Get d'Clu

Get a clue & wake up! The best way to lead a nation astray of its values is to keep it ignorant of its history.

Fake President?

Tell me if you’ve heard this one before.  A baby crawls into a bar in Hawaii…  Or is it a hut in Kenya?  Or a palace?  There are currently 38 lawsuits against Barack Hussein Obama questioning his false citizenship claims.  One of note is Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al.  U.S. Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider respects the Constitution and the People’s right to challenge a usurper to public office.

Despite numerous eligibility lawsuits that invariably will happen, Obama refuses to produce an actual real Birth Certificate that he said he has in his possession in his book.  Without proving that he is American-born, he is disqualified from the Presidency.  Fox News poses the certificate question and author Devvy Kidd discusses the ramifications.

“The general rule is that an unconstitutional statue, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby” (Stephen K. Huber, Professor of Law, University of Houston).

This usurper president is by far and and away the most aggressive destroyer ever to sit in the White House. A devout Marxist, Obama/Soetoro (with the blessing of his co conspirators in Congress) is ripping this country apart, shredding what’s left of the Constitution, destroying the free market, and in his narcissistic arrogance, thinks he can get away with it.

(An) extensive class of litigants who absolutely do have “standing” to challenge Obama’s eligibility will come into existence, and demand relief as a matter of undeniable constitutionalright and practical necessity, as soon as Obama’s Department of Justice attempts to enforce through criminalprosecutions some of the controversial legislation that the new Congress will enact and Obama will sign—such as statutes aimed at stripping common Americans of the firearms to which (in Obama’s derisive terminology) they “cling.”

“For example, in a criminal prosecution under a new statute that reinstates the Clinton “assault-weapons ban” (or some equally obnoxious affront to Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16 and the Second Amendment), the defendant will undeniably have “standing” to challenge the indictment on the grounds that no statute imposing such a ban even exists, because the original “Bill which * * * passed the House of Representatives and the Senate” was never “presented to the President of the United States”, and therefore could never “become a Law,” inasmuch as the supposed “President,” Barack Obama, being constitutionally ineligible for that office, was then and remains thereafter nothing but an usurper. [See Article I, Section 7, Clause 2 and Article II, Section 1, 4]”  (emphasis mine).   See Devvy Kidd at and more of this article here:

The obvious question is why Obama would spend $940,000 keeping his long form BC and college record sealed, present a bad fake and tie everyone up in court – not on legal issues – but on procedural matters such as jurisdiction, separation of powers, standing, political question and mootness — all in an effort to buy time in order to wreak as much havok on the American people as possible while he can.  If he is ineligible, his laws are as well and We the People have the constitutional responsibility to make sure of it.  The great public outrage that is developing continues to brew regarding his eligibility to be President. 


July 2, 2009 - Posted by | Politics | , , ,


  1. The two “experts” Fox uses I can’t use as document experts in court. Get some real document experts — people who understand that one must view the document itself, and not a digital image of it.

    You may believe the document to be a PhotoShop generated image. However, the Governor of Hawaii, a Republican, called it an accurate representation of what is in the Hawaii vital records files. By law, the document issued, under seal from the State of Hawaii, is accurate. To suggest that it is in error is not enough; once the state certifies it as correct, one would have to offer extraordinary and solid evidence of error or fraud. No such evidence exists that anyone can produce.

    You can believe what you choose to believe. The Constitution protects our right to believe any fool thing. Those beliefs carry no extra weight in court, especially against a certified document that says the opposite.

    Under Hawaii law, the document offered is a certified birth certificate. Again, you may choose to believe differently, but your beliefs do not change Hawaiian law. Under the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution, all other states and the federal government are obligated to honor that document as what Hawaii says it is, a certified copy of the record of birth.

    Incidentally, it shows the place of birth as Honolulu.

    Patriots tend to do better in protests when armed with the truth, and when working for a noble cause. Claims that Obama is not eligible for the presidency are petty, in error, paranoid, and most often, racist as well.

    Obama has presented more evidence of his eligibility under the “natural born citizen” requirement than any other president or candidate, ever. You’re asking for more than Abraham Lincoln could have provided, more than Barry Goldwater or John McCain could provide, more than the Constitution requires, and information contrary to reality.

    Maybe I should say “keep it up.” This folderol tends to keep those tied up in it out of other political issues. We don’t need any more crazies in the health care debate, for certain.

    Comment by Ed Darrell | July 7, 2009 | Reply

    • You bring up issues dealt with in the articles cited, Ed. However, your rebuttal is cogent and I appreciate the time you took to comment. Thank you for opining here, keep me on my toes and in future, continue to keep your tone polite.

      Comment by Lisa | July 7, 2009 | Reply

  2. There is a valid certificate from the State of Hawaii that’s been posted on the web now for more than a year.

    Why should you get something more than the law requires?

    What evidence have you that the State of Hawaii is lying?

    Isn’t it time to wake up and smell the coffee, get up and get on with life?

    Comment by Ed Darrell | July 6, 2009 | Reply

    • Ed ~ Have you read the article from the two experts listed on the Fox article?

      There is a valid certificate from the State of Hawaii that’s been posted on the web now for more than a year.

      I belive this is the photoshop-generated internet graphic that has been disputed.

      Why should you get something more than the law requires?

      The law requires a legitamate BC that in this case is under question, hence the eligibility issues.

      Isn’t it time to wake up and smell the coffee, get up and get on with life?

      Absolutely, because even if the man is found wanting, the laws will be put in place and the political machine won’t allow them to be removed. Either way, only a concerted, organized, huge effort of Patriots making their voices heard will change any of that. And then only if they are armed. Because in the fight for freedom, the difference between a battle and a massacre is guns.

      Comment by Lisa | July 6, 2009 | Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: