Skip to main content
Foreclosure Defense FloridaGeneral InformationVideos

THE OBAMA “BIRTHER” CONTROVERSY- NOT STARTED BY RIGHT WING NUTJOBS, BUT BY BILL AND HILLARY CLINTON?

Why won’t the Obama Birther controversy die?   Clearly, because there are all kinds of nut jobs out there.   Right, I’m sure that’s correct.

I am an open mind. Open ears, open to facts, speculation, theories, hunches.

After watching this video and reading what all kinds of people, who claim first hand knowledge and who are stating facts, I ask a single question…

IF THEY ARE LYING ABOUT THESE ALLEGED FACTS, WHY ARE THEY NOT BEING SUED FOR SLANDER/LIBEL?

This woman makes direct and specific factual allegations.   If she is lying, she is subject to a major lawsuit by very rich and powerful people.   Where is the lawsuit?   Where are the lawsuits against any of the people that are making these OUTRAGEOUS claims?

We should all be comfortable to continue this discussion without fear of being criticized and harangued for continuing this conversation.

WATCH THE VIDEO

 

 

2 Comments

  • HungarianProse says:

    ” A possible source of the so-called “birther” issue–or at least a potential cause of the rumors that have dogged President Barack Obama–has been identified.

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

    According to a promotional booklet produced by the agency, Acton & Dystel, to showcase its roster of writers, Obama was “born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii.”

    Maybe this could be a reason?? Hmmmm……..Obama did not say anything for years about it?

  • Attorney Wendy Alison Nora says:

    The standard for libel against a public figure requires “actual malice” and these issues are conflated with First Amendment Freedom of Speech on a political issue. I did not pay any attention to the “birther” issue until the first of this year, when it occurred to me that Barack Obama a/k/a Barry Soetero had not been acting as if he loved the principles upon which this county was founded. I could agree that the constitution of a nation founded upon the bloody taking of the lands of the Native peoples, acknowledging slavery as an economic reality and depriving all people of the right to vote except white male landowners was flawed ab initio. Still, that is why we have treaties and amendments to the US Constitution. Growing up in the USA, I came to love the potential embodied in “We the People,” “due process of law,” and liberty and justice for all. I saw none of this in the Great Pretender, who has taken bold steps to prevent prosecutions for criminality of the Big Banks and signed the NDAA of 2012.

    I first concluded that his lack of a basic sense of what we learned as civics in grade school and middle school and with which we were all adept at the time of high school graduation was the result of the fact that he was brought up in Indonesia during a critical developmental phase of his life and lived under the brutal dictatorship of Suharto. He reportedly did not live in the US until age 10.

    No offense to my colleagues who graduated from Harvard Law, but it is possible at every school to answer questions correctly without believing in the substance of the answer. Barack Obama is not a constitutional law professor and never was. Whatever courses he acted as an instructor for at the University of Chicago, he was not hired as an assistant professor, had no tenure track and is completely unpublished, which is a requirement for anyone claiming such a position.

    By the time I heard Senator Carl Levin (D-Michigan) defend the indefinite detention provisions of the NDAA of 2012 in December, 2011, by saying that the White House insisted on the provision for indefinite detention by the military of US citizens under threat of veto, rather than the Progressive’s “hope” that the President we elected would veto such a heretofore never before attempted abandonment of constitutional principles, I was alarmed. By the time Barack Obama signed the NDAA of 2012 into law late on New Years’ Eve in Hawaii, January 1, 2012 in the continental states, I was thoroughly aghast. I began to call Barack Obama the Manchurian Candidate.

    I urge all people to check out the issues surrounding his Indonesian citizenship, his travel on an Indonesian passport to Pakistan while he was supposedly a college student (to which US citizens could not then travel) in his real, adopted name: Barry Soetero. Be further amazed by the concoction of the long form birth certificate (better analysis is available on the internet than the Joe Arpaio presentation, in which virtually all the key
    information is on layers, which can be lifted using Abode Illustrator.) Note that when he applied to the Illinois Bar he did not list any other names by which he has been known other than Barack Obama, although he was known as Barry Soetero to his own half-sister, Maya Soetero, who supported his candidacy on video made in Hawaii.

    I did remember that the Clintons had questioned Barack Obama’s eligibility to be elected president during the 2008 campaign and when they dropped the issue, I foolishly thought it had been legitimately resolved. I strongly recommend that anyone interested in this issue google Attorney Mario Apuzzo, who represents Plaintiffs challenging the eligibility of Barack Obama to be on the New Jersey ballot as a candidate for President of the United States. At the administrative hearing, the Candidate Obama’s attorney (paid for by taxpayer dollars?) stated that he was not relying on the long form birth certificate to establish his status as a natural born citizen. This was in response to Apuzzo’s offer of evidence that the long form birth certificate is a forgery.

    We have all seen so many forgeries and perjurious writings that we can have trouble believing what our eyes tell us. My concern is why is there so much secrecy about this man. Why, in 2004 did he not insist on correcting this report in the Chicago news media? https://web.archive.org/web/20040627142700/eastandard.net/headlines/news26060403.htm
    Why is a literary agent now (over 20 years later) claiming that she made a mistake in his bio from 1991 in which Kenyan birth is reported which was corrected in 2007? https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/17/obama-birthers_n_1526222.html
    The comments at Huffington Post provide some links to examining the ” mystery” known as Barack Obama.

    This is a very serious issue. If he is constitutionally ineligible to be President, or even thinks that he might be and has been creating documents, sealing records and changing his bio to conceal something, Congress has thus far failed to address the issues which have been well-known since 2008. Could constitutional ineligibility be the real reason behind his willingness to advance the “security state” or is it just his lack of childhood familiarity with the meaning of freedom which we were taught from a very early age? Is he being blackmailed, controlled and otherwise manipulated because powerful forces no that he is constitutionally ineligible to be POTUS or is he just a child raised in a brutal dictatorship who came to this country too long after the first impressions of government were imprinted on his consciousness, even if he was born in the USA? Either way, he is not telling the truth. There are questions about the validity of his social security number and his draft registration.

    Questions should be answered, but they are not being asked by the Main Stream Media. My vote will go to the candidate who adheres to the Constitution of the United States and the rule of law and is likely to be a third party ballot, if Ron Paul does not pull off his delegate strategy (completely suppressed by the news media) at the convention. I hope that Dr. Paul is not deferring to his son’s future in the Republican Party instead of our nation’s need for what his candidacy offers, despite my strong disagreement with him about his near-religious conviction about “free markets.” As a Progressive, I am a supporter of Modern Monetary Theory which I believe to be constitutionally sound under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 5, which authorizes Congress alone to “coin money and regulate its value.” Confusion arises as to the original intent of this clause: Does it require gold and silver coin to be the medium of exchange? I think not because our Founders wanted to be free of private bank money, which were represented by gold certificates, fractionally issued.

Leave a Reply