For several years, an Orwellian-type fear of being “marginalized” held reporters and pundits back from questioning Barack Obama’s eligibility to hold the office of the presidency. To raise an eyebrow at the bizarre secrecy of Obama was off-limits. To question whether the historic definition of “natural born citizen” applied to Obama was taboo.
The era of fear, however, is happily winding down. It will take some time for this realization to fully take hold. But make no mistake: the tables have turned.
Like it or not, the ground has shifted, and it cannot shift back. The evidence of Obama’s forgeries is not going away.
Up until this point, Mr. Obama controlled everything, including the talking points and burden of proof.
Rather than simply produce certified paper copies for state election officials and make the original available for officials to inspect in Hawaii, Obama played games with his purported birth certificate. We were told for three years that Obama’s birth certificate had been posted online in 2008 — though it turns out that it was a scant certification. In 2010, when confronted with the alarming doubts of the American people, Mr. Obama lamented to a sympathetic Brian Williams of NBC: “I can’t spend all my time with my birth certificate plastered on my forehead.” The following year, out of left field, on April 27, 2011, Obama “released” the elusive birth certificate by posting a now-discredited file image online.
This time he wasn’t teasing. It was “proof positive.” Mr. Obama, in his robotic style, barked that it was time to stop the “silliness” and move on.
No one ever wanted Obama to get all crazy and walk around with his birth certificate plastered on his forehead. But many took the reasonable position of wanting the mysterious birth certificate produced, not plastered or uploaded to a computer. Many wanted Obama to produce certified copies for state officials and make the original available for inspection.
But because no authority forced him to comply with basic legal standards, Mr. Obama was able to create a sideshow atmosphere by selecting non-experts to verify his internet postings behind closed doors. His media sycophants were able to make those who questioned Obama’s staunch secrecy appear as the unreasonable ones. Somehow the burden of proof was erroneously placed on the citizenry to prove that Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii.
Well, the burden never actually rested with the people to prove anything. That was all smoke and mirrors. No conspiracy theories are needed to demand that Obama comply with basic legal standards — especially in context of a state with a history of certifying foreign births as Hawaiian.
After Obama “released” the birth certificate in 2011, nonpartisan computer software experts immediately recognized that the embarrassing image had been computer-assembled. Of course, few in the free press dared to report on the “silliness.” Fox News quickly summonsed Adobe-certified expert Jean-Claude Tremblayto to conclude, nothing fishy here (but his ORC explanation has been demonstrably debunked by the control-test findings of Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s investigative team — see below).
Normally, I have stayed away from commenting on the controversy surrounding President Obama’s eligibility or the legitimacy of his long form birth certificate posted on the White House website; however, because this is now a matter of court record and has been captured on court house video as well, I feel compelled to present the information as yet more evidence of the massive corruption in our country’s government.
You may recall our most recent meeting at the Red Mountain Tea Party,on April 2nd…but then again,you may not. So let me take just a moment to go over what took place.
You possibly recall my asking “What does your oath,to defend and protect the Constitution against all enemies,foreign and domestic,mean to you?”
I must say that I found your response to be quite revealing,to wit: “It means that I will support…policies…that give effect to that oath which I’ve taken;that I won’t do anything that…would…put me in a position where I’m violating that oath. That’s what it means to me.”
In order to be fair,Jeff,perhaps we could review together exactly what that oath contains. Here it is:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,foreign and domestic;that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;that I take this obligation freely,without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion;and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter:So help me God.
Oops! Looks like I misspoke,Jeff. I said “defend and protect,” when it actually reads “support and defend”! How clumsy of me…but the meaning,of course,is identical! There’s obviously more to it – “that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same,” for example,and I presume that that is what you were referencing in your eloquent answer.
My question,however,clearly went to the first stipulation of that sacred oath (which you have now had administered to you by various Speakers five times over the past ten years.) So I didn’t ask if you yourself would “support…policies…that give effect to that oath,” Jeff,but rather,“What…your oath,to defend and protect the Constitution against all enemies,foreign and domestic, means to you….”
I don’t know if you were “reading ahead,” anticipating where I was going with that question,and thus avoided answering directly…or whether you had simply not considered that critical component of your oath…”So help [you] God.” I’m sure you know the history of the oath you took,Jeff,starting with the oath taken by the very first Congress in 1779,but we’ll review it just the same.
The stipulation for such an oath was,of course (and still is,of course) contained in Article VI of the Constitution itself. Here it is:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned,and the Members of the several State Legislatures,and all executive and judicial Officers,both of the United States and of the several States,shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation,to support this Constitution….
Being very particular to follow the recently ratified Constitution,the first Congress which had sufficient Representatives present by April 1,1789,to form a quorum,appointed a committee on April 6 to draft a bill on how the oath of office was to be administered. It was entitled An Act to regulate the Time and Manner of administering certain Oaths,and was signed into law on June 1,1789,becoming “Statute I,” the first official law in the “Laws of the United States.” Here is the original language contained in the oath:
I,A. B. [a Representative of the United States in the Congress thereof,] do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States.
Apparently,the position held by the various parties taking the oath was added at some point for clarification.
On Saturday, March 31, 2012, a press conference was held by a commissioned law enforcement body to present additional findings from their investigation into the bona fides and background of a man currently occupying the highest elected position in America. The investigation not only includes the forensic irregularities of the birth documentation submitted by Barack Hussein Obama, but into two additional areas. The official law enforcement investigation is also encompassing problems confirmed to exist with the authenticity of his selective service registration, a matter we’ve previously reported. Additionally and perhaps more explosive, investigation has broadened into the actions of Hillary Clinton and her closest political operatives during the latter part of the 2008 presidential campaign.
Most people following this issue are aware of the irregularities surrounding Obama’s selective service registration. Yet few appear to be aware that detectives from the Arizona investigative team have been methodically securing affidavits documenting alleged criminal activity by the Obama campaign during the 2008 Democratic Party primary.
”Something” happened during the latter portion of the campaign that involved Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama. Recall that Obama and Clinton ditched the press and their respective staff members to meet in secret during the late night hours of Thursday, June 5, 2008 at the home of Senator Dianne Feinstein. The meeting lasted about an hour, and what was discussed was never publicly disclosed.
The expansion of the official investigation is being deliberately ignored by the mainstream media, including outlets often identified with the conservative agenda. Evidence suggests that this deliberate media “blackout” is being orchestrated and ordered at the highest levels of the American government.
Preliminary investigative findings
On March 1, 2012, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio held a press conference to announce their preliminary findings of a six-month long investigation into the legitimacy of Barack Hussein Obama’s long form birth certificate that was published on the White House website on April 27, 2011. At that press conference, Sheriff Arpaio stated that the official investigation, conducted by seasoned and sworn law enforcement officers, found “probable cause to believe that the [document] is a computer generated forgery.” Arpaio added: “I do not believe that it is a scan of an original 1961 paper document, as represented by the White House when the long-form birth certificate was made public.” [Emphasis added].
I’ve spoken at length with lead Detective Mike Zullo in my capacity as an investigator before and after that initial press conference. It is clear that the objective of his team of seasoned and sworn law enforcement officers is to seek and expose the truth about Obama’s background and legal qualifications for the highest office in the land, wherever it might lead. Authenticated evidence of any type, including exculpatory evidence is being sought as well.
Detective Zullo confirmed, however, that their efforts are being obstructed by government officials and publicly marginalized by the media. Based on most recent investigative findings, government agencies have blocked legitimate subpoena efforts or worse, might have altered or destroyed evidence with apparent impunity.
Such actions or inactions of government agencies in this regard should give pause to even the most ardent detractors of the eligibility matter if they were at all interested in the truth.
The Right Honorable Lord Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley discusses the Obama birth certificate fraud.
How is it that elected lawmakers in America, including those endorsed and supported by the Tea party, continue to remain silent on this issue? To each member of Congress who has refused to address the biggest scam ever to be perpetrated on our great republic, you have failed us. Through you silence and inaction, you continue to fail us. At the very least, you are complicit in the attempted destruction of America.
The Obama records which have not been released include; Passport records, Obama kindergarten records, Punahou School records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, University of Chicago scholarly articles, Illinois State Bar Association records, Illinois State Senate records/schedules (said to be lost), Medical records, Obama/Dunham marriage license, Obama/Dunham divorce documents, Soetoro/Dunham marriage license, Adoption records and of course the long-form Certificate of Live Birth.
Arpaio News Conference shown below
News conference at the Arizona Capitol announcing new legislation based on Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s investigation findings.
State Representative Carl Seel, who introduced the bill, was joined by Sheriff Joe Arpaio, State Senator Lori Klein, and others in support of the bill. Important new information was revealed during the news conference including a request by Sheriff Joe Arpaio to the current head of the Selective Service Board to investigate the criminal forgery committed in the case of Barack Obama’s Selective Service registration. In addition, Carl Seel reveals some of the resistance that other Republicans are creating to stop the bill from even heading to a vote.
The bill will require Barack Obama, or any candidate seeking to be on the Arizona ballot, to certify eligibility for the office they are seeking. This will essentially require Barack Obama to certify his eligibility if he wants to be on the ballot this year in Arizona. This could potentially be a game-changing piece of legislation.
We will keep pushing this story to the top of the news pile. MSM, take note you bunch of complicit panty-waste Marxist boot-lickers. Patriotic Americans will not be ignored. Obama must go. He lied, he has been puppeted and has has been a leader in the overt destruction of our constitution. We will have our justice for these crimes against America and we will get sentence in spite of those trying to hide this truth for you and your leftist agenda.
Barry Soetoro AKA Barack Hussien Obama is not eligible to hold the office of President of the United States of America, much less is he even qualified for the job and his track record has proven this to be an indisputable fact.
There was a time when someone could perhaps justify sitting on the fence on the matter of Barack Obama’s birth certificate. There were those on the left who could chalk doubts about its authenticity up to conspiratorial Internet paranoia. As for the right, there was every reason to worry about being the victims of an Alinsky-style set-up designed to marginalize opponents. In other words, let the other side double-down on an incredible claim, and then, at the most opportune time (October surprise?), provide irrefutable evidence to the contrary and make them look like deluded wackos. So, for a long time, one might have had cause to watch, wait, and let the wheels of investigation render their judgment.
That judgment is in, and the time for waiting is over.With the results of Maricopa County, AZ, sheriff Joe Arpaio’s “Cold Case Posse,” an incredible claim has become an incredible situation: a team of professional investigators, commissioned by a major law-enforcement agency, has determined that the alleged birth certificate produced by the president of the United States is a probable forgery.
Process that for a moment. The regime of the world’s most powerful nation – a republic that prides itself on adherence to the rule of law – is likely peddling a forged document. What say you, citizen?
Note that I didn’t claim the president isn’t natural-born. Rather, I claim nothing, but am only stating a fact: there is now no denying that the birth-certificate matter warrants further investigation, and it is time for other law-enforcement agencies and the media to show due diligence. And I will spell out the possibilities here:
The Arizona investigators are correct.
They are mistaken.
They are lying.
For the record, I don’t believe the last for a moment, but I do want to cover all the bases. And home plate is this: the answer may be number one or two, and it’s incumbent upon us to find out through further investigation. And, for those who dislike Sheriff Arpaio, what if the answer is three? Well, if a major law-enforcement agency is producing fraudulent evidence for the purposes of damaging a sitting president, wouldn’t that warrant investigation, too? The undeniable, irrefutable fact here is that there is smoke. And we need to find out who started the fire.
In response to these facts the left will sometimes mount an argument for why Obama is, in fact, natural-born. But this issue is at the moment secondary. And about it I will merely state that there are only two possibilities. First, if the allegedly forged birth certificate relates to the president’s natural-born status, then it’s clear that the Obama administration is more concerned about that status than are his defenders. And what if it doesn’t relate to whether the president is natural-born?
Then it relates to something else.
You don’t present a forged document for no reason. The undeniable, irrefutable fact here is that there is smoke. And we need to find out what is feeding the fire.
Remember, too, that document forgery is a crime. If you were found benefiting yourself through it, you’d be prosecuted. Should the president be held to a lower standard?
In that vast flying gaggle of fledgling verbiage-magicians, jacked journalists and giant egos like the Huffington Post, can be found about 10-15 stories about UFO’s at any time night or day. How many stories about the dozens of missing documents on Barry or the cries of fraud coming from the dozens of veteran investigators under Maricopa County’s Sheriff Arpaio – none. Yes, there have been a few but don’t ask if they were prejudiced, biased, balanced or even tacitly reasonable. Only UFO stories seem worthy of that kind of fairness.
Huff has got some great writers but it always seems like they are an entourage sent to a deep woods junkyard in the country to go around and polish up the wrecks. In the end the stories, the bias, the celebs the events and the topics covered are still a heap of wreckage from America’s junkyard of old usefuls.
Being facetious doesn’t mean you can’t be factual. What is a fact is that Huff-Po and no one else in the pain stream media has ever been forthwith, reasonable or honest since Barack Obama’s place of birth and other missing elements of his former life first came into question. Those days are beginning to vanish even in the absence of judges, election officials and states AG’s who still haven’t found their way to Grand Wizard of Oz for some courage.
The big voices and chieftains have spoken.
One video floating around the cyber community for all to see is of Bill O’Reilly saying he doesn’t have time for the questions about the birth certificate. Then he proceeds to explain that the best evidence is the two birth posts carefully posted in local newspapers in Hawaii. He does not say that his findings are to be compared with the months of concerted efforts of dozens of seasoned investigators assisting Sheriff Arpaio and their findings. We can be thankful that he is not saying that, but his silence is only more of the same, it is now failure to reckon with a not so distant rumbling volcano.
Three years of making fun of “birthers” has resulted in a long list of undignified, indecent and unkind names to describe those in search of some facts. They are called crazies, conspiracy nuts, and a plethora of names that in the end, all add up to calling them all fools.
The search for Bigfoot, UFOs and vampires!
They are added to the class of wandering wayward wonkers who are endlessly searching for the leprechauns of Galway Bay. They are seen as the next best prospect for an episode of Mythbusters, or people who should just give up and join up with the search for Bigfoot gang. They are on a level with those who really think that werewolves and vampires stalk our city streets until dawn. They are held in the same regard as those who claim to have been abducted by aliens and taken aboard UFOs.
Oddly, none of these things are mentioned in their respective websites or blogs, unlike Huff-Po, UFO reports and other speculative myths and folklore are not tolerated.
Yesterday began the “public vetting” of Barack Obama with the much anticipated release of a video referenced at CPAC by the late Andrew Breitbart. The 1990 video shows Barack Hussein Obama at a Harvard protest publicly speaking in favor of Professor Derek Bell and the hiring of more minority faculty members. At issue, apparently, is that Professor Bell is a proponent of the “Critical Race Theory,” a doctrine that, at its core, advances and deliberately exacerbates class and racial division. The footage offers proof of Obama’s early radical views and associations with proponents of controversial doctrine that appears to be facilitating our growing domestic division. Is anyone surprised?
The full video was initially featured on the Sean Hannity Show last night, along with commentary by the usual members of the “Republican Establishment” invited to emphasize its importance. It was asserted that the video is evidence of the controversial and radical agenda and associations of Barack Obama. The stated purpose of its release is to “vet” the current occupant of the Oval Office ahead of the 2012 election. Seriously?
The flawed vetting process
As an investigator involved in conducting background investigations for Fortune 500 companies, the process of vetting an individual does not begin in the person’s third year of a job. By that time, a “post-mortem” examination and assessment of the damage caused to a company by an infiltrator is usually required. It also involves an indictment, sometimes in the literal legal sense, of those responsible to vet the individual before that person assumed the position.
A serious vetting of an individual begins with the person’s full cooperation and complete disclosure who they are and what associations they’ve had during their lifetime. The reticence of an individual to provide such information is usually the first sign of trouble. Obama is a classic example of such reticence.
The vetting process should be allowed to be conducted without interference from corporate officials. In fact, the process should be aided when appropriate by corporate officials. In this case, the corporate officials can be compared to the legislative leaders of our country, for they are the gatekeepers of our national security.
Others, such as the members of the corporate media, can be compared to other company officials. While they are not directly involved in the vetting process, they have a vested interest in the success of their company or in this case, their country.
It is obvious that the political leaders from both parties and the corporate media have been complicit in permitting the vetting process to fail. But it’s even more serious than that.
Ignoring evidence
Less than a week ago, a duly commissioned law enforcement agency released a most damning report about Barack Hussein Obama. A rational person of reasonable sensibilities would think that the findings from a six-month investigation into unresolved identity issues would take precedence over the anti-climatic and underwhelming release of a short video confirming something people already knew.
With all due respect to the late Andrew Breitbart, the footage showcased by “conservative talk show host” Sean Hannity is indeed a morsel of evidence, but does not rise to the level of importance of the Arpaio report. Yet, the investigative findings have been largely ignored.
Catch Kevin
If you like facts over fiction, reality over rhetoric, and truth over tradition, tune into my radio show, “Catch Kevin: Unscripted & Uncensored!”
Chuck Baldwin Live
Dr. Baldwin’s messages from Kalispell, MT, will be livestreamed on this page every Sunday afternoon at approximately 2:30 p.m. MST.
Clash Radio
Listen to Doug Giles Live Monday – Friday at 11am – 12pm[est]
Our Sponsors
Get in on the modern Gold Rush. Call now to buy gold bars from The U.S. Gold Bureau.
![bookmark](http://island-adv.com/wp-content/plugins/share-and-follow/images/blank.gif" height=){kind=small}
Yesterday began the “public vetting” of Barack Obama with the much anticipated release of a video referenced at CPAC by the late Andrew Breitbart. The 1990 video shows Barack Hussein Obama at a Harvard protest publicly speaking in favor of Professor Derek Bell and the hiring of more minority faculty members. At issue, apparently, is that Professor Bell is a proponent of the “Critical Race Theory,” a doctrine that, at its core, advances and deliberately exacerbates class and racial division. The footage offers proof of Obama’s early radical views and associations with proponents of controversial doctrine that appears to be facilitating our growing domestic division. Is anyone surprised? 
Catch Kevin
Chuck Baldwin Live![Clash Radio Listen to Doug Giles Live Monday – Friday at 11am – 12pm[est]](http://island-adv.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/clash_logoreverse.png "Listen to Doug Giles Live Monday – Friday at 11am – 12pm[est]")
Clash Radio
