More Pieces Of The Obama Puzzle?

by Paul R. Hollrah –

Readers of this column will agree… perhaps complain… that I have harped on the subject of Barack Obama’s presidential eligibility for at least a decade, and that, in spite of all my passion and my never-say-die approach to the issue, that worthless piece of excrement was still able to serve two full terms in the White House.

But, just as early explorers were convinced that they could reach the East Indies by sailing west, I am just as convinced that I have been right about Obama’s lack of eligibility from the first day he stepped into the national spotlight. And, as each new piece of information presents itself, I feel duty-bound to see how it fits into the puzzle. So please bear with me as I add a new piece or two to the puzzle.

From the day that Barack Obama announced his candidacy for president, millions of patriots who love the Constitution and who believe in the Rule of Law have steadfastly insisted that he is not a “natural born” citizen, as required by Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.

Obama was born on August 4, 1961, to a 17-year-old American mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, and a 25-year-old African father, Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., a citizen of Kenya, a British crown colony. Since one parent was a U.S. citizen and the other was a British subject, it is indisputable that he was born with dual US-British citizenship, making it impossible for him to ever qualify as a “natural born” citizen, eligible to serve as president or vice president of the United States.

But Democratic “kingmakers,” who regularly demonstrate little respect for the Rule of Law, apparently harbored doubts about Obama’s presidential eligibility because of his dual US-British citizenship at birth. Accordingly, on June 11, 2003, more than a year before anyone outside Chicago or Honolulu had ever heard of Barack Obama, Rep. Vic Snyder (D-AR) introduced H.J.R. 59, proposing to eliminate the “natural born Citizen” requirement of the Constitution. The Snyder resolution was followed on September 3, 2003 by H.J.R. 67, introduced, by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI). Nearly identical to the Snyder proposal, either of the amendments would have legitimized an Obama presidency. Neither proposal was acted upon.

Nevertheless, in spite of those strategic failures, when Democratic leaders were satisfied that Obama had presidential potential, they arranged his dramatic “coming out” as keynote speaker for the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Chicago.

Then, undiscouraged by their failure to win approval of a resolution to amend the Constitution in the 108th Congress, both Conyers and Snyder made second attempts in the 109th Congress in 2005 with the introduction of H.J.R. 2 and H.J.R 42, respectively. Like their predecessors in the 108th Congress, both 2005 proposals died in committee.
Undeterred by their failure to legitimize a potential Obama presidency, Democrats elected him to the U.S. Senate in November 2006. And within months of taking his seat in the Senate he went to Springfield, Illinois, to announce his candidacy for president of the United States. Following a bitter primary campaign against former first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, Obama won the Democratic nomination on August 27, 2008, in Denver, Colorado.

But, aside from their unsuccessful attempts to amend the Constitution in Obama’s favor, there is further circumstantial evidence that Democrats knew when they nominated him that he was ineligible for the presidency. On the closing day of the 2008 convention, as Nancy Pelosi and Alice Travis Germond, Chairman and Secretary of the convention, respectively, prepared certificates of nomination for the 50 state election boards, so that General Election ballots could be printed, the Democrats tipped their hand. The certification sent only to the State of Hawaii, pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes §11-113, read as follows:

“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though (sic) 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.” Other states received the following certification:

“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though (sic) 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively:” The phrase, “… and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution” was purposely omitted. Other than that, the documents were identical… even to the misspelling of the word “through” in the second line of the certifications.

Having nominated an inexperienced and unqualified man for president of the United States, the Democrats were past the point of no return. Accordingly, when WorldNetDaily published the details of a sworn affidavit by retired Chicago postman, Allen Hulton, on March 19, 2012, as Obama was preparing to run for a second term, there was nothing to be gained by attempting to refute Hulton’s affidavit… so they simply ignored it.

In his affidavit, the retired postman recounted his experiences delivering mail to the home of Bill Ayers’ parents in Glen Ellyn, Illinois, some 25 miles west of downtown Chicago. Hulton explained that, on numerous occasions during the late ‘80s and early ‘90s, as he delivered mail to the Ayers’ front door, he engaged in brief conversations with Mary Ayers, Bill Ayers’ mother.

On one such occasion, Mrs. Ayers explained that she and her husband, Thomas, CEO of Commonwealth Edison, were financially supporting a young black man, a “foreign exchange” student from either Kenya or Indonesia, with his education. [Note: This would have been at a time between Obama’s first and second years at Harvard Law School, when he worked as a summer intern at the Sidley Austin Law Firm in Chicago.]

Hulton described one occasion on which he had a conversation with the young black man in question, who he identified as being Barack Obama. After a friendly greeting, Hulton asked the young man what his plans were for the future, after he finished his schooling. Hulton recalled, “He looked right at me and told me he was going to be president of the United States. There was a little bit of a grin on his face as he said it… He sounded sure of himself, but not arrogant…”

One can hardly escape the feeling of having walked in at the middle of a movie. What was it that made Democrats so anxious to launch constitutional amendments in 2003, a year before anyone had ever heard of Barack Obama, and again in 2005 when he was seen as the wunderkind of the Democrat Party, and was just beginning to contemplate a run for the U.S. Senate?

Was Barack Obama a plant, a young communist who was selected and groomed over many decades to become president of the United States? And, if so, who planted him? Who was the grand puppet master? A potential answer to these questions appears on page 158 of Edward Klein’s current best-seller, All Out War – The Plot to Destroy Trump. Klein tells us that, in organizing the effort to undermine the Trump presidency, “(Valerie) Jarrett arranged a visit by Hillary Clinton, who urged Obama to join her in leading the ‘resistance.’ Jarrett made sure that Obama received assurances of support from George Soros, who had been funding Obama since his early days in the Illinois state legislature (emphasis added)…”

If Klein is correct in his assertion… that Obama and Soros were joined at the hip as far back as the early ‘90s…, he adds credence to a letter published by California software developer, Tom Fife, in 2008. Fife claims to have worked in Moscow in the early ‘90s, developing joint ventures with Russian software engineers.

As Fife explains, he and his American associates were invited to dinner one evening at the apartment of their Russian partner, referred to as “V.” As the evening progressed and the vodka consumption went unabated, V’s wife, a hardcore communist, became surly and argumentative. She said, “What if I told you that you will have a black president very soon and he will be a Communist? Well, you will; and he will be a Communist.” V attempted to change the subject, but his wife was determined to gain the upper hand. She said, “Yes, it is true. This is not some idle talk. He is already born and he is educated and being groomed to be president right now. You will be impressed to know that he has gone to the best schools of Presidents. He is what you call ‘Ivy League.’ You don’t believe me, but he is real and I even know his name. His name is Barack. His mother is white, and American, and his father is black, from Africa. That’s right, a chocolate baby! And he’s going to be your President… He is intelligent and he is half white and has been raised from the cradle to be an atheist and a Communist… He is being guided every step of the way and he will be irresistible to America.”

She went on to say that the young man named Barack, who was being groomed to be president of the United States, was from Hawaii, that he went to college in California, that he lived in Chicago, and that he was soon to be elected to the state legislature. She said, “Have no doubt; he is one of us, a Soviet.”

Could all of this be true? Since the day that Barack Obama was first mentioned as a candidate for president of the United States, few among the leaders of the Republican Party and the conservative movement, fearing the certainty of being dismissed as racists and “birthers,” have had the courage to openly challenge Obama’s presidential eligibility. They have allowed the issue to be framed in terms of the “place” of Obama’s birth, which is irrelevant, while allowing the all-important facts of his nationality at birth to be a non-issue.

But now, after fourteen months of the most vicious attacks on Donald Trump, his family, and his loyal supporters, what is to be lost by causing the Obama eligibility question to be fully and completely examined? Is there any leftist invective so cruel and so unthinkable that it could further elevate the coarseness of today’s political discourse? At a time in our history when a coarse and thoroughly unlikeable billionaire real estate developer from New York can be elected president of the United States, exactly what remains outside the realm of possibility? It’s time that our side started fighting back, and what better target than the Democrats’ beloved Barack Obama? |December 15, 2017

Paul R. Hollrah is a retired government relations executive and a two-time member of the U.S. Electoral College. He currently lives and writes among the hills and lakes of northeast Oklahoma’s Green Country.

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply