Sunday, January 25, 2009

It Wasn't Kool-Aid - It Was...

HYPNOSIS??!! Well, to be honest I have heard this allegation about Obama before. However, Devvy Kid's devastating article over at News With Views states, quite bluntly - NO, WE DON'T HAVE A NEW PRESIDENT.

By: DevvyJanuary 22, 2009
© 2008 -

“It is a terrible thing when you think you got on a bandwagon and it turns out to be a garbage truck." Ernst (Putzi) Hanfstaengl*

The circus out in Washington, DC., for the unlawful swearing in of the impostor president, Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetoro and so forth, is now over. All the gushing and slobbering over the trashy looking rag worn by the militant Michelle Obama, has faded into the night. I wonder how many of the mindless mouth pieces giving their commentary about the "wonderful, smart First Lady," know that in 1993, Michelle Obama, was ordered by the Illinois Supreme Court to stop practicing law? The faux First Lady was ordered by the court; it was not her choice. (Click here). The records are sealed by the court so we don't know why, but I am told by lawyers sending me email, it had to be something major for such drastic action.

Please read the entire article.

Here is the part about "hypnosis":

What about the masses who responded to the prod and voted for Obama? It's being reported that nearly two million people showed up for the coronation two days ago. It would have been convenient to have stands along the way to fit these people for their chains of bondage. I hope you can take time over the weekend to read a document I covered on my radio show as the coronation parties were in full swing. What made millions swoon, weep, raise their hands to the heavens, declare Obama the next Messiah and go over the edge for a nobody with a closed past - besides the color of his skin?

As I told my listening audience, I am not a conspiracy freak. Frequently, I get very angry email from patriots for debunking some popular theories that don't hold water. A couple of months ago, I read this paper and as I read the 67 pages, it all came together. Untold numbers of us couldn't figure out this "Obama phenomenon" and what was causing it....until I read this explanation about conversational hypnosis. Not only did I read it, I spent six hours running down the foot notes and studying Erickson's method used and accepted in the field of psycho-analysis.

Finally, it all made sense. As a lay person not trained and with little prior understanding on this issue, all I could keep wondering is are these people all mad, desperate or did they all take the same pill? No, Obama simply used a technique of hypnosis on mass crowds and turned them into little better than melting butter. A master orator without an original thought in his head, he used his voice and hands to mesmerize.

I learned a great deal from this document. At some point the stupefaction will wear off and millions of people, except for too many black Americans who voted for one half of Obama's race (most of them forget Obama's mother was Caucasian), will begin to wonder why they voted for Obama as he blunders along and the economy worsens. Except, of course, those blinded by skin color.

[R]ead this document:
Obama's use of hypnotic technique during his speeches
You can decide for yourself. I'm certain those who support Obama will poo-poo it away. They've got too much riding on his campaign promises. These very same people haven't done a minute of research on Obama's background, his proven communist ties and Marxist beliefs. Obama's faithful will not see or hear his slick lies because the thought of betrayal is simply too much to handle. As Judge Andrew Napolitano so accurately named his book, A Nation of Sheep, can you hear the baaa-baaa still echoing from the Washington Mall?

When I have some extra time, I plan to read the entire 67 page document. The woman who wrote the above article, doesn't appear to be wacko or any kind of a conspiracy theorist. And, we do know that hypnosis does work on some people.

I can recall viewing several You Tube videos of former ObamaBorg Bots snapping out of their former euphoria over candidate Obama and warning others not to fall for the hype.



Is there a connection?

Probably so.

Anyone recall the movie "Michael" starring John Travolta? Remember how so many of the women he encountered swooned all over him? However, one female companion of his during his travels wasn't affected in that way. When she questioned (Michael) why this was so, he answered, "Because I put a block on you."

I know. That's just a fictional movie you say. But is hypnosis real? Yes. Are people easily affected by it? Yes.

Perhaps the Holy Spirit of God who dwells within all born again in Christ believers put a "block" against the "hype" and/or "hypnosis" so that the deception didn't affect true believers? The Lord helped us avoid such deception and not be captivated by it!

See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ. Colossians 2:8

Let's just combine the two words and call it HYPEnosis.

Jesus warned us:

Mat 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if [it were] possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

However, by the wording of the warning, we see that IT IS NOT POSSIBLE for such false Christs, false prophets who show "great signs and wonders" to deceive the very elect!

Could Chief Justice Roberts have been an unbeknownst victim of the HYPEnosis when he met with Obama? I don't know. But it sure seems very weird that they met just before the inauguration - especially with all of the pending lawsuits going to conference at SCOTUS.

Devvy writes:

"At the invitation of Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., Mr. Obama and Vice President-elect Joe Biden will pay a protocol visit to the Supreme Court of the United States Wednesday afternoon, the office says....The visit is private; reporters and photographers will not be present."

I called the media number at the Supreme Court yesterday afternoon. The giddy operator confirmed they expected Obama at any minute!

To say I was floored when I read the news item is an understatement. A 'ceremonial' meeting between a president elect and justices of the Supreme Court is somewhat traditional. HOWEVER, in this instance, it's flat out wrong. Chief Justice Roberts has cases on the docket where Obama is the defendant or is the subject of the litigation. Roberts and the other eight justices have already held two 'Distribution for Conferences' on the Donofrio and Wrotnoski cases on Obama's citizenship ineligibility. They just turned away one of Phil Berg's cases a few days ago; that one is still in the Third Circuit. Tomorrow is the fourth case; another from Phil Berg.

On Wednesday, Roberts meets with the man at the heart of that case in private. Two days later, he sits down to discuss the case with the other justices after having a closed door meeting with the defendant! There is still the Lightfoot v Bowen case to be heard in conference, January 23, 2009. Again, Chief Justice Roberts will sit in that private meeting to discuss whether the case should go to oral arguments.

Does anyone see major conflict of interest here? How can Chief Justice Roberts meet with Obama behind closed doors under such circumstances? Even if they just chatted up the weather, it is highly inappropriate in my humble opinion. Roberts should have notified Obama that under the circumstances, he would not be able to meet with him, private or with photogs in attendance. There must be zero appearance of any bias or preference when it comes to judges and justices of the Supreme Court.

At this point, I want to switch gears just a bit. Over at GateWay Pundit, I was reading one of his latest articles entitled, Despite Air-Raiding Villages, Closing Gitmo, Pi$$ing Off the Vatican & Berating GOP Leaders... AP Claims Obama Avoided Divisive Stands His First Week.

I ask you. If former President Bush ordered an airstrike in Pakistan and killed 17 civilians, what do you think that the media would have reported? Certainly not what the AP wrote about Obama; who they claim "avoided divisive stands his first week!"

What the hell is going on here?

Gateway Pundit writes:

Could our Pravda Media be any more transparent in their devotion to Obama? The AP headlines: "Obama breaks from Bush, avoids divisive stands"

Only a Far Left lib could believe this.


Then, in the comment section I ran across this little gem with a link to the original article quote:

Simon Diamond @ 9:05 pmre: [Do you think Barack Hussein Obama is literally a bastard?] don't rightly know since he refuses, nay, "lawyered up" to guard his BC.. but his wife Michelle says he is..

[His own mother ... was "very young and very single when she had him."]==bg 01.25.09 - 12:35 pm

Here's the link to the original article with the Michele Obama quote, "His own mother, she said at the beginning of her remarks, was "very young and very single when she had him."

Single when she had him (Obama Jr.)?? So, how do we know just who the father really is?

Even though there are people becoming increasingly more alarmed about the usurper Obama, others are apparently giving in to the HYPEnosis.

I used to include America's Right on my blog roll until I read, "His Failure is Our Failure; His Success is Our Success."

I could not disagree more!! I DON'T want Obama's awful policies to succeed!!! Let's just take one - the topic of abortion and the executive order he signed just a day after the inauguration. How horrified I feel that MY TAX DOLLARS are going to help provide abortions to women in other countries!! It is UNCONSCIONABLE TO ME!! Obama hasn't met an abortion that he doesn't like or would not volunteer to fund. This makes me ill....literally.

You will notice within that thread of comments, a former democrat had this to say:

Anonymous said...
To whomever said Obama won the nomination, I beg to differ...

I think you need to go back and look at the nomination actual votes, plus the caucus all implications Hillary Clinton got more individual votes than he did.

Mr. Obama DID NOT get enough pledged delegate votes to win the nomination.

When neither candidate gets the pledged delegates to win, then it behoves the party oligarchy to bestow the nomination.

Mr. Obama did not WIN the nomination, he was anointed!

The DNC tossed away the the people's vote into the trash bin. Pulled some tricky dicky sanction business, then voided their sanction business and gave the states their votes back.

I'm a democrat. And frankly the whole mess reminded me of the Nazi's marching across this country in a power grab.

Never again will I believe the propaganda spewed from The New Party that hijacked the DNC.

After having the scales fall from my eyes, and taking a really serious look at historical facts over the last 50 years, frankly the democrats and their pig trough of propaganda are repugnant!

January 24, 2009 10:41 PM

On another site, the topic was also about abortion. Investigating Obama: Obama Escalates Worldwide Abortion Holocaust With Americans Confiscated Money

You will notice my two comments there. One, in fact, asks the question, "Does anyone know and/or have statistics as to how many Muslim women get abortions?"

Life News had some information.


Religious Americans more strongly oppose abortions than the American public in general, with just 22 percent telling Gallup it's all right.

Still, members of the Islamic faith in various European nations are more pro-life than religious Americans.

Just 34 percent of Muslims in Berlin say abortion is morally okay, Paris Muslims are more strongly pro-life at 24 percent approval for abortion, and just 10 percent of London-based Muslims say abortion is okay.

So, just why is it that Muslims don't embrace Obama's abortion holocaust? I will leave that question out there for the moment.

Whenever I leave comments at other blogs, I subscribe to the blog thread so that I can see the additional comments posted. The following comment [from Investigating Obama blog] is one of the best I have ever read regarding why Obama is just so hell & holocaust bent on promoting abortion in America and worldwide:

Anonymous said...
Only a maniac would believe that the way to solve social problems is to exterminate the sufferers: King Obama believes in extermination to solve problems for women, minorities, and the "unwanted" unborn. Okay. Let's solve mental health problems by exterminating the retarded, disabled, and the demented; let's solve crime problems by exterminating recidivist inmates; let's solve health-care problems by exterminating the geriatric, terminal, and comatose. Each of those groups share "features" which make them prime targets for extermination: essentially parasites, with little or no personality, and nothing to contribute - they are a waste of time, food, and money: society won't miss 'em and their families can move on.

For two thousand years Christianity has led by proposing to help those who suffer by loving and caring for them, in emulation of the greatest man who ever lived. Thus: each person (even an enemy) is unique, dignified, irreducible, and exists in an eternal context that transcends society, nation, class, race or creed; no one can determine when another's existence and meaning begins or ends; and a fast slippery slope to horror and hell awaits any society or individual that think they have found a better way. Human experience and history do indeed confirm that any other approach is catastrophically destructive of life and morals. King Obama won't be the first tyrant to make death his solution to problems, but evil nations consume themselves in a downward spiral of decadence and hate. Abortion is a hateful dehumanization, subjecting mother and child to spiritual and physical deaths: why would King Obama be America's leading advocate of genocide ? The answer may be found at the following:

Understanding Obama: The Making of a Fuehrer by Ali Sina at Faith

The article describes King Obama's politics as being horribly influenced by his disordered narcissistic personality, characteristic of abused males seeking to compensate for childhood trauma (eg Obama's multiple abandonments), acting out subconscious fantasies of superiority, power, and revenge. It's hard for us to see the cringing child inside the swaggering strong-man (Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Saddam, whoever) but such individuals have developed a finely tuned sense of collective vulnerabilities and will lie and manipulate to get the only thing that matters (for them !): power over life and death. I caution the reader with three observations: 1) we must not fall into the trap of demonizing any person, because we then become easily capable of the crimes we abhor; 2) there are and have been many other "Obamas" in American political life, from both parties, who should never have been permitted any authority - there are flaws in ourselves and our system that keeps on allowing them through; and 3) a psychologizing explanation for political events is never sufficient: there was more to Germany's slide into murderous fascism (economic collapse, spiritual trauma of WW1, rapid social change etc) than Hitler being wicked and insane.



The writer provides another link for me to read after I conclude this post.

Back to the HYPEnosis topic.

Evil Conservative Radio Blog agrees that Obama is using HYPEnosis: "Look Deep Into My Eyes": Experts Agree Obama Using NLP."

What is "NLP"? Neuro-Linguistic Programming.


Some background on NLP and its use, from the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons:

A fundamental tool of “conversational hypnosis” is pacing and leading—a way for the hypnotist to bypass the listener’s critical faculty by associating repeated statements that are unquestionably accurate with the message he wants to convey.

In his Denver acceptance speech, Obama used the phrases “that’s why I stand here tonight,” “now is the time,” and “this moment” 14 times. Paces are connected to the lead by words such as “and,” “as,” “because,” or “that is why.” For example, “we need change” (who could disagree?)…and…that is why I will be your next President.”
Techniques of trance induction include extra slow speech, rhythm, tonalities, vagueness, visual imagery, metaphor, and raising of emotion. Hypnotists often have patients count. In a speech after the primaries closed, Obama said: “Sixteen months have passed (paused)…Thousands (pause) of miles…(pause)…Millions of voices….”

Hypnotists call this a distraction technique: sending the dominant hemisphere on an assignment involving linguistic processes, thus opening the non dominant hemisphere to suggestion.

Hand gestures can be used as hypnotic anchors, or to aid in hypnotic command implantation. They can be difficult to distinguish from innocent gestures used for emphasis. Obama, however, uses some gestures extraordinarily often and for very specific words such as “believe” and “chose.” His characteristic thumb-and-forefinger gesture looks like a hand holding a pencil—as if you were in a voting booth. The gesture of pointing sends the subconscious message that a person in authority is giving a command.

Obama actually said at one time: “a light will shine down from somewhere, it will light upon you, you will experience an epiphany, and you will say to yourself, ‘I have to vote for Barack.’”

Had to laugh at a comment over there:

Didn't work for me...I wonder if I'm suffering from the flu or something. He just makes me sick.


Last, but not least, I wanted to post a comment from another "Anonymous" blogger over at Investigating Obama:

Anonymous said...
Direct your friends to this website that I found

Obama Birth Certificate FAQ

Obama FAQ

FAQ on Obama's birth

Because many of the mainstream media and the general public are generally unaware of what's really the issue behind Barack, the best thing for us to do is to educate them and the website above is the best primer.

I went to the first link and read most of what is posted there. It is FILLED with excellent information and deals with the objections of those who might want to accuse you of being a "tin foil hat" wearer and/or a conspiracy theorist.

The concerns surrounding Obama are mounting - with each passing day. The FACT that he is ineligible for POTUS - (unless Malcolm X or Frank Marshall Davis is his real father) because Obama Sr. was a native of Kenya and therefore, Obama Jr. is NOT nor EVER COULD BE a "natural born citizen" as is required for POTUS according to Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of our United States Constitution - is NOT GOING AWAY.

We await to see what happens with Orly Taitz's case at SCOTUS tomorrow.

Hat Tips:

News With Views

GateWay Pundit

First Read

Investigating Obama


Obama Birth Certificate FAQ

Other related blog posts and articles:

Riehl Worldview: Why is Obama "Air- Raiding Villages and Killing Civilians?"

WorldNetDaily: President's meeting with judges questioned
Lawyer challenging eligibility raises issue of secret conference


Ted said...

Rush Limbaugh was born in 1951 to an American mom “Millie” and an American dad lawyer & WWII fighter pilot in Cape Girardeau, Missouri. Since ‘President’ Obama now wants to silence El Rushbo even before BHO has a chance to try to re-establish the “fairness doctrine” to silence all conservative talk radio, I’ve got three questions (but answers to only two of them):

FIRST QUESTION: Who IS the actual and lawful 44th President of the USA?

ANSWER: Joe Biden

Biden was initially the Acting President for at least 5 minutes under either the Constitution’s Article 2 or the Constitution’s 20th Amendment, from 12:00 Noon 1/20/09, having already taken his Oath of Office and before Obama completed his ‘oath’ at approximately 12:05 PM, 1/20/09. Under the 20th Amendment if the President-elect shall have failed to qualify, or alternatively under Article 2 if the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term, being 12:00 Noon 1/20/09, which ability and/or qualification includes that he take the Article 2 oath “before he enter on the execution of his office,” then either the Presidency shall devolve on the Vice President under Article 2 or the Vice President shall act as President under the 20th Amendment. (The importance of the oath in ‘commencing’ an ‘Obama Presidency’ — rather than merely the 1/20/09 Noon time — is confirmed by the re-take of the ‘oath’ by Obama at the White House on 1/21/09 after the first ‘oath’ was NOT administered by Justice Roberts NOR recited by Obama in the words as required under Article 2.)

This is significant because at such time that the Supreme Court finally rules on the merits on Obama’s disqualification as not being an Article 2 “natural born citizen” (clearly he is NOT, on either and/or both of two bases — (1) BHO refuses to show Birth Certificate to deny Kenyan birth/res ipsa loquitur “action speaks for itself” or (2) BHO admits dad was Kenyan/British, not American, citizen at Jr’s birth), Biden’s automatic status (without needing to take a separate Presidential Oath) of being President would be predicated upon four different bases: First, having been Vice President under Article 2; second, having been Vice President-elect under the 20th Amendment; third, having been actual President in the hiatus before Obama took the ‘oath(s)’; and fourth, retroactively deemed President during the full period of the Obama usurpation so that the acts of the Federal Government under the usurpation can be deemed authorized and/or ratified by Biden’s legitimacy.

SECOND QUESTION: Who will be the 45th President?

ANSWER: Hillary Clinton

One must assume that Bill and Hillary Clinton have been aware of all of the above. Biden’s wife recently “let the cat out of the bag” on the Oprah Show that both Biden and Hillary had considered alternatively Veep or Secretary of State, in either case, setting up Hillary to be President on a vote of the Democratic Congress if need be.

THIRD QUESTION: Is Obama an unwitting victim of this troika or a knowing participant?

ANSWER: Yet undetermined.

Christinewjc said...


It seems that you do not typically return to answer questions or comments after your postings, but I will ask some anyway.

Why are you so sure that Hillary would be the next president?

Isn't it at least a possibility that the American people would be so fed up with the Democrats that they would vote in a Republican candidate - like John McCain? This, of course, means if the electoral vote count goes to the next highest electoral vote getter.

If it is left up to Congress (which I would not agree with because of the democrat majority), then I can see your point. However, isn't it possible that the Clintons could be considered co-conspirators to allow an ineligible candidate like Soetoro/Obama be the Democratic nominee in the the first place? They had to have known!

I see a lot of "heads rolling" over this - once SCOTUS does its job and takes one of the pending Obama ineligibility court cases.

How great it would be to sweep out all of these lunatic dems (like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and the rest) out of Congress along with, and on the coattails of the usurper Obama! (I can dream...can't I?)

If SCOTUS doesn't do it's job, then I see We The People forming a Grand Jury in order to do what our current 3 branches of government refuse to do - get a usurper out of the presidency.

Kaleokualoha said...

"The FACT that he is ineligible for POTUS - (unless Malcolm X or Frank Marshall Davis is his real father) because Obama Sr. was a native of Kenya and therefore, Obama Jr. is NOT nor EVER COULD BE a "natural born citizen" as is required for POTUS according to Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of our United States Constitution - is NOT GOING AWAY."

RESPONSE: False, regardless of parentage, according to the 14th Amendment:

"Barack Obama is, in fact, a natural-born citizen of the United States, for the simple reason that he was born on American soil (in Hawaii, two years after it acquired Statehood). The age and citizenship status of Obama's parents at the time have no bearing on Obama's own citizenship.

Any confusion on this point is the result of misunderstanding the legal concepts of jus sanguinis (right of blood) and jus soli (right of birthplace). Here's how the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service explains the difference:

The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees citizenship at birth to almost all individuals born in the United States or in U.S. jurisdictions, according to the principle of jus soli. Certain individuals born in the United States, such as children of foreign heads of state or children of foreign diplomats, do not obtain U.S. citizenship under jus soli.

Certain individuals born outside of the United States are born citizens because of their parents, according to the principle of jus sanguinis (which holds that the country of citizenship of a child is the same as that of his / her parents).

It is a fact that under the provisions of Article Two of the U.S. Constitution naturalized citizens are ineligible to hold the office of president, but this disqualification does not apply to Barack Obama, who has been a citizen since birth."


Christinewjc said...

Sorry Kaleokualoha,

The fact is that "urban legends" is a liberal leftist owned site. You are not going to get the true facts on this issue there.

I have a few questions for you.
Then I have two links for you to read.


If Obama has nothing to hide, why is he not releasing the following documents?

What is he and his cohorts in crime keeping silent about?

All of this:

Mr. Barack Hussein Obama -

The American People want to know, who sent you?

Obama has lived for 48 years without leaving any footprints -- none! There is no Obama documentation -- no records -- no paper trail -- none -- this can't be an accident.

Original, vault copy birth certificate -- Not released

Certificate of Live Birth -- Released -- Counterfeit

Obama/Dunham marriage license -- Not released

Soetoro/Dunham marriage license -- Not released

Soetoro adoption records -- Not released

Fransiskus Assisi School School application -- Released

Punahou School records -- Not released

Selective Service Registration -- Released -- Counterfeit

Occidental College records -- Not released

Passport (Pakistan) -- Not released

Columbia College records -- Not released

Columbia thesis -- Not released

Harvard College records -- Not released

Harvard Law Review articles -- None (maybe 1, unsigned?)

Baptism certificate -- None

Medical records -- Not released

Illinois State Senate records -- None

Illinois State Senate schedule -- Lost

Law practice client list -- Not released

University of Chicago scholarly articles -- None


Next, it has been discovered that Obama became a citizen at age 19. Since his father was a Kenyan (British owned in 1961) then Obama is also a native Kenyan by birth. Hawaii provides BC's for foreign born people. But this does not qualify him as a "natural born citizen" which is REQUIRED for POTUS.

Copy of post at The Betrayal blog:

Posted on January 26th, 2009 by David-Crockett
Patriots this is going to be the end the Usurpers stay in the Whitehouse. God Bless Ed and Caren Hale and the entire staff of Plains Radio Network. More cannot be said at this time other than it even being worse for Barry Soetoro.

vikaryan on Restore the Constitutional Republic reports

Obama did not become a U.S. citizen until age 19

1) Obama successfully achieved U.S. citizenship from his birthright nationality at birth at age 19 via the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, §349(a)[1988]. This law allows a child reaching majority to reverse naturalization forced upon him/her as a minor by parents or legal guardian.

While Philip Berg, Esq. claims Obama is not a citizen, he bases that claim on his own set of facts. Berg claims Obama was born in Kenya, which I highly suspect as well.

U.S. law does not allow U.S. nationality to be conferred on a foreign born baby of a foreign father unless the mother has a total of 14 years U.S. residency, five (5) of those years post age 14. I believe that is 8 U.S.C. 1401.

However, Berg has Obama, Sr. as the legal husband and Dunham the wife. Obama, Sr. had a first wife, and no codiciles of divorce. Therefore, the Obama-Dunham marriage was void ad initio per bigamy.

This changes applicable naturalization statute from 1401 to 1409(c), which is an out of wedlock provision requiring only one year (1) of U.S. residency post age 14 for the single mother to confer U.S. nationality.

Born in Kenya an illegitimate child to a bigamist father, Obama was a full British citizen at birth. Taking the child to Hawaii and divording Obama, Sr. (not necessary due to bigamy), Obama, Jr. would have become a U.S. citizen eventually, but the process would have been speeded up through a letter to the U.S. Secretary of State.

Obama’s Kenyan or Hawaiian birth are moot distinctions, once Stanley Ann Dunham took the child to Indonesia after marrying Lolo Soetoro. Indonesian law automatically claimed jurisdiction over the mother and child and they were naturalized Indonesians.

Obama remained a naturalized Indonesian (from dual British and U.S. nationalites) until he satisfied the 1952 Act’s five-year continuous residency requirement from age 14-18.

At age 19, Obama was a naturalized citizen.

PhixarBrown wants to make you think the entire process evaporates, leaving only the birthright U.S. nationality . . . thus, his twisted definition of natural born . . . or at birth. But, once conditions exist, at birth, requiring statute to sort out nationalities and subsequent naturalizations, the person is naturalized. His is ‘made natural by statute’ . . . or ‘naturalized.’

2) Obama may have held his Indonesian passport as late as age 31 when his mother finally returned to Hawaii to die. But, under case law such as Terrazas, Obama’s act of having another nation’s passport was a per se renunciation of U.S. citizenship, but his 5-years of U.S. residency shows intent NOT to renounce his U.S. citizenship, which he was qualifying for through that residency.

‘Intent’ is the key word, and the law is very liberalized in its interpretation. It requires a forceful and deliberate communication to the U.S. Secretary of State that you want to renounce, or in this case keep your foreign nationality.

The argument that Obama didn’t intend to become a U.S. citizen is a good one, but the fact that he satisfied 1952’s 349(a) would carry the case to its lawful conclusion.

3) Obama had a birthright to U.S. nationality. It was statute that made him a U.S. citizen at age 19. His Indonesian citizenship was foisted on him as a minor, which is why 349(a) was written.

In his own words…

From: verite

Jan 25, 2009 18:57

Browsing at the bookstore today I couldn’t help myself, I picked up a copy of Dreams From My Father, Obama’s memoirs ghostwritten by his pal Ayers.

I did not buy the book, but for the sake of research I skimmed through Chapter 1, entitled “Origins.”

What a joke. Have you ever heard of an autobiography where the author neglects to mention his birthplace? It seemed to be written in third person….oh wait, I forgot, it was written in third person. Chapter 1 didn’t mention his birthplace, just memories of his early years in Hawai’i.

Here is something interesting on the last page of Chapter 1:

“I discovered this article, folded away among my birth certificate and old vaccination forms, when I was in high school.”

Pretty sad when your own memoirs don’t state your birthplace. Ayers knew that his buddy wouldn’t have much of a political career if the actual birthplace was revealed.

I am conjecturing, so one of you liberals who has read the entire book, please tell us if it specifically states his birthplace.


Please see this link, too:

The following link is a comprehensive site that discusses FAQ ON BARACK OBAMA’S HIDDEN

The site answers most of the objections of those who would still want to label all of the Obama court cases and the supporters of those court cases as
"conspiracy theorists."