Monday, October 17, 2016

In lieu of all that is at stake here, the questionable future that awaits future generations of Americans if we elect Hillary Clinton as the next president of the United States, I will have to hold all of you, voting for this woman, accountable and responsible for our nation’s demise. I will take this whole thing a step further and go as far as predicting that, should this woman be elected to the White House, our only way out of the chaos that awaits us, would probably be another Civil War – maybe the reason why democrats are steadfast putting up the fight they are for gun control, who knows?

Eminent takeover of Marxism and communism in the United States of America

Game Over


By  ——  October 17, 2016
Yes, friends, anyone who has been following the presidential campaign over the past couple of weeks, even the most praetorian republicans amongst us, have to realize that the time has come fess-up to reality while understanding that candidate Donald Trump will never become the next president of this great land of ours.  That is right, I said Trump will never be our next president, meaning Hillary Clinton will become the first woman ever to hold that office in the history of the nation. 

I have come to this rudimentary conclusion, not based on the highly devious national polls, which, in my humble opinion, are, in fact, as corrupt as is everything else in what’s left of this great country of ours, mind you, but on the self-evident truths of the clustered future now looming in our horizon - our new United States of America; a far cry from the once glorious Constitutional Republic which proudly served as bastion of hope for all of mankind – all of it, amidst a magnanimous ideological revolution set-out to transforming the nation in ways which, I dare say, not many Americans even comprehend, if yet are willing to support and sponsor.
A revolution which has gained foothold amongst the masses of the less-adept, the envious, the jealous, albeit in a universe which has been promised a rite-of-passage by Big Government, at the expense of all those who “made it” in a capitalist society; all those who fulfilled the American dream.  In short, dear friends, Marxism at its best.  Re-distribution of wealth. ‘Taketh from the richest and giveth to the poorer’. Hello! By the way, in case you had not noticed, “making-it” in todays’ U.S. Marxist culture is a sinful accomplishment, worthy of repentance and government chastisement. 
Neither did I base my sorrowful prediction on other peoples’ opinions, to wit, that flood of expert commentators, all of whom, night after night, seem to pollute the airwaves of the nation, with insights into one of the most convoluted presidential elections, ever. Matter of fact, in looking back, I have no doubts that these elections were over for Mr. Trump even before they started. Simply put, Mr. Trump had an uphill battle from the start – a battle he could not ever win, regardless. I have even thought that the whole primaries production, his defeating the 16 other candidates and the popularity he once enjoyed then, vs., the relentless crusade to destroy him now, were just a well-planned ploy for the ultimate destruction that lay ahead for Mr. Trump.
And, no, I definitely do not think Trump’s failure or evident road to ruin has anything to do whatsoever with the explicit damage resulting from the alleged sex scandals, his lewd conversations about women or the rape allegations that have, ironically surfaced in the last few weeks, almost at the same time that the cat got out of the bag with the myriad of WikiLeak newsflashes regarding Clinton’s compromising emails.  Matter of fact, Trump’s deficiencies, are petty compared to Hillary Clinton’s conduct throughout the years, however, Trump’s accusations are, in fact, what they [the] enemy would want us to believe and remember. In time, take my word for it, a great majority of Americans will attribute Trump’s downfall to his trifle womanizing habits; his untimely remarks on women, when, in fact, he was doomed from the start even if there had not been any sexual overtures.

Eminent takeover of Marxism and communism in the United States of America

The truth of the matter is that Trump’s disdainful character or questionable moral turpitude, in and of itself, while aggravating to a large segment of the voting universe, especially women, remains, still, a trivial motive for Trump’s downfall if compared to Hillary Clinton’s misdeeds. Instead, we now know that Trump’s rack and ruin could be more directly credited to the “State-of-the-Union”; to a silent insurgency now undermining every fabric of our society. Little to do with Trump’s sexual aberrations and all to do with the eminent takeover of Marxism and communism in the United States of America. 
To be clear, Mr. Trump’s opponent in his bid for the presidential race was never Hillary Clinton alone, per say.  Mr. Trump’s opponents were a whole host of zealots including but not limited to a fringe leftist media; to a massive destructive campaign conducted by the most renown mass media groups in the nation, newspapers, T.V. and social media; to an iconic guild of Hollywood’s most acclaimed actors and actresses; to a grassroots majority on the nation’s top colleges and universities; to the most evil and corrupt government in the history of the nation; to a horde of radical millennials and a legion of underachievers, and last but not least, to the rank and file of Trump’s own republican party insiders – a legendary clan of corrupt establishment politicians. That’s it. Game over,  Mr. Trump.
Just think of it this way, both Hillary and Bill Clinton are career criminals. The trail of corruption of these two dates back to the 1970s and the infamous Whitewater scandal - a real estate deal gone bad, where, allegedly, the Clintons used their political clout to coerce someone in a failing Savings and Loan Association into making an illegal loan.  If you really think about it, the Clintons’ Resume is riddled with felonious controversies, including some gruesome deaths of people such as was the mysterious demise of Vince Foster in July 1993 - the deputy White House counsel during Bill Clinton’s presidency, previously associated to the presidential couple in the aforementioned Whitewater scandal, not to mention Hillary’s role in the Benghazi embassy massacre, yielding the deaths of four noble Americans, which, in my books has to top her unending trail of criminal acts, much a part of an eerie career, relentlessly in pursuit of wealth and prowess. 

Continued below...

Clinton,  whose life of lies and double-standards can make Donald Trump look like the next coming of Mother Teresa

Where have we come as nation, I ask, when a majority of us, are willing to elect a criminal with one of the muddiest and most corrupt backgrounds ever to the presidency of the United States of America?  How low can we go?  Yes, friends, Mr. Trump may very well be a ravaging womanizer, but guess what?  I will take him over a career criminal, any day, any time.  Common folks, let’s get real here.  Mr. Trumps’ sexual assault allegations, while disdainfully inexcusable, nevertheless, pale if compared to a woman who simply said has no moral code of values whatsoever – a woman whose life of lies and double-standards can make Donald Trump look like the next coming of Mother Teresa. 

Now, the nation talks about Mr. Trump’s moral improbity, but just think about this, if you will, our apparent next president, married a proven sexual predator – one she willfully and graciously condoned while putting her to shame in front of nation, all in lieu of her boundless desire of reaching the White House as her ultimate objective.  In other words, the wealth and glory that awaited Clinton in her pursuit of the ultimate political prize, was far more incentivizing than censuring and condemning her husband’s reproachful acts – hello, is this the same hypocrite who claims to champion women as [the] most relevant issue in her twisted political platform?  

Where have we come as nation, to even consider this woman to be our next president?  Are we that naïve, or are we that stupid?  Or both?  Think of it this way, if you or I had done a smidgeon of what this woman has done, you and I would probably be locked behind bars, more likely than not, held in solitary confinement. Seriously folks, you think about it, the fact that Hillary Clinton was able to delete 33,000 emails after receiving a congressional subpoena from the House Select Committee on Benghazi; the fact that, according to the FBI, Justin Cooper,  an aide to former President Bill Clinton was ordered to destroy two of Hillary Clinton’s phones breaking them with a hammer and the fact that the FBI found no criminal wrongdoing in their investigation of Clinton, while chalking it up to “extreme carelessness” has to be, as far as I am concerned, a telltale sign of our decadent State of the Union - clear evidence that our nation has really hit rock bottom. Repugnantly abhorrent if you ask me.  

In closing, I am just going to briefly make mention of Clinton’s failed policies as Secretary of State inasmuch it appears that the real issues facing the nation today have become somewhat irrelevant, extraneous and inconsequential, while “morality” and “integrity”, ironically, have expediently taken a center-stage place in the presidential campaign. Suffice it to say that Clinton’s curriculum vitae in her role as the ultimate representative of our nation in the world platform, is also marred by a trail of failures.  To mention a few, Clinton’s Russian reset soap-opera, eventually led to Russia’s annexation of Crimea and the invasion of Ukraine; as Secretary of State, Clinton has been a cheerleader of enemy-states aiding in overthrowing governments friendly to the United States such as Egypt. Matter of fact, many of our friends in the region ended up being replaced with the Muslim Brotherhood, dictatorships and chaos, leading to the formation of ISIS, and their takeover of Iraq and Syria.  

No matter where you turn, whether you talk about Iran’s expansion in the Middle East, Russia’s overt aggression and expansionary threats, or whether you talk about nuclear proliferation in rogue states such as North Korea, or China’s bid for regional hegemony, it is very clear to me that Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration have been an ignominious disgrace, every which way you look at it.  Under the Clinton tenure as Secretary of State, America’s foreign policy establishment has all but developed into a culture of failures, at times making our great nation become the laughing stock amongst our most spiteful adversaries in the world. 

Last but not least, let me close by converging on the issues, again, at center-stage of these elections.  Clinton’s campaign themes appear all to be focused on Mr. Trump’s flawed qualities such as his sexual dysfunctionality, corruption, dishonesty and the like.  The greatest irony of it all is that it all comes from one of the most dishonest and corrupt characters in political history, bar none.  While Clinton’s campaign touts of her values, her forthrightness and righteousness, I chuckle as I do a quick one on one, fact-searching comparison of these two. On the one hand, here is this self-made, multi-billionaire, which, notwithstanding his evident philandering flaws, has still been able to raise what appears to be a nice family.  Trump’s children, as seen several times throughout the campaign, each mindfully endorsing and supporting their father’s campaign, are, as they say, a reflection of Trump’s parenting capabilities, and, if judged in the court of public opinion by the way they conduct themselves, Mr. Trump should have nothing to be ashamed of.  

On the other side, I see two greedy impostors, who went from rags to riches by virtue of their political Ponzi schemes – ultimately designed for their own self-enrichment.  By their own admission, the Clintons claimed to be “dead-broke”, when they left the White House back in 2001, the reason, perhaps, why after leaving, Hillary was forced to return an estimated $200,000 in White House china, furniture and artwork that she had stolen.  Can you imagine?  The wife of the President of the United States of America, stealing from their presidential residence.  Can you really imagine, this petty-thief becoming the next president of the United States?  And, she dares talk about Donald Trump’s “immoral” code of ethics. 

  The Clintons today appear to be filthy rich,  with a combined worth over 100 million dollars.  The nation, the fringe media, you and I, should, at the very least, ask how was this possible to achieve in such a short period of time, considering there was no business behind the Clinton’s frantic financial growth. Or was it?  The fact of the matter is that there was a business after all. Indeed, there was.  There was that deceitful Clinton Foundation, which is not, as many have been led to believe, a righteous charity organization, if you can believe that. Cause if you do, dear friends, if you are that naïve and gullible to be believe that, then you, dear friend, I venture to say, may very well be in a fairyland of your own. Either that or you are, in fact, delusional. 

Come to think of it, all things considered, the Clinton Foundation is really an ingenious plot, if I ever saw one. Kudos to the Clintons for their dexterity and mastery of deceit.  In the most unabridged and straightforward account I can think of, the Clintons expediently have used the inherent clout afforded them by their political statures, one as ex-President of the U.S., and the other one as Secretary of State, to exchange political favors in the name “charity”, while conveniently diverting and comingling monies given to the Foundation to their own pocketbooks, while always shielded and pontificated as dedicated humanitarians. Clever, eh? Matter of fact, the Foundation is, in fact, the quintessential “quid pro quo” sham—a favor or advantage granted or expected in return for something. 

The only problem being that, these two cheats, the Clintons in their never-ending quest for riches and power, have even used the so-called Foundation as a vehicle for granting favors to enemy states, the prize of the exchange varying relative to the size of the favor.  For instance, take the Clinton’s Uranium One deal as the ultimate example of how far these two are willing to play with our nation’s security. This is a deal where Russia was able to acquire uranium mines in the U.S., via the acquisition of U1- a uranium mining consortium, structured by Bill Clinton, for which the Foundation received a contribution of $31 million dollars and a pledge for another 100 million dollars. The Russian acquisition of U1, was projected to have control over what could amount to approximately 50% of the world’s uranium output by 2015 - symbolically speaking, a major share of the precious mineral and a real and present danger to the future of nuclear warfare given the fact that Russia would not falter in sending uranium to its client state, Iran. Shortly after the Russians had announced their intentions to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.  Uranium to Russia?  Treasonous? Indictable? Felonious? Talk about Trump’s immorality? 

Of all of the Clinton’s misdeeds, crimes and carousel of lies, however, the one that strikes me as the must hideously repulsive, taking the prize for the ultimate show of dishonesty, has to be, the Haiti Controversy itself.  If you all recall, on January 10th, 2010, the country of Haiti was devastated by an earthquake.  No need to mention the fact, that this is one of the most impoverished nations in our hemisphere, and was even before the earthquake.  Immediately after the earthquake Hillary went to Haiti to pledge her full support to the destitute nation on behalf of the U.S.A. Bill Clinton, on the other hand, acted as United Nation’s Special Envoy to co-lead in the “HIRC” Haitian Interim Reconstruction Commission along with Haitian Prime Minister Jean Max Bellerive. In short, in the aftermath of the earthquake, the Clintons skillfully positioned themselves at centre stage of the whole Haitian reconstruction drive. 

As would and could be expected, the HIRC, led by Bill Clinton, totally disregarded projects of relief, and focused exclusively on projects where Clintons would receive donations. Matter of fact, back in the time, all relief efforts were channeled through the Clintons. If you wanted to do business in Haiti, you had to have a relationship with the Clintons. Digicel—a tele-communications company owned by Irish billionaire Dennis O’Brien was given special treatment which awarded O’Brien’s company exclusive rights to transfer relief money to Haitians whereby the company made more than 50 million dollars in revenues, in exchange for Obrien’s contributions in the millions to the Clinton Foundation. In the end, all money that flowed in for Haiti’s earthquake relief was expediently funneled through the IHRC, Bill Clinton and Haiti’s Prime-Minister.
As a matter of fact, as recently as October 4th, Hurricane Mathew, one the worst storms in recent history made landfall in Les Anglais, in southwestern Haiti killing almost 900 people and leaving tens of thousands homeless.  As the images of the devastation hit our airwaves I could not help but to think, how many of those who perished, did so, by virtue of the fact they were homeless. And, by virtue of the fact that they were homeless because the relief money earmarked for providing them a modest home and roof six years earlier during the earthquake, ended up in the vaults of the Clinton’s Foundation.  Accomplices in genocide, these Clintons?
Look, I have gone as far as I can go trying to make a point here.  I may be wrong but I truly think it is over for Trump.  Just today, I heard some political insider say, that only a “miracle” could save Trump.  As I don’t believe in miracles, I think that it is over for candidate Trump.  Like I said earlier, game over.  Some say that the next presidential debate or yet some bombshell by WikiLeaks could turn the tie in Trump’s favor.  I say, I don’t think anything can really save Trump now.  For all I know, WikiLeaks can come up with a ghastly story on Clinton, and it would not make a bit of difference to those supporting this Clinton cheat.  

The only thing left for me to say is that while the game is over for Trump, it is just as over for our nation.  With the little democracy that is left, still, I shall invoke my first amendment rights, my freedom of expression rights, just to let those of you who plan on voting for Hillary Clinton know, that, I truly hope you rot in hell with her.  Traditionally, again, in the name of democracy as we once knew it, I used to be forgiving about other peoples’ rights to choose and vote for whomever they thought was the right choice.  This time around, however, I will forsake the political correctness that has characterized most of my dissertations and just warn you to be very careful in what you wish for as it may just happen.  

In lieu of all that is at stake here, the questionable future that awaits future generations of Americans if we elect Hillary Clinton as the next president of the United States, I will have to hold all of you, voting for this woman, accountable and responsible for our nation’s demise.  I will take this whole thing a step further and go as far as predicting that, should this woman be elected to the White House, our only way out of the chaos that awaits us, would probably be another Civil War – maybe the reason why democrats are steadfast putting up the fight they are for gun control, who knows? 

My fellow-Americans, there is not much more I can say, except but to ask all of you out there who share in my beliefs to just go out and vote for Donald Trump in forthcoming elections on November 8th.  If nothing else, let us try our best in reaching-out for that miracle for which we are all hoping and praying.  I pray to God to save us all and save this great nation and spare us from all the evils that now abound in the nation.  I pray that Hillary Clinton is not voted the next president of the United States of America – for your sake, mine and all generations that follow.

Sunday, October 16, 2016

Notice that Michelle Obama never offers any actual proof of Barry's eligibility to run for president. Neither does her husband as both avoid mentioning, with rare exceptions, the 2011 birth certificate he unexpectedly produced. They don’t want to draw attention to it because after expert examination, it has been judged by to be fraudulent.

Michelle Obama Secretly Confesses Her Husband is an Illegal President


I am a psychiatrist and forensic profiler. Utilizing my training in the unconscious mind, I read between the lines of people’s statements, speeches and written messages. But what I really do is read people who deep down are reading themselves, and I report on what they tell. Using the dazzling new unconscious mind with which a person quick-reads themselves in the blink of any eye and then tells what they see in a quick-speak symbolic language, I translate what they tell me in their own deeper voice.
My clinical research in deeper unconscious communication reveals that people communicate verbally—but unknowingly—around important issues especially when they’re not telling the truth.
Actually this is familiar to most from the basic way Jesus described the deeper mind in his famous dictum (to paraphrase), “the flaw you see in your neighbor may be the far larger flaw you secretly see in yourself—but deny and project onto your neighbor.” His “log in your eye” parable perfectly parallels the recent discovery of the unconscious super intelligence, the dazzling new unconscious. The discovery of the super intelligence represents a major paradigm shift in knowledge about the mind, how we communicate and who we really are. In short, at important times while the conscious mind speaks literally the unconscious mind speaks symbolically—in code.
Basically I am a decoder—utilizing very specific principles such as the fact the deeper mind always reads a reality event, a living fact, and must tell the truth.
I have demonstrated in a new book (The Stockholm Syndrome President: How Trump Triggered Obama’s Hidden Confession) and a previous one (The Obama Confession) that Barack Obama’s super-intel has repeatedly confessed between the lines that he’s an illegal president (programmed by radical Islam to disrupt America). But he has a cohort in crime. The stunning fact is that Michelle Obama unconsciously matches his “illegal president” confession for confession.

Christians listen up – No staying home this time – Show up and vote for Trump

Trump is America’s man – God’s man – the people’s man – women’s man – minority’s and inner city’s man.  Trump is the man.  Forget the dribbling speech of sell out criminal Hillary Clinton desperately trying to get her small crowds to get excited about being the first woman President -  ‘Isn’t it time for there to be a first woman president?”

A MUST READ...You already know this, but the Clintons do everything for themselves and their team. Hillary is crisscrossing the country flailing at an attempt to tell people how she is the real candidate who cares about their wants, needs and desires. Make no mistake, there were payments directly to Bill and Hillary Clinton for deals they engineered on others' behalf. That is called pay for play and blatantly illegal.

Clinton Cash Worse Than You Thought

10/16/2016 - Bruce Bialosky

For someone who has held the Clintons in disdain for 25 years, I did not believe I could be stunned by any activity in which they participated. Still, you read Clinton Cash by Peter Schweizer and you sit there slack-jawed. Is there nothing these people will not stoop to?
The introduction defines Schweizer and the creditability of the book. His two most recent books before this were Throw Them All Out: How Politicians and Their Friends Get Rich off Insider Stock Tips, Land Deals, and Cronyism That Would Send the Rest of Us to Prison and Extortion: How Politicians Extract Your Money, Buy Votes, and Line Their Own Pockets. Two clear attacks on the bipartisan graft and crony capitalism being done at the highest levels of our federal government.

His manuscript for Clinton Cash was provided to investigative reporters at The New York Times,Washington Post, ABC News and FOX News. This was an obvious effort to diffuse the anticipated onslaught from the Clintons and their cronies and to a great extent establish the integrity of his findings. Clearly he was not some anti-Clinton wacko as he would soon be branded by the Clinton flock. The NYT and WP took parts of the book and exploded them into bigger stories of Clinton corruption.

Everyone will have their favorite story of the Clintons skirting rules to enrich themselves, but mine comes in the second chapter where President Bill hooks up with President Nursultan Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan. Calling him “president” is a loose use of the word as he has really been dictator of the country since 1990. Any elections are just charades. This guy is so despicable the sleaze oozes from the pages of the book. Why Clinton would want to associate with a guy like this and grace him with the credibility of our country defines the corruption of the Clintons and their endless money chasing as Bill says “I have to pay the bills.”

Saturday, October 15, 2016

If Nixon Had Done Emailgate, He Would Have Died In Prison

The second presidential debate pushed these two thoughts into the front of my brain: First, why are the moderators always allowed to be so egregiously, unapologetically, shamelessly biased against Mr. Trump? And, secondly, and this is not supposed to be funny - indeed, it is no laughing matter - why didn’t Hillary do her part of the debate dressed in orange and in a concrete and steel cell - pacing back and forth under an observation camera?

If you believe that 99%+ of the votes are legitimate, think again. The new, modern-day voting systems which await you in the polling place, or a voting terminal which can be accessed from your personal home computer, or your vote trasnsmitted by email or fax are owned and/or managed by private, for-profit corporations who guarantee their "clients" (the princes of industry, barons of banking and business, and the courtesans of commerce) results which they can't achieve through an honest election. According to not only Black Box Voting.org, but several of the nations within the European Union, the programs within the e.voting systems used throughout the free world are compromised to such an extent that they are so fundamentally flawed they allow machines to miscount or either manufacture or lose votes through GEMS applications that enable “end runs” around the voting system.

by Jon Christian Ryter

How Germany banned the use of computer totals to determine the winners of elections in 2009—and how the United States failed to do the same. Shame on us.
In 2009 a German father and son team, political scientist Joachim Wiesner and his sonUlrich Wiesner, a physicist, filed suit in the German Federal Constitutional Court (the equivalent to our US Supreme Court) to ban the use electronic voting machines which tabulate the votes and determine the winners and losers. The father and son plaintiffs argued before the German high court that voting machines are open to massive vote fraud, producing votes from non-existent voters as well camouflaging non-eligible voters who were not citizens of Germany. The Wiesners showed the court how the source codes can be manipulated to produce massive vote fraud, Constitutional judge Andreas Vosskuhle ruled that while the plaintiffs did not produce specific evidence that vote fraud had occurred in the 2005 election which was contested, Vosskuhle agreed that when the source code in the electronic voting machine tabulates the votes, there was no transparency which allows the voter to see what actually happens to his vote inside the computer. Five Germanic states cast their ballots by electronic voting machines in 2005. The electronic voting machines used in that election were the ESD1 and ESD2 from the Dutch electronics firm NEDAP (Nederlandsche Apparanfen).
(See the attached link showing that voting machines which have created between 32 and 36 million fraudulent votes for Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012 stole the elections constitutionally won in 2008 by Sen. John McCain and in 2012 from former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney.) The German high court agreed with the plaintiffs and banned the use of computers to count the ballots in Germany's federal elections. Votes cast were tabulated by hand counting the ballots in front of poll watchers to prevent massive vote theft by the computer creating votes which were never cast.

Friday, October 14, 2016

The Obama Eligibility Question – Part IV

U.S. GOVERNMENT POLICY ON DUAL CITIZENSHIP?

by Paul Hollrah, ©2016
Obama performing the “Lipala” dance while visiting Kenya in July 2015
(Oct. 14, 2016) — The official U.S. government policy regarding dual citizenship is found in publications of the Consular Affairs Division of the U.S. Department of State, as follows:
“The concept of dual nationality means that a person is a citizen of two countries at the same time.   Each country has its own citizenship laws based on its own policy.  Persons may have dual nationality by automatic operation of different laws rather than by choice…
“U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one citizenship or another.  Also, a person who is automatically granted another citizenship does not risk losing U.S. citizenship.  However, a person who acquires a foreign citizenship by applying for it may lose U.S. citizenship…
“The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it… because of the problems it may cause.  Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law…  However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country.  They are required to obey the laws of both countries(emphasis added).”  
As a dual US-Kenyan citizen, Barack Obama is a citizen of both the United States and Kenya.  He did not apply for either dual US-British or dual US-Kenyan citizenship.  They were his by “automatic operation” of British and Kenyan law.  But what is most concerning is US government policy which states that “dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country.  They are required to obey the laws of both countries.”  It is inconceivable to think that any person who holds citizenship in a foreign nation… such as Barack Obama… should also be allowed to serve as president of the United States.
Given the fact that the rules of the U.S. State Department require Obama to obey the laws of Kenya anytime he visits that country, we are faced with the rather knotty question of whether or not he could serve as president of the United States during his visit to Kenya in July 2015.
Section 3 of the 25th Amendment reads as follows: “Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.”
I would suggest that Obama’s ability to serve as president of the United States while on Kenyan soil was highly problematic and could have been resolved by invoking Section 3 of the 25thAmendment, making Joe Biden Acting President during the two days of his stay in Kenya.
Joe Biden may on occasion slip into the Oval Office when Obama is on the golf course, just to sit in the big leather chair behind the Resolute Desk.  Regardless, Obama’s trip to Kenya was Biden’s big chance to go down in history as one of only two men, along with George H.W. Bush, who have served as Acting President of the United States.  Unfortunately, Obama’s desire not to focus attention on the question of his own constitutional eligibility blew Biden’s big moment.
————————–
Paul R. Hollrah is a retired government relations executive and a two-time member of the U.S. Electoral College.  He currently lives and writes among the hills and lakes of northeast Oklahoma’s Green Country.

Thursday, October 13, 2016


The Obama Eligibility Question – Part III

BARACK OBAMA’S CITIZENSHIP STATUS

by Paul R. Hollrah, ©2016
(Oct. 13, 2016) — In PartsI and II of this series we discussed the meaning and the purpose of the presidential eligibility clause in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.  Specifically, we discussed the Founders’ fear of foreign influence in the executive branch of government, as well as their judicious use of the word “or” in differentiating between the terms “citizen” and “natural born Citizen.”  In Part III we will discuss Barack Obama’s eligibility as the 44th president of the United States, citing specific provisions of applicable US, British, and Kenyan law.
Part 2, Section 5[1] of the British Nationality Act of 1948, the controlling legal authority on who is British and who is not, reads, in part, as follows: “Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth…”
Barack Obama, Sr., a citizen of colonial Kenya, was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies when Barack Obama, Jr. was born on August 4, 1961.  Therefore, under provisions of the British Nationality Act of 1948, it is indisputable that Barack Obama, the reputed 44th president of the United States, was born with dual US-British citizenship “by descent” from his Kenyan father and his American mother.
However, following Kenya’s independence from Great Britain on December 12, 1963, Kenya’s newly-adopted Constitution went into effect.  Chapter VI, Section 87[3] of the 1963 Kenyan Constitution provided as follows: “(1)  Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11thDecember, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (Barack Obama, Sr,)… shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December 1963.  Provided that a person shall not become a citizen of Kenya by virtue of this subsection if neither of his parents was born in Kenya.  (Both of Obama’s paternal grandparents were born in Kenya.  Hence, Barack Obama, Sr. became a citizen of Kenya on December 12, 1963, the first day of Kenyan independence)
Chapter VI, Section 87[3] of the 1963 Kenyan constitution further provides as follows:“(2)  Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (Barack Obama, Jr.)… shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963.”
In other words, on December 12, 1963, through automatic operation of Kenyan law, Barack Obama acquired dual US-Kenyan citizenship.  He did not actively seek British or Kenyan citizenship; they were his by “automatic operation” of British and Kenyan law and “by descent” from his father.  And since there is no known evidence that he ever took steps to renounce his American citizenship, he automatically lost his Kenyan citizenship under provisions of Chapter VI, Section 97[1] of the 1963 Kenyan Constitution on August 4, 1984, his twenty-third birthday.
However, to further complicate matters, the people of Kenya voted on August 4, 2010, to repeal the constitution of December 12, 1963, replacing it with a revised and rewritten constitution.  Few Americans are aware that the constitution of August 4, 2010 brought Obama back into the fold by creating a category of Kenyan citizenship called “citizen by birth.”
It has been reported that, during fiscal year 2010, the Obama administration spent some $24 million in USAID funds in Kenya in support of a “yes” vote on the new Kenyan Constitution.  Chapter 3, Section 14 of the 2010 constitution provides as follows: A person is a citizen by birth if on the day of the person’s birth, whether or not the person is born in Kenya, either the mother or father of the person is a citizen (of Kenya).  The constitution adopted on August 4, 2010, reinstated Barack Obama as a dual citizen of the United States and Kenya.
In other words, the attempt to damage or diminish Donald Trump by classifying him as an original “birther” is totally meaningless because Barack Obama is, in fact, a citizen of Kenya “by birth,” regardless of the place of his birth… Kenya or Hawaii.
To properly evaluate Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility to serve as president of the United States and commander-in-chief of the Army and the Navy, and to more completely understand the motivations of the Founding Fathers, it might be instructive to compare Barack Obama’s qualifications with those of a known individual who the American people would be certain to reject as president.
For example, if it is true, as some Obama apologists claim, that his dual US-British and US-Kenyan citizenship should not disqualify him from serving as president of the United States, then the burden of proof is upon them to also show how the radical al-Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki, killed in Yemen on September 30, 2011 by an American drone strike, was not also eligible to serve as president of the United States.
Like Obama, al-Awlaki was a native-born U.S. citizen.  He was born at Las Cruces, New Mexico, to Yemeni parents on April 21, 1971.  He was at least 35 years of age at the time of his death and he had resided in the United States for 17 years.  In other words, Anwar Al-Awlaki, a central figure in the planning of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon; the man who recruited Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the attempted Christmas Day 2009 bomber of Northwest Airlines Flight 253; and the spiritual mentor of Fort Hood assassin Major Nidal Hasan; had precisely the same qualifications for president as Barack Obama.
The only discernible difference between Obama and Al-Awlaki’s qualifications for the U.S. presidency is the fact that Obama’s mother was a US citizen when he was born.  However, that lone distinction is not sufficient to alter the fact that both men were born with dual citizenship “by descent” from one or both of their non-U.S. citizen parents.

HYPOCRITE MICHELLE (AKA MICHAEL) OBAMA: "I don't know men who talk that way." OOOOPS...What about all those hip hop rappers you have had in the White House?


Michelle Obama Says She's Never Heard Anything Like Trump?


BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH:  So Michelle Obama's in New Hampshire, and she's commenting on Trump's locker room talk, and she says, "It's not locker room talk.  I don't know men who talk that way.  Decent men do not talk that way.  What Trump was talking about was sexual assault," she said.  "Donald Trump was acting out sexual assault, and it is intolerable."  Something... You know, Trump said... If you go back to this audiotape, he said, "When you're a celebrity, they let you do anything."  How can there can be assault if somebody's granting permission? 
How can it be assault if they let you do anything?  But that's a fine point.  The fine point is Trump... Men brag, and she is telling people that she doesn't know men who brag.  You know the people that have been to the White House? How about some of the rappers that talk about their bitches and their hos have performed such lyrics in the White House?  But she doesn't know men who talk and sing about sexual assault.  It's all over hip-hop lyrics and has been for a while!
The Fix is In: Hillary Campaign contact with Justice Department revealed by WikileaksOctober 12, 2016Department of Justice scales not exactly balanced More
Clinton email leaks show campaign's close cooperation, collusion with mediaOctober 12, 2016A debate moderator and New York Times writers take "media bias" to a whole new level. More
Hillary and her media allies throw rape victims under the busOctober 12, 2016Good-bye to "right to be believed," and hello again to slut-shaming. More
A Contrast of Justice: Sheriff Joe won’t get the Hillary TreatmentOctober 12, 2016A prosecution without precedent for Sheriff Joe. More

Why you should vote for Trump, even if you can't stand himOctober 12, 2016It seems simple, but it makes all the difference. More

Wednesday, October 12, 2016

The Obama Eligibility Question – Part II

HOW HAVE 19th AND 20th CENTURY POLITICAL LEADERS DEFINED THE TERM “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN?”

by Paul R. Hollrah, ©2016
(Oct. 12, 2016) — In Part I of this series we discussed the way in which the Framers indicated that the terms “citizen” and “natural born Citizen” were mutually exclusive, not synonymous.  And we discussed the all-important significance of the phrase, “or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution…” in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution, signifying that the terms “citizen” and “natural born Citizen” were to be seen as mutually exclusive… one all-inclusive, the other describing a specific category of citizens.  
Were that not the case, and had the Framers intended that the terms “citizen” and “natural born Citizen” were to be viewed as synonymous, the Framers would simply have written,No Person except a Citizen of the United States shall be eligible to the Office of President…”  
The Framers found it inconceivable that a president of the United States, commander in chief of the Army and the Navy, should ever be influenced by or required to obey the laws of a foreign country.  It is for this reason that the Constitution limits candidates for president and vice president to those who are “natural born” citizens, and to those who were citizens of the United States at the time the Constitution was adopted.  There can be no exceptions.
In Part II, we will provide examples of how 19th and 20th century political leaders and legal scholars have differentiated between the terms.  For example, in 1866, John A. Bingham, chief framer of the 14th Amendment, which granted citizenship to the freed slaves, wrote as follows: “Every human being born within the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty(emphasis added) is, in the language of the Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”
While the Constitution itself does not define the term “natural born Citizen,” the legal precedent referred to in the Olson-Tribe memorandum cited above is taken from Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162(1875), the only defining precedent established by the U.S. Supreme Court.  The Court concluded in Minor 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.”
In subsequent years, as modern transportation systems were developed and international travel became commonplace, the term “natural born Citizen” evolved to include those who were born to American citizen parents outside the continental limits of the United States… as was the case with former Michigan Governor George W. Romney (born in Mexico to American parents) and Senator John McCain (born in Panama to American parents.)
Today, many thousands of babies are born each year to U.S. citizens on foreign soil.  In cases where both parents are U.S. citizens, those children are “natural born” citizens under Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.  Conversely, many thousands of children are born each year on American soil to parents, both of whom are not U.S. citizens.  Under the 14th Amendment, those children become U.S. “citizens” at birth, but they can never qualify as “natural born” citizens.
Clearly, those who drafted the U.S. Constitution and subsequent amendments knew what it meant to be a “natural born” citizen, but what of our political leaders of today?
In the early months of 2008, at a time when Hillary Rodham Clinton was the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination and few observers were taking Barack Obama seriously, a number of lawsuits were filed questioning whether Senator John McCain, having been born in the Panama Canal Zone, was a natural born U.S. citizen.
Former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson, a conservative Republican, and Harvard Law professor Laurence H. Tribe, a liberal Democrat, were assigned the task of researching the issue.  In a March 19, 2008 memorandum, Olson and Tribe concluded that, “Based on original meaning of the Constitution, the Framers’ intentions, and subsequent legal and historical precedent, Sen. McCain’s birth, to parents who were U.S. citizens serving on a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936, makes him a ‘natural born Citizen’ within the meaning of the Constitution.”
Weeks later, in an April 10, 2008 statement, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said, “Based on the understanding of the pertinent sources of constitutional meaning, it is widely believed that if someone is born to American citizens anywhere in the worldthey are natural born citizens.  Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen (emphasis added).”
This was followed by an April 30, 2008 Senate resolution, approved by a vote of 99-0 (Senator John McCain abstaining).  The resolution declared: “Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a ‘natural born citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.”  Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) voted in favor of the resolution. 
It is important to note that all five references… the 1866 Bingham definition, the 1875 Minor v. Happersett decision, the Olson-Tribe Memorandum, the Leahy statement, and the U.S. Senate Resolution… all utilize the plural terms “parents” or “citizens,” strongly suggesting that the “natural born” question rests principally on the necessity of both parents being U.S. citizens.  Nowhere in the law or in legal precedent is it even suggested that a child born on American soil to a foreigner can claim status as a “natural born” US citizen.
It is also important to note that, during the past decade, a number of resolutions have been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives aimed at amending Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, completely altering the traditional interpretation of the term “natural born Citizen.”  For example, in support of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s stated presidential ambitions, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), introduced H.J.R. 104 on September 15, 2004.  The resolution proposed to amend Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution by adding the following language: “A person who is a citizen of the United States, who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years, and who is otherwise eligible to hold the Office of the President, is not ineligible to hold that Office by reason of not being a native born citizen of the United States.”
H.J.R. 104 was referred to the House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on the Constitution, where it remained through the end of the 108th Congress.  Then, early in the 109th Congress, on February 1, 2005, Rohrabacher made a second attempt with the introduction of H.J.R. 15, which contained essentially the same language as the failed H.J.R. 104 of the previous Congress.  And while it is understandable that Rohrabacher would attempt to amend the Constitution to make it possible for his own governor, an Austrian-born naturalized citizen, to seek the presidency, similar attempts by Democrats during the same decade are not so easily understood or explained.
For example, on June 11, 2003, during the 108th Congress, Rep. Vic Snyder (D-AR) introduced H.J.R. 59 which would have totally eliminated the “natural born Citizen” requirement in Article II, Section 1 by substituting the following language: “A person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 35 years and who has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years shall be eligible to hold the office of President or Vice President.”
The Snyder proposal was followed by H.J.R. 67, introduced on September 3, 2003 by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI).  The Conyers proposal would have added the following substitute language to Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution: “A person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years shall be eligible to hold the Office of President.”
On January 4, 2005, early in the 109th Congress, Conyers made a second attempt with the introduction of H.J.R. 2, proposing the same language as contained in H.J.R. 67 of the 108thCongress.  And on April 14, 2005, Rep. Vic Snyder made yet another attempt, introducing H.J.R. 42, containing amendatory language identical to his H.J.R. 59 of the 108th Congress.  All of the above resolutions, proposing to send constitutional amendments to the states for ratification, suffered the same fate.  All died in committee without being acted upon.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher is finishing his 13th term in the U.S. House of Representatives
Any member of Congress is free to introduce a resolution proposing an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  However, what distinguishes Rep. Rohrabacher’s resolutions from those of his Democratic colleagues is that his motive was clear; he was interested in making it possible for his governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, to seek the presidency.  The motivations of his Democrat colleagues, on the other hand, are a complete mystery; they only serve to raise major questions.
In other words, if the “natural born Citizen” requirement had not represented a major problem at any time in U.S. history, why were Democrats suddenly concerned about it in 2003, 2004, and 2005 when a young black man, the son of an American mother and an African father, born with dual US-British citizenship, was emerging as a rising star in the Democratic Party?
So the question arises, what did Congressmen Snyder and Conyers know that caused them to offer proposed constitutional amendments, any of which would have solidified Barack Obama’s presidential eligibility?  More specifically, what did they know about Obama’s presidential ambitions and his inability to meet the “natural born Citizen” standard, and when did they know it?  What did they know about Democratic Party efforts to “groom” an unknown black state senator from Illinois to become president of the Unites States, and when did they know it?
There is no better exemplar of the fears that motivated the Framers to limit access to the presidency to “natural born” U.S. citizens than the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania, Ave.  Barack Obama’s father was a Muslim and a black African socialist and communist sympathizer; his mother was a left-wing socialist flower-child; his stepfather was an Indonesian Muslim of unknown political leanings; his grandparents were far-left communist sympathizers; his teenage mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, was a well-known Communist Party writer and activist; the people who were instrumental in launching his political career in Chicago were Weather Underground terrorists who had killed U.S. law enforcement officers; and his religious mentor was the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, an America-hater of the first order.
It is precisely this sort of intellectual environment that the Framers feared most and that caused them to limit access to the presidency only to those who are “natural born” US citizens.  With that formative background is it any wonder that, upon gaining the presidency, Barack Obama has attempted to “fundamentally transform” the government of the greatest nation on Earth?
Support for Barack Obama’s eligibility to serve as President of the United States begs the question: precisely what is it that differentiates a “citizen” from a “natural born” citizen?  Those who agree that the two terms are mutually exclusive, but who also argue that Obama is “natural born,” are obliged to support that position with facts and reason.  They have yet to do so.
In Part III and Part IV of this series we will discuss the circumstances of Barack Obama’s birth and citizenship, as well as US government policy on dual citizenship.
—————————
Paul R. Hollrah is a retired government relations executive and a two-time member of the U.S. Electoral College.  He currently lives and writes among the hills and lakes of northeast Oklahoma’s Green Country.

VIDEO: OBAMA SEXUAL HARASSMENT...Will this make the MSM news today?