Posted on 08/16/2011 7:01:49 AM PDT by NEMDF
http://www.omaha.com/article/20110816/NEWS01/708169925#awol-omahan-is-hero-to-birthers
Yesterday, I was listening to an excerpt (I guess that’s what it was) from a recent Gov. Perry speech on Chris Matthews’ evening screed. Perry told his audience that he wants to be president because he realizes that the armed forces have little respect for Obama. Of course, Matthews brought up the birther issue. I’m sure Perry was bringing up the birther issue in his speech too.
It’s going to be an interesting campaign.
I would be considered a “Birther”. I never heard of the man.
The article is clearly slanted, only providing the “half-truths” of evidence “proving that Zero is elligible.
Note that no where in the article was it address that Zero’s Dad was never a US Citizen - on of the requirements of Article II, Section 1, US Constitution.
Hey Obama World Herald ...er...Omaha World Herald,
If any of you MSM lib arts clowns actually knew anything about computers, you’d know what the rest of us know...both of Obama’s supposed birth certificates are not even close to being real.
Where was he born? Who knows?
The Obamaloon most certainly doesn’t want us to know, in any case.
it was here over the weekend:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2763583/posts
Staff Sgt. Daryn Moran, stationed at a U.S. Air Force base in Germany, stopped reporting for work Thursday.
I consider Mr Moran a coward, a person without honor and a disgrace.
Tomorrow I stand a Flag Line for a memorial to an Air Force trooper who had honor, understood duty, was a TRUE AMERICAN HERO.
It is not about Barack Obama Mr Moran. It is about your comrades in arms that depend on you to be at your job fulfilling your duties
Well said, Sir.
Just sent this to the author of the article:
There are a few things that you should be aware of.
First off, Factcheck claimed that they saw a real COLB with a seal on it, but I have shown forensically that there is no way the seal that appears on the photograph they claim to have taken could have been on that paper when they photographed it. IOW, Factcheck deliberately lied about a COLB they knew was forged. See
Second, the birth announcement images that were posted online claimed to be independently-acquired by several different posters, but actually could not have come from the Hawaii State Library microfilm as claimed. Instead, they ALL came from one source: somebody at the Honolulu Advertiser office. That source at the Honolulu Advertiser altered the image over time in order to get rid of C&P lines. Perhaps somebody at Factcheck could tell us why these sources documentably lied to us about where the images came from.
Third, the HDOH has actually legally confirmed that Obama’s birth certificate has been amended, so what Obama posted online - both the COLB and the long-form - are known by the HDOH to be forgeries. And the HDOH has refused to obey a subpoena by Orly Taitz to produce the genuine long-form BC, claiming that privacy laws don’t allow them to disclose it - which is an admission that what Obama posted is NOT genuine, since his privacy rights would have been waived if he had published the genuine BC. So it is not only top computer and forensic analysts (including some who voted for Obama) who acknowledge that Obama posted a forged long-form, but the HDOH itself has tacitly confirmed it as well.
In addition, the long-form Obama presented doesn’t have the proper certification, since the remnants of the seal are not the proper size to be the official HDOH seal and HDOH Administrative Rules say that either the official HDOH seal or the seal of the State of Hawaii must be displayed on the paper for a BC to be properly certified. Obama’s posted long-form has neither. So we know that what Obama presented is not what the HDOH sent him. What he posted is not properly certified.
What the HDOH has actually disclosed for Obama is a name in a birth index list they have in their office - a birth index which documentably lists the names from legally invalid BC’s AND which has documentably been altered over time.
The HDOH itself has illegally hidden their administrative rules, committed perjury before the HI state legislature, refused to report to law enforcement both known forgeries (which is itself the felony of misprision of forgery), deceived Congress in matters of federal jurisdiction (a violation of the Federal General False Statement Act), refuses to obey their open records law (UIPA), HRS 338-13, and their administrative rules, and has apparently altered their own records for Obama’s sake.
Besides that, Obama’s BC# is out of sequence for the date it was filed - which is when Oahu BC’s are given the BC# by the state registrar, according to the HDOH. The BC# on Obama’s BC could well be that of Virginia Sunahara, who was born on Aug 4, 1961 and died the next day. The HDOH has Virginia Sunahara listed in their 1960-64 birth index but when I made an open records request for her birth record the HDOH denied that they have any records for her. Either the HDOH blatantly lied to me, or something happened to the record between the time they printed the index and the time they queried her name - something which caused her name to no longer be listed for that BC#.
Jerome Corsi claims to have a whistleblower from within the HDOH who alerted him at the time that a forged BC was placed in the HDOH files - which corresponded to the predictions I and others made at the same time based on the actions of the HDOH, HI Gov Neil Abercrombie, and former HDOH Director Chiyome Fukino.
And these are just a few of the problems with Obama’s birth certificate. Similar problems exist for his social security number, draft registration, and passport records.
I suggest you start reading at http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/ to see the real body of evidence regarding the crimes of both Obama and the HDOH. Another site with a lot of information is http://www.obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com .
Nellie
Amen.
Colonel, USAFR
We have a lot of people in the military who have served honorably as far as they were willing to serve. But just like those in Germany who smelled the burning flesh and decided they couldn’t “honorably” do anything about it, we have heroes who are honorably fighting the enemy outside but refusing to confront the enemy within - which is always the most dangerous enemy.
Sometimes it is just as honorable to disobey orders as to obey orders. Ask the folks at Nuremburg.
I am a tea party member. Retired military member. A birther. And I find this guy revolting. Get back to work.
Huh? What hero? This birther has never heard of him.
If he is AWOL, he won’t be for long and he won’t like where he’ll be held. Just look at Lakin who tried to go about it right way, up the chain.
============================================================ Whatever he is, he's not a coward. He's risking all to make his point. It would be illegal to "knowingly" carry out an illegal order. If the CIC is not legit, then all his orders, as CIC, are illegal.
Obama is not considered by many to be legit. It has been argued that because his father was a foreign exchange student, and not a citizen of the U.S., Obama is illegally serving as POTUS.
This argument is based on the NBC clause in the US Constitution. Article 2 sec 8. Where the POTUS must be a natural born citizen.
It's a fact. Obama is not a natural born citizen. Therefore, his service as POTUS, and CIC, is illegal.
Moran has obviously been convinced Obama is not legally his commander. So for him, to follow, and carry out his commands, would be illegal.
I don't think Moran's stand makes him a coward. It takes a brave man to stand alone against all the odds he must eventually face.
============================================================ It is about your comrades in arms that depend on you to be at your job fulfilling your duties.
============================================================ When I served, we didn't call our buddies "comrades." They were our buddies. Comrades were fellow members of the Communist Party.
Oh? where in Article II, Section 1 is it stated that the father must be a US citizen?
Why don't you make it clear that it is your opinion that a requirement for "natural born" is two citizen parents, an opinion that the US courts apparently do not share.
Idiot!
“Why don’t you make it clear that it is your opinion that a requirement for “natural born” is two citizen parents, an opinion that the US courts apparently do not share.”
And just where have the US courts ruled against 2 citizen parents as one of the provisos of “Natural born”?
However, to your point, kindly review the following:
U.S. Supreme Court decision of Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 167 (1875). See http://drorly.blogspot.com/2009/01/obama-cannot-be-natural-born-citizen.html. The U.S. Supreme Court in Minor held:
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.” Id. at 167-68.
This U.S. Supreme Court’s definition was stated in 1758 by Emer de Vattel, the Founders’ and Framers’ favorite writer on natural law and the law of nations, in his, The Law of Nations, Sections 212-217 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758) where he said the “natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” The virtually unanimous documented view that prevailed during the Founding, as confirmed by the views of the Founders and Framers, text and structure of the Constitution, and federal and state case law, was that the law of nations was considered universal common law that was binding on the people, the President, Congress, and the nation, and “part of the laws of the United States within the symmetric ambit of Article II, Section 3, III, Section 2, and VI, clause 2 of the United States Constitution.” As to this conclusion, see the exhaustive research paper of Jordan J. Paust, “In Their Own Words: Affirmations of the Founders, Framers, and Early Judiciary Concerning the Binding Nature of the Customary Law of Nations,” University of Houston Public Law and Legal Theory Series 2009-A-27, which can be downloaded without charge at The University of Houston Accepted Paper Series Index.
Moreover, Vattel’s and Minor’s definition was also acknowledged by U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the seminal case on U.S. citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment, which clarified and established the meaning of a Fourteenth Amendment “born” “citizen” and again confirmed the meaning of an Article II “natural born” citizen, and by doing so informed that there are two birthright citizenships under the Constitution, one under Article II (“natural born”) and the other under the Fourteenth Amendment (“born” in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”). Under Article II of our Constitution, only a “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President, for only a “natural born” citizen is born within the full and complete allegiance and jurisdiction of the United States which means being born with sole and absolute loyalty, attachment, and allegiance to the United States and none to any foreign power. The Founders and Framers wanted to assure that the new constitutional republic would be lead both civilly and militarily by a person who from the moment of birth had sole and absolute loyalty, attachment, and allegiance to the United States. It is only by being born in the United States (or its jurisdictional equivalent) to a U.S. citizen father and mother that no foreign allegiance, jurisdiction, and citizenship attach to the child at the moment of birth or as Vattel put it, “if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.” Id. at Sec. 212. It is therefore inconceivable that the Founders and Framers, who went to great lengths to insulate the new republic from foreign influence and monarchial rule, would have countenanced a person born after the adoption of the Constitution to be eligible for the office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military who did not meet the law of nations definition of a “natural born Citizen.”
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.