they'll be ready to do something about it after he's already out of office!
Simple Facts and Plain Arguments
A common sense take on politics and current events.
I know it's extremely disturbing, and you probably believe there's some avenue to achieve justice - but it's highly unlikely.
I've been way down the rabbit-hole on this one.
"Obama for Action" (previously Obama for America), the non-profit which supports and defends Obama's policy initiatives, hires social networkers to "fight the smears" and "promote the truth about Barack Obama". They monitor Twitter, Facebook and use the same network of accounts, viciously attacking anyone that brings attention to Obama eligibility issues.
The counter-attacks peaked before the SCOTUS/POTUS eligibility conference that occurred this past February. Din't hear about that? You did hear Colin Powell on Meet the Press call "birthers" "racist".
After spending more time than I care to admit examining the various eligibility issues surrounding Barack Obama, I'm confident he has his bases covered:
* Before he took office, then Senator Obama and Clinton signed a resolution declaring John McCain as eligible to run for POTUS. If you read the resolution carefully, it also declares:
"Whereas the term `natural born Citizen’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;"
* If you want more background on how the Hawaii Dept of Health assisted in Obama's birth certificate fraud (and other fraudulent birth certificates!) visit "Butterdezillion" blog. Careful, your head might explode: http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/
I could go on, but it'd be a book.
Bottom line: We have Citizen who became President through fraud. The kicker is: >>>>It's not a secret in Congress<<<<.
...And two SCOTUS Justices went on record saying any potential eligibility issue will be deferred to Congress. This is why I say pursuing this is fruitless.
Would I love to see the rule of law prevail? Of course. Do I think it will happen in this case? No. It's our own fault he got into the Office. Now we suffer the consequences.
So the link is to a blog, and the guy "reporting" on the information is the same guy he is reporting about: Carl Gallups. Sounds like a self-promoter to me. A quick google of him shows he runs a you tube station and purports to be a Christian minister with patriot overtones. So, basically, his life involves blowharding around on the internet promoting his glorious self, all int he name of Jesus and the flag and the Constitution of course.
This particular piece of information happens to be not something he is doing, but what he is reporting he was told by someone else, about something that other persons (unnamed VIPs) are doing. Third hand hearsay, at best, assuming he actually heard anything from anyone and recorded it correctly. Total bullshit probability is exceedingly high, multiply by a factor of 3 for his claiming to be bringing all fo this to us for Jesus. Come on people, wise up!
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein
"Hell is empty, and all the devils are here" (Shakespeare)
RP 2012~ Intellectual Revolution.
that Obama is a mere puppet, and another will replace him. The elite are a small group but have the focused power of money on their side and as such can buy politicians and rig elections. This problem has to be dealt with. Everything else is just going around in circles.
Really? Maybe so, it does seem nearly impossible for us to expose even the puppets. But have you considered that raising the curtain (taking down the puppet) could expose the "wizard" (hidden hand)?
Why do you advocate quitting on this front when we're making progress?
"Government is the entertainment division of the military-industrial complex". - Frank Zappa
I am all for prosecuting Obama and hope justice prevails. Any ideas who will replace him?
We will have another puppet unless we DO find a way to expose the wizard behind the curtain; and that is what I see must be done as a priority. It would be great if taking out Obama changes things. Hope it does.
I think this could be the final check mate for Obama but we dont have the pieces in place to set up the final blow yet. The American people will never question Obama on anything as long as he maintains his cult of personality. Fortunately, this is quickly fading and he is being exposed as the tyrant he is. Rand's drone fillibuster was a great victory on that front as even TYT was slamming Obama over his Drone use.
If we push the birth certificate situation too early it can be spun in the media as more 'Right Wing hack' theories but if Obama reached a critial point of unpopularity and enough people are looking for a reason to nail him this could be the ace in the hole that we need.
We all share this eternally evolving present moment- The past and future only exist as inconsequential mental fabrications.
This can be pushed on the federal level by any sitting federal jury through the use of presentment.
Most federal juries are not told they have this power, but they do, and they can investigate whatever they want.
This is sometimes called a runaway grand jury, but it's a nonsense insult, because this is the way they are *suppose* to operate.
Although the way federal grand juries are picked are a little flakey now, and they are not instructed in their powers, if you can reach a sitting grand jury and convince them to investigate this and issue a presentment, it can be done on a federal level, right now.
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.
You must mean grand jury. And if you don't know the distinction, why should we trust you are correct?
I did say grand jury.
You need to read my message closer.
And you don't need to trust me. You should look up things for yourself, which I also said.
BTW: first link on google to get you on your way from what I said earlier:
Now that is funny.... He doesn't appear to be able to do much reading for himself.... That or he is a little slow.
Meanwhile, California just passed a bill in the assembly that would make illegal citizens members of the jury.
It's just as bad as the Obama thing, and completely out in the open.
The intention is to quickly destroy America. It's around us wherever we look.
What is an illegal citizen? This is not possible. Juries are not supposed to be made of "citizens" but rather We the People. Can someone please show me anywhere in our Constitution that "Citizen = People". "Citizen" (or "citizen") is not legally or lawfully equivalent to "People" or "Men". I have a deeper understanding of law and why these two entities are not equivalent and once one realizes this then everything begins to make logical sense because one then knows the WHY it is this way.
If one is very careful and diligent in there study of Constitution we can find out how absolutely beautifully congruent it is within all other Law. I challenge anyone to show me anywhere in Law where these are equivalent.
The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...
Sometimes you get what you pay for,
Sometimes you deserve exactly what you get,
Then sometimes you resign yourself to just accept what your given...
that is both parents must be citizens for ten years before your birth. Obama's daddy lives in Africa and has never been a citizen of the USA. The birth certificate is a compete fraud, anyone that looks at the evidence can't deny it.
If this would ever get any traction there would be massive demonstrations in favour of Obama, the dems do protect their own. Remember how they protected Bill Clinton.
The only legal action is through Congress. You can not prosecute a sitting President, you have to impeach him first then convict in the senate. There is no chance this will happen.
Surviving the killing fields of Minnesota
Todays brainwashing: GMO's are safe
What is your legal cite for the proposition that both parents must be citizens for 10 years before birth before one can be a natural born citizen?
At the moment of birth, both parents must be citizens in order for the child to be a natural born citizen. It doesn't matter if the parents are natural born or naturalized, they both have to be citizens at the time of birth. The child must be born on US soil.
You are correct concerning the birth certificate. I have three birth certificates from three different states, my son and daughter were born in different states and I was born in another state. All three have the seal of the state and are signed by the state registrar. Both the seal and signature are lacking on the fraud produced by the White House.
...but this forum gives me so many opportunities!
First of all, the premise is that the Arpaio theory that the birth cert is a forgery made up of layers has been questioned. I am not sure whether it is possible to determine if it is a layered forgery or not. I am not a techie. I would surmise that about 98.9% of the persons commenting in this thread are also of insufficient technical knowledge to be able to critically look at the evidence from both sides and say who is correct. And even those who have that knowledge probably don't have access to the raw material needed to make a determination one way or the other. Arm-chairing of this thing has gotten ridiculous.
Assuming that Arpaio's men have the one and only correct answer, however, this sounds like balloon juice. It just does. A group of unnamed VIPs (a pretty gray distinction there, isn't it?) who will "meet" with his people? What does that mean? Are they playing golf? Coffee at Starbucks? Or are they investigating something? Are these just media buffoons with bad multi-combovers, or are they US Attorneys and Congressmen and Senators? Somehow I suspect closer to the former and further from the latter.
And, finally, why, after all this time, well into the second term, would anything happen?
Then there is the pesky thing about the case law. What about case law that says anyone born in the US is a natural born citizen, regardless of what that term was thought to mean at some point in the distant past?
I predict this will be just like one of Orly's lawsuits - it will go nowhere slow. But that's just me.
I work in Photoshop and in Illustrator and I have downloaded the file directly from the White House site and I can assure you that the BC is made up of many layers, several different fonts and has had a fake green safety background added to it. You can download a free trail 30 day version of Adobe Illustrator and the WH file. Then without any expertise start clicking on the layer icons on the lower right pallet and you will see different parts of the document disappear and reappear. It is a sloppy patchworth quilt of obvious digital work. A scanned flat document will not and can not have these layers and no digital anomaly will create these precise type of layers. I was skeptical and that is why I found out for myself. Find out for yourself and stop being skeptical.
and more! (A worker, who learned to distinguish forged documents at L____ N____) Some of the research this friend has done has been confirmed by Jerome Corsi and others investigating the Birth Certificate issue.
"Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern." ~~C.S. Lewis
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15
...but how do you respond to the counter-argument? The image of a document online is not the document itself. As I understand it, being tech-ignorant, the scanning and duplicating and imaging acts are said to be the cause of the supposed layering. I don't doubt there are a gazillion adobe photoshop users who can look at an online file and see if it *appears* to have layers, from the comfort of their own bedroom. That doesn't answer the real question - which is why does it appear to have layers? Can you answer that?
Don't you think the original as well as the film would be subpoenaed? It better be a perfect match to what is online....
" The image of a document online is not the document itself."
And just where IS the original document???
Plus, if the copy is an accurate rendition of a real document, it proves Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen.
absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...
it is evidence. Without the seal and signature of the registrar, the document is not a certified copy of the original.
Do your own research. Purchase a copy of Illustrator, learn how to use it, and download the PDF from the White House website into Illustrator. Unless you are willing to gain some expertise which leads to asking educated questions, you sound ignorant (uneducated). Which you are...
Clearly it was not a document in its original form, it was created digitally. The smoke screen argument that has been tossed into the mix to confuse people that are none Photoshop and Illustrator people is the duplicating or creating of layers thru scanning argument. Without going into a long boring tech description the rare anomaly that some times occurs is not what is being seen here. If you will remember I chose my words clearly and said "no digital anomaly will create these precise type of layers" A digitally constructed document with layers can be printed but but scanning a printed document does not create layers when converted to a digital file. The mistake that the forger made was that after he created the the document from pieces of many documents that he did not flatten it. Meaning he left all of the evidence of his work available to be seen and back tracked. All he had to do is use the keyboard short cut of control E on a pc or command E on a Mac and we would not have so much overwhelming evidence. If you don't want to be convinced with the evidence you never will be and I can't change that. One last note, it either clearly has layers or it doesn't, there is nothing in between that "appears to be a layer" that digital state does not exist.
I admit...it takes a lot to convince me. I am thinking about what kind of evidence a court would want. A court would want to hear from experts, with known and verifiable credentials, and listen to all of the arguments and counter-arguments.
I appreciate your response in that it gives far more information than 90% of the opinionated pukes on the internet do. You sound like you might know what you are talking about. I say might, because I don't know your credentials or if what you are saying is accurate.
What is missing here, is the lack of a credible, expert opinion from the other side (and there is always another side). I know you can't provide that. So, no, I am not yet convinced.
Do you have a source to refer me to which discusses the technical aspects of this?
you wouldn't have to guess at this poster's credibility, you would know.
Jerome Corsi and Sheriff Arpaio are the credible experts, you can watch the youtube videos and see what they say at their press conferences. And yes the Sheriff can be abrasive on your nerves but I believe he and Corsi are professional, credible, scientific and have proved their case beyond any doubt. Jerome's book "Where's the real birth certificate?" is a good place to start your research. Buy a book and read and stop burning your brain out on the net. I know it is old school but give it a try.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: