What if there was a major scandal and the major media just decided to ignore it? What if the President committed a felony in office and the media simply ignored it?
That is going on right now. What is it?
It is the Obama birth certificate forgery case.
On April 27, 2011, Barack Obama released what he claimed was his long form birth certificate. At first, it looked believable. It seemed to settle the issue of whether or not he was a natural born citizen. It seemed to settle the issue that he was born in Hawaii, pretty much as advertised.
The only problem is, the “birth certificate” Barack Obama released is a forgery.
There are two questions this forgery raises. Why would Obama chose to release a forgery and why is the lap dog media just sitting there, ignoring what could be the biggest scandal since Watergate?
Obama released the forged birth certificate because he has something to hide. Obama released the forgery because he is arrogant enough to this no one would ever get to the bottom of it. What is it he wants to hide? Well, that is the million dollar question. Clearly there is something he is trying to hide.
Why isn’t the media all over this? Other than Joseph Farah at World Net Daily, all you hear from the mainstream media is crickets chirping.
First, let’s start with the basics. How do we know the document is a forgery? According to experts, the “birth certificate” was altered using the Adobe Photoshop program. Mara Zebest is a Photoshop expert. She has written numerous books on Photoshop. In addition, she has been a contributing author or technical editor on more than one hundred books dealing with either Adobe products or Microsoft Products. She shows how the “birth certificate” was altered using Photoshop. Rather than explain it here in this blog, here is her report on the subject.
By releasing a forged “birth certificate” Barack Obama has committed at least one felony. Forgery, according to 18 USC 494 is defined as follows:
Whoever falsely makes, alters, forges, or counterfeits any bond, bid, proposal, contract, guarantee, security, official bond, public record, affidavit, or other writing for the purpose of defrauding the United States; or
Whoever utters or publishes as true or possesses with intent to utter or publish as true, any such false, forged, altered, or counterfeited writing, knowing the same to be false, forged, altered, or counterfeited; or
Whoever transmits to, or presents at any office or to any officer of the United States, any such false, forged, altered, or counterfeited writing, knowing the same to be false, forged, altered, or counterfeited—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
Obama probably did not do the photoshopping of the birth certificate himself. Someone else did. For purposes of criminal law, that does not matter.
By releasing that forged birth certificate, Obama has published this false, forged and counterfeited writing, which he claims is his birth certificate. That is a felony.
Obama can be indicted for a felony and once he leaves office, tried for this crime.
Those are strong words and they are my opinion. But what makes my opinion special? I practiced law for 23 years. I did hundreds of jury trials. I spent ten years as a prosecutor and the rest of the time as a criminal defense lawyer. I have tried everything from Drunk Driving to First Degree Murder. I could put this in front of a jury and get a conviction.
Which goes back to the most important question. Why is the media ignoring this scandal? As far as scandals go, this one is a slam-dunk. This one is easy to prove.
You can bet your bottom dollar if it we were talking about Sarah Palin, the media would be on this story in droves.
In 2004, the media, led by disgraced and deranged liberal Dan Rather jumped all over forged documents claiming to show that George W. Bush had not fulfilled his Texas Air National Guard duties.
The media wanted to go after the Republican in the White House and for the last two and a half years, they have been shilling for Obama. Even Fox News is silent on this one.
We conservatives need to break the liberal news monopoly. We need to do it for the survival of this country.
We also need some Republicans with backbone. When the GOP wins the White House in 2012, we do not need another George W. Bush who just wanted to let bygones be bygones and even called Democratic contributors to Gore to thank them for being involved. We need Republicans in there who will take a long look at what was done in the four years of the Obama regime and where crimes are found, not simply sweep it under the rug, but indict and prosecute wrong doing.
The first thing a new Republican Department of Justice should do is launch a grand jury investigation into Barack Obama and his forged birth certificate.
Nancy Pelosi one of the prime enablers in the Obama fraud wrote a letter on April 1, 2009 to a constituent. There is no reason to suspect that this is an April fools prank, but the letter makes it clear that the fool is Pelosi, who certified Obama met the constitutional requirements to be President for the DNC to Hawaii and only Hawaii. The Hawaii Democrat party had refused to certify Obama as constitutionally eligible as they had to previous candidates for President in previous years.
"President Barack Obama was born on August 4, 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii as a naturally born United States citizen. As he has neither sworn allegiance to, nor renounced to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship expired on August 4, 1982. President Obama was sworn in as the 44th President of the United States on January 20, 2009."
Here Nancy freely admits that Obama had dual citizenship at birth. How then can he be a natural born citizen?
Supreme Court precedent in Minor v. Happersett 1874 by unanimous decision, Chief Justice Waite delivering the opinion of the court:
"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.
"Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as early as 1790, provided "that any alien, being a free white person," might be admitted as a citizen of the United States, and that the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under twenty-one years of age at the time of such naturalization, should also be considered citizens of the United States, and that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens. n8 These provisions thus enacted have, in substance, been retained in all the naturalization laws adopted since. In 1855, however, the last provision was somewhat extended, and all persons theretofore born or thereafter to be born out of the limits of the jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were, or should be at the time of their birth, citizens of the United States, were declared to be citizens also."
From this legally binding precedent two things are clear. One, natural born citizen are children born in a country of parents who are citizens. Two, the original constitutional intent as evidenced by the Naturalization Act of 1790, at the time of the Constitution, by the people who largely signed that document, implied that the original meaning of natural born citizen was a child born of citizen parents in the country. These men relaxed the requirement of place of birth but not of parentage. The natural born citizen is primarily then a function of parentage. The naturalization act of 1790 is the only legislation that mentions the term natural born citizen, which must be construed as a more restrictive definition than that of citizen. Subsequent legislative expansion of the meaning of citizen does not denigrate the original meaning of natural born citizen, nor could it without a Constitutional amendment.
The 14th Amendment makes no mention of natural born citizen. Thus Chief Justice Waite does not refer to the 14th Amendment for the foundation of his decision, but directly to the Constitution and the Law enacted by the framers of the Constitution for interpretation of the meaning of natural born citizen.
The opposing forces supporting the illegal Presidentcy of Obama cite primarily Black's Law Dictionary and two ads from newspapers that are no longer in existence and can not be produced in a court of Law, relying as definitive proof of birth, a piece of plastic which has not been forensically tested for authenticity and does not mention the name of the president and gives an address where his parents never lived.
The supposed birth certificate has been subpoenaed by Federal Court in Hawaii. Failure to comply with a lawful Federal subpoena shall be construed as further proof of fraud.
Obama is, regardless of place of birth, not a natural born citizen. So saith Pelosi. So saith the Supreme Court. So saith the Constitution of the United States of America.
I received an email from a friend in Italy. When you read it you will find that the MSM has even gotten to Europe.
In reply to your gentle e-mail, Here in Italy the question of the birth certificate of Barrack Obama has done very little rumour about it. I know very well that a person who is not born in the United States cannot be elected President and for instance Arnold Schwarzeneggar who was born in Graz (Austria) could not run for white house. I have read different sources about this problem, from Huffington, Washington Post, NY Times and San Francisco's Chronicle, but as used to say my mother, the Paper lets itself write down. With modern devices and photoshop programs you are able to modify at your personal account what you want to demonostrate.
Although the grammar is off, I'm sure you will find out that MSM has infected the world.....and that we conservatives are lunatics and fanatics.
True, but what gets me - why are we not documenting those ( a relatively small group of team members ) who are who a steering the media? They seem to be all of the same cut, but what is their ultimate goal? It isn't just Soros, it involves a synergistic circle of money. It is too simple to go with NWO, since the cadre itself is closed seemingly to those through like inheritance. Since its founding, Eustace Mullins points out in his book, Secrets of the Federl Reserve, that the institution was controlled by individuals through inheritance. But such critical information always comes too late, and the insiders have their way. They speak of the glass ceiling, are they peering down on us?
Two articles listed on Yahoo at the same time:
Arctic sea ice thaw may be accelerated by oil, shipping
Record-High Antarctic Sea Ice Levels Don't Disprove Global Warming