Posted on 04/23/2011 1:09:05 PM PDT by betty boop
When Barack Hussein Obama was Democrat Party presidential nominee in the 2008 national election, he presented himself to the American public as a sort of New Messiah of “Hope and Change,” the new god of “Yes We Can!” (whatever these vaporous, vacuous statements could actually mean).
He probably garnered the vote of every passionate ignoramus in the land. Moreover, there was evidence of irregularities in polling procedures in certain jurisdictions. Few people bother to investigate such matters these days, and certainly not the Dept. of Justice. In the end, with the help of union and left-progressive interest money and the ever-enabling (for left-progressive causes) MSM, Barack Obama/Barry Soetoro managed to get himself elected to the Office of the President of the United States.
Now, after much economic and institutional turmoil and destruction — largely orchestrated by himself and his Administration — Obama’s message seems to have gone 180-degrees the other way. Now the motivating mantra is: “Shared Sacrifice.”
This is an interesting shift, to say the least. What is truly amazing is that the disciples of Obama didn’t miss a beat. They go wherever he points without complaint, let alone thought or reflection.
As for the rest of us, we are left in a quandary: “Hopey-Change” to “Shared Sacrifice” is a breathtaking shift in only two-and-a-half years.
Meanwhile, President Obama is running for office. Indeed, he has never stopped running for office. That seems to be all he ever does.
And meanwhile, our national interests and alliances, foreign and domestic, are going to hell in a handbasket. Objectively, realistically speaking.
So, who is this guy? Why does he always seem to do the “wrong thing” where American national interests — foreign and domestic — are at stake? How do we find out?
But that’s the problem: You can’t find out anything: All his public records, from whatever jurisdiction generated, are under court seal.
That means all we have to go on to get a sense of this person is what he chooses to tell us in his two books: Tales from My Father and The Audacity of Hope. The first is alleged to have been ghost written by Obama’s non-friend, former Weatherman bomber Bill Ayers. Where the second came from, I cannot say.
Of course, such material does not address much of anything of concern relating to Obama’s vital public history. Little things like —
(1) His birth records
(2) His medical history
(3) His Selective Service records
(4) His passport history
(5) His college records
(6) The status/provenance of the Social Security number he is now using
(7) Why he resigned from the Illinois Bar
I won’t belabor the point about the controversial lack of evidence regarding (1). To me, it doesn’t matter where Obama was born. If his father was not a citizen of the United States, either natural-born or naturalized, then Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the United States — one of the three constitutional qualifications for any elected occupant of the Office of President.
Donald Trump has tossed out a red herring: “Natural born” does not mean “native born.” A natural-born citizen is a person born to two American parents regardless of the geographical place of nativity. On this basis, clearly Obama is not the offspring of two American-citizen parents. Thus he is not a natural-born citizen of the United States.
Then again, if Obama should ever decide to “show proof” on this question (highly doubtful proposition there), maybe it would turn out that he is the natural child of Jimi Hendrix or some other bona-fide American citizen father, whatever. In which case he would be a natural-born citizen of the United States — assuming his mother, a minor at the time of his birth, would have opted for self-identification as a citizen of the United States and allegiance thereto upon attaining the age of majority (18).
But given her history, why should anybody suppose that Stanley Anne Dunham, who seemed to have had a passion for third-world radical “men of color,” would have given any such assent? What is on record is that she had the habit of marrying them: supposedly first the Kenyan (British subject), Obama senior; and then the Indonesian Lolo Soetoro The first sired him; the second adopted him. Or so the story goes. Basic questions of American nationality are raised here, but hardly answered.
Case in point: Indonesia does not recognize dual citizenship among its citizens. Which brings us to Obama’s college history.
There is circumstantial evidence that Obama enrolled at Occidental University in Washington State — under the name Barry Soetoro — as a foreign exchange student from Indonesia. Presumably, an entering Indonesian foreign-exchange student would have been required to produce a valid Indonesian passport somewhere along the enrollment process, especially in cases where a U.S.-taxpayer subsidy is involved, as seems likely to have been the case.
And it seems Obama/Soetoro had one: His Indonesian stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, legally adopted “Barry.” And instantly, that would have made the boy a citizen of Indonesia (a country that does not recognize dual citizenship).
Obama/Soetoro did not complete his degree program at Occidental. There are rumors — urban legends? — that he flunked out of school owing to drug addiction problems; and moreover was then engaging in an active gay lifestyle with a long-time companion who has now, many years hence, run into legal difficulties involving criminal law; which the press is largely not covering.
On the basis of the story Obama has released, he next turns up at Ivy League Columbia University as a “transfer student” majoring in International Relations, Class of 1982.
The funny thing is, however, not a single International Relations major in the Class of 1982 has yet been found who remembers seeing Obama around at that time — and surely, they must all have been taking classes together. How did they miss seeing this tall, skinny, half-and-half guy with big ears for over two years?
And then Obama goes on to Harvard Law School. Rumor has it he attended with Saudi financial aid. He is named editor of the prestigious Harvard Law Review — and yet during his tenure does not publish a single word under his own name. Very strange.
He received his law degree. Shortly after Obama’s departure from Harvard, the Saudi government made a multimillion-dollar bequest to Harvard University. Go figure.
Then he heads to Chicago, to become a community organizer/”activist” lawyer. He applies to the Illinois Bar as Barack Hussein Obama in order to receive his license to practice law. One of the questions asked is about whether the applicant/candidate has ever used or been known by any other name than the one stated on the Bar application. Obama seems to have recorded his answer as “No.”
If he did, that would certainly explain why he voluntarily resigned his law license in Illinois. As the theory goes, Obama had been notified of an investigation into the matter of whether he committed perjury in his Bar application; i.e., that he had not told the truth about using or being known by any former names. Rather than be subject to this investigation, he resigned from the Illinois Bar.
One last anecdotal story before closing, the matter of the Social Security number the President is now using. Investigators report that this particular number was issued to a resident of Connecticut — a state with which Obama has no known personal connection whatsoever — who, if still living, would be around 112 years old today. There is some evidence that this transaction was conducted from a U.S. Post Office Box — not a street address — in Connecticut.
There is also the suggestion that the Social Security number the President is now using is not the only Social Security number he has used in the past….
If these reports are true, then we would have to say the current Occupant of the Oval Office is not only ineligible to serve as President of the United States, but has committed criminal acts in the past — including perjury, identity theft, and mail fraud.
And we have entrusted him with the duties of the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the United States????
The problem is, the original records necessary to test and validate the evidence are now either under court seal, or have magically been erased through other means.
And I don’t mean just Obama’s personal records, but the personal records of his known associates, including his white grandparents, the Dunhams, as well.
He is a magical “disappearing act!”
Yet there he is still, every day, arrogantly, narcissistically confronting and offending us with brazen assaults on anything pertaining to the historic American idea of strictly limited government and individual Liberty under the protection of just and equal laws.
Methinks our ersatz-President is a crook and a thug, and should be given “the hook” as soon as possible.
“The hook” is an old vaudeville term for the sudden, complete removal of a performer on-stage whose act just entirely “stinks.”
“The hook” is applied whenever the audience is vociferously booing.
With $5-a-gallon gas plus a legion of other miseries weighing us down — all in accord with deliberate policy of this Administration — may the booing begin and reach a tremendous crescendo soonest.
©2011 by Jean F. Drew
23 April 2011
That is the very point the president, his codependents and enablers are desperately trying to evade. They are trying to "change the subject" by redefining what "natural-born citizen" means. They indicate the proper understanding is: any child born on U.S. soil regardless of the citizenship status of the child's parents. (Which strikes me as utterly mindless....)
Pretty durned "innovative," "progressive" right there!!!
But there is a precedent on this question — this is not the first time in U.S. presidential history that the topic of "natural born citizen" has come up, and been publicly ventilated at the time.
The first was President Chester A. Arthur. He had political enemies who tried to disqualify him from office on the grounds that, at the time of his birth, he was not born to two American-citizen parents.
Chester's mother was clearly an American citizen of multigenerational heritage. His father, however, was an Irishman — a British subject — who emigrated to America, married the aforesaid American, then a citizen of Vermont IIRC, and sired the future president Chester.
Twelve years later, Chester's Irish-born father became a naturalized citizen of the United States.
Notwithstanding, the argument at the time went: Since Chester A. Arthur at the time of his birth was not born of two American-citizen parents, he could not claim to be a "natural-born citizen of the United States," and was therefore utterly disqualified from holding the Office of POTUS.
Possibly the American public of the time did not see fit to visit on the son the penalty of his father's delayed naturalization. For Arthur served out his term, although he was not reelected.
The point is, if Obama's father is who Obama says he is, then Mr. Obama, Sr. never even naturalized as a U.S. citizen. He died a British subject.
Ergo, Obama would not be a natural-born citizen of the United States.
I didn't think public political norms and discourse could be more of a sewer than in the Clinton years either, dear marron. But my word, nobody could even imagine then just how much worse things could possibly get.
We are seeing it now. We are paying the penalty for our collective sloth....
Some such, IIRC.
I think there’s some painting of him in full regalia.
As far as Obama (PBUH), I believe he is an uber progressive that wouldn't mind destroying this Country to suit his communist backers. Fraud .. probably. But the constant, repetitive harping of the birther threads is intellectually boring.
Don't get me wrong, I can't stand the man and I would love nothing better than him being dragged from the WH tomorrow. But it ain't happenin' and I know that.
I asked you nicely to stop with including me in your mass pings. If you want to respond to something I wrote to you, fine. Other than that, stop pinging me.
Listen boop ... the last best retort of those who can’t defend their BS is to start picking on a screen name. I see you still have nothing new ...
I can understand your perspective.
Though . . . I tend to use my scroll button or page down button a lot on boring posts and threads.
Some folks are claiming that the globalists are going to use their weather modification technologies to cause a lot of drought in our breadbasket . . .
They certainly are evil enough to do it.
I still think they’ll make othuga a scapegoat when he’s succeeded a bit more in bringing the whole house down around his and our ears—per their orders to begin with.
Anyway—interesting era . . .
May The Lord insure that your wheat crop is a bumper crop . . . and may you get top dollar for it in terms of quality and marketing.
Blessings,
Betty is also a dear soul, Blonde.
Like most of us, she can get tweaked by various pet peeves.
Kindly point out the "BS."
Having always respected your opinion, I'll back on out of this thread and leave its host to her discussion with those of like mind.
Take care.
May God bless you, Blonde! May His peace be with you.
Am deeply touched and humbled by your kind words.
I’ve persistently found your posts at least interesting and worth pondering . . . and often agreed with many of their points. Thx.
But look at the ideological contrasts between two of them, George Washington and Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Their basic philosophies of government and their respective understandings of the scope of its power and authority — not to mention the policies they effected — could not be in sharper contrast. This is a "night and day" situation.
I cannot see how either man could have been relying on a common, fundamental root in the ideas and practices of Freemasonry, if the outcomes they achieved are so starkly different.
One was on the model of John Locke (who may have been a Freemason); the other was on the model of Karl Marx — who was no Freemason.
Perhaps the historic fear of the influence of Freemasonry on the U.S. government is a tad overblown? It seems that way to me — JMHO, FWIW.
Thank you ever so much for writing, dear brother in Christ!
I don’t like to talk about such groups much publically.
And there are fierce proponents in favor of them on FR.
1. My reading convinces me that the allegations are true.
2. The oligarchy has been well able to play all sides against the middle for at least 100 years . . .
3. Stooges—even Presidents—ultimately play their game. They tend to use opposites as a GOOD-COP/BAD-COP GAME with the public.
4. In counseling . . . men who’d been involved had far more troublesome and tenacious demonic involvement than anyone else, in my experience.
My dear brother in Christ, what allegations?
It's awfully easy to "allege" all kinds of things, or even anything at all, regarding "secret societies." But just because a voluntary society is "secret" doesn't necessarily make it nefarious.
Just a thought, dear Quix!
True.
Sorry.
I don’t want to get into the specifics again hereon.
There’s a raging war between the two sides on ATS.
And, there’s plenty of material on the net.
To me . . . given that all the Presidents have been puppets of the satanic oligarchy—chosen and put in place BY THE OLIGARCHY—voting has been a sham for a long time—according to sworn testimony of computer programmers managing such corruption . . . all are blood related but one and all have evidently been members of said society . . .
those points alone should be enough pause for thought.
Well, yes of course they would be — IF the points were valid, "true."
This is where I have a problem: As mentioned above, anyone can allege anything at all about a "secret" society, in principle: People "outside" the society have no knowledge of the "secrets," and no direct evidence of what is going on. Unless they are infiltrators, spies; i.e., people present under false pretenses.... That hardly constitutes a reference of "good character" to me!
So, where does the evidence come from, and how reliable is it?
I've heard the rumors about homosexual rites and even infant sacrifice. Devil worship. The whole nine yards.... Tell me why these aren't "fairy stories" concocted by superstitious outsiders?
Legends live long, regardless of their basis in fact.
One thing that interests me about Masonry in America is how close in spirit Masonry is to the American tradition of religious liberty. The Freemasons, to me, are more secular than explicitly religious; they are tolerant of all religious viewpoints that affirm a "higher power," or Creator God. But they don't care what your particular religious confession is.
As to whether they have some nefarious purpose to undermine America and/or the People of God, this seems rather dubious to me.
In any case, in the context of this thread, may I note that the nominal POTUS is definitely not a Freemason? I strongly doubt that George Soros is a Freemason. Nor probably any of the other "et ceteras" of Obama's enabling entourage.
If you're going to spend time and energy exposing Freemasons past and present, then maybe you're missing the "real action," dear brother in Christ!
Just some thoughts, dear Quix, FWTW.
BECAUSE
THERE HAVE BEEN SUFFICIENT
numbers of convincingly former high ranking members and sons of such
asserting such things.
imho
Then, there is the witness one may or may not have in one’s spirit via Holy Spirit.
Not really my brief, per se.
I’ll leave that windmill to others with more facts at their fingertips.
Sorry.
I thought Occidental College was in Los Angeles? Other than that...excellent points (that keep getting made...but NOT answered).
You're absolutely right, PennsylvaniaMom! — my boo-boo. :^(
Thank you truly for the timely correction!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.