How Obama Jr. Makes Hitler Jr. Eligible

PDF   How Obama Makes A Nazi President Possible

Pushing a Travesty into the Spotlight

How Obama Jr. Makes Hitler Jr. Eligible
Obama defenders have always claimed that the unvetted, unsigned, unsealed image of a birth certificate posted online is definite, incontestable, confirmed proof that Barack Obama was really born in Hawaii, and… that his supposed native-birth makes him a natural born citizen, and… thus a legitimate President.  But those positions have always been accompanied in my mind with the unspoken presence of his American mother being a part of the equation.
Well, after all of this long period of debunking their position, I’ve seen something in a different light than in the past.  I’ve seen their position without the presence of his American mother.  I’ve seen his political nature not attached to an American but to a Kenyan mother, -or a Nazi mother.
That is not something I’ve ever considered before in an up-front way, although I’ve shined a flashlight on the possibility as it lurched in a corner, but never dragged it out onto center stage into the spot light.
Well. it’s about time that that was done.  It has to be done because the Obamunists are getting away with a position that nobody in their right mind could support, -and which no nation on Earth does support.  It’s the position that total aliens can produce and deliver a child on domestic soil and, regardless of where and how it was raised, it will be fully eligible to command all of the military power of the nation one day.
Note that we aren’t talking about loyal, obedient law-abiding legal immigrants.  We are talking about any aliens except ambassadors, whether legal, illegal, friendly, hostile, domiciled or transient.
I’ve often given an example of General Custer, (-sent to crush the Sioux Nation) whose pregnant wife (accompanying his army) delivers George Jr. on Sioux land, making him a member of the Sioux tribe by native-birth, and therefore eligible to one day be Chief of the nation and lead it in battle.
That absurdity is on the tribal level, but it’s time to focus on an example on the national level.  How absurd is the doctrine that native-birth alone makes one eligible to command all of the federal, military, and nuclear forces of the United States?
Before spelling out a Nazi hypothetical, first consider a typical, everyday hypothetical.
If Obama Sr. and his Kenyan wife were flying from Africa to Canada, and their plane made a refueling stop-over in Chicago, and she gave birth there, then by the insane position promulgated by the Left, her Chicago-born son, who might never set foot on U.S. soil, would be considered to be a natural born American because of a logic-perverting ancient English common court ruling in 1608 which violated national English law by linguistically subverting it. (the Calvin case)
Now here’s one of the most gigantic absurdities in U.S. legislative-political history.  From the founding of the nation until the Attorney General in 1898 reinterpreted the Supreme Court’s reinterpretation of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause, alien-born minors in America were not considered to carry the latent responsibilities of CITIZENS because they, through their foreign father, were not subject to the political authority of the United States even when they reached adulthood, (since they were still aliens).  And that was why they remained aliens (although not in all states since some granted their citizenship to native-born children of immigrants.)
Being subject to a foreign power meant that one was not wholly and solely subject to the political, civic, and military authority of the United States government.  But… being subject was one of two requirements in order for the alien-born to be citizens.  First of course was native-birth, but subjection, -full subjection, was the other, and they were not at all subject as citizens are subject.
But the Supreme Court ruled (6-2) that alien-fathered native-born children are citizens, -thereby settling an unsettled issued that Congress had failed to address for over a century since it was a State matter under the U.S. 9th and 10th Amendments.  The Court, in effect, wrote law instead of interpreting it, and it did that by reinterpreting what subjection entailed, -down-grading it to mere civil authority from full authority which included national defense (military service), -doing so without any constitutional authority.
That was both good and bad.  Bad from the stand-point of the rule of law, -good from the social stand-point that native-born children needed to be not treated as aliens, -as inferiors or outsiders in the only society of which they were members.
That was a breach of constitutional fidelity perhaps akin to the Louisiana Purchase, -for which the President had no constitutional authority either.
But where the train went off the tracks was when that Attorney General (John Griggs) took their ruling (Wong Kim Ark, 1898) which only applied to native-born children of immigrants, and applied it to all babies delivered on U.S. soil, -not just legal immigrants but also  illegal immigrants, and temporary transients (migrants, tourists, visitors, guests).
By that massive expansion and perversion of the 14th Amendment and the high court’s ruling, only children of ambassadors are not, by his institutionalized national policy, considered to be U.S. citizens, -even if the mother is only on U.S. soil long enough to push out a baby and secure a birth certificate.
Okay, that is bad enough, -every foreign but U.S.-born Tom, Dick, & Harry is illegitimately considered to be a citizen of the United States, but the perversion does not stop there.  It gets worse!
The Obamacrats go even one step beyond the perversion of the Attorney General.  They claim that George Custer Jr. is eligible to be Chief of the Sioux Nation!  They claim that the U.S. born nephew of King George III or Adolph Hitler can be eligible to be President after reaching 35 years of age and living in the U.S. for 14 years!
I challenge anyone to come up with anything more absurd.  And yet, without ever admitting to it publicly, without ever promoting it openly, that is exactly what they do and must endorse in order for their golden son of Hawaii and Chicago to be eligible to be the American President.

    Anybody born in the U.S. whose father is not a foreign ambassador, -even children of foreign Consul Generals, is an AMERICAN!  And even worse, every such American can be PRESIDENT! (no matter how alien, evil, primitive, totalitarian, or even hostile the culture and society and religion and government is where one is raised and indoctrinated.
The Founding Fathers DIDN’T CARE!!  Obviously.  Let ANYONE be President! -as long as they are not some untrustworthy foreigner who has come half-way around the world, labored to learn English, -to learn and understand American history and culture and values, be a part of American society, after shedding their blood in America’s military, -after swearing ALLEGIANCE, to Bear Arms to defend the nation, -renouncing all loyalty to any and every foreign power.
Those people can’t be trusted, but the alien-born, foreign-raised, foreign-indoctrinated children of fuel-stop-delivered “anchor-baby” mothers are perfectly acceptable candidates to lead the American nation and Armed Services.  Ability to speak English? Not  required.  Knowledge of American history and principles?  Completely optional.
And what’s really disturbing is that the insane Obama defenders cannot even acknowledge that their promotion of such a national policy is straight out of the Twilight Zone!  -not the U.S. Constitution.
Okay, so that’s the basis of an average hypothetical situation. Now let’s consider the just-as-possible extraordinary situation, -one involving Adolph Hitler’s hypothetical wife and child.

In the 1930s depression, the American Nazi Party formed and drew a lot of people to its themes of staunch nationalism and racial superiority.  Suppose that a married Hitler sent his pregnant wife to the U.S. in the mid-1930s, to address a rally of the burgeoning party that drew all of its inspiration from him and his movement.
Suppose that she stayed long enough to give birth in America, before returning to Nazi Germany.  Suppose her first-born son would grow up to be tall, handsome, smart, charming and charismatic.
Suppose that Hitler had not made the 10 strategic mistakes (enumerated in a cable-channel history program that I watched) which cost him the war.  Suppose he made none of them, and left the conduct of the German control of Europe in the hands of his capable German military high command, -and had never stabbed Stalin in the back by invading Russia.
Everything would have been different.  Europe would have been impregnable.  The German Air Force would not have been almost destroyed over Britain by British stealth manufacturing of large numbers of new and faster planes.  In other words, his military could have and would have stopped the D-Day invasion in its tracks.

The Third Reich would have seemed to maybe be capable of enduring for “a thousand years”.  What would have been the upbringing of his son?  What son on Earth would have been more proud of his father’s accomplishments, especially when raised in his shadow, and awash in the adulation he received.  He would have been well groomed all through his youth to one day replace his father, like a royal heir to the German throne of power.
Suppose that he was raised among German-American expatriates and learned to speak like an American.  Suppose that Nazi collaborators in the American Nazi Party created and maintained a cover identity for him in the U.S. by using one of their own sons who, when the time was right, when Adolph Jr. was grown, would step aside so that he could adopt that identity after being smuggled into the U.S.
Suppose the war reached a stalemate and equilibrium, and fear of German infiltraters subsided.  Suppose Adolph Jr. one day ran for the State Senate in his State, and later for the U.S. Senate, followed quickly by a run for the White House, -as did one certain unvetted son of a non-immigrant alien named Barack Obama.
Suppose he won the presidency and all of the American media loved him and served to protect whatever the heck his actual background was, -as co-conspirators, or as sycophantic Kool-Aid drinkers.  With enough people not asking any questions, and enough people ignoring any questions asked, he was able to skip down the primrose path right into the Oval Office, primed to assume the power of the Commander in Chief.

That would be a travesty of gigantic proportions against the American people, nation, and sovereignty.  Now here’s where it gets even worse.  Suppose that he never hid his identity.  Suppose that he skated on the path paved by his father’s infamous notoriety in order to gain attention, -which he could then leverage via enormous charm and speaking ability to secure a popular following and loyalty, while keeping his upbringing and actual allegiance totally secret.
What is scary about that scenario is that the obamatrons totally support the eligibility of such a man.  His loyalty to America, in their eyes, must be presumed to exist even in the absence of any evidence whatsoever.  His mere birth within U.S. borders alone must, as in absolutely MUST! be accepted as completely constitutionally legitimate, -regardless of whatever the Constitution means by requiring that the President & Chief Commander  be “no person except a natural born citizen”.

By their demented assertion, ALL native-born persons who aren’t ambassadors’ children are all natural born Americans regardless of whether or not their father and mother were Native Americans (pre-citizenship) aliens, transients, Gypsies, sons of foreign military commanders with whom we are at war, or Martians.
By their pathological reasoning, EVERYBODY CAN BE PRESIDENT! (almost)  The Founding Fathers didn’t care!

They suffered enormously for Liberty, but were unwilling to protect it with even a simple little precaution that would have excluded less than one percent of the population.

Why not accept both the citizen-born and the alien-born?  Let’s just open the doors of the White House wide to every son of every foreigner as long as their father isn’t an ambassador or an invader.

Is your father the brother or first cousin of King George III?  No problem!  You qualify!  Just be a presumed American citizen by exiting your mother’s womb on U.S. soil.

Can’t you grasp that that is a perfectly rational measure to determine who should be allowed to take the reins of  America’s Armed Forces and all of her nuclear weapons?  What could go wrong?

Would you be a panty-waist who wouldn’t put equal access for all U.S. born persons ahead of national security? What right do you or the founding fathers have to worry about a slim possibility that disloyalty might threaten it?

[Alexander Hamilton’s writing in Federalist No. 68:

“Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.

How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union?”

– Alexander Hamilton.]

Who made you the national nanny to be concerned that “natural” actually means natural and not native-born?

You need to just butt out, you big butt-insky.  Why shouldn’t the alien-born be welcomed with open arms into the wide-open doors of presidential eligibility?  After all, it’s not like the founders and framers were deliberately trying to exclude a whole class of American citizens (albeit a tiny one).

Just look at the language they used; -it embraces just about everyone as long as their birth, like a natural bowel movement, occurred on U.S. soil.  Let’s see what the Constitution says and then you’ll be shut-up for good.  It says,… hmmm… What?  “NO PERSON except a natural born citizen”???

Is this some kind of a joke?  Did someone switch the words of the presidential eligibility clause on me?  It’s supposed to be inclusive!

What’s this “No person” crap?  What gave them the right to discriminate?  Oh, I know!  They meant no person who was a foreigner by birth on foreign soil.  Yeah, that’s it!

No son of a President (who was also a son of a President) but who was born just across the Canadian border in a nearby hospital, can be assumed to not be a traitor and disloyal to a country that he wasn’t even born in.  Yeah, I’ll salute that.  Run it up the flag pole!

If you aren’t a citizen by soil, then you have little attachment to a land that’s not where your mother’s womb was when you exited it.  Right?
All talk about being a citizen by blood is just hooey.  Borders trump blood any day.
You know full well that if you were not born on your parents’ property, then you are not their natural off-spring.  You are just an adopted child thanks to the generous permission of the law.
Only if THE LAW says that you are their “natural” child can you be viewed as being that.
Born in a hospital?  Tough luck.  You are an alien to your family cause the hospital was not on your parents’ sovereign property.  It was foreign territory, so you are a foreigner.  That’s life, chump.  Get used to it.  You’re adopted.

by adrien nash  march 2014  obama–nation.com

Advertisements

About arnash
“When you find yourself on the side of the majority, it’s time to pause and reflect.” - Mark Twain - Politicians and diapers - change 'em often, for the same reason. "Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other." Ronald Reagan "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley, Jr. “The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell The people are the masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it. Abraham Lincoln “Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.” - George Orwell “Satan will use a lake of truth to hide a pint of poison”.

19 Responses to How Obama Jr. Makes Hitler Jr. Eligible

  1. The Magic M says:

    > unvetted, unsigned, unsealed image of a birth certificate

    … that just happens to have been confirmed by Hawaii to two different SOS’s.
    Which other presidents had their birth state confirm the authenticity of their birth records to any state? Please name them.

    > Suppose that he never hid his identify.

    (I suppose you meant “identity”.)
    Well, if the people elect somebody they know is the son of Hitler/bin Laden/whoever, that is their God-given right. The only limitation the Founders installed was that you can’t just naturalize and become President.
    Besides, as I’ve pointed out before, the son of Charles Manson is an NBC even by your wrong standards. So parentage does not guarantee allegiance, nor does it rule out allegiance.
    The Founders explicitly did away with the royal provisions of the English Crown, namely that parentage decides who you can be (only the offspring of kings/queens can be king/queen).

  2. Burnell L. Harrison says:

    Yes, if Hitler Jr. was born in Hawaii to an American mother, then he would be an American Citizen at birth. So he could run for president. So what? You are free to vote for him or not.

    We do not chose leaders by genealogy in America. That was done in Europe, but not here.

    • arnash says:

      He could run but you would not be free to vote for him because that is a violation of the Constitution. I know exactly what you are saying under your traitor’s breath, and it is “-to Hell with the Constitution!”
      Your treason to the Constitution is revealed by your forked tongue speech labeling Hitler Jr. born in Hawaii as “an American Citizen” and not a natural born citizen.

      Well, by the 14th Amendment, he would be alien-born and not subject to the sovereign authority of the United States since he would be subject instead to the authority of his father’s own homeland by his national law, and by international law and treaties.

      His mother’s citizenship is irrelevant in U.S. births. The legislation written for them only covers foreign births. Read it and learn. No U.S. statute provides citizenship for foreign-fathered children born in the U.S. They fall between the cracks since they are not legitimately covered by the 14th Amendment, no matter how many ignoramuses are ignorant of that fact.

      • Burnell L. Harrison says:

        I do not understand what you are trying to say. Perhaps you could tell me which of my 6 simple statements that you disagree with.

        1. Yes, if Hitler Jr. was born in Hawaii to an American mother, then he would be an American Citizen at birth. (True or False?)

        2. So he could run for president. (True or False?)

        3. So what? (Is this a surprise to you? You never thought about it before?)

        4. You are free to vote for him or not. (True or False?)

        5. We do not choose leaders by genealogy in American. (True or False?)

        6. That was done in Europe, but not here. (True or False?)

        If you could be so kind as to indicate which statement(s) above that you find to be incorrect, it would be helpful for me in my effort to try to figure out what you are objecting to in your reply.

        Thanks.

      • arnash says:

        Presidents are chosen on the basis of genealogy. Their direct ancestors (their mother and father) must both be American citizens. Foreign citizen are forbidden because they cannot produce a natural citizen. At best they can produce a legal citizen.

        The question of Hawaiian birth is an invalid question because of its innate ambiguity. It has no defined meaning under the law because the determination of the law is not based on birth location alone but also on parentage. That is made plain in the 14th Amendment.

        It requires that one be born subject to the full sovereign authority of the United States government, but only American citizens and legal immigrants are fully subject according to the Wong Kim Ark SCoTUS opinion, so only their children are subject as well.

        Without that subjection, their children do not qualify for citizenship since they are natural members of a foreign nation, society, and culture, -born to members who live there.

        The U.S. government follows a policy that violates U.S. law since it goes far beyond what the high court allowed. That policy, in effect, declares everyone subject and therefore a citizen. That is an asinine error of huge proportions.
        I don’t know if it was a deliberate bastardization of the court’s opinion or was simply stupidity or ignorance. The person who made it has been dead since 1927 so we can’t ask him.

        “We” can’t vote for a man who is constitutionally prohibited from serving or else we are siding with anarchist who don’t believe in the rule of law. Or… if we are really, really juvenile then we can just do anything that we want and we don’t have to feel responsible for ourselves as adults.

      • Burnell L. Harrison says:

        Thanks. I think I am beginning to see where you are coming from. Genealogical requirements for leaders were the norm in the Monarchal Old World, but we fought a revolution to get rid of Monarchy, and there is no evidence for us to believe that the Founding Fathers viewed the remnants of that system with anything other than revulsion. It seems to me that the revival of the old system would lead to all sorts of difficulties and absurd situations in a country that does not have formally recognized nobility.

        To begin with, a very large proportion of people do not even know who their father is. If the characteristics of the father were required to be known, no orphan could be allowed to run for president. (Is this what you believe?)

        What would happen (hypothetically, say) if one of Bush’s opponents, say Gore or Kerry had claimed that Bush’s true father was someone that his mother knew in England rather than the elder Bush? Would you be in favor of a DNA test?
        Thanks.

      • arnash says:

        “If the characteristics of the father were required to be known, no orphan could be allowed to run for president. (Is this what you believe?)” Required means required. That would exclude all who could not provide the information.

        But by natural law, nationality flows from the head of the family to the children. If the mother is the head, then her nationality is passed to her children since no father is known, -or is deceased before birth.

        The Bush hypothetical involves a conundrum between science and sociology and which one is dominant within a nation or its law.
        A father who is believed to be his child’s father is legally presumed to be the father, thus without proof that he isn’t, there would not be sufficient justification to demand a DNA test.
        There would be no standing unless the claim was made by a man claiming to be the father. Even then, the spirit of the principles of natural law would dictate that a father does not have to expose himself and his child to claims based purely on the justification of a biological link that is not known to be the one and only possibility due to lack of proximity of the father to his wife during the conception period.

        It gets really confusing when you step out of what the spirit of the principle of natural inheritance is and into the realm of pure science, but governments have to do so in order to determine nationality in cases of en vitro fertilization and surrogate mothers and sperm and egg donors. The rule written into law is that bloodline is followed if known, including the source of sperm and egg.

        The one situation that is beyond discretion is when both are from the married parents, regardless of surrogacy. That results in natural inheritance. If either sperm or egg is not of the parents, then citizenship and family membership is via legal statute and not natural law.

      • Burnell L. Harrison says:

        Thanks for taking the time for a detailed reply. You are already aware that your beliefs are those of a very small minority, but you are to be commended for working them out to their logical conclusions.

        This is what I also ran into with Natural Law Theory, which starts out so promising and elegant at a high level, but quickly degenerates into unworkable details when one tries to apply it to the real world. Obviously, any theoretical framework that would exclude orphans from running for office is a non-starter in the modern world.

        I note that, of the top 5 Republican candidates in the CPAC Poll, 3 are already known to have foreign fathers. So it is likely that your beliefs will be put to the test once more in the next election. I think we both know what the outcome of that test will be.

      • arnash says:

        I’m not familiar with Natural Law Theory. One need not be to know what the laws of nature are. Natural situations adhered to natural rules of nature, but of course unnatural situations do not. Hence the need for imposed rules to accommodate the unusual. Those rules are human rules. No one who is a citizen by human rules is eligible to be President, -as a rule, but there are of course limbos where nothing is as it should be, as in the case of orphans of unknown parentage.
        In such a case, humans have discretion and leeway to chose the outcome because no rules apply since there is no blood test for nationality.
        There are two perspective in viewing the essence of the natural born citizenship clause. It is an exclusionary clause which first off excludes everybody, so if you take that perspective, then their focus was on who was being excluded, more than on who was being included.
        Those being excluded most forcefully were those born with foreign alienage, with natural direct foreign connections and bonds of attachment through the ones who produced them and through where they were born and raised if born abroad.

        With that view, a stateless orphan would have no such alienage and attachments, so there would be no reason whatsoever to rigidly exclude such a person in adulthood. Not having known American parents would not mean that such a child would have foreign parents. So you can see, discretion would be in order for the sake of reason and fairness.

  3. arnash says:

    Hawaii has never legally, officially “confirmed” to anyone that Barack Obama was born in a Hawaiian hospital. To do so would require displaying and submitting for examination an original Hawaiian hospital Certificate of Live Birth from August 1961, but since one has never existed, they can’t show one, obama can’t authorize them to show one, and they can’t release a TRUE COPY instead of the Abstract copy that was created like all such documents, in a software program using imagery from microfilm records.

    Your lame massaging of words does not give them any solidity nor validity. “Confirmed” may impress a seven year old, but in the real world everyone knows full well that until a thing in verified by impartial witness experts, it is not believable when “confirmation” is given by politically-beholden insiders hired as loyal party hacks who will do the party’s bidding.

    “The Founders explicitly did away with the royal provision…that [royal] parentage decides who you can be.”

    Irrelevant to the eligibility clause. It is not dependent on what is, or what was, or what should be. It’s words require citizen parentage and expressly forbids alien parentage, regardless of any and all factors. You can’t argue with the language. It is inflexible and immutable. Only an amendment can make an alien-born citizen eligible to be Commander-in-Chief. That is never going to happen except perhaps in your dreams. But don’t confuse them with reality.

    PS. No one is given an unalienable right to wield maximum power and authority over one’s equals. Citizenship comes with many rights and privileges and blessings, but the Ring of Power is not one of them. That role is a national security issue. Such trust was never meant to be placed in the hands of one born as a foreigner, just as command and control of, -and access to nuclear weapons is not allowed by any nuclear nation on earth for citizens who are not natural born citizen-born sons of the nation.

  4. smrstrauss says:

    Re: “Hawaii has never legally, officially “confirmed” to anyone that Barack Obama was born in a Hawaiian hospital. ”

    Goodness are you out of date. Hawaii has confirmed (1) that it sent the birth certificates—short form and long form—to Obama (and in fact officials of both parties did that), and (2) that ALL the facts on Obama’s published birth certificate are exactly the same, repeat exactly the same, as on what they sent to him—and one of the facts is that he was born in Kapiolani Hospital.

    In addition to the government of Hawaii, Kapiolani Hospital has now confirmed, twice (but birther sites have not shown you either of them):

    Here is a link to SOME (by no means all) of the documents in which the officials of the government of Hawaii (officials of BOTH parties) repeatedly confirm that Obama was born in Hawaii and that they sent birth certificates from Hawaii to Obama and that ALL the facts on the birth certificate put online by the White House are exactly the same, repeat EXACTLY the same, as on what they sent to him:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/01/heres-the-birth-certificate/

    • arnash says:

      Your view would be legitimate if you had an accurate grasp of what constitutes actual confirmation.
      It is not an assertion subject to lying. It is irrefutable proof.
      If a scientist or mathematician is able to confirm a hypothesis, it is only via proof, -not a claim of proof.
      No proof of anything has been presented to anyone, -so nothing has been confirmed by his lying loyal, sycophantic fans in the Hawaiian government, -fellow socialists and democrats.

      And don’t ask anyone to adopt your faux, child-like naivete about “official government” pronouncements coming from his Hawaiian supporters, -the chief of whom has died an inexplicable death, -the one who facilitated the fabrication of his forgeries.

      And don’t bother repeating the bs about the progressive Republicrat governor who was also a fan and trusted her Dept. head to not lie to her.

      Almost everything is nothing but lies, ambiguity of meaning, or obfuscation using lawyerly legalese language to avoid involving themselves in official perjury, although they have done that, but then you can’t prosecute or interrogate a dead person. How convenient.

      No one has sworn under oath to any facts. Nothing else comes even close to “confirmation”, which you are well aware of since I’ve pointed it out to you on multiple occasions. Perhaps you’ve forgotten while spending time elsewhere spreading your unending lies.

      I’ll refresh your memory; the only thing in the Hawaiian paper archive is Dunham’s hand-written affidavit claiming Hawaiian birth at home before no unrelated witness, along with a typed-up version of her stated facts. They were “registered” as “received” but not “Accepted”.

      Everything that now exists in their DIGITAL archive (data-base) is both accurate and inaccurate, and easily inserted after the counterfeit was fabricated. So I agree that the information is the same as on the unvetted, unsigned, unsealed pdf image. Whoopie! Look! My 100 dollar counterfeit bill contains the exact same information as on a real one. That has to make it real, doesn’t it? Of course it does, if you are four years old.

      Why don’t you quite wasting your time and mine spreading your transparent falsehoods here? Why don’t you read what I’ve written and… wait, I think I should assume that you avoid that because it is like Kyptonite to the Truth-center in your brain. You wouldn’t want to be exposed to that.
      The Truth is toxic to your messiah.
      You’ve built your whole house of cards on the veracity of lying liars working for Obama’s party which rules Hawaii. Such amazing credibility! Their word is like it came down from Mt. Sinai! It’s Gospel, people! Don’t you dare to question it!

      Meanwhile you utter not a single peep to discredit anything that I’ve written on any other basis than the validity of proven liars. Your intellectual dishonestly is almost astonishing.

      PS. If you dislike this exposition, you’ll hate the next one even more: “Obama’s Secret Green Card.”

  5. smrstrauss says:

    Here is the statement of the teacher who wrote home to her father, named Stanley, after being told of birth in Hawaii, in Kapiolani Hospital, of a child to a woman named Stanley:

    http://web.archive.org/web/20110722055908/http://mysite.ncnetwork.net/res10o2yg/obama/Teacher%20from%20Kenmore%20recalls%20Obama%20was%20a%20focused%20student%20%20Don%27t%20Miss%20%20The%20Buffalo%20News.htm

    • arnash says:

      I’ve already thoroughly explained all of the nuances of her statement, and no matter how you slice it, all that comes of it is that baby Barack was hospitalized in Hawaii soon after he was born.
      The Vancouver scenario I researched and wrote explains that and you know it but pretend that you don’t. You fraud.
      His mother couldn’t find an adoptive couple in Hawaii, so she had to move back to Seattle, -none there either so as a final Hail Mary she tried to find a couple in Vancouver, B.C. and did but declined to inform them that the baby would be half-black.

      When he was not accepted she was stuck with him, and left Vancouver within two days, flying back to Hawaii, probably along with her attendant mother. The baby, and maybe herself, were checked into the hospital for a few days for post-partum complications, i.e. bleeding.

      The doctor heard from someone that “a Stanley had a baby”. Who wouldn’t take note of that? That’s like a Farrah being a father.
      Now you can drop your claim that her testimony is proof of place of birth, because it proves no such thing.

      • smrstrauss says:

        Re: “The doctor heard from someone that “a Stanley had a baby”. Who wouldn’t take note of that? That’s like a Farrah being a father.”

        The doctor, Doctor West the head of Obstetrics at Kapiolani Hospital told the teacher that a woman whose first name was Stanley, and had a baby, [TAKE NOTE; NO MENTION OF WHERE SHE HAD HER BABY, BUT A LYING IMPLICATION IS PRESENTED WITHOUT ANY BASIS, THAT IT OCCURRED IN HAWAII. THAT IMPLICATION IS FALSE.]

  6. smrstrauss says:

    Re: “THAT IMPLICATION IS FALSE”

    That implication is TRUE, since not only the “Stanley had a baby” statement by Doctor West shows that Obama was born in Hawaii, but so does the public Index Data file and the birth certificate sent to the Hawaii newspapers by the DOH of Hawaii (and at the time ONLY the DOH could sent birth notices to the “Health Bureau Statistics” section of the newspapers and it only did so for births IN Hawaii)

    BUT THE TRUTH IS THAT THE ORIGINAL MICRO-FILM PHOTOS OF THOSE OLD NEWSPAPERS WERE REPLACED WITH DUPLICATES ON NEW REELS OF A DIFFERENT MAKE AND ERA. THAT WAS AFTER THE PERTINENT DAYS LISTINGS WERE COUNTERFEITED BY INSERTING OBAMA’S NAME. THERE ARE MANY HIGHLY SUSPICIOUS THINGS REGARDING THE LISTING OF THOSE NAMES, THINGS WHICH CANNOT BE LOGICALLY EXPLAINED. SO WHY WOULD ANYONE BELIEVE THAT PEOPLE WHO WOULD COUNTERFEIT THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WOULD NOT COVER ALL BASES AND FAKE THE NEWSPAPER RECORDS AS WELL? HOW INCOMPETENT WOULD THEY HAVE HAD TO HAVE BEEN?

  7. smrstrauss says:

    Re: “[TAKE NOTE; NO MENTION OF WHERE SHE HAD HER BABY, BUT A LYING IMPLICATION IS PRESENTED WITHOUT ANY BASIS, THAT IT OCCURRED IN HAWAII. THAT IMPLICATION IS FALSE.]”

    That implication is true since he was the head of obstetrics at Kapiolani Hospital, which recently has confirmed TWICE that Obama was born there. Moreover, the attempt to fool people with the notion that the head of obstetrics at a hospital was referring to a birth outside that hospital is far-fetched (to say the least).

    • arnash says:

      “That implication is true since he was the head…” Can you possibly be that stupid? What are you, seven years old? What he said has nothing to do with who he was. He only said that “a Stanley had a baby.” NO MENTION OF WHERE SHE HAD HER BABY WAS MADE, BUT A LYING IMPLICATION IS PRESENTED WITHOUT ANY BASIS, THAT IT OCCURRED IN HAWAII. THAT IMPLICATION IS NOT IMPLICIT IN THE STATEMENT. IT IS ADDED AND WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION.”

      He would have said the very same thing no matter where the mother gave birth, -whether in Vancouver or in Hawaii.

      And Kapiolani Hospital has not “confirmed” anything. Where is the certified, and signed notarized confirmation letter? Oh, it doesn’t exist. Some unknown Obama supporting desk clerk working the phones in NOT the hospital. Duffus.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: