Are you a “BIRTHER” or a “MARK”.

In the old neighborhood we would get a empty Sony TV box, glue cement blocks or bricks in it, reseal it and sell it on the street for $100.00 with the story that it was a $600.00 Sony TV that fell off a FedEx truck. Anyone that bought it without opening it was labeled a “Mark” A Bernie Madoff client, a Schmuck.

The ones that wanted to see what’s in the box before they bought it, today would be labeled a “Birther”

Are you a “BIRTHER” or a “MARK”. Do you believe Obama was born in Kapi’olani hospital? If you do I have a bridge I would like to sell you. It goes from Brooklyn to Manhattan, ready for a toll booth to be installed.

A “Mark” BELIEVED BILL CLINTON WHEN HE SAID: “I DID NOT HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH THAT WOMAN” Then they found the stained dress. He lied and they became a “Birther”.

A “Mark” BELIEVED JOHN EDWARDS WHEN HE SAID: “THAT’S NOT MY BABY” Then the Enquirer exposed him. He lied and they became a “Birther”.

A “Mark” BELIEVED WILLIAM “FREEZER” JEFFERSON WHEN HE SAID: “I DON’T KNOW HOW THAT CASH GOT IN MY FREEZER” Then they threw him in the slammer and they knew he lied and they became a “Birther”.

A “Mark” BELIEVED LINDA LINGEL WHEN SHE SAID: "So I had my health director, who is a physician by background, go personally view the birth certificate in the birth records of the Department of Health, and we issued a news release at that time saying that the president was, in fact, born at Kapi'olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii. And that's just a fact and yet people continue to call up and e-mail and want to make it an issue and I think it's again a horrible distraction for the country by those people who continue this."
Then they learned she lied, Fukino's statement never identified Kapiolani as Obama's birthplace and they became a “Birther”.

Fukino said, "[I have]...personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record...,"

Beyond the lie, if Lingle disclosed Obama's birth hospital without his permission, she has committed a misdemeanor. If Obama gave permission for this public disclosure, then Hawaii no longer has a basis for maintaining the privacy of Obama's birth records.

Welcome to the new members of the growing army of “BIRTHERS”

Chris Mathews, Rush Limbaugh, Hawaii Governor Abercrombie Senator Will Espero and Hawaii Legislators; Rida Cabanilla, Jerry Chang, Joey Manahan, John Mizuno and Calvin Say to name a few.

Proud to be a “Birther”

Saturday, July 16, 2011

Obama’s ineligibility: When government declares war on the people

At Lexington and Concord, the American militia was able to stand their ground against oppression because they stockpiled weapons and ammunition, created an effective local intelligence network and had the support of the populace. Those are the fundamentals of a classical insurgency. In 1964, no one framed the choice better than Ronald Reagan:
“Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American Revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.”
But that was another era. Sadly for our country, Reagan greatly underestimated the corruption, the inexhaustible greed and the endless lust for power of future politicians.
We have an occupant of the White House, who is ineligible to be President, who has likely forged or been complicit in the forgery of official documents and who may be using a stolen Social Security Number.
There is ever increasing evidence of widespread press self-censorship and the altering of online documents to misinform and manipulate the American people in order to protect Barack Obama.
We have a rogue and dangerous Executive Branch and members of Congress who have violated their oaths of office and abdicated their responsibility to support and defend the Constitution and uphold the rule of law.
They are now all co-conspirators attempting to achieve absolute power and corrupt the government absolutely, all of which will eventually lead to the destruction of our republic.
Michael Barone calls it “Gangster Government”, where, in the Chrysler bailout, the Obama administration forced bondholders to accept 33 cents on the dollar on secured debts while giving United Auto Worker (UAW) retirees 50 cents on the dollar on unsecured debts.
That was a clear violation of the ordinary bankruptcy rule that secured creditors are fully paid off before unsecured creditors get anything. The politically connected UAW got preference over politically unconnected bondholders.
Add to that travesty, the destruction of 789 small business, dealer franchises during the Chrysler bankruptcy hearing.
Was that yet another violation of bankruptcy law to benefit the UAW? Why does it seem that Obama and his allies always side with the fat cats over small businesses and ordinary investors?
In his superb exposé “Chrysler Bankruptcy Exposes Dirty Politics”, Declan McCullagh documents the immorality, the breakdown of the rule of law and strong-arm tactics used by some politicians.
He describes how Obama, his allies and Congressional Democrats interfered on behalf of unions (the junior creditors) and publicly upbraided the senior creditors who were asserting their contractual rights.
The UAW has donated $25.4 million to federal politicians over the last two decades, with 99 percent of that cash going to Democrats. Obama’s final 2008 campaign stop on Election Day was a UAW phone bank.
Clifford Asness, managing partner at a $20 billion hedge fund named AQR Capital Management, called it “toxic demagoguery” and says “the president’s attempted diktat takes money from bondholders and gives it to a labor union that delivers money and votes for him.”
The Constitution is being violated and the rule of law eroded to benefit a rich and powerful elite who care not for their country, but only for themselves.
Our elected representatives, our courts and our law enforcement agencies are ignoring our requests for the redress of grievances and investigations of likely law violations.
America no longer has a government beholden to the people.
The Declaration of Independence stated:
“In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury.”
“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.”
It is the dishonest and ruthless people now controlling the reins of power, who are forcing the American people toward a second Lexington and Concord.
It is those politicians and their collaborators, who force us to stand our ground, not against our Constitution, but against their perversion of it and their suppression of our liberty.
In the last paragraph of his 1964 speech, Ronald Reagan also framed our current challenge:
“You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children’s children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done.”
Lawrence Sellin

Lawrence Sellin Most recent columns

© Canada Free Press 2011
Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is a recently retired colonel with 29 years of service in the US Army Reserve. He is a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq.
Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. receives hate mail at

Rep. Tom McClintock: Another Ineligibility Denier


July 16, 2011
Rep. Tom McClintock was elected in 2008 and represents California's Fourth Congressional District
Dear Editor:
Recently I sent an article from Canada Free Press to my congressman, Tom McClintock, and received the following response:
Dear Redacted:
Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns regarding President Barack Obama’s citizenship and his eligibility to serve as president.
The Constitution is the starting point for determining eligibility to serve as President. The Constitution requires that to be eligible to serve as President an individual must be a natural born citizen of the United States, be at least 35 years old, and have been a permanent resident in the United States for at least 14 years.
Currently, a candidate’s eligibility under these requirements is vetted by a number of sources, both inside the government and out.  First, candidates go through an intensive political vetting process in both the primary and general election – their histories are carefully examined by their political opponents who have a vested interest in uncovering the facts.  At the end of the campaigns, the voting public weighs in.  Then, when all the votes have been cast and counted, it is up to Congress to certify the results.  A final check-and-balance against eligibility irregularities lies with the courts, and ultimately the Supreme Court.
President Obama has passed each of these requirements.  Further, in President Obama’s case – in addition to his Hawaii birth certificate – there were two birth announcements in major Hawaii newspapers, the Honolulu Advertiser and the Star Bulletin.
Thanks again for contacting me, and I look forward to hearing from you again in the future.  Should you have any further questions regarding this or any other issue, please don’t hesitate to contact me via email or my Washington D.C. office at (202) 225-2511 or my district office in Granite Bay at (916) 786-5560.

Californians to McClintock: What About the Two Citizen Parents McCain Had to Have?


by Sharon Rondeau
To which vetting process is Rep. Tom McClintock referring when he says that Obama's eligbility was determined before the election?
(Jul. 16, 2011) — In response to the letter received by Congressman Tom McClintock and published here, the congressman has received the following two letters:
Hi Tom:
As my former Congressman, I hold you in high esteem and also voted for you for Governor. I am a well-regarded retired businessman.
After reading the letter appearing below this one, purportedly from you, I offer the following thoughts. I’m writing to ask you to reconsider your position on the eligibility issue– please hear me out.
1. There was no vetting process. That has been confirmed at the federal level and for various states, including our own (please research the case against Debra Bowen, Secretary of State). Nancy Pelosi omitted the Constitutional eligibility statement in her 2008 “Obama” candidate certification in 49 states and apparently perjured herself in the 50th (Hawaii). The “media” glossed over the vetting of “Obama” and seemed strangely incurious, relying mostly upon the two somewhat fictional “autobiographies.” “Obama” offered almost no background and substantiation of his past. In fact, he has actively and aggressively covered it up, in an unprecedented manner. If you can point out how and who he was vetted by, we would like to help enlighten the benighted public, who question “Obama’s” legitimacy.
2. It is fairly clear, from the papers of the founding fathers and De Vattel’s Law of Nations, a primary reference used by them in the writing of the Constitution, that they thought of a natural born citizen as someone born in this country of two citizen parents at the time of that person’s birth. SR 511 appears to harbor similar assumptions. This has been repeatedly confirmed by Congress and the Supreme Court. However, CRS wrote a very misleading memo about eligibility, distorting both facts and case law, particularly Minor vs. Happersett. This has been documented in several articles, which we will forward upon request.
3. The withholding of “Obama’s” vital papers and expenditure of possibly up to $2MM to defend him in eligibility legal actions, plus an undetermined amount from DOJ funds, is an outrage. They should have been prosecuting, not defending him.
4. There is documented, indisputable evidence, compiled by multiple independent private investigators (Sankey, Daniels and others), that:
- “Obama” is linked at least 16 stolen Social Security numbers, including 042-68-4425, via name and addresses.
- This was uncovered via commercial databases and other research.
- That led to a finding that his Selective Service registration, linked to the aforementioned Social Security number, is also fraudulent and apparently forged circa 2008.
- At least one of his purported mother’s Social Security numbers appears to be stolen.
- We are told by investigators that this normally happens either when people cannot obtain such documentation legally, or are using it to break the law, usually for financial gain or other felony fraud.
5. There is no record of him ever legally changing his name from Barry Soetoro or Soebarkah to his current AKA. There is also evidence linking him to an alias of Harrison Bounel.
6. The so-called birth certificate was, after over three years of stalling. finally released in digital form by “Obama,” via the White House staff, on 4-27-11, with limited copies made from an undetermined source document. It has been declared a fraud by dozens of document experts, some of them very well-known and respected. In short, it opens up in Adobe Illustrator as a nine-layered document, displaying numerous symptoms known to experts as evidence of alteration.
7. John McCain was submitted to an extensive investigation and humiliating Senate hearing, on his eligibility for the Presidency, in spite of having a very well-documented history and two American citizen parents. His family has served with distinction as military officers for multiple generations. Even though he was born in Panama (NOT the at the time Canal Zone, a U.S. Possession, as many thought), he was declared eligible, because his father was serving his country as a military officer, a special case. No such hearing was ever held for his Democrat opponent, who had far more mysterious circumstances in his past and had already been served for eligibility suits. Some say this was some sort of quid pro quo. Whatever.
8. You didn’t raise the issue in your letter, but the so-called “birth announcements”:
- Are unvetted
- Are not legal documents
- Could have been triggered via relatives in a request, or Certification (NOT Certificate) of Live Birth, obtained with only an affidavit, under Hawaiian law.
- Do not state the name of the child
- Do not state the place of birth
- List a false address, where the parents never lived
Congress and courts have both failed to act on the issues, to date. The Courts claim it’s Congress’ responsibility and Congress vice- versa. You say it’s a non-issue. About half of the public at large surveyed think otherwise.
We do NOT intend to roll over and let this go away. The stakes are way too high. The founders established a high bar for eligibility, precisely to help avoid situations like we have now, with a chief executive whose priorities, loyalties, ideology and revered traditions clearly do not stand with We The People. This and his many impeachable offenses, are far worse than Watergate and Monicagate to the nth power.
We hope and pray that you will have the courage to act, to motivate the House of Reps to investigate this and act accordingly. I also ask you to help motivate the FBI to move on the multiple complaints submitted.
We do not think it is sufficient to wait until January 2013 to solve the problem, particularly because he has been so very dangerous and destructive in office and seems willing to commit massive fraud to get his way, with powerful forces enabling him to do so.
G. Miller
Dear Rep. McLintock,
I read your letter to “redacted” on the Post and Email website and would like to share the following. You said that President Obama was thoroughly vetted and found clean. I don’t think so. You may have forgotten Senate Resolution 511 which vetted Sen. McCain on being a natural born citizen. He was cleared and his nomination accepted by Democrats. But here’s what you and so many others are missing. During one of the hearings on Res. 511 Sen. Patrick Leahy said, “Because he (McCain) was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen.” Obviously, “born to American citizens” means that both parents are U.S. citizens, which McCain’s parents were. But by this statement, Sen. Leahy admitted that President Obama is not a natural born citizen as required by Art. 2, Sect. 1, Clause 5 of the constitution. This appeared to be a thoughtless “oops” that went unnoticed. But according to the historical record and Surpeme Court rulings, Leahy is dead on. Obama is not eligible to be President of the United States because his father was Kenyan and never was a U.S. citizen. McCain must have known this, but why didn’t he bring it up? And why didn’t he and Republicans demand that Sen. Obama be vetted for natural born citizenship also? Those questions need to be answered, but try and get one. The real substance of natural born citizenship is citizen parents and Leahy nailed it. So you are wrong, sir, when you say that Barack Obama was thoroughly vetted. He has committed election fraud and is guilty of usurping the presidency, among other things. Check with Senator Leahy and see if he still believes a natural born citizen is born of parents who are BOTH “American citizens.”
Regards, J. Black

1 comment:

  1. The reason that dozens of senators and congressmen have sent letters saying that Obama was born in Hawaii and none is calling for an investigation of his place of birth, and the reason that all eight declared Republican presidential candidates say that Obama was born in Hawaii, and the reason that Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly call birthers crazy is that the evidence that he was born in Hawaii is overwhelming.

    1. Obama has now shown both his short-form and long-form birth certificates, which THREE Republican officials in Hawaii have stated are accurate regarding the place of birth.

    2. There were notices of birth in the Hawaii newspapers in 1961. The claim that the notices could have been placed by lying relatives turns out to be false because whenever there was a claim of a birth outside of a hospital, Hawaii insisted on a witness statement.

    3. IF a child is born outside of the USA, the US insists on either a US visa on a foreign passport or the child being entered on his mother's US passport before being allowed to enter the USA. If such a document existed for Obama in 1961--PARTICULARLY if the birth was in Kenya--it would have been filed away, and the application for it would have been filed away--and the document itself or the application for it would have been found long ago.

    4. WND reported that the US Immigration and Naturalization Service checked on Obama's place of birth TWICE, with five years between the two checks, and each time it concluded that Obama was born in Hawaii. WND then asked how the INS concluded that fact. The answer to that question is obvious. What does the INS normally do to check the place of birth? It asks for the birth certificate. So the US government, the US INS, in the 1960s and 1970s asked to see Obama's birth certificate, saw it, and concluded that Obama was born in Hawaii.

    Also, there is NO Kenyan document (except for obvious forgeries). And, there is NO Kenyan document even showing that Obama's mother was in Kenya in 1961. And WND recently reported that the conclusion of Kenya's investigation was that it determined that there was no evidence that any document was missing.

    Obama's Kenyan grandmother said repeatedly in the taped interview that he was BORN IN HAWAII, and she said in another interview (Hartford Courant) that the first that her family in Kenya had heard of Obama's birth was in a letter FROM HAWAII.

    NO WONDER all those congressmen and senators and Republican presidential candidates think that Obama was born in Hawaii. They think that the world is round too, and that 2+1=3.