Barack Hussein Obama
is an
Well it is official, as you can see in the above video and read below as per this WND report, that according to a recently released Congressional report, Congress now admits that Barack Hussein Obama was NEVER vetted for office; and neither was there any statutory requirement that he be vetted, which ignores our U.S. Constitution requirments.
Neither were there ever any collaborating documents that were ever requested by any governmental agency in order to prove either Obama’s citizenship or his place of birth.
Folks, what further evidence do you need that this façade called the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CORPORATION, which is totally unconstitutional and was formed by the forty-first Congress in 1871 without Constitutional authority to do so (when the District of Columbia was formed), is totally illegal; and our country and all fifty states of the union, who once were formed as Republics, have all since been changed over to CORPORATE entities, that no longer view “We the People“ as the sovereigns of our country, as per our U.S. Constitution and our Declaration of Independence; but as is the case with any corporation, it is the corporation that reins as sovereign, and the people are required to conform to its demands.
The truth is ever since the Act of 1871 was passed our nation’s leaders have cast our “organic” U.S. Constitution to the sidelines, and have not been abiding by it for the last 139 years.
Here is the history:
The date is February 21, 1871 and the Forty-First Congress is in session. I refer you to the “Acts of the Forty-First Congress,” Section 34, Session III, chapters 61 and 62. On this date in the history of our nation, Congress passed an Act titled: “An Act To Provide A Government for the District of Columbia.”
This is also known as the “Act of 1871.”
What does this mean? Well, it means that Congress, under no constitutional authority to do so, created a separate form of government for the District of Columbia, which is a ten mile square parcel of land.
What??? How could they do that? Moreover, WHY would they do that? To explain, let’s look at the circumstances of those days.
The Act of 1871 was passed at a vulnerable time in America. Our nation was essentially bankrupt — weakened and financially depleted in the aftermath of the Civil War. The Civil War itself was nothing more than a calculated “front” for some pretty fancy footwork by corporate backroom players. It was a strategic maneuver by European interests (the international bankers) who were intent upon gaining a stranglehold on the neck (and the coffers) of America.
The Congress realized our country was in dire financial straits, so they cut a deal with the international bankers — (in those days, the Rothschilds of London were dipping their fingers into everyone’s pie) thereby incurring a DEBT to said bankers.
If we think about banks, we know they do not just lend us money out of the goodness of their hearts. A bank will not do anything for you unless it is entirely in their best interest to do so. There has to be some sort of collateral or some string attached which puts you and me (the borrower) into a subservient position.
This was true back in 1871 as well. The conniving international bankers were not about to lend our floundering nation any money without some serious stipulations. So, they devised a brilliant way of getting their foot in the door of the United States (a prize they had coveted for some time, but had been unable to grasp thanks to our Founding Fathers, who despised them and held them in check), and thus, the Act of 1871 was passed.
In essence, this Act formed the corporation known as THE UNITED STATES. Note the capitalization, because it is important.
This corporation, owned by foreign interests, moved right in and shoved the original “organic” version of the Constitution into a dusty corner.
With the “Act of 1871,” our Constitution was defaced in the sense that the title was block-capitalized and the word “for” was changed to the word “of” in the title. The original Constitution drafted by the Founding Fathers, was written in this manner:
“The Constitution for the united states of America”.
The altered version reads: “THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA”. It is the corporate constitution. It is NOT the same document you might think it is. The corporate constitution operates in an economic capacity and has been used to fool the People into thinking it is the same parchment that governs the Republic. It absolutely is not.
Capitalization — an insignificant change? Not when one is referring to the context of a legal document, it isn’t. Such minor alterations have had major impacts on each subsequent generation born in this country. What the Congress did with the passage of the Act of 1871 was create an entirely new document, a constitution for the government of the District of Columbia. The kind of government THEY created was a corporation. The new, altered Constitution serves as the constitution of the corporation, and not that of America. http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill/us_corporation.htm
Anything we do now as a nation that fails to remove this corrupt leaven from our government, starting with this foreign owned and operated central bank, called the FEDERAL RESERVE; or that fails to hold accountable those elected officials (Democrats and Republicans) who have knowingly sold our country out and have violated their oath of office to preserve, defend, and to protect our U.S. Constitution, and have done so for personal greed and their lust for power; and any effort to rebuild our nation that fails to address our core foundational issues that most threatened our survival as nation, is nothing but window dressing.
The ONLY answer for what ails our nation is for “We the People“ to take back our nation and to reinhabit our Constitutional Republic, as was originally intended by our forefathers; which by the way has already happened, and all that is required now is for the American People to join in and support it.
Shalom,
Skip Barland
|
SB SALT AND LIGHT MINISTRIES 
Re: “neither was there any statutory requirement that he be vetted, which ignores our U.S. Constitution requirments.’
You should add that the eligibility of Bush was not vetted either, or Clinton, or Reagan, or any president.
However, Obama’s has already proven that he was born in Hawaii with the official birth certificate of Hawaii, the facts on which have been repeatedly confirmed by the officials in Hawaii.
The Wall Street Journal said: ““Obama has already provided a legal birth certificate demonstrating that he was born in Hawaii. No one has produced any serious evidence to the contrary. Absent such evidence, it is unreasonable to deny that Obama has met the burden of proof. We know that he was born in Honolulu as surely as we know that Bill Clinton was born in Hope, Ark., or George W. Bush in New Haven, Conn.”
The U.S. Constitution is non partisan, and it applies to ALL equally! My point is that whoever, Democrat or Republican, who has violated their oath of office that they should be held accountable.
The fact is, Congress has been ignoring our U.S. Constitution for the last 139 years, as is proven by this current oversight, with regard to Obama!
No, you are wrong, Obama has never proven his citizenship and he has instead (as is pointed out in the above report) had his records sealed; and has spent millions in attorney’s fees to keep them sealed.
On the issue of whether Obama is Constitutionally qualified to hold office, you are still wrong; but you and I have hashed this out all before, and I don’t think it is necessary to do it all over again.
You believe what you want and I’ll leave the public to just look at the evidence for themselves.
Respectfully,
Skip Balrand
Re: “No, you are wrong, Obama has never proven his citizenship and he has instead (as is pointed out in the above report) had his records sealed; and has spent millions in attorney’s fees to keep them sealed.’
Baloney. There was never a lawsuit against Obama just for his birth certificate. His records are not “sealed;” they are private. He has, however, shown the official birth certificate of Hawaii, the Certification of Live Birth, and the facts on that were confirmed twice by the officials in Hawaii, and by the Republican governor of Hawaii.
If you feel that the US Congress should have responsibility for “vetting” the president, then propose that it passes the “birther bill,” the proposed legislation that would require candidates to show their OFFICIAL (not original) birth certificates to the Federal Election Commission. I would support it, with some details changed such as provisions for cases where birth certificates have been lost in fires or floods (such as in New Orleans), and provisions for adopted children–who have difficulty in getting their birth certificates.
The bill calls for the official birth certificate because some states (not Hawaii) may have destroyed the original birth certificate in the process of changing to short-form birth certificates.
As for Obama not having shown proof. The Wall Street Journal said:
“Obama has already provided a legal birth certificate demonstrating that he was born in Hawaii. No one has produced any serious evidence to the contrary. Absent such evidence, it is unreasonable to deny that Obama has met the burden of proof. We know that he was born in Honolulu as surely as we know that Bill Clinton was born in Hope, Ark., or George W. Bush in New Haven, Conn.”
Like I said, I am not doing this with you all over again, this is still a free country, no thanks to your man Barack Hussein Obama, and you are still free to voice and express you views, however wrong they are!
Sincerely, and yet however wearily…
Skip Barland