[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
United States News Title: Is Putative President Barack Obama’s Mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, Really Jo Ann Newman? Martha Trowbridge reports that she has uncovered the true identity of Stanley Ann Dunham, putative President Barack Obama’s mother. She writes in her latest article, Stan The Sham, and True Love, posted at her blog, Terrible Truth, on November 15, 2011, at terribletruth.wordpress.c...n-the-sham-and-true-love/ that Dunham’s real name is Jo Ann Newman. Why would Obama tell us that his mother’s name is Stanley Ann Dunham when it is really Jo Ann Newman, a white teenage girl from the Bronx, New York, who according to Ms. Trowbridge was Malcolm X’s teenage lover and devotee? Is Obama telling us a lie about his mother’s true name because he wants to hide his own real identity? Is he telling us that lie because he wanted to make himself more electable to the average American? What would knowing that Obama’s mother’s real name is Jo Ann Newman tell us about Obama’s true identity? And why would Obama want to hide his true identity? I have already reported at this blog in numerous posts and comments that various experts have concluded that Obama’s long-form birth certificate which he posted on the internet in April 2011, is a forgery. I have also reported that Obama is using a questionable social security number issued from Connecticut and that evidence shows that he forged his Selective Service Registration application. I have already reported at this blog that Ms. Trowbridge maintains that most of the pictures of Obama and his mother that the American public has been fed by Obama and his campaign have been photo shopped so as to conceal the real face of Obama’s mother. These pictures were done, among other reasons, to give Stanley Ann Dunham the appearance of having long hair when in fact she had short hair. Other facial features were also digitally changed in these photographs. So now we discover that not only has this person’s hair and face been altered but also her name. Many of Obama’s other publicly-released photographs also reveal signs of tampering and forgery. Ms. Trowbridge also contends that Obama’s real name is Bâri82; M. Shabazz, born in New York City, on October 28, 1959, who was assigned social security number 084-54-5926, issued in New York, in 1974. See my article entitled, Is Barack Hussein Obama II Really Bâri82; M. Shabazz, Born October 28, 1959 in New York City? , at puzo1.blogspot.com/2011/1...obama-ii-really-bari.html. I also reported at this blog that the Bari Shabazz, who had an auto accident in Honolulu County, Hawaii on March 12, 1982, could be the same Bâri82; M. Shabazz and Barack Obama. See my article entitled, Is Putative President Barack Hussein Obama II Really Bari Shabazz, Fugitive from Justice For 21 Years Following An Auto Accident in Honolulu County, Hawaii on March 12, 1982? , at puzo1.blogspot.com/2011/1...ident-barack-hussein.html. What we now add to our puzzle is Stanley Ann Dunham’s real identity which Ms. Trowbridge says is Jo Ann Newman. I also reported that Ms. Trowbridge contends that Malcolm X, also known as Malcolm X Shabazz, is the biological father of Barack Obama whose real name is Bâri82; M. Shabazz. So, who is Jo Ann Newman? Did she and her family and friends know Malcolm X? The big question now is how we reconcile the name of Jo Ann Newman with the Stanley Ann Dunham life story that we have been provided. As we know, this alleged fabricated life story consists of, among many life events, a birth in Kansas; youthful years and schooling in Washington; schooling in Hawaii; a hasty marriage to and divorce from Barack Obama Sr.; a marriage to and divorce from Lolo Soetoro; a move to Indonesia; and the birth of Maya Soetoro in Indonesia. The American public has been informed through numerous publicly-released documents and from Obama himself that Obama’s legal father is Barack Obama Sr. Hence, in the case of Kerchner v. Obama, 669 F.Supp.2d 477 (D.N.J. 2009), which I filed on January 20, 2009, before Obama was sworn into office, we maintained that Obama, does not meet the original and still-prevailing American common law definition of a “natural born Citizen’ which is a child born in the country to citizen parents. I cited and quoted, among many other sources, Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758) (“The native, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens;); Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 167-68 (1875) (“At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners”). We showed that because Obama was born to the marriage of Barack Obama Sr. and Stanley Ann Dunham, and that Barack Obama Sr. was a British citizen at the time of Obama’s birth in 1961, regardless of where that may be, he is not and cannot be an Article II “natural born Citizen” and therefore he is not eligible to be President. We also maintained that Obama has yet to conclusively prove that he was born in Hawaii or any other place in the United States and for that reason also he has not shown himself to be a “natural born Citizen.” We also sued Congress for breaching its constitutional duty under the Twentieth Amendment, despite the many petitions to do so, to properly vet Obama under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 before confirming him as President. The New Jersey Federal District Court concluded that the plaintiffs did not have standing, i.e., that they did not show that they were personally injured in any way that is different from how all Americans would be injured living under an illegitimate and usurper President and Commander in Chief of the Military, and so it dismissed the case. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that the plaintiffs did not show that they suffered any personal injury that was different from that of all other Americans, and even issued an order ordering me to show cause why I should not have to pay for the government’s costs in defending Obama in his eligibility law suit. Kerchner v. Obama, 612 F.3d 204 (3rd. Cir. 2010). The Court quickly discharged it order when I responded that in all the cases filed against Obama and others, Obama not once produced as evidence in court a certified copy of his long-form birth certificate. I argued that I was therefore entitled to see Obama’s long-form birth certificate to prove that the government did not mitigate its defense costs by simply producing the document to a court or Congress and thereby proving or disproving that he was a “natural born Citizen.” Our United States Supreme Court, not giving any reason for its decision, refused to hear the appeal and so the Kerchner case came to an end in the courts of the United States. The U.S. Supreme Court denial of the petition for a writ of certiorari is reported at Kerchner v. Obama, 131 S.Ct. 663 (2010). But as we can see from this court activity, the courts did not rule on the merits of whether Obama is an Article II “natural born Citizen” or whether he was born in Hawaii. Regardless of whether Obama’s biological father is Malcolm X (a “citizen of the United States”), Obama’s legal father is Barack Obama Sr. and it will stay that way regardless of what Obama might attempt to do to change that. Obama is therefore not a “natural born Citizen” and not eligible to be President. But let us stay tuned for more to come from Martha Trowbridge. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. November 15, 2011 puzo1.blogspot.com/ #### Copyright © 2011 Mario Apuzzo, Esq. All Rights Reserved
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: A K A Stone (#0)
Between crap this and the obsession with all things gay that you and Gay Quay post you're killing your own site, Stone. And that's not even going into how you moderate.
I'll believe that a corporation is a person 1 second after Texas executes one...
I get lots of pm complaints. From different people, different factions. Can't please them all.
When will you be getting back to work?
Thanks for your concern Fred.
I am going to get back to this later my friend.
|
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|