Editorial: Oct. 5, 2009 — Now Obama's Goose is double-cooked

A SYNTHESIS OF WHAT IS KNOWN INDICATES THAT OBAMA CANNOT PROVE HIS BIRTH IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM

by John Charlton

.

[Note:  The Post & Email has just published its exclusive pre-trial interview with Captain Pamela Barnett, lead plaintiff in the case to be heard today in California]

.

Obama cannot prove when or where he was born, nor who his parents were. This is the legal conclusion of the evidence he has released in his online COLB and Terrik’s investigation into terminology regarding “filed” and “received”, as well as her own, Donofrio’s, Justin Rigg’s and KingsKid’s correspondence with the Director’s office at the Hawaiian Department of Health.

What I just said may not seem new:  but to explain better here is my speculative reconstruction of what happened, based on my tweaked version of what Ramjet (www.thebirthers.org) suggested in a comment at Terrik’s blog, where I have posted this theory, in my own comment.  Here I flesh it out.

Note that this is speculation, not fact: as Leo Donofrio counsels, let’s not mix up the two, lest what we want to find keeps us from finding the truth.

WHAT SEEMS TO HAVE HAPPENED

Stanely Ann Dunham at a Friday night party on Nov. 4, 1960, meets Barrack Hussein Obama, Sr., and Barry Jr. is subsequently conceived.

Stanley Ann enrolls in the Russian Language course to give her a more reasonable motive for meeting Barrack Hussein Obama.  She subsequently admits to her mother that he is the father, and Madelyn Dunham insists on a civil marriage to protect her daughter’s honor.

But as the months pass Madelyn cannot accept what she perceives as the shame that will occur when her grandchild is born, showing evident signs of an interracial marriage.

Stanley Ann also discovers that Barrack Hussein Obama has a first wife, and that her marriage to him in Hawaii is bigamous and invalid.

So mother and daughter plan to have the birth at home; and Stanley Ann stops seeing Obama Sr..

Barry is born Aug. 4, 1961.

A few days later Madelyn submits an at home birth form, with her own signature.  Stanley Ann does not sign, because she refuses to swear to what her mother put on the form.  Obama Sr. does not sign it either, because Madelyn won’t let him near the daughter, or have anything to do with the birth; let alone appear at an office with him.

Why?  Because Marilyn is to submit an at-home birth form in which parents and child are declared to be WHITE.

This, in her mind, will save her and her daughter from the shame of giving birth to a mixed race child.

Upon receipt of the form, the Department of Health Registrar of Vital Records sends out a request for further corroborating information:  signatures of father and mother, for example.  But Madelyn has already had Stanley Ann sent to Washington State to study at college, so that she can get a degree and have the means to support the child. Neverthelss the birth annoucement is sent to the 2 Hawaiian newspapers, listing Aug. 4th, 1961, to Mr. & Mrs. Barack Hussein Obama.  “Barack” and not “Barrack”, because Marilyn wouldn’t even pick up the phone to ask the father how to spell the name.

Neither Madelyn nor Stanley Ann ever take action further on this filing.  It is classified as “filed” not “received” nor “accepted”.

Ramjet says: “She thus filed the birth registration after the (Nordyke) twins registration even though Obama was born before the twins. That would account for the out-of-order file numbers for Obama and the twins at first glance based simply on the dates of birth reported.”

Years later Barry Jr. finds this original filing document in a closet., along with his vaccination records and a newspaper article — this much he admits in Dreams from My Father. He has already been trained to hate the white race by Frank Marshal Davis (ibid., “I came to hate the white blood in my veins” ), so when he sees grandma’s filing he goes beserk, because it says that he is WHITE.

So sometime thereafter, he files an alteration request (Amendment is for adoptions only), and gets the AFRICAN race classification put on it, instead of the “white;” this is some time after “negro” is no longer used by the State of Hawaii to classify the predominate race of sub-saharan Africa.

But this filing is also not entirely accepted, because his father and mother are already dead.

So before granny conveniently dies, Obama Jr. tries to get her to give him an affidavit so that he can get his birth record accepted. He does get something, but HI still won’t “accept” it, because she is a third party.

So he is really in a fix, since he has no legal evidence of his birth, AND IN FACT CANNOT PROVE WHEN OR WHERE HE WAS BORN, LET ALONE HIS PARENTS IDENTITY.

This is why when he files his Selective Service Registration he does not show his BC, because he does not have one.

What he does do, is have his campaign issue a COLB to show the information claimed by Madelyn Dunham in her affidavit, that is why this online COLB image says date “filed”, not date “accepted”.

His lawyers give him this advice, since they believe that so long as there are no contrary affidavits outstanding, that he can legally claim a HI birth, with Dunham and Obama Sr. as parents.

This is why Kenya will not admit to having documents that prove Obama Sr. is his father; because there are none in existence anywhere.

And this is why his lawyers fight discovery in every jurisdiction where a suit is filed; because HI law explicitly states that the vital record will be authenticated by the court to which it is submitted as evidence; and the original unnotarized statement of Madelyn Dunham, without signatures of mother or father, is worthless hearsay evidence; and perjurious if notarized, since it contains false testimony.  This is also why Obama supporters are so riled at Kenyan BC’s popping up everwhere: because these, even when unauthenticated, have just as much legal weight as Obama’s actual documentation.

What his lawyers did not count on is the NBC issue; because in his attempt to assert the truth of what his grandmom claimed, he has unwittingly asserted that he is not a natural born citizen, claiming, as he has done, a british subject as his father.

Hawaii officials are asked to be reticent on this issue of the original Madelyn Dunham filing,  so that pesky citizens won’t connect the dots.  Their reticence is secured through threats of prosecution and civil damages for damaging the reputation of their client.  HI says there is a BC, by which they mean this at-birth-home filing which is not accepted; it also says there are vital records, because it includes Obama Jr.’s filing for an alteration, for his race, which also is not accepted because it lacks signatures of witnesses to the birth.  In Oct. 2008, Fukino spoke of “a” birth certificate; in July 2009 she speaks of “vital records”, now in the plural, since Obama has subsequently filed a request to alter the original.

Now Obama’s goose is double cooked, because of those same pesky citizens who have outed the facts and connected the dots.

And this pesky citizen is sketching in the image produced by their work.

Obama is proven a liar regarding his birth story, and he has self-admitted the facts which disprove that he is eligible for holding the office of U.S. President.

I am also of the opinion that most of the virulent Obots on the net are paid employees of the Obama campaign or affiliate union/activist organizations, with specific instructions during the last 14 months to run cover for this glaring legal problem, and attack anyone who in any point of the story arrives near to the truth of what happened.  By this deflective harrassment, the truth has been concealed these 14 months.

0 Responses to "Editorial: Oct. 5, 2009 — Now Obama's Goose is double-cooked"

  1. cq   Monday, October 19, 2009 at 7:38 PM

    like father like son
    http://octaman.com/comments/MalcolmO.html
    ————–
    Mr. Charlton replies: CQ, since many are making this comparison, and have made it for more than a year; I’ll let this comment pass, though I do not believe such a comparison proves anything; what if Malcom’s ancestors were from Kenya; what if Malcom was only half-black like Obama; in such a case the similarity could have other causes than paternity. As far as morpological characteristics go, its a different ear and different chin; and there is a half-brother of Obama in Kenya, so it is said, whose upper 2/3 of his face is exactly like Obama’s; he runs a upscale day care in Nairobi. The Malcom X similarities are week in my opinion.

    However the silly and racist folk who believe such comparisons are racist have never studied anatomical morphology nor understand its importance in forensic studies. It’s an objective study that has nothing to do with race-politics.

  2. Emudude   Friday, October 9, 2009 at 7:40 PM

    Obama and the Passport.

    It is believed that Obama had a Indonesia Passport when he went to Afghanistan in the 80s. I Believe this too. He did not travel out of the U.S. again until he became a Senator. All Senators and Congressmen/women are Issued Government Passports when they take Office. There is NO BACKGROUND check run on any Senator, Congressman/woman, Vice President, or President according to the Head of the FBI who was interviewed about it after the Passport thing came up. He said that would be like a Janitor at McDonalds running a Background Check on his Manager. Therefore the FBI doesn’t Check. He was Interviewed because It was said that Obama Could not even pass a Background check to become one of his own Secret Service Agents due to his Affiliations with William Ayers, Rashid Kalidi, Father Flager, and Rezko.

  3. Slamdunk   Wednesday, October 7, 2009 at 10:23 AM

    The birth certficate may or may not be resolved, but Obama’s achilles heal is the issue. Even if he was born in Hawaii, that alone does not qualify him.

    The following document the meaning of natural born citizen:

    1. The U.S. Naturalization Act of 1790 – “And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.” (Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen, rather British subject). The Act was repealed in 1795, but not because of any dispute over the meaning of “natural born citizen.”
    2. John Bingham, framer of the 14th amendment: “Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”
    3. Emerich de Vattel’s “Law of Nations,” Book 1, Chap. 19, Sect. 212 – “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”
    4. In 1814 the U.S. Supreme Court in THE VENUS relied upon and cited Vattel’s “Law of Nations” as the authority in determining the citizenship of a “domicil”. See U.S. Supreme Court, THE VENUS, 12 U.S. 253 and The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
    5. “U. S. v. Rhodes (1866) – “All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural- born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. ”
    6. Minor v. Happersett (88 U.S. 162 (1874)- The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.
    7. Perkins v. Elg 307 U.S. 325 (1939) – “The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that Marie Elizabeth Elg, who was born in the United States of Swedish parents naturalized in the United States, had not lost her birthright U.S. citizenship because of her removal during minority to Sweden and was entitled to all the rights and privileges of that U.S. citizenship. In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the decree that declared Elg “to be a natural born citizen of the United States.”
    8. John Jay letter to George Washington, July 25, 1787 – “Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government ; and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.”
    9. Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964): “We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the
    native-born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the ‘natural born’ citizen is eligible to be President.
    10. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898): In this case, the majority of the Court held that a child born in U.S. territory to parents who were subjects of the emperor of China and who were not eligible for U.S. citizenship, but who had “a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China” was a U.S. Citizen. As long as the parents are natural born, naturalized, or have permanent residence in the U.S., their children are natural born citizens.

  4. Mary Beth   Tuesday, October 6, 2009 at 2:39 AM

    Also…

    Where and when did Okubo “expressly deny” Obama’s record was amended?

    Thank you!
    —————-
    Mr. Charlton replies: You need to see Leo and Miss Tickly’s blogs for this level of detail.

  5. Mary Beth   Tuesday, October 6, 2009 at 12:54 AM

    Dear Sir…

    I believe that TerriK was able to confirm (or seemed to confirm) that Obama’s record was amended.
    ———————
    Mr. Charlton replies: She did not confirm that; it was expressly denied by Okubo. That there are vital records in the plural indicates an least an “alteration” of the filing, not an amendment necessarily.

    Since Okubo says one thing and then says she made a mistake, we cannot really say what is true or false; she is a skillful politician who claims ignorance to prevent proving he is dishonest; but she has proven that she is incompentant or dishonest: take your pick.

    At this point, I’m holding for “alteration”; because it is sufficient to explain the facts. You would really have to hold a lot of folks in HI as much bigger liars if it was an “ammendment” on account of a foreign birth.

  6. kj   Monday, October 5, 2009 at 10:27 PM

    Perhaps he was born in Washington State. That would explain her presence there a few weeks after giving birth.
    —————
    Mr. Charlton replies: That’s correct, if this interpretation is correct. The sad thing is, that Mr. Obama may not be able to prove where he is born, or disprove where he was born. If that is the case, his lawyers will fight authentication of the Lucas BC with great ferocity.
    ———
    Interesting theory. A Canadian birth would also fit.

    Mr. Obama was in the Seattle area a few weeks after his birth. The Dunhams had lived in the area and had established relationships with people there who could have made arrangements for Stanley Ann.

    Seattle is very close to Canada and the US Canadian border was very open then. There would have been facilities on both sides of the border to accommodate a quiet private birth for those who desired it and could pay for it. Stanley Ann could have checked into one of these facilities, possibly under an assumed name. Stanley told her friend something like she wanted to travel as soon as her doctor said it was okay, implying that she had a doctor for post natal care. And she claimed that she didn’t know how to change a dirty diaper! Who was changing them for her?

    If she had had a home birth without a doctor or midwife, no drugs should have been used and she would not have had any drug hangover. She could have been exhausted if the labor was very long or difficult, or weak if she had lost a lot of blood. (The latter should have required a trip to the hospital.) Otherwise, she could have been up and around mere hours after the birth, and able to register the birth herself.

  7. emcrouchon   Monday, October 5, 2009 at 9:56 PM

    I’ve kept close tabs on your blog, Donofrio’s and MissTickly’s during in the past few days and I’m gratified to finally get some clarity in this awful conundrum an egotist and his pushy wife have wrought for all of us.

    March 2008 I started researching Obama, posting to Texasdarlin’s blog and to Free Republic, and from the get-go these two reeked of lies and corruption.

    Please note: a couple of overturned rocks is a good beginning. But the BC, or lack thereof, does not explain why a congressman from American Samoa went to Jakarta and arranged to bribe and buy all documents pertaining to Barak H. Obama II/Barry Soetoro plus all his family and their photographs! He was only there four years, between 6 – 10 years of age. What could a little kid have done that is so serious and be worth hiding?

    I hate to sound like a blurb from the movie National Treasure – but the BHO secret lies with Indonesia.

    And my wager is that he, Barry Soetoro, had Indonesian citizenship as an adult! That is how he traveled to Pakistan and India in 1981.

  8. lorilulu   Monday, October 5, 2009 at 6:01 PM

    I attended the dissmisal hearing in Santa Ana today, and Orly Taitz stated, in court, that 2 private detectives have come up with evidence that Obama has used 39 different Social Security numbers over his lifetime, so his passport, drivers license, ect. could be all under different S.S. numbers, and that is why he will not show his records.
    So this fits nicely into your theory.

  9. Pingback: TerriK: The COLB was “filed” but not “accepted” « Politicaldoc’s Dx

  10. Texas Lady   Monday, October 5, 2009 at 2:41 PM

    Interesting, but that still doesn’t explain how he got a passport, drivers license, social security number etc.

    Or has he always lived this “above the law” life?

  11. Ladyhawke   Monday, October 5, 2009 at 2:25 PM

    Love your blog!

    This is a very interesting analysis. It occurs to me that (if) Madelyn did not have to show anyone baby Obama, that the home birth could have occurred anywhere and still fit with the rest of your hypothesis.

    Perhaps he was born in Washington State. That would explain her presence there a few weeks after giving birth.
    —————
    Mr. Charlton replies: That’s correct, if this interpretation is correct. The sad thing is, that Mr. Obama may not be able to prove where he is born, or disprove where he was born. If that is the case, his lawyers will fight authentication of the Lucas BC with great ferocity.

  12. epicurious   Monday, October 5, 2009 at 10:19 AM

    This theory is perhaps the most pausible I have seen. It explains why Kapi’olani Medical Center removed its website the letter from BHO that made reference to the hospital as his birthplace.

    Surely the State Department knows the difference between a BC that is on file vs. one that has been accepted by the State Registrar.

    My question: How did he ever get a passport issued? Can someone please explain?

  13. churchmouse   Monday, October 5, 2009 at 8:34 AM

    Thank you so much, Mr Charlton! Much appreciated!!

  14. packrat1145   Monday, October 5, 2009 at 8:28 AM

    Mr. Charlton,

    Just in case Bob can’t get back to us with that link to the odd spelling of Obama Senior’s first name, a link to “Problems with Our Socialism” can be found in a Politico article at this address: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9610.html

    Here is the actual address to “Problems with Our Socialism” from that article: http://www.politico.com/static/PPM41_eastafrica.html

    Unless other examples can be found, I’m not sure I would take this as gospel that Senior ever used Barak as a spelling for his name.

    Judging by the fact that the pages are not all aligned with one another and also that the text near the edges, sometimes on the left and other times on the right of this document is somewhat distorted; this file appears to be a scanned copy or a photo copy of an original printed hardcopy of the actual “East Africa Journal” publication.

    In 1965, especially in East Africa, printers were most likely still using hand set type to print such publications. Since Obama Senior obviously was not the typesetter, this instance could simply be an error by the person holding that job.

    Additionally, I could be wrong, but I believe it’s doubful that the illustrations contained in this article as it appears in that file would have been a part of the original as created by the author. It’s more likely they were added by the printer who would have had ready access to such illustrations.

  15. Bob   Monday, October 5, 2009 at 6:58 AM

    John —

    The link did not print. I don’t know why.

    I’ll try it again.

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9610.html

    ————
    Mr. Charlton replies: Here is the more direct link, which skips the newspaper article

    http://www.politico.com/static/PPM41_eastafrica.html

    And it does not prove his name was spelled “Barak” becaues it is a standard practice of scholarly journals to spell words as they please to do; so we do not know if the editor of this journal was a native speaker of Arabic, Swahili, or some other local language, which would have inclined him to write “Barak” instead of “Barrack”. See my editorial about the spelling of the name.

  16. Scott1   Monday, October 5, 2009 at 5:58 AM

    Spot on John! Kudo’s

  17. jtx   Monday, October 5, 2009 at 5:58 AM

    By George, John – I think you’ve got it!!!

    But gee … does this mean that “our hero” would lie???

  18. churchmouse   Monday, October 5, 2009 at 2:15 AM

    Interesting analysis and a great blog.
    —————
    Mr. Charlton replies: Thanks, Churchmouse! And I highly recommend to my readers, that they click your name to go to your blog, which exposes Communist infiltration in American culture and society. Keep up the good work!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.