"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." - Benjamin Franklin;
"And when politicians find that honor and character matter less than buying votes and a constituency, that too will herald the end of the Constitution. When that happens we must work tirelessly to change their minds, or their occupation!" - Hoping The Blind Will See

Saturday, April 9, 2011

More Smoke & Mirrors; A National Contoversy, A National Disgrace


Northeast Intelligence Network
www.HomelandSecurityUS.com3

An investigative report detailing the Obama eligibility controversy
Douglas J. Hagmann, Director

The man John Jay warned about
27 April 2010:

I cannot think of any other subject in recent American history that has been so mired in controversy, so factually misrepresented, mischaracterized and so misunderstood than the matter of the eligibility of Barack Hussein OBAMA II to hold the office of President of the United States. Despite its importance, the topic has been summarily dismissed as fodder for conspiracy theorists by many, while others insist that the question of OBAMA’s citizenship has been “asked and answered.” But has it really been answered, and if not, why not?



In consideration of the controversy that continues to plague Barack Hussein OBAMA over his citizenship status and his well documented sustained pattern of refusal to provide authenticated documentation of his birth records and numerous other pertinent records, I’ve conducted an in-depth investigation into the matter in an effort to separate fact from fiction, myth from reality. My approach was the same I’ve used as an investigator over the last 25 years on behalf of Fortune 100 companies in their selection of corporate executives, conducting due diligence background investigations. In this case, however, I was not afforded direct and unfettered access to the “applicant’s”, or in this case, OBAMA’s original records. Nonetheless, I conducted inquiries and a lengthy investigation researching the information directly or indirectly disclosed by OBAMA, as well as collections of documents, court records, official federal and state documents, verbal statements, utterances and other documents determined to be of authentic provenance.

At issue is whether Barack Hussein OBAMA or any of his representatives have furnished sufficient documentation to prove his eligibility for the office of President of the United States under Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution that 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.”

Presently, OBAMA occupies the White House as the Chief Executive Officer of the United States of America. As president, he is the commander-in-chief of our armed forces and ultimately responsible for the security of the United States. Any person of reasonable sensibilities would logically believe that his eligibility status has long been established by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) or those in positions of oversight for such matters. But has it?

In order to be as comprehensive as possible, my investigative findings include important background information into the legal definition of a “natural born citizen” as applicable to Article II of the U.S. Constitution. This background information is provided to clear up many common misconceptions about the eligibility controversy, and to explain why so many people are confused and easily mislead over this issue. After thoroughly investigating this matter, I have found demonstrable evidence that this confusion is a deliberate and highly effective tactic used to divert attention from a constitutional issue and thus, the rule of law, to the detriment of American citizens.

This report will also provide insight into the reasons for the largely ignored yet unprecedented legal fight by Barack Hussein OBAMA II, his representatives and assigns, against any release of the authenticated copy of his long form birth certificate and a multitude of other relevant historical documents.


Natural Born Citizen Qualification: The Facts


Based on extensive research, there are two separate but equally relevant legal issues that involve the specific eligibility of Barack Hussein OBAMA II to legally serve as President of the United States. First is the U.S. Constitution which was adopted into law on 17 September 1787. As noted by Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution, an individual born after 1787 cannot legally or legitimately serve as U.S. President unless that person is a “natural born citizen” of the United States.

The second issue is the precise definition of a “natural born citizen.” The Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, adopted on 9 July 1868, furnishes a rather broad definition of who qualifies as a “natural born citizen.” Specifically, who qualifies as a natural born citizen legally qualified to hold the office of President of the United States under Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution lies at the core of the eligibility argument. For the sake of clarity in advance of potential ancillary arguments, it is noted here that the Twelfth-Amendment to the U.S. Constitution mandates that Vice-Presidents possess the same qualifications as Presidents.

Obviously, there is no legitimate controversy over the eligibility status of Barack Hussein OBAMA in terms of his age and length of residency within the U.S. Despite popular belief by many to the contrary, there is, however, an unresolved issue over his status as “a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States.”

While many constitutional scholars hold different beliefs over the intent of the natural born citizen qualifier, I submit that an extraordinarily prescient illustration of logic behind this qualification can be found in a brief letter from John JAY, a founding father of the United States and the first chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court to George WASHINGTON dated 25 July 1787:
------------------------------------------------------

Dear Sir,

Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government; and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.

I remain, dear sir,
Your faithful friend and servant,

John Jay.
------------------------------------------------------

A study of the Federalist Papers and the writings of our founding fathers clearly indicate a concern for the security of the United States stemming from “threats from within,” or to prevent foreign enemies from becoming commander-in-chief. Given the nature and various enemies we currently face, the brief but ominous note to George WASHINGTON would certainly appear as relevant today, if not more so, as it was over 200 years ago.

Three years after that note was written, Congress affirmed in 1790 that a person born abroad whose parents are both citizens of the U.S. is, in fact, a U.S. citizen. In the years that followed, there have been many legal arguments to further define a natural born citizen. Based on extensive research, it would appear that the “next best” definition originates from an 1874 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162 (1874). The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that if an individual is born in the United States and both parents are U.S. citizens at the time of birth, that individual is, in fact, a natural born citizen. That same Supreme Court decision also addressed the issue of a person born in the United States where one of the parents is not a U.S. citizen at the time of the birth of the child. The ruling noted that in such a case, the child’s natural born citizenship status is “in doubt."

In any event, subsequent rulings by Congress and enacted by federal statute affirm that children born abroad by parents who are both U.S. citizens are not only U.S. citizens themselves, but are recognized as “natural born citizens.” On the other hand, individuals born in the United States or elsewhere by one or more parents who are not U.S. citizens are not likely to be eligible to hold the office of President of the United States absent of federal statute affirming their eligibility. Therein lays the current situation of Barack Hussein OBAMA II and the need to establish his citizenship status through authenticated documents.

Presidential eligibility; historical current oddities


Since the U.S. Constitution was adopted into law, every elected U.S. president who was born after 1787 was born in the United States of parents who were both U.S. citizens
except two: Chester Alan ARTHUR and Barack Hussein OBAMA II. It is interesting to note that when Chester Alan ARTHUR was born, his father, William ARTHUR was a British subject and not a U.S. citizen. There is ample authenticated historical evidence to substantiate that ARTHUR deliberately and publicly misrepresented his family lineage during his campaign and following his election in 1880 as the 21st President, took steps to destroy evidence, including family and birth records.
Barack Hussein OBAMA II has publicly admitted that his father was a Kenyan native and a British citizen who never became a U.S. citizen. Based on that admission and further verification of his father’s nationality, OBAMA’s status as a natural born citizen and thus, his eligibility to hold the office of President of the United States is questionable at best, at least according to the aforementioned Supreme Court ruling of Minor v. Happersett. This issue becomes more prescient and ominously nefarious when one investigates the overt and covert behavior of OBAMA as a candidate, his actions following his election, the duplicity of the media, members of the U.S. Congress, the Federal Elections Commission and other factors by those who appear to be working individually or in concert to purposely misdirect the core Constitutional argument.
It is obvious that not all presidential candidates are treated equally in terms of their eligibility, as illustrated during the 2008 election. During the 2008 campaign, a lawsuit was filed petitioning the removal of Presidential candidate John McCAIN from the ballot. Ironically, the suit stemmed from the questions over McCAIN’s constitutional eligibility as his natural-born status was in doubt. To put to rest any doubt, McCAIN responded by providing an authenticated copy of his long form birth certificate to the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) and Congress. Despite the early rumblings of controversy over OBAMA’s origins, OBAMA did not.

Although McCain provided his long form birth certificate and took proactive measures to ensure his eligibility to hold office, many political and media pundits remained unsatisfied. Before the term “birther” became synonymous with racist conspiracy theorist, an article published on 28 February, 2008 in The New York Times titled McCain’s Canal Zone Birth Prompts Queries About Whether That Rules Him Out questioned McCAIN’s eligibility.

On that same day, Senator Claire McCASKILL, a Missouri democrat introduced a bill titled Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act. Oddly, the bill was co-sponsored by both Senators
Barack Hussein OBAMA II and Hillary Rodham CLINTON, both who were running against McCAIN at the time the bill was introduced. Despite the specificity of its title, the bill (SB 2678) was an attempt to change the legal definition of a natural born citizen as referenced by Article II, Section I, clause V of the U.S. Constitution, a move that by default, would arguably and preemptively take away any constitutional challenges against the eligibility of Barack Hussein OBAMA II.


Although the bill failed to progress in the Senate, the same lawmakers introduced a non-binding resolution (Senate Resolution 511) on 10 April 2008 to again ostensibly recognize McCAIN as a “natural born citizen,” the resolution contained broad language that could be applied to OBAMA.


The controversy surrounding the eligibility of John McCAIN to hold office continued, at least in the media. On 11 July 2008, an article was published in
The New York Times under the title A Hint of New Life to a McCain Birth Issue. The article cited a law professor from the University of Arizona who concluded, in a detailed analysis “that neither Mr. McCain’s birth in 1936 in the Panama Canal Zone nor the fact that his parents were American citizens is enough to satisfy the constitutional requirement that the president must be a “natural-born citizen.” The law professor cited in that article, Gabriel J. Chin, published a sixty-two page discussion paper in August 2008 titled Why Senator John McCain Cannot be President: Eleven Months and a Hundred Yards Short of Citizenship (Arizona Legal Studies, Discussion Paper 08-14).

The status of Barack Hussein OBAMA, however, remained unquestioned by the majority of academia.


Arguments over importance & relevance: “Birthers” are born


Like the layers of an onion, one must peel back the layers of hyperbole, political agendas, accusations of racism, and other types of detractions and distractions to arrive at the very core of the argument, which is simply this:
Is Barack Hussein OBAMA in fact legally eligible, under the United States Constitution, to serve as President of the United States?

There are many who claim that the issue of Obama’s eligibility is unimportant and irrelevant, or an unnecessary distraction to the “real” crises facing America, including but not limited to OBAMA’s policies and actions as President. It is an interesting dichotomy that some of the most vocal proponents of the first amendment are the same who appear to disregard the fourteenth amendment, a practice especially virulent among those in the media. There are also those self-proclaimed conservative media pundits who have the collective audience of millions of Americans who flatly refuse to discuss, let alone demand answers to a legitimate legal question as defined by the U.S. Constitution.

Others claim the argument is moot, as the President was duly elected by the will of the people. Those people are in need of a history lesson as that argument is technically flawed at the most fundamental level. Others assert that questioning the eligibility issue is rooted in racism and bigotry, at which point the rule of law is ultimately lost in a flurry of deliberate distractions presented in the form of incendiary accusations.

Perhaps the most calculated and methodical approach in use today to dissuade people from addressing this issue is the labeling of anyone who believes that American citizens deserve to know whether Barack Hussein OBAMA meets the eligibility requirements as a “birther.” The negative connotations of this label are vast and incisive, and the evolution of this term has grown to include ancillary questions of OBAMA’s past.

The popular but erroneous perception is that “birthers,” often lumped together with “9/11 truthers” and others who have legitimate questions and concerns about important issues either live in a world where conspiracies dominate their thoughts, or are simply branded as kooks seeking answers to non-existent questions. The fact is that there are indeed legitimate unanswered questions about the events of 9/11 as there are legitimate unanswered questions about the background and overall eligibility of OBAMA. Individuals asking rational, fact based questions about either subject are intentionally combined with others whose questions are obviously well beyond the realm of reason.

In particular, it is not only the absence of authenticated evidence regarding OBAMA’s citizenship status at birth that cause rational people to question his eligibility status under Article II, Section I of the United States Constitution, but the manner in which OBAMA and those in positions of government oversight have responded to legitimate inquiries. It is also how some members of the media have chosen to report on this issue, misreport or otherwise distort the issue, or not report on it at all.

Whatever arguments are used to understate or even mock the importance of this matter, it cannot be denied that the rule of law is being ignored and as a result, the Constitution of the United States is being trampled. If the fourteenth amendment is permitted to be exploited, ignored or violated, it might not be long before other amendments, along with the entire Constitution, become nothing more than a footnote in American history. As such, questions surrounding this matter must be taken seriously.


The Obama eligibility issue: has it already been answered?


No. It has been a common tactic to refute questions about OBAMA’s eligibility by citing the Internet publication of a Certification of Live Birth (COLB), also known as a “short form birth certificate” purportedly issued by the state of Hawaii. The controversial document was originally posted on the Internet at http://www.dailykos.com, a political website on or about 12 June 2008 as questions about OBAMA’s place of birth and eligibility status began to become a popular Internet topic. As there was no certification of authenticity that accompanied the alleged document, its provenance could not be established.

Subsequent to the document being posted on the aforementioned website, the “Fight the Smears” website reproduced the document here. While many believe “Fight the Smears” website is an independent organization dedicated to separating fact from fiction, it is actually owned and operated by “Organizing for America,” the successor organization to “Obama for America.” Clearly, it is far from independent.

Yet another website purported to be an independent arbiter of truth is “FactCheck.org,” which claims that the eligibility status of OBAMA has long been satisfied. Like the previous site, it is important to understand who owns or operates the site in order to assess the reliability of the site. The Fact Check website is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania. It receives its primary funding from the Annenberg Foundation. It is relevant to note that Barack Hussein OBAMA II was a founding member, chairman, and past president of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which was also funded by the Annenberg Foundation. Accordingly, it is reasonable to challenge the neutrality of the information provided by that site.

Since then, the image, including variations of the image, have appeared on the Internet to “prove” that Barack Hussein OBAMA meets the eligibility requirements under Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution.


Since its original posting, numerous individuals and websites have sought to disprove the authenticity of the document, which was posted as an image in JPEG format, through analysis of the image or by other means (e.g. sequencing of certificate numbers, absence of state seal, etc.). Although there appears to be sufficient evidence suggesting the document is not a valid certificate and has been falsely created or the image has been deliberately altered, limiting discussion at this time to the merits of the COLB detracts from a much larger issue: OBAMA’s massive and unprecedented campaign to keep sealed his actual birth certificate (and other relevant records) from public view.

This is not to say that the publication of the COLB document is unimportant. In fact, quite the opposite is true if the matter of legal eligibility is ever properly and thoroughly investigated by a legitimate court of inquiry within the United States. As agents, representatives or the assigns of Barack Hussein OBAMA have publicly asserted that the question of eligibility has been officially answered by the publication of the COLB as listed on officially sanctioned web sites, and it is ultimately proven that the document is deliberately deceptive by any means, an inquiry into violations of the United States Crimes Code, 18 USC Section 1028 encompassing fraud and other related activity involving identification documents might apply.

Since the initial COLB was first published in June 2008, there have been at least two additional incarnations of the document, each containing revisions that bear additional information allegedly “supporting” its authenticity. Accordingly, the Certification of Live Birth is consistently cited by individuals, the media and others to prove the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein OBAMA. Nonetheless, even an authenticated and genuine Certification of Live Birth is legally insufficient for the purpose of proving eligibility, as it merely represents that OBAMA’s birth record is on file in the state of Hawaii. It falls short of providing the information necessary to determine constitutional eligibility in at least two areas: it does not offer any information regarding who supplied the information, nor does it confirm the authenticity of the information provided. Again, it merely indicates that the information is “on file.

Hawaii officials declare Obama eligible

Yet another deception levied against the American people is the assertion that the Hawaiian officials have confirmed Barack Hussein OBAMA’s “eligibility” through a statement issued on 27 July 2009 by Dr. Chiyome FUKINO, Director of the Hawaii Department of Health, which declared Obama Hawaiian-born and a "natural-born American citizen." Those who claim that the 2009 press release by Dr. FUKINO must understand that FUKINO has absolutely no statutory authority to make such a statement. Accordingly and based on the rule of law, that statement cannot be considered as evidence or legal documentation either to support or deny OBAMA’s eligibility status.

Hawaii birth announcements: anecdotal evidence of eligibility

Many who argue that Barack Hussein OBAMA II was born in Hawaii not only point to the COLB as direct evidence of eligibility, but they also point to two separate birth announcements that appear in the Honolulu Sunday Advertiser and the Star-Bulletin in 1961. Those doing so either fail to understand the legal definition of a natural born citizen as it applies to the eligibility factor, or are guilty of intentionally misdirecting the core issue. A birth announcement is simply that – a public announcement that a baby was born. The birth announcements do not provide any information about the child’s citizenship, cannot be authenticated, and hold no weight of evidence to support either side of the eligibility argument.

Coming next


: Legal Stonewalls; identifying the money & people behind the fight
__________________
© Copyright 2010 Douglas J. Hagmann, Northeast Intelligence Network

Permission to reprint this report is granted with proper citation and link to the original article at www.HomelandSecurityUS.com AND www.CanadaFreePress.com.

More on Eligibility here: http://networkedblogs.com/gsbgp. Part two of Northeast Intelligence Network report.

Stand With God, Stand For Liberty, Prepare To Fight For  Both!

Welcome To The Party, Pal!

Do you think it possible there can be this much smoke, but no fire? That certainly is unlikely...

The unraveling of Barry Soetoro, a/k/a Barack Hussein Obama II
By Doug Hagmann & Joseph Hagmann Friday, April 8, 2011
imageTo those who are now speaking out about the Obama eligibility matter, I can think of no better statement than the one uttered by a very frustrated Officer John McClane, played by Bruce Willis in the movie“Die Hard.” In order to get the attention of a police officer oblivious to the carnage taking place inside of the Nakatomi Plaza building after making a very cursory inspection and finding nothing amiss,McClane tosses the body of a terrorist from an office window window onto the windshield of the police cruiser and fires at the police car, yelling “welcome to the party, pal.”




I suspect that this statement accurately reflects the sentiment of numerous individuals and groups who have been fighting in the real world trenches for full disclosure of all of Barack Hussein Obama’s records, including his birth certificate, for the last three years. People such as Commander Charles Kerchner (retired) and Attorney Mario Apuzzo, Pennsylvania Attorney Philip Berg, Reverend David Manning of Atlah Ministries, and numerous others who have spoken out and taken their valiant fight for full disclosure of Obama’s records to the nation’s courts, only to be struck down for lack of standing or other arbitrary judicial opinions.

Due to the recent public statements by billionaire businessman turned reality television star about the birth certificate issue, the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama has gained equal amounts of renewed interest and contempt by the American media and a vocal segment of the American public. The latter display of contempt is nicely displayed by some recent interview clips, including the priceless Meredith Viera interview of Donald Trump where she can hardly hold back her disdain of Mr. Trump and the entire eligibility matter, and Donald Trump’s appearance on “The View” last month.

On “The View,” Mr. Trump wreaked havoc among the cadre of women co-hosts when he merely mentioned the lack of a legitimate birth certificate provided by Obama. Lacking any coherent or intellectual rebuttals to Trump’s claims, a not-so veiled accusation of racism was leveled against Trump by “The View” co-host Whoppi Goldberg, while Barbara Walters expressed discomfort with the matter by simply wanting to change the topic.

“Welcome to the party, pal”


During the last three years, there have been numerous individuals, authors, investigative journalists, and others (and I consider myself among them) who have been mocked, ridiculed, belittled or ignored by Obama supporters, the liberal media, and the political left for even suggesting that this issue has any merit whatsoever.

Perhaps even worse, conservatives on the right, including some high profile media personalities, have joined with the left in the same vitriolic ridicule of us so-called “Birthers,” a pejorative term ascribed to those who are merely asking for yet-unfurnished proof that Barack Hussein Obama is constitutionally eligible to occupy the office of the President of the United States.

It has been only after Donald Trump began to ask the same questions others have been asking for the last three years that the matter appears to have morphed from a fringe topic into legitimacy. For example, Rush Limbaugh, who has kept this topic at arm’s length, has taken delight of the Viera interview, although it’s difficult to discern whether Mr. Limbaugh is more delighted at Mr. Trump’s steam roller approach and Viera’s reaction, or that the issue is being finally exposed in such an unlikely venue. Because Mr. Limbaugh has the ear of millions every day, I tend to gravitate to the former.

To those who are now beginning to pick up the topic because of the exposure by Donald Trump, I can only say “welcome to the party, pal.”

With all due respect to Donald Trump, he has not “legitimized” the eligibility issue, as the matter far exceeds the existence of the birth certificate and has adversely affected the lives of many patriotic Americans who have long fought for full disclosure of all of Obama’s records. Promising to be the “most transparent” president in history, Barack Hussein Obama is the most deliberately opaque president who has withheld many more records than his birth certificate. Not only has he withheld his records, he has fought to keep them hidden from public view, amassing legal fees that some claim to exceed a million dollars of his own money, and perhaps twice that amount if pro-bono and other legal work is counted.

Also as a result of his refusal to disclose his records, a respected military physician is presently serving time in Leavenworth for refusing to obey deployment orders until he was satisfied that the orders he was given were constitutionally legal. LTC. Terry Lakin, an honored veteran with 18 unblemished and distinguished years of service, lost his legal battle and remains behind bars as Obama’s first political prisoner in the war for truth. While many may question the methods and venue in which LTC Lakin chose to take up his battle, no one can question his motives.

“The biggest scam ever”


Both Messrs Trump and Limbaugh have stated that if Obama is determined to be ineligible to hold office, it is the “biggest scam ever” perpetrated. Indeed, and that statement itself might be an understatement.

I urge those reading this and those who are pursuing the truth to avoid “battlefield myopia” and not merely cling to the existence or lack thereof of the long form, authenticated birth certificate. The issue is much greater than the birth certificate or where Obama was physically born, as he could have been born in the Lincoln bedroom during the Kennedy administration and still be ineligible to hold the office of president under Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the United States Constitution. Our founders determined that future presidents must be born to two parents who are both U.S. citizens. Clearly then, the place of Obama’s birth is merely one concern, while the citizen aspect of his parents remains another.

But the scam goes much deeper. Reviewing only the admissions of Barack Obama, we are told that Obama was born to U.S. citizen Stanley Ann Dunham, legally adopted by a foreign national named Lolo Soetoro, had taken the name Barry SOETORO, and was given Indonesian citizenship. He was raised as a Muslim in Indonesia, and attended a school there that accepted all faiths. At one point, Barry SOETORO moved to Hawaii to reside with his grandparents after Lolo SOETORO and Stanley Ann DUNHAM divorced. Obama completed high school as Barry SOETORO Much is missing from his early years, including a legal name change from Barry SOETORO to Barack Hussein Obama II. Absent of any document to show the legal process of a name change within the U.S., it is likely that the man sitting in the Oval Office is, in fact, Barry SOETORO.

The above would also serve to explain the discrepancies with his social security number and region of issuance, a matter we are very familiar with in our capacity as licensed investigators. The reasons we have seen published concerning the allegations of the association of multiple social security numbers with Barry SOETORO and Barack Hussein OBAMA has always bothered us, but not necessarily for the reasons often published. After careful and extensive analysis, it appears that many of the numbers and name variations associated with Obama are what we would describe as “database chaff.” It is not uncommon for database repositories to erroneously associate different numbers, addresses and sometimes names to an individual. The reasons for this are many and beyond the scope of this article, but it happens.

Accordingly, an investigator is well advised not to take the information obtained from a proprietary database at face value without first analyzing the information, tossing out the chaff and concentrating on the rest, which we have done. Additionally, we have found and concur with others on this matter that the social security number associated with Obama that was issued from the SSA region in Connecticut is troublesome, but again, not necessarily for the reasons as publicly stated by others.

As we have been investigating this matter for some time (see our investigative report 1 and report 2 in PDF format for important background information), it has become apparent that at some point, the individual known as Barry SOETORO began using the name Barack Hussein Obama II. Based on our investigative findings, it was at about this same time period that the Connecticut issuance of the social security number appeared and became “attached” to the name Barack Hussein Obama. It can then be reasonably reconciled that Barry SOETORO became Barack Hussein Obama while he was a young man in New York following his mysterious trip to Pakistan on a passport that was likely not issued by the U.S.

Trump’s curious statements


As long-time investigators dealing with large corporations, we have the distinct advantage of knowing other professionals in the industry. Although we have had no contact with Mr. Trump’s investigators nor are we connected in any manner to Mr. Trump’s organization, team or efforts, we are aware of the identity of at least one who is actively working on the Obama birth certificate mystery. We are also familiar with that investigator’s associates and their areas of inquiry, so we have a fairly good understanding of what is taking place behind the scenes - and there is plenty taking place behind the scenes.

NOTE: We will be talking about this in depth on the upcoming episode of CFP Radio’s “The Hagmann & Hagmann Report” on 8-10pm EST, Saturday, 9 April 2011. Program details follow this report.

In advance of that show, however, we should address two rather curious statements made by Mr. Trump during one recent interview. When talking about his investigators in Hawaii who are looking into Obama’s birth certificate issue, he stated that “you wouldn’t believe what they’re finding.” Mr. Trump also stated that in his experience on Wall Street, he is familiar with frauds of all types, and has seen some very sophisticated frauds over the years. Well, we do have a very good idea of what is being found or verified as having been scrubbed from the records.

In our investigation, we found that the scrubbing and altering of records pertaining to Obama began well before he became an Illinois state senator in the 1996 election cycle. The “scrubbing” or alteration of records did not begin or end with Obama, but also extended to his mother and other associates as well. In fact, a very large and extremely relevant part of the investigation of Barry SOETORO, or Barack Hussein Obama II as he is known, revolves around his parents, step father, and grandparents. and extends from the U.S. mainland to Hawaii and other points across the globe.

Meteoric rise to power was well planned


To understand how a virtually unknown politician from Illinois could rise to occupy the most powerful position in the free world in less than a decade after he became a state senator, one must take a few steps backward to understand the complete picture, and that Obama was selected long before he was elected to become president. Problems with his background were numerous, however, including but not limited to his parental lineage and place of birth. These problems became apparent through a private vetting process by his own handlers, or those who are known as the “power elite” in the latter half of the last century. His handlers were and are globalists of the highest order, extending from George Soros to those above him on the proverbial pyramid capstone of globalists.

The globalists had direct and indirect ties to the Dunham family and in particular, Obama’s mother. Consider, for example, that Peter F. Geithner (father of Obama’s Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner), worked for the Ford Foundation and oversaw the work of Obama‚Äôs mother, Ann Dunham, while she was developing “microfinance programs” in Indonesia. In brief, Obama’s mother set up a large loan system in Indonesia akin to the savings and loan structure of the 1970s and 1980s. To gain a better understanding of her activities in finance, despite her background in anthropology, recall the BCCI scandal of the late 1970s. In fact, some of the same “players” who existed then continue to exist in Obama’s circles.

Our investigation into her activities and those close to Obama are continuing and will be the subject of a separate article, including how Obama as president fits into the communist China agenda in terms of global finance. Meanwhile, it’s important to take a few more steps backward in history to understand that the scrubbing of inconvenient records is not new.

Fast Rewind: Senator Joe McCarthy & the relevance to today


The majority of Americans alive today do not recall the WW II postwar era beyond the revised history contained in textbooks that rarely reflect the truth of that time. Today’s well-coiffed but intellectually deficient anchors who deliver the news to ordinary Americans know little to nothing of the gritty reality of the origins of the “cold war” between the U.S. and the former Soviet Union, and the infiltration of communist agents into American government. It is that very infiltration that has paved the way for Obama.

Mention, however, the name of former Senator Joe McCarthy and watch as they recoil in disgust, having been taught that the inquiries of Senator Joe McCarthy is a black chapter in the history books of America. Since the 9/11 attacks, some of these news anchors and pundits have actually described the vetting of Muslims for sensitive positions in the U.S. as a throwback to “McCarthyism,” while few actually using that term know the true history of communist infiltration in key government positions in the postwar era.

The truth is that communist infiltration of and through the U.S. government, particularly the State Department, was and remains a legitimate threat to America. A 106-page confidential memo dated 3 August 1946, written by State Department official Samuel Klaus, detailed the alarming levels of communist infiltration into American government. It was that memo that served as the basis of Senator Joe McCarthy launching an investigation into the threat to America from within. It was through the efforts of McCarthy that a Senate subcommittee chaired by Senator Millard Tydings requested and eventually received a copy of that memo.

As noted by M. Stanton Evans, author of Blacklisted by History, that memo would mysteriously vanish from our nation’s records. Mr. Evans notes that this historic memo is not in the legislative panel file of the Tydings panel, located in the National Archives of the U.S., and was also removed from the files of Samuel Klaus, the author of the memo, from the National Archives in March of 1993, nearly a half century after it was issued.

As painstakingly revealed by M. Stanton Evans in his extensive work Blacklisted by History, important documentation well beyond the Klaus memo relevant to exposing the level of communist infiltration into the U.S. government is not limited to government sources such as the National Archive, but also to private data sources and repositories. He lists a number of instances where records were scrubbed and consequently, created a much different and much less accurate picture of that era of U.S. history.

This topic is as relevant today as it was during the time of Senator Joe McCarty, if not even more relevant. One only has to look at the reported communist, Marxist and socialist ties in Obama’s lineage and inner circle to understand the impact of missing records.

One would do well to use the voluminous work of M. Stanton Evans as a template to understand how Americans have been deliberately misled by the media and some members of our own government into believing that the communist and socialist objectives, launched in the postwar era, have led to where we find ourselves today.

The removal of the Klaus memo from his file in March of 1993 was as deliberate as the refusal of government officials, complicit with the media moguls of today to address the lack of bona fides of Barack Hussein Obama. In fact, one could consider them an extension of the same.

What it all means


Based on investigative findings that are not discussed in the media, it would appear that the selection and election of Barack Hussein Obama was indeed the greatest scam ever pulled off against the American people. The above provides just a small portion of the critical issues surrounding Obama’s eligibility, identity and his place in U.S. and world history. The story is much larger than a single piece of paper, but that paper, if properly authenticated, will serve as the thread that will unravel the larger tangled web of the Obama legend.

To those who have just awakened to the constitutional crisis we are facing at the hands of this president, we’d like to say once again, “welcome to the party, pal.”

Douglas J. Hagmann & his son, Joseph Hagmann, both investigators, researchers and contributors to Canada Free Press, host a weekly radio program on CFP Radio called The Hagmann & Hagmann Report, broadcast live every Saturday from 8:00-10:00 p.m. ET. In it’s fifth week, the program has gained in popularity, and has become one of the ten most popular radio shows on the BlogTalk Radio platform. This week’s program will be providing additional details about the problems with Obama’s eligibility to occupy the White House.

http://networkedblogs.com/gs9sM

Stand With God, Stand For Liberty, Prepare To Fight For Both!

Friday, April 8, 2011

So, Exactly How Much IS A Trillion Dollars?

In case you didn't know, it’s a million dollars with 12 zero’s after it!! And we now have a deficit with 14 of those Trillions!! Think that’s a responsible government in action? And, also in case you didn't know, a million dollars is equal to 10,000 $100.00 bills! Here’s the breakdown:


1 Million = 1,000,000.00
10 Million = 10,000,000.00
100 Million = 100,000,000.00
1000 Million = 1,000,000,000.00
10,000 Million = 10,000,000,000.00
100,000 Million = 100,000,000,000.00
1,000,000 Million = 1 Billion or 1,000,000,000,000.00
10 Billion = 10,000,000,000,000.00 = 10,000 Million
100 Billion = 100,000,000,000,000.00 = 100,000 Million
1000 Billion = 1,000,000,000,000,000.00
10,000 Billion = 10,000,000,000,000,000.00
100,000 Billion = 100,000,000,000,000,000.00
1,000,000 Billion = 1,000,000,000,000,000,000.00
10,000,000 Billion = 10,000,000,000,000,000,000.00
100,000,000 Billion = 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 .00

Then there’s 1,000,000,000 Billion, a Billion Billion, or one Trillion, which reads 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.00!!!

Does the government even have a clue? We certainly didn't have any direct input in that result. What could you do with just a small portion of that amount? And how, exactly, is the government going to eliminate that deficit if they aren't willing to cut spending dramatically. Anyone who is against cutting spending should be voted out in 2012. Only then can we seriously and effectively begin the process of reducing government spending and eliminating the debt that has a chokehold on America.

Stand With God, Stand For Liberty, And Prepare To Fight For Both!