certain that their highest court remains above corruption, and now the American people have been denied this assurance.

So for the Supreme Court to delay, knowing that time is running out, may be functionally indistinguishable from their deciding... wrongfully and underhandedly. You know the old saying: justice delayed is justice denied.

Our First Illegal Alien President: Supreme Court Fails to Act, by Jeff Davis at White Civil Rights.

All the courts are failing to act, and some of them are using some of the most transparent, even supercilious excuses. Here's an example. Federal Judge James Robertson recently dismissed a lawsuit brought by retired (but subject to recall) Air Force Colonel Gregory Hollister that would have sought to require Obama to prove his qualifications to be President of the United States. And just why did the judge throw out the case? BECAUSE IT HAD BEEN DISCUSSED IN PUBLIC to a point where many people had heard about it. Of course, lawsuits such as Berg vs. Obama predate the widespread knowledge of Obama's questionable citizenship, and the courts were doing their dismissing, delaying, denying thing back then, too, on one pretext or another. Now "twittering" has been added to the list of convenient pretexts for judges who don't want to do their constitutional duties. Why is it that "twittering" doesn't prevent most other lawsuits or trials from going forward, not even if the twittering involves a massive effort on the part of the television media and the nation's largest newspapers?
In the last few months, dozens of U.S. courts have dismissed legal challenges to Barack Obama's constitutional eligibility to occupy the Oval Office, and even the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hold a hearing on the evidence – but what have the courts actually cited as reasons for dismissing the concerns of millions of Americans? Mootness, lack of jurisdiction, lack of responsibility, lack of standing, a series of "no comments" and even the fact the issue has been "twittered." The one subject that has been avoided to date has been whether or not the president is, in fact, eligible. World Net Daily.
Who can doubt that there IS a conspiracy
a very widespread, very high-level oneto deny a due process examination to the reasonable doubts that many people have regarding the constitutional eligibility of Obama to serve as US President? Nobody honest, that's for sure. The nearest that any court has come to honesty in regard to cases such as Berg vs. Obama was Judge Surrick's original finding that Berg had standing to sue Obama, to require that Obama turn over his documents, and that Berg's standing had six independent legal grounds. Unfortunately, Surrick's honesty didn't endure even a month before something, presumably that conspiracy, got to him and made him change his mind. All six times.

It's my belief that the mainstream news media are minimizing their coverage of this constitutional crisis in order to preserve the option of creating "shock coverage" at a later time, should Obama be disqualified from holding office. Blacks and leftists might be inflamed by such media tactics into a murderous rioting rage. The threat of this media "shock treatment" is a kind of political leverage, or blackmail, which might be meant to pressure the US Supreme Court, the Electoral College, and perhaps also the US House of Representatives, into installing Obama despite his failure to meet the constitutional qualifications for that office.

Around the Clock Bars Week of Inaugural Concerns Officials, in the DC Examiner. It sounds as if the urban Blacks are setting the stage for an ugly riot in the event there are legal problems resulting from Obama's citizenship status, and using "celebration" as a cover for their preparations. The law authorizes DC bars and restaurants to serve alcohol until 5 am. Proponents on the DC Council referred to it as "emergency legislation." (It is known that two of the 13-member DC council who opposed the bill are White men: Phil Mendelson and Jim Graham.)

So if Obama isn't qualified, but gets the job anyway, we may have a civil war and martial law. If Obama does not get the job, we may have a civil war, or perhaps rioting in a good many US cities, which could serve as a pretext to impose martial law. And the reason for the latter danger is devious information management by the bosses of the mainstream news media.

In the United States, no candidate for high public office is allowed to come to the attention of the voting public unless he has some dark secret, known to the bankers and their media mogul cohorts, which they can use to control him. Unimpeachable candidates simply are not allowed. They don't get campaign funds. If one of them is rich enough to buy his own campaign, the mainstream media will sneer and spit his chances away.

I think that Obama's supporters and financial contributors knew from the beginning that Obama wasn't constitutionally eligible to hold the office of US President, and that they planned to keep his secret as a form of blackmail, as a trump card over him, to be played in the event that Obama displeases them with his financial policies, or with his foreign policy, or with his executive orders, or with his powers to veto legislation, or by any failure on his part to choose people acceptable to them as his top advisers. In any such case, they'd have a "researcher" suddenly "discover" that Obama isn't really qualified to be president. They would pretend to be very surprised.

I believed for a time that the premature disclosure of Obama's doubtful citizenship would sour that deal, but apparently the secret that is not-so-secret remains good enough. The bankers and the media bosses (briefly, shall we say Jews?) can still use it. If Obama gets his own ideas, these Jews will have someone "discover" that the "rumors" about him were true after all! Wow, who'd have believed that a "crazy" like Philip Berg and a bunch of bloggers could actually have stumbled upon the truth! The powermongers would pretend to be very surprised.

Perhaps the reason Obama is being so energetic in his propaganda efforts is that he has a very long way to fall if it should come out that he wasn't a US citizen when he enjoyed the rights and privileges that, by the Constitution, belong ONLY to US citizens. Among these are representing the people of Illinois, who are entitled to be represented by one of their fellow citizens. If Obama isn't a citizen of the United States, then he is also not a citizen of Illinois, and he has employed himself for several years in cheating all the people residing in that state of their constitutional rights. For that, he could end up in a federal prison for the rest of his days, I should think.

So Obama is going to try as hard as he can to become US President without proving to anybody that he is a US citizen. Once he is installed in office, he'll try to use the official powers of the presidency to protect himself, even if it means turning the United States into a military dictatorship.


Please spread the word about this issue, as the mainstream news media are trying to suppress it, and pass it on to the rest of the world if you can.

A timeline for lawsuits against Obama that would require him to prove he is a US citizen is given at America's Right.

To the governments of every country in the world. As long as Barack Obama is acting as President of the United States, and has not proved his Constitutional eligibility to do so, he should be presumed a Usurper of the powers of the United States to whose acts the United States cannot be legally bound. It is in your interests, as it is in ours, for you to forsake all ties with the United States until such time as it once again has a head-of-state of proven legality. Please, do not conduct any business with the United States until then, nor enter into any treaty, nor collaborate in any venture which Barack Obama or his agent may propose. Shun the United States as a rogue nation until we have a lawful chief executive once more.

To the US Armed Forces. Please support and defend our Constitution.

Letter To Members of the U.S. Military and Legal Professionals: Dr. Orly Taitz Esq seeking Article 138 By Military Personnel

Note: I have no way of telling which of these high-profile challenges to Obama's presidency are genuine and which are false-flag efforts to uncover and eliminate military officers who remain loyal to the Constitution, rather than to the Usurper. Make your bets as you will. Just, if you please, don't go on pretending that there is no problem.

Jerry Abbott



More to read:

Devvy Kidd:
Impeach Obama?
Chief Justice John Roberts Meets Obama in Private
No, We Don't Have a New President
Obama Supporters: Deceived or Just Plain Liars?
Obama Eligibility Issue Must Be Resolved Soon
Obama Citizenship Crisis and Industrial Strength Stupidity
.