- Delivering Truth Around the World
Custom Search


Patrick H. Bellringer

Smaller Font Larger Font RSS 2.0

From: JB
To: Patrick Bellringer
Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 5:10 PM
Subject: Obama's eligibility

Patrick,  (or Hello Central)

It's time to set the record straight about Obama's eligibility and I can't believe this controversy still exists. Let's end this silly matter right now. I have a background in Constitutional Law research and I know the truth on this issue. His eligibility to be President has absolutely nothing to do with where he was born so people should stop wasting their time looking for his real birth certificate. Everyone claiming to have proof that he was born in Kenya doesn't realize that it doesn't matter where he was born. No, I'm not an Obama fan and I didn't vote for him, but I am 100% sure about the legal issues involved.

Yes, the Constitution mentions he must be a natural born citizen but which of the two different existing Constitutions applies to Obama? The answer is obvious. The original Constitution signed by our founding fathers is not the one the present administration is using. Everyone reading your site should know by now that a PRIVATE CORPORATION was formed in 1871 in Washington D.C. for the purpose of carrying out the business functions of the government. This private corporation (hereinafter corp. US) adopted the original Constitution and its thirteen amendments as a working framework but immediately started passing amendments that were totally unconstitutional. The hijacking of our government was underway when corp. US was formed.

The trademarked name of this new corporation formed in 1871 was, THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT. So how do people know what Constitution they are reading? Just see how many amendments it has. The organic original one (that we must return to - the REPUBLIC for which it stands...) only has thirteen whereby the one the private corp. US is using has something like twenty-seven amendments. Obama was elected under the private corp.US Constitution. Up until 1944 members of congress actually wore two hats when they voted on new legislation, one hat was for our country as a REPUBLIC and one hat for the private corp.US that only had jurisdiction over a ten mile square area know as Washington D.C.

 However, something happened in 1944 which drastically changed how congress voted on new legislation and elected a President. Under the Bretton Woods Agreement Act, USC Title 22 sec. 286 et seq., one hundred percent of the stock in that private corp.US was essentially quit claim deeded or transferred to the IMF, a foreign consortium of international bankers. Corp.US was delinquent in their debts and was basically foreclosed upon. Congress now had a huge conflict in interest with their REPUBLIC constituents as corp.US was now totally foreign owned. This transfer of that private corporation named THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT formed in 1871, now made it almost impossible for congress to act in favor of our country as a REPUBLIC, as our Sovereignty as a nation had been lost to foreign bankers. From 1944 on, all elected Presidents of our country have been Presidents of that private corp.US. and certainly not the USA as a REPUBLIC under the original Constitution.  As G.W.Bush said, "the Constitution is just a god damned piece of paper". Based on how our original Constitution is not being used, unfortunately, he's right.

 Everyone must understand that in bankruptcy, which our country is in, the laws of Commerce (UCC - Admiralty) prevail and become the SUPREME law of the land. The US citizens have all been pledged as DEBTORS with virtually no rights at all. Given the fact that our bankrupt country is being governed and controlled by a private foreign corporation and who everyone in congress works for, who do you think has the legal control and right to elect a President? The people as DEBTORS with no rights or the CREDITORS who have legal title to everything? A private corporation doesn't have to abide by the original Constitution related to being a "natural born" person. If they want a Japanese born person to be their president, it would be legal. Does this end all the silliness related to Obama's eligibility?

J. B.


FROM:  Patrick H. Bellringer
     TO:  J. B.
DATE:  August 4, 2009
Dear J. B.:
    Thank you for your letter.  You are quite correct in your thinking concerning our "Corporate" president.
    Obama ran a fake election to fool the people, allowing the citizen debtors to vote, when in fact he was elected by the Corporation Board of Directors and stockholders.  What a sham, but the Truth is finally being uncovered for all to see.
    One error in your statement that I point out is a common error.  Ten miles square equals a hundred square miles or ten miles on each side of the land, whereas ten square miles is ten sections of land or one-tenth of the above.  The original Constitution of the Republic stated that only ten square miles or ten sections of land were allotted to the Federal Government.  Washington, D.C. is indeed ten times larger in area than it should be, but under the Corporate U.S. they can own everything, and they do, the entire nation!
                            In Love and Light,
                            Patrick H. Bellringer
#1  (Reply)
----- Original Message -----
From: st
Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 10:10 AM
Subject: [WETHEPEOPLE_UNITED] Re: 'HELLO, CENTRAL!' OBAMA'S ELIGIBILITY TO BE 'PRESIDENT!' by Patrick H. Bellringer / Re: You, too, can have your own Kenyan birth certificate!

well........ after takin' a major ear whippin' this week over this issue, here are some views that are on the flip side of this worn out record......

I still stand by my point, that this president is hiding his records....... WHY? It's a known fact that he is....

the Alex Koppelman article / s are always pointed towards anyone who dare question anything that this prez does or say's, as a right winged idiot..... If he really wants to prove this point maybe he should apply for a bc from Kenya to prove how easy it is..

this Patrick Bellringer article makes sense........ however, if this is the case, then how is it that we were able, up until the Police State that has been instituted after 9/11, to use the Constitution and Bill of Rights as a basis for Law ????? If this is totally true then we as a people have been slaves to the Corporation of DC since 1871... It doesn't seem to appear that way, however, after the Civil War, which was fought over States Rights and not slavery as histroy tries to make it out to be, is when there's this concept that the Federal government and it's laws and mandates supersede States Rights and Laws........ If this is the system, then it's all a fraud and we're no more then slaves to a system that surpasses that of the Soviets or China..... Now, if this is true, why destroy a good thing ???? Again, it makes sense but doesn't add up per the laws and cases that have been decided since...... One would think, that this would be known to all and not some big secret..... If this is the syste why would the Gov. of Califorina be the person saying we need to amend the Constitution so he can run for prez because he wasn't born in the States???.. Yet, he too is a citizen, which was used as a lame excuse of late..... Maybe someone should make Arnie aware of this so he can gear up and throw his hat in the ring for the next selection dog & pony show......

anyway, you all can relax for there appears to be not any merit behind the Kenyan birth certificate which I warned in the beginning to beware of.....