BadEagle.com Header Image

 

Bad Eagle Journal

Obama Arrested, Jailed, and Impeached

by David Yeagley · April 28, 2011 · 76 Comments ·

It is no doubt the wish of every patriot in America. The current occupant of the White House should be immediately arrested, put in jail, and await his speedy impeachment. Barry Soetoro, a.k.a. “Barak Hussein Obama,” the lying black African Communist Muslim traitor has displayed the most ignominious behavior in American history, if possible, exceeding that of Bill Clinton.


This video is a continuation of the original YouTube, which the user removed, we’re told.

If the computer geeks are correct, the dramatic release of Barry’s “birth certificate” was high handed, bold faced lying. The birth certificate is a complete fraud, a computer generated illusion. This is what Barry Soetoro offers the people of America in return for their vote. To protest his lie is to be racist, according to his lying liberal supporters. Thus liberals demonstrate their slavish abuse of the Negro.


Here is one of the first exposures of the fraud involved in the Obama Birth Certificate. It is one of many now appearing on the internet.

Aside from the obvious computer manipulations involved in the proposed birth certificate, there are stunning deductions crying out for recognition. Two girls, twins, were born after “Barak,” yet their birth certificate numbers, 10637 and 10638, are lower than Barak’s, which is 10641. According to Jerome Corsi,

In 1961, the birth certificate numbers were not assigned by the hospitals. Instead, the numbers were stamped to the birth record by the Hawaii Department of Health at the main office in Honolulu. This is the only place birth certificate numbers were assigned.

Furthermore, making the foolish assumption (as most professional conservative talkers are doing) that the newly released birth certificate is actually legitimate, it proves that Obama’s presidency is illegal. According to Bob Unruh, “Barak” is eliminated by the United States Constitution. Barry “Barak” Soetoro is simply not a “natural-born citizen.” His father was not. Therefore, he is not. It doesn’t matter where the child was born.

Why are Republican leaders and professional conservative talkers so willing to accept the liar in the White House? Is it too difficult to unravel his lies? Or, are these so-called conservatives merely interested in their own power and influence? The professional talkers are more interested in, what, ratings? Why are they not outraged at this climactic lie of a fraudulent birth certificate?

Laura Ingraham, not known as a deep thinker (what talk show host is?) but rather a quick thinker, is not thinking at all right now. She accepts the fraud as legitimate, without question. Instead, she offers time to a liberal who was willing to criticize Obama for making such a big deal out of it, and giving in to Trump’s demands. She let liberal Washington Post writer Dana Milbank give his “intelligent” assessment of Obama’s impropriety in dramatically releasing the (fraudulent) birth certificate. He wrote about the matter in “Obama’s Birther Day.” This is Ingraham’s way of staying on top of the situation, letting a liberal mildly rebuke Obama for responding to the birther question. That’s real strength, Ms. Laura.

Milbank consulted the “professors,” the profesional “brains,” and came away with awe and admiration for Barry’s “complex” thought, and his ability to balance contrast and conflict. In his post, “Lost in Thought,” Milbank says, “There’s too much going on in the poor guy’s head,” says Milbank. He quotes Jonathan Haidt, a professor of social psychology at the University of Virginia:

“What distinguishes Obama particularly is the depth and carefulness of his thinking, which renders him somewhat unfit for politics.” “He is a brilliant social and political analyst, which makes it harder for him to play hardball or to bluff.”

Milbank concludes, “Obama’s strengths and weaknesses come from his high degree of “integrative complexity” — his ability to keep multiple variables and trade-offs in mind simultaneously.

In Oklahoma, we call that LYING. Obama is a liar. That’s all. He was born in lies, and has lived by lies. He’s very good at lying. We could call it delusional, or, living as a deluded man, with out of control thoughts, really. He long ago crossed the line, and has developed a deep, abiding alter-reality in which he is apparently comfortable. And, it turned out, he was very useful to white oedipal liberals in their purpose to destory America.

These same professional thinkers, the liberal psychology professors imply a different nature of Obama’s predecessor, George Bush. Bush was simple-minded. Not complex. Milbank openly suggests, then, that the Negro intellect is far superior to the white intellect–a proposition that has absolutely no scientific evidence whatsoever, in fact it is contradicted by every kind of evidence that does exist.

So, racism is indeed at the bottom of this issue. The liberal mantra is that the Negro is supreme. The white man is a fool, a loser, and finished. It is the reign of the African. At last, the white oedipal liberals will have triumphed. Their pathological urge to destory their heritage will have gained the mastery. They will remain on their private thrones, while the world will bow to the Negro, and disintegrate rapidly.

One wonders why conservatives and Republicans to not repond to this. Are they deluded also? Do they not cherish the Constitution as they profess to? Are they as traitorous as the liberal Democrats?

Obama should be immediately arrested, put in prison, and await a speedy impeachment. Every official in Washington who has not advocated this is a traitor. That is the inevitable conclusion. Every conservative talker who does not demand this action against Obama is a liar. This is outrageous beyond description.

There are consequences for lying. There are consequences for abandoning the responsibility to uphold the truth. Our nation is suffering those consequences as we speak–in every aspect of our existence. Our enemies multiply within and without, our economy is devastated and on the brink of irreparable demise, our streets are filled with personal violence of uncontrolled individuals. Even the weather is against us. Will not the land itself soon spew us out?

Bill O’Reilly recently talked about the necessity of Hell, in terms of judgment and justice. If there is no hell, there is no justice. That was his way of thining. Yet, he has not pursued “justice” in the matter of the birth certificate. Why?

Here, Obama Birth Certificate absolutely fraud. Proof beyond any doubt, is the most thorough exposure of the White House fraud in the matter of the newly released birth certificate. There can be no question. Obama is a profound liar, and needs to be put away. American cannot endure another moment of pretense. This must end. Now.

The above link is a tedious video, but, should remove all doubt from any mind that is sincere. The birth certificatae is a complete fraud. Obama is a criminal, a traitor, and should be arrested, put in jail, and then impeached.

Posted by David Yeagley · April 28, 2011 · 10:32 am CT · ·

Tags: American Patriotism · Bad Eagle Journal · Conservatism · Liberalism · Negro Race · Politics · Race · White Race




Read More Journal Posts »

76 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Thrasymachus // Apr 28, 2011 at 11:52 am   

    “And if you think race isn’t what this is about at its core, ask yourself if there would even be a birther conspiracy if Barack Obama were white and named Bart Oberstar. If you think there would be, you are delusional.” — columnist Michael Tomasky
    ————————————————————
    Really? Dost not remember “Watergate”? Try telling that rubbish to the late Richard Nixon!

    As I see it, just the opposite of what you, Mr. Tomasky, assert is true: a white man — especially a conservative — president would never have gotten to this point, as Mr. Obama has done!

  • 2 Georgia // Apr 28, 2011 at 12:11 pm   

    Quote “Obama Arrested, Jailed, and Impeached”
    End Quote
    You can add “and Deported” to that if you wish!

    Ingraham is too annoying to listen to and is probably more populist than conservative.
    (which is why she can fill in for O’Reilly)

    Ann Coulter was smug and mocking conservatives on her appearance on O’Reilly, Coulter on Birth Certificate

    She now has quite a few less book buyers, I know that for a fact.

    The so called “conservative talking heads” like Coulter and Ingraham and even Mark Levin are insulting more of their audience then they may be aware of. (Levin has been railing against Trump)

    Conservative pundits mocking constitutionally minded patriots and calling them birthers could damage the conservative cause more than those among them who are just asking legitimate questions.

    The left are typically the name callers, not conservatives.

    Praying for G-d to open the eyes of more Americans to The Truth so that they have a spiritual awareness of the evil in front of them.
    Truth is what is vitally missing in America right now.
    And because of it, we HAVE to ask questions.

    Liberals explain the 0bama incompetence and disconnect by labeling it “intellectual complexity”?
    How gracious.
    His followers do his lying for him, he doesn’t have to mar his soul…he found spiritual weaklings to do his bidding.
    The media were the first to show up for the vomit.

  • 3 Georgia // Apr 28, 2011 at 12:12 pm   

    as in Proverbs 26:11

  • 4 David Yeagley // Apr 28, 2011 at 1:14 pm   

    Sorry to hear about Ann this way. She’s always been our favorite conservative gal. But, I must say, she has derided the “birthers” from the very beginning.

    She’s thinking politics, manoeuver, strategy, and not truth for truth’s sake.

    Yeah, the Constitution is our “truth” as Americans. But, she even said that, too, early on. What does it mean to be American? What defines American? “The Constitution,” she said. And now, the biggest, most flagrant anti-Constitution person ever to sit in the White House, and she doesn’t want to pursue his fraudulent identity? This is disappointing.

    People have been jailed and deported for far, far less than Barry Soetoro’s fraud.

    There was a day when he would have been hung. Publicly.

  • 5 Georgia // Apr 28, 2011 at 1:35 pm   

    The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.
    Psalm58:3

    I never watch MSNBC but if you want to see pure evil at work, click on this link.
    Its repulsive.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WWwWgZEUs4&feature=player_embedded

    This is what we are up against in 2012.
    They mock, they laugh, they accuse, they ridicule.
    I have never, in all my adult life, ever seen such a blatant display of human evil broadcast on television in the guise of journalism.

  • 6 Georgia // Apr 28, 2011 at 1:59 pm   

    Quote: “She’s thinking politics, maneuver, strategy, and not truth for truth’s sake.” end Quote

    That’s all fine and good for Ms Coulter, but we remember the glassy eyed chanting that followed the Community Organizer’s campaign. The masses seemed hypnotized.

    If asking questions creates an atmosphere of suspicion then I would consider that a healthier alternative to mindless lemming behavior.
    Striving for truth is a good place to start, defending it is a duty.

    We have to remember that many “pundits” have to protect their image because their livelihood depends on it.

    But they are also a bit more insulated than we are. I have heard one conservative talk show host say when it looks like the USA is down for the count, he’ll take his wealth and leave the country.
    Do conservative talk show people stir up the average person on the street to affect the changes they would like to see and knowing if those followers fail, they (the pundits) can just pack up and leave?
    Many of us do not have that luxury. We’ll be left to fight the good fight while they enjoy the vistas of Costa Rica or wherever it is that x-pats go.

  • 7 kschwantz // Apr 28, 2011 at 2:52 pm   

    Does being a “natural born citizen” have a specific litmus test, does anyone know?

    For instance does it necessitate that both parents be citizens, or only one?

    Must the birth happen on American soil, or is anywhere sufficient, given the citizen parent establishment?

    If all it takes is one parent, then perhaps wherever that citizen’s location at time of birth, the child is by auto a U.S. citizen?

    If the last bit is the case, then he’s probably a citizen, because wasn’t his Mother a citizen?

  • 8 David Yeagley // Apr 28, 2011 at 3:05 pm   

    KS: from the post of Asaph, on our previous blog:

    That the “natural born Citizen” clause is based on undivided allegiance and loyalty can be seen from how the Founders distinguished between “citizen” and “natural born Citizen.” This distinction is based on the law of nations which became part of our national common law. According to that law as explained by E. Vattel in his, The Law of Nations (1758), a “citizen” is a member of the civil society. To become a “citizen” is to enter into society as a member thereof. On the other hand, a native or indigenes or “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the country of two citizen parents who have already entered into and become members of the society. Vattel also tells us that it is the “natural born Citizen” who will best preserve and perpetuate the society. This definition of the two distinct terms has been adopted by many United States Supreme Court decisions. (The Venus, 12 U.S. 253 (1814) and Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874) to cite just two.) With the presidential qualification question never being involved, neither the 14th Amendment (which covers only “citizens” who are permitted to gain membership in and enter American society by either birth on U.S. soil or by naturalization and being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States), nor Congressional Acts (8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401), nor any case law (e.g. U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)) has ever changed the original common law definition of a “natural born Citizen.”

    http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2009/08/07/natural-born-citizen-us-constitution-kerchner-update-august-6-2009-founding-fathers-obama-not-natural-born-citizen/

  • 9 kschwantz // Apr 28, 2011 at 4:46 pm   

    Interesting, thanks for that Doc.

    So I guess someone would have to bring a suit, and it would probly have to goto the Supreme Court, which would probly happen by the time he’s 70?

    What about bastards? There’s gotta be bastard natural born citizens? Well, he’s one of them right?

  • 10 David Yeagley // Apr 28, 2011 at 5:11 pm   

    Ha! Well, you know, we’re all so used to his chicanery by now, I think we’ve lost the sense of outrage. It is too great. Bill Clinton wore us down. Black Barry has finished us off. We’re buried. We’ve had to learn to live with this kind of thing. Not that we’ve accepted it, but, there seems to be no changing it.

    We all just go sliding gradually down hill, into the abyss.

    It would take radical action. The law will not be enforced when those in charge are all breaking it. The way I tend to see it, all who either support Barry, or take no action against his fraud, are all participants with him in crime.

  • 11 bgwillia // Apr 28, 2011 at 5:41 pm   

    Yeagley #8: I responded to Asaph #32 on the last post:

    Sorry, but I don’t regard French jurisprudence as applicable to English common law and, by extension, to American law and relevant points what “Natural-born citizen” means in the U.S is summed up in: http://www.politicalforum.com/history-past-politicians/153649-absolute-proof-founding-fathers-knew-vattel-s-natural-born.html in SFJEFF’s reply: that if you landed within the shores of this country or designated territories upon birth and have no other allegiances to any other country, you’re a natural-born citizen. This is the opposite to the French and most continental European concepts of whom you drop from during birth to establish natural-born citizenship. Salient points to me are:

    Attorney General Edward Bates, Opinion on Citizenship of Children Born in the United States of Alien Parents (1862)
    I am quite clear in the opinion that children born in the United States of alien parents, who have never been naturalized, are native-born citizens of the United States

    United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
    …every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

    III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established

    Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9 (1913)
    In this brief citation, the court implies the equivalence of “native born” with “natural born” when it used the former as the qualification for president:

    Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society. These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other. Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency. 88 U. S. 165; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94, 112 U. S. 101; 22 U. S. 827

    Kwock Jan Fat v. White, 253 U.S. 454 (1920)
    It is not disputed that if petitioner is the son of Kwock Tuck Lee and his wife, Tom Ying Shee, he was born to them when they were permanently domiciled in the United States, is a citizen thereof, and is entitled to admission to the country. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649. But, while it is conceded that he is certainly the same person who, upon full investigation, was found, in March, 1915, by the then Commissioner of Immigration, to be a natural born American citizen…

    Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939)
    And the mere fact that the plaintiff [Elg] may have acquired Swedish citizenship by virtue of the operation of Swedish law on the resumption of that citizenship by her parents does not compel the conclusion that she has lost her own citizenship acquired under our law….

    The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [page 350] ….. declared Miss Elg “to be a natural born citizen of the United States,”

    Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964)
    We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the ‘natural born’ citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, s 1.

    Now, Wong has a point: “VII. Upon the facts agreed in this case, the American citizenship which Wong Kim Ark acquired by birth within the United States has not been lost or taken away by anything happening since his birth. No doubt he might himself, after coming of age, renounce this citizenship and become a citizen of the country of his parents, or of any other country; for, by our law, as solemnly declared by Congress, … “. Thus this point applies to OGL during his “excellent adventure” to Pakistan via Indonesia with some sort of passport. If it’s not a U.S. passport, was it Indonesian and did OGL renounced his U.S. citizenship, as opposed to additionally declaring himself an adopted Indonesian citizen as an adult to obtain/renew it? Given the length of time and amount of effort to politically corner OGL to fess up the BC, what must be done to corner him politically to fess up other documents?

  • 12 Thrasymachus // Apr 28, 2011 at 5:52 pm   

    “It would take radical action. The law will not be enforced when those in charge are all breaking it. The way I tend to see it, all who either support Barry, or take no action against his fraud, are all participants with him in crime.”
    ———————————————————–
    True. Those in positions to take such action are afraid of the Negro population. The Liberals have gained and maintain their present power through cultivating this fear in the general population. Someday this game will backfire and be the undoing of the Liberals — but will the country survive it all?

  • 13 Pamela K. // Apr 28, 2011 at 5:55 pm   

    When a Comanche puhakut decides to bewitch someone, he first spends several days praying and fasting for what he wills to come to pass.
    This is the core tenet of witchcraft. Imposing your will on the will of other people. Has anyone ever stop to consider that for as many people who are praying for our nation to be restored to prosperity and our Judeo-Christian roots, there are many others praying for America and especially the Christian church here to fall?
    I mentioned the Comanches because your people, at least the older and more traditional Indians, have no problem believing in the power of witchcraft. They know it exists. And it is witchcraft that is blinding both the minds and the hearts of the political and social elite of our nation to the truth about Obama. I doubt that most of the media stars like Bill O’Reilly and Laura Ingraham and even Ann Coulter actually believe in the power of witchcraft or that someone could suppress and control their minds and thoughts through satanic power..
    As a Christian, I know that we are in the midst of a heavy spiritual battle, or, as it says in Ephesians, “We wrestling not only against flesh and blood…but against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly sphere” for the soul of our nation. Obama is only a part of the deception.

  • 14 bgwillia // Apr 28, 2011 at 5:56 pm   

    Since I got home to post the above, I found the law on renouncing one’s US Citizenship – Section 349(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) (8 U.S.C. 1481(a)(5)) :

    B. ELEMENTS OF RENUNCIATION

    A person wishing to renounce his or her U.S. citizenship must voluntarily and with intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship:

    1. appear in person before a U.S. consular or diplomatic officer,

    2. in a foreign country (normally at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate); and

    3. sign an oath of renunciation

    Renunciations that do not meet the conditions described above have no legal effect. Because of the provisions of section 349(a)(5), Americans cannot effectively renounce their citizenship by mail, through an agent, or while in the United States. In fact, U.S. courts have held certain attempts to renounce U.S. citizenship to be ineffective on a variety of grounds, …

  • 15 kschwantz // Apr 28, 2011 at 6:21 pm   

    “We all just go sliding gradually down hill, into the abyss.”

    Like the song says:

    http://youtu.be/5_H-LY4Jb2M

    People yearn for an alternative but there isn’t one. Not when Unions can take dues to make campaign contributions, effectively buying the candidate. Same with other lobbying influences.

    It diminishes the value of the American vote, yet politicians lift no finger to stop the process corruption. Republicans are lock step with Democrats.

    Vote but there is no longer choice.

    That’s tragedy.

  • 16 Georgia // Apr 28, 2011 at 6:33 pm   

    I agree with Pamela K; there are many Christians that do not recognize witchcraft. They are Christians up to that point and the rest is excused as “misguided people in a fallen world.”
    No, there are un-Godly forces at work.
    The rhythmic chanting, the brotherhood of liars (pundits and media personalities using their profession to bind together in an all out assault on the sensible, traditional values of ordinary Americans) and indoctrinating by race, those willing to partake in the destruction of America.
    All intertwined in a culture of lies, corruption, hyper-sexuality and perversion, substance abuse, manipulation and murder.
    (especially of the unborn)

    These are defiantly dark ages in our short, American history, but we serve a G-d of Mercy, Promise and Deliverance and we have already been comforted with the Truth and given the tools that we need to not fall into their traps.

    Pray as if it has already be answered.

  • 17 Asaph // Apr 28, 2011 at 6:50 pm   

    bgwillia, based on what you have posted, and what I have read elsewhere, all we have done is prove this issue of exactly what the Founders believed a “natural born citizen” is MUST be addressed by Congress, and the SCOTUS.

    Whether that will happen is dubious.

    After watching the ‘tedious’ video it does seem clear a file which is reduced from a PDF to a jpeg and back again cannot be manipulated by the OCR application in Adobe Illustrator.

    I am rather stunned the Obama people would put this easily exposed document out, unless, of course, as I stated in the previous column Obama is trying to create as much division among the citizenry as possible.

    To the issue of conservative talkers. When they run for office and take up their civic duty to enter public life as elected civil servants I will hold them in higher esteem. Until then, they talk and that is all they do. If anything else was the case Clinton and Obama would not have been elected. Their influence is not half what they think.

  • 18 bgwillia // Apr 28, 2011 at 9:24 pm   

    Asaph #17: 169 U.S. 649, 377 U.S. 163, 231 U.S. 9, etc., are SCOTUS case law numbers. I only selected SCOTUS and none of the applet rulings as they have a more broader coverage. So far I see no refutation, based on case law, binding the country today to the drop rule from continental Europe (whether it’s ancestry, parentage, whatever) and that rule superceeds English common law and current US law on territory (landing) rule (within borders or designated territories of the country).

    At one time in our country’s history the drop rule was binding until the fourteenth Amendment changed in principle and Wong in effect it to territory. From Cyclopedia of American Government (1914), p.496: “NATURAL BORN CITIZENS. A natural born citizen of the United States is one who is a citizen by reason of his place of birth or the citizenship of his father. The two classes of naturalized and natural born citizens are thus mutually exclusive, and together constitute the entire citizen body of the United States. The Fourteenth Amendment (see) as construed in the case of United States vs. Wong Kim Ark (169 U. 8. 649) provides that every person born within the territorial limits of the United States, even though his parents be aliens, and of a race the members of which are by law excluded from naturalization, are natural-born citizens. Under certain circumstances persons born outside the territorial limits of the United States are deemed natural born citizens, as for example, children of American citizens visiting or traveling abroad. The father must, however, at some time have resided in the United States. Only natural-born citizens are eligible to the offices of President and Vice-President.
    See Citizenship In The United States; Naturalization, Law Of. References: G. W. Garner, IntroN to. Pol. Sci. (1910), ch. xi; F. Van Dyne, CitizensHp of U. 8. (1904).”

    Let me emphasize the key sentence here: “The Fourteenth Amendment (see) as construed in the case of United States vs. Wong Kim Ark (169 U. 8. 649) provides that every person born within the territorial limits of the United States, even though his parents be aliens, and of a race the members of which are by law excluded from naturalization, are natural-born citizens.” And under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes the same Congress who had adopted the Fourteenth Amendment, confirmed this principle: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.“

    One or both parents could be from Mars, but if the child is born within the country or designated territories and owe no foreign allegiance is a natural-born citizen.

  • 19 David Yeagley // Apr 28, 2011 at 9:26 pm   

    Pam, I’m not sure what you’re reading, but, I have never heard of “witchcraft” in Comanche ways. Certainly not the old ways. Some forelorn person may have tried to pick something up from some other Indian people, in more modern times.

    Po-ha-cut is completely personal. It has nothing to do with anyone else.

    There could be some serious misinformation out there, in books, on the internet, etc.

    Indian hexes or spells were practiced in some traditions. There is all the object focus, the “superstition” connected with ritual and object. But, this is entirely foreign to Comanche ways.

    Witchcraft requires a conscious schemata of the invisible. Contact, magic, etc. This can of thing is elaborate. Comanche people never had any use for such imaginary nonsense (in their view). But, like I said, in late exposure to other tribes in the crunching period, and in post-reservation days, there may be one or two Comanches who picked up some notion of it, and even talked about it to some white person, who wrote it down. But, I assure you, this isn’t Comanche. Any sort of witchcraft would be a very rare exception, and not from within the people, but borrowed.

  • 20 David Yeagley // Apr 28, 2011 at 9:34 pm   

    Now, I’m quite sure that satanic power exists, in many forms, from the primitve talisman object, voodooism, to the organized ritual, to the space alien dimension. It’s all there, in great variety, to suit the individual culture, social circumstances, mind set, etc. I don’t doubt that for a moment. And each dimension challenges the other, accuses the other, so that adherers think their group is the special, elect group, and everyone else is the enemy.

    A lot of this is just psychological and sociological. This is the way humanity operates.

    And I do believe Satan has power in the nations. He is, in fact, the god of this world. Prince of the powers of the air (invisible, space, etc.) He does “weaken the nations.” He does try to bring man down, in large numbers.

    So, do you think Satan is in Washington? Is Satan also in the church? Where is he not? Human nature is under his power, if I understand scripture correctly.

    I do pray for the nation. I do care. That’s why I got into all this, publicly, back in 2001. Things seemed to have gotten worse in the last ten years!

    I wrote these last two posts simply because I can’t accept this trend in DC. I cannot accept Barry Soetoro. Today, I wondered, and even prayed. Is he beyond hope? Is he beyond salvation? Can he be reached by the Spirit of God?

  • 21 David Yeagley // Apr 28, 2011 at 9:36 pm   

    bgwillia, don’t forget about the intent of the law. When we do that, the law is used to destroy itself.

    How do you regard “anchor” babies?

  • 22 Edwin M. Wright // Apr 28, 2011 at 10:40 pm   

    Was Obama Born in America?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jHqGctWy0Q&feature=channel_video_title

  • 23 bgwillia // Apr 28, 2011 at 11:12 pm   

    Yeagley #21: To understand the intent of legislation, you must study the debates, be it from the Constitutional Convention, or the Congressional debates over the amendments. Then study case law that intrepreted the legislation. It’s an imperfect system, but name one better.

    During the Fourteenth Amendment debates, Senator Lyman Trumbull said this: “The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.” Representative Aaron Sargent, during the Naturalization Act of 1870 debates, said the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause was not a de-facto right for aliens to obtain citizenship.

    As Wong rules:
    The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 6a, “strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;” and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, “if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.” It can hardly be denied that an alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the country in which he resides — seeing that, as said by Mr. Webster, when Secretary of State, in his Report to the President on Thrasher’s Case in 1851, and since repeated by this court,

    And , by extension of Perkins v. Elg, a pregnant mother from Mexico giving birth to a child within US territory, that child is a natural-born US citizen even if the mother is not and even if that child is brought back to Mexico. Hence the need to better secure our borders – on the border and not forty miles inland.

    btw, Congressional Research Service Report number RL30527 of April 17, 2000, titled “Presidential Elections in the United States: A Primer” asserts that citizens born in Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands are legally defined as natural born citizens, and are, therefore, also eligible to be elected President.

  • 24 Edwin M. Wright // Apr 28, 2011 at 11:28 pm   

    Gee, Wally I guess if they pass a law that Whites are to be exterminated or are legally to allowed to be victims of violence or robbery at will by others with out due process, that we will have to obey.

  • 25 Maharishi of Mayhem // Apr 28, 2011 at 11:53 pm   

    It is very interesting that when I served in the military, it was common knowledge that a certain “quota” of blacks had to be promoted even though they had scored lower on advancement exams and warfare qualifications. We have even seen this in civilian life lately as public firefighters and police have had to sue because they were not able to be promoted because blacks did not score high enough. Now, please understand, I have known educated blacks who have “made it,” but I often wonder where they would be without “affirmative distraction.” Most of you won’t be able to handle this, but the average black male is nothing more than a penis-pushing thug that is more in touch with his mating desires than his GRE score. Obama and others who have been perched up by liberal whites are the same, only their penis of choice is liberal policy…their victim…the good people of this country.

  • 26 calliegal235 // Apr 29, 2011 at 1:56 am   

    kschwantz – post 9
    RE bringing a suit, that has already been done. One was brought by Alan Keyes, questioning Obama’s eligibility.
    Obama for America has paid thousands of dollars to the law firm dealing with these legal issues of his eligibility.
    If we ever see his college records, those will also probably be doctored.
    I don’t think Donald Trump is stupid. What many of us would like to know, is if it’s true that Obama received tuition aid, through the aid for foreign students program, i.e., was he receiving aid as a foreign student?
    Like the birth certificate, why does Mr. Transparency have attorneys working so much to keep all these under wraps? Why not release the college records? Mr. Transparency is the one making this such a big deal, but some of us still want to know, why is it such a big deal?

  • 27 calliegal235 // Apr 29, 2011 at 2:45 am   

    I do wonder if some conservatives are playing this politcal process out in a kind of Al Capone scenerio. Law enforcement could not get Capone on charges of many of his illegal activities, including the murders, but when they learned they could get him on tax evasion, they pursued it, and convicted him.
    Perhaps some conservatives don’t want to admit they think the birth certificate is a fake, because in the end, we may never be able to prove it. Then, if we have chased that, they fear losing the swing votes over it, and having Mr. Transparency in office another four years, which they really don’t want! So they think it more politically expedient to go after him on the issues, (apart from his eligibility) which, though he may still lie about, will be the only hope of getting him voted out of office, and will be much faster than draggin issues through the courts. Even this, the conservatives would not whisper, for fear of losing swing votes and or splitting the conservative votes.

  • 28 Asaph // Apr 29, 2011 at 6:37 am   

    bgwillia, assuming your posts are accurate, we have reason to understand the desire of those who would like to see the 14th Amendment removed.

    The OBVIOUS intent of the Founders in declaring eligibility of the office of the president has been turned on its head.

    I am also wondering how articulate men like Allen Keyes, his “leave no stone unturned” attorney Orly Taitz, dozens of other attorneys and their able and intelligent clients, many former high command officers in the millitary, as well as all the other scholars and students of American history and SCOTUS proceedings, have missed the information you supply on the subject of natural born citizenry and continue to NOW state with no equivocation that the long form birth certificate, if authentic, proves beyond reasonable doubt Obama IS NOT eligible or qualified to be POTUS.

    For three years Obama has fought the release of a document, spending reported millions of dollars in legal fees, which offers no vital information different than the COLB his office originally released. What is wrong with this picture? Something is very odd, strange, weird, and vitally foolish for Obama to fight the release of records which say nothing, other than what was originally touted as THE birth certificate (when it obviously was not) released two years ago.

    I remain unconvinced, and now realize the reason why no judge or SCOTUS will touch this. If SCOTUS has already dealt with the issue, each and every one of them could easily state it so. We have no such testimony I am aware of. We have Thomas saying, in public, the court has chosen not to address it. Are we to believe the Conservative Scalia would be reticent to just state the facts as you relay them, which would have ended this controversy from the beginning? Have we heard anyone in Congress, even Democrats state these things? All has hinged on liberals demonizing those who questioned the president’s birth place, calling them “birthers,” and viciously attacking those who question the COLB as necessary documentation. All this and MORE when any single network person or elected official, or judge could have just said It’s already been decided. But none have, and I regard that silence as evidence this issue is far bigger than your conclusions drawn from the sources you have.

    Allen Keyes offers wisdom on this matter:

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=292597

    I am even more disgusted with this president now than I was before. His actions and attitude show incredible arrogance and kingly power. All he has done is fire up an offended populace by his lack of character and totally unexplained and unexplainable secrecy, WHICH PERSISTS on all other documents of his past.

    This man has created this distrust all by himself. For all those who now say “Here it is! Sit down and shut up,” wait. A tide is rising that shall not drop because a stupid piece of paper was made of no significance and now ALL significance by blinded, if not agenda driven supporters.

    If anyone in the Republican party can get over their ridiculous fear of “racist” charges, maybe, maybe this entire fiasco will actually be legally and forthrightly addressed. Until then, I fear the media has hit the bases loaded triple. It’s not a grand slam, but it may be close enough. This will divide America even more. And that falls into the hands of those who wish to control America.

  • 29 Asaph // Apr 29, 2011 at 6:59 am   

    It should also be pointed out that Pros in the illustration field have verified that Adobe Illustrator, will, indeed, layer a single image scan. So, the certificate is probably valid.

  • 30 Asaph // Apr 29, 2011 at 7:02 am   

    “While there may be other challenges to the document’s authenticity that bear further scrutiny, it appears that the “layer argument” can be easily explained.

    Graphic artists who addressed the issue on blogs and Web forums point out that the format in which Obama’s document was released, Portable Document Format, or PDF, is composed of multiple images.

    Tests on other PDF images produce an effect similar to the multiple layers extracted from Obama’s document.”

    Read more: Graphics pros challenge Obama birth certificate http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=292673#ixzz1KutzQJey

  • 31 David Yeagley // Apr 29, 2011 at 8:34 am   

    Okay. So why do so many of the layers pertain to critically important elements, exclusively, on the COLB? Why just the names, the dates, etc., that are of critical import?

    Furthermore, as I said in the blog, others question the accuracy of the information anyway, copied, layered, or forged. Obama’s COLB number is higher than those born after him.

    I think this COLB has simply magnified the offense of this lying “president.”

    Also, this is still not a “birth certificate.” It is a certificate of live birth. What’s that all about?

  • 32 David Yeagley // Apr 29, 2011 at 8:47 am   

    Obama’s half-sister raises birth-certificate doubts
    Claims despite ‘adoption’ by Indonesian stepfather, it is U.S. ‘law’ that matters
    WND April 28, 2011

    The case is clearly unresolvable. Hawaii is a lawless place, always has been, and it is a warehouse for fraud. Always has been. An astute move to plot an identity there. An adroit manoeuver.

    The issues are endless, the confusion permanent, and identity is impossible. This is the US presidency now. NOTHING.

  • 33 David Yeagley // Apr 29, 2011 at 9:12 am   

    Here’s something written by Orli Taitz, February 24, 2009:

    Main issue is that the state of HI, according to statue 338 allows Foreign born children of Hawaiian residents to obtain Hawaiian birth certificates and obtain them based on a statement of one relative only. There is plenty of evidence of Mr. Obama being born in Kenya and obtaining his Hawaiian birth certificate based on a statement of his grandparent only, who simply didn’t want to deal with immigration and not based on any records from any hospitals. Extensive searches in the State of Hawaii showed no birthing records for his mother [Stanley] Ann Dunham in any hospital in Hawaii.

    The Hawaiian law is a serious factor in this story, whatever else has been discovered or corrected since then in the way of story details.


    Dr. Orly Taitz

  • 34 Maharishi of Mayhem // Apr 29, 2011 at 10:35 am   

    Is liberal black Bro-bama a liar? Of course. None of this should surprise us. It has been built into the fiber of the black culture to be dishonest. On a base behavioral level, statistics show that over 70% of violent crime in this country (rape, strong-armed robbery, and murder) are committed by black males. Unfortunately, the white, liberal media states that this is due to the fact that blacks have been held back through institutions like slavery and purposeful economic depravity which ultimately results in desperate people doing desperate things. So, instead of this being an issue of a debased character that permeates the black culture, it is the fault of whites who have held them back.

    This purposeful lie of outside influence causing debased behavior is simply one of political convenience.

    The bottom line is this…No one wants to be around blacks. Ask a realtor what most whites ask when buying a home…”Is this a bad neighborhood,” which being translated means…”is there a lot of black crime?” People with common sense are wary of the black man and his violent ways. However, the politician needs him. The white liberal politician will court his savagery and licentious ways for his own purposes.

    Yes, the politician convinces the black man that he is not to blame for his problems…so instead of demanding excellence, we deliver welfare and social programs to keep the black temper in check. This also serves the purpose of killing any initiative that the blacks may have of attempting to move out of their current lot in life both economically and socially. In other words, why clean up your act when you can be rewarded just the way you are?

    To convince the black man that he is smart and capable of upward social mobiilty, we deliver free education through Pell Grants and unfair access to education institutions that would normally not accept them through the government program of “affirmative distraction.” Go to any public university and you will see the place swarming with blacks. How many graduate? Statistically, not many. But they are given their “opportunity,” which the majority waste because their characters are more suited for crime, drugs, and a animalistic drive to have immoral relations than to educate themselves. However, the lie works, for they have been taught to believe that they are mentally on par with the rest of society, when every statistic out there show that they are not.

    Why is all of this done for a race of criminals and liars? It’s called the “Black Vote.” The liberal white politician hates the blacks, but he loves the black vote.

    How do you use the black vote to win a presidential election?

    You simply run a candidate who is “black,” or in Bro-bama’s case, half-black, who has had a mediocre, unimpressive life, but who has been granted access to excellence because of “affirmative distraction,” and what do you get?

    You get the blacks to come out in waves to vote for a candidate that represents the best that their culture has to offer, (after all, he has an Ivy League eduation)….that my friends, is the ultimate reality of what the black lie produces!

    Blacks will never achieve mentally, culturally, or in character until we make them stand on their own feet. This country pushed the chances of blacks ever becoming solid and decent citizens back into the stone age with the election of Bro-bama. “Why should we get better,” they might ask…”we’ve already gained the highest position in the land by being just the way we are.” Where do they go from here?

    Bro-bama a liar? Yes, the definition itself. But the ultimate lie is upon the black American populace. They have been duped into believing that they have arrived. The sad truth is, they have not even boarded the train.

  • 35 Georgia // Apr 29, 2011 at 10:58 am   

    It’s not just the matter of document authenticity, there exists a potential for an Indonesian adoption and citizenship cover-ups, foreign student aid, passports, half sisters and locked up college records.
    The man is surrounded by conflicts.

    Anyone who questions The Chosen one, is branded as a nutter, birther, racists, or a passenger on “The Crazy Train”. The ever-so-tolerant liberal MSM are competing to destroy or discredit Dr. Taitz.
    There is a video of another cable news cretin tearing Taitz up and throwing her off the screen.
    I won’t even post it.

    When DR. Taitz, Joe Farrah, Trump etc, are interviewed by the marxist lugnuts in the MSM, they should hammer home some common truths and repeatedly ASK their hosts, why they failed to do their jobs as journalists and vet Barry during the campaign. Just keep repeating the same uncomfortable question.

    The questions surrounding Barry are not going away and the apparent lashing out by the leftist media is a sure sign of discomfort.
    Use THAT.
    Keep the questions coming—it’s not settled.

  • 36 David Yeagley // Apr 29, 2011 at 11:04 am   

    Maharashi, One of the speeches at the American Renaissance meeting last February (not open to public, due to harassment and threats) was on this very topic. Robert Greenberg’s speech was sarcasticly entitled, “Helping Blacks by Lying to Them.” I’m sure you would have appreciated it.

  • 37 David Yeagley // Apr 29, 2011 at 11:06 am   

    Of course, no one wants to talk about natural aversions. People can’t help their birth identity. A person never choses his parents. People don’t like to be condemned for something they had nothing to do with.

    Therefore, any natural aversion to the Negro is unkind, unfair, and prejudiced. Why, it’s downright racism. Mean, cruel, shameful, and bad.

  • 38 David Yeagley // Apr 29, 2011 at 1:18 pm   

    Anne Coulter on Lou Dobbs, brief comment about the certificate, more about Obama. Conservative talkists prefer political policy conversations, not “identity politics.”

  • 39 Maharishi of Mayhem // Apr 29, 2011 at 1:32 pm   

    Oh, Great Bad Eagle…I do not believe that most fairly thinking people have “natural aversions” to people because of their race or other uncontrollable circumstances.

    Instead, I believe that “aversions” come through experience, insight, and plain common sense.

    I do not believe that I was born with a “natural aversion” to sardines, but just try and get me to eat one. The sardine cannot help that he was born that way, but my experience of what the sardine has to offer has led me have an aversion to all of his canned-fish cousins. It seems that the weight of the evidence suggests that every can that I open seems to have the same characteristics. Therefore, my aversion is based upon experience, not “natural aversion.”

    Every sardine has an opportunity to swim on his own, but his instinct causes him to stay with his group. He does what all of his friends do and thinks what all of his friends think. Therefore, he usually ends up saturated in salt, mustard, or tomato sauce. To swim alone could mean success, but that is not comprehensible in his society, for his society has never been able to comprehend individual autonomy.

    My experience with the American black culture is the same. They, for the most part, are unwilling to move beyond their racial identity to pursue the greatness that God has placed into all men. Everything with the American black is tied to race. And truthfully, we have done it to them through the policies of Lyndon Johnson and his Utopian Great Society end game.

    The reality is that the black American culture will never rise up out of its situation because white liberal politics needs them to stay where they are. Liberalism would not survive if the majority of blacks came to realize that they are still in the chains of slavery…not physically, but intellectually. The white liberal master feeds them what he says fit in return for their labor…which today, equals a vote.

    Racism (hatred because of skin color), I believe, for the most part does not exist in America against the black race. After all, white America has been taught how bad we are, and how many reparations we need to make to get serious about “color hate.”

    However, what we do have is serious political divide based upon those who try, and those who would rather die than contribute. That, Bad Eagle, is the real issue, and as long as we have white liberal politicians who feed this beast, then we will never see Black America emerge as an intellectual, social, or spiritual force to be reckoned with.

    Until they do, I will hold on to my “Aversions of Experience.”

  • 40 Georgia // Apr 29, 2011 at 2:47 pm   

    Coulter has an upcoming book to sell, she may want to consider who she is calling “birthers”.
    She is alienating some of her audience.

    She has sided with the name-callers on the left, and now they smell “division” in the conservative camp.

    Marharishi: Interesting perspective on the handiwork of white, liberal politicians. They do work closely with the famous Reverend-style race hustlers when funding or more projects are needed.

    Ironically, most of the damage-makers never have to live up close to the problems they create.

    It’s like the other issue: the moderates in that segment of society cannot speak out against the radicals for fear of being branded, labeled, humiliated and demonized.

    Unscrupulous “level-the-playing-field” lending practices have brought the problems of the inner cities to the suburbs.
    “White flight” is no longer going to be a move across town; watch the demographics of Wyoming, the Dakota’s and Utah over the next few years.

  • 41 Thrasymachus // Apr 29, 2011 at 3:15 pm   

    Nature versus Nurture? What about “natural aversions”?

    Here’s my theory:

    We are all born narcissistic to a degree — a perfectly natural subconscious phenomenon:

    “So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church.” — Ephesians 5: 28 – 29

    It is natural and healthy to love one’s own flesh — one’s personal body:
    “No one hates his own body but feeds and cares for it, just as Christ cares for the church.” — Ephesians 5:29

    Moreover, sexual relations means two bodies become, somehow, mystically ONE:

    “Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.” ” 1 Corinthians 6:16

    Moreover, physically, this oneness is literally achieved in REPRODUCTION — in the combining of the genes of both parents.

    Now, if a man (or woman) loves his own body, this also means that he loves his own genes — his genetic heritage.

    Now, whether you believe in Evolution or Creationism, the truth about genes remains the same: you share as many identical genes with any member of your RACE as you do with your aunt, uncle, or grandfather!

    Therefore your race or ethnicity is your extended family — not figuratively but literally.

    On Genetic Interests (book review).

    I share as many identical genes — in terms of the numbers — with this Scottish-Irish lad (a famous singer) as I do with my paternal grandfather!

    Declan Galbraith.

    (I would want my own child to be similar to me — just as this one is.)

    My point?

    In marriage, it is only natural to want to propagate one’s own genes. It is natural to have an aversion to attempting to unite one’s own genes with a genetic entity-construction that is very dissimilar to one’s own. The fewer identical genes shared, the greater the aversion.

    Thus, while Man has many of the very same genes as the chimpanzee, it is pure mental illness to want to reproduce with it.

    Culturally, we have an aversion to reproduction with close relatives — and this is right, for the practice is unhealthy. But the opposite extreme — reproduction with persons of the farthest genetic distance from our ourselves is also not Nature’s highest intention.

  • 42 Thrasymachus // Apr 29, 2011 at 3:41 pm   

    So it is important to understand and keep in mind that a natural aversion in the area of marriage and reproduction is not hate.

    People love their household pets sometimes as much as a fellow human being, which shows that love and sexuality can be two quite distinct things.

  • 43 Thrasymachus // Apr 29, 2011 at 4:06 pm   

    “Therefore, any natural aversion to the Negro is unkind, unfair, and prejudiced. Why, it’s downright racism. Mean, cruel, shameful, and bad.”
    ——————————————————–
    No, not unkind at all. Normal people have a natural aversion to marriage with a sibling, while they may have a very strong love for that person.

    In our confused society, sexual attraction has been conflated to mean “love.” In the liberal mind-set they are one and the same. But love and lust are two distinct things indeed!

    One may care very deeply about a person without desiring that person sexually, and one may desire a person sexually without caring at all about them!

    That a person who clearly prefers their own ethny in marriage is considered “unkind” is simply a sign of the success of liberal mental and cultural conditioning.

  • 44 Thrasymachus // Apr 29, 2011 at 4:19 pm   

    “Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.” ” 1 Corinthians 6:16

    Again, it must be understood and acknowledged that sexual relations necessarily involve the desire for physical unity and oneness — even though literally unachievable (except in the conception of a child) — with another person; thus, sexual activity results from, or is an expression of, that desire. The fundamental reproductive urge expresses love for self, as well as desire for oneness with another, however unconscious these motives may be in the mind of a lover.

    Therefore, to prefer someone of another, very dissimilar, race in marriage is less natural than keeping to one’s own kind.

  • 45 Pamela K. // Apr 29, 2011 at 5:17 pm   

    “Like the birth certificate, why does Mr. Transparency have attorneys working so much to keep all these under wraps? Why not release the college records? Mr. Transparency is the one making this such a big deal, but some of us still want to know, why is it such a big deal?” – Georgia

    Because he is an arrogant and angry black man with a big chip on his shoulder and anyone who is white and challenges him or anything about him is obviously a closet Klucker. At least that’s how black people like Obama think about most white people. Meanwhile, people like Obama are given an unlimited free pass to be notorious racists compliments of the white liberal establishment, which suffers from a collective sense of false guilt over the seemingly endless list of white injustices done to blacks, ad nauseum, in the past. No one is denying that blacks were mistreated in this country at one time, but so were a lot of other people.
    I was recently babysitting my three year old nephew and we were watching Nickelodeon in the morning when the program line-up is supposed to be geared towards pre-schoolers. Anyway, just when I thought Dora The Explorer was a safe program for him to watch, the channel broke for a long commercial break which included a music video by a group of white teen-agers singing rap music. Black rapper Snoop Dog was the guest star in the video which featured him lounging on a couch surrounded by a bevy of adoring young white girls. Girls that I thought looked far too young for a man who will turn forty years old this year. I not only thought this video inappropriate viewing during a time of day when young children like my nephew watch television, but to me it’s just one more piece of convincing evidence that the liberal white establishment indoctrination set up to worship the black male on the pedestal. What disgusts me the most is the white establishment’s need to have black culture foisted on the rest of us coupled with the constant insinuation of black men being lusted after by horny dumb white girls. You rarely see the opposite-black girls lusting after white men. In the warped minds of the white oedipal liberals, that would ruin everything!

  • 46 bgwillia // Apr 29, 2011 at 9:01 pm   

    Asaph #28: “If SCOTUS has already dealt with the issue, each and every one of them could easily state it so.”

    They did – MILLER v. ALBRIGHT (96-1060)
    96 F.3d 1467: “There are ‘two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.’ United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702 (1898). Within the former category, the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that every person ‘born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.’ 169 U.S., at 702. Persons not born in the United States acquire citizenship by birth only as provided by Acts of Congress. Id., at 703.”

    There is no third type of citizenship, just the two. And only those born a citizen are eligible for POTUS.

  • 47 Asaph // Apr 30, 2011 at 5:28 am   

    You missed my point. If SCOTUS has already dealt with this issue, which you claim, as a body they have, why have they not individually spoken upon it when asked? Only Thomas has made public comment, and that as an aside. Scalia has made a couple remarks. NONE have stated the issue has already been decided. And I remain firm, if what you have posted is accurate it turns the natural born citizen clause on its head. It renders it meaningless.

  • 48 Asaph // Apr 30, 2011 at 5:52 am   

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=292901

    And I believe the above article adds further weight to the necessity of congress dealing with the entire issue.

    It is NOT as cut and dried as bgwillia would place it before us.

  • 49 Asaph // Apr 30, 2011 at 5:53 am   

    God will not be mocked. Obama calls himself a Christian. Let it be shown said “Christian” bears no false witness against his neighbors, all 300 million of them.

  • 50 bgwillia // Apr 30, 2011 at 11:53 am   

    Asaph #48: I never said the the whole issue is cut and dried, just that the citizenship terminology saying there are three types of US citizens (natural-born, native-born, and naturalization) is, in fact, only two types (birth and naturalization) as defined by the 14th amendment and subsequent SCOTUS rulings. Been that way since 1866.

    The BC document, as all others, must be vetted as well. We are seeing the beginnings of the process. As I pointed out last post and you affirmed here (#29) the layering can be viewed as a by-product of the scanning process involved. Also, the Local Registrar signature, “UKHLee” is real (see http://passportsusa.com/?page_id=209). The unfortunate part is likely the scaning didn’t pick up the embossed seal. Further compounding the vetting is the 2011 data you see on the bottom of the page is usually on the back of the document. Now, if OGL provided a photograph instead of a scanned image of what he got in the mail might help, as the photograph would pick up the seal.

    But why are we still vetting this guy two years into his presidency? Because of his narrative from “Dreams” and more and more documents surfacing are countradicting it. Like http://www.scribd.com/doc/54015762/Barack-Hussein-Obama-Sr-Immigration-File showing the opposite of what OGL said he was.

    But we already know OGL is a narcissistic red-diaper baby with an anti-american chip on his shoulder even before the election, even if he stayed 24/7 within the country all his life. It’s showing the others that his word can never be trusted enough to be re-elected.

  • 51 Pamela K. // Apr 30, 2011 at 7:03 pm   

    Obama was born in Kenya. His paternal grandmother watched him come into the world on August 4, 1961. Although she no longer mentions this momentous occasion and the American news media basically ignores or discredits the remarks made by Obama’s Kenyan relatives, I believe her.
    Furthermore, if there is an actual birth certificate, which I doubt exists because Obama renounced his citizenship and all ties and allegiance to Great Britain, it would most likely be marked with the distinguished and unmistakable Great Seal of the Realm.

    File: Reverse of the Great Seal of the Realm

    Kenya was still a crown colony of British East Africa when Obama was born there. I personally believe that although his mother was an American citizen, Obama never became a citizen of the United States. Instead, he lived with his grandparents in Hawaii until his mother married Lolo Soetoro and moved to Indonesia. Obama was adopted by Soetoro and went by the name Barry Soetoro. And although he did attend Catholic grammar school in Indonesia, children there are given religious instruction according to the religion of their father. In Barry’s case, his stepfather was a Muslim so he was taken out of school every week to attend Islamic religion classes. The rest of the story of how the little boy in Indonesia was chosen out of relative obscurity to become the first obviously bi-racial President of the United States remains a mystery. We can speculate about Soros or the Saudis backing Obama, yet, who really is this man?

    Obama’s paternal grandfather was allegedly held and tortured by the British during Kenya’s War for Independence. Furthermore, after being planted in the White House, one of Obama’s first acts was to send the bust of Prime Minister Winston Churchill-a gift sent to the American people from the people of Great Britain after 9/11-back to Great Britain. This was perceived as a major insult to the people of Great Britain. My question remains, what right did Obama have to send the bust back when it belonged to the American people?

  • 52 Maharishi of Mayhem // Apr 30, 2011 at 7:57 pm   

    Pamela, I was speaking with a friend today about the Churchill bust.

    I am sure that this insult is what cost Bro-bama and his boon-beast an invitation to the Royal Wedding.

    More humorous, I have said before, is that Bro-bama is the best that the lowly black-American culture has to offer. Bro-bama, the spawn of a bigamous Kenyan playboy and a low self-esteemed nobody has arrived at the top of his race by being propped up along the way by Islamic values and religious indoctrination, foreign student aid, affirmative distraction, and the all important American tokenism of being the “black guy.”

    This is an idiot who visits the Queen of England and the best gift of culture that he can give her is an MP3 player with a recording of “his” teleprompted speeches. I am sure that “that gift” will wind up in the British Museum in the “Black Attempts at Culture” Department; that is, unless Prince Phillip uses it for target practice in the Royal Urinal (a much more suitable locale in my opinion).

    The Great Bad Eagle has suggested that Bro-bama should be jailed and impeached. I agree, but I also believe that he has sold our nation out during a time of war. As the “Commander and Chief” (as a combat vet it pains me to say that), I feel that he should be held accountable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). There, a verdict of guilty on matters of “Treason” and “Cowardice in the face of the enemy,” can cost you your life, and rightfully so. You see, Bro-bama is manipulating us all with his lies, and as a wise man once said, “Manipulation is the highest form of disrespect.”

    Treason? Cowardice? You bet. But who will hold this great liar accountable? It will ultimately be God, because the people in this country love to be deceived. In fact, they prefer it to the truth.

    Honey, does this dress make my butt look fat? But of course not dear, you look slimmer than ever :)

  • 53 Maharishi of Mayhem // Apr 30, 2011 at 8:02 pm   

    Thank you all for contributing to this topic…the Maharishi must rest from it now and await the next cerebral stimulations of the Great Bad Eagle. Until then, Salami, Salami, Bologna.

  • 54 David Yeagley // Apr 30, 2011 at 8:46 pm   

    All the info available to the public says that Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, was born November 29, 1942. This would mean she was 19 in August, 1961. Sloppy media keeps saying she was 18. Do they know something about her records that the public doesn’t know?

    AmericanThinker says Stanley Dunham, her father, was monitored by the FBI, but that those records have apparently been destroyed. He was apparently a Communist, closely associated with Frank Marshall Davis, the Negro communist (who reportedly took nude pictures of Stanley’s daughter, Obama’s mother).


    Stanley Dunham

    The information gets worse and worse, but, it has been “public” for a long time. The media simply will not have it, and establishment Republicans will not touch it. This is a horrible, horrible story. Too horrible to believe. Therefore, the media won’t present it.

  • 55 David Yeagley // Apr 30, 2011 at 9:52 pm   

    Here’s the lastest Coulter clip (O’Reilly) on the birth certificate, (and on the royal wedding).

  • 56 Edwin M. Wright // Apr 30, 2011 at 10:52 pm   

    No matter what Dave, this a left right to jaw thread.

    THANK YOU.

    Of course Twig was a freak criminal par excellant too.

  • 57 Pamela K. // May 1, 2011 at 8:48 am   

    Leave it to the acerbic if honest Ann Coulter to burst the British royal family’s bubble. I think Ann really enjoys herself being the killjoy of the liberal estabishment’s fun and gushing, ingratiating frivolity over every aspect of this latest of royal family nupitals-I had to turn ABC off during the Friday morning coverage because Barbara Walters and crew would not shut up during the televisied ceremony-however, I think this whole royal wedding thing is way overblown, especially the Queen-sanctioned “First Kiss” on the balcony. This is a couple who have been living on and off together for eight years. In my mind, they are already living as husband and wife and have been doing a lot more than just kissing each other! But I suppose that is the way of the world today. And not just with the rich and famous. People shack up together, have one or two children, and then have a great big traditional wedding ceremony as an afterthought.
    I thought Ann was a little hard on Princess Diana. She never seemed to be a “hussy-nitwit” to me, more like the hapless victim of a royal scheme to keep with tradition. The future King of England had to wed an unsullied English lass with royal blood ties in her family history in order to produce a royal heir to the throne. Enter shy kindergarten teacher, Lady Diana Spencer. Prince Charles had already been running around with her older sister, Sarah. He set his sights on the fair younger sister and set out to woo and win her all because he must adhere to centuries of protocol and to win the approval of Mummy dearest. Needless to say, he might have been fond of his blushing bride-to-be, but he did not love her. The nanny and governess-raised Charles was seeking a maternal figure in his life as well as a mate. I suppose that’s what he has found with Camilla Parker Bowles.
    If anything, the Royal Family of England is a classic example of that old familar saying, “Money cannot buy happiness.” The only one of Queen Elizabeth’s four children that seems content in his marriage, is her youngest son, Prince Edward, the Earl of Wessex, who is married to the former Sophie Rhys-Jones.She is now officially Countess Sophie of Wessex. Like Kate Middleton, Sophie is a commoner, however, her wedding to Prince Edward was very low-key compared to the weddings of his two older brothers as well as the wedding of Princess Anne, and now her nephew by marriage, William.

  • 58 David Yeagley // May 1, 2011 at 9:38 am   

    I tend to agree with your assessments, Pam. Diana seemed innocent enough.

    However, the “commoner” bit never makes for royalty. Charles erred greately, as has his son. The “pretense” of royalty is tired at this point. It is a kind of lie, in a way, just like Barry Soetoro’s presidency. Royalty is a concept, based on blood and money. Barry’s presidency is based on his being black, and the white liberals putting up the money.

  • 59 David Yeagley // May 1, 2011 at 9:56 am   

    InfoWars (Alex Jones):

    New Obama Birth Certificate is a Forgery
    Kurt Nimmo
    Infowars.com
    April 28, 2011

    Now, other computer “experts” say that any PDF file put under Adobe Illustrator will appear in layers. It is the nature of the software program. However, InfoWars notes:

    …this does not answer the question why in the Obama birth certificate PDF the layers or elements contain dates – which appear to be modified – and the signature of the state registrar. If the document was acquired from state records in whole, why was it necessary to add elements? Goulding and Brooks do not address this issue.

    InfoWars also says PDF’s “hex editor” software also reveals layers in the White House birth certificate.

    Whether these represent compression artifacts or other digitizing processes, or whether these masks represent deliberate manipulation remains to be conclusively shown.

    Still many, many question. Logially, we have to conclude that the birth certificate is not authentic, all circumstances considered.

  • 60 Pamela K. // May 1, 2011 at 11:33 am   

    Just another note about the English royal family. Those annoying American news reporters I spoke of earlier kept calling Kate Middleton, “the future Queen of England.” Oh, how I disdain woeful ignorance, especially spewed out of the mouths of so-called, “repected journalists”! They should clarify their statements a bit better I think!
    Although she will gain the title of “Her Majesty, the Queen”, Kate can never rule as the Queen of England. She is a commoner, or as we say here in America, an average citizen, and has no royal bloodlines. Therefore, if and when her husband ascends the Throne, she will be the King’s consort, or simply, the queenly wife of the King. Her role as the wife of the King will be an important one ,of course, as God willing, she will produce an heir to the Throne, who will then be next in line to succeed her husband. I know you are probably thinking, “So, what? Who cares?’ but I just had to get this off my chest!

  • 61 bgwillia // May 1, 2011 at 1:26 pm   

    On the question that a US-birth baby is adopted overseas, he/she automatically loses that citizenship: http://www.usvisalawyers.co.uk/article3.htm :

    “Having It – US Citizenship from Birth

    “Birth in the US
    “With very few exceptions everyone who is born within the United States is automatically a US citizen. Citizenship is conferred on the child regardless of the citizenship or US immigration status of the parents. In fact, even the parents’ wishes are irrelevant; parents cannot renounce US citizenship on behalf of their minor children.”

    If the relevant case law is found, that means OGL has always been a natural-born US citizen even if adopted in indonesia and Indonesian law said that adoption confers automatic citizenship there. Given the troubles we have here in obtaining such documents in Indonesia, no doubt the reverse is true for them. So the Soeteros likely hustled the system there to get young Barry into the better schools – a pattern we see across the generations.

  • 62 bgwillia // May 1, 2011 at 1:36 pm   

    Also from the same article:

    “Renunciation of Citizenship
    ” … A US citizen under the age of 18 must convince a diplomatic or consular officer that he or she understands fully the nature and consequences of the oath of renunciation and is voluntarily seeking to renounce his or her US citizenship. If a US citizen child is under the age of 14, US common law requires that the child’s understanding be established by substantial evidence.”

    So one has to determine whether OGL ever made, and accepted by the INS, such a renunciation while in Indonesia. But I don’t think so.

  • 63 Thrasymachus // May 1, 2011 at 3:16 pm   

    “I know you are probably thinking, “So, what? Who cares?’ but I just had to get this off my chest!” — Pamela K
    ————————————————–
    Actually, I found the information quite interesting! Thanks for clarifying things. I don’t like it when the popular media blurs the truth of things, through ignorance or from an agenda.
    — Θρασύμαχος

  • 64 David Yeagley // May 1, 2011 at 3:23 pm   

    Remeber the Hawaiian elections clerk, Tim Adams? Back in January, he swore there was no birth certificate.

    Hawaii official now swears: No Obama birth certificate
    Signs affidavit declaring long-form, hospital-generated document absent
    Jerome Corsi: WND
    January 24, 2011

    Former Hawaii elections clerk Tim Adams has now signed an affidavit swearing he was told by his supervisors in Hawaii that no long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate existed for Barack Obama Jr. in Hawaii and that neither Queens Medical Center nor Kapi’olani Medical Center in Honolulu had any record of Obama having been born in their medical facilities.

    “My basic assumption is that he wasn’t born there,” Adams said. “Certifications of Live Birth were given to people who were born at home, or to people who were born overseas and whose parents brought them back to the islands. If his parents were U.S. citizens, or if one parent was a U.S. citizen, as was the case with Obama, the family would apply for a Hawaiian birth certificate when the parents came back from overseas. That’s normally how you would have gotten on [a Certification of Live Birth] in the 1960s.”

    WND has reported that in 1961, Obama’s grandparents, Stanley and Madelyn Dunham, could have made an in-person request at the Hawaii Department of Health for a registration of a Hawaii birth, even if the infant Barack Obama Jr. had been foreign-born.

    In the past few days, Abercrombie has represented that there is a registration of Obama’s birth in the state archives.

    But the state registration of birth in 1961 theoretically could prove only that the grandparents had registered Obama’s birth, even if Obama was not born in Hawaii.

  • 65 Pamela K. // May 1, 2011 at 4:27 pm   

    Did you know that Hawaii’s newly elected Governor Neil Abercrombie claims to have first name camaraderie with “Barack Obama Sr. and his wife”, and of course, the precocious “Little Barry”.

    http://www.impeachobamacampaign.com/hawaiian-governor-remembers-phony-obama-childhood/
    It’s no wonder Obama released his bogus birth certificate! Give’em enough rope and liberals will hang themselves every time!

    Did you also know that while the rest of us were wondering how we might afford Christmas this past year, Obama spent $63,000 to fly Michelle and the girls to Hawaii to visit a “childhood friend”.
    http://escapetyranny.com/2011/01/02/see-obamas-20-man-motorcade-to-visit-childhood-friend-in-hawaii/

    Turns out, this unforgettable “childhood friend” costing the American taxpayers over $60,000 dollars was recently arrested for soliciting a prostitute!

    http://italosearch.com/2011/04/07/well-obama-theres-some-good-news-and-some-bad-news/

  • 66 David Yeagley // May 1, 2011 at 8:55 pm   

    Super reporting, Pam!

  • 67 bgwillia // May 1, 2011 at 10:06 pm   

    Breaking news: Bin Laden has had justice done upon him.

  • 68 Edwin M. Wright // May 1, 2011 at 11:53 pm   

    Every aspect of American life has been politicized as with the former Soviet Union under Lenin and Stalin. It seems this is always the trend wherever Jews have a controlling influence. Whereas in the former Soviet Union every utterance was carefully monitored for deviations to Marxist-Leninist doctrine and punished accordingly (usually violently), in 2011 America, politicians and public figures must take special care not to violate the tenets of political correctness lest they risk the destruction of their reputations and careers.

    Un-quote

    How far out is the next false flag ?

  • 69 Georgia // May 2, 2011 at 5:45 am   

    Breaking news: Bin Laden is dead.

    Already the internet is on fire with “Where’s the PROOF?”.

  • 70 Asaph // May 2, 2011 at 5:47 am   

    As the controversy over the certificate continues (which will receive no help from Obama supporters in media), we now see this president presiding over the demise of Bin Laden, which will surely raise his numbers in the polls, especially with media hype.

    I cannot help but wonder as to this entire week’s sequence of events. And also ponder what is to come. Speculating is useless, but to the end that politics is a game to many, including Obama, obviously, one cannot help but realize just how small and voiceless the American public has become. From well-known conservative radio and tv voices, and other conservative media voices, to millions who have gathered at various events, none or all have been able to do what one billionaire did. That is rather depressing. Take Trump out of the picture and the certificate would still be locked away, if, indeed, the whole thing is legitimate, and that is the ultimate rub. The American people have no voice to demand that this certificate, in its original form, be verified by experts in the field. We poor peons are having to settle for a copy, and one with shadowy problems surrounding it.

    Politics is sport, and not much more.

    I have concluded, once again, the only real, important undertaking is not exposing political charlatans, or fighting political games, it is the proclamation of the gospel. Vote when you can. Otherwise, time spent calling for polls to step down is effort and energy more than wasted.

    “Get a life” is an appropriate adage. For attempting to expose the truth with any real consequences to liars in politics is a game. Regardless of how important it appears, it is a game which cannot be won by the average American. It is spectator sport. You can choose a team, favorite players, show up to support, buy some dogs and popcorn and peanuts, but you will not effect the outcome of the game. I do not believe it is possible anymore.

  • 71 Asaph // May 2, 2011 at 7:25 am   

    Body tossed at sea? Thousands showing up to celebrate in front of the white house before Obama even makes the announcement? Correspondents and news channels claiming the deed took place a week ago and Obama said last night it happened yesterday (both my wife and I heard that).

    More garbage. More problems. More lies? More division amongst citizens.

    It will never end, no matter who is president.

  • 72 Maharishi of Mayhem // May 2, 2011 at 8:08 am   

    I thought I was done with this topic, but the lies surrounding our Boon in Chief continue to escalate even more now that Uncle Osama has allegedly been killed.

    Bro-bama was quick to take credit…”I ordered…”

    And like Asaph, I also caught the statement that Uncle Osama was dispatched by the awesome SEAL Team Six “last week,” and also that “DNA” testing had established his identity. Awful quick for an operation that happened “today.”

    I will not believe it until I see it, and even then, like Bro-bamas birth certificate, I believe that this could all be a political sham to raise Bro-bama out of his awful approval ratings.

    I tend to be a farther right than the Tea-party conservative (not necessarily Republican) who believes that 9/11 was done by our own country. Uncle Osama has been a kissing cousin of American administrations in the past. Like Oswald, he probably knew to much (if indeed he is dead). A fall guy was needed.

    With all the lies surrounding Bro-bama and his She-boon, I do not believe anything our government does. I support our real troops, but the Admirals and Generals are nothing but politicians in uniform. They are not cut out of the same cloth of a MacArthur, Patton, or Rickover. They are a nutless corp of ass kissers. Admiral Mike Mullen (Head of the Joint Chiefs) is the biggest sphincter massager that has ever held the office. Nothing against our military, but this Bro-bama “ordered” operation seems largely out of character for our Muslim interloper.

    I don’t know if any of you noticed how our Tele-prompting Boon stumbled during his speech last night. It’s hard to lie late at night I guess.

    And finally, the “Body buried at Sea?” Hogwash. This is a lie folks….just another lie to build up Bro-bama.

    Bro-bama would not let Uncle Osama be killed. He could not bear to live without the campaign contributions.

    Expose the lies Bad Eagle, expose the lies.

  • 73 Maharishi of Mayhem // May 2, 2011 at 8:20 am   

    Furthermore, the fact that none of this so called “intelligence” was shared with our allies is indicative of a well-orchestrated lie.

    Bro-bama needs a huge lie to get people to quit focusing on his incompetence, lack of leadership, and false presidency.

    I am to the point that I feel we need a civil war in this country to take our Republic back. Elections are not going to get it done because people who cannot think objectively are allowed to vote based upon their age and citizenship.

    It’s time to bring back the Jim Crow lows and make voters score at least 70% on a social studies exam.

    Make the test short, maybe 5 questions.

    The black vote would disappear. With at least 65-70% of that community not knowing who their real biological fathers are, how in the world could they know who the father of our country is?

  • 74 Edwin M. Wright // May 2, 2011 at 1:12 pm   

    Oh the hate !

    Hate of the lies,that is.

  • 75 Edwin M. Wright // May 7, 2011 at 12:49 am   

    If F.D,R. had beem impeached jailed for treason I don’t think we would have suffered all the wars and lies since.

    http://www.rationalrevolution.net/war/fdr_provoked_the_japanese_attack.htm

  • 76 Edwin M. Wright // May 7, 2011 at 12:52 am   

    20 years ago.

    http://www.rationalrevolution.net/war/invasion_of_kuwait.htm

You must log in to post a comment.