Oh but didn't you hear? He produced a copy of his certificate of birth, not his actual documentation, but the one you get from a courthouse. That should be good enough, right? Never mind the fact of his actual history, that doesn't fit well with the puppeteer's whims. You will only be allowed to know what you "should" know, for your own good. Of course.

www.wnd.com/index.php
<www.wnd.com/index.php &pageId=98589

BORN IN THE USA?
U.S. bonkers for Obama birth certificate billboard
Campaign strikes chord on presidential eligibility issue

_____

Posted: May 19, 2009
7:31 pm Eastern

C 2009 WorldNetDaily

<www.wnd.com/index.php WASHINGTON - A
national fund-raising campaign to erect
<www.wnd.com/index.php billboards around
the country questioning Barack Obama's eligibility for office was an instant
hit with WND readers in its first 24 hours, said Joseph Farah, editor and
chief executive officer of the company and the man who came up with the
idea.

<www.wnd.com/images/misc/...icate650.jpg>

"One thing I can say for certain after Day 1 of this campaign - billboards
will soon be going up around the country," said Farah.

More than $10,000 has been raised thus far from many hundreds of donors -
more than enough to begin putting up the first billboards. The average
donation was $25. WND will keep viewers up to date when billboards are
erected.

Farah said the campaign was born of frustration with timid elected officials
in Washington, corrupt
<www.wnd.com/index.php judges around the
country and a news media that show a stunning lack of curiosity about the
most basic facts of Obama's background - especially how it relates to
constitutional eligibility for the highest office in the land. "As Obama
transforms this country from self-governing constitutional republic to one
governed by a central ruling elite, the simple fact remains that no
controlling legal authority has established that he is indeed a 'natural
born citizen' as the Constitution requires," Farah said. "Obama's promises
of transparency have become a bad joke as he continues to hide simple,
innocuous documents like his birth certificate and his
<www.wnd.com/index.php student records."

The idea behind the billboard campaign is to make sure Obama cannot avoid
this question any longer. He must be asked to produce it at every turn,
Farah says. Billboard space is currently being negotiated in Los Angeles,
Houston, Dallas, <www.wnd.com/index.php
San Antonio, Sacramento, San Francisco,
<www.wnd.com/index.php New York-New
Jersey, Des Moines, Seattle and other metro areas.

"Is it unusual for a news agency to launch such a campaign?" asks Farah.
"Yes it is. But we live in very unusual times. The founding fathers built
special protections into the First Amendment for the free press. The reason
they did that is because they understood a vibrant 'Fourth Estate' was
necessary as an independent watchdog on government. It is in that tradition
that WND assumes this role - since nobody else in the press will do it."

Donations
<shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp
M_ID=2866> are being accepted to defray the costs of a national billboard
campaign with the simple message: "Where's the birth certificate?"

"I wish such a campaign were not absolutely necessary," said Farah. "I wish
there were checks and balances in our political and electoral systems to
ensure that constitutional eligibility of presidential candidates was
established before politicians could assume the highest office in the land.
I wish my colleagues in the news media believed the Constitution really
means what it says and pressed this issue as hard as we have pressed it at
WND. I wish radio talk-show hosts were bold enough to ask this question. But
wishing is not enough. It's time to raise the visibility of this issue vital
to the rule of law in America. I ask everyone to pitch in and help WND make
a simple yet profound statement: The Constitution still matters."

WND previously launched a <www.wnd.com/obama_petition> petition
campaign that has collected more than 370,000 names demanding Obama's
eligibility be verified and demonstrated publicly. That campaign continues.
That list has been shared with members of the Electoral College and the
chief justice of the U.S.
<www.wnd.com/index.php Supreme Court.

Your
<shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp
M_ID=2866> donation - from as little as $5 to as much as $1,000 - can be
made online at the WND SuperStore to kickstart this campaign.

Those wishing to donate by check can send them to:

WND
P.O. Box 1627
Medford, OR 97501

(Donations are not tax-deductible. Donations of amounts greater than $1,000
can be arranged by calling either 541-474-1776 or 1-800-4WND.COM. In
addition, donations of billboard space will be accepted, as will significant
contributions specifically targeted for geographic locations.)

If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we
are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the
intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. .
We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to
tolerate the intolerant. -Sir Karl Popper

WHAT CAN WE DO?
By Lynn Stuter, May 19, 2009

The evidence concerning the eligibility of Also Known As (AKA) Obama to the office of president is really quite simple.

Regarding the document AKA claims is his birth certificate:

1. That document is not a birth certificate; it is a Certification of Live Birth; an entirely different document than the birth certificate.
2. No one, outside a very select group of people close to the AKA campaign, has actually seen the Certification of Live Birth document although innumerable pictures of it supposedly exist.
3. The pictures of that document that appear on the internet do not constitute legal proof of anything.
4. The pictures of the Certification of Live Birth that appear at, Daily Kos, Poliitfact.com, Fightthesmears.com, and latimesblogs.latimes.com (here, here, and here) have all been altered/forged. How do we know this? Because, as these are digital images, they are represented by digital files, ie, computer language which can be opened using a text editor program. Every digital file of these so-called "birth certificates" shows that the original digital file has been forged/altered. At this time, proof exists of at least three different computers being used to forge/alter these documents. This issue was addressed in my article, Bogus Documents Passed as Real Thing, with pictures provided of what the altered digital files disclose.
5. The Department of Health, Hawaii, has stated, emphatically, that they cannot authenticate the document that AKA is presenting as his birth certificate, which is not a birth certificate but a Certification of Live Birth.
6. The Department of Health, Hawaii, has produced no documents signed by AKA in which a request for his birth certificate or legal facsimile thereof has been made. Absent the proof that a written request was made by AKA to obtain his birth certificate or legal facsimile thereof, it can only be concluded that the COLB AKA is presenting is a forgery.
7. There has been no proof presented that AKA was not born in Kenya as his step-grandmother claims, making him, at birth, a British citizen under the British Nationality Act of 1948; in 1961 Stanley Ann Dunham Obama was not of sufficient age to have conferred her citizenship to AKA if he was born in Kenya.
8. Not one member of Congress has seen, touched, or examined AKA's actual long form birth certificate issued at the time of his birth.
9. Not one member of Congress has seen, touched, or examined the Certification of Live Birth that AKA is presenting as his birth certificate.
10. Not one member of Congress knows, with certainty, where or when AKA was born.

The issue of AKA's birth certificate and place of birth, however, becomes moot in consideration of the following:

1. AKA has stated that he was, at birth, a dual citizen. His admission to this is on his own factcheck.org website. This precludes him from eligibility as the Founding Fathers made it quite clear that Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 did not extend to individuals of dual loyalty, ie, dual citizenship, themselves excluded under the particular part of Clause 5 which reads "or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution …"
2. On January 1, 1967 AKA was enrolled in the Fransiskus Assisi Primary School in Jakarta, Indonesia. The picture of that registration was taken by an Associated Press photographer, Tatan Syuflana, released on January 24, 2007 and appears at DailyLife.com. This picture shows AKA's name as Barry Soetoro (not Barack Hussein Obama); his father as Lolo Soetoro (not Barack Obama, Sr as shown on the COLB, the authenticity of which is in question), his citizenship as Indonesian (not American). There has been no documents provided that AKA had his name legally changed from Barry Soetoro to Barack Hussein Obama. This indicates that Barry Soetoro is his real name and Barrack Hussein Obama is an alias. The divorce papers of Lolo Soetoro and Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro indicate two children: 1 minor (Maya Soetoro) and one over 18 (Barry Soetoro). This indicates that Barry Soetoro is the legal child of Lolo Soetoro, if only by adoption.
3. In late 1981, AKA, by his own admission, traveled to Pakistan and Indonesia. Could AKA have traveled on an American passport? The answer to that question is no. In 1981, Pakistan was on the U.S. State Department's no travel list. This means that AKA had to have traveled to Pakistan on a foreign passport. If AKA had been, at birth, a United States Citizen, he could have reclaimed his citizenship at the age of 18. That he traveled to Pakistan in 1981, at the age of 20, on a foreign passport means that he was not, at the age of 20, an American citizen; that he did not, at the age of 18, reclaim his American citizen (if he had a right to reclaim it in the first place). This means that the most AKA can be is a naturalized American citizen. There is no proof that he is even that. Such precludes him from eligibility under Article II, Section I, Clause 5, United States Constitution.

People ask, "What can we do about this?" The courts, both state and federal, have refused to address the issue. We hear rumors that judges, Supreme Court Justices, and elected representatives in Congress have been told to leave the issue alone, to not address it.

If that is the case, as I and many others suspect it is—if by no other evidence than the consistent refusal of the courts and Congress to address this issue, such should be a very clear message to the American people that …

1. They did not elect AKA; the election was fixed; vote fraud was rampant. In the day and age of electronic voting machines that can be programmed to insure a specific outcome, this is highly likely. What this also means is that the claim that 66,000,000 people voted for AKA is bogus, that the number who actually voted for AKA could actually be quite low.

2. The people "elected" (remember that when elections are fixed via programming of electronic voting machines, the winner is selected, not elected) to serve in Washington, DC, represent no one but those who selected them; in this case the same shadow government that selected AKA.

On May 15, 2009, Michigan News published an excellent article by Sher Zieve entitled The Fast and Furious Growth of the Obama Dictatorship. In that article Zieve provided a list of despotic actions, taken by AKA, to destroy this nation:

1. Forced impoverishment of the US population (it’s easier to control the poor than it is the rich).
2. Full power of US government to be exerted against Obama opposition.
3. End of legal contracts—­IE Chrysler bondholders—­if Obama doesn’t like them.
4. HUGE political pay back to Obama’s friends and gutting of economy for We-the-People taxpayers.
5. Obama-supporting/opposition-suppressing youth goon squads being put in place.
6. Enforced limited or non-existent free speech.
7. Enforced limited or virtually non-existent citizen mobility.
8. Obama-determined US workers’ monetary compensation.
9. Obama and his officials to determine who is allowed to live and who should die.

I will add one more to that list:

10. total disarmament of the American people such that defense against Obama's tyrannical policies is not possible.

On April 29, 2009, Representative Peter King (D-NY) introduced H.R. 2159. This bill sets about to deny the right to keep and bear arms to anyone who is "appropriately suspected" of being a terrorist.

But, you rationalize, terrorists wear white robes and live in places like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and Iraq; they have weird sounding names and are associated with al-Qaida, Islamic fundamentalists and Osama bin Laden. Why wouldn't we want to keep firearms out of the hands of these types?

Understand that how you define "terrorist" is not how AKA—bowing in fealty to the royalty of Saudi Arabia, kissing up to the leaders of the Middle East, and more than strongly suggesting his worldview finds basis in Islam—define "terrorist."

According to reports put out by AKA and minions, being the denigrators of all that is America (including freedom) that they are, the paradigm has been shifted.

Remember that under a paradigm shift, that which was down is now up, and that which was up is now down.

As such, according to AKA and minions, foreigners intent on destroying America are not terrorists, they are "man-caused disasters" (undoubtedly, according to AKA and minions, the fault of the United States) while you are a terrorist if you oppose the Marxist policies of AKA, as duly noted in various documents put out under their aegis. Those documents can be read here, here, and here (requires Adobe reader).

This, of course, places you under the heading "appropriately suspected" terrorist; giving the government the right to deny you your Second Amendment Rights.

Remember the words of a wise man — he who is willing to give up freedom for security will, in the end, lose both freedom and security (Benjamin Franklin, paraphrased).

Following in the footsteps of Bush—the man AKA scorned vociferously before being elected, AKA and his minions are playing on the fear of the America people—of what "might happen"—to take from them their rights. This is the schmuck who said, a few short months ago, that he would not operate on fear. Just another lie told by a snake oil salesmen who has told so many lies that it's hard to keep up with them all.

On May 13, 2009, Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), known for her opposition to the Second Amendment, introduced H.R. 2401. This bill sets about to deny the right to keep and bear arms to anyone who ends up on the "no fly" list. The bill is called the "No Fly, No Buy Act of 2009."

No due process, no need to prove you are actually a threat to the people of this nation, your rights will be denied if you end up on a no fly list for whatever reason, whether by some joker at the airport that didn't like the way you looked or some government hack making the kind of mistake they are prone to making!

There is, of course, no end to the possibilities this slippery slope provides. The bottom line is that this is back-door gun control and the intention is to disarm the American people.

People continually ask what can they do.

I will ask people, in response,

1. Do you want to live under the oppressive Marxist government that AKA is rapidly establishing with the help and support of Congress?
2. Do you truly believe that someone as greedy for power as AKA is going to back off if asked nicely to do so?
3. Do you truly believe that, given their track record of ignoring the Constitution, Senators and Representative to Congress are going to stand by their oath to protect and defend the United States Constitution?
4. Do you truly believe judges, given their track record in dismissing cases out-of-hand brought regarding AKA's eligibility to the office of president, are going to stand by their oath to protect and defend the United States Constitution?

If your answer to these questions is no, then you already know what the answer to this unfolding situation is.

This is our country. It is not AKA's country. The evidence shows that he is not even a citizen of this country. For those in Congress who have refused to stand by their oath to protect and defend the United States Constitution, this is also not their country. In refusing to protect and defend it, they are nothing short of traitors. The same is true of the judges.

As established (and irrespective of AKA's ignorant remarks to the contrary), the power in this country flows from God to the people to the government, establishing inalienable rights; the legitimate government being of the people, by the people, and for the people.

HE IS A REPLICANT!!! OF THE ARMY -- OF THE NIGHTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

All of you seem to get very easily distracted by nonissues, and delight in proffering fallacy as argument. All the goofball yammering does is confuse a fairly straightforward issue.

We don't choose who the president is. Face that.

Obama is not your friend. Face that.

If you find yourself turning handsprings to defend him, you're no better than the Bushies you claimed to revile, asshat blue - in fact, you're worse, because you pretend you're more "moral" somehow than the crapulent, retarded, and vile villains parading around calling themselves "Republicans".

If you get all het up about procedural and legal shenanigans, red, shut the fuck up forever and for the sake of sanity shoot your ridiculous hypocritical face off *now*. Or call Dick to do it for you. You had your chance - 8 fucking years worth - to speak up. You didn't. Shut the fuck up, now. You sucked; you failed your country, and you continue to do so.


Concentrate on the facts: paying attention to this shit as anything other than the evidence that revolution is far past due is *slavery* and it's happening because you're all *weak* and *stupid*. You're easily led cattle and mooing now is nothing more than your typical impotent anxiety as you step, step, step closer to the abattoir.

Obama's addressing the world in *religious language*, pro-bamas. WTF is wrong with you? Outcry, *now* or shut the fuck up forever and *no crying* when the whirling blades chop you up into dog food. Is he fixing health care? Is he hounding the criminals? Is he rebuilding our economy? Is he fixing Louisiana? Is he restoring sanity to the government?

Why are you all turning handsprings to defend him?

Obama's hardly any worse - in fact, far less worrisome - than the heroes you anti-bamas trot around the corral. Ron Paul? Then *never* pretend you think Sotomayor is too racist for SCJ. Newt? I *knew* your brains couldn't hold water for more than a few seconds to parrot some shitheaded talking point a là the colon-stopped limp-cocked druggie, Limbaugh. Going Gault? Fucking hurry up about it, then. Get. Out. I'd expand on this but your team doesn't do well with nuance or vocabulary.

If you think the US federal gov is anything but the psychopathic asshole holding your leash, you're an idiot.

Face that. Shut up until you understand it.

BETWEEN THE LINES
Why Obama wants
to hide birth certificate
Exclusive: Joseph Farah explains how words
of Barack himself belie natural born citizenship

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: June 16, 2009
1:00 am Eastern



By Joseph Farah



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Since I began my quixotic campaign to uncover Barack Obama's birth certificate, many have asked me about the president's possible motives for hiding it with such tenacity and diligence.

I think there are many plausible motives:

Perhaps something in that birth certificate, if it indeed exists, would contradict assertions Obama has made about his life's story. These might even involve his true parental heritage. Without a real birth certificate, no one really knows who his parents were. So it is ridiculous even to speculate about whether citizenship could be conferred upon him by his mother, when we don't know for sure who his mother is.


Perhaps it reveals a foreign birth, as Hawaii allowed for in 1961 while still issuing the "certification of live birth" we have seen posted on his website.


Or perhaps it will show just what Obama has claimed all along – a birth in Hawaii to two officially non-citizen parents, for the purpose of establishing "natural born citizenship" under the Constitution.
What do I mean by that last possibility?

Well, as you know, in 2008, the Senate of the United States held hearings to determine if one of the presidential candidates fulfilled the requirement of being a "natural born citizen." It wasn't Barack Obama. It was John McCain, who was born on a U.S. military base overseas to two U.S. citizens.

Start your own elibibility billboard campaign in your neighborhood with WND's new yard signs, asking: "Where's the Birth Certificate?"

On April 10 of last year, two senators, both Democrats, Patrick Leahy of Vermont and Claire McCaskill of Missouri, introduced a resolution into upper house expressing a sense of the Senate that McCain was indeed a "natural born citizen."

It's interesting what Leahy had to say on the subject: "Because he was born to American citizens (emphasis added), there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen. I expect that this will be a unanimous resolution of the U.S. Senate."

And, indeed it was. It was also, interestingly, the only such hearing held by the Congress on the subject of "natural born citizenship" and its application to the 2008 presidential race. Why was that interesting? Because everyone involved in this process knew – or should have known – that the life story told by Barack Obama would raise far more doubts about his eligibility than McCain's.

Notice Leahy did not say one parent citizen would qualify a child for "natural born citizenship." He indicted it would take two to tango.

He did so again at a Judiciary Committee hearing April 3, when he asked then-Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, a former federal judge, if he had any doubts about McCain's eligibility to serve as president.

"My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen," Chertoff responded – again underlining the fact that both parents would need to be citizens.

And what did Leahy say to that? "That is mine, too."

By the way, Obama voted for this resolution, so he obviously agrees with the definition of what constitutes a "natural born citizen" – the offspring of two U.S. citizens.

Now, I don't know who Barack Obama's parents are, because I have never seen his birth certificate. All I've seen is a facsimile of a "certification of live birth" on the Internet. That document, even if genuine, proves nothing about Obama's birth in Hawaii or who his parents were. Hawaii had a very slipshod practice in 1961 of issuing these documents to babies born outside the country and listing parents who may not have been the parents at all.

But I do know who Barack Obama claims his parents were. According to him, neither one of them was an American citizen able to confer natural born citizenship on a child. One, Barack Obama Sr., was a foreign national from Kenya, and the other, Stanley Ann Dunham, was too young to have qualified under the law for bestowing that privilege on her son, even if the father had been a citizen and even in the unlikely event Obama was actually born in Hawaii!

So, if we are to take Obama at his word, he is not a natural born citizen and not eligible to serve as president.

(Column continues below)


If he is to be judged by the same standard as his opponent in the race, there is no way he qualifies. That's what Leahy said. That's what Chertoff said. That's what the law says.

A logical question naturally follows: Why didn't the Congress of the United States hold hearings on Obama's eligibility when they did so on McCain's eligibility?

I'm still trying to figure that one out. Maybe the answer is this simple: Because there's no way Obama would have qualified.

Another logical question follows: Why is this man still serving in the White House and turning the country upside down when he is not even constitutionally eligible?

That's the heart and soul of the campaign I've been running.

By the way, further establishing that it was impossible for Obama to have been a "natural born citizen" are some astonishing words found on his own campaign website. They indicate that Obama was "at birth" a citizen of Kenya and a subject of Great Britain. Why did the founders insist upon a "natural born citizen" clause in the Constitution? To avoid questions of divided loyalties. (Just scroll down the webpage and read the FactCheck.org excerpt to see this amazing admission for yourself.)

So, again, I ask: Why doesn't Obama want to reveal his real birth certificate? Because he wants this discussion of eligibility to go away – once and for all. It is a vulnerability he cannot explain away. So he would rather not discuss it at all.

But let me remind you all, in case you hadn't considered this: Obama plans to run for re-election in 2012. And that's why we can never, ever let this matter rest.
www.wnd.com/index.php