Barack Obama 2012

[East Sun]

Yes Araxes,, bigger problems indeed. It's more important that he has violated the constitution, passed laws without the knowledge of the majority of the population. Laws that take away our freedom. Why do they go along with all this?
The pol. mil. corp. groups have an agenda that is being kept from us. We are in the dark as far as the big picture and that's not where we should be.
Without big change in politics it can only get worse. It's useless to vote for Obama or Romney.
It's almost an impossible situation. Without extreme changes world wide without violence we are caught in a circle of manipulation and deception.
First we need to know exactly what is going on that is kept from us. Even the best, most aware don't know so we are guessing and grasping at straws. So we argue about the deceptions put in front of us. And most don't want to hear it.
I'm just shaking my head.

[Unified Serenity]

The founding fathers did not want our President to ever have possible split loyalties and thus they put in the "Natural born" citizen clause as one of the requirements unless they came over in the beginning for the likes of Washington etc.. There is some debate on what natural born means, but everyone knows that it must be two parents who are American Citizens. Obama's father was a British Citizen and thus Obama could have split loyalties. His mother was not of legal age to confer citizenship. So, no matter where Obama was born, he could never be natural born, but he could become a citizen. The same issue applies to Marco Rubio whose parents were not citizens when he was born here, but later became citizens. Rubio is not qualified to be President either no matter his politics. I think this is one reason the "right" has not made a big issue of the citizenship because they want Rubio on the ticket eventually.

[toad]

Posted by Araxes (here)
To me, this shouldn't matter. The man was clearly not born on American soil, but his mother is American, and he grew up in America. To me, he is 'American' as it gets. Whatever that means, policies disregarded. Really, all I see is a technicality, and a loophole in the American constitution which is archaic and doesn't really embody what it is to be American. To be born in America is not to be American and vice versa. Nor is the same true of any territory.

However, we use this 'technicality' as a tool because we deplore his policies.

What if he had been the greatest president in history, and had truly changed the world in the way that we at Avalon envisage? Would we want him out then because he wasn't actually born in America?

The dreams of a man should not be bound by his circumstance. Allegiances are not determined by birth, and yet the one thing in which we have no say decides ultimately to whom we will bear our patrimony.

Anyone in the world should be allowed to be president of the United States of America. If it is their conscious choice to become American, and they successfully become a citizen, they are no different to an American born.

That is not to say that presidential candidates shouldn't be forthcoming about their real identity. A candidates suitability and 'Americanness' can be assessed by the public in an honest election (ideal I know), regardless of where the candidate was born, as long as they are a citizen. Obama is committing identity fraud and that is an inescapable fact. He should tell the truth, but at the same time we must forgive him for not adhering to what is in my opinion a ridiculous rule.

We can focus our energy on this 'loophole', just to get one bad president out of the oval office, but there are certainly bigger problems to be addressed in American politics.

I pretty much agree, I mean if someone lived their entire life in Russia, and had sloppy english, I can't imagine we would elect him, so I don't think that technicality really matters anymore, I think people are so gungho about this because of the nature of Obama and his politics.

[GoodETxSG]

He is so obviously not a natural born citizen... but with America coming apart at the seems because of all of the corruption and all of the Media basically controlled by the same group... it is all crap. If this is ever proven as fact there will be an Emergency Session of Congress called and then another MAJOR change to the constitution will be made to allow non NBC's to be POTUS. This will prevent all of their NAZI laws they worked so hard to pass from being voided... and open a can of worms as to who may be future presidents... Damned if we do and Damned if we do not. But damned we are until we clean house.
Where there is smoke there IS FIRE... so I do believe this is true. Nothing to do w/L or R wing politics... just to do with what is right.
SAD SAD Times in the world, let alone the good ole USA.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by GoodeTXSG (here)
If this is ever proven as fact there will be an Emergency Session of Congress called and then another MAJOR change to the constitution will be made to allow non NBC's to be POTUS. This will prevent all of their NAZI laws they worked so hard to pass from being voided.

Congress can't change the USA constitution; it requires 3/4's of the states as well.

I know it is "common knowledge" that if Obama were found to have taken the office of the Presidency illegally, then all the laws he signed would be void. However, I can't imagine that is true.

Both the above are minor details however. I agree the "resolution" would suck, by some other devious means. Perhaps the Supreme Court would rule that he was a natural born citizen by some twist of legalese, or perhaps they'd stop the elections if this came out too close to election voting day this November 2012 (and use that excuse to ratchet up the tyranny one more visible notch.)

[Praxis]

Straight up: If one of his parents is an American citizen then it does not matter where in the world he was born. This is a ridiculous topic that really should not enter in serious discussion of world events. One of his parents is american therefore he is, period. Focus on what he is doing as president and not some red herring. Nationality is stupid anyhow and should be going the way of the dodo.

[GoodETxSG]

Removed by poster, caused confusion as to what I was responding to. Sorry

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by 9ofClubs (here)
Straight up: If one of his parents is an American citizen then it does not matter where in the world he was born.

In an effort, partially successful for a while, to keep hidden tryannical powers from controlling our nation, we, the free and honorable people of this nation, the USA, play by certain rules, beginning with the US Constitution.

It matters where he was born because the Constitution says it matters, for arguably good reason.

The notion of doing what seems important to some citizens, regardless of the law, soon decays into a lawlessness that is akin to mob rule of the majority (as controlled by the most successful propagandists.)

Yes, the government of my country has grown into something dreadful in my lifetime, but it has done so in spite of, spitting in the face of, the Constitution, not in accord with it.

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Posted by GoodeTXSG (here)
I agree, but ... You are right about the law.. but ...

To whom, or which post, were you responding ?

[GoodETxSG]

Posted by 9ofClubs (here)
Straight up: If one of his parents is an American citizen then it does not matter where in the world he was born. This is a ridiculous topic that really should not enter in serious discussion of world events. One of his parents is american therefore he is, period. Focus on what he is doing as president and not some red herring. Nationality is stupid anyhow and should be going the way of the dodo.

May be a redi topic to you but it is the law and put in place for a very good reason... otherwise get an american woman knock er up.. raise the child in another country for part of their childhood and get them elected and boom... proxy leader of the US by a foreign regeim... Both parents should be natural born citizens of the US let alone the person trying to be POTUS. If both parents were us citizens nat born It wouldnt matter where they were born... happens w/Military families all of the time.... there is a national security issue of great significance... darn it... this tablet is to type on.....

[GoodETxSG]

Posted by Paul (here)

Posted by GoodeTXSG (here)
If this is ever proven as fact there will be an Emergency Session of Congress called and then another MAJOR change to the constitution will be made to allow non NBC's to be POTUS. This will prevent all of their NAZI laws they worked so hard to pass from being voided.

Congress can't change the USA constitution; it requires 3/4's of the states as well.

I know it is "common knowledge" that if Obama were found to have taken the office of the Presidency illegally, then all the laws he signed would be void. However, I can't imagine that is true.

Both the above are minor details however. I agree the "resolution" would suck, by some other devious means. Perhaps the Supreme Court would rule that he was a natural born citizen by some twist of legalese, or perhaps they'd stop the elections if this came out too close to election voting day this November 2012 (and use that excuse to ratchet up the tyranny one more visible notch.)

I agree, but having the clout to do something legally or illegally and still "Make it so" is what we have to worry about... Just look at the abuse of Presidential Executive Orders and complete disregard and distruction of the Constitution... They are getting away with murder... secret executive orders are the scary ones... you would not beleive the ways we have been able to skirt international laws of war by secret decrees that give certain top secret forces "legal" segways to complete missions that are completely illegal in world courts... they DO exist... and all they have to do is have the balls to make the change and enforce it just like all of the financial BS that people say will lead to mass arrests... W/I hope happen... I think something like that will be at least tried... it will be up to some BRAVE people to stand up to it and fight it... being that these Cabals own the US Supp court, State courts and most every representative... You are right about the law.. but they will not give up so easy I assure you.

[GoodETxSG]

Posted by Paul (here)

Posted by 9ofClubs (here)
Straight up: If one of his parents is an American citizen then it does not matter where in the world he was born.

In an effort, partially successful for a while, to keep hidden tryannical powers from controlling our nation, we, the free and honorable people of this nation, the USA, play by certain rules, beginning with the US Constitution.

It matters where he was born because the Constitution says it matters, for arguably good reason.

The notion of doing what seems important to some citizens, regardless of the law, soon decays into a lawlessness that is akin to mob rule of the majority (as controlled by the most successful propagandists.)

Yes, the government of my country has grown into something dreadful in my lifetime, but it has done so in spite of, spitting in the face of, the Constitution, not in accord with it.

PAUL: Spoken better than I could ever have! You speak the truth and make the point very well, TY

[InTheBackground]

Interesting. My literary agency requested biographical materials from me. I would assume, since Obama wasn't really anyone of consequence at that time (this is an assumption, I don't know much about his history that far back) that he would have written the material himself. At the very least, he would have known exactly what it said.

MHO.

[InTheBackground]

Posted by Earth Angel (here)
ah yes just a misprint .....here you go
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/b...214423507.html

Obama's former literary agency misidentified his birthplace as Kenya while trying to promote the then-Harvard Law grad as an author in 1991.

Posted by SilentFeathers (here)
I'm sure it's just a miss-print and or forgery....just wait for a few days, the Whitehouse will come out with the "real" copy.

I had posted on another thread about this. Obama was a Harvard Law grad, but was he "anyone" in particular in 1991? Because my literary agency requests a biography from its authors to be provided by said authors. Unless Obama had a PR team back in 1991, I am thinking the information would have been requested from and provided by him to his agency, or at the very least it would have been written by an agency assistant from an information sheet provided by Obama himself.

Just my experience, FWIW.

[frozen alchemy]

I can easily see a scenario happening where Obama was in Kenya as a young child and this was interpreted somewhere along the line as 'born in'. This is much ado about nothing, considering whoever put him in office, for whatever purpose, isn't going to change their plans now.

We all know that presidents are not selected by popular vote, right?

[sigma6]

I still think if it ever went to court that he wouldn't be found guilty, in fact they would never bring it to court because they know what they are doing is not illegal, they aren't operating according to the constitution, they are a corporate entity, running a corporation, and you signed on when you gave your signature (your credit) on the SS-5 application. Guaranteed they still have that document on file in their 'bank'. That is their proof that you gave your consent to be a part of this corporation, kind of like the paper work you sign when you want to be an employee of a business corporation.

Obama, his Birth Certificate - Hidden History of United States
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...999#post452999

[Seikou-Kishi]

Posted by humanalien (here)

Posted by Earth Angel (here)
ah yes just a misprint .....here you go
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/b...214423507.html

Obama's former literary agency misidentified his birthplace as Kenya while trying to promote the then-Harvard Law grad as an author in 1991.

Posted by SilentFeathers (here)
I'm sure it's just a miss-print and or forgery....just wait for a few days, the Whitehouse will come out with the "real" copy.

You guys seem to forget that obama himself, vetted the book before it was published,
so everything in the book must be true...

Or at the time he must have wanted people to think it were true.

[jackovesk]

A man of the Left? Barack has trampled over Left, Right and Centre

May 27, 2012

Obama has destroyed more civil liberties than Bush ever did.

IT'S been fun for the left in Australia to fixate on the Republican candidates for the American presidency. It's been fun to joke about their policy quirks and eccentricities. Fun to pronounce that nothing is scarier than the prospect of a Santorum or Romney administration.


'Barack Obama has been much worse than his Republican predecessor.'

Yes, the Republican race has been a convenient distraction. Because it would not do to dwell on an uncomfortable, undeniable reality - Barack Obama, the left's man in the White House, who was supposed to restore America's standing in the world and end George Bush's assault on civil liberties, has been much worse than his Republican predecessor.

Obama has undermined more individual rights and hoarded more presidential power than Bush ever did. It's not that he has simply failed to roll back Bush's anti-terror excesses. (Although that is true, as well.) It's that Obama has trumped them. More than 10 years after the September 11 attacks, the White House is still amassing extra security powers. On December 31 last year, Obama signed the National Defence Authorisation Act.

This act allows the military to arrest and indefinitely detain anybody within American borders, and without any judicial authorisation.

This power is quite an increase. Under the Bush administration the military could only legally arrest and detain people in other countries. American citizens were protected by an 1878 act banning domestic military deployment. Obama no longer observes this legal nicety.

And Obama has claimed the right to assassinate any American citizen he deems a terrorist threat, at any time, according to nothing but his judgment, anywhere in the world. As a former CIA chief recently pointed out, while the President needs a court order to eavesdrop on Americans abroad, he does not need a court order to kill them.

There's more. George Bush's once controversial covert surveillance program has dramatically expanded under Obama. The President's emergency powers have been boosted. An executive order Obama signed in March (number 13603) grants more to the President in an emergency than any order yet: allowing the government to take over all food, transport, water, energy and health resources, and reintroduce conscription if the President wants to.

Executive orders are used to bypass the usual checks and balances in Congress and the courts. As the Cato Institute's Jim Powell pointed out last month, there is nothing in order 13603 about protecting constitutional rights.

No wonder the director of the American Civil Liberties Union says he is "disgusted" by the Obama administration's record. Sure, Obama has withdrawn troops from Iraq. Mission accomplished, as they say. But on the other hand he has also personally pioneered an entirely new, more enduring form of global warfare.

Drone attacks will remain long after the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have faded into historical memory.

Because drone war is permanent war. It is limited by nothing more than the whims of the President. It is the first war run entirely by the CIA. It is conducted on the territory of countries to which America is not formally hostile. And it took until February this year for the administration to even admit the drone war existed.

George Bush's wars of liberation, right or wrong, had their precedents. Barack Obama's never-ending global bombing campaign by remote control is his innovation. It's a fair bet that no administration will ever shut down the drone program. A competent intelligence agency can always find new threats to be bombed into the Stone Age. So if we simply apply the criteria the left used to condemn Bush as one of the worst presidents in history, there is no ambiguity. Obama is far worse again. Not that you would know about it.

Partisanship has a habit of excusing anything, with 77 per cent of those who describe themselves as left-wing Democrats wholeheartedly approving of Obama's drone program.

Imagine if a Republican did the same thing. There would be anti-drone marches in Washington and candlelight vigils in Paris and Berlin. Now the left are more interested in complaining that Republicans are sceptical about climate change.

They ignore, excuse - even, according to the polls, defend - their President's abominable record on war and individual rights. Because he isn't a Republican.

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/pol...526-1zbxh.html

PS - Convolute to where this article originated, the 'Truth' has the same 'Resonance' not matter where it is Read, Listened, Watched & Heard..!

The 'Universal 'Truth' has (NO) Global or Universal Barriers..!

It is the 'Truth' that will 'Battle & Defeat' the 'NWO Globalist - Chosen One' & the Next & the Next until they are 'No More'..!

It is the 'Truth' that will 'Battle & Defeat' the 'Suppressed - Hidden Knowledge'..!

It is the 'Truth' that will 'Battle & Defeat' (ALL) who stand in its way..!

It is the 'Truth' that will lift up 'Humanity' to its rightful place within the Universe...

I love 'The Truth & The Truth' loves (All) who still believe in its Power to effect 'Real Change'...

Cheers to the 'Truth'...

Jack...

[ghostrider]

the president is good at giving our money to companies that go bankrupt. I think it's the only thing he does well.

[jackovesk]

W.Va. Dem Primary: Obama 60%, Felon 40%

Texas jailbird Keith Judd comes close in coal country

May 9, 2012

A felon serving time in a Texas prison has managed to give President Obama a run for his money in West Virginia's Democratic primary. Keith Judd, who is serving a federal sentence for extortion, took 40% of the vote to Obama's 60%, the highest result of any Democratic challenger in the primaries so far, reports Politico. The result may get Judd four delegates to the Democratic National Convention, although officials say it's not clear whether he has filed the necessary paperwork.


More than a third of Democratic primary voters in Virginia prefer this guy to President Obama.

Judd—who filed to run in 14 states in 2008 but only made it onto the ballot in Idaho—was able to get on the West Virginia ballot by paying a $2,500 fee and filing a form known as notarized certification of announcement, state officials say. West Virginia has never been Obama country—he lost every county to Hillary Clinton in 2008—but the Judd vote shows just how unpopular the president is in some areas, the AP notes. Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin and Sen. Joe Manchin, both Democrats, have refused to say whether they'll vote for him in November.

http://www.newser.com/story/145674/w...-felon-40.html

PS - What does that tell-ya...???

Then there is this 'CRIMINAL CLOWN' trying to (SPIN) the story with his usual '101 Psychological Empathy for Dummies' babel..!

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=dwLJHZY3ZtU

https://youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=dwLJHZY3ZtU

You lying sack of 'Sh#T" Biden..!

Soon you will be imprisoned right alongside Keith Judd for committing the 'Same' Offence..!

For all we know Keith Judd, may well be innocecent...

But we 'Know' both You & Barry are as 'Guitly As Hell'...!

[GlassSteagallfan]

Obama’s plan to disarm America
By Douglas J. Hagmann

28 May 2012

Slipping silently under the radar is an insidious plan by Barack Hussein Obama, Hillary Clinton, Eric Holder and legislative globalists is a plan to disarm American citizens. The initial reaction of most reasonable people in America would be to cry out “impossible!” and cite our right to possess firearms under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. That was my reaction as well, until I began a lengthy and complex investigation into the realm of the U.N., current U.S. leadership, and related non-governmental agencies (NGOs). I was unprepared for what I discovered. The trail leading to ultimate global gun control that includes the U.S. is a long, twisted and arduous route that is not easily followed, but I’ll attempt to summarize my findings in a succinct and logical format.

Treaties in general

There is much discussion that the U.S. will never enter into any international treaty ceding U.S. sovereignty as it would take at least two-thirds of the Senate to ratify. Once ratified, a treaty would also be as binding as a Constitutional Amendment, something Americans would never accept. Before you argue that U.S. citizens would never stand for an agreement that is essentially an “end around” the U.S. Constitution and as binding as a Constitutional Amendment, just consider recent Executive Orders, the passage of the health care bill, the establishment of a “super congress,” and other things thought to be virtually impossible in present-day America. Other legal arguments concerning international treaties exist but are beyond the intended scope of this article.

The push to disarm U.S. citizens

To put things into perspective, first consider the statement made by Barack Hussein Obama to Sarah Brady during a meeting on 30 March 2011 concerning gun control: “I just want you to know that we are working on it. We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.” That statement alone should sufficiently establish this administration’s intent on gun control.


Additionally, it is becoming clear that Operation Fast & Furious,” a direct product of Eric Holder and Hillary Clinton, under the leadership of the Obama administration was intended as an indirect assault on the second amendment.

Consider that Holder, who defied subpoenas and offered spotty testimony about his knowledge and involvement in the Fast and Furious operation, used his testimony before a House committee to call for the need for stronger gun control laws because of the “gun walking.”

There is not enough space to detail all of the activities conducted under Holder to sufficiently make this case irrefutable, although the information exists for your review.

Also consider the Obama and Holder involvement into the Trayvon Martin shooting case. Their statements should be ringing alarm bells across the U.S. This is a case that we will contribute to chaos coming to the streets of America. The result, or the lesser result of such chaos, will be the call for even stronger gun laws by this administration.

The anti-gun ownership positions of Obama, Hillary Clinton and Eric Holder, just to name three U.S. leaders, should be sufficient to make the case that gun control is on top of their ultimate agenda of ceding U.S sovereignty to global governance. No black helicopters or ridiculous conspiracy theories required.

Small Arms Treaty of 2012 – Arms Trade Treaty Resolution

The Small Arms Treat is one of a number of U.N. treaties under consideration by our current leadership, which includes both sides of the now fictitious political divide. The Small Arms Treaty originated in 2003 by a group of Nobel Peace Laureates and was initially addressed in the UN in December 2006. The UN General Assembly adopted resolution 61/89 titled “Towards an Arms Trade Treaty” that worked to establish “common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms.”

One has to look no farther than the major media, such as the October 23, 2011 edition of the Los Angeles Times to find that anyone who believes that the United Nations will have any influence over U.S. gun possession is on the “lunatic fringe” of society. Quoting from that article “only a narrow fringe purports that Americans could see their guns taken away by the U.N., which has no authority over constitutional rights.” In addition to the corporate media, one can find similar rebukes at websites such as the husband and wife self-appointed arbiters of the truth snopes.com, Fact Check, and other sites rooted in political agenda.

At present, the U.S. has joined with 152 other nations supporting the Arms Trade Treaty Resolution. A U.N. conference on the treaty will be held from 2-27 July 2012. We must not allow the U.S. leadership to agree to this treaty.

While many are absorbed and locked on to the Small Arms Treaty of 2012, other initiatives exist that present equally large threats to the citizens of our Republic.

The U.N. CASA Project and ISACS

The United Nations Coordinating Action on Small Arms (CASA), is a project of the U.N. and operates outside of any UN treaties. It receives funding from entities such as UNICEF, the Canadian and Australian governments, and other entities and individuals. Supporters include Hillary Clinton, George Soros and even NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who assert that the project is not about banning guns, but making them “safer.” It’s all smoke and mirrors.

Gun safety is the current pretext being used for gun control, and ISACS the instrument being used by the U.N. as the mechanism to subvert our constitutional rights to ultimately outlaw the possession of firearms of all types by American citizens.

IANSA

It’s been over two centuries since we’ve freed ourselves from British rule, yet a British organization known as the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA) is waging war against American gun owners. from 2002 until 2010, IANSA was under the directorship of Australian native Rebecca Peters, and was key in Australia’s laws essentially outlawing private gun ownership. Peters and the IANSA have a close relationship with billionaire globalist George Soros, and resigned her position at IANSA to avoid undermining the U.N. Small Arms Treaty process. Because of her radical and outspoken views, she became a toxic asset to the surreptitious agenda of the U.N.

Ultimate agenda

The ultimate agenda of the globalists is, of course, global governance. To put it differently, a one world order. Again, most thinking people in the U.S. will not accept such a scenario, unless, of course, it appears to the only answer to personal survival. Even then, thankfully, there will be holdouts, but a good deal of damage to our nation will already have been accomplished.

The primary agenda of Obama, Hillary and his stable of czars is to subvert the U.S. Constitution and submit to global governance. To do so, Americans must be disarmed. If gun control, confiscation and ultimately outlawing the possession of guns in America cannot be done within the confines of our current Constitutional process, they are attempting to do so through international treaties and initiatives camouflaged as beneficial programs.

Much like the health control bill, measures buried deep within these voluminous treaties represent an assault on our personal defenses. The proponents of these measures just hope you don’t read everything that’s in them.

America is closer than ever in adopting the U.N. Law of the Sea Treaty (UNCLOS III), something that most Americans thought would never happen. Can submission of our gun ownership rights be far behind? Disarmament of American gun owners is the key for our complete submission to global governance. We must not allow it to happen.

Source: http://homelandsecurityus.com/archives/6048#more-6048