Log in

View Full Version : Behind All The Scandals Is A Lie So Big........Obama



Serpo
24th July 2014, 02:39 PM
The hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident which everybody had decided not to see – Ayn Rand

Many Americans believe that the US Government, the Democrat and Republican Parties, and the media are deliberately misleading the American people, hiding the most heinous fraud and Constitutional crisis in the history of the United States.

Individuals at the highest levels of the federal government may have aided and abetted a deception, which included willful ignorance, misinformation, false interpretations of the Constitution, outright lies, and the creation of fraudulent documents and computer records to protect an ineligible, ill-prepared ,and unworthy candidate for the office of President of the United States.
In the age of Obama, we have witnessed the complete metamorphosis of the media, no longer objective journalists but partisan liberal activists who control, manipulate, and even create news to support a left-wing political agenda.

On April 27, 2011, Barack Obama presented as his official birth certificate a digital image so riddled with anomalies (http://www.scribd.com/collections/3166684/Birth-Certificate-Other-Obama-ID-Docs-Forged-Expert-Reports) that only counterfeiters or the complicit could vouch for its authenticity.
Evidence has been reported (http://www.scribd.com/doc/65979313/Obama-SSN-Fraud-Report-Fraudulent-Use-of-SSN-042-68-4425-and-Selective-Service-Number-Fraud-by-Susan-Daniels-Licensed-PI) claiming that Barack Obama has been using a fraudulent Connecticut Social Security Number (SSN) since at least 1986. That number, 042-68-4425, issued in 1977, was set aside exclusively for Connecticut residents, a state in which he never lived nor did any member of his immediate family. In addition, SSN Verifier Plus showed the birth year 1890 linked to that number. Because SSNs are not re-issued, multiple birth dates for one card suggest a stolen number.
The data and documents associated with Obama’s Selective Service registration also contain inconsistencies (http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/118769858?access_key=key-1l71qtkr0win86unq1gq&allow_share=true&escape=false&view_mode=scroll). Most noticeably, Obama’s registration card has a two digit year ‘80″ on the postal stamp, unlike the four digit year stamp “1980″ found on all other registration cards (http://www.scribd.com/doc/65979313/Obama-SSN-Fraud-Report-Fraudulent-Use-of-SSN-042-68-4425-and-Selective-Service-Number-Fraud-by-Susan-Daniels-Licensed-PI) completed at the same time in Hawaii and other states. It appears (http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/118769858?access_key=key-1l71qtkr0win86unq1gq&allow_share=true&escape=false&view_mode=scroll) that a 2008 postal stamp was cut, the 08 inverted and reinserted into the stamp to mimic a 1980 registration. Interestingly, Obama’s SSN 042-68-4425 appears (http://www.scribd.com/doc/65979313/Obama-SSN-Fraud-Report-Fraudulent-Use-of-SSN-042-68-4425-and-Selective-Service-Number-Fraud-by-Susan-Daniels-Licensed-PI) on his 1980 Selective Service registration, which is six years before that number can be found in personal background databases.
I believe that Barack Obama did not register with the Selective Service in 1980 because he was attending Occidental College with a foreign student status and in 1981 traveled to Pakistan using an Indonesian passport. According to the law, failure to register with the Selective Service would forever prevent Obama from working in the executive branch of the US government.
One could readily conclude that Obama lied and flouted the law to get elected. It should come as no surprise then, that he would lie and flout the law to implement his policies.

I believe Obama succeeded in 2008 because the Republicans struck a deal (http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/the-strange-2008-mccain-obama-presidential-eligibility-debate) with the Democrats not to question Obama’s eligibility for office and his personal history. Furthermore, the liberal media took radical steps (http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/20/documents-show-media-plotting-to-kill-stories-about-rev-jeremiah-wright/) to protect their favored candidate, killing negative stories about Obama and even threatening to accuse his opponents of racism in order to make them “sputter with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction.”


In addition to the apparent creation of fraudulent documents and the doctoring of computer records (http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/10/20/justia-com-surgically-removed-minor-v-happersett-from-25-supreme-court-opinions-in-run-up-to-08-election/) by Obama supporters, then- Democratic National Chair Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) prepared (http://www.canadafreepress.com/2009/williams091209.htm) two different Certifications of Nomination, an action unprecedented in US history, presumably to hide Obama’s ineligibility for office.

And so committed has the liberal media been to protect their investment in Obama, they continue to dispense with gusto misinformation, disinformation, or no information.
The conspiracy of silence continues out of complicity or fear. The political-media establishment realizes that if the truth is told about Barack Obama, the system from which they accrue enormous personal power and profit will collapse.
Republicans will oppose Obama; but they will not expose him because by doing so, it will reveal their own dereliction of duty. Many believe, and with reasonable cause, that all the hearings and lawsuits conducted by the Republicans are a subterfuge meant to run out the clock.
It doesn’t matter if Obama thinks he is right or if he thinks he is being virtuous. The policies he is pursuing are destroying the country. Even if one rejects treachery or treason as motives, the unrealistic and impractical far-left liberalism promoted by Obama and his acolytes is an inevitable march from altruistic dreams to coercion, oppression, and, ultimately, failure.
You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality – Ayn Rand

Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/dare-one-call-treason/2/#2bZavX18iQf6c2Df.99

Cebu_4_2
24th July 2014, 05:04 PM
I'm not sure if it pertains but that law they passed barring repluglickans from challenging fraud in elections could barr them exposing the truth of any democraps. I would look it up but I've been drinking on zero sleep so if I don't get back to post that law I was side tracked. I will try though.

Okay found this, can someone find the real law on the subject for me?

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=republicans%20cannot%20challenge%20fraud%20agai nst%20democrat

Cebu_4_2
24th July 2014, 05:08 PM
Democratic National Committee v Republican National Committee Case No. 09-4615 (C.A. 3, Mar. 8, 2012) In 1982, the Republican National Committee (“RNC”) and the Democratic National Committee (“DNC”) entered into a consent decree (the “Decree” or “Consent Decree”), which is national in scope, limiting the RNC’s ability to engage or assist in voter fraud prevention unless the RNC obtains the court’s approval in advance. The RNC appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey denying, in part, the RNC’s Motion to Vacate or Modify the Consent Decree. Although the District Court declined to vacate the Decree, it did make modifications to the Decree. The RNC argues that the District Court abused its discretion by modifying the Decree as it did and by declining to vacate the Decree. For the following reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment.


I. BACKGROUND


A. 1981 Lawsuit and Consent Decree

During the 1981 New Jersey gubernatorial election, the DNC, the New Jersey Democratic State Committee (“DSC”), Virginia L. Peggins, and Lynette Monroe brought an action against the RNC, the New Jersey Republican State Committee (“RSC”), John A. Kelly, Ronald Kaufman, and Alex Hurtado, alleging that the RNC and RSC targeted minority voters in an effort to intimidate them in violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (“VRA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 1971, 1973, and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. The RNC allegedly created a voter challenge list by mailing sample ballots to individuals in precincts with a high percentage of racial or ethnic minority registered voters and, then, including individuals whose postcards were returned as undeliverable on a list of voters to challenge at the polls. The RNC also allegedly enlisted the help of off-duty sheriffs and police officers to intimidate voters by standing at polling places in minority precincts during voting with “National Ballot Security Task Force” armbands. Some of the officers allegedly wore firearms in a visible manner.

To settle the lawsuit, the RNC and RSC entered into the Consent Decree at issue here. The RNC and RSC agreed that they would:

[I]n the future, in all states and territories of the United States:

(a) comply with all applicable state and federal laws protecting the rights of duly qualified citizens to vote for the candidate(s) of their choice;

(b) in the event that they produce or place any signs which are part of ballot security activities, cause said signs to disclose that they are authorized or sponsored by the party committees and any other committees participating with the party committees;

(c) refrain from giving any directions to or permitting their agents or employees to remove or deface any lawfully printed and placed campaign materials or signs;

(d) refrain from giving any directions to or permitting their employees to campaign within restricted polling areas or to interrogate prospective voters as to their qualifications to vote prior to their entry to a polling place;

(e) refrain from undertaking any ballot security activities in polling places or election districts where the racial or ethnic composition of such districts is a factor in the decision to conduct, or the actual conduct of, such activities there and where a purpose or significant effect of such activities is to deter qualified voters from voting; and the conduct of such activities disproportionately in or directed toward districts that have a substantial proportion of racial or ethnic populations shall be considered relevant evidence of the existence of such a factor and purpose;

(f) refrain from having private personnel deputized as law enforcement personnel in connection with ballot security activities.