Obama Eligibility: Doug Vogt says Nancy Pelosi Will Hang for Her Role in the “Worst Crime in American History”


Doug Vogt recently did a short interview with Honest American News involving the contents of his recently unsealed affidavit. Among other bombshells Doug dropped in the interview was his opinion that Nancy Pelosi will hang for her role in "worst crime in American History."

Mr. Vogt explains that current Hawaii Senator Brian Schatz, who was Chair of the State Democratic Party in 2008, refused to certify Barack Obama as eligible to be president of the United States. Vogt's claim is that Schatz knew there was no long form "certificate of live birth" (COLB). Nancy Pelosi made the certification and thus by Vogt's logic is guilty of treason.

Vogt also talked about the controversy that surrounds him following the unsealing of his affidavit, which was admitted to court. Vogt pointed fingers at many who he believes worked on the forgery, which has "riled a few feathers" in the birther community.

Perhaps the biggest bombshell of all is that Vogt believes he can prove that the assigned number on the certificate could not possibly have been issued to Barack Obama. He has studied the sequencing and has determined that this COLB could not have been issued at that time. This is a critical piece of evidence because it does not involve a scientific examination of layering technology and forgery techniques that could be open to opinion. If the number is proven wrong then that is hard to debate.

Below is an audio clip. The part about Pelosi starts around the 12:45 mark.

Shortly after the 6:00 mark Vogt mentioned that Hawaii Governor Abercrombie was caught admitting that there is no birth certificate. That audio can be heard below.


 

Last year we reported on another affidavit from a former Hawaii official, Tim Adams, who stated the same in his sworn testimony.

h/t Birther Report

Source

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.

You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.






Comments

comments

  • GChem 68

    Your antidote to the illusions conjured up by clowns like Bill Maher and Jonathan Leibowitz: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0094KY878

  • White Army

    You are a lamp of liberty, a shining beacon for all to see. Glow brighter, shine bigger: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0094KY878

  • http://www.fija.org/ Max Abramson

    What I find personally insulting about this whole issue is that we're supposed to believe a lie that even a ten year old can see through.

    • Dave B.

      That's the thing about those lies-- they're good enough to persuade the willfully gullible, or those with little more sophistication than a ten-year-old. That's just not enough to cut it in the grownup world, though, which is why they get laughed out of court.

  • John OMalia

    Like the banks that are too large to fail, the crime of being an illegally sitting President is too large to prosecute. One can only hope we'd fill the prisons with these miscreants, but the ramifications are too mind-boggling to imagine.

  • KatRob

    I favor public stoning, but hanging is good too.

  • Sam Fuels

    The more centralized control, the more the forces of liberty that enabled prosperity in the first place are extinguished.

  • Tbear

    Hanging w/b to good for her - I'd opt for taking away her Botox and locking her in a cell that has mirrors for walls!!!!

  • Enzo

    Due to the fact that the three branches of our government; executive (obama), judicial (holder) and legislature (reid) are now run by communists it doesn't help that our neutered GOP House refuses to stop any of their spending or do anything for that matter.

  • NCBigmouth

    The evidence is there of the fake docs submitted by the Manchurian, so why can't we legally prosecute him and lock his lying ass up NOW instead of impeachment which would take at least until his term is up? Is it out of respect for the office or lack of testerone?

    • Dave B.

      Because, as Orange County Superior Court Judge Charles Margines told Orly Taitz, "evidence is not stuff printed from the internet." Or, as New Jersey Administrative Law Judge Jeff Masin said when such "evidence" was presented in his courtroom,
      "We're off the far end here in terms of legal evidence in a legal proceeding, not a press conference, not a political rally, in a legal proceeding."

    • Enzo

      Like obama's FAKE birth certificate that he posted on the internet??? Like that STUFF? Truth is, no one in our Supreme Court or Congress will do a thing because they're ALL guilty of treason already.

    • Dave B.

      A document posted on the internet isn't a version of that document that can be presented by itself as evidence in court. I would refer you to rules 901 and 902 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Under "Authenticating or Identifying Evidence," Rule 901(a)(7) says,

      "(In General. To satisfy the requirement of authenticating or
      identifying an item of evidence, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.)

      (7) Evidence About Public Records. Evidence that:

      (A) a document was recorded or filed in a public office as authorized by law; or

      (B) a purported public record or statement is from the office where items of this kind are kept."

      Rule 901(a)(1) does also allow for

      "(1) Testimony of a Witness with Knowledge. Testimony that an item is what it is claimed to be."

      http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_901

      Under "Evidence That Is Self-Authenticating," Rule 902(1) says,

      "The following items of evidence are self-authenticating; they require no extrinsic evidence of authenticity in order to be admitted:

      (1) Domestic Public Documents That Are Sealed and Signed. A document that bears:

      (A)
      a seal purporting to be that of the United States; any state, district,
      commonwealth, territory, or insular possession of the United States;
      the former Panama Canal Zone; the Trust Territory of the Pacific
      Islands; a political subdivision of any of these entities; or a
      department, agency, or officer of any entity named above; and

      (B) a signature purporting to be an execution or attestation."

      http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_902

      A proper presentation of a copy of the internet image as evidence would include "a purported public record or statement (that it) is from the office where items of this kind are kept" (Rule 901(a)(7)(B)), in the form of a document that bears a seal purporting to be that of the State of Hawaii and a signature purporting to be an execution or attestation (Rule 902(1)).

      And that's exactly how a printout of the internet image was presented as evidence in federal district court in Mississippi.

      http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/96200621?access_key=key-2ma46i3qng06pyf9piqh&allow_share=true&escape=false&view_mode=scroll

    • Koibaby

      Is everyone that crooked?

    • Dave B.

      As Arpaio, under whose auspices that "evidence" was cooked up? No. He's exceptionally corrupt, particularly in the way he abuses his office for the purpose of intimidation.

    • Sunshine49

      Are you saying that Arpaio "cooked up" the evidence? I'm still wondering why the Governor of Hawaii couldn't "find" the birth certificate to exonerate Obama. And what about the social security number from a state that Obama never lived in that belonged to a man who died in Hawaii right before Obama got the number? For some reason Obama makes me think of the movie "Damian"! But that's here nor there. The fact is he was never eligible because he was born an English citizen no matter where he was born. IF you had done any study on our citizenship laws you would find that the US is NOT in the habit of stealing another country's citizens by their birth on US soil. That's what the "allegiance and jurisdiction" clause was all about in the 14th Amendment. Also, children born of a non-American father were considered "native" born and NOT natural-born citizens. IF the Founders had wanted just anyone born on US soil to be eligible to be President they would have put in the word "native" born instead of "natural-born". Since John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the US wrote George Washington that they should specify "natural-born" citizen, there had to be a reason. They understood exactly what it meant, but the left has "changed" the meaning to suit their own purposes. So what else is new?

    • Dave B.

      No, Jerome Corsi cooked up most of the evidence. Practically all the Cold Case Posse did in their first two pep rallies/press conferences was rehash a bunch of Corsi's old WorldNet Daily articles.
      Access to Hawaii's vital records is strictly controlled by law, and the Governor of Hawaii doesn't have access to those records.
      President Obama's Social Security Number never belonged to anybody else.
      Your interpretation of US nationality law is downright goofy and sure isn't something you came up by doing "any study on our citizenship laws"-- it comes from BIRTHERS changing meanings "to suit their own purposes." But that's nothing new, is it?

    • Sunshine49

      I guess it never occurred to you that for reasons of national security Obama's birth record should be open knowledge to at least people in government like the governor. So I'm supposed to believe one person who claims it was in the records and that person is now dead? As far as I'm concerned the birth certificate is here say. With so many lies that Obama has told, who knows who he REALLY is?

      You really are naïve that you claim that his social security number never belonged to anyone else. Since you are so gullible I have some land to sell you in the Everglades.

      Actually, my interpretation of Obama's citizenship comes from English law at the time he was born. Since his father was an English subject at the time, Obama junior became an English subject at birth. The Founders did NOT recognize "dual" citizenship when they wrote the Constitution and the 14th Amendment gives citizenship by legislation which is NOT natural-born status.

      There is a BIG difference between "native" born and natural-born citizenship but I don't expect someone like you to research it or admit to the truth. The subject of Obama's eligibility came up before he was ever elected the first time, but it was shouted down by the left as being racist. So now we have someone in the White House that we don't even know who he really is. A Trojan Horse? With all he's been doing against the American people it sure looks like it!

    • Dave B.

      That's just silly. If the governor HAD had access, you wouldn't have believed him anyway. Birtherism isn't based on facts, truth or reality; and no amount of facts, truth or reality is going to make it go away.
      You're really gullible if you believe that his Social Security Number DID belong to somebody else. That's a really stupid claim, even for birthers.
      US citizenship is determined by US law, not English law. Why do you hate America so much?
      The 14th Amendment doesn't give "citizenship by legislation," it affirms the long-standing principle of jus soli and assures that is extended to all people (except for Native Americans) regardless of race.
      I don't expect someone like you to have a clue what real research is. Or the truth either, for that matter.

    • lakeside227

      Regarding the office of president - the Country's highest office - the People have a RIGHT to know EVERYTHING about him.

      This office has TREMENDOUS power over us. When someone asks us to let them wield that power, he must do so with the knowledge that we have the Right to know everything. He must PROVE he is fit, worthy, and deserving of our trust and that power.

    • Dave B.

      I reckon he proved it to the satisfaction of enough people to get elected, twice; and to the satisfaction of Congress, which met in joint session, twice, and certified his electoral college votes-- unanimously and without objection.

      How many former presidents or candidates did you want to subject to these nonsensical fishing expeditions?

    • lakeside227

      You misunderstood. I wasn't referring to this president, I was referring to every candidate who runs for president.

    • Dave B.

      That's fair. And novel.

    • lakeside227

      Thank you.

    • Sunshine49

      You wrote: US citizenship is determined by US law, not English law. Right and Obama's father was under English law at the time of Obama's birth making Obama an English citizen -- not American! Their law claimed him as one of their citizens no matter where he was born. They didn't change their laws until the 1980s.

      The 14th Amendment was our first universal citizenship law. Before that the states decided who could be a citizen of their state. I see that you haven't read the debates in Congress over the 14th Amendment or you would know that it wasn't just "jus soli" that made someone a natural-born citizen. It had to do with complete allegiance and jurisdiction to the US ONLY by the FATHER. The wife and mother obtained the same citizenship as the husband upon marriage. It wasn't until the 1920s that the US even recognized "dual" citizenship, but tries to discourage it because of dual allegiances. A natural-born citizen has only ONE allegiance and that is to the US through BOTH parents. A child of a foreign parent is given 14th Amendment citizenship as a "native" born citizen. NOT the same as natural-born citizenship.

      IF you knew what you where talking about we wouldn't even be discussing this. Your research must be limited to far left blogs!

    • Dave B.

      Didn't put much thought into that first paragraph, did you?
      It's long been the understanding of the United States government that citizens of the United States can acquire other nationalities by birth and naturalization, resulting in multiple nationalities, but the United States has NEVER officially recognized dual citizenship.
      My research is limited to the relevant laws, court cases, government publications, and the best genuine scholarship. Your research must be limited to wacky birther blogs.

    • Sunshine49

      When someone becomes a naturalized citizen of the US they are required to give up all other citizenship ties to other countries and swear allegiance to the US ONLY. No matter how you try to twist it, dual citizenship is NOT natural-born citizenship with total allegiance to and jurisdiction from the US that comes from being born from two American parents. As I wrote before, IF Obama was born on US soil he would be a "native" born citizen which is NOT the same as a natural-born citizen. The purpose of the natural-born clause was to keep foreign influence away from the office of President and to assure that the President had "allegiance" ONLY to the US. Obama is a perfect example of why they put the clause in the Constitution with all the foreign influence and anti-American upbringing that he was exposed to in his early years. Now he is in a position to destroy the US from with-in like he was taught from early on through family and mentors.

      When I first heard him speak (I think about 2004) I thought WOW, he really has some great ideas. Then as I listened to his campaign speeches on how he wanted to end world poverty on our dime through the UN I realized he was a Trojan Horse. The only reason for UN treaties is to undermine our Constitution. Bush Sr. did it with Agenda 21 and it is costing Americans dearly.

      You're right that your research is limited!

    • Dave B.

      Yeah, my research is limited to REALITY. Yours, obviously, is not; for example, there's your nonsense about Agenda 21 and how "The only reason for UN treaties is to undermine our Constitution." For another example, your distinction between native and natural born citizens is a figment of birther imaginations. As Justice Van Devanter wrote in Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9 (1913),

      "Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency."

      And what in the heck does that business about naturalized citizens have to do with it, other than further illustrating your ignorance of nationality law?

      A person can naturalize as a US citizen and still retain foreign nationality; that will depend upon the laws of the other country or countries involved. The United States doesn't (and COULDN'T) consider its naturalization Oath of Allegiance to be an absolutely binding renunciation of other nationality; just as the United States doesn't consider another country's procedures to be a binding renunciation of US nationality.

      Some countries (for example, the United Kingdom) require their own separate renunciation process in order for a person to renounce citizenship. Some countries (for example, Iran) have very strict-- even prohibitive-- procedures for renunciation. Some countries (for example, Austria) allow retention of nationality upon foreign naturalization if retention is requested. Under current law and policy, naturalized citizens can retain their foreign passports and use them when traveling outside the United States, and while in the country of one's former citizenship, a naturalized citizen can be recognized by that country as its citizen without endangering US naturalization.

      A person, whether a native or naturalized citizen, can certainly retain US citizenship after naturalization in a foreign country. And a person can be born in the United States to two US citizen parents and STILL have multiple nationalities.

    • Sunshine49

      You obviously don't realize that every time we sign a treaty with the UN we are giving up some US sovereignty. Why else do you think Obama is trying to go through the UN to get US gun control? Because a treaty with the UN would override the US Constitution according to the far left politicians. It would give the UN the so-called "right" to bring in foreign troops on US soil to confiscate our guns under "international" law!

      You wrote: As Justice Van Devanter wrote in Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9 (1913),

      "Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency."

      Right -- in all things EXCEPT being eligible to be President! Again there is a play on words that gives a false impression. In this case "native" citizen is being used in the same sense as natural-born citizen while the term "native BORN" citizen has a different meaning.

      During an 1866 House debate James F. Wilson quoted Rawle's opinion, and also referred to the "general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations" saying

      ...and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except it may be that children born on our soil to TEMPORARY sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments, are native-BORN citizens of the United States.

      Joseph Story (1779–1845), an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court (1811–1845), wrote in his 1840 guidebook to the Constitution, A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States, about the natural-born-citizen clause:

      It is not too much to say that no one, but a NATIVE citizen, ought ordinarily to be intrusted with an office so vital to the safety and liberties of the people. (note that he did not say native BORN)

      Alexander Porter Morse, the lawyer who represented Louisiana in Plessy v. Ferguson, wrote in the Albany Law Journal:

      If it was intended that anybody who was a citizen by birth should be eligible, it would only have been necessary to say, "no person, except a native-BORN citizen"; but the framers thought it wise, in view of the probable influx of European immigration, to provide that the president should at least be the child of citizen(S) owing ALLEGIANCE to the United States at the time of his birth. It may be observed in passing that the current phrase "native-born citizen" is well understood; but it is pleonasm and should be discarded; and the correct designation, "native citizen" should be substituted in all constitutional and statutory enactments, in judicial decisions and in legal discussions where accuracy and precise language are essential to intelligent discussion.

      All you wrote about the "right" of an American to have multiple nationalities may be true, but it makes them INELIGIBLE to be President of the US because they are NOT a "natural-born" citizen even though they are still a US citizen. It has to do with a person's COMPLETE ALLEGIANCE to the US that they acquired from having TWO CITIZEN PARENTS AT BIRTH! The left can twist words all they want, but the truth is plain to see that has been written in our history and has been applied to every President UNTIL Obama!

    • Dave B.

      Okay, we can add treaty law and the supremacy of the US Constitution to the list of things you don't have a clue about. Your UN "confiscation" scheme is pure fantasy. It's downright SILLY.

      The Supreme Court has time and time again conflated citizenship acquired by birth in the United States-- NATIVE citizenship-- with natural born citizenship and presidential eligibility; as opposed to naturalized citizenship, acquired under statute enacted by Congress in exercise of its naturalization power. As Chief Justice Waite said in Minor v. Happersett,

      "Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that 'no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,' and that Congress shall have power 'to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.' Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization."

      Persons who acquire US citizenship by birth in the United States are not, by any RATIONAL understanding of the term, naturalized-- and NEVER HAVE BEEN. There was NO statute regarding acquisition of US citizenship by birth in the United States before the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, yet even in the absence of a statute, persons born in the United States acquired US citizenship under common law. Their citizenship did not require exercise of Congress's naturalization power. They were natural-born citizens.

      There was NO distinction between "natural-born" and native citizens.

      Your claim that in Justice Van Devanter's opinion,

      "In this case "native" citizen is being used in the same sense as
      natural-born citizen while the term "native BORN" citizen has a
      different meaning"

      doesn't begin to make sense. I suppose that could just be your mangled understanding of Morse's "pleonasm" remark. Perhaps you should just consult a dictionary.

      Your reference to Justice Story is just plain GOOFY-- it doesn't support your argument AT ALL. Justice Story was ADAMANT about acquisition of US citizenship by the principle of jus soli, irrespective of parents' nationality. In his dissent in Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor's Snug Harbor - 28 U.S. 99 (1830), he said,

      "Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth."

      Your distinction based upon parentage simply doesn't exist in US law.

      And Alexander P. Morse? Morse was philosophically opposed to the principle of jus soli and argued against it. That didn't change the FACT that it was long-settled law. You sure you want to brag about his participation in Plessy v. Ferguson?

  • Arlinda2

    Why isn't the "whole rotten administration" in jail!!!??? Bigtooth Nancy Smilodon isn't the only one responsible for that monster in the WH. SCOTUS kept dismissing the cases of Barry/Harrison/J. Harrison, Barack Soetoro/Bounell/Obama's eligibility because the very corrupt Chief Justice was afraid of losing his illegally adopted children from Ireland. Not only did he use various aliases, he also has two Social Security Numbers and no one, not any institution, law enforcement agency or any agency did anything except one ..... The Judiciary licensing branch of the State of Illinois. They disbarred him and his wife because he lied on his law application and his simian wife aided and abetted his perjury. No one anywhere says a word about what information available to anyone with access to the web ..... billions of people said nothing. Maybe those that did died. Brietbart was murdered because he got too close. Decades will pass before we right the usurper's wrongs.

  • BadKarma

    Nothing will be done because America is now a communist country where government permitted immorality such as smoking dope and homosexual marriage is now considered freedom.

    We were once a nation of riflemen who knew the difference between freedom and immorality.

  • W Scott Jenkin IV

    NOBODY IS GOING TO PROSECUTE THIS! It would be suicide. You could have an affidavit from Obama himself admitting everything, and nothing would happen.

    • Sunshine49

      That's exactly what my daughter said. If nothing has been done the past five years, WHY should we expect anything different now?

  • Beckah

    As with any other lawlessness by the Fed, nobody is EVER going to pay the price for anything. The worst thing that ever happens to any of them is that they are asked "to step down" a couple of months earlier than their planned retirement. Let's face it people, short of a civil war, this government has become to large and too corrupt to fight against!

  • Ranchman

    There's no doubt that Nobama is a fraud, but what will happen if he's exposed once he's out of office. Will his appointments to the bench be overturned? Will all of his unconstitutional Executive Orders finally be ruled to be illegal? How can we throw two Supremes off the bench-Sotomayor and Kagan? Make no mistake, I will absolutely rejoice on the day when so-called "birthers" are redeemed, although the Left will NEVER apologize! How are we going to handle all the chaos Nobama has caused when the truth about him is accepted?

    • Sunshine49

      MANY on the left will never accept the truth. They have to much invested in the fraud to accept the truth (like Obamacare). Through executive orders Obama has "changed" America and the Constitution to suit the left's purposes. Their purpose is to make us into a third world country ruled by the UN, but that is their plan for the whole world. I have also read that the government has laws that even IF Obama is thrown out for fraud ALL the legislation he signed will still stand. If Congress wants to get rid of anything they will have to make new legislation to do it. That won't happen either. Even his executive orders that were above his executive authority won't be "changed" without going through Congress even though he by-passed Congress when he did them. In other words, NOTHING will change for the people!

    • Koibaby

      Okay, we all will just stick our heads in the sand like everyone else?

    • Sunshine49

      Do you see Congress rushing in to stop Obama's illegal actions? NO! Did voting in 2012 "change" anything? NO! BOTH sides have been filling the people full of propaganda for the past 100 years and doing NOTHING to stop socialism from taking over this country. They make laws for themselves and their buddies -- NOT for the country or the people. Just look at the Patriot Act and tell me we still have a free country when they can throw an American citizen in jail with no defense. You can keep pretending we have freedom as long as you like, but it's NOT going to "change" the fact that our "elected" officials sold us down the river MANY years ago.

  • Becky

    Yes pelosi is guilty of Treason. YES she deserves to hang!

  • Roxene Kimes

    Excuse me? You mean to tell me that Pelosi can be held accountable when in fact we have a an untouchable usurper who has not been? Get real. The Department of Indoctrination D.O.E has thoroughly done its job and the very idea of accounting - ESPECIALLY for a black man, is
    laughable. There is nothing more politically correct and beyond accountability than a black man. Oh, well, maybe there is one thing. A black woman? (look out... president Michelle?)

  • AZ BOB

    And the Newpaper articles on the birth???? also forged????

    • Math_Fellow

      Six extra Question Marks suggests you may have not done your homework concerning the timing of the Hawaiian newspaper article which you reference so boldly.

    • Dave B.

      What about that timing?

  • georgegabriel

    Hey joe nothin will happen. These clowns spray teflon on like deodorant every day, if sumtin goes wrong obumba just pardons them, all these people that are in frnt of congress, will never do one day in jail, if it was u or me we would never get out!

  • NoBamaNoMo

    Bla, bla, bla... and the beat goes on! And 6 years later the fraud, the criminal, the white hating racist, the muslim, the traitor, the POS aka the POTUS is still stinking up the WH, doing what he does best, f****ng the American people.

  • FuzzysDaddy

    most americans think birthers like weenie-deanie are just idiots ..