From Conception...To Election

"Preventing an individual with plural loyalties, whether by biological, political or geographic origins, which may present lawful or perceptable doubt as to his allegiances thereof, other than one with the fullmost sovereignty of advanced citizenry, which is that of one who remains Natural-born from conception to election, from assuming the great power of this fragile office, was, without tolerance or vulnerability, the exaction of purpose of our fathers to induce the mandate of presidential eligibility upon our blood-ransomed Constitution..." Pen Johannson ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.

Sunday, September 16, 2012


OBAMACARE EXPOSED AS INELIGIBLE TAXATION:  Obama’s presidency was just the first of many illegitimate events to occur after the 2008 election.  Now, it appears Obamacare, ironically, may indeed be an unenforceable piece of legislation, as well as illegal, because of a preeminent constitutional mandate which explicitly requires that all tax legislation must originate in the House of Representatives.
by Pen Johannson
Editor of The Daily Pen
NEW YORK, NY – The framers clearly wrote the Constitution with enduring "Alpha-like" qualities knowing that future generations would try to circumvent its authority in order to illegally usurp power and control the lives of humanity’s advanced most affluent citizenry.
The framers of the Constitution, in their astonishing wisdom, included the presidential eligibility mandate of Article II knowing that, someday, a foreign usurper like Barack Obama might try to run for president.  They even anticipated the nation of such a foreigner’s origin correctly when they wrote the Natural born eligibility mandate out of concern to prevent a British usurper from assuming power in America!  Obama was born to a British citizen father making him legally ineligible to run for the U.S. presidency regardless whether he was nominated, elected and inaugurated.       
It also appears they even understood that selection of such an illegitimate candidate could not be prevented, yet, more importantly, by inducing such a righteous exaction, they established a legal incrimination against tyranny which can never be removed, essentially creating an irreversible locking mechanism which eternally banishes men like Obama as an illegal, illegitimate, criminal office occupier…regardless of how many people vote for him.
They also wrote procedural doctrine for the passage of tax laws, having suffered the atrocities under the British monarchy in its attempt to illegally tax Americans without affording them representation under the law.  Ultimately, as history has taught mankind for thousands of years…such vile notions result in violent revolution against such governments and, moreover, the destruction of that government is eventually meted by the will of ultimate authority.       
The current members serving in all three branches of the American government must be forcibly brought to submission under the law.  If they refuse to bow willingly, let the law break their legs.  They must be subjugated by the inescapable judgment that the U.S. Constitution was written by superiorly inspired subjects of acute intellect and deeply rooted morality bearing a far more developed sense of statutory authority under a higher righteousness. 
When making his ruling in favor of Obamacare, Judge Roberts was correct in his assessment that Congress has the legal authority to tax as his legal justification for upholding the law.  In his vigor to rule officiously, he stipulated passage of Obamacare under the condition that the transaction of money from working Americans to the government in the form of an individual mandate and subsequent punitive charges were thereby and forever to be legally enjoined upon Obamacare as “taxation”.  Otherwise, Obamacare is not legally binding.   
Therefore, by requiring every American to have health insurance by paying this SCOTUS-defined “tax”, the highest judiciary authority in America thereby made Obamacare into a Constitutionally controlled tax legislation. 
Unfortunately, seeded in this shallow legal morphology, head judge Roberts failed, abysmally, to acknowledge the first fundamental rule of taxation which explicitly requires that any and all tax legislation must originate in the House of Representatives and, from there, be conveyed through both houses of congress by a specific process, in order to be a legally enforceable tax.
Obamacare did not originate in the fertile ground of our dedicative representation just as Obama’s eligibility did not originate in the Natural born citizenship defined by natural law.  Therefore, by allowing such an ill-conceived statute outside the boundaries of the constitution's preeminent order, Roberts rendered Obamacare unenforceable, even though it was determined to be morphologically legal.  
Obamacare, like Obama’s presidency, was spawned from the damnable corruption of the Democrat-dominated U.S. Senate, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi (as chair of the DNC she signed the fraudulent Official Certification of Nomination in August of 2008), and thereby failed to be validated through proper procedural constitutional jurisdiction.    
The framers win, again…by TKO!  
Therefore, Americans may simply ignore the Obamacare mandate and its punitive charges under the authority of the Constitution because the U.S. government has no legal authority to enforce payment of them.  The demand for payment is not legitimate because it was declared a tax which was not carried properly through legal channels. 

In the court’s explicit declaration that the individual mandate charges were a “tax”, the very ruling induced the preemptive constitutional requirement that the healthcare bill, according to centuries of U.S. tax law, must have originated in the House of Representatives, not the Senate, in order for “revenue increases”, a.k.a. taxation, to be legally enforced.

Obamacare, therefore, fails to even qualify as a tax.  
“The penalties Americans will be required to pay under Obamacare for going without health insurance were declared constitutional in a U.S. Supreme Court decision that hinged on Chief Justice John Roberts’ assertion that the assessments are taxes.
But a legal challenge to the federal government takeover of health-care decision-making says that’s a problem, because Harry Reid created the Obamacare legislation, with all of its new “taxes,” in the U.S. Senate.
The Constitution requires any tax bills to begin in the House.
The demand for an explanation is being raised in an amended complaint filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation, which is representing a man who believes the new bureaucracy isn’t legal.
“If the charge for not buying insurance is seen as a federal tax, then a new question must be asked,” said Paul J. Beard II, the principal attorney for the organization.
When lawmakers passed the Affordable Care Act, with all of its taxes, “Did they follow the Constitution’s procedures for revenue increases?” Beard asked.
The Supreme Court wasn’t asked and didn’t address this question, he noted.
“The question of whether the Constitution was obeyed needs to be litigated, and PLF is determined to see this important issue all the way through the courts,” he said.
PLF explained that under the Supreme Court’s decision in June, the Affordable Care Act now charges a “tax” on Americans who fail to buy health insurance.
But Reid introduced the tax plan in the Senate, not the House, as the Constitution’s Origination Clause requires for new revenue-raising bills, in Article I, Section 7, the legal team argued.
The plaintiff in the case is Iowa small business owner Matt Sissel, who chooses to pay for medical expenses on his own. He objects “on financial, philosophical, and constitutional grounds to be ordered by the federal government to purchase a health care plan he does not need or want, on pain of financial penalty.”
“I’m in this case to defend freedom and the Constitution,” said Sissel. “I strongly believe that I should be free – and all Americans should be free – to decide how to provide for our medical needs, and not be forced to purchase a federally dictated health care plan. I’m very concerned about Congress ignoring the constitutional roadmap for enacting taxes, because those procedures are there for a purpose – to protect our freedom.”
He served in the Army National Guard until 2008 and spent two years in Iraq as a combat medic. He received the Bronze Star and now owns an art business in Iowa City.
“It’s dispiriting to see our lawmakers treat the rules set out in the Constitution with disrespect, as if they’re just suggestions, or as if members of Congress are too important to follow them,” he said.
His lawsuit was filed before the Supreme Court opinion was released by Roberts, but it was on hold while that case from the National Federation of Independent Business and 26 states was pending.
The plaintiffs in the Supreme Court case alleged that a mandate to buy insurance was a violation of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause, and the Supreme Court agreed. But Roberts’ opinion simply changed the “penalty” as it was enacted by Congress to a “tax” and deemed it constitutional for that reason.
Reid took a House-passed bill that helps veterans buy homes, eviscerated it and  inserted the Obamacare language.
“When we focus on the Origination Clause, we’re not talking about dry formalities and this isn’t an academic issue,” said Beard. “The Founders understood that the power to tax, if misused, involves the power to destroy, as Chief Justice John Marshall put it. Therefore, they viewed the Origination Clause as a vital safeguard for liberty. They insisted that the power to initiate new taxes should be left with the lawmakers who are most directly accountable to voters – members of the House, who are elected every two years by local districts.”
The Sissel complaint is being amended to challenge the entire law on that basis.
The amended complaint explains that Roberts specifically approved the “shared responsibility payment,” which the Obama administration said was not a tax, as “a tax.”
“The chief justice explained the apparent inconsistency in concluding that the ‘shared responsibility payment’ is a tax for constitutional purposes, but not for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act.”
His logic was that while Congress did not have the power to require citizens to buy insurance, it could require them to pay a tax.
But Roberts’ holding that the payments are taxes “raises new questions about the tax’s conformity with other constitutional provisions,” which the court left unresolved, the legal filing said.
“Despite the fact the act raises considerable revenues, it originated in the Senate, not the House,” the brief argues. “The Affordable Care Act was not the result of a lawful amendment of H.R. 3590, because the subject matter of the one had nothing whatsoever to do with the other.”
The Obamacare law already was under attack in the courts for its “mandate” that employers pay for abortifacients for employees. Dozens of lawsuits have been filed by Christian organizations that say the mandate violates freedom of religion.
In a Michigan pending case, the government insisted it has the authority to “substantially burden the exercise of religion”on two conditions.
If it is “in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest” and “the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”

Saturday, September 15, 2012


OCTOBER SURPRISE 3.0:  With the 2012 election looming, legal analysts formerly with the Social Security Administration predict Obama will “triple down” on the birth certificate fraud by displaying a forged paper version of the document.  Under the weight of mounting ballot challenges and an onslaught of citizen journalists who have effectively exposed Obama’s prolific lies, Obama’s only option, they say, is for the criminals propagating the epic deception about Obama’s illegitimacy as president is to “frankenstein” one more doozy of a lie…bigger than all the one’s before it!
By Dan Crosby
of The Daily Pen

NEW YORK, NY – It’s always quietest before the storm…and darkest before the dawn.  Get ready, America…here it comes. 
Former claims analysts for the social security administration and researchers working on behalf of the ongoing investigation into the forged image of Obama’s alleged 1961 birth certificate have resolved, preemptively, that the roster of counterfeit evidence supporting Barack Obama’s eligibility to serve as president is about to get one more addition…a counterfeit paper version of Obama’s birth certificate. 
For almost a year and a half, the counterfeited image of Obama’s alleged 1961 Certificate of Live Birth has been repeatedly and effectively discredited as a forgery by law enforcement investigators, computer experts, software analysts and neo-journalists.  During that time, questions have been raised about the image’s content as well as its origins and chain of custody.  Most damaging to the image’s credibility as an authentic representation of Obama’s natal history, however, is the fact that it is not a paper document but, rather, has been proven to be a .pdf file produced sometime after two paper copies of the record were allegedly released to Obama attorneys by the State of Hawaii in April, 2011. 
Now, a recent ballot challenge in Kansas has brought another course of the same valid but unanswered questions regarding Obama’s failure to provide credible, authentic, corroborated documented evidence that he is Constitutionally eligible to serve as president.  For more than four years, liberal operatives and media abettors have toiled to protect Obama while ridiculing anyone seeking the truth about this matter.  Kansas officials have determined there is reason to question Obama’s eligibility on their ballot.  
A recent request by investigators to the state of Hawaii specifically, for an officially certified .pdf digital copy of a birth certificate of a Hawaiian-born member of the research team was met with Hawaiian Health Department officials stating that they “do not provide, nor have they ever provided” any digital computer versions of official birth certificates.  

Therefore, the problem for  counterfeiters of the Obama birth certificate image is that the state of Hawaii did not authorize the creation of the .pdf file, nor did the state of Hawaii create the .pdf. image for display on the internet, by anyone.  It is upon this fact that forgers will attempt to pass off a forged paper document which they will claim is the actual certified paper copy of the original held by the state of Hawaii and which was originally allegedly created for Obama in 1961, say legal analysts. 
“Of course they are going to do this,” says TDP editor, Pen Johannson, “it is their only option.  They must descend deeper into this lie because the truth is beginning to destroy their psychotic delusions of Obama’s grandeur.  The truth is killing them.  After all, they are dissonant liars condemned to defend a perishing dilemma.  We are winning this silent war on darkness and principalities.”  
The very fact that the image of an alleged government document was digitally fabricated and posted to a government website means the image, at some time between issuance and posting, was forged by unidentified individuals working for Obama, not an official agency with authority to certify such a file format.  Therefore, the content of the image cannot be relied upon as a accurate representation of the content in the official copies allegedly issued by the State of Hawaii in April, 2011.
Moreover, the reprobates working that which is unseemly within the mainstream media have continuously defended the false image as “Obama’s long-form birth certificate”, even after a 10 month criminal investigation by Maricopa County Sheriff, Joe Arpaio presented evidence the document not only contained falsified information but also that it was never authenticated by the State of Hawaii. 

The teeth-gnashing truth for Obots is, simply, the image posted on the website is a counterfeit because the very fact that it is a digital image and not a paper document. 

In their abetment of Obama’s lies, the media has willfully and intentionally refused to acknowledge that the state of Hawaii did not produce the .pdf file posted to the official government media source,  The State of Hawaii only provided certified copies of the birth certificate in paper form.
“Jesus told us that if a man testifies about himself, the testimony is not valid,” continued Johannson. 
“This laughable image is the holy grail of testimony about Obama’s eligibility…provided by Obama!  The simple fact that media and government allowed this man to into American government speaks volumes of how far this nation’s leadership structure has fallen, and how corrupt government has become.  Pathetic.  Truly and ungodly pathetic.”          
For the past half decade, supporters of Obama have vigorously issued a pile of worthless explanations to excuse Obama’s illegitimacy as president.  However, no excuse has come close to explaining the unprecedented number of so-called “clerical errors” claimed by these Obots as reasons for Obama’s absurd, completely farcical, biographical documentation.  Here are a just few of those vigorously defended “clerical miscues”.
1.    Obama’s Connecticut-based social security number was issued as a result of a misinterpretation of his Hawaiian zip code by the social security administration…when he was 16 years old.  Hawaii’s zip code, in which Obama did not live, was 96814 while one zip code somewhere in Connecticut is 06814.  Yes, and there is a zip code in another state, 26814 and one in another, 66814 and another in another, 86814.  But, Obama’s social security number came from the only state where social security numbers are issued without requiring documented proof of citizenship at birth, in which he never resided or visited.    
2.    Obama’s birth certificate is registered with a file number which was mistakenly assigned by a Department of Health clerk who stamped the number in the wrong batch of certificates.   Amazingly, Obama’s birth certificate is the only one in Hawaiian history to be mis-stamped and allowed to proceed through coding and natal statistics documentation.  Not only were birth certificates process for the National Center for Health Statistics based on their even-number,   Hawaiian birth certificates were numbered in the order they are received from five regional offices in 1961, not chronological order of the birth date. 
3.    Obama’s Selective Service registration was mistakenly stamped by a postal worker as being received from Obama a day before the actual day he signed it.  Wait, what?  Either that, or Obama mistakenly signed the form with the wrong date.  The problem with this lame excuse is that the selective service administration refuses to accept a selective service registration with any errors.  Any mistakes are caught by the postal worker and the form is discarded forcing the registrant to fill out another form before it is personally received by the postal worker verifying the official identity of the individual by requesting a driver’s license or, you guessed it, a U.S. birth certificate. 
4.    Obama’s Official Certificate of Nomination (OCON) from the Democratic National Committee and the State of Hawaii Democrat Party contains a misspelled word which was not caught by editors of the form even when the form was altered later to hide the fact that legally required language was left out of the form signed by Nancy Pelosi. 
5.    The year of Obama’s father’s birth is not clear.  He was apparently born sometime between 1934 and 1936 based on information provided in several document sources from the INS, the State of Hawaii and the University of Hawaii.  In one source document, his birthday is listed as 1934.  In another its listed as 1936. 
The problem with these clerical errors is that they all exist with regard to the documented history of a single man.  One might expect one or two errors in official documentation about an individual, but the utter volume and repetition of such errors and cover-ups in Obama’s case has made him a laughing stock, a joke to be mocked and derided with unassailable justification.  This is what our presidency has been allowed to become.
“They want to put an end to doubts about Obama's identity once and for all before the election.  The only way to do this is 'triple-down' on this most heinous and disdainful document deception against innocent people,” concludes Johannson.
“Tragically, this ‘final solution’ in defense of Obama's fraudulent presidency will be the final and definitive dividing line between vintage American heritage and this enemy horde.  At the very moment this document is implemented onto the American public, the revolution begins in earnest. The debating is over.  The discussion goes dark and silent.  Arms are left as the only viable option for defending the sovereignty of America.  What a sad place we have come to.“
John 5  
31 “If I testify about myself, my testimony is not true. 32 There is another who testifies in my favor, and I know that his testimony about me is true.

33 “You have sent to John and he has testified to the truth. 34 Not that I accept human testimony; but I mention it that you may be saved. 35 John was a lamp that burned and gave light, and you chose for a time to enjoy his light.

36 “I have testimony weightier than that of John. For the works that the Father has given me to finish—the very works that I am doing—testify that the Father has sent me. 37 And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form, 38 nor does his word dwell in you, for you do not believe the one he sent. 39 You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, 40 yet you refuse to come to me to have life.

41 “I do not accept glory from human beings, 42 but I know you. I know that you do not have the love of God in your hearts. 43 I have come in my Father’s name, and you do not accept me; but if someone else comes in his own name, you will accept him. 44 How can you believe since you accept glory from one another but do not seek the glory that comes from the only God?

45 “But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses (the law), on whom your hopes are set. 46 If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. 47 But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?”

Tuesday, September 11, 2012


FROM THE CLOSET TO THE WHITE HOUSE:  Dr. Jerry Corsi exposes more evidence that Barack Obama’s homosexuality was so mainstream and publicly known in Chicago that many in the gay community were shocked when Obama was able to keep this part of his identity a secret.
(Editors note:  Barack Obama’s homosexual past is well documented among those honest enough to simply report the facts about it.  On May 9, 2012, The Daily Pen’s Dan Crosby published a story presenting evidence that Obama’s sudden abrupt change in support of gay marriage last spring was due to his secret homosexual past.  Dr. Corsi’s account of testimony by witnesses to Obama’s homosexuality cast further derision on his social competency and radical liberal ideology.  Four years ago, Larry Sinclair, a gay socialite, told the world that he had engaged in a homosexual relationship with Obama on two occasions.  The story went widely unreported among America’s pro-Obama media complex.  The fact that Obama is gay is not news to many of us who know the details and relationships about this man’s dark past.  However, the fact that he would use covert tactics to hide this from the American people speaks volumes of what he truly thinks about, not only the gay community, but the American people, overall.  Once again, yet another lie by Barack Obama about his biography is exposed.)
by Dr. Jerome Corsi, Ph.D.

NEW YORK, NY - A prominent member of Chicago’s homosexual community claims Barack Obama’s participation in the “gay” bar and bathhouse scene was so well known that many who were aware of his lifestyle were shocked when he ran for president and finally won the White House.
“It was preposterous to the people I knew then to think Obama was going to keep his gay life secret,” said Kevin DuJan, who was a gossip columnist in Chicago for various blogs when Obama was living in the city as a community organizer and later a state senator.
“Nobody who knew Obama in the gay bar scene thought he could possibly be president,” said DuJan.
DuJan, founder and editor of the Hillary Clinton-supporting website, told WND he has first-hand information from two different sources that “Obama was personally involved in the gay bar scene.”
“If you just hang out at these bars, the older guys who have been frequenting these gay bars for 25 years will tell you these stories,” DuJan said. “Obama used to go to the gay bars during the week, most often on Wednesday, and they said he was very much into older white guys.”
Obama, DuJan said, is “not heterosexual and he’s not bisexual. He’s homosexual.”
Investigative journalist Wayne Madsen, who worked with the National Security Agency from 1984 to 1988 as a Navy intelligence analyst, confirmed DuJan’s claims.
“It is common knowledge in the Chicago gay community that Obama actively visited the gay bars and bathhouses in Chicago while he was an Illinois state senator,” Madsen told WND.
WND also spoke with a member of the East Bank Club in Chicago, who confirmed Obama was a member there and was known to be a homosexual. The upscale fitness club says it has some 10,000 members, but it’s one of a number of places identified by the Chicago homosexual community as a “gay gym.”

In April, WND reported a federal judge dismissed a libel case against Larry Sinclair, a homosexual who claimed Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign had paid to rig a polygraph test regarding Sinclair’s sensational charge that he had sex and used cocaine twice with Obama while Obama was an Illinois state senator. Sinclair tells his story in “Barack Obama & Larry Sinclair: Cocaine, Sex, Lies & Murder.”

WND also reported former radical activist John Drew has said that when he met Obama when Obama was a student at Occidental College, he thought Obama and his then-Pakistani roommate were “gay” lovers.

In addition, rumors have swirled around Obama’s relationship with his personal aide and former “body man,” Reggie Love, who resurfaced on the eve of the Republican National Convention to support his old boss. Love resigned from the White House in November 2011 after compromising photographs of him as a college student received wide circulation.
WND also has documented in two separate articles, here and here, that Obama wore a gold band on his wedding ring finger from the time he attended Occidental College through his student days at Harvard Law School.
DuJan said that during Obama’s first presidential campaign, “there was fear in the gay community” about talking openly about Obama being homosexual, particularly after the murder in December 2007 of Donald Young, the openly gay choir director at Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ, who was known to be a close friend of Obama.
“People did not want to talk openly about Obama being gay,” he said.
“Then, when we saw how Larry Sinclair was demonized, anybody who would expose Obama worried they would be silenced if they dared to speak the truth about Obama’s gay life,” DuJan said.
‘Obama’s secrets’
DuJan said he has been told “Obama’s secrets would have to come out just like John Edwards’ secrets came out.”
He said Obama stopped going to gay bars and bathhouses in Chicago when he began running for the U.S. Senate in 2004.
“Back then, Obama could walk around Chicago and people generally wouldn’t recognize him, even though he was a state senator in the Illinois assembly at the time,” DuJan said.
DuJan insisted that while he’s a supporter of Hillary Clinton, he holds no personal animus toward Obama. He said he campaigned for Clinton in 2008 “because I had waited for years for her to be able to run.”
“I opposed Obama not because I’m a racist, or that I hate Obama, I just knew the type of person Obama associated with in Chicago,” he said.
He pointed to Obama’s association with convicted Chicago real estate magnate Tony Rezko, Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan and Rev. Wright.
“Obama was a dirty politician that the media never wanted to vet – that’s what concerned me about Obama,” Du Jan said.
DuJan spoke further of his claims about Obama in an interview Monday night on Andrea Shea King’s show on, which included questions from WND during the last half of the show.
Man’s Country
Madsen published an article in his Wayne Madsen Report in May 2010 claiming Obama and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel were members of the same bathhouse in Chicago.
“President Obama and his chief of staff Rahm Emanuel are lifetime members of the same gay bathhouse in uptown Chicago, according to informed sources in Chicago’s gay community, as well as veteran political sources in the city,” Madsen wrote.
He said the bathhouse, “Man’s Country,” catered “to older men,” noting “it has been in business for some 30 years and is known as one of uptown Chicago’s ‘grand old bathhouses.’”
Madsen wrote his 2010 report after traveling to Chicago to interview bartenders and customers at several “gay” bars.
DuJan gave WND a list of “gay” bars in Chicago where older customers hang out and tell stories about how Obama, prior to 2004, frequented visited to pick up men for sex, including several on Halstead Street, widely known as an “uber-gay Chicago street.

Writing in Tuesday, DuJan said rooms at Man’s Country bathhouse are still referred to as the “presidential suite,” or the “Oral Office,” because “the current President used to haunt the place when he was a just another Illinois state senator that no one had ever heard of or cared about.”
DuJan said he believes that, someday, “all of this is going to be as public knowledge as JFK’s affair with Marilyn Monroe and the other women he cavorted with while married to Jackie.”
“Someday,” he said, “in the next 10-20 years, everyone will know all about Man’s Country, and the place will no doubt get a plaque of sometime commemorating that place as a gay hangout for the future leader of the free world.”

Saturday, September 8, 2012


CHILD EXPLOITATION? - The difference between the "birth certificate jokes" by Mitt Romney and, recently, by Barack Obama is that Mitt joked about his own birth certificate and is actually eligible to run for president while Obama exploited the controversy surrounding his illegitimacy using a six-year-old child.

Commentary by Dan Crosby
of The Daily Pen

ORLANDO, FL  - The Obots went teeth-gnashing, bat-guano crazy when Mitt Romney made a birth certificate joke two weeks ago.  They called it “offensive” and “racist”.  

CBS "news" correspondent, Scott Pelley, called it “a swipe at the" so-called "president”.

I have bad news for the Obotic horde.  Obama is swiping at himself, now.

More importantly, Mitt was joking about his own birth certificate.  He didn't exploit a six-year-old child.

Still laughing?

Evident that Barack Obama continues to regard the Constitution as if it were a joke, despite millions of Americans who have died and shed blood to secure its sovereignty, he’s now projecting his failure to meet the minimum legal qualifications to be a legitimate president by mocking the laws governing presidential eligibility while taking advantage of the birth circumstances of innocent children.

On Saturday, during a campaign stop at Gator Dockside restaurant, Obama was told by a female patron that one of the kids there, six year old Andre Wupperman, was born in Hawaii.

Then, continuing to denigrate the honor and sacrifice of heroes who, over the past 300 years, made possible his liberally entitled existence, Obama mocked the child asking for his birth certificate as proof he was actually born in Hawaii.

A real knee slapper.
Pouncing like some shameful predator, feigning humor, Obama cornered the boy, “You were born in Hawaii? You have a birth certificate?”

Now, if the boy had replied, "Yes, but you don't, liar!" I would have no reason to write this commentary.  Little Andre would have done just fine.  But, since Wupperman is only six and has no understanding of why Obama even asked that question, I am writing a response on the child's behalf.

If Obama were truly joking in sincerity, after being informed that little Wupperman was a native Hawaiian, he would have known that the child is currently not eligible to run for president for other reasons, despite being born in the U.S.

Obama would have included that Wupperman hasn’t even been alive for 14 years, let alone lived that long as a resident in the U.S., which is one of three Article II requirements to be president.

Obama would have also commented that little Wupperman is also ineligible for another 29 years, until his 35th birthday, the minimum age required to be president.

The child was still in diapers when Obama began pursuing his fraudulent usurpation of power in 2007.

Then, there is the question of Wupperman’s parents’ citizenship status at the time of his birth.  Were they citizens of the U.S. at the time?  The comedian Obama had no idea that Wupperman’s birth certificate would not even show whether the child was born to citizen parents, a requirement to be a natural-born citizen, the third requirement to be a president.

Most Obots actually believe a birth certificate confirms natural-born citizenship.  It does not.  It only provides evidence of one metric of natural born citizenship…the birthplace.

Wupperman may have been born in Hawaii, and his parents may even be citizens, but Obama failed to inquire if Wupperman ever resided in a foreign country and registered as a foreign citizen, thereby, legally removing his natural-born citizenship status?  Obama didn’t even think about the remote possibility that this little hamburger eating traitor may actually have been a foreign citizen at one time…like Obama. 

Obama didn’t ask about those things because he doesn’t qualify under them either.  He was just interested in the child’s dumb birth certificate.  That’s as shallow as it goes in the mind of Obama.

Such a joke at the expense of an innocent victim reveals the damage Obama’s lies about his entire identity, not just the birth certificate, have caused to his character and reputation.  He is the most prolific fraud and slanderer in the history of American politics.  Mocking a six year old isn’t going change that.  But, he did it anyway.

The place suddenly filled with uneasy chortles and darting eyes of those searching for comfort with the subject matter.  If you have a hard time understanding the feelings in the room at that moment, imagine a member of the Third Reich showing up at a synagogue joking to see everyone’s Nazi ID card.

A joke is not funny when innocent people died and suffered for the punch line.

As the punch line discerning enemyship between America’s vintage heritage and the obotic liberal horde grows ever more definitive, and the spirit of violent revolution grows ever more restless in America, many on the left portray Obama's remark as a dig at the so-called “birthers” and, perhaps, at his opponent, Romney, even after accusing the same joke from Romney as being a dig on Obama. 

Why the dissonant hypocrisy on the part of the left?  Because, under the conviction of being puppeted fools controlled by such vast and immeasurable deception, they all fail to recognize that it just looks like a pathetic attempt to project his guilt onto a helpless subject who can’t defend himself.

Moreover, worst of all, they fail to realize the remark is just one more of a thousand justifications to cast judgment upon this utter wasteland of liberal inhumanity.    

Perhaps we should actually help Obama get re-elected.  It might be more beneficial to keep this charlatan locked at the helm as the ship sinks with the greatest collapse in human history.
At that point, when real people begin dying and losing the fight against the truth, everyone will understand…the tired joke is no longer funny.
Later, Obama worked a room of fifty or so people, leading a round of “Happy Birthday” for a little girl.

“How old are you?” He asked her.

She held up three fingers.

Apparently, her gender was enough evidence to conclude she would never be president.   Obama didn’t even bother to ask for her birth certificate.

Monday, September 3, 2012


STAYING ON POINT: Despite Barack Obama’s antagonism of a racially divisive political environment, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio says he will continue his Cold Case investigation of evidence that shows the digital image of Obama’s alleged 1961 “Certificate of Live Birth” and Selective Service registration card are fraudulent records.
By Dan Crosby
Of The Daily Pen

NEW YORK, NY – Unless the recent announcement that the U.S. Department of Justice will not pursue charges against the Maricopa County Sheriff’s office is also accompanied with a confession by the unknown criminals who counterfeited and posted to the official White House website a faked computer image of Obama’s alleged 1961 “Certificate of Live Birth”, Arizona lawman, Joe Arpaio, says he will continue his cold case investigation of the fraudulent identity records.
Arpaio spoke with WND’s Aaron Klein during a WABC broadcast of Klein’s “Investigative Radio” about Obama-appointed Attorney General Eric Holder’s recent decision to close what appears to have been a politically motivated probe into so-called misconduct by personnel of the MCSO. 
Although the unfounded allegations against Arpaio’s office began after the introduction of Arizona’s SB1070 immigration enforcement law, Obama's DOJ vigorously pursued the probe of Arpaio in the past year in what appeared to be a politically motivated retaliation for Arpaio’s highly publicized investigation of Obama’s fraudulent birth certificate and Selective Service registration card.   
“My office has been vindicated,” Arpaio told Klein.
Arpaio continued by saying the investigation of his office has been ridiculous. 
“We’re glad it’s over,” he said, “…It’s been in the media constantly for four years.  I guess it’s because it’s me.  If it was somebody else, you probably wouldn’t hear about it.”
Klein then asked the sheriff, “Leading up to the November election, do you plan to continue your investigation and make the eligibility issue and Obama’s birth certificate into a campaign issue?”  
“We’re continuing it,” Arpaio responded.
 “It’s not whether he was born here.  We’re looking at the fraudulent government documents. That’s been my mission from day one…to see if those birth certificates were false.
Since before the 2008 election, many have suspected that information about Obama’s past and his true identity have been intentionally obscured and counterfeited to prevent the American public from discovering what many believe is politically, if not legally, destructive evidence against Obama's legitimacy to serve as president. 
For many, the lack of verifiable information about Obama’s true identity disqualifies him, by default, from being a legitimate president.  However, if authentic documents were discovered containing information about Obama's alleged birthplace and parentage of his birth; His citizenship status as a resident in Indonesia; His unverified identity records, including a suspicious social security number issued from Connecticut, a state he never resided in, and a foreign passport used to travel to Pakistan, they would have a cataclysmic impact on Obama’s legitimacy as president if any of them either a.) revealed he was not born in the U.S. to two citizen parents or, b.) proves that he did not maintain his citizenship from birth to election or, c.) shows he has been lying about his real identity.     
“We haven’t given up on it,” Arpaio continued. “We have a lot of information.  We’ll see what happens.”
When Klein asked the sheriff if he thought the birth certificate would be a significant issue in the election, Arpaio said he believes the issue will, unfortunately, continue to be ignored by the political parties and the mainstream media.   
“I don’t think so,” Arpaio responded, “…because everybody’s ignoring it on both sides of the fence.  Even the media ignores the evidence we have. But we did our job, I was asked to do it, we used my volunteer posse at no cost to the government. We did a great investigation; we’re still coming up with information, so we’ll see what happens on that issue.”
The DOJ opened the investigation of Arpaio in 2010 after it received allegations from left-wing groups of financial improprieties by the sheriff and his deputies.
The DOJ found no such evidence of impropriety.
A separate federal investigation into Arpaio’s office regarding alleged civil rights abuses is still ongoing, but also appears to be based on personal politics rather than any legal precedent.  After the Supreme Court ruled in favor of part of Arizona’s SB 1070 immigration enforcement law, allowing police to request immigration status from those suspected of being in the U.S. illegally, radical leftists retaliated by prompting the Obama administration to initiate a civil rights investigation against Arpaio.
It has long been known that radicals, like those infesting the Obama administration, rail against laws prohibiting illegal immigrants from voting because illegal immigrants tend to vote, by a wide margin, for the democrat party.  Obama’s recent Executive Order granting amnesty to hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens is just one example of padding the liberal voting bloc by circumventing immigration laws.  
Therefore, Obama and his party of radicals only seek to ingratiate themselves with political power by disregarding the U.S. Constitution and harassing long-serving immigration law enforcement officials, like Arpaio.