Wednesday, November 2, 2011

Is Barack Hussein Obama II Really Bâri′ M. Shabazz, Born October 28, 1959 in New York City?

Is Barack Hussein Obama II Really Bâri′ M. Shabazz, Born October 28, 1959 in New York City?


                                                          By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
                                                            November 2, 2011

Is Barack Hussein Obama II, a/k/a Barack Obama Jr., really Bâri′ M. Shabazz? See the breaking story, entitled, Bâri′, Barry, Barack, by Martha Trowbridge, at http://terribletruth.wordpress.com/2011/11/02/bari%e2%80%b2-barry-barack/.

In her article, Ms. Trowbridge contends that putative President Obama’s real name is Bâri′ M. Shabazz.

She also tells us that this past Friday, October 28, 2011, was Bâri′’s birthday.

She says that the person who presents himself as Barack Hussein Obama II was born on October 28, 1959, in New York City. She adds that he was born with the name Bâri′ M. Shabazz.

What is also really interesting is that according to Ms. Trowbridge, the names Bâri′, Malik, and Shabazz are “sacred to Malcolm X.” Go to Ms. Trowbridge’s story to see what these names mean.

Ms. Trowbridge says that Bâri′ discovered that he was the son of Malcolm X. He then wanted to complete what his father had started in the political world. But he realized that he could not do it if the world knew that he was the illegitimate son of Malcolm X, a Muslim revolutionary. Hence, he had to change his birth identity and take on a new one.

She also explains that “father” Barack Obama was Malcolm X’s Kenyan friend.

We have heard so much about social security numbers. Here is what Ms. Trowbridge says: “We know this: Bâri′ M. Shabazz was assigned social security number 084-54-5926, issued in New York, in 1974.”

Here is more amazing information: Ms. Trowbridge has found that the Social Security Death Index shows: “SHABAZZ, B M 28 Oct 1959 Aug 1994 (V) 34 (PE) (none specified) New York 084-54-5926.” From this, one would think that Bari died in August 1994. But no, Ms. Trowbridge informs that only his identity was made “dead.” The real person continued to live and that person became “Barack Hussein Obama II.” Note how she explains that the “death” of Bari was only reported by someone (“V” or “Verified”) and that the person did not present any valid death certificate (“P” or “Proof).

What’s more Ms. Trowbridge explains that “[o]nce in the federal system, the [death] record was flagged as ‘PE’, meaning that an inconsistency exists between what was reported and what was recorded in the government’s files.”

Finally, do note Ms. Trowbridge also shows how close Bâri′ and Malcolm X lived together in East Elmhurst, New York.

What Ms. Trowbridge has presented to the world is surely shocking (an understatement). What she says surely needs to be investigated as soon as possible. Hopefully our political, legal, and police institutions will be up to the task. So far, they have not been.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
March 5, 2011
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####

Copyright © 2011
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved









46 comments:

bdwilcox said...

I hope they dug into this before going public. If you listen closely, you can already hear the scrubbing bubbles doing their work.

TheEuropean said...

Now, Mario, you really embrace a hoax as ridiculous as the one Donofrio´s partner "Whats His Name" published.

Are you birthers really that despaired ?

I thought better of you.

Sincerely
Your
European

Rockdog said...

At least Ms. T is presenting hard evidence rather than empty speculation, denial, or invective. I'll bet a lot of folks are going to go do what I'm about to - go see how much of this stuff is still online. A lot my indeed be scrubbed, but with the volume of crap BHO's camp released, there's bound to be a lot left.

paraleaglenm said...

As I've posted before, the Hawaiian registration, be it from a hospital birth or a 338-5 registration, establishes Obama's paternity.

The Obama name is his identity to date as far as the law is concerned. Any revelations can result in legal changes to one degree or another, but I submit it does not change his natural born citizen status voided by having an alien father.

As that 'putative' father conferred British national jurisdiction until abandoned, that determined his presidential eligibility.

The obsession with 'place of birth' as the principle is belied by both the 1772 British Nationality Act in force at the time of the framers . . . and the 1790 Naturalization Act, et seq through 1855, which did not confer citizenship by place of birth, but relied on the alienage, or citizenship of the father.

The courts or election officials are not doing their duty or due diligence . . . they must be forced to do so. Sheriffs have the power to enforce the law, or challenge the judiciary and state attorneys to block Obama's place on the ballot.

Puzo1 said...

Paraleaglenm,

I of II

The civil and criminal law is interested in who is the biological father of a child if someone were attempting to gain some benefit or do some harm by way of fraud as to who that person really is. Family law is also interested in establishing paternity when it comes to the financial obligations that a father owes to his children, the right of children to inherit from the father, and the right of adoption. It is also true that under long-established public policy, a child born into a marriage is presumed to be the legitimate child of that marriage and the biological son or daughter of that couple. Hence, the husband of a women giving birth to a child is presumed to be the biological father of that child. That presumption may be overcome by someone having standing to timely contest the presumption and only by convincing evidence.

By jus sanguinis (a child inheriting the citizenship of his or her parents at the moment of birth), allegiance and jurisdiction and therefore citizenship attach at the moment of birth and not at the moment of conception and rightfully so, for the male architect of conception is not known but the male who becomes the legally accepted father normally is. In fact, citizenship and immigration laws of the civilized world have since time immemorial followed this basic rule, never inquiring into the moment of conception but always inquiring into the moment of birth, unless, of course, fraud were suspected.

We have been told that Obama Sr., a British citizen, and Stanley Ann Dunham, a U.S. citizen, first conceived baby Barack Obama and then later married in February 1961. We have also been told that Obama Jr. was born to them in August 1961. We have also been provided with divorce documents which show that Obama and Dunham, having given birth to minor child Obama, were later divorced by a Hawaiian court of competent jurisdiction over both the subject matter and the parties.

Since Obama was born to the legally-recognized marriage of Barack Obama and Stanley Ann Dunham, he is under long-established U.S. law the legitimate child of that marriage and of those parents. Also, Obama Sr. could be the father listed on Obama’s birth certificate which only adds more to the fact that he is Obama’s legitimate and legally recognized father.

So, if Obama Sr. is Obama’s natural father, Obama was conceived by a British citizen father and a U.S. citizen mother and legitimately born to a British citizen father and a dual U.S. and British citizen mother.

If Malcolm X is Obama’s father, Obama was conceived by a U.S. citizen father and a U.S. citizen mother, but legitimately born to a British citizen father and a U.S. citizen mother (under the British Nationality Act of 1948, she would also have been a British citizen by having married one).

Consequently, regardless of whether Obama or Malcolm X is Obama’s father, he was legitimately born to a British citizen father and a U.S. and British citizen mother. He therefore is not an Article II “natural born Citizen” who at the time of birth must be born within the sole and complete allegiance and jurisdiction of the United States.

Continued . . .

Puzo1 said...

II of II

Under both the 1772 British Nationality Act (British law to which you have pointed ) and the Nationality Act of 1790 (U.S. law), Obama, if born to Obama Sr. (the putative legal father) and Stanley Ann Dunham in the United States after the 1790 Act went into effect would have been a British “natural born subject.” The British statute made the children born to British “natural born subjects,” no matter where born, themselves “British natural born subjects.” And the U.S. 1790 Act treated children born in the United States to alien parents as themselves aliens and automatically naturalized those minor children at the time the parents naturalized. Hence, there was no conflict between these U.S. and British statutes and that is probably what Congress would have intended given the need at that time in our history to remain neutral when it came to international conflicts.

Under no circumstance would the Founders and Framers have considered a child born after the adoption of the Constitution in the United States to a British “natural born subject” father an Article II “natural born Citizen.” They would have considered such a child born a complete subject of a foreign power and consequently not born within the sole and complete allegiance and jurisdiction of the United States and therefore not eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military.

Finally, if Obama intentionally defrauded the American people about who his real father is and about other aspects of his life story, he would have to face the political, social, economic, and possible criminal consequences of that regardless of whether he is or is not an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

Rick said...

The birth issue is moot. Since the constitution was suspended under executive order of G.W. Bush and confirmed by the Patriot Act. ALL of the constitution is suspended, but allowed to function to the extent that martial law permits. Therefore, although elections are "permitted" as a matter of form, they are not a matter of substance. Barach Obama's eligibility, under such a scenario is of no consequence.

paraleaglenm said...

Mr. Apuzzo,

Good analysis. The element of fraud is extensive in the nativity of Obama, from the possible 338-5 registration, the oddly inconsistent PDF of a birth certificate, the untenable reliance on a Certification of Live Birth (short form) rather than an official certified copy of the Certificate itself, the odd SS#, the Indonesian citizenship accompanied by foreign student residence at Occidental, and Obama's apparent use of an Indonesian passport for identification and travel.

The only departure I have from your legal summary of issues is any legitimacy of the Obama-Dunham marriage; bigamy voids a marriage ab initio. The divorce was uncontested, and an easier route of dissolution rather than a legal claim of bigamy towards annulment.

However, this only illustrates the absolute legal mess created by the marriage and birth, essentially nullius filius.

A child of two U.S. citizens, simply a natural born citizen, i.e., born without alienage, thus eligible to the U.S. presidency . . . the simple answer.

U.S. law, starting with Wong Kim Ark, has created conflicts of law. Ark's U.S. citizen ignoring the jurisdiction of alien nationality through the parents was completely at odds with the current Secretary of State William Seward's statement, “But the idea of a double allegiance and citizenship united in the same person, and having reference to two separate, independent, and sovereign nations or governments, is simply an impossibility.”

“Congress has recognized in successive federal statutes since the Nation’s Founding that children born abroad to U.S. citizens are themselves U.S. citizens. 8 U.S.C. § 1401(c); see also Act of May 24, 1934, Pub. L. No. 73-250, § 1,48 Stat. 797, 797. Indeed, the statute that the First Congress enacted on this subject not only established that such children are U.S. citizens, but also expressly referred to them as “natural born citizens.” Act of Mar. 26, 1790, ch. 3, § 1, 1 Stat. 103, 104.
http://leahy.senate.gov/issues/Judiciary/McCainAnalysis.pdf

Framer Rufus King said allegiance to the United States depended on whether a person is a “member of the body politic.” King says no nation should adopt or naturalize a person of another society without the consent of that person. The reason? Because “he ought not silently to be embarrassed with a double allegiance.”

The chief author of the 14th Amendment, Sen. John A. Bingham, wrote, “[E]very human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866)

Puzo1 said...

Paraleaglenm,

We agreee on many important points. But you said:

“The only departure I have from your legal summary of issues is any legitimacy of the Obama-Dunham marriage; bigamy voids a marriage ab initio. The divorce was uncontested, and an easier route of dissolution rather than a legal claim of bigamy towards annulment.”

The Obama-Dunham marriage has been publicly accepted. U.S. Immigration has acknowledged it as happening. There is even a final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction dissolving that marriage. There is a strong public policy that the marriage is valid. The marriage is valid unless a court of competent jurisdiction voids it. Only someone with standing can void that marriage and only if done within a reasonable time. Also, I have not seen any solid evidence of a previous marriage in Kenaya by Obama.

In any event, even if the marriage is void for whatever reason (e.g. because it was a bigamous marriage), Obama who was born to that "marriage" is still a legitimate child. Hence, his citizenship status for purposes of determining if he is an Article II "natural born Citizen" under natural law, the law of nations, and American common law such as Minor v. Happersett (1875) is inherited from both his parents. Since Obama inherited at birth a foreign allegiance and citizenship from his British citizen father, he was not born within the full and complete allegiance and jurisdiction of the United States. Hence, he cannot be an Article II "natural born Citizen."

For these reasons, Obama is not an Article II "natural born Citizen" and is not eligible to be President and Commander in Chief.

Brian H said...

Note that this necessarily also means that Stanley Ann Dunham is not his mother. I would love to see a DNA test with is "half-sister", Kenyan "grandmother", etc. I'd bet that none of his so-called relatives are related to him at all.

But MalcolmX's other children could be tested, and he'd show up as half-sibling to them.

Heh.

Unknown said...

If he was Malcolm's son, he wouldn't be the fool is he. BULLSHIT!

jayjay said...

... to All:

Gee, guys, do you REALLY think a fine, personable chap like Obama with a "likeable' grin would actually (gasp!) LIE???

Whoda thunkitt!!! And from such q nice family of scofflaws, too!!

Puzo1 said...

Brian H,

Why do you say "necessarily?" In other words, why does a Malcolm X father necessarily rule out a Stanley Ann Dunham mother?

Robert said...

If Shabazz is legally "dead" and no longer protected by privacy laws can we see his passports, selective service, social security, college and other records?

What about a trace of the family tree?

Are there any pictures?

All of this might make for some interesting comparisons.

Brian H said...

Puzo1;
Because she was about 16 at the time,and still in school. She was not observed (AFAIK) to be pregnant then (or ever, actually). So unless a tiny (<5') girl hid her HUGE pregnancy and gave birth somewhere undocumented, she didn't give birth to Bari in '59 (or ever).

She certainly was not in NYC!

madwriter said...

How could this possibly be true? Because if it is, then the birthers could no longer complain that Obama isn't a naturalized U.S. citizen.

Puzo1 said...

madwriter,

The "Birthers" do not complain that Obama is not a "naturalized U.S. citizen." Rather, they complain that he is not an Article II "natural born Citizen," which under a line of U.S. Supreme Court cases including Minor v. Happersett (1875) and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), is defined as a child born in the country to citizen parents. This means the child must be born in the United States to parents who are born or naturalized “citizens of the United States.”

Obama Jr. was born to the Obama Sr.-Dunham marriage. Hence, he is presumed to be the biological child of Obama Sr, a British citizen, regardless of who may have really conceived him. Additionally, Obama Sr. has acknowledged that Obama Jr. was his son. Since, Obama Sr. was a British citizen at the time of Obama Jr.’s birth, Obama Jr. is not and cannot be a “natural born Citizen.”

Obama Jr. might want to attack the validity of the Obama-Dunham marriage (saying there is no proof it really happened or that it was bigamous) to show that he should not inherit Obama’s British citizenship. But this would not help, for Obama Sr. would still be considered his father and he his legitimate son.

Obama Jr. might want to show that a person other than Obama Sr. is his biological father. He does not have to attack the Obama-Dunham marriage to accomplish that. In any event, Obama Jr. would not have any standing to attempt to void the Obama Sr. –Dunham marriage. Nevertheless, even not attacking the marriage and leaving it intact, Obama Jr. can still attempt to bring a paternity action to show that Obama Sr. is not his biological father. So, regardless of whether the Obama-Dunham marriage is valid or invalid, Obama Jr. could and would have to still bring a paternity action to show that his biological father is someone other than Obama Sr. Under the Minor standard, in order for Obama to be a “natural born Citizen,” that other person would have to be a born or naturalized “citizen of the United States.”

But paternity actions, which are determined under state law, have statute of limitations like any other actions. In Hawaii, a person with standing has to file the paternity action before the child reaches 21 years of age. As we see, with Obama Jr. the statute of limitation has run. Hence, any paternity action filed by Obama Jr., even if he would file such an action, would be filed by him after the statute of limitations has run and would therefore be dismissed by the court.

TheEuropean said...

Mr. Apuzzo,

you are - other than the LINOs Taitz and Donofrio - a real lawyer with professional experience.

This experience should teach you that SCOTUS will never decide in the Vattelite sense, because the sitting SCOTUS has already decided otherwise - by swearing in President Obama.

Do you really think Judges with an ego as tall as Mount Everest like Scalia and his collegues would say: When President Obama was sworn in I did not know that it needed two citizen parents to be a NBC ? No, you do not think that this is possible.

May be a majority of SCOTUS does not like the President and may be they would take any chance to reverse his election, but not at the price to say "WE DID NOT KNOW THE LAW".

Sincerely
Your
European

Jonah said...

I’m into genealogy so this article was of interest to me. Some of the photos and information out there are quite compelling. I am not here to dispute that Obama is the son of Malcolm X but only to seek clarification.

Stanley Ann Dunham was born on November 29, 1942. So she would have been 16 years old at the time she gave birth to Bari M Shabazz on October 28, 1959 and still in high school. I wonder if she attended classes in the fall of 1959 in Seattle.

I can attest to B M Shabazz listing on the Social Security death Index.
See for yourself.
http://ssdi.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/ssdi.cgi

Enter--- B Shabazz; birth - 1959 and death - 1994

Name SHABAZZ, B M
Birth Oct 1959
Death 28 Aug 1994 (V)
Age 34
Last Address of Record (PE)
Last Benefit (none specified)
Issued By New York
SSN 084-54-5926

(V)=(Verified) Report verified with a family member or someone acting on behalf of a family member.
(P)=(Proof) Death Certificate Observed.
# # #

However, I searched my deceased family members and 6 out of 7 are noted (V) and only one showed (P). I assure you that they are all dead so the (V) “Report verified with a family member or someone acting on behalf of a family member” should not be alarming or give any reason to cast doubt on B M’s death. Stanley Armour Dunham’s SS record also has a (V).

As you can see, the (PE) entry on B M’s record refers to the Last Address of Record ad does not note an inconsistency.

As I said, I am not disputing, just seeking clarification. I was taught never to assume but to always seek documentation for verification.

D. Koss Uber said...

I would be proud to have Obama as my President if he was he bastard son of Hitler born in the Gamma Quadrant.

Puzo1 said...

TheEuropean,

I understand that personal egos always get in the way of finding or stating the truth. But that is part of human nature and something that I cannot control.

What I can control is stating what I think the law is on any given subject. That is what I have done in my Kerchner court filings and on this blog with defining an Article II "natural born Citizen."

It is up to others who are in a position to decide the matter to determine what, if anything, they will do with whatever I may have said so far on the subject.

MichaelN said...

TheEuropean said...
"Mr. Apuzzo,
This experience should teach you that SCOTUS will never decide in the Vattelite sense, because the sitting SCOTUS has already decided otherwise - by swearing in President Obama."
---------------------------
The SCOTUS did NOT swear-in Obama.
The Chief Justice Roberts swore him in as a ritual, completely outside of judicial holding,ruling, opinion or determination.

The swearing-in of Obama by Roberts is in NO WAY indicative of ANY of the SCOTUS justices opinions on his eligibility.

TheEuropean said...

Mr. Apuzzo,

you wrote:

"What I can control is stating what I think the law is on any given subject. That is what I have done in my Kerchner court filings and on this blog with defining an Article II "natural born Citizen." "

and I accept this as honorable.

Not so honorable is it to promote this nonsense published by Mrs. T. Take care that you do not get contaminated. You know that it is hard to find the gold coin in a bucket of mud, if you allow me to cite Dr. C.

Sincerly
Your
European

Puzo1 said...

Jonah,

The investigators are getting to the bottom of this, be assured.

SaipanAnnie said...

Brian H says:

she was about 16 at the time,and still in school

Now that the TRUTH is emerging, do you honestly expect anyone with half a brain to trust data that Obama presented?

If you're looking for fools, visit an Obot site.


madwriter says:

How could this possibly be true? Because if it is, then the birthers could no longer complain that Obama isn't a naturalized U.S. citizen.

We who from the start correctly sensed Obama's birth certificate fraudulence will WELCOME hard evidence of his fraud, regardless of its topic.

No need to fret.

Though I bet you aren't fretting one bit.

As for your feigned ignorance of 'natural born citizen', puh-leez.

By the way, I resent your use of the insulting term "birther" on this site. If that's how you feel, you have no business visiting this site, - let alone addressing Mr. Apuzzo - a man of unwavering good character.


TheEuropean says:

May be a majority of SCOTUS does not like the President and may be they would take any chance to reverse his election, but not at the price to say "WE DID NOT KNOW THE LAW".

Nice try.

This is obviously your wishful projection upon Chief Justice Roberts, again, a man of unwavering good character.

If I were Obama, I'd be making "Fast And Furious" escape plans. The wrath of America is is hot pursuit.

SaipanAnnie said...

The European says:

Not so honorable is it to promote this nonsense published by Mrs. T. Take care that you do not get contaminated.

Nonsense, is it?

And just who are YOU to talk about what is and is not honorable, BÂRI' ?

You must think the whole world is stupid.

Jonah said...

The author of the article doesn’t mention if she attempted to acquire a death certificate for B M Shabazz to verify if there actually was a death. It would show the deceased’s parents, his address, the mortuary and place of burial. Did she also request a copy of the newspaper obituary? That would reveal much about his family and also place of burial.

Lack of death certificate and newspaper obituary would surely add some credibility to the author’s premise that Obama is Bari Shabazz. If these documents do exist then her credibility should be seriously questioned for not making a thorough investigation. If she has the documents, she should reveal them to back up her accusations.

Rockdog said...

Jonah said (among other things):

Lack of death certificate and newspaper obituary would surely add some credibility to the author’s premise that Obama is Bari Shabazz.

Gee... it almost sounds like you knew the guy!

SaipanAnnie said...

Jonah says:

If these documents do exist then her credibility should be seriously questioned for not making a thorough investigation. If she has the documents, she should reveal them to back up her accusations.


Question her credibility all you like. As Mr. Apuzzo stated, it's now in the hands of the investigators.

In the meantime The Deceit Machine had two plus days to create and post fraudulent docs to the internet. Plenty of time. But very foolish - this sort of thing is so easily traceable. Even Ms. Trowbridge
could do it.

Jonah said...

Anyone in New York can acquire a newspaper obituary. Newspaper archives are usually kept in a city’s library, in their genealogy department. Call any NY library and ask which libraries have newspaper archives. Some genealogical societies also have newspaper archives.

B A Shabazz died Aug 8, 1994 so look at the reels for local newspapers dated Aug 8 through Aug 15. Also look for burial permits.

In regard to the addresses where Bari Shabazz resided, Ancestry.com records show that he lived at 99999 Military, Quantico, VA in 1984 and 3226 98th St , East Elmhurst, NY in 1989. There is no indication where he lived as a child prior to Malcolm’s death in 1965.

Did the author look at New York city directories to see where Bari Shabazz resided in the 20 or so years prior to his death in 1994? Did she check the Honolulu, Los Angeles, New York, Chicago or Cambridge/Boston directories to see if Barack Obama is listed in those cities during the same time period?

SaipanAnnie said...

Give it up, BÂRI'. Game's over. You're toast.

Jonah said...

The military address suggests that B M Shabazz may have served in the military and could have been buried in a National Cemetery. There are 24 people named Shabazz buried in National Cemeteries but no Bari or B A Shabazz. And none of them were born in 1959 and died in 1994. So that’s one in favor of the author’s allegation that Bari’s death never occurred. But far from proof positive.

SaipanAnnie said...

Jonah says:

no Bari or B A Shabazz

Second time you've slipped up with the "B A" identity.

Or maybe it's intentional.

SaipanAnnie said...

ALERT: "Obama" Running Scared!

Obots have hacked into the US Public Records database to enter a 1989 address for BARI M SHABAZZ.

They claim that he's back home in East Elmhurst after his military residence at Quantico.

THIS INFORMATION WAS JUST SUBMITTED to the database.

Next move: Obama will create a military identity for Bari M Shabazz. Photos, too.

What fools.

Jonah said...

SaipanAnnie,

So what if I wrote B A instead of B M. Why are you making an issue of a simple typo even though I used the initials B M correctly in the first sentence? For what nefarious purpose would I intentionally use B A instead of B M?

I have no horse in this race. I am only reporting genealogy information that I have discovered on Bari/ B M Shabazz. The author of the article brought up some legitimate concerns and being a genealogist, I feel obligated to research her conclusions. Some I agree with, some are inconsistent with my findings. I hope and pray that the truth about Obama will be revealed. Documented, verifiable truth. Not unsubstantiated assumptions.

For the record, I acquired the following info from Ancestry.com on Wednesday, November 2. Bari M Shabazz resided at 3226 98th in East Elmhurst, NY in 1989. And I also have a screenshot to prove the info came from Ancestry.com.

U.S. Public Records Index, Volume 1
Name: Bari M Shabazz
Address: 99999 Military, Quantico, VA, 22134 (1984)
[3226 98th St # 1, East Elmhurst, NY, 11369-1827 (1989)]

Source Information:
Ancestry.com. U.S. Public Records Index, Volume 1 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2010.
Original data: Voter Registration Lists, Public Record Filings, Historical Residential Records, and Other Household Database Listings
Description:
The U.S. Public Records Index is a compilation of various public records spanning all 50 states in the United States from 1950 to 1993. Entries in this index may contain the following information: name, street or mailing address, telephone number, birth date or birth year.

SaipanAnnie said...

Jonah says:

I acquired the following info from Ancestry.com on Wednesday, November 2.

Fast work on the part of Obama & Company.

Apologies, but I'm not impressed.

SaipanAnnie said...

Jonah says:

I acquired the following info from Ancestry.com on Wednesday, November 2.

Fast work on the part of Obama & Company.

Apologies, but I'm not impressed.

SaipanAnnie said...

Jonah says:

B A Shabazz died Aug 8, 1994 so look at the reels for local newspapers dated Aug 8 through Aug 15. Also look for burial permits.

Your first [of two] citations of 'B A" -

Typos! Of course! The A is right next to the M on our keyboards too.

js said...

i utterly believe that if obama were to execute someone on tv in front of every major media outlet...the DoJ would forgetaboutit...ya know...

whats the use of laws if the justice system just ignores crime...what use the constitution if our elected representatives have no reason to follow it...

MichaelN said...

Jack Maskell must be formally & publicly corrected and fresh advise must be provided to Congress regarding the correct definition of an Article II "natural born Citizen" per Minor v. Happerset.

Whilst the advise to Congress on this erroneous definition of NBC per Jack Maskell's memo to Congress stands, none of the sitting members will act to have Obama's eligibility challenged.

Douglas said...

This information may only reveal O was using a fake ID and was involved in an accident when he visited Hawaii in that year. He later jettisoned the ID and tried to clear the records recently.

Let us move forward said...

What about the college Marxist who knew Obama at Occidental College in California? What about the school records in Indonesia? What about the divorce papers in Hawaii? What about the buddy who took Barack to Pakistan? All before 1982.

In 1982, Obama was supposed to be at Columbia. Perhaps, a la Bill Ayres, he created one or more alternate IDs. Hence the CT Social Security No. and the Shabazz in Hawaii during the time of spring break. The later didn't have his NY DL with him; who drives without a license?

Or perhaps Obama was in an auto accident in Hawaii and simply claimed to be Shabazz without any ID. Probably cool for a black person to claim to be a son of Malcolm X. You know, that sounds just like Mr. O we all know. He blames others for his mistakes and has "assumed" the mantles of Lincoln, FDR, Kennedy, Reagan etc. whenever convenient. Would you put it past him to have "assumed" the mantle of Malcolm X through his son, no proof required?

Other than exposing another possible lie and a possible explanation for his scalp scars (his sister referred a Honolulu hospital stay), I doubt this line of inquiry will bear anything but bitter fruit.

SaipanAnnie said...

I find it intriguing that They Who Spin are now offering the "oh, gee, he probably was using a fake ID back then" explanation.

This clearly indicates the fact that the data presented DOES CONNECT OBAMA WITH BARI SHABAZZ of the Hawaii Traffic Court Case.

What can they do?

Twist the storyline:

Barack Obama is his REAL identity; Bari Shabazz, his fake identity.

Yet they haven't really thought this through, have they? Either way, he is a Fugitive From Justice.

And as such, guilty of criminal behavior.

Thomas said...

Mario,

A relevant essay posted today on American Thinker

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/01/the_birthers_went_down_to_georgia.html

Perhaps you could comment there to enlighten their readers and even gain a mass of A/T readers.

Merci said...

Hope we get to say...we told you so. Wise up and investigate yourself.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Merci,

And what superior knowledge do you have that you would care to share with us?