May 8th, 2010
By Bob Unruh
CNN, one of the mainstream media outlets that have either belittled or ignored the question of Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president since before the 2008 election, tonight gave the topic a primetime spotlight as Anderson Cooper defended the computer-generated online image of a Certificate of Live Birth that lists a 1961 Hawaii birth for the president.
Cooper invited onto his “360″ program Lt. Col. Terry Lakin, an Army doctor who is facing court-martial because he has told the military he will not follow orders unless Obama can document his eligibility to be commander-in-chief.
The questions he is raising are like those raised in numerous lawsuits and other challenges to Obama – whether he qualifies to occupy the Oval Office under the Constitution’s requirement that a president be a “natural born” citizen.
While the term is not defined in the Constitution, many legal analysts believe at the time it was written it meant a person born in the U.S. of two U.S. citizen parents. Obama clearly does not qualify under that definition, since he has admitted his father never was a U.S. citizen. Some legal challenges have argued he wasn’t even born in Hawaii.
Lakin is not the first officer to raise such a challenge, and in at least one other case the Army rescinded orders so that a confrontation over the dispute would not develop. And a new Washington Post/ABC poll reveals that tens of millions of Americans doubt Obama’s eligibility.
Cooper dominated the combative interview, demanding answers from Lakin, telling his lawyer, Paul Rolf Jensen, to let his client answer and then forging ahead with his own arguments.
Lakin was able to explain that it is a constitutional issue that applies to the presidency.
“I submitted Article 138 [requests],” he said. “It was the only way I could research the issue. I was asking and begging my leadership for guidance on how to address this issue.
“It’s fundamental to the Constitution. My oath of office is to the Constitution. I believe we need the truth on this matter,” he said.
In the absense of substantive responses, Lakin eventually created a situation that he hopes will result ultimately in some answers.
Cooper argued that Lakin previously had taken orders from many officers without demanding their birth verification, and Jensen explained that was because the Constitutions sets the specific requirement for the president, not military officers.
Cooper also cited the online “Certification of Live Birth” as proof of Obama’s Hawaii birth. Jensen responded that the law in the state created opportunities for individuals to obtain the Hawaii records – Cooper kept referring to the “Certification” as a “Certificate” – without having been born in the state.
The COLB is “an official document,” Cooper claimed.
“That is not correct,” said Jensen.
Cooper also accused Lakin of following “false” information about Obama. Jensen urged Cooper to “tell the truth to your viewers.”
Eventually Cooper cut off Jensen and Lakin, telling them, “I appreciate you being on this program.”
Lakin is working with the SafeguardOurConstitution website, which is generating financial support for him.
He is scheduled to have an Article 32 hearing sometime in the next few weeks, probably in the early part of June. The hearing will begin the court-martial process for him.
Response by American Grand Jury:We have been over this a 100 times before. The MSM is covering for Obama. This is not a complicated issue and the truth is so obvious that a 10-year old child can understand.
Last night Anderson Cooper tried to convince the listeners that the entire “birther” argument revolves around some kind of fantasy belief that Obama is eligible simply because he was born in Hawaii. That is utter propaganda. The Obama “eligibility” issue as it applies to LTC Lakin’s defense has little or nothing to do with where Obama was born. Obama could have been born in Hawaii, Kenya or on the moon for all we care. The real issue is about the status of birth, not the place of birth.
And now for the ump-tee-nth time on this blog I will quote the Constitutional requirement for serving as President of the United States:
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
a) “Natural born” is a “class” of citizenship. If a person is elected or ascends to the Office of the Presidency that person must prove he or she belongs to that “unique” class of citizenship. I could spend hours telling you why the Founders established this requirement but in general, it goes to “loyalty” to the United States of America. The Founders wanted to guarantee that no President had “dual-citizenship” or could claim allegiance to another Country while serving as President. If you question the Founders on this most important requirement then you believe the Constitution is invalid. Shame on you!
b) “Native born” is NOT the same class as “natural born.” The liberals all try and mask the issue by using this slight in words. “Native” can apply to any person that was born in the United States or its territories. Obama may be “native born.” We don’t know for sure as he has never proved his citizenship. Is Obama a native born citizen, of dual-citizenship or an illegal alien? Obama has spent close to $2.0 million dollars in attorneys’ fees trying to avoid answering this question in court. Why do you suppose any person in their right might would spend that kind of money to avoid proving citizenship status?
c) “Certification” is NOT the same as “Certificate.” This slighted term used by supporters of Obama falsely claim that Hawaii’s Certification of Live Birth (commonly known as the “short form” or COLB) proves Obama is eligible to hold office. This is false. A “Certification” is missing the documentation necessary to prove “natural born” status. For the folks out there that refuse to accept the truth it is like breeding a dog. If you want a pure-bread dog then you breed an AKC registered male with an AKC registered female (and you have the papers to prove it). If you want a “natural born” citizen then you breed a United States male citizen with a United States female citizen (and you have the papers to prove it). If you breed a United States citizen with a foreign national citizen then you get “less” than natural born. You may get “native born” but you don’t get “natural born.” In the most basic of terms, “natural born” REQUIRES the breeding of TWO US citizens. Obama’s father was a British subject. He was not a US citizen at the time of birth. Case closed. I don’t care how you try and slant the argument, Obama can never be a “natural born” citizen of the United States because of the citizenship status of his father.
d) There is one last and final argument. MOST scholars and legal minds believe that “natural born” status ALSO implies that this class of citizen must be born within the United States or its sovereign soil to qualify. This is open to debate, but even the liberal judges who try and defend or skew the “natural born” clause do agree on one thing, that “natural born” citizenship means born of TWO US citizen parents. Supreme Court Justice Ginsberg (a liberal) is a good example. She claims her grandson born of 2 US citizen parents in Paris, France is a “natural born” citizen. I believe she is wrong but even if she is right what good does that do Obama?
Now you know why the liberal press and people like Anderson Cooper slant their words to try and convince people that Obama is eligibile. They know they are lying, I know they are lying and now you know they are lying. “Native born” is NOT the same thing as “natural born” and the myth that an Obama birth in Hawaii gives us a qualified “natural born” citizen President is just that, a myth.
Below is what a REAL Hawaiian CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH (long form) looks like. This is the famous Nordyke Birth Certificate that was issued in 1961 around the same time as supposedly Obama was born in Hawaii. This document includes ALL the information necessary to “certify” a birth in a hospital by an attending physician, attest to the citizenship status of the parents and to further certify (without question) the citizenship status of the child. This document can prove “natural born” citizenship status.
Here is an image of the document alleged to be Barack Obama’s birth certification (COLB). It is NOT a “long form” birth certificate. It does NOT prove “natural born” citizenship status. This document doesn’t even prove that the mother was a United States citizen. Many scholars and eligibility attorneys believe that Obama is nothing more than an illegal alien. How does that make you feel?
Posted by Bob Filed in MSM Propaganda, Obama Eligibility Fraud
8 Comments »
May 8th, 2010
Mr Anderson,
Forgive me sir…I must have misunderstood the intent of your show. Was I wrong to believe you were a component of the free press; a professional journalist?
I was very confused about the manner in which you attempted to attack your guest, Lt. Col Lakin, as opposed to engage him. Did I miss something?
Maybe I got it all wrong, Mr. Anderson, but it looked like your intentions were to discredit this principled, highly decorated, honorable warrior, who demonstrated his dedication to the Constitution and the American people.
Unlike you sir, Lt. Col Lakin has put his life on the line on many occasions just so ingrates like you could heap abuse on him. He is obviously a much better man than you.
Now in my book, your conduct tonight, places you in the same incredibly unique category as that of Ms. Ma’am Boxer. You both represent an insult to the American people and especially intelligent society. You knowingly participated in disseminating false and misleading information with regard to the eligibility issue, a subject in which you proved your gross incompetence, and at the same time because I believe you did so deliberately, in my opinion, you are also guilty of the crime of misprision. Further, in my view, this is a violation of the FCC license under which your broadcast network operates. So in principle, At the very least CNN should be sanctioned and fined for your transgressions.
But not to worry Mr. Anderson, the damage has been dramatically contained due to the small size of your viewing audience. Well that is with the exception of those like me who just tuned in out of curiosity to see CNN live up to their biased reporting. I am happy to say you certainly met my expectations!
Your actions and behavior were classic Alinsky style techniques. It is hard to imagine that the management of CNN and you really are this stupid. Hey…but I suspect you drink enough Kool-Aid and as a natural consequence it has distorted your judgment, your ethics, your morality and your humanity.
But take heart! The American public sees right through your treachery. A brief glance at the CNN ratings confirms this fact.
The losses at CNN continued a pattern in place for much of the last year, as the network trailed its competitors in every prime-time hour. (CNN still easily beats MSNBC in the daytime hours, but those are less lucrative in advertising money, and both networks are far behind Fox News at all hours.)
But it is all relative isn’t it Mr. Anderson…CNN beat out MSNBC in the ratings. WOW…what a coup. Next thing you know you will start paying viewers to watch you. Maybe even offer unimaginable incentives…compliments of the American tax payers of course via the WH.
So maybe the viewing public is not as dumb as you first thought….Maybe the public sees through your criminal intent. Maybe, just like Joe Wilson, the viewing public does not like liars and propagandists. What do you think? But really who cares what you think; certainly not most of your viewers.
You know Mr. Anderson, through-out history, every traitor has had a price…what was yours?
Respectfully,
Arnie Rosner
Comment by American Grand Jury:Nice write-up Arnie.. the entire interview last night was nothing more than a hatchet job on LTC Lakin.
What do you expect from a gay fruit-loop like AC?
Here is a nice photo of the he and his sweetie!!
Posted by Bob Filed in Lt. Col Terry Lakin, MSM Propaganda
37 Comments »
May 7th, 2010
Dear Editor:
Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle stated on Thursday that Obama was born at Kapiolani Medical Center, despite state law which prohibits the release of birth information.
I tried last night and again this morning to send Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle the following e-mail. Both times I got a “system down for maintenance, please try again” message. I plan to resend it throughout the day.
Dear Governor Lingle,
I see that you recently stated Obama was born inKapi’olani Hospital in Honolulu.
It is very important that America know if the man in the Oval Office is actually Constitutionally eligible to be president. I am asking you to clarify your statement on his birthplace.
Where did you get the information that says Obama was born at the Kapi’olani Hospital in Honolulu? Contrary to your recent statement, neither you nor anyone from Hawaii ever mentioned the name of the hospital where Obama supposedly was born. Therefore, your statement is inaccurate and misleading.
Did you see Obama’s real, long-form, vault copy birth certificate and hospital records, or did you just say he was born at Kapi’olani because that’s what Obama (sometimes) says? I believe there has been a search (or searches) of the hospital’s birth records, and nothing showed up indicating Obama was born there. Are the Kapi’olani Hospital birth records from 1961 now freely available to the public? Since this birth is no longer a secret, could the records showing the doctor’s name and other information please be posted online to help clear up the mystery of where Obama was born and to whom? As you know, many sources, including numerous members of the Kenyan Parliament, Obama’s grandmother and an aunt, Michelle Obama, and various worldwide news sources have referred to Obama as having been born in Kenya.
Also, I thought Hawaii law forbids discussion of any birth record? On the Hawaii Department of Health web page, it states that birth records are not released to anyone who does not possess “a tangible interest” in the record. Has that law been changed suddenly? Is it a law you recently signed?
Is the plaque finally going to be hung at this hospital saying Obama was born there? If so, I want to see the source used as proof he was born there.
I am going to call the Kapi’olani Hospital, as I plan to visit Hawaii and would like to see the birthplace of America’s first black president. I will ask them if there is a marker or a plaque or something at the hospital I can take a picture of.
Please use my contact information to reply as soon as possible.
Respectfully,
A Concerned Citizen
PS…Are you aware that Reverend James David Manning is having trial of Obama in Harlem, NY, starting on the 14th of May, 2010? He claims to have proof of Obama’s ineligibility to be president. It could be interesting. Perhaps the ineligibility is related to Obama’s father never being an American citizen, or maybe to Obama’s apparent adoption by Lolo Soetoro while they lived in Indonesia, rather than where Obama was born? We will soon see.
Note by American Grand Jury:To the Concerned Citizen who wrote this letter.. thanks for sending this (or trying to send it) to Governor Lingle.. She should clearly understand that “we the people” know that her statement about Obama being born at the Kapi’olani Hospital is pure propaganda designed to get a favorable nod from Obama and his communist administration. I think Lingle rhymes with “Dingle.” [as in dingle-berry] 
Posted by Bob Filed in Obama Eligibility Fraud
26 Comments »
May 7th, 2010
While Katie Couric and Michael Bloomberg were surmising that Tea Party Patriots were behind the failed New York bombing, Nashville was waking up to the aftermath of the area’s largest rainfall in 500 years.
The storms began rolling in Saturday afternoon as I watched the radar. By early evening, I was glued to the local news. People were fleeing their cars, as they began to float. A Christian school building was swept away and joined cars and trucks drifting down highway 24.
The damage is devastating, the cost is in the billions; thousands have lost everything, but is it news worthy? Not really, not to the extent it deserves. Some are asking why, but some of us believe the answer is obvious.
In an excellent article by Nashville native, Patten Fuqua, entitled “We Are Nashville” Fuqua abandons his usual topic of hockey and ponders the same question. Why so little media coverage?
Fuqua writes:
If you live outside of Nashville, you may not be aware, but our city was hit by a 500-year flood over the last few days. The national news coverage gave us 15 minutes, but went back to focusing on a failed car bomb and an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. While both are clearly important stories, was that any reason to ignore our story?
The Cumberland River crested at its highest level in over 80 years. Nashville had its highest rainfall totals since records began. People drowned…It is the single largest disaster to hit Middle Tennessee since the Civil War. And yet…no one knows about it.
It seems bizarre that no one seems to be aware that we just experienced what is quite probably the costliest non-hurricane disaster in American history. The funds to rebuild will have to come from somewhere, which is why people need to know. It’s hard to believe that we will receive much relief if there isn’t a perception that we need it.
A large part of the reason that we are being ignored is because of who we are. Think about that for just a second. Did you hear about looting? Did you hear about crime sprees? No…you didn’t. You heard about people pulling their neighbors off of rooftops. You saw a group of people trying to move two horses to higher ground. No…we didn’t loot.
click the image to see the YouTube video..
Posted by Bob Filed in MSM Propaganda, Public Sentiment
13 Comments »
May 7th, 2010
William R. Hawkins
In the expectation that the unemployment rate won’t change much from the 9.7 percent March figure when new April numbers are released Friday, David Wessel wrote a pessimistic column that appeared in The Wall Street Journal on May 5. In it he argued,
It’s hard to exaggerate how bad the job market is. Here’s one arresting fact: One of every five men 25 to 54 isn’t working.
Even more alarming, the jobs that many of these men, or those like them, once had in construction, factories and offices aren’t coming back. ‘A good guess…is that when the economy recovers five years from now, one in six men who are 25 to 54 will not be working,’ Lawrence Summers, the president’s economic adviser, said the other day.
Demand for workers who haven’t much education-which includes many men, particularly minority-group men-is waning. A shrinking fraction of them are working. Some are looking for work; some have given up. Some are collecting disability benefits or an early-retirement pension. Some are just idle.
The quotation from Summers raises the question of whether President Barack Obama is listening to his economic team when crafting his immigration policy. At his Cinco de Mayo reception, he noted that among Hispanics, “the unemployment rate remains unacceptably high.”
On the White House website, among the tenets of the President’s immigration policy appear the following:
He believes our immigration policy should be driven by our best judgment of what is in the economic interest of the United States and what is in the best interest of the American worker
President Obama will remove incentives to enter the country illegally by preventing employers from hiring undocumented workers and enforcing the law.
All of these statements would support a policy aimed at reducing the number of illegal immigrants in America to reduce the pool of uneducated, low skilled workers whose demand has fallen, and who are competing in a limited market against American citizens who need the work.
Yet, the actual “comprehensive reform” legislation that the White House is promoting would legalize millions of illegal immigrants, making the employment situation worse for legal American citizens, including many blacks and Hispanics. As Obama said April 10 in Guadalajara, reform should “give an opportunity for those who are already in the United States to be able to achieve a pathway to citizenship so they don’t have to live in the shadows” or work in them either.
It is clearly not in the economic interest of the United States or best interest of the American worker to increase immigrant labor at the low end of the employment spectrum when the market is already exhibiting an excess of supply over demand. Economic logic tells us that wages will fall, poverty and idleness will rise, and as a result, welfare expenditures, family disintegration, and crime will increase.
Since the President and his economic advisors know this, why would they champion a policy that will make so many American workers worse off? Can it be something as devious as the belief that an expanded underclass will vote Democrat, even if the Democrats put them in their impoverished state?
Posted by Bob Filed in Illegal Aliens and Immigration
8 Comments »
May 7th, 2010
This photo was taken in Phoenix, Arizona as a group of Hispanic sympathizers [many of them illegal aliens] assembled in protest at the State Capitol against Governor Brewer who signed the new immigration law. The media of course doesn’t show you this side of the immigration issue.
Posted by Bob Filed in Photo of the day
14 Comments »
May 7th, 2010
by Jim Kouri
While complaining about the new Arizona immigration law and strategy, the Obama Administration is actually hindering federal enforcement efforts to thwart what’s being characterized as an illegal alien invasion of the U.S.
Under the current administration of President Barack Obama, national security and public safety are taking a backseat to so-called environmental preservation, a policy that led to the recent murder of an Arizona rancher
The U.S. Interior Department prohibits routine patrols and operations conducted by Border Patrol agents along the Mexican border on roads labeled “land managed.”
The Mexican national entered the U.S. through the 2,300-acre San Bernardino National Wildlife Refuge and subsequently escaped through it after gunning down rancher Robert Krentz a few weeks ago, according to the report.
For years, Border Patrol agents have been prohibited by the U.S. Interior Department and the U.S. Forest Service from actively patrolling such areas because it threatens natural resources, according to GOP members of the Natural Resources Committee Republicans.
House National Parks, Forests and Public Lands Subcommittee Ranking Member Rob Bishop (R-UT) announced that Republican Committee staff have confirmed with both Border Patrol and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that the criminal who killed Arizona Rancher Robert Krentz both entered and exited the U.S. through federal land on the San Bernardino Wildlife Refuge.
The San Bernardino Wildlife Refuge is a 2,300 acre area in Arizona managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS,) an agency of the U.S. Interior Department, that shares three miles of the border with Mexico. This is one of the areas that Border Patrol has been unable to effectively monitor due to environmental regulations enforced by Department of Interior land managers.
According to a 2009 letter from the FWS, Border Patrol only has emergency vehicle access to this refuge. The FWS defines emergency circumstances only when human life, health or safety of persons in the areas must be immediately addressed.
Furthermore, Border Patrol access for emergency purposes is limited to established roads.
As a result of Border Patrol’s inability to properly monitor this area, illegal traffic is moving through the refuge on nearly a daily basis.
Posted by Bob Filed in Illegal Aliens and Immigration
8 Comments »
May 6th, 2010
RUSH: A long time ago I made the prediction on this program, when the stimulus money runs out the states are going to have to finally start laying off people, making budge cuts and so forth. I’ve been making this prediction for months. “Goodbye, Stimulus. Hello, State Budget Cuts.” CNNMoney.com: “Think states have made deep spending cuts? You ain’t seen nothing yet. States have been struggling with huge budget gaps since 2008, but this year could be worse as federal stimulus funds wind down. ‘The stimulus funds have staved off what could have been even deeper cuts,’ said Todd Haggerty, policy associate at the National Conference of State Legislatures. ‘You’re seeing states now are coming to that point where they will have to make additional cuts or find new sources of revenue for fiscal 2011 and that will continue in fiscal 2012.’ But with this lifeline running out, officials are looking at making significant cutbacks to public services, particularly schools and health programs.”
Now, if we had not had any stimulus, the same budgets that are being cut now would have been cut a year ago, but the debt would have been smaller. So how exactly did the stimulus do anything but delay the inevitable? Because the stimulus did not lead to any more productivity. No GDP was added to. There was no more gross domestic product, no additional production. The private sector has not grown, and the public sector lives off the private sector. If not for the private sector there is no public sector. So all these public sector people making two times what private sector employees make, that’s not sustainable. It can’t go on. It’s what’s happening in Greece. It’s happening all around us. And it was an easy call, very easy.
