IT’S OFFICIAL… Barack Hussein Obama was NEVER vetted for office!!!

Barack Hussein Obama

is an

Well it is official, as you can see in the above video and read below as per this WND report, that according to a recently released Congressional report, Congress now admits that Barack Hussein Obama was NEVER vetted for office; and neither was there any statutory requirement that he be vetted, which ignores our U.S. Constitution requirments.

Neither were there ever any collaborating documents that were ever requested by any governmental agency in order to prove either Obama’s citizenship or his place of birth.

Folks, what further evidence do you need that this façade called the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CORPORATION, which is totally unconstitutional and was formed by the forty-first Congress in 1871 without Constitutional authority to do so (when the District of Columbia was formed), is totally illegal; and our country and all fifty states of the union, who once were formed as Republics, have all since been changed over to CORPORATE entities, that no longer view We the People as the sovereigns of our country, as per our U.S. Constitution and our Declaration of Independence; but as is the case with any corporation, it is the corporation that reins as sovereign, and the people are required to conform to its demands.

The truth is ever since the Act of 1871 was passed our nation’s leaders have cast our “organic” U.S. Constitution to the sidelines, and have not been abiding by it for the last 139 years.

Here is the history:

The date is February 21, 1871 and the Forty-First Congress is in session. I refer you to the “Acts of the Forty-First Congress,” Section 34, Session III, chapters 61 and 62. On this date in the history of our nation, Congress passed an Act titled: “An Act To Provide A Government for the District of Columbia.”

This is also known as the “Act of 1871.”

What does this mean? Well, it means that Congress, under no constitutional authority to do so, created a separate form of government for the District of Columbia, which is a ten mile square parcel of land.

What??? How could they do that? Moreover, WHY would they do that? To explain, let’s look at the circumstances of those days.

The Act of 1871 was passed at a vulnerable time in America. Our nation was essentially bankrupt — weakened and financially depleted in the aftermath of the Civil War. The Civil War itself was nothing more than a calculated “front” for some pretty fancy footwork by corporate backroom players. It was a strategic maneuver by European interests (the international bankers) who were intent upon gaining a stranglehold on the neck (and the coffers) of America.

The Congress realized our country was in dire financial straits, so they cut a deal with the international bankers — (in those days, the Rothschilds of London were dipping their fingers into everyone’s pie) thereby incurring a DEBT to said bankers.

If we think about banks, we know they do not just lend us money out of the goodness of their hearts. A bank will not do anything for you unless it is entirely in their best interest to do so. There has to be some sort of collateral or some string attached which puts you and me (the borrower) into a subservient position.

This was true back in 1871 as well. The conniving international bankers were not about to lend our floundering nation any money without some serious stipulations. So, they devised a brilliant way of getting their foot in the door of the United States (a prize they had coveted for some time, but had been unable to grasp thanks to our Founding Fathers, who despised them and held them in check), and thus, the Act of 1871 was passed.

In essence, this Act formed the corporation known as THE UNITED STATES. Note the capitalization, because it is important.

This corporation, owned by foreign interests, moved right in and shoved the original “organic” version of the Constitution into a dusty corner.

With the “Act of 1871,” our Constitution was defaced in the sense that the title was block-capitalized and the word “for” was changed to the word “of” in the title. The original Constitution drafted by the Founding Fathers, was written in this manner:

“The Constitution for the united states of America”.

The altered version reads: “THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA”. It is the corporate constitution. It is NOT the same document you might think it is. The corporate constitution operates in an economic capacity and has been used to fool the People into thinking it is the same parchment that governs the Republic. It absolutely is not.

Capitalization — an insignificant change? Not when one is referring to the context of a legal document, it isn’t. Such minor alterations have had major impacts on each subsequent generation born in this country. What the Congress did with the passage of the Act of 1871 was create an entirely new document, a constitution for the government of the District of Columbia. The kind of government THEY created was a corporation. The new, altered Constitution serves as the constitution of the corporation, and not that of America. http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill/us_corporation.htm

Anything we do now as a nation that fails to remove this corrupt leaven from our government, starting with this foreign owned and operated central bank, called the FEDERAL RESERVE; or that fails to hold accountable those elected officials (Democrats and Republicans) who have knowingly sold our country out and have violated their oath of office to preserve, defend, and to protect our U.S. Constitution, and have done so for personal greed and their lust for power; and any effort to rebuild our nation that fails to address our core foundational issues that most threatened our survival as nation, is nothing but window dressing.

The ONLY answer for what ails our nation is for We the People to take back our nation and to reinhabit our Constitutional Republic, as was originally intended by our forefathers; which by the way has already happened, and all that is required now is for the American People to join in and support it.

Shalom,

Skip Barland


 

Tuesday, November 09, 2010
 


BORN IN THE USA?
WorldNetDaily Exclusive

Congress report concedes
Obama eligibility unvetted

‘There is no specific federal agency’
to review candidates for federal office


Posted: November 08, 2010
8:38 pm Eastern

By Jerome R. Corsi


WorldNetDaily

A congressional document posted on the Internet confirms no one – not Congress, not the states and not election officials – bothered to check Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president, and that status remains undocumented to this day.

It’s because state and federal law did not require anyone in Congress or elsewhere to check to see if Obama was a “natural born Citizen” under the meaning of Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution, according the document.

The analysis by the Congressional Research Service, a research arm of the U.S. Congress, openly admits no one in the federal government, including Congress, ever asked to see Obama’s long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate. It explains no one was required to do so.

Get the free, in-depth special report on eligibility that could bring an end to Obama’s presidency

Technically, the CRS is a public policy research arm of the United States Congress that is organized as a legislative branch agency within the Library of Congress; the CRS works exclusively for members of Congress, congressional committees and congressional staff in an advisory capacity, answering questions.

The CRS memorandum, published and distributed to congressional offices April 3, 2009, was written to explain to senators and members of the House how they could answer constituents who were demanding to see Obama’s birth certificate.

It first appeared on a blog posted by Mario Apuzzo, who has pending before the U.S. Supreme Court a request to hear a case claiming Congress and others failed to abide by the Constitution when they refused to investigate Obama’s eligibility.

He explains the document, which has been posted online, was obtained through the “diligent and persistent efforts of a patriot going by the pen name of ‘Tom Deacon,’ who obtained it from a senator’s office.”

Authored by Jack Maskell, the legislative attorney in the American Law Division of the Congressional Research Service, the document was a memorandum written for the subject “Qualifications for the Office of President of the United States and Legal Challenges to the Eligibility of a Candidate”

Maskell confirmed to WND that the document is authentic.

He explained he wrote it only for distribution to congressional offices, not for public distribution, and it was not posted on any of the CRS report sites where the public might have been able to find it.

He suggested one of the congressional offices that got the report facilitated its release, and it ended up posted on the Internet.

Maskell told WND he wrote it because so many members of Congress were getting questions from constituents about the issue, and they wanted to know how to respond. It would explain why so many mailed and e-mailed responses to constituents on the issue of eligibility sound just alike.

The CRS begins the memo by stating the problem:

“Many of the inquiries have questioned why then-Senator, and now President, Obama has not had to produce an original, so-called ‘long’ version of a ‘birth certificate’ from the State of Hawaii, how federal candidates are ‘vetted’ for qualifications generally, and have asked for an assessment of the various allegations and claims of non-eligibility status.”

In other words, senators and members of the House could not explain why nobody ever saw Obama’s long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate, and they needed a ready answer to give angry constituents who were writing, faxing and telephoning their offices for an answer.

The second full paragraph of the CRS memo must be read in its entirety to understand fully the circumstance that allowed a candidate for whom documentation was concealed from the public to be elected and sworn in as president.

It states:

“Concerning the production or release of an original birth certificate, it should be noted that there is no federal law, regulation, rule, guideline, or requirement that a candidate for federal office produce his or her original birth certificate, or a certified copy of the record of live birth, to any official of the United States government; nor is there a requirement for federal candidates to publicly release such personal record or documentation. Furthermore, there is no specific federal agency or office that ‘vets’ candidates for federal office as to qualifications or eligibility prior to return.”

What the CRS admits is that Obama got a pass from Congress and the federal government as a whole on his birth qualifications under Article 2, Section 1. Nobody in Congress or the federal government sought to look for Obama’s certified long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate, because no law or regulation required them to look.

After the document was written, nobody in Congress could claim that Congress or anyone else in the federal government had reviewed Obama’s birth certificate or determined Obama was eligible to be president. It simply did not happen.

A screen capture of the document’s first page, including the key second paragraph, confirms the conclusion:

The CRS memo also admits that federal elections are administered under state law, a circumstance apparent to lawyers but sometimes complicated for others.

The relevant paragraph:

“The mechanics of elections of federal officials within the several states are administered under state law. The quadrennial presidential election, although required since 1845 to be held on the same day in each state is, in an administrative and operational sense, fifty-one separate elections in the states and the District of Columbia for presidential electors. States generally control, within the applicable constitutional parameters, the administrative issues, questions, and mechanisms of ballot placement and ballot access.”

The next key point is that like federal law, neither do state laws require anyone to examine the birth qualifications of presidential candidates.

The states may have discretionary authority to question a candidate’s eligibility to run for federal office, but there is no requirement in state law to do so, not when it comes to looking at birth records.

Once more, the memo makes this plain:

“In Keyes v. Bowen, the California Supreme Court discussed a suit against the secretary of state that challenged President Obama’s eligibility and the California electoral votes for [the] finding that: ‘Petitioners have not identified any authority requiring the secretary of state to make an inquiry into or demand detailed proof of citizenship from presidential candidates,’ and thus mandamus (a writ of mandate) was not granted. However, although no ‘ministerial duty’ or mandatory requirement exists to support a mandamus action, there may still exist discretionary authority in such elections official.”

A writ of mandamus in this case brought by Ambassador Alan Keyes would have involved a court order being issued by the secretary of state in California demanding Obama produce his long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate to get his name on California’s presidential ballot in 2008.

What the CRS is saying is that since there was no state law demanding Obama show his birth certificate, the court could not demand he do so. It was entirely up to the California secretary of state who had discretion to ask for the document or not ask for the document, depending upon what the California secretary of state, a Democrat for othis election cycle, wanted to do.

The CRS’s conclusion is that Obama could refuse to show his long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate because no state or federal law required him reveal it.

The report said, therefore, Obama could release exactly what information he chose.

“Despite the absence of any formal administrative or legal requirement or oversight at the federal level, or specific state requirement to produce a birth certificate for ballot placement, it may be noted here briefly that the only ‘official’ documentation or record that has been presented in the matter of President Obama’s eligibility has been an official, certified copy of the record of live birth released by the Obama campaign in June of 2008, as an apparent effort by then-candidate Obama to address rumors and innuendos concerning the place of his birth.”

The result is that Obama could choose exactly what information – and in what format – he wanted released. He chose the computer-generated Certification of Live Birth, a form from the state of Hawaii that officials there have provided to those not born in the state, to document his eligibility.

The CRS also makes it clear that if the birth requirements of the Constitution are to be taken seriously, new laws at the state and federal levels will be needed to institutionalize government procedures requiring president candidates to come forward with their eligibility documentation.

A video based on WND’s report on the CRS has now been posted online and is embedded here:

WND has reported on a multitude of legal and other challenges to Obama’s eligibility that arose even before his election.

The claims are that Obama does not meet the U.S. Constitution’s requirement that a president be a “natural born citizen.” The lawsuits have asserted he either was not born in Hawaii as he claims or was a dual citizen because of his father’s British citizenship at the time of his birth.

The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”

However, none of the cases filed to date has been successful in reaching the plateau of legal discovery, so that information about Obama’s birth could be obtained.

Besides Obama’s actual birth documentation, the still-concealed documentation for him includes kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records.

Several states already have begun working on various requirements for candidates to document their eligibility, and one proposal remains pending at the federal level.

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=225561

About these ads
This entry was posted in Political Commentary. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to IT’S OFFICIAL… Barack Hussein Obama was NEVER vetted for office!!!

  1. granite1 says:

    Re: “neither was there any statutory requirement that he be vetted, which ignores our U.S. Constitution requirments.’

    You should add that the eligibility of Bush was not vetted either, or Clinton, or Reagan, or any president.

    However, Obama’s has already proven that he was born in Hawaii with the official birth certificate of Hawaii, the facts on which have been repeatedly confirmed by the officials in Hawaii.

    The Wall Street Journal said: ““Obama has already provided a legal birth certificate demonstrating that he was born in Hawaii. No one has produced any serious evidence to the contrary. Absent such evidence, it is unreasonable to deny that Obama has met the burden of proof. We know that he was born in Honolulu as surely as we know that Bill Clinton was born in Hope, Ark., or George W. Bush in New Haven, Conn.”

    • Skip Barland says:

      The U.S. Constitution is non partisan, and it applies to ALL equally! My point is that whoever, Democrat or Republican, who has violated their oath of office that they should be held accountable.

      The fact is, Congress has been ignoring our U.S. Constitution for the last 139 years, as is proven by this current oversight, with regard to Obama!

      No, you are wrong, Obama has never proven his citizenship and he has instead (as is pointed out in the above report) had his records sealed; and has spent millions in attorney’s fees to keep them sealed.

      On the issue of whether Obama is Constitutionally qualified to hold office, you are still wrong; but you and I have hashed this out all before, and I don’t think it is necessary to do it all over again.

      You believe what you want and I’ll leave the public to just look at the evidence for themselves.

      Respectfully,

      Skip Balrand

  2. granite1 says:

    Re: “No, you are wrong, Obama has never proven his citizenship and he has instead (as is pointed out in the above report) had his records sealed; and has spent millions in attorney’s fees to keep them sealed.’

    Baloney. There was never a lawsuit against Obama just for his birth certificate. His records are not “sealed;” they are private. He has, however, shown the official birth certificate of Hawaii, the Certification of Live Birth, and the facts on that were confirmed twice by the officials in Hawaii, and by the Republican governor of Hawaii.

    If you feel that the US Congress should have responsibility for “vetting” the president, then propose that it passes the “birther bill,” the proposed legislation that would require candidates to show their OFFICIAL (not original) birth certificates to the Federal Election Commission. I would support it, with some details changed such as provisions for cases where birth certificates have been lost in fires or floods (such as in New Orleans), and provisions for adopted children–who have difficulty in getting their birth certificates.

    The bill calls for the official birth certificate because some states (not Hawaii) may have destroyed the original birth certificate in the process of changing to short-form birth certificates.

    As for Obama not having shown proof. The Wall Street Journal said:

    “Obama has already provided a legal birth certificate demonstrating that he was born in Hawaii. No one has produced any serious evidence to the contrary. Absent such evidence, it is unreasonable to deny that Obama has met the burden of proof. We know that he was born in Honolulu as surely as we know that Bill Clinton was born in Hope, Ark., or George W. Bush in New Haven, Conn.”

    • Skip Barland says:

      Like I said, I am not doing this with you all over again, this is still a free country, no thanks to your man Barack Hussein Obama, and you are still free to voice and express you views, however wrong they are!

      Sincerely, and yet however wearily…

      Skip Barland

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