Released copies of President Obama's college transcripts from Occidental College .. Released today, the transcript indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate at the school. The transcript was released by Occidental College in compliance with a court order in a suit brought by the group in the Superior Court of California.
The transcript shows that Obama (Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship for foreign students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program. To qualify, for the scholarship, a student must claim foreign citizenship. This document would seem to provide the smoking gun that many of Obama's detractors have been seeking. Along with the evidence that he was first born in Kenya and there is no record of him ever applying for US citizenship, this is looking pretty grim. The news has created a firestorm at the White House as the release casts increasing doubt about Obama's legitimacy and qualification to serve as president. When reached for comment in London , where he has been in meetings with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Obama smiled but refused comment on the issue. Britain's Daily Mail has also carried the story in a front-page article titled, "Obama Eligibility Questioned," leading some to speculate that the story may overshadow economic issues on Obama's first official visit to the U.K. In a related matter, under growing pressure from several groups, Justice Antonin Scalia announced that the Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to hear arguments concerning Obama's legal eligibility to serve as President in a case brought by Leo Donofrio of New Jersey . This lawsuit claims Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president.
Donofrio's case is just one of 18 suits brought by citizens demanding proof of Obama's citizenship or qualification to serve as president. Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation has released the results of their investigation of Obama's campaign spending. This study estimates that Obama has spent upwards of $950,000 in campaign funds in the past year with eleven law firms in 12 states for legal resources to block disclosure of any of his personal records. Mr. Kreep indicated that the investigation is still ongoing but that the final report will be provided to the U.S. attorney general, Eric Holder. Mr. Holder has refused to comment on the matter.
Posted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 7:43 am Post subject: Barak Hussein 0bama to be removed from office in January?
I HAVE NO WAY TO KNOW IF THIS WEBSITE IS VALID OR NOT.
I am posting this as a WATCH for your discernment.
I have a new thread on this - but decided to add it to this one also
The Bush's and Clintons plan to have Obama / Biden removed from office
at the end of January.
court case date to be held re: his eligibility this week or next.
Nancy Pelosi to stand aside as next in line, and to have Hellary Clinton take over the office of the Presidency.
Mr. Story is a Christian investigative reporter -- has been doing this for over 40 yrs -- was an occasional advisor to Margaret Thatcher who said
the problem with socialism is that at some point, you run out of other people's money.
Story has been asked to testify in Congressional committee hearings on several occasions on international affairs in the past.
Over the past 40+ years in his work, Mr. Story has developed a huge global network of sources and a huge global following - a network of sources which include patriotic people in the government, etc. He travels to the U.S. frequently, as well, in research and for documentation of information, which he sets forth on his website.
Since his sources provide him with information, at times, tha he does not know to be "fact" -- he sets forth this information (similar to the way that you do -- you have things in common with him) making it known that it was "reported" -- sometimes that it was "confirmed" -- sometimes that it was "reported" but not yet confirmed --- but if he has means by which to know that the information is "fact" -- he specifies that the information is "fact" (which means that he has means by which to prove it to be the truth.
In this last newsletter re: the removal of Obama -- he states"
Nancy Pelosi has signed an agreement to step aside for Jezebel (one name he uses for Hillary Clinton, as per Jezebel of the Bible). While the Editor was preparing the above, we received, at 1:10 a.m. in the morning of 20th of January 2010, a formal STATEMENT OF FACTS signed by an impeccable US authority dated 19th January.
The authority's signature is appended beneath the statement:
I do hereby swear and affirm that the above information is true and factual." Then Mr. Story states--- "we therefore now publish verbatim the test of this Statement which, as you will observe, confirms detail contained in the foregoing summary.
The identities of contacts (his source) has been disguised by request of the authoritative source: Then Mr. Story lists the summary of "facts"... and one of the last "facts" in this summary ... item 3 (e) "Congresswoman Pelosi has already "signed an agreement with Hillary Clinton" indicating that she (Pelosi) takes the office of President, under the 25th Amendment to the Constitution, she will immediately vacate the White House and will place Hillary Clinton in the White House as President of the United States of America."
Now, even though Mr. Story makes reference to the January 26th date (which is all over the internet) in regard to a court date hearing for Obama's eligibility to take place -- I clicked on Snopes and it said that what was circulating on the internet re: Judge Carter / a January 26th
court date hearing for Obama's eligibility, etc. was false So, I don't know if anything will take place on January 26th in regard Obama's eligibility, or not.
However, I believe that the information that Mr. Story's impeccable US authority gave in a sworn statement, signed by whoever this source is, is true, or Mr. Story would not have set forth this information, as such, on his website.
Hopefully, Mr. Story's exposure of this will bring down their plans to proceed with putting Hillary Clinton in the office of the Presidency in the White House.
WND Exclusive BORN IN THE USA?
Obama eligibility attorney charges case rife with fraud
Asks court for 'evidentiary hearing for possible criminal prosecution'
Posted: January 08, 2010
By Bob Unruh, WorldNetDaily
An attorney who has been involved in several cases alleging Barack Obama isn't qualified to be president because he is not a "natural born citizen" as required by the Constitution now is asking a California judge to investigate possible fraud against the court.
Orly Taitz, who has, among other cases, one pending at the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of a member of the military wondering whether orders from Obama as commander-in-chief are valid, said the possibility of fraud is one of several concerns in the case.
"There is such a high probability of criminal acts of identity theft and Social Security fraud committed by the respondent that the undersigned requests this honorable court to use its inherent powers to order Sua Sponte an evidentiary hearing on this particular issue for possible criminal prosecution," she wrote in her latest arguments that also request the case be moved to Washington, D.C.
She noted the respondent, Obama, "has submitted himself to the jurisdiction of this honorable court and can be brought to a separate evidentiary hearing to ascertain if fraud was perpetrated upon the court by assertion of false identity, even if the underlying case is not heard or closed for one reason or another."
Lindsey Williams talked about this - the elite has been(read, that's HAS BEEN) fed up with Obama, b/c he's doing everything he can to act above his masters.
Who knows? Maybe the NWO didn't want to go through this universal health care yet(at least)? Maybe they didn't want to go through this Copenhagen deal yet? I don't know - but compared to other Presidents, Obama isn't exactly acting like a "puppet".
For these reasons - this is why I think the NWO appointed Scott Brown - I've further read Brown's resume, he's a neocon, supports this "war on terror", and increased war funding(and Giulliani campaigned for him).
Posted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 5:58 am Post subject: Obama is a security risk and a usurper
Obama is a security risk and a usurper
Eligibility case says usurper lacks constitutional authority. Judges on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals have been told Barak Obama is a security risk and a usurper lacking constitutional authority since he admitted a dual citizenship at birth, thus making him ineligible for the office under the U.S. Constitution's requirement that the president be a natural born citizen.
The brief was filed in a case WND previously reported brought by lead plaintiff Charles F. Kerchner Jr. and others against Congress.
Attorney Mario Apuzzo filed the action in January 2009 on behalf of Kerchner, Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell James Lenormand and Donald H. Nelson Jr. Named as defendants were Barack Hussein Obama II, the U.S., Congress, the Senate, House of Representatives, former Vice President Dick Cheney and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
The case alleges Congress failed to follow the Constitution, which "provides that Congress must fully qualify the candidate 'elected' by the Electoral College Electors."
The complaint also asserts "when Obama was born his father was a British subject/citizen and Obama himself was the same." The case contends the framers of the U.S. Constitution, when they adopted the requirement that a president be a "natural born citizen," excluded dual citizens.
"Plaintiffs allege that Obama has not conclusively proven that he was born in Hawaii. They also allege that even if he was so born, he cannot be an Article II 'natural born citizen' because his father was a British subject/citizen when Obama was born and Obama himself was born a British subject/citizen, all of which makes him ineligible to be president and commander in chief of the military," the appeal said.
Further, it explains Obama acquired Kenyan citizenship when Kenya gained its independence from Britain. Further doubts are raised by his relationship with an Indonesian stepfather during his childhood and his travels to Pakistan in 1981.
See the movie Obama does not want you to see: Own the DVD that probes this unprecedented presidential eligibility mystery!
In an online commentary, Kerchner said, "This is not going to go away until Obama stops hiding ALL his hidden and sealed early life documents and provides original copies of them to a controlling legal authority and reveals his true legal identity from the time he was born until the time he ran for president.
"Obama at birth was born British and a dual citizen. He holds and has held multiple citizenship during his lifetime. He's a citizenship chameleon as the moment and time in his life suited him and he is not a 'natural born citizen' with sole allegiance … to the USA as is required per the Constitution," he said.
The appeal further challenges that not only might Obama not be a "natural born citizen," he might not even be in the United States legally.
"If Obama was not born in the United States, there exists a possibility that Obama could be an illegal alien," it states.
The brief notes Obama's campaign website Fight the Smears documented his British citizenship through his father at his birth.
"Neither has the 14th Amendment nor any U.S. Supreme Court decision, nor any act of Congress, changed the original common law definition of an Article II natural born citizen (to be distinguished from a 'citizen of the United States') which is a child born in the country to a United States citizen mother and father," the appeal said.
"Plaintiffs are requesting that the court enforce the United States Constitution, the supreme law of the land, and not allow Obama to amend the Constitution by usurpation," the brief said.
The case had been dismissed at the district court level, based on the judge's ruling that plaintiffs didn't have "standing" to bring the complaint.
The brief challenged that position directly, citing former Vice President Dick Cheney's assertion that Obama's plan to bring terrorists to trial in civilian courts in New York City threatens national security.
Cheney said, "I think it's likely to give encouragement, aid and comfort to the enemy."
The appeal said, "If Obama is not an Article II 'natural born citizen,' plaintiffs cannot trust him to protect them. In such a case, plaintiffs have a right under the Fifth Amendment to bring an action against Obama and Congress in which they seek to protect their own life, liberty, and property, including their safety, security and tranquility, and to have Obama removed from office because he is not a 'natural born citizen.' These are real and concrete life and death needs,
The district judge had argued that all Americans were in the same position, so the plaintiffs didn't have a specific complaint against the president, but the brief asserted otherwise.
"Is it not true that there are millions of Americans who welcome Obama to continue to be sitting as president regardless of whether he is eligible?" the brief said. The injuries to the plaintiffs, therefore, are "particular."
"We say Obama is not a 'natural born Citizen' of the USA and thus is not eligible to serve in the Oval Office. Obama is a usurper and must be removed to preserve the integrity and fundamental law of our Constitution and our Republic," Kerchner said. "Obama, despite all his obfuscations to date, must prove to constitutional standards that he is eligible to sit in that seat."
The lawyer also explains the Constitution provides, "If the president-elect shall have failed to qualify, then the vice president elect shall act as president until a president shall have qualified."
Apuzzo has explained that it is significant the lower court did not rule Obama was born in Hawaii, nor did it rule that the claim was frivolous.
It simply said the case was dismissed because of the jurisdictional issue.
"By the court finding that plaintiffs do not have standing and that their claims present a political question, the court was able to avoid having to address the underlying merits of the Kerchner case. With such a decision, the American people unfortunately still do not know where Obama was born and whether he is an Article II 'natural born Citizen' and therefore constitutionally eligible to be president and commander in chief," the attorney said.
"A court cannot refuse to hear a case on the merits merely because it prefers not to due to grave social or political ramifications," he has explained. "The court's opinion dismissing the Kerchner complaint/petition did not address the real Kerchner case but rather looked for a way to dismiss the case without having to reach the merits of the question of whether Obama is an Article II 'natural born citizen.'
"The American people deserve to know whether Obama was in fact born in Hawaii. More importantly, even if he is born in Hawaii, given that he was born with dual allegiance and citizenship, the American people deserve to know whether he is an Article II 'natural born citizen' which would make him eligible to be president," the attorney said.
WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, 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."
Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.
Demand the truth by joining the petition campaign to make President Obama reveal his long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate!
Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.
Further, others question his citizenship by virtue of his attendance in Indonesian schools during his childhood and question on what passport did he travel to Pakistan three decades ago.
Adding fuel to the fire is Obama's persistent refusal to release documents that could provide answers and the appointment – at a cost confirmed to be at least $1.7 million – of myriad lawyers to defend against all requests for his documentation. While his supporters cite an online version of a "Certification of Live Birth" from Hawaii as his birth verification, critics point out such documents actually were issued for children not born in the state.
WND also has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes his kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records
, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and his adoption records.
Just in the past few days, a move also has surfaced among members of individual state legislatures to assemble state laws requiring the documentation of eligibility from candidates to be president. None of those plans, however, has been adopted as law yet.
Because of the dearth of information about Obama's eligibility, WND founder Joseph Farah has launched a campaign to raise contributions to post billboards asking a simple question: "Where's the birth certificate?"
The "certification of live birth" posted online and widely touted as "Obama's birth certificate" does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same "short-form" document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii. The true "long-form" birth certificate – which includes information such as the name of the birth hospital and attending physician – is the only document that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not permitted its release for public or press scrutiny.
Oddly, though congressional hearings were held to determine whether Sen. John McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president as a "natural born citizen," no controlling legal authority ever sought to verify Obama's claim to a Hawaiian birth.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=122587
.
Last edited by CJ on Mon Oct 18, 2010 1:10 pm; edited 2 times in total
Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 7:39 am Post subject: Obama Birth certificate baloney
The next to come to power will be a despicable man who is not in line for royal succession.
He will slip in when least expected and take over the kingdom by flattery and intrigue http://nlt.scripturetext.com/daniel/11.htm
BORN IN THE USA? Birth certificate baloney - Official doesnt mean real
Investigation shows how terrorists, fakers could pass as U.S. citizens
January 25, 2010
When it comes to birth certificates, just because it's official, doesn't mean its real.
A WND investigation has revealed that over the past three decades, changes to how the 50 states process vital documents have opened wide new avenues for nefarious parties to alter records and thus acquire fraudulent, but official birth certificates to falsely pass as U.S. citizens.
Thanks to the states' nearly exclusive reliance on digitalized vital records, a foreign terrorist, for example, wishing to obtain a U.S. passport for unhindered travel in and out of the country could – with the right computer knowledge or coercion of the right state employee – walk into a county courthouse and within minutes, pick up a genuine, but completely fraudulent American birth certificate for his passport application
… and no one would be the wiser.
"It's entirely possible that these [vital records] systems could be altered by someone who wishes to do so," says Professor Eugene H. Spafford, executive director of the Center for Education and Research in Information Assurance and Security.
Spafford, the 2009 recipient of a Computing
Research Association award "for his long and effective leadership on issues of computer security and policy" has worked with the FBI, departments of Justice and Energy, the U.S. Air Force and a number of private companies to identify cybersecurity threats. He has testified before Congress and been consulted by U.S. presidents for his expertise in the field.
Spafford told WND that the push to digitalize vital records and rely on computers to print out official documents – like Barack Obama's presented Certification of Live Birth, or COLB – has created the opportunity for fraud and deception to slip through the cracks.
"Many state systems – and federal systems for that matter – that keep records [electronically] generally have weaker controls that what should be in place," Spafford said. "And with tight budgets, the amount of time spent keeping them up-to-date, auditing the log records and following up on exceptions tends to be one of the things that's neglected."
A long history of fraud and alteration
The federal government has already admitted that the states' systems of vital records have been routinely breached in the past.
In 1976, the Justice Department advisory committee pointed out that false identification was a serious national problem, prompting the U.S. Public Health Service to revise its Model State Vital Statistics Act in 1977, in part to strengthen efforts to reduce rampant birth certificate fraud.
But nearly a decade later, a task force sponsored by the national citizens' association Laws at Work concluded: "In some jurisdictions, birth certificates are easily counterfeited, obtained through imposture or created from stolen legitimate blank forms."
Then, in 1986, the Inspector General Office of Analysis and Inspection followed up with its own study on birth certificates and found, "They are definitely being used for fraudulent purposes. We may be seeing the tip of the iceberg."
The findings, coupled with advances in computer technology, led to sweeping changes across the country in the two decades since.
WND contacted each of the 50 states and the nation's capital to learn what they've done to protect America's vital records.
Beginning with California in 1978, and with progressively more and more states through the 1980s to today, the U.S. began moving away from paper files to computerized databases as the primary storage for birth certificates.
One by one, and pushed by changes in privacy laws, states also began eliminating the issuance of the "old" form of birth certificates – with birth weight and babies' footprints and other identifying details – and producing instead simplified birth certificates, printed off a computer, with a minimum of information.
These new short forms, sometimes called "abstracts" or "certifications of live birth," are now the standard issue in nearly all 50 states, with Kansas and Mississippi among the few exceptions. Most states still issue a long-form certificate upon request, but in some states, such as New Hampshire, Colorado, Arkansas, Utah and Vermont, the long-form certificates, which might include details such as the doctor's signature or hospital of birth, are no longer available for babies born after a certain date.
The individual states told WND the digitalization effort was for a variety of reasons, including, "It's more efficient than photocopies," "It's quicker and more economical," and the frequent assertion, "The new technology is more secure than the old paper system."
But as Spafford told WND, new technology comes with new security issues.
"Any form of technology – paper included – has benefits and risks that need to be considered," Spafford said. "We have to make sure the system adequately considers the risks and builds in the necessary safeguards, so that we don't introduce new problems that effectively counterbalance or overwhelm the benefits."
But how vulnerable is the new technology?
How fraud can happen
"There are several notable cases where other kinds of records were compromised and downloaded," Spafford told WND. "Records from the Veterans Administration have been compromised on several occasions. Medical records from the agency that handles military medical data were compromised a few years ago. These kinds of things do tend to happen."
Spafford explained that there are two primary ways computerized records can be altered or faked. The first is if someone in a vital records office itself has access to the database and can be persuaded to commit fraud:
"There are cases where insiders, those with legitimate access, have been caught in other areas looking at records, possibly changing them," Spafford said. "There was someone in Washington, D.C., who was with the property tax office and who was altering property tax records, creating phantom properties and payments and stealing money from the District government, many millions.
"These are examples where the security of the databases wasn't as good as it should be," he continued, "and one could argue that they were caught eventually, but we don't know about the ones who haven't been caught, and we don't know in some of these cases if what they said they accessed was all they actually accessed."
Spafford concluded, "These concerns have been thought about by some parties in constructing these databases, but whether or not they've built all the necessary controls or safeguards in place, especially for insiders with access who can be bribed or threatened … it's worrisome."
The second way records could be altered or falsely generated is through the nimble fingers of a hacker.
"If the systems are on the network and they don't have the appropriate controls," Spafford said, "it could be done remotely."
Spafford proposed several ways records could be protected from hackers, including storing a hard copy of one state's records in another state for accountability, or most importantly, keeping vital records off the network altogether, reserved for in-department use only.
WND's investigation into how states enter and share their vital records information, however, showed the system is far from adopting Spafford's recommendations, and is, in fact, leaving wide avenues open for electronic mischief.
The first electronic link a hacker could exploit (or an inside person could infiltrate), WND discovered, isn't even in the state or county courthouse, but in any of the state's hospitals. Most states now allow hospital staffers to enter new birth certificates directly into the system when a baby is born.
And while some states, such as Illinois, do not issue birth certificates until a state staffer has verified the paper record against the entered computer record, not all states adhere to such security standards.
When WND spoke to the vital records office in North Dakota, for example, a staffer admitted there is no double check of the hospital's entry at the state level and, "Occasionally errors do happen."
Still other states, such as Michigan, still require the primary database entry to be done by a county vital records staffer, but the weakness in all these cases is that the records are linked electronically and therefore create potential entry points for a hacker.
A June 2007 report by Dr. Daniel Friedman of Population and Public Health Information Services reported on the dramatic increase of vital records now being sent and accessed on information networks.
Friedman reports that in a 1990 survey of 25 states, only 7 electronically transmitted their records, with only 17 percent of the total records on the network. But by 1995, that number had jumped to 57 percent, and by 2000, 24 of the 25 states surveyed were on the network, with 96 percent of their birth certificates being electronically transmitted.
Furthermore, the National Association for Public Health Statistics and Information Systems is in the process of connecting as many states as possible to a nationwide Electronic Verification of Vital Events network that enables a central system in Washington, D.C., to query the states' vital records networks for federal purposes. Currently 18 states are online with EVVE, with four more and New York City in process of implementing it.
And yet, once the records are in the system, WND's investigation discovered, in many cases there is almost no accountability check to ensure the electronic database is correct. If a county staffer punches the keyboard and the screen says the record is valid, the applicant is automatically issued a COLB.
Arizona and Colorado, for example, are among those states now offering same-day service for applicants, who can walk into a county office, ask for an official copy of their COLB and walk out with it within the hour.
WND asked staffers in both states, "Would someone have to check for a paper record on file somewhere? Verify anything more than what the computer database says?"
Staffers from both states answered, "No. It's all computerized."
But who would do such a thing?
There are several different groups of people who would have motivation to hack or exploit the system with the purpose of altering records. WND reported, for example, on an immigration scheme from 2004, when the FBI nabbed Jean Anderson, the former deputy registrar of the Hudson County, N.J., Office of Vital Statistics, for taking money to falsify county records.
According to a Department of Justice news release, Anderson was paid to insert phony birth records for illegal aliens into the files at her county office. The immigrants, in turn, approached county window clerks and requested copies of their birth certificates, after which the clerks looked to the files and, upon seeing the records Anderson had inserted, issued fraudulent birth certificates unknowingly.
Spafford added two potential perpetrators: "One group would be those who for reasons of political espionage or religious idealism wish to make attacks against the country and might wish to establish alternate identities.
"The second area is organized crime," he said. "Some groups are very well funded, particularly the narcotics cartels. If they can establish new identities or takeover someone's identity who is clean criminally, they may get less suspicion when transporting things across the border."
Could Obama's records have been 'fixed?'
WND has been on the forefront of investigating claims that Barack Obama may not be a "natural born citizen," as the Constitution requires, and thus ineligible to serve as president of the United States.
Multiple lawsuits have been filed alleging Obama was born in Africa, rather than Hawaii, as Obama insists, and others have been filed claiming that Obama's birth status as a dual citizen because of his father's British citizenship precludes the sitting president from being "a natural born citizen."
In response to the lawsuits, Obama's campaign and administration have posted online images of a document purported to be the president's COLB from the state of Hawaii.
The computer-generated document, however, apparently printed after 2000, is exactly the kind of document WND's investigation has shown could have been produced from a database that had been fraudulently altered.
WND contacted the state of Hawaii to ask how its files are electronically managed, but a state official refused to answer even basic information requests and instead responded to emails by quoting articles from a website that routinely mocks and condemns WND's coverage.
WND then turned to Spafford to ask if Obama's COLB may have been compromised, but he dismissed the idea:
"His election was confirmed by Congress, and federal courts have rejected attempts to have the election invalidated, so … I think the question is moot at this point," he said.
He added, "There seems to be investigators who have scanned a copy of a long-form birth certificate with an official seal from the state of Hawaii, and the U.S. government accepts that."
On the contrary, the scanned copy is merely a COLB. Obama's long-form birth certificate remains among the many documents Obama has not disclosed the public, a list that also includes his Columbia thesis, his kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records and any baptism records and his adoption records.
It was because of the dearth of information about Obama's eligibility, WND founder Joseph Farah has launched a campaign to raise contributions to post billboards asking a simple question: "Where's the birth certificate?"
"Where's The Birth Certificate?" billboard at the Mandalay Bay resort on the Las Vegas Strip
The only people who have claimed to have seen Obama's long-form birth certificate are Hawaiian officials, a fact Spafford also pointed out before issuing a warning that – regardless of the Obama scandal – the nation needs to ensure its vital records are not as susceptible as they are now.
"The Republican governor of Hawaii, in my recollection, has certified that the long form is on file," Spafford told WND, "and so although I wouldn't use that particular instance as an argument, I would say that if this is going to be a concern, then we should look at the system. Even apart from this individual case, if people aren't willing to trust the system, then we should go back and look at why we're using it.
"We are going to have a problem with this technology unless we take greater care to provide proof," he concluded. "Twenty years from now, when everything is electronic, if this comes up again, then what are we going to do? The time is now to think about those issues and settle them, rather than 20 years from now."
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=122427
`
Last edited by CJ on Mon Oct 18, 2010 1:10 pm; edited 2 times in total
Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2010 4:32 am Post subject: SCOTUS Obama Birth Certificate update
SCOTUS
Barak Obama Birth Certificate update
January 29, 2010 UPDATE
January 27, 2010
I Emailed Jerome Corsi who has done the most to prove
Barak Hussein Obama was born in Mumbassa, Kenya, AFRICA.
He wrote me back........
Pastor CJ:
Nothing from SCOTUS on the birth certificate.
The SCOTUS decision was on the David Bossie movie “Hillary” produced by his Citizens United nonprofit.
SCOTUS overturned part of McCain-Feingold and ruled that corporations, including non-profit corporations, had rights of free speech.
This was an important win for conservatives.
Regards,
Jerry Corsi
===============================
These are the only 2 updates I have seen so far.
I dont understand enuf in these 2 links to edit and post in here. LOL!
D.C. court case demands Obama explain eligibility
Contends president's allegiance is to Britain, Kenya, Indonesia
By what authority is Obama president
January 29, 2010
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=123428
When (IF) SCOTUS receives the Birth Certificate issue wondering if they will rise above his "scolding" in the STOTU speech? OR, will they actually show "himself" who's boss in LEGAL ISSUES in this country?
It's amazing how Obama thinks he's above the Constitution AND it's SEPARATION OF POWERS!!!
All times are GMT - 5 Hours Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Next
Page 1 of 10
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Join! (free) 
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
` 
` 
