The Imperial Presidency

[Toad]

White House office to delete its FOIA regulations

The White House is removing a federal regulation that subjects its Office of Administration to the Freedom of Information Act, making official a policy under Presidents Bush and Obama to reject requests for records to that office.
The White House said the cleanup of FOIA regulations is consistent with court rulings that hold that the office is not subject to the transparency law. The office handles, among other things, White House record-keeping duties like the archiving of e-mails.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...eted/24844253/

Toad ~ Remember when this administration said they were going to be the most transparent administration ever? What a crock. They're now trying to make it impossible to allow the public to double check what they're doing.

[American Patriot]

FOIA is a joke.

While I was on active duty, and later as a Reservist, if we received an FOIA we were supposed to forward it to "higher headquarters" for disposition. Occasionally, they would tell us it was ok to give some information on our own, but EXACTLY what was being requested, redacting anything else in documents and refusing to give specific comments on anything.

So, once I got a FOIA request for "All UFO sightings in the area". Vague and unspecific. Since we do not TAKE UFO sightings in the unit to which I was assigned, I gave them nothing at all. Legit.

Another time I got a FOIA request for my "latest CONOPS for the XXX" unit for "communications". I did NOT give them that because that is sensitive, but unclassified information that were I to pass it out to the wrong folks (just about anyone) it gave frequencies, locations, times, operational aspects of the unit and so forth.

Can't do THAT.


But, the units out there don't deal with it anyway 90% of the time, they are ignored.
So, I never received a "legitimate request" and thus never had to really deal with it.

[Ryan Ruck]

You forgot the best part Toad:

But the timing of the move raised eyebrows among transparency advocates, coming on National Freedom of Information Day and during a national debate over the preservation of Obama administration records. It's also Sunshine Week, an effort by news organizations and watchdog groups to highlight issues of government transparency.

This timing was a deliberate middle finger.

[vector7]

Obama Administration Sets New Record For Denying, Censoring Government Files
Associated Press
By TED BRIDIS 4 hours ago


FILE - In this March 9, 2015, file photo, President Barack Obama listens during his meeting with European Council President Donald Tusk in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington. For the second consecutive year, the Obama administration more often than ever censored government files or outright denied access to them under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act, according to a new analysis of federal data by The Associated Press. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)


WASHINGTON (AP) — For the second consecutive year, the Obama administration more often than ever censored government files or outright denied access to them under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act, according to a new analysis of federal data by The Associated Press.

The government took longer to turn over files when it provided any, said more regularly that it couldn't find documents, and refused a record number of times to turn over files quickly that might be especially newsworthy.

It also acknowledged in nearly 1 in 3 cases that its initial decisions to withhold or censor records were improper under the law — but only when it was challenged.

Its backlog of unanswered requests at year's end grew remarkably by 55 percent to more than 200,000.

The government's new figures, published Tuesday, covered all requests to 100 federal agencies during fiscal 2014 under the Freedom of Information law, which is heralded globally as a model for transparent government. They showed that despite disappointments and failed promises by the White House to make meaningful improvements in the way it releases records, the law was more popular than ever. Citizens, journalists, businesses and others made a record 714,231 requests for information. The U.S. spent a record $434 million trying to keep up.

The government responded to 647,142 requests, a 4 percent decrease over the previous year. The government more than ever censored materials it turned over or fully denied access to them, in 250,581 cases or 39 percent of all requests. Sometimes, the government censored only a few words or an employee's phone number, but other times it completely marked out nearly every paragraph on pages.

On 215,584 other occasions, the government said it couldn't find records, a person refused to pay for copies or the government determined the request to be unreasonable or improper.

The White House touted its success under its own analysis. It routinely excludes from its assessment instances when it couldn't find records, a person refused to pay for copies or the request was determined to be improper under the law, and said under this calculation it released all or parts of records in 91 percent of requests — still a record low since President Barack Obama took office using the White House's own math.

"We actually do have a lot to brag about," White House spokesman Josh Earnest said.

The government's responsiveness under the open records law is an important measure of its transparency. Under the law, citizens and foreigners can compel the government to turn over copies of federal records for zero or little cost. Anyone who seeks information through the law is generally supposed to get it unless disclosure would hurt national security, violate personal privacy or expose business secrets or confidential decision-making in certain areas. It cited such exceptions a record 554,969 times last year.

Under the president's instructions, the U.S. should not withhold or censor government files merely because they might be embarrassing, but federal employees last year regularly misapplied the law. In emails that AP obtained from the National Archives and Records Administration about who pays for Michelle Obama's expensive dresses, the agency blacked-out a sentence under part of the law intended to shield personal, private information, such as Social Security numbers, phone numbers or home addresses. But it failed to censor the same passage on a subsequent page.

The sentence: "We live in constant fear of upsetting the WH (White House)."

In nearly 1 in 3 cases, when someone challenged under appeal the administration's initial decision to censor or withhold files, the government reconsidered and acknowledged it was at least partly wrong. That was the highest reversal rate in at least five years.

The AP's chief executive, Gary Pruitt, said the news organization filed hundreds of requests for government files. Records the AP obtained revealed police efforts to restrict airspace to keep away news helicopters during violent street protests in Ferguson, Missouri. In another case, the records showed Veterans Affairs doctors concluding that a gunman who later killed 12 people had no mental health issues despite serious problems and encounters with police during the same period. They also showed the FBI pressuring local police agencies to keep details secret about a telephone surveillance device called Stingray.

"What we discovered reaffirmed what we have seen all too frequently in recent years," Pruitt wrote in a column published this week. "The systems created to give citizens information about their government are badly broken and getting worse all the time."

The U.S. released its new figures during Sunshine Week, when news organizations promote open government and freedom of information.

The AP earlier this month sued the State Department under the law to force the release of email correspondence and government documents from Hillary Rodham Clinton's tenure as secretary of state. The government had failed to turn over the files under repeated requests, including one made five years ago and others pending since the summer of 2013.

The government said the average time it took to answer each records request ranged from one day to more than 2.5 years. More than half of federal agencies took longer to answer requests last year than the previous year.

Journalists and others who need information quickly to report breaking news fared worse than ever.

Under the law, the U.S. is required to move urgent requests from journalists to the front of the line for a speedy answer if records will inform the public concerning an actual or alleged government activity. But the government now routinely denies such requests: Over six years, the number of requests granted speedy processing status fell from nearly half to fewer than 1 in 8.

The CIA, at the center of so many headlines, has denied every such request the last two years.

http://news.yahoo.com/us-sets-record...-politics.html

[Ryan Ruck]

Mandatory Voting? Obama Says It Would Be 'Transformative'

March 18, 2015

President Obama praised compulsory voting Wednesday, mentioning Australia, which fines citizens who don't go to the polls.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- They say the only two things that are certain in life are death and taxes. President Barack Obama wants to add one more: voting.

Obama floated the idea of mandatory voting in the U.S. while speaking to a civic group in Cleveland on Wednesday. Asked about the corrosive influence of money in U.S. elections, Obama digressed into the related topic of voting rights and said the U.S. should be making it easier - not harder- for people to vote.

Just ask Australia, where citizens have no choice but to vote, the president said.

"If everybody voted, then it would completely change the political map in this country," Obama said, calling it potentially transformative. Not only that, Obama said, but universal voting would "counteract money more than anything."

Disproportionately, Americans who skip the polls on Election Day are younger, lower-income and more likely to be immigrants or minorities, Obama said. "There's a reason why some folks try to keep them away from the polls," he said in a veiled reference to efforts in a number of Republican-led states to make it harder for people to vote.

Statistically speaking, Obama is correct. Less than 37 percent of eligible voters cast ballots in the 2014 midterms, according to the United States Election Project. And a Pew Research Center study found that those avoiding the polls in 2014 tended to be younger, poorer, less educated and more racially diverse.

At least two dozen countries have some form of compulsory voting, including Belgium, Brazil and Argentina. In many systems, absconders must provide a valid excuse or face a fine, although a few countries have laws on the books that allow for potential imprisonment.

At issue, Obama said, is the outsize influence that those with money can have on U.S. elections, where low overall turnout often gives an advantage to the party best able to turn out its base. Obama has opposed Citizens United and other court rulings that cleared the way for super PACs and unlimited campaign spending, but embraced such groups in his 2012 re-election campaign out of fear he'd be outspent.

Obama said he thought it would be "fun" for the U.S. to consider amending the Constitution to change the role that money plays in the electoral system. But don't hold your breath.

"Realistically, given the requirements of that process, that would be a long-term proposition," he said.

If someone can't be bothered to go to the polls on Election Day, I don't want them voting because they will most likely simply vote for whoever promises them the most free shit. Simple. We already have a big enough problem dealing with this with the Get Out The Vote efforts.

Hell, like I've said before, unless you are a net tax payer you shouldn't be voting either.

[American Patriot]

If you didn't serve in the military. You shouldn't vote.

If you went to a Liberal College. You shouldn't vote.

If you don't pay pay taxes. You should not vote.

If you believe that everyone should have the "chance" to "take from the rich and give to the poor", DO NOT VOTE.

If you're a Republican, Democrat or an "Independent", DO NOT VOTE.

If you're a Libertarian, you should not only be voting, you should be reducing government, reducing spending, liming terms on everyone else including yourself.

If you're Ron Paul, you're an idiot and should shut the fuck up.

[Malsua]

1. Didn't serve. Would not have passed physical due to lung damage as a child. Most members of my family served. (2 brothers, 1 sister, father(Civil defense and patrol before VN, step father: 1 battalion, 9th Marines, Delta Company VN, 2 purple hearts).
2. I did go to a liberal college but there were more conservatives there than libs.
3. I pay more than my fair share.
4. Depends on how rich. Frankly if you have more money than you could possibly spend, you should be forcibly retired and your assets sold off because the wealth you are accumulating does not go back into circulation. If you have enough to crash the economy of say, Great Britain, you have too much. If you could give every man, woman and child in the USA, $100 and it wouldn't materially affect your lifestyle, you have too much.
5. I'm an independent, socially liberal, fiscal conservative who believes in small government and individual liberty.
6. Libertarians are for open borders. I.E. Idiots.
7. Ron Paul is an idiot.

[American Patriot]

Ron Paul is an idiot.
Libertarians are NOT for open borders. Just like "all republicans" aren't RINOS, Christians, hate gays and love guns. lol

And I was being facetious.

I think it is an American's duty to vote. Every, last one of them. Duty is something that people have forgotten but was beat into my head as a kid. Duty to "society" includes sitting on juries, voting, serving in the military if you can to defend the nation (and sometimes that is FORCED on us).

Independents are almost ALWAYS Liberals and Marxists who refuse to say they are Marxists. Or Progressives. I've never met a "conservative" Independent, unless you count.

If you have "too much" so what? If I want to be miserly and keep my money in a bank or the mattress who are you or anyone to tell me I can't do that?

if I want to make billions, so be it. If you do, great. Most people that make that kind of money have lots of business and employ a LOT of people, who then make money, so they SHARE their wealth already.

Anyway - like I said, I was really being funny (ok, funny-smart-assy) lol

No offense meant toward you Mal or anyone really. It's just the frustration level is high with the fuck head in office, and "making people vote" is about the most ignorant, idiotic thing I can imagine to make someone do. While it's your DUTY to help seat a government, it's also our duty to protest when the government is simply WRONG. Sometimes NOT voting is the way to do it.

[Malsua]

>>If you have "too much" so what?\

There is a point in which people accumulate wealth so as to wield power. That's when it's too much.

Yes, rich people do employ others. Even after employing others, they still have 10s of billions of dollars, it's too much.

At some point, their accumulation of wealth DOES affect you. They can dictate policy, they can move currency or commodities, in short, it's too much concentrated wealth and control and none of it is for your benefit and typically, it's to fleece you out of an extra few dollars. Poor men want to be rich, rich men want to be kings, and rich kings want to be gods.

[vector7]

Because its not enough during the Marxist Draconian takeover of America to keep everyone asleep with the Socialist MSM blocking and tackling on every front to keep the truth out of the headlines that your country is become communist.

To keep their armies well nourished the radicals they push the limits of spending, when that is exhausted they print money to continue giving away trillions in free stuff to keep their voter base in lock step.

When a segment of the working staff is startled awake up and the Left begin loosing popularity at the polls they bus in their armies of hired minorities and illegal aliens to the precincts voting early and often.

When this fails they miraculously raise the dead and have them walk down to the polls and cast their democrat vote attempting to restrain the blow back during the election election cycle to secure their hold power...

IG Audit: 6.5 Million People With Active Social Security Numbers Are 112 or Older

March 9, 2015 - 10:39 AM

---

By Susan Jones
Subscribe to Susan Jones RSS

Follow Susan Jones on Twitter




An IG audit of the Social Security Administration found that the nation’s database of active Social Security numbers includes more than six and a half million people who are older than 112 years of age.



(CNSNews.com) - Many people are living longer, but not to age 112 or beyond -- except in the records of the Social Security Administration.

The SSA's inspector general has identified 6.5 million number-holders age 112 -- or older -- for whom no death date has been entered in the main electronic file, called Numident.

The audit, dated March 4, 2015, concluded that SSA lacks the controls necessary to annote death information on the records of number-holders who exceed "maximum reasonable life expectancies."

"We obtained Numident data that identified approximately 6.5 million numberholders born before June 16, 1901 who did not have a date of death on their record," the report states.

Some of the numbers assigned to long-dead people were used fraudulently to open bank accounts.
And thousands of those numbers apparently were used by illegal immigrants to apply for work:

"During Calendar Years 2008 through 2011, SSA received 4,024 E-Verify inquiries using the SSNs of 3,873 numberholders born before June 16, 1901," the report said. "These inquiries indicate individuals' attempts to use the SSNs to apply for work."

“It is incredible that the Social Security Administration in 2015 does not have the technical sophistication to ensure that people they know to be deceased are actually noted as dead,” said Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

“Tens of thousands of these numbers are currently being used to report wages to the Social Security Administration and to the IRS. People are fraudulently, but successfully, applying for jobs and benefits with these numbers. Making sure Social Security cleans up its death master file to prevent future errors and fraud is a good government reform we can all agree on,” Johnson said.

Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), the committee's ranking member, called the findings a "major problem" that wastes taxpayers' money, exposes citizens to identity theft and undermines confidence in government:

"It is simply unacceptable that our nation’s database of Social Security numbers of supposedly living people includes more than six and a half million people who are older than 112 years of age, with a few thousand having birth dates from before the Civil War. Preventing agency errors by keeping track of who has died is a relatively simple problem that the government should pursue as a high priority."

According to the IG, the Social Security Administration matches death reports received from various sources against its payment records, then records the date of a number-holder's death in its Numerical Identification System, or Numident.

Information from Numident is then used to create SSA's "Death Master File," which is used by financial institutions and various government entities to prevent identity fraud. If a death is not recorded on the Numident, it will not appear in the DMF.

The IG made four recommendations for resolving the discrepancies and improving the accuracy of the Death Master File to "prevent future misuse of these SSNs."

And when that fails...

[vector7]

We all know how teens would vote in America's no accountability gimmedat world.
Flashback:
Let 16-year-olds vote

By Jason Brennan
updated 11:01 AM EDT, Fri September 19, 2014



STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• Scotland allowed 16-year-olds to vote in its referendum on independence
• Americans worry that young people don't know enough about politics, Jason Brennan says
• But surveys suggest many other demographics have a poor grasp of politics as well, he says
• There is no sudden increase in cognitive ability or political wisdomby age 18,he says

Editor's note: Jason Brennan is an assistant professor of strategy, economics, ethics and public policy at Georgetown University. The views expressed are his own.

(CNN) -- Scotland decided to trust its 16-year-olds to vote in the biggest question in its history when the country headed to the polls this week for a referendum on independence. Americans, in contrast, don't even trust theirs to help pick the county sheriff. Who's right?
Many here might be skeptical about the idea of the United States following Scotland's lead in lowering the voting age. The trouble is that the main reason most people cite for barring 16- and 17-year-olds from voting looks like an equally good reason to stop most American adults from voting, too.

The key argument against letting high school juniors vote is simple: Their choice would affect all of us. After all, a voter chooses for everyone, not just him or herself. Many worry that most 16-year-olds lack the wisdom or knowledge to cast smart votes, so we don't let them vote because we want to protect ourselves from their decisions.

And this concern is often grounded in reality -- young adults are indeed in many cases profoundly ignorant about politics. But if that is a reason for excluding them from voting, it is surely a reason to exclude almost everyone else.

Every two years, for 60 years, the American National Election Studies has surveyed what prospective voters know and don't know. And the results are always depressing -- the top quartile of voters are like B students, tending to get about 85% of questions right. The next two quartiles do little better or worse than chance. But the lowest quartile are systematically misinformed. Indeed, if you ask them which party, Republicans or Democrats, is more conservative, most of them even get that answer wrong.

As political scientists Michael X. Delli Carpini and Scott Keeter noted in their 1996 book, "What Americans Don't Know About Politics and Why It Matters," political knowledge is not evenly spread among all groups. Membership in some demographic groups correlates with high levels of political knowledge, depending on region, income and education, while other groups tend to correlate with political ignorance.

So, this is the catch: If you wanted to exclude 16- and 17-year-olds on the grounds that they are more likely to be ignorant or misinformed, you would also in effect be arguing against other demographics having a say.

Of course, you could object that the issue here is not so much about knowledge, but the capacity for political judgment. Yet nothing special happens at age 18 -- there is no sudden increase in cognitive ability, political wisdom or political knowledge at that age. In fact, in the 1970s, psychologists discovered that the biggest increases in the capacity to reason about politics occur around age 12 when puberty hits. By 16, most people have about as stable an ideology and capacity to reason about politics as they are going to get. Any improvements after that come slowly, if at all.

It's true that voter turnout among young adults is low -- middle-aged and elderly citizens are far more likely to vote than young adults. And that is not necessarily a problem. Political scientists who study voting behavior consistently find that citizens vote for what they perceive to be the common good rather than their narrow self-interest. (If that seems surprising, consider: Your individual vote counts for so little that if you were just acting selfishly, you probably wouldn't bother to vote all.)

But it's arguable that the needs of the young are overlooked, and that the young have valuable perspectives that are missing from the national conversation, and so perhaps expanding the voting pool would help fix that.

And what should we do if we still can't get over our fear that 16-year-olds are too dumb to vote? Well, we needn't exclude all of them. Instead, we could allow any child who can pass the U.S. citizenship exam to acquire the right to vote.

Of course, if you think that's a reasonable standard for a 16-year-old to have to meet, it's worth remembering that most voting-age adults cannot meet it either. So why should we demand more from our teenagers than we expect from ourselves?



Obama Urges Soviet-Style Voting Laws

March 19, 2015 by Matthew Vadum 35 Comments

Print This Post



Forcing Americans to vote under threat of legal penalty would help to fundamentally transform America, President Obama told a town hall-style meeting in Cleveland yesterday.

It is the latest radical leveling scheme that flows from the president’s totalitarian impulses. It is also consistent with his support for “Net Neutrality,” which is a form of censorship and his opposition to the landmark Citizens United decision that affirmed a conservative activist group’s constitutionally guaranteed right to make a movie critical of Hillary Clinton. It is an assault on American democracy itself because one of the ways that people express themselves politically is to stay home on Election Day. Compelled speech is not free speech.

“It would be transformative if everybody voted,” Obama said just months after his party was crushed in off-year congressional elections that gave Republicans control of both houses of Congress.

“That would counteract [campaign] money more than anything,” the president said during a discussion about reducing the role of money in elections. “If everybody voted, then it would completely change the political map in this country.”

Australia and a handful of other countries have mandatory voting laws, he noted. Pushing for such laws in the U.S. “may end up being a better strategy in the short term” than attacking Americans’ right to make campaign donations.

It would be “fun” for the U.S. to look at a constitutional amendment taking aim at campaign money, he said, but “realistically, given the requirements of that process, that would be a long-term proposition.” (Such a proposed constitutional amendment is currently pending in Congress.)

Obama whined that Democrats often don’t get around to voting in midterm elections. “The people who tend not to vote are young, they’re lower income, they’re skewed more heavily towards immigrant groups and minority groups,” he said.

But Obama only wants the right people to vote. That didn’t happen in the fall so he wants to force lazy Democrats off their couches and into voting booths. As the Washington Times reports, “in House races nationwide last November, about 5 million more Republican voters cast ballots than Democratic voters.”

What Obama didn’t say was that forced voting would benefit the Left. Making everyone including ultra low-information voters cast ballots would promote the redistribution of wealth and provide Democrats a permanent electoral advantage.

Honest leftists admit this while they clothe their rhetoric in moral garments and hoary civic cliches about the joys of full political participation.

Leftist academics, for example, favor mandatory voting because it leads to Marxist mobocracy.


The pursuit of the holy grail of so-called social justice serves as the justification for a never-ending war that the Left helps the nonproductive elements of society wage against the productive. Left-wingers suffer from a pathological hatred of material inequality and they abhor the freedoms guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution. It bothers them to no end that some Americans have more stuff than others.


Academics “Down Under,” where failing to vote is against the law, apparently share the same pathologies as their American counterparts.

According to Lisa Hill, a politics professor at the University of Adelaide in Australia, “America has a serious voter turnout problem,” and as a result “American democracy is dying.” Of course this foreign doomsayer presents no credible evidence that this is a problem in American society. Her chief concern is that there are some Americans who have more money than other Americans.

Forcing Americans to vote would boost the redistributionist efforts of government, transferring wealth from those who earned it to those who did not, she openly admits:

“The most decisive means for arresting turnout decline and closing the socioeconomic voting gap is mandatory voting: in fact, it is the only mechanism that can push turnout anywhere near 95 percent. Places with mandatory voting also have less wealth inequality, lower levels of political corruption and higher levels of satisfaction with the way democracy is working than voluntary systems.”

Boiled down to its essence, Professor Hill’s phony, self-serving, good-government claptrap, promotes the growth of government and involuntary transfers of wealth.

Besides, close to 100 percent voter turnout isn’t necessarily a sign that democratic culture is thriving in a country, contrary to Hill’s implication. History suggests the opposite.

Sky-high voter participation is associated with despotic regimes that punish citizens for not voting. (The Stockholm-based International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, or International IDEA, offers an interesting primer on compulsory voting at its website.)

“In undemocratic regimes it is often the case that political and social pressure, intimidation or other means drive people to the polls,” according to the Centre for European Policy Studies. “This was the case in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe and still occurs in Central Asia and North Korea.”

But left-wingers are broken records, always complaining about supposedly inadequate voter participation rates, something that is only a problem in the eyes of control freaks. They want to expand the electorate by any means possible. They want, as the fraudsters of ACORN demonstrated for four decades, the dead, cartoon characters, and fictional figures to be registered to vote and to actually cast ballots. The want felons, an important constituency in the Democratic Party, to vote.

Boosting voter turnout was President Bill Clinton’s first legislative priority even though he “had just won an election in which the country had seen the largest increase in voter turnout in a generation,” according to journalist John Fund. “Nonetheless, President Clinton declared a ‘crisis’ in civic participation and proceeded to ram the proposed law through Congress.”

Trotskyist academics Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven lobbied vigorously for the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, commonly known as the Motor-Voter law.

Flooding the electoral system with massive numbers of know-nothing voters would promote radical upheaval in American society, Cloward and Piven argued.

“Enlisting millions of new and politicized voters is the way to create an electoral environment hospitable to fundamental change in American society,” they explained in a 1983 article titled “Toward a Class-Based Realignment of American Politics: A Movement Strategy,” as I wrote in my book, Subversion Inc.: How Obama’s ACORN Red Shirts are Still Terrorizing and Ripping Off American Taxpayers.

“An enlarged and politicized electorate will sustain and encourage the movements in American society that are already working for the rights of women and minorities, for the protection of the social programs, and for transformation of foreign policy. Equally important, an enlarged and politicized electorate will foster and protect future mass movements from the bottom that the ongoing economic crisis is likely to generate, thus opening American politics to solutions to the economic crisis that express the interests of the lower strata of the population … The objective is to accelerate the dealigning forces already at work in American politics, and to promote party realignment along class lines.”

Artificially enlarging the electorate beyond those who bother to keep abreast of public affairs can only help progressives. Obama knows this. This is why he spends so much time trying to be cool, reaching out to the uneducated and the ignorant, reading comical Top 10 lists on late night TV shows, and referencing trivial things in interviews. He knows he can lie to his audience with impunity because its members have little to no idea what he actually stands for. They vote for him because they like him and feel that he cares about them. They are unable to connect him to his disastrous policies that are destroying America. In other words, they are ideal voters, as far as the Left is concerned. And it is no coincidence that Obama and other left-wingers also support open borders and immigration amnesties for illegal aliens because they know the new voters will be grateful to Democrats and support them for life. After all, who doesn’t like Santa Claus?

Obama, the Red diaper baby, embraced Cloward and Piven’s class warfare-based electoral strategy in 1992 when he worked for ACORN’s Project Vote affiliate. “All our people must know that politics and voting affects their lives directly,” he said. “If we’re registering people in public housing, for an example, we talk about aid cuts and who’s responsible.”

Out of appreciation for their hard work on the Motor-Voter legislation, President Clinton hosted Cloward and Piven at the signing ceremony for the bill and thanked them by name.

That law turned welfare offices into voter registration centers and encouraged nonprofit groups to conduct registration drives. It also opened the door to massive voter fraud. The law invites voter fraud by forcing states to register on the spot anyone seeking a government benefit such as a renewal of a driver’s license or welfare.

The statute also forbids officials from demanding proof of U.S. citizenship or identification. States were also forced to allow mail-in voter registration, which made it easy for troublemaking activists to place false names on the rolls without any human contact with a government official. Mail-in voting, of course, is the opposite of the secret ballot because a bureaucrat has to examine the mailed-in ballot. States were also under orders not to purge the dead, criminals, or people who moved from the voter rolls for a minimum of eight years.

Now that the Left has partially rigged the electoral system, they want to force everybody to vote.

An Obama alumnus brought up mandatory balloting almost three years ago. During the 2012 election cycle when ever so briefly it seemed that Mitt Romney might actually have a shot at ousting Obama, Peter Orszag, former head of the Office of Management and Budget, floated the idea of coerced voting.

Orszag moaned that even though the U.S. “prides itself as the beacon of democracy … it’s very likely no U.S. president has ever been elected by a majority of American adults. It’s our own fault — because voter participation rates are running below 60 percent, a candidate would have to win 85 percent or more of the vote to be elected by a majority.”

The former top Obama bureaucrat then revealed that his real motivation was to launch an assault on Americans’ constitutionally protected free speech rights.

“Beyond simply raising participation, compulsory voting could alter the role of money in elections. Turn-out-the-vote efforts, often bankrolled by big-money groups, would become largely irrelevant. Negative advertising could be less effective, because a central aim of such ads is to discourage participation in the opponent’s camp.”

Obama and his lackeys only support democracy when they are on the winning side. When they lose and their candidate is in the White House, they become staunch advocates of overbearing executive actions. They rejoice at Obama’s ugly boast that he wields “a pen and a phone.”

They want to make it more difficult for Americans to express themselves during election season. They want to make it easier for people who don’t give a farthing’s cuss about the governance of the country to find their way into voting booths. They support protracted early voting periods because that makes it much more expensive to get messages out to voters. They want people who are easily manipulated and susceptible to demagoguery to cast ballots.

Left-wingers support all these things because they know that in a fair contest they could never beat patriotic Americans who aren’t hellbent on fundamentally transforming the United States of America.

Their salvation lies in ridiculous schemes like compulsory voting and lying to the public.

And they will demonize anyone who gets in their way.



Flashback:

The Left is grooming the Youth to release to the Polls

[American Patriot]

>>If you have "too much" so what?\

There is a point in which people accumulate wealth so as to wield power. That's when it's too much.

Yes, rich people do employ others. Even after employing others, they still have 10s of billions of dollars, it's too much.

At some point, their accumulation of wealth DOES affect you. They can dictate policy, they can move currency or commodities, in short, it's too much concentrated wealth and control and none of it is for your benefit and typically, it's to fleece you out of an extra few dollars. Poor men want to be rich, rich men want to be kings, and rich kings want to be gods.

If I have billions of dollars, yes, I will dictate the policy of those in my companies and work for me.

If I want to see changes made to the government, certainly I will do that with the limits of the law.

it is opinion that "too much money" is too much money.

Personally, I can't see what I'd do with a billion dollars because I would not change much. I'm still cheap, but I'd probably buy better things, but to be honest, if I suddenly came into a million dollars tomorrow, I'd raise my boat budget a bit each month, but would NOT buy a different boat. I might buy some houses for my kids, and one for myself to live in while not traveling, but I'd still travel, wouldn't change my boat.

I'd have someone else work on this fucking maintenance list I'm working on now with "High", "Medium" and "Low" priorities to do repairs though. And they'd DO the repairs instead of me doing them.

[American Patriot]

THE UNANSWERED MYSTERY OF THE CENTURY



It will be interesting to see what they put in his "Presidential Library" about his early years when he is out of office.

In a country where we take notice of many, many facets of our public figures' lives, doesn't seem odd that there's so little we know about our current president, Barack Obama.


For example, we know that Andrew Jackson's wife smoked a corn cob pipe and was accused of adultery; Abe Lincoln never went to school; Jack Kennedy wore a back brace; Harry Truman played the piano.

As Americans, we enjoy knowing details about our newsmakers, but none of us know one single humanizing fact about the history of our own president.

We are all aware of the lack of uncontestable birth records for Obama; that document managing has been spectacularly successful.

There are however, several additional oddities in Obama's history that appear to be as well managed as the birthing issue.

One other interesting thing... There are no birth certificates of his daughters that can be found?

It's interesting that no one who ever dated him has shown up. The charisma that caused women to be drawn to him so strongly during his campaign, certainly would in the normal course of events, lead some lady to come forward, if only to garner some attention for herself. We all know about JFK's magnetism, that McCain was no monk and quite a few details about Palin's courtship and even her athletic prowess, Joe Biden's aneurisms are no secret; look at Cheney and Clinton, we all know about their heart problems. Certainly Wild Bill Clinton's exploits before and during his White House years, were well known. That's why it's so odd that not one lady has stepped up and said, "He was soooo shy..." or "What a great dancer..."

It's virtually impossible to know anything about this fellow. Who was the best man at his wedding? Start there. Then check groomsmen. Then get the footage of the graduation ceremony. Has anyone talked to the professors? It is odd that no one is bragging that they knew him or taught him or lived with him.

When did he meet Michele, and how? Are there photos there? Every president gives to the public all their photos, etc. for their library, etc. What has he released? And who in hell voted for him to be the most popular man in 2010? Doesn't this make you wonder?

Ever wonder why no one ever came forward from President Obama's past saying they knew him, attended school with him, was his friend, etc??
Not one person has ever come forward from his past. It certainly is very, very strange...

This should be a cause for great concern. To those who voted for him, you may have elected an unqualified, inexperienced shadow man. Have you seen a movie named "The Manchurian Candidate?"

As insignificant as each of us might be, someone with whom we went to school will remember our name or face; someone will remember we were the clown or the dork or the brain or the quiet one or the bully or something about us.


George Stephanopoulos of ABC News said the same thing during the 2008 campaign. He questions why no one has acknowledged the president was in their classroom or ate in the same cafeteria or made impromptu speeches on campus. Stephanopoulos also was a classmate of Obama at Columbia -- the class of 1984. He says he never had a single class with him.

He is such a great orator; why doesn't anyone in Obama's college class remember him? Why won't he allow Columbia to release his records?

Nobody remembers Obama at Columbia University....

Looking for evidence of Obama's past, Fox News contacted 400 Columbia University students from the period when Obama claims to have been there... but none remembered him.

Wayne Allyn Root was, like Obama, a political science major at Columbia who also graduated in 1983. In 2008, Root says of Obama, "I don't know a single person at Columbia that knew him, and they all know me. I don't have a classmate who ever knew Barack Obama at Columbia, ever."

Nobody recalls him. Root adds that he was also, like Obama, Class of '83 Political Science, and says, "You don't get more exact or closer than that. Never met him in my life, don't know anyone who ever met him. At the class reunion, our 20th reunion five years ago, who was asked to be the speaker of the class, Me. No one ever heard of Barack! And five years ago, nobody even knew who he was. The guy who writes the class notes, who's kind of the, as we say in New York, 'the macha' who knows everybody, has yet to find a person, a human who ever met him."

Obama's photograph does not appear in the school's yearbook and Obama consistently declines requests to talk about his years at Columbia, provide school records, or provide the name of any former classmates or friends while at Columbia .


Some other interesting questions:

Why was Obama's law license inactivated in 2002? It is said there is no record of him ever taking the Bar exam.

Why was Michelle's law license inactivated by court order? We understand that was forced to avoid fraud charges.

It is circulating that according to the U.S. Census, there is only one Barack Obama but 27 Social Security numbers and over 80 alias connected to him.

The Social Security number he uses now originated in Connecticut where he is reported to have never lived. And was originally registered to another man
(Thomas Louis Wood) from Connecticut , who died in Hawaii while on vacation there. As we all know Social Security Numbers are only issued once, they are not reused.

No wonder all his records are sealed...

[MinutemanCO]

The Social Security number he uses now originated in Connecticut where he is reported to have never lived. And was originally registered to another man (Thomas Louis Wood) from Connecticut , who died in Hawaii while on vacation there. As we all know Social Security Numbers are only issued once, they are not reused.

Thomas Louis Wood, the initial holder of Obama's SSN died in Hawaii? Maybe it's a longshot, but doesn't this fact alone seem a little fishy? I wonder what year he died?

[American Patriot]

Well... yeah, it's fishy. But there's an explanation for it.

You're obviously racist.

LOL

[MinutemanCO]

That's what the president tells me.

[vector7]

Obama Social Security Numbers: Mystery Almost Unraveled

Thursday, April 14, 2011 2:33


0


(Before It's News)
Click to enlarge image below
Update: just to make things more solid look at this:

This application (Thomas Louis Wood) is only one number off from AKA Obama’s (or Ludwig’s) number (042-68-4425) and was applied for on 3/21/77 in Hartford CT.

The record shows an 87 year old man applied for a second SS# when he already had one issued in 1951-1952. Or did someone else fraudulently apply for this number? Four years later he is dead and now AKA Obama uses this number 042-68-4425 on his selective service application. The original Ludwig number 045-26-8722 was never reported as deceased and thus he is 121 years old on the records. Conveniently, as Obama needs a number, Ludwig dies in 1981 and his 4 year old SS# is deactivated..
I don’t know quite what to make of this in total. But we do know that the selective service application displays a SS# that couldn’t possibly be Obama’s and is probably the number of a dead man from CT who applied for a SS# when he was 87 years old. If I can figure this out I will take a crack at Unified Field Theory.
Thomas Louis Wood died at age 19 but that probably isn’t relevant.
# # # # # #
Editorial comment: There isn't any doubt about the social security number AKA Obama used when he filed for a selective service number. The only thing that is causing confusion for some of my readers is the identity of who legitimately was assigned the social security number 042-68-4425. It is recorded as belonging to Jean Paul Ludwig. However Jean Paul Ludwig had two SS#s recorded in his name. The original Ludwig number 045-26-8722 was never reported as deceased and thus he is 121 years old on the records.One of these numbers wasn't assigned until 1977 and Ludwig died in 1981at the age of 91. Why would any one ask for a new SS# when 87 years old if he already had a SS#? However, the other SS# (045-26-8722) still lists Ludwig as alive and now being 121 years of age.
There are so many SS#s assigned to AKA Obama that it is very confusing. It appears that multiple SS# and addresses were created by someone deliberately attempting to frustrate investigators. Private investigator Neil Sankey to conduct research on Obama’s prior addresses and Social Society numbers. Using Intelius, Lexis Nexis, Choice Point and other public records, Sankey found around 25 Social Security numbers connected with Obama’s name.
For instance:
Look at http://www.scribd.com/doc/20976501/Neil-Sankey-Barack-Obama-Addresses-SS-Numbers
Neil Sankey – Barack Obama Addresses and SS Numbers
Page 20 of 39
Name – OBAMA, BARACK
Street Address – OBAMA LN City, State, Zip –
FRANKLIN WI 53132
Probable Current Address – No
Telephone –
Telephone Accountholder –
Social Security –
Age –
Date of Birth –
Deceased – No
Date Record Verified – Feb 08 – Jun 08 Barack Obama living on Obama Lane?
There is no such street in Franklin WI
There is so much “confetti” in the air that you can’t see the parade.
As an example of how inaccurate the "personal record" search engines are they say my SS# was issued in 1987 and I am seventy years old. Hmmm?
There is a good discussion on this topic at;
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2702617/posts




AKA Obama "I've got nothing to hide but I am hiding it."

From blogger Apuzzo:

This news is breaking: This is bad news for Obama.
This is what we know so far. We get more info on Jean Paul Ludwig, who was born in 1890, had CT SSN obtained in 1976 and died in HI around 1981. There are 2 SS numbers for him and records show him dying in 2 different states: CA and HI around 1981.

The reason this is important, is because there is a similar fact pattern to Obama. Barack Obama is residing today in the White House, using CT SS number 042-68-4425, issued in CT in and around March 1977 to an elderly individual named John Paul Ludwig, who was born in 1890, who is presumed dead and whose death was either never reported to the SS administration or reported and deleted from the database by someone.

Obama's maternal grandmother Madelyn Dunham, worked as a part-timer or volunteer in the Probate Office in the Honolulu Hawaii Courthouse. Thus she would have access to the estate files of anyone who died there. Thus if the elderly man originally from CT died intestate in Hawaii with no known relatives, Grandma Dunham would have known this person is a prime candidate to steal the SSN of since there would be no known surviving family worrying about the death benefit from SSN and that the benefit was not likely applied for and thus SSA did not know he died. Thus the SSN remained active for the deceased person and Obama could "adopt" it as his own. This is a clear case of identity theft at the federal level.

This is what we know about Ludwig:

In 1924, Jean Paul Ludwig worked for Senator Reed of PA, in Washington DC.

On the ship manifest of ‘Leviathan’, he listed Senator Reed in Washington, DC as his empl., in answer to where he intended to live in the US.

Jean Paul Ludwig had been in the US for 3 yrs in 1924, but he was listed on the “Immigration” manifest and refered to as an alien in the column headings.

Listed under “States Immigration Officer at Port of Arrival”, New York, Aug 12, 1924:

Jean Paul Ludwig, Date of Arrival: Aug 12, 1924, Port of Departure:
Cherbourg, France, Line#: 0008

Line #8: By Whom was Passage Paid: Emp. Mr. Reed; Whether in possession of $50: Yes; Whether ever before in US: Yes; If Yes-Period of Years: 3; Where: PA

Whether going to join relative or friend: Empl. Senator Reed, Washingto, DC

Length of time alien intends to remain in the US: Always

Height 5′5″, Complexion Dk., Hair Br., Eyes Br., Marks of ID: None

Place of Birth: France, Ammersville.

http://www.ellisisland.org/sign/index.asp?login_targ=%2Fsearch%2Fpassrecord%2Easp% 3FpID%3D600642010008%26fromShip%3Dy%26letter%3Dl%2 6half%3D1%26sname%3DLeviathan%26year%3D1924%26sdat e%3D08%2F12%2F1924%26port%3DCherbourg%2C%2AFrance% 26page%3D&ACT=LL&section=3


First Name: Jean P.
Last Name: Ludwig
Ethnicity: France
Last Place of Residence: Washington, D.C.
Date of Arrival: Aug 12, 1924
Age at Arrival: 34 Gender: M Marital Status: S
Ship of Travel: Leviathan
Port of Departure: Cherbourg, France
Manifest Line Number: 0008

U.S. Social Security Death Index
Name: Jean Ludwig
Birth Date: 17 February 1890
Zip Code of Last Residence: 96816 (Honolulu,HI)
Death Date: June 1981
Estimated Age at Death: 91




Or just cut and paste this Social Security number into Google.
042-68-4425

########
More recently, it was discovered that Obama’s Selective Service card may have been doctored. Federal law requires all American males to register for the Selective Service (the draft) in case a major war broke out. Blogger Debbie Schlusselhas discovered solid evidence that Obama’s Selective Service registration form was submitted not when he was younger as required, but rather in 2008 and then altered to look older. Indeed, the forgers forgot to alter the “Document Location Number” which shows that it is clearly a 2008 form. This is fraud and it’s a felony and Schlussel allegations are backed up by Stephen Coffman, a former high-ranking Federal agent. Moreover, the document shows a September 4th, 1980 date and the location of the transaction as Hawaii, but at that time Obama was thousands of miles away attending
Occidental College in Los Angeles.


Now the actual Selective Service registration is available and it includes the SS# Obama (or someone else) used to apply for his Selective Service Number

[vector7]

Whose Social Security Number Did Obama Steal?

Posted on March 15, 2011 by Bridgette | 157 Comments

© Bridgette WTPOTUS 2011

The Tip of the Iceberg!


Obama’s Social Security Number from Connecticut?

The engine that could just keeps keepin’ on! That mighty engine is Attorney Orly Taitz. Against all odds, and multiple roadblocks, she moves ahead in her quest for truth and exposure of Obama’s ineligibility. Orly received a page of hard to read information instead of a legible numident from her FOIA request regarding Thomas Louis Wood whose social security number is one less than Obama’s.
Thomas died at age 19 and the information was available to the public, yet it has taken over a year for the Social Security Administration (SSA) to release the information. Why did they stonewall her request? Orly had to file a lawsuit to have the information released. Finally, the original application arrived along with a letter from the SSA. She has posted these to her site. The first photo below is what the SSA initially sent to Orly. Thereafter, are the new numidents for Thomas who was a resident of New Britain, CT…a state and place that Obama never lived. So how did Obama get a social security card from that state?
From these forms, she states they can pinpoint the date when the SS-5 was filled out for Obama’s CONNECTICUT Social Security Number 042-68-4425 that he started using around 1980. Obama’s number is one number after deceased Thomas Louis Wood’s number that ends in 4424.
The application date for Obama would be between March – April, 1977 when Barack Obama states he was in Hawaii and nowhere near Connecticut.
Following are copies of the information for Thomas Louis Wood who died an early death. Yet his death is providing information that shows when Obama’s apparent identity theft of a social security number occurred, or when someone got the number for him.
Click to enlarge these forms for viewing.
Numident - The first version received from the SSA with redacted information

SSA's Certification Letter for Thomas Louis Wood's information

Thomas Wood Application for Connecticut Social Security Number - Numident

It is interesting to note on the 1977 application above the government asks for “Your Color or Race.” The choices were “White, Negro, Other.” There was no designation, “African.” (Of course I am referring to the forged internet version of the Certification of Live Birth that Obama put online where they used the term “African” for the designation of race. We all know that the term means a nationality, and is not a race.)
The above shows that Thomas’ mother applied for his Social Security Number on March 21, 1977 when he was 14 years old, and the number given to him was 041-68-4424. In logical sequence the next person would be issued the next number. Who really owns Social Security Number 042-68-4425? If this number was issued in 1977, what number did Obama use when he was allegedly working at Baskin Robbins in Oahu, Hawaii in 1975?
Thomas Wood - Numident - Dated 3/28/77

Thomas Wood Numident Dated 4-15-77

Why are there two different Numidents issued 18 days apart? The first is a day after the date of application. The second was prepared 18 days later.
In my own research, I used the LDS Genealogy site. Their Social Security Death Index lists Thomas Wood as born in 1962 and dying in 1981. The SS# is the same number as indicated. His social security number 042-68-4424 is still listed as belonging to him. It has not been reassigned.

Social Security Death Index
Thomas WOOD
Birth Date: 15 Jul 1962
Death Date: Jul 1981
Social Security Number: 042-68-4424
State or Territory Where Number Was Issued: Connecticut

ZIP Code: 06111
Death Residence Localities
Localities: Hartford, Hartford, Connecticut
Hfd, Hartford, Connecticut
Htfd, Hartford, Connecticut
Maple Hill, Hartford, Connecticut
Newington, Hartford, Connecticut

Another search by social security number on Genealogy Bank produced Thomas Wood’s name. The search for numbers preceding Thomas produced no results nor were there any results for numbers after Thomas. In other words, the people that own those numbers have not died.

042-68-4423 none
042-68-4424 Thomas Wood
042-68-4425 none – The number Obama uses
042-68-4426 none
042-68-4427 none

If you remember there were two different investigators that researched Obama’s use of different social security numbers for Orly. Both Susan Daniels, an Ohio licensed private investigator and John N. Sampson, a Colorado private investigator signed affidavits of their findings in an eligibility lawsuit. In a statement to WND, Ms. Daniels said, “There is obviously a case of fraud going on here.” She said, I am “staking my reputation on a conclusion that Obama’s use of this Social Security number is fraudulent.”
WND reported that even more suspicious is that the databases that the investigators used showed ” the date 1890 indicating the year of birth of the number holder, along with Obama’s birth date of 08/04/1961. A third date listed is 04/08/1961, which appears to be a transposition of Obama’s birth date in an international format, with the day before the month.” How can this be if the Social Security Administration never reissues social security numbers? Why would there be different information in different databases, unless someone was scrubbing and changing it? Who had access to the databases?
The real owner of the number that Obama confiscated may still be living. Is there an individual that is 121 years old today? It is interesting that the number hasn’t been recorded by the SSA as a death. So who issued Obama the number and buried the real owners name?
So We The People: We have a fraudulent and forged Certification of Live Birth for Obama, a forged or fraudulent Selective Service record, birth announcements that aren’t duplicated anywhere else in the US in any library, inserted pages into a birth index in Hawaii, hospitals that don’t claim him, falsified documents by the Democratic Party, a State record stating that Obama is a natural born citizen, photo-shopped family and self photos, professors stating they never saw him at Columbia University, a phony book that was written by Bill Ayers, no living “real” blood relatives, no records from his Illinois Senate days, no medical records, and multitudes of sealed records. How many of your friends have no documented background? Are they in witness protection?
What else could we think other than this is a man whose ideology is foreign because he is foreign. He can’t relate to us because he isn’t one of us. Anyone that can’t produce a simple document has lots to hide. He said it himself. But when there are multitudes of the same document associated with his name…we have a conman, a thief, and a liar. How many social security numbers do you have? Obama has no less than four dozen!
Oh, this is one report that we do have. This was previously located by another investigator for Orly and was reported in “Obama’s Lying Blue Lips.”This report was from another government database, “Intelligator”. I guess they missed this one when they were scrubbing passport records, manufacturing selective service records, doctoring college records, and inventing and creating a family history that has so many holes, it reeks like Limburger Cheese.

Background Report 11/16/2009
Barack Obama STATE IL
Barack H. Obama
5046 S. Greenwood Ave. Chicago IL 60615
County: Cook
DOB: 08-01-1961 Age 48 Not August 4, 1961
Gender M
Education: Graduate School
Occupation Group: Professional/Technical
Occupation: Unknown
Ethnic Code: Equatorial Guinea
Ethnic Group F
Language Code E
Possible Relatives MICHELLE OBAMA age 45

We are talking multiple criminal charges. Who will investigate the Fraud in the White House? What are they waiting for? What more do they need to do their jobs? How many citizen requests do they need?
Does Congress know that “Undocumented, alien, illegal” workers purchase and use fake social security cards? Tell Obama to Prove his Eligibility and produce the documents to Prove it! He won’t because he can’t!

Thanks to the “Engine that Could” for her perseverance and tenacity in locating and fighting for the truth!

UPDATE:

Selective Service - Full Document - Orly

Selective Service – Orly


Evidence Emerges That Michelle Obama Never Birthed Malia And Sasha

---

SHARE ON:
The Patriot — September 24, 2014



It is no secret that Michelle and Barrack Obama have gone above and beyond to keep their daughters out of the press. Even so, we have seen very few pictures of the early years of the First Daughters. Now, some Americans are starting to believe that the pictures simply don’t exist.
While some Americans feel that the two girls have very little resemblance to their parents, others claim that the pair were adopted from Morocco. Similar to their father, there is very little evidence surrounding the two girls’ birth and background. Online searches for either of their birth records come up completely dry.
Ancestry.com and GenealogyBank.com have no records of the two sisters.

While we’ve seen pictures of Barack and Michelle dating before they had children, we have seen very little of the period of time when Malia and Sasha were born. And no one has ever claimed to see a picture of the First Lady pregnant or with a newborn.

[vector7]

Obama Was Hand-Picked, Was NOT a Natural Born Citizen, Congress Knew It, and Tried to Protect Him

Posted on March 29, 2015 by Dean Garrison


The further I travel down this rabbit hole, the more I feel divorced from the good conservative people that I choose to call my own. I hold some stories back from our readers. My thought is that people have a hard enough time embracing the basic fact that our government is corrupt on both sides of the aisle. If you knew how corrupt I thought these people really were, I feel like you’d rush to the phone and soon bad men would show up to haul me off in a straight jacket.

Do they still do that?

Regardless, today I want to show you something that might leave you questioning everything around you.

Welcome to my world.

In 1975 a representative named Joe Bingham introduced an amendment to remove the “natural born citizen” constitutional requirement to become President.
Why is that important?

Because it was not until almost 30 years later that the issue would be addressed again. And it was not addressed only once, but multiple times. This is all part of congressional record.

Remarkably, it just so happened to coincide with the meteoric rise of a man named Barack Obama who currently sits in the People’s House.

I am about to share with you a brilliant piece of research from the Article II Political Action Committee. After reading it the foremost question on my mind is, “If the natural born citizen definition only requires one citizen parent then why did they seemingly try so hard to change the law for Barack Obama?”

There are multiple links to official congressional documents throughout, contained in the research below, so I would urge you to draw your own conclusions.
But from my point of view this research either strongly, or at least partly, validates the following conclusions:

1. Barack Obama was hand-picked to be President.
2. Some members of Congress, on both sides, understood that Obama was not “natural born” and tried to pass laws to pave the way for his arrival.
3. In the end they used a deflection tactic to shine light on John McCain’s eligibility status, hoping that Obama’s own status would not be brought into question.

It appears to have worked.

Below is a lengthy excerpt from “Article II Facts” hosted on the site of the Article II Political Action Committee. If you like what you read, I would encourage you to consider a donation to their cause.

Let’s take a trip back through recent history:

Attempts to redefine or amend Article II “natural born Citizen” Clause of the U.S. Constitution:

The effort to remove the natural-born citizen requirement from the U.S. Constitution actually began in 1975 – when Democrat House Rep. Jonathon B. Bingham, [NY-22] introduced a constitutional amendment underH.J.R. 33: which called for the outright removal of the natural-born requirement for president found in Article II of the U.S. Constitution – “Provides that a citizen of the United States otherwise eligible to hold the Office of President shall not be ineligible because such citizen is not a natural born citizen.”

Bingham’s first attempt failed and he resurrected H.J.R. 33: in 1977 under H.J.R. 38:, again failing to gain support from members of congress. Bingham was a Yale Law grad and member of the secret society Skull and Bones, later a lecturer at Columbia Law and thick as thieves with the United Nations via his membership in the Council on Foreign Relations.
Bingham’s work lay dormant for twenty-six years when it was resurrected again in 2003 as Democrat members of Congress made no less than eight ( attempts in twenty-two (22) months, to either eliminate the natural-born requirement, or redefine natural-born to accommodate Barack Hussein Obama II in advance of his rise to power. The evidence is right in the congressional record…

1. On June 11, 2003 Democrat House member Vic Snyder [AR-2] introduced H.J.R 59: in the 108th Congress – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 35 years and who has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years eligible to hold the office of President or Vice President.” – Co-Sponsors: Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14]; Rep Delahunt, William D. [MA-10]; Rep Frank, Barney [MA-4]; Rep Issa, Darrell E. [CA-49]; Rep LaHood, Ray [IL-18]; Rep Shays, Christopher [CT-4].

2. On September 3, 2003, Rep. John Conyers [MI] introduced H.J.R. 67: – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years eligible to hold the office of President.” – Co-Sponsor Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27]

3. On February 25, 2004, Republican Senator Don Nickles [OK] attempted to counter the growing Democrat onslaught aimed at removing the natural-born citizen requirement for president in S.2128: – “Natural Born Citizen Act – Defines the constitutional term “natural born citizen,” to establish eligibility for the Office of President” – also getting the definition of natural born citizen wrong. – Co-sponsors Sen Inhofe, James M. [OK]; Sen Landrieu, Mary L. [LA]

4. On September 15, 2004 – as Barack Obama was about to be introduced as the new messiah of the Democrat Party at the DNC convention, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher [CA-46] introduced H.J.R. 104: – “Constitutional Amendment – “Makes eligible for the Office of the President non-native born persons who have held U.S. citizenship for at least 20 years and who are otherwise eligible to hold such Office.” – No co-sponsors.

5. Again on January 4, 2005, Rep John Conyers [MI] introduced H.J.R. 2: to the 109th Congress – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years eligible to hold the Office of President.” – Co-Sponsor Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27]
6. Rep Dana Rohrabacher [CA-46] tries again on February 1, 2005 in H.J.R. 15: – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes eligible for the Office of the President non-native born persons who have held U.S. citizenship for at least 20 years and who are otherwise eligible to hold such Office.” – No Co-Sponsor

7. On April 14, 2005, Rep Vic Snyder [AR-2] tries yet again with H.J.R. 42: – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 35 years and who has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years eligible to hold the office of President or Vice President.” – Co-Sponsor Rep Shays, Christopher [CT-4]

8. All of these efforts failing in committee and the 2008 presidential election looming with an unconstitutional candidate leading the DNC ticket, Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill, [MO] tries to attach the alteration to a military bill in S.2678: on February 28, 2008 – “Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act – Declares that the term “natural born Citizen” in article II, section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution, dealing with the criteria for election to President of the United States, includes any person born to any U.S. citizen while serving in the active or reserve components of the U.S. armed forces.” – Co-Sponsors DNC Presidential candidate Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY]; DNC Presidential candidate Sen Obama, Barack [IL]; Sen Menendez, Robert [NJ]; Sen Coburn, Tom [OK] – (This was the first effort to also assure that GOP Presidential candidate Sen. John McCain [AZ] would be cleared to run against the DNC primary victor.)

From June 11, 2003 to February 28, 2008, there had been eight ( different congressional attempts to alter Article II – Section I – Clause V – natural born citizen requirements for president in the U.S. Constitution, all of them failing in committee — All of it taking placing during Barack Obama’s rise to political power and preceding the November 2008 presidential election.

In politics, there are no coincidences… not of this magnitude.

Finally on April 10, 2008, unable to alter or remove the natural born citizen requirement to clear the way for Barack Obama, the U.S. Senate acts to shift focus before the election, introducing and passing S.R.511: – declaring Sen. John McCain a “natural born citizen” eligible to run for and hold the office of president. There was never any honest doubt about McCain, the son of a U.S. Navy Commander. The Sponsor of the resolution is Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill, [MO]

S.R.511 States that John Sidney McCain, III, is a “natural born Citizen” under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States. S.R511 passed by a 99-0 unanimous consent of the Senate, with only John McCain not voting. The basis was – “Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens;” – a condition not met by Barack Hussein Obama II. – Co-Sponsors DNC Presidential candidate Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY]; DNC Presidential candidate Sen Obama, Barack [IL]; Sen Leahy, Patrick J. [VT]; Sen Webb, Jim [VA]; Sen Coburn, Tom [OK] (They had made certain that John McCain would run against Barack Obama)

However, in the McCain resolution is also this language – “Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen’ of the United States; – Whereas the term `natural born Citizen’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;”

The U.S. Constitution is not a dictionary. The definition of “is” is not in the constitution either. Yet this is the text that would later be issued in Congressional Research Service talking points memos distributed to members of congress, to protect an individual that all members of congress know and understand to be an “unconstitutional” resident of the people’s White House – Barack Hussein Obama II.

Once again, as the political left was unable to alter the U.S. Constitution by way of legitimate constitutional process, they resorted to altering the constitution via precedent setting, in short, knowingly electing and getting away with seating an unconstitutional president in order to alter Article II requirements for the office via breaking those constitutional requirements.

The press would not ask any questions and the American people were already too ill-informed of their constitution to know or too distracted by daily life to care. The press would provide the cover, swearing to the lies of an unconstitutional administration put in power by criminal actors focused only on their lofty political agenda of forever altering the American form of government.

The people would be caught up in a steady diet of daily assaults on their individual freedom and liberty and overlook the most obvious constitutional crisis in American history, the seating of an unconstitutional and anti-American president. [SOURCE CREDIT]

There you have it. Make of this what you will.

It brings about many questions for me.

Would people like Claire McCaskill and Hillary Clinton really come to John McCain’s aid if they did not have an ulterior motive?

Why were people like Inhofe, Issa, and Rohrabacher either sponsoring or co-sponsoring these pieces of legislation? After all, these men have been three of Obama’s biggest critics. We have heard lots of threats and promises from them but have seen no results. Could it be that these men are just more shining examples of “all bark and no bite”? (See Definition of “Smoke and Mirrors“)

If it is true that the definition of “natural born citizen” only involves having one citizen parent then why all the fuss?
Obama, questionable Hawaii birth certificate and all, met the requirement of one American citizen parent. Maybe the truth is that it takes more than that and Congress knows it.

So why was nothing ever done?

Keep searching and settle for nothing less than the truth.

http://www.dcclothesline.com/2015/03...o-protect-him/

[American Patriot]

Obama, in Jamaica, Seeks to Reassert U.S. Influence in Caribbean

By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVISAPRIL 9, 2015


KINGSTON, Jamaica — President Obama is expected to use a meeting of Caribbean nations on Thursday to try to reassert American influence in the region and press its leaders to pursue alternative energy solutions that would loosen their reliance on oil from Venezuela.


Mr. Obama and Energy Secretary Ernest J. Moniz arrived here Wednesday night, ahead of a day of meetings focused on trade and energy use and production in the Caribbean basin.


The gathering is a prelude to a larger meeting of Latin American nations, the Summit of the Americas, which opens on Friday in Panama City. Mr. Obama’s push to normalize relations with Cuba, and tensions with Venezuela, are likely to overshadow a crowded policy agenda there.


Both stops this week are efforts by the president to improve relations and strengthen American engagement with smaller and less wealthy neighbors. The push for stronger Caribbean ties comes as an economic crisis intensifies in Venezuela, whose subsidized oil is used by most Caribbean countries.


American officials say they are eager to work with Caribbean partners — 14 of whom will participate in meetings with Mr. Obama on Thursday — on alternative energy solutions. They also want to demonstrate a commitment to a region they concede has sometimes felt ignored by the United States.


Mr. Obama, the first American president to visit Jamaica since 1982, will also meet on Thursday with Prime Minister Portia Simpson-Miller, and he will hold a town-hall-style meeting with young people before departing for Panama.


The Caribbean outreach comes amid strained relations between the Obama administration and President Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela, who has reacted angrily to an executive order by Mr. Obama that froze assets of midlevel Venezuelan officials suspected of human rights abuses or violations of due process.


The order described Venezuela as a threat to United States national security, a charge that senior American officials have recently tried to soften, arguing that it was merely pro forma language that accompanies any such sanctions.


Mr. Maduro says he has collected millions of signatures in a petition calling for the sanctions to be lifted, and that he will deliver the document to Mr. Obama during the summit meeting. A top State Department official made an unexpected trip on Wednesday to Caracas, the Venezuelan capital, for a round of diplomatic maneuvering before the regional meeting begins on Friday.


But the dispute could nevertheless play out at the gathering, where Mr. Obama is hoping to highlight his move toward easing tensions with Cuba and a corresponding tightening of ties throughout Latin America.


The dynamics are less complicated in Jamaica, where Ms. Simpson-Miller was waiting on Wednesday night at the foot of Air Force One to embrace Mr. Obama upon his arrival in Kingston. Before turning in for the night, the president made a brief tour of the Bob Marley Museum, in a large Victorian house adjacent to a palm tree-shaded courtyard with red, yellow and green walls. Mr. Marley’s “One Love” could be heard during Mr. Obama’s visit.


As he took in Marley memorabilia, the president reminisced about his days of listening to the reggae legend.


“I still have all the albums,” Mr. Obama said.