To: Concerned Americans
From: Team jbjd
Subject: Find Out Whether Barack Obama is a Natural Born Citizen as Required under Article II of the U.S. Constitution and Stop the Electoral College from Voting for Him, if He Is Not
Date: December 1, 2008
Introduction
By now, almost everyone paying attention to the election seems to know that under Article II of the U.S. Constitution, the President has to be a natural born citizen. But hardly anyone seems to know there is no provision in either federal or state law that says anyone, anywhere, has to check. That’s right. Nothing. Even so, voters in general have the right to express preference for a Presidential candidate without respect to qualifications for office. Of course, Electoral College voters must ensure he is at least Constitutionally eligible for the job.
Issue: Given that Article II of the U.S. Constitution says the President must be a natural born citizen, could Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and Chair of the 2008 Democratic National Convention have certified that Barack Obama was “duly nominated” as the Democratic Party’s candidate for POTUS; and could the Party chairs of the Democratic Party in all 50 states and the District of Columbia then have submitted his name to state officials, along with Ms. Pelosi’s certification, to be placed onto the general election ballots; and could state officials have placed his name on the ballot and then certified the final number of votes cast for him; and can he receive the requisite votes for POTUS from the Electoral College (”EC”) when it meets on December 15 and then on January 20, be sworn into office, all without being a natural born citizen?
Answer: Yes, absolutely; if the EC fails to stop him.
While the U.S. Constitution spells out in Article II that the President must be a natural born citizen – “natural born” and “citizen” are distinct qualifications – neither federal nor state law requires that any government actor must determine whether the candidate for POTUS satisfies these conditions. True, Ms. Pelosi’s signed a Certification of Nomination after the Democratic National Convention; but in this document, she only promised he is the Party’s nominee and not that he is Constitutionally eligible for the job. http://countusout.wordpress.com/2008/11/26/foia-request-response-from-va-document-from-va-sos-signed-by-nancy-pelosi-stating-that-pelosi-certified-obamas-qualifications/dnc-certification_of_nomination-082908-2/
In fact, throughout the entire election process, only one opportunity is prescribed in writing to confirm the candidate’s eligibility: when the state in which the candidate seeks to get onto the general election ballot has enacted both a law that says any candidate seeking to get onto the ballot in that state has to satisfy the requirements of the office sought; AND a law that provides for challenging the candidate’s eligibility under state law.
For example, here is the requirement to get onto the general election ballot in the State of GA, under the Official Code of GA Annotated (O.C.G.A.), §21-2-5, Qualifications of candidates for federal and state office; determination of qualifications. “Every candidate for federal and state office who is certified by the state executive committee of a political party … shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.” (Note: President, U.S. Senator, or U.S. Representative are federal offices.) This means that, according to GA law, when the state Party chair submits the Party nominee to the Secretary of State (“S of S”) to be put onto the general election ballot, that nominee must be eligible for the office sought. But there is no corresponding GA law that says the S of S receiving this paperwork from the state Party chair must verify this eligibility. Under that same law, the State of GA set up a mechanism by which voters may file a challenge with the S of S questioning the eligibility of a candidate to appear on the ballot; and for the S of S to initiate such a challenge on her own. “The Secretary of State upon his or her own motion may challenge the qualifications of any candidate at any time prior to the election of such candidate.” But again, the operative word here is “may.” In other words, even in a state like GA, one of the few states with laws that provide for a mechanism for voters to challenge a candidate’s eligibility to get onto the general election ballot, no law requires the state to investigate the candidate based on that challenge. (Notice that technically, even GA law does not confer power on the S of S to determine whether any candidate is eligible for the office sought but only to determine this: whether he is eligible by virtue of satisfying the requirements of the office sought to get onto the general election ballot.)
Documentary evidence establishes that Presidential candidate John McCain is a citizen. At the time of his birth, both of his biological parents were U.S. citizens and had lived in the U.S. for the requisite years past the age of majority to pass on their citizenship to their newborn son. (Plus, there is no indication he was subsequently adopted by a foreign national of a country that disallowed dual citizenship, which condition could have ended his American citizenship.) As to the issue of whether he is “natural born”…, there is speculation both ways. He was born on a military base in the Panama Canal Zone, where his father, a member of the armed services, was stationed at that time. While then officially a part of the Country of Panama, the Zone was administered by the U.S. Whether this set of circumstances satisfies the requirement of “natural born” which the drafters had in mind when they wrote the Constitution has never undergone judicial scrutiny. (Constitutional scholar Professor Larry Tribe of Harvard Law School, an advisor to Senator Obama who appeared in the candidate’s first TV spot of the 2008 Presidential campaign, in IA, has concluded McCain is natural born.)
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2007/06/26/2007-06-26_obama_lobs_ads_launches_tv_war.html
Some have charged that even if being born on the base would otherwise have made him a natural born citizen, he wasn’t actually born on the base but in another hospital outside of the U.S. Zone and so, while he is a citizen, he cannot be considered natural born. Confronted with these accusations, McCain voluntarily handed over his original long form birth certificate to Washington Post reporters whose investigation confirmed he had been born in the hospital on the base where his mother, still alive, said she gave birth.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/05/john_mccains_birthplace.html
On the other hand, nothing has been confirmed about the natural born status of Barack Obama.
As with John McCain, questions have also been raised as to whether Barack Obama is a natural born citizen. As previously stated, McCain responded to these questions by producing his long form birth certificate for the press, which investigators used to confirm his legal status. Here’s what Obama did last June to respond to questions as to his own eligibility: he posted on his web site, “Fight the Smears,” a copy of what his campaign called his “Birth Certificate,” which seemed to indicate he was born in HI. Further, they insisted this document put to rest once and for all questions as to whether he is a natural born citizen. In fact, it did no such thing.
http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate
Even assuming the document Obama posted is real; it is still not a “Birth Certificate,” anyway. Its title is “Certification of Live Birth.” (Yes; Annenberg Political FactCheck.org says it’s a real “Birth Certificate.” But keep in mind, Annenberg FactCheck is funded by the Annenberg Foundation, who employed Obama as the Chair of their Chicago Annenberg Challenge (“CAC”), selected by Bill Ayers for that position, where he doled out to community organizations the millions of dollars donated by the Foundation in a failed campaign to increase the test scores of Chicago public school students.) FYI, according to the government web site of the State of HI, officials there will accept a “Certificate of Live Birth” as primary evidence of, say, Hawaiian birth; but they will not accept a “Certification of Live Birth” without additional documentation.
http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl
Besides, even if it turns out Obama was born in HI, this does not resolve his natural born citizen status. What if he was adopted by Lolo Soetoro, the Indonesian national who married his mother; would that have made him a citizen of Indonesia? And, if he was a citizen of Indonesia, would this have terminated his status as a U.S. citizen? (Circumstantial evidence indicates at some point, Obama was a citizen of Indonesia. The AP printed a copy of his Indonesian grade school registration form, which listed his name as Barry Soetoro and his nationality as Indonesian. (His religion was listed as Islam). At that time, only Indonesian citizens could enroll in school. According to U.S. law, when it comes to dual citizenship, deference is given to the law of the foreign sovereign. This means that, if Indonesia did not recognize dual Indonesian/American citizenship at that time then, neither did the U.S. And Indonesia did not recognize dual citizenship. Also, regardless of the type of document his mother was able to obtain in HI to verify that, in fact, sometime within the past year, somewhere, this baby was born, alive; that original document would have been sealed when he was adopted by Mr. Soetoro, and a new document issued naming Lolo Soetoro as the birth father.)
Obama’s personal narrative includes the story that his mother left Indonesia and brought him back to HI at age 10 to live with her parents. Assuming at that time he passed through U.S. Immigration and Nationalization, he then became a naturalized citizen. Of course, naturalized citizens do not qualify for the job of POTUS. If he never passed through Customs, he could be an undocumented alien. (His personal narrative also includes the story that he traveled to Pakistan for 3 weeks while in college. Seeing the passport he used to re-enter the country might clear up the mystery of his citizenship once and for all.)
Of course, if he was born in Kenya – a paternal grandmother in Kenya claims to have been present at his birth there – then at no time would he have been a natural born citizen, since his mother had not satisfied the U.S. residency requirements after attaining the age of majority, to automatically pass on her citizenship status to her son.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Blogs/Message.aspx/3074
Then there is this entry from FactCheck.org on Obama’s web site, “Fight the Smears.”
When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.
http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate
Several researchers have concluded that regardless of any other considerations, the clear language and intention of the founders/drafters of the Constitution means, this ‘dual sovereign allegiance at birth’ kills any eligibility for POTUS under Article II. (Notwithstanding his pronouncement that McCain is eligible for POTUS; Professor Tribe has remained silent as to the eligibility status of his candidate, Obama.)
Bottom line, just because the Democratic Party nominated Barack Obama as their candidate for President; and just because the state chairs of the Democratic Party in all 50 states and the District of Columbia submitted his name to be placed on the general election ballot; and despite the fact that state officials in all 50 states and the District allowed his name onto the ballot and millions of voters cast their votes for him, this does not mean he is eligible to be President.
Of course, he is not the President; indeed, he is not even the President-elect.
Once the results of the state elections are certified by the appropriate state authorities in each state, the next step in the process of choosing a President is the vote by the Electoral College (“EC”) on December 15. And like every other deliberative body involved with this election, the EC is not legally obligated to determine the candidate’s eligibility, either. Under the United States Constitution and federal law, the electors may cast their votes for anyone they want. However, under the laws of a number of states, the electors in those states must pledge to cast their votes for the candidate who won the state’s Presidential election. And some states have enacted laws that require electors to honor their pledges or their parties. Yet, in the history of the EC, no “faithless elector” has ever been punished for voting for someone other than the Party candidate. But since electors are generally chosen by their respective Party based on criteria like Party loyalty and years of service, they rarely go against the will of the Party. On the other hand, the Presidential electors in each state are presumed to honor the conditions laid out in the U.S. Constitution.
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/laws.html
So, what would happen if the EC voted for him and then his ineligibility is confirmed? Under the 20th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the worst that would happen is that Vice President Elect Joe Biden would be sworn in as President on January 20. Then, he would choose a VP of his own, subject to Congressional approval. Of course, if EC voters receive information before December 15 that Obama is ineligible for the job, pledged or not, it is unimaginable they would still cast their votes for him. Only, how are they ever going to get this information?
Several citizens have already filed lawsuits in both federal and state court to address the issue of whether Barack Obama satisfies the Article II requirement that the President must be a natural born citizen. The stated goal in several of these suits is to get the court to compel state officials – usually, the S of S – to vet the candidate as to eligibility, by arguing such vetting is a requirement of the job. That is, having sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution these state officials must verify the candidate’s eligibility. However, while some state laws explicitly require the political party to submit only the names of eligible candidates for inclusion on the state’s general election ballot; as previously stated in this memo, no state law requires a state official to confirm the eligibility of the candidate the major political party submits. As such, most judges have already dismissed these suits, ruling that the nexus between swearing to uphold the Constitution and having to investigate a candidate’s eligibility for POTUS is too attenuated for the court to compel the specific performance sought in the suit.
Some of the lawsuits filed in state courts have also been dismissed for lack of standing. That is, the Plaintiff lacked the particularized interest in the case of, say, another candidate on the general election ballot. Able to circumvent this barrier to standing, Alan Keyes, former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. under President Reagan and candidate for POTUS under the American Independent Party filed a suit in CA attempting to prevent the Secretary of State from submitting California’s 55 electoral votes until Obama provides proof of his US citizenship.
http://urbanham.com/site/?p=256
The petition filed in August by Plaintiff Phil Berg, Attorney, in federal district court in PA is different. He asked the court merely to Declare whether Obama is a natural born citizen based on several documents he asked the court to order Obama to produce. He named as Defendants Obama, the DNC, and the FEC.
In Opposition to Berg’s Motion, Defendant Obama, joined by the DNC, insisted he does not have to produce evidence he is a natural born citizen. He pointed out that Mr. Berg is just one of millions of voters with no special interest in whether he is eligible. That is, as an individual citizen, he lacked standing to bring this action in the first place. Thus, under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, he had failed to present a “case or controversy” for consideration by the federal court. Justice Surrick agreed, granting Defendants’ Joint Motion to Dismiss. It is this ruling against Plaintiff’s Motion for Declarative Judgment on the basis he lacks standing that Berg has appealed up to the Supreme Court of the United States (“SCOTUS”), asking for Certiorari, meaning, an agreement to review the case. The SCOTUS has given Obama until December 1, 2008 to submit his arguments against Berg’s request for cert. But even if the court grants cert. AND rules in Berg’s favor on the issue of standing; the case will then be thrown back to the trial court for a new hearing, which could stall on deliberations over other procedural issues, without reaching the substantive issue of Obama’s eligibility for POTUS. In the meantime, the EC vote will already have taken place. Since they – like you – have no conclusive evidence Obama is not a natural born citizen, without demanding such proof, their vote for him is a fait accompli.
So, other than the EC, can anyone else prevent this from happening? Yes. You. You can bring the court case that will survive the challenge from Obama, the Plaintiff lacks standing.
Issue: Given that the President functions as Commander in Chief (“CIC”) of the armed services under the U.S. Constitution; that the CIC is authorized to order members of the armed services, including the national guard, into combat duty; that while serving combat duty such combatants may logically be required to inflict casualties on the enemy; and that causing the death of another under the color of law but not the rule of law could subject that combatant to criminal charges of murder and, on conviction, to execution for his crime; does a member of the military or national guard, currently deployed in or scheduled for deployment to a combat situation, have the particularized standing required by the federal court so as to create a case or controversy under Article III of the U.S. Constitution to successfully petition the federal court to examine whether Barack Obama is a natural born citizen and rule on his eligibility to be POTUS?
Answer: Yes.
The elements that would establish standing in federal court, and which Judge Surrick found missing in the Berg case; would be present in a case where the nexus between the injury that would likely result if Obama is not a natural born citizen is more direct. For example, if Obama is not a natural born citizen then he is legally ineligible to be POTUS. And that means any orders he issues under the color of law of POTUS lack the real authority of law. Commanding troops to go into combat where they will likely inflict casualties on the enemy, if illegal, thus exposes soldiers to the death penalty under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, merely for doing what they believed was their job. (Conversely, under the Code, questioning the legitimacy of the President to hold this position once he is in office subjects soldiers to discipline under “Contempt for Officials.”) This nexus between Obama’s ineligibility and the likely harm that would result establishes standing, in the eyes of the law.
Mr. Obama also pointed out to the court that alleging a violation of Article II “fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted because it fails to establish a cause of action.” Mr. Berg justified his presence before the court by citing the Declaratory Judgment Act. But as Obama successfully argued, this Act only affords a procedural remedy to an underlying cause of action. Thus, “a court must find an independent basis for jurisdiction.” And there is no federal cause of action under Article II. But he was wrong.
There certainly is a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for soldiers who would be compelled to engage in conduct that could result in execution, deprived of due process of law because their Commander in Chief is ineligible for office.
42 U.S.C. §1983 states
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or
usage of any State . . . , subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the
United States or any other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation
of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall
be liable to the party injured in an action at law …. “In order to bring action under §1983, one must allege that defendant violated plaintiff‘s constitutional rights and the deprivation must have been committed by a person acting under color of state law. Barna v. City of Perth Amboy, 42 F.3d 809, 816 (3rd Cir. 1994). Under the definition of acting under state law, the defendant in a §1983 action must have exercised power ”possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law.“ West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 49 ( 1988 ) (quoting U.S. v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, 326 (1941)).
And there’s a cause of action under that same law for all of the families of all of those members of the armed forces, including National Guard members who would be deprived of their loved ones under such a scheme.
The most obvious “person” subjecting Plaintiff(s) to this unlawful “deprivation” in a §1983 suit is the S of S in Plaintiff’s state. But Defendants could also include Barack Obama; Nancy Pelosi; the DNC; and the state Party chair, since all of these people were inextricably bound up in the governmental function of carrying out the election to be deemed state actors in this enterprise.
In conclusion, no one has verified candidate for POTUS Barack Obama is a natural born citizen as required by the U.S. Constitution, notwithstanding the EC is poised to cast their votes for him on December 15. Unless someone produces documentary evidence establishing he was born in Kenya, the only forum to conclusively decide his legal status lies in federal court. This means filing a suit that would survive a challenge to standing. Given the recent pronouncements by the court in the several cases pending, among the Plaintiffs who could establish standing necessary to force this inquiry are members of the military or National Guard scheduled for deployment or about to be scheduled for deployment to a combat zone; and members of their families.
Saturday, 15 November 2008 at 14:31 |
He was born in Kenya. Bet on it.
Saturday, 15 November 2008 at 14:56 |
Great job. Sounds accurate. Hopefully, some action will be taken on this.
Saturday, 15 November 2008 at 15:29 |
Unavoidable scenario: If SCOTUS disqualifies Obama BEFORE 1/20/09 inauguration, McCain is POTUS per remaining electoral college electors; if SCOTUS disqualifies Obama after 1/20/09 inauguration, Hillary likely becomes POTUS per vote of Dem controlled House of Rep. Either way, is clear Obama will NOT be or remain POTUS.
Saturday, 15 November 2008 at 17:20 |
excellent, I personally think the little son of a bitch was born in Kenya far away from a Hawaii hospital.
I am further astonished that Obama had the nerve to say he didn’t have to prove he is natural born and that millions don’t care. If he was a citizen he would have produced proof. He’s a fraud,
Saturday, 15 November 2008 at 22:05 |
Hey Barack…..Who’s your Daddy ??
Please don’t take me wrong on this subject. I definitely want to be sure that Senator Barack Hussein Obama is in fact a natural born citizen of the United States or not. That is the only issue here.
If he was born in the British East African Protectorate of Kenya and his mother came back to Hawaii as soon as she could so as to register his birth in Hawaii, why would she have admitted that his place of birth was Kenya.
She recognized the benefit of being a United States citizen, not because she thought he would become President some day, but just because it’s better to a citizen of the United States than a citizen of Kenya.
So what we really need are the birth records from Kenya and the archives from the British East African Protectorate of Kenya, which I believe are located in London England. Those records, if they actually exist will show Senator Barack Hussein Obama as being born in Kenya and therefore not eligible to become POTUS.
This could open up a whole new can of worms for Senator Barack Hussein Obama since there is apparently no record of him becoming a naturalized citizen. He would then be considered an illegal alien and subject to deportation.
If we could determine whether or not Stanley Ann Dunham Obama even held a passport in 1961, that could give us clue as to which course of action we should pursue. If she did not have a passport, then she never went to Kenya in 1961.
“Passport records dated after March 31, 1925, remain in the custody of the Department of State, Passport Services. These records normally consist of applications for U. S. passports and supporting evidence of U. S citizenship, and are protected by the Privacy Act. Passport records do not include evidence of travel such as entrance/exit stamps, visas, residence permits, etc., since this information is entered into the passport book after issuance.”
So that brings us to the question of why is Senator Barack Hussein Obama so adamant about not releasing his actual vault birth certificate. There must be something that would have caused him great harm prior to the election, and would have stopped him from becoming elected.
What could that little piece of information be?
Could it be that his father, as listed on the actual birth records, is not Barack Hussein Obama Sr.? Could it be that another man is actually his father?
That would have been embarrassing before the election, but not a game changer.
However, what if the name listed is El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz, formerly known as Malcolm Little, aka Malcolm X ? Or how about the Radical Communist Frank Marshall Davis ?
If either of these two men are indicated as the father on the actual birth certificate, and he was born in Hawaii, then he is eligible to be POTUS.
However if this information had come out prior to the election, or prior to the primaries, we would have a different President Elect right now, possibly Hillary Clinton.
So what happens now? If any of the lawsuits are successful and Senator Barack Hussein Obama is required to produce his actual birth certificate for inspection, a deal will be made. A private meeting between the Supreme Court Justices, an independent forensic inspector, Senator Barack Hussein Obama, and his attorneys will review the document and certify that he is in fact a natural born citizen of the United States. No further information will be released and “We the People” will be forever kept in the dark.
We will have a president who got elected on a lie, using 650 million dollars of questionable origins, and who has a background of shady acquaintances.
God help us and God help the USA.
Saturday, 15 November 2008 at 23:14 |
IF he was born in Hawaii and IF he is legit, why would a Harvard Graduate allow this entire scenario to drag on and on? An Educated man with nothing to hide would have proven himself, TO AMERICA, to be qualified long ago.
Hence, his qualification is undoubtedly in question and he only has himself to blame. This act of thinking he doesn’t have to prove it, claiming that he already has, is nothing more than a childish act of deceit.
Saturday, 15 November 2008 at 23:22 |
You people are nuts. Obama is right – the burden of proof is on the one who brought the suit, not on him. If I said “John McCain is a traitor” (which I am NOT saying) it would be up to me to PROVE it. Berg’s application was thrown out partly because he has no standing, and partly because he had NO supporting evidence. NONE. If he had, he would have shown it to every news organization on the planet. There is no evidence. If there were, McCain would have used it AND McCain would actually have standing to bring it to court. You are all delusional. Get used to saying “President Obama” because your fantasy is nothing more than a neo-Nazi wet dream.
Saturday, 15 November 2008 at 23:58 |
Chief Ross – he didn’t allow it to go on. His birth certificate is posted on his website.
Sunday, 16 November 2008 at 00:12 |
“Sane Person” – Claiming someone is a traitor is totally different than asking Obama to prove that he is qualified to be POTUS. If you apply for a job, you are required to show your qualifications and that is all that this lawsuit is asking for. It is not accusing him of anything, which your example is. Further, McCain was afraid to make it an issue since he had some questions surrounding his citizenship as well. If Obama is a natural born citizen, there should be no problem with proving. it. I could prove my citizenship and would be happy to do it if asked.
Sunday, 16 November 2008 at 00:34 |
I will repost this in all blogs that I can~ I know there is an USAF-R that filed suit in NC~ so this would apply to him since he is military? even if retired? ok, time to get this viral people!!! start posting everywhere~ and it may be a good idea for this to be put as a narrated you tube~ we must think of all options to spread the word!
Sunday, 16 November 2008 at 00:35 |
What am I supposed to do? Am I asked to find soldiers willing to file a class action lawsuit? The article sort of hints at it but doesn’t come right out and say it.
Sunday, 16 November 2008 at 00:40 |
He showed his qualifications. There is a photocopy on his website. But the person launching the lawsuit *isn’t* the one hiring him. Berg has no standing – he is not the employer.
Sunday, 16 November 2008 at 01:06 |
I stll can’t believe that the MSM is not reporting any of this which really sucks!! I also can’t belive all of the people that don’t have a clue that he has not proved (showing the real “Vault” copy) to the US that he is a real citizen of the US and if they do know abuout the issue they keep telling us to check it out on his website or the bogus internet. I’ve done my homework….
Sunday, 16 November 2008 at 01:31 |
Here comes the burden of proof argument.
Berg: Ok, proove you are qualified to be POTUS
Obama: Here’s my certificate of live birth
Berg: Not good enough, I need more
Obama: Ok, here’s the State of Hawaii saying my birth certificate is legit
Berg: I don’t believe them. PROOVE you are qualified
This is what has happened. The burden of proof is now on berg to DISPROOVE obama’s COLB and the Hawaii official statement. You can’t continually insist on prooving your proof over and over again.
Sunday, 16 November 2008 at 01:53 |
No, BHO has not proven he is a natural born citizen. For those that ‘must’ ignore the legalities of what his certification shows, there is no help. But all Hawaii stated was that they have a certificate on file. That certificate can show him being born in another country. Hawaii has never stated that he IS a natural born citizen of that state. Or the US.
A vault copy is what is needed to prove where he was born. When he produces that, and it is certified that it is valid, and IF it shows he was born IN Hawaii (even though there are NO records showing his mother was ever in either of the hospitals on the island) – then he will have proven he is a US citizen.
Until that day, everything he does will be subject to civil unrest in this country.
Sunday, 16 November 2008 at 02:06 |
I think that he was not born a U.S. citizen …I think, just my opinion, That is why he won’t hand over his information from where he went to collage, was it Columbia?…I think when he went he went as a a foreign exchange student from Kenya and it would be on the papers.
He was adopted by an Indonesian, went to school as a child to a school where you had to be Indonesian to get in, it was a time of war, he used it to get in collage… How hard is it to get in that school? Could of an exchange student got in easier?
just my opinion…could be why though…
Sunday, 16 November 2008 at 02:40 |
Man you people are absolutely insane. Whatever you are on, up the dosage. I cannot believe this empty argument is still going on. Like a bunch of half-wit losers blogging crap on the internet all day know more than the entirety of the United States government and every agency that would be looking into Obama and his eligibility. Can one of you mental giants explain why the RNC, FBI or any actual organization with even a shred of credibility (and I am being generous including the RNC in that list) has not come forward with ANYTHING substantive?
Now while you sit at home masturbating to Rush Limbaugh and Berg keep repeating this same phrase… President Barack Obama… as you will be hearing it for YEARS.
Sunday, 16 November 2008 at 02:48 |
Sorry bunch, why are you attacking us instead of addressing the issue re Obama?
Sunday, 16 November 2008 at 02:53 |
You people are pathetic. Obama is president, period. Stop crying about it and get back to flippin’ those burgers. Oh, and WodieJ, you’re a real hero for referring to our president as a “little son of a bitch” while sitting there in your parent’s basement. Punk.
Sunday, 16 November 2008 at 02:58 |
Ummmm… because there is no issue beyond the rantings of a small group of malcontents who seem to want to completely ignore logical reasoning?
Again I ask the same question. Why has no credible group, agency or party come forward with any form of credible evidence? Citing Berg is laughable since he was the same whack job who filed suit against Bush claiming that the 9/11 attacks were an inside job. And you guys are latching onto him as though his word is gospel?
Sunday, 16 November 2008 at 02:59 |
To Brian C.
You conveniently forgot something in you timeline.
Mr. Berg made his argument in the court.
Obama has responded, as you say outside of the courts.
You can put forth anything you want and declare it anyway you want.
HOWEVER, doing it in the court is VERY different.
All Obama declarations have come OUTSIDE of the court, where he can claim whatever he wants to claim.
The only official claim he has made in court is that Mr. Berg does not have standing.
He HAS NOT offered ANY documentation for the court to verify. Including a notarized official statements from Hawaiian officials.
In fact, everyone that have followed these cases are waiting for submission of any documents to the court, besides filing of motions to dismiss the case.
As for COLB, the fact of matter is that a COLB is done AFTER the actual birth.
Never mind that to offer such an evidence in form of a jpg file on a website is ridiculous, to start with. And demanding that such an action be taken as positive proof is idiotic, at best.
The main point by those of us that question Obama’s qualification to be POTUS is as simple as, IF YOU’RE QUALIFIED, WHY DON’T PRODUCE THE PROPER PAPERWORK TO THE COURT FOR VERIFICATION???
Obama has done EVERYTHING but that.
Sunday, 16 November 2008 at 03:30 |
Ladies and Gentlemen: Senator Barack Hussein Obama will, if sworn in, become the Commander-In-Chief of ALL Military and Civilian FORCES throughout the World of the United States. Each member of those forces, for security Clearances must undergo a FULL BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION or they cannot receive even low level security clearances with the PRESIDENTIAL EYES ONLY being far above Top Secret.
Senator OBAMA as President Elect has been challenged in several cases which seek to show clearly the Birth was in Kenya and none of his family members were on Orders from the U.S. Government so he cannot become the PRESIDENT. Sadly this FRAUD and possibly perjury will reach out to ALL MEMBERS OF HIS FAMILY AND FRIENDS. The other sad part is of the $650 Million Dollars received by his Campaign, perhaps virtually NONE will remain for the NEXT person should another election be called PLUS the donors are SECRET and perhaps FOREIGN NATIONALS have given him sums of money OR received SUMS OF MONEY FROM THOSE DONATIONS which violate laws again.
I have sent a SIGNED LETTER TO THE PRESIDENT, FBI, SECRET SERVICE and members of Congress asking for a FULL AND COMPLETE INVESTIGATION AND BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION giving them perhaps the 48 HOURS needed to confirm with the Ambassador for the United States in KENYA plus Customs and Immigration Official records and Flight RECORDS OR LOGS that Senator Obama was BORN IN KENYA AND ARRIVED AS AN INFANT WITH HIS MOTHER FROM KENYA. Such would cinch the U.S. Supreme Court and FBI OR PRESIDENT INTO ACTION to protect this great Nation from FRAUD AND PERJURY. Next question will be WHO WILL MAKE LAWS GETTING EVERYONE IN CITY, COUNTY, STATE, FEDERAL APPOINTMENTS BE SUBJECT TO BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS AND PROOF OF BIRTH BEFORE AMERICA GETS TAKEN OVER BY FOREIGNERS ?
Thank you for your time and for reading this post. IT IS NOT OVER YET !
I have ASKED for the President to take Senator Obama and his entire FAMILY into protective custody immediately PLUS charges should be filed for felonies known and unknown at a later date but the KIDS will be safe !
R. C. W., Sr.
A Decorated American Veteran
Tampa, Florida 33609-2042
111508 22:34 HRS or 111608 -03:34 HRS GMT/UCT/ZULU
Sunday, 16 November 2008 at 03:32 |
Obama has admitted his duel citizenship on his own website. That alone means is CAN NOT be president.
Sunday, 16 November 2008 at 12:50 |
Consider the following case note from the Yale Law Journal: http://yalelawjournal.org/images/pdfs/pryor_note.pdf
The note was published in 1988, and thus the author did not have any motivation to mold and shape her arguments or conclusions to benefit the candidacy of Barack Obama.
According to the author, the issue of whether a person born of one American and one alien parent qualifies as “natural born” has never been resolved. In a related footnote (number 5), the author considers the question of whether it matters which parent (Mom or Dad) is the American, and which is the alien parent, suggesting an answer that may not be pleasing to “the One”:
“Whether, in cases of one citizen and one alien parent, the father or the mother is the alien might also affect natural born citizen status since, under American naturalization statutes in effect around the time of the Constitutional Convention, the citizenship of the child depended on the citizenship and residency of the father. See Act of Mar. 26, 1790, 1 Stat. 103, 104. The American naturalization acts were based on earlier British statutes. See, e.g., An act … For naturalizing … the children of natural born subjects of the crown, 4 Geo. 2, ch. 21 (1731). The Supreme Court in Montana v. Kennedy concluded that the Naturalization Act of 1802, the controlling statute at the time of the petitioner’s birth, made children born abroad citizens only if their fathers were or had been citizens. Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S. 308, 310-11 (1961). Until 1934, citizenship of the mother could not be passed on to her foreign-born children. See Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815, 826 (1971).
Sunday, 16 November 2008 at 19:17 |
Obama’s Mother Fraud on Obama’s Birth Documents
http://obambi.wordpress.com/2008/11/16/frauddocs/
Sunday, 16 November 2008 at 19:22 |
I saw this article yesterday and voted on it. Seems with all of the lawsuits Obamabots are working full time to ensure the “ONE” is never vetted properly.
I am adding your site to my blog list. Thanks.
Sunday, 16 November 2008 at 20:38 |
I’m posting this on several blogs today to see if I can encourage some “viral” email and posting activity and to encourage some people to send something like this to their local newspapers.
I am repeatedly amazed, stunned, and frankly staggered, at the unwillingness of my Democrat acquaintances and correspondents to face this issue. The outcome for them could be particularly bad. It seems to me that the rational course of action under such extreme circumstances is to engage in Risk Mitigation.
It is a fact that Obama has yet to provide the necessary documents showing his eligibility for President. Millions of people in the US know this. The military knows this. Foreigners, even heads of state know this. In particular, if Obama is NOT a US citizen, the country of which he IS a citizen knows this for sure. And would be in a position to perpetrate great harm to Obama and to the US.
The rational and intelligent approach would be to get this resolved. Seriously, if this were happening to my preferred candidate, I would be screaming the loudest. If I believed in my candidate I would want this cleared up NOW to prevent unrest domestically or internationally. If there were the slightest doubt, the sooner we know the truth the better. The truth (whatever it may be) cannot be hidden for ever. The truth WILL out. It is just a matter of timing.
The time is NOW – this will not get better later. The problem is not lessened, but worsened, by the Electoral College meeting in December and formalizing his election. The problem is not lessened, but worsened, by the Inauguration in January. No treaty will be safe if there is doubt about the constitutionality of our president. No executive order or signed law will have any power. The military is sworn to protect the constitution, not the president. What will they do (what MUST they do) if eligibility and constitutionality are still at issue?
Do you have any idea of the ENORMITY of the problems if Obama is indeed not constitutionally eligible?
And, this is NOT brain surgery or rocket science. This is easily resolved. Please, regardless of your emotions and affiliation, do every thing you can to get this problem resolved. Simply raise a public outcry that Obama must provide the same records that every other presidential candidate has provided. Question why he has not done this so far and why he continues to refuse and to throw dozens of lawyers into the gears to prevent this disclosure from happening.
America – what is going on?
Sunday, 16 November 2008 at 20:39 |
The location of Obama’s birth is actually irrelevant, whether he was born in Hawaii or Kenya. The fact is that his father was a British citizen at the time of Obama’s birth (who became a Kenyan citizen after Kenya’s independence) and, according to the laws at the time, acquired the citizenship of his father. This makes Obama essentially a dual citizen of both the UK (becoming Kenyan later on) and the US. Even Obama’s Fight the Smears website admits this. Being a dual citizen at birth does not make him a “natural born” citizen of the US. If people want to insist that having a mother who is a US citizen (even though she was underaged) entitles Obama to be considered a natural born US citizen, then Kenya has every right to insist that Obama was also a natural born Kenyan citizen due to his paternity. How can one be a natural born citizen of two countries then? This issue of divided loyalties is really the heart of the argument against considering dual citizens as natural born citizens of any country.
Sunday, 16 November 2008 at 21:50 |
Obamshoud have a very easy way out of this mess by showing a minimum documentation.
He refuses to do his duty.
There is only one possible reason : he cannot.
Sunday, 16 November 2008 at 22:55 |
Although Congress in 1975 passed a law creating
the Federal Election Commission “to oversee the
proper funding of political campaigns,” it is true that NO GOVERNMENT AGENCY HAS THE DUTY OR AUTHORITY TO REVIEW AND CERTIFY THE “ELIGIBILITY” OF PRESIDENTIAL/VICE-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES…THIS INCLUDES THE FEC!!! THE FEC DENIED THIS DUTY IN ITS ANSWER IN THE BERG V. OBAMA LAWSUIT, NOW ON APPEAL BEFORE THE U.S. SUPREME COURT. IT IS AN EMBARRASSING OVERSIGHT BY OUR CONGRESS…SINCE 1789, NO LESS.
WE DO, INDEED, HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS! EVERY CITIZEN MUST ACT
TO SEE THAT OUR U.S. CONSTITUTION IS FOLLOWED. U.S. PUBLIC OFFICIALS
AND U.S. MILITARY PERSONNEL SWEAR TO SUPPORT THE U.S. CONSTITUTION
AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC.
Sunday, 16 November 2008 at 23:54 |
Hold on just a minute boys and girls.John and hillary both knew he was not a naturalborn citizen and did nothing about it, absolutely nothing. Everybody knows the “one” only beat hillary because of the caucus states.She was robbed of the primary in the caucs states. I think the results of the dem primary were already determined before the primary began. Nobody said anything because he was Black.They knew that whoever complained was going to be labeled a racist. The result of the general election was determined as soon as paulson screamed “Bailout needed” just a few weeks before the general election. Mccain was ahead before paulson proclaimed “monetary emergency”.
Nobody had the Balls to make an issue of citizenship because again they feared the racist label.
Now we have the same problem again. None of the judges want to touch it with a 10 ft pole. My gut feeling is that he is going to pull this scam off
because he is black. If a white man had the same problem the streets would be burning.
Sunday, 16 November 2008 at 23:54 |
Reply to John 11/18/08 @10:55 pm:
Below is the link to the lawsuit for Writ of Mandate filed by Alan Keyes in California where he has ’standing’ as he was on the ballot as the Presidential nominee with the American Independent Party (I believe it is called). He alleges it is incumbent — under California election law — on the Secretary of State to verify the eligibility of candidates for whom electors are to vote. His arguments on the state level seem compelliing to me — a non-attorney.
LINK REMOVED BY ADMINISTRATOR: John, the Keyes case is an example of the type of legal action mentioned in the memo, wherein the Plaintiff attempts to persuade the state court to compel a specific performance by a state official, namely, vetting the candidate as to natural born citizenship status; notwithstanding such performance is not prescribed with particularity under state law.
Monday, 17 November 2008 at 00:36 |
To the administrator:
I did not realize this web site was not a forum within which to exchange information and ideas regarding the Constitutional crisis we face.
Certainly the other lawsuits filed by Berg and Donofrio and the assertions contained therein are freely discussed and analyzed in the postings above.
If John is interested in the Keyes case it can easily be found on the Internet.
RJ: This topic specifically deals with attempts to secure standing in federal court, which jurisdiction provides the only forum for a comprehensive analysis of whether Obama is a natural born citizen. In addition to proposing a mechanism to pierce the standing barrier, the memo also describes failed attempts in state court to force a full vetting; and the reasons these efforts have been unsuccessful. This is our attempt to focus on what will work, and not to expend energies on what won’t. ADMINISTRATOR
Monday, 17 November 2008 at 07:43 |
Insane Person;
The scan of a COLB printout on a modern computer is NOT the document wanted. Besides which, the scan itself is probably a pastiche of his sister’s and/or other douments.
With Obama, you can be sure that nothing he says is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Always.
Monday, 17 November 2008 at 14:33 |
Please continue this discovery. The importance of preventing this type of constitutional reach is incalculable.
Monday, 17 November 2008 at 16:15 |
What is really strange to me is that the people who want to work for Obama have to answer 7 pages of questions that pertain to the person and just about everyone else the person knows. However, he won’t answer anything because he is the one–horse crap. He is not my president, and he certainly is not the one. He wouldn’t be able to be in the FBI or Secret Service just because of the people he as associated with his whole life. He is such a fraud and is going to ruin this country, and I truly believe we are all going to be little socialists who bow down to Obama. Not in this life.
Monday, 17 November 2008 at 16:25 |
to billie nellie
You are right, unless the judge is black too (Clarence Thomas)
Or the law suit is filed by a black person (Alan Keyes)
And the true racism is that we have to think that way, that any move by a non-black person is worthless.
Monday, 17 November 2008 at 17:16 |
‘Sorry Bunch’, agitprop volunteer for the criminal enterprise DNC, posted: “Like a bunch of half-wit losers blogging crap on the internet all day know more than the entirety of the United States government and every agency that would be looking into Obama and his eligibility. Can one of you mental giants explain why the RNC, FBI or any actual organization with even a shred of credibility (and I am being generous including the RNC in that list) has not come forward with ANYTHING substantive?”
This is a typical DNC operative approach to try and accomplish two goals, and it is specious from the outset because it demands someone prove a negative, rather than recognizing that Obama is being hired by We The People, so he must prove he is in fact Constitutionally eligible:
1) make those opposing the candidate based on his lack of Constitutional eligibility appear to be raving loons … since when is demanding someone follow the Constitutional a loony thing?
2) paint the issue to appear that government officials have actually been on the job verifying eligibility … and of course, had the DNC actually done this in the primaries or the Rodham Rodent challenged in the primaries, they would be able to post the long form actual record of birth, which they cannot since they have no such documentation.
Bottom line: agents provocateur like this nasty mouth DNC fool will continue to try and squelch enquiry because Barack Obama cannot and will not produce proof of eligibility to meet Constitutional/legal standards. The Obama criminal enterprise is arranging things to extort power by growing the threat of violence from Obama sycophants if he is challenged and removed from candidacy. Obama’s chosen candidate in Kenya used the same methodology to gain power sharing in Kenya after he lost that election. Violence and riot are the natural tools of criminal souls like Obama and Raila Odinga.
There is only one way top deal with agents like ‘Sorry’, ignore the nasty mouthed obamatrons and continue to demand this little Chicago crime-squirrel show absolute proof of Constitutionally defined eligibility.
Monday, 17 November 2008 at 19:38 |
Interestingly enough, the birth Certificate posted and said to be authentic clearly states he is African…..Humm, in the 60’s it would have listed Negro or Black.
The terminology African American didn’t come about until quite a few years later and all the Civil Rights Movements.
Maybe they were just Way Forward Thinkers that filled this one out or maybe it is the biggest Split Up Ever in a Forged Document?
Tuesday, 18 November 2008 at 00:33 |
If Obama were born in Kenya, I believe his mother would have to notify the US Embassy, and have him named in her passport in order to bring him to the USA, as I and many other mothers have done with our children when travelling abroad in the seventies and eighties. Therefore records should exist in the US State Department.
Similarly the British FCO should have something on children born to foreign nationals such as Stanley Ann Dunham and definitely on children born to local troublemakers such as Obama’s alleged father who tried to turn Kenya over to the Soviets.
This whole scenario is so bizarre I sometimes wonder if we’re being held hostage or blackmailed/threatened. The image of the Pretender with the bona fide Hero on two “throne” like chairs was a mega turn off. Obama and cohorts seem to “own” everyone or is McCain trying to be a good loser and honor the Office of the Presidency?
Voting “Present” so frequently in the US Senate is a declaration of contempt in the Marxist handbook and a violation of our democratic right to speak and vote on our laws through our representatives.
Any proof of his graduation from Harvard, Columbia, Occidental? He couldn’t qualify as lecturer in U Chicago but was given a room, blackboard, and salary from private funds.
This man is a Manchurian candidate, probably one of a number selected and groomed via Affirmative Action and the intellectual left, but the one chosen for today. He has had a free ride all the way through to the hijacked election.
It is imperative for our National Security that Obama’s foreign donors be identified.
Again, why isn’t this being done, or is it?
Tuesday, 18 November 2008 at 00:34 |
[...] Find out Whether Barack Obama is a Natural Born Citizen As Required Under Article Ii of the U.S. Co… To: Concerned Americans From: Team jbjd Subject: How One Courageous Soldier Can Find Out Whether Barack Obama is a [...] [...]
Tuesday, 18 November 2008 at 01:24 |
Excellent post.
I know this was taken down from RCP. Not sure What Obama is hiding but it is something.
My belief is that the vault version will reveal Obama as a fraud. I think it will show a late registration. The probable cause of the late registration is that Obama was born out of country. His mother returned to Hawaii immediately after the foreign birth (maybe within three or four days) and registered late and had witnesses stating Obama was born with a midwife at the home.
No Obama’s mother was not thinking of the Presidency. She was thinking of the rights all Americans have. American citizens are entitled to more than legal aliens. Hopefully the Supreme Court enforces verification of citizenship.
Tuesday, 18 November 2008 at 05:45 |
Let’s see what happens in the Martin case set for hearing tomorrow Nov.18 in Hawaii seeking an order from the court for the Hawaii Department of Health to produce the long version of Obama’s birth certificate.
The Keyes case probably has the best shot at getting somewhere for several reasons. One is that the attorney handling it, Gary Kreep is an excellent attorney. Many of the other State lawsuits were filed by non-attorneys and they do not have the finances of the Independent Party to serve all of the parties and then do the necessary discovery which will cost a fair amount of money.
There are now two case in front of the SC but the Berg case will likely go no where. People are expecting some kind of hearing on Dec. 1, but it will likely be a confirmation the SC is not taking the case.
But with upwards of 15 lawsuits filed around the country the SC may take it up.
Tuesday, 18 November 2008 at 08:44 |
Hey, TROLLS…If your lying cheating boss was legit,..he’d show the document. What’s the big deal? Hand it over. He WILL go down BIG TIME in a hailstorm of shame and embarrassment because he’s NOT ELIGIBLE. Do you think that a bunch of little trolls blogging in their parent’s basements scare us? You will have to pry our First Amendment rights out of our cold, dead hands. Why don’t you go out, get a real job, and leave us adults to fix America? Clearly you’re too uninformed to know what you voted for. A FRAUD. He WILL get busted and God bless EVERYONE who is putting up the fight to keep the most dangerous CRIMINAL in America’s history out of the White House. He should be deported, not rewarded for his lies.
BUH BYE TROLLS: I admire your passion; but performed a little clean up on the words. ADMINISTRATOR
Tuesday, 18 November 2008 at 16:31 |
Many lawsuits is a good thing, but I wish all these people filing lawsuits would compare notes, and find out the one way that they could provide standing. Seems to me someone from the military getting ready to be deployed is our best bet. Is there anyone out there you have heard about in the military going to be doing this?
Tuesday, 18 November 2008 at 16:35 |
Trust me, if BHO does produce the “vault copy” of the birth certificate, there will be those claiming it a forgery and the result of vast conspiracy. That is how these things work.
Tuesday, 18 November 2008 at 18:26 |
Like any Crimnal Trial – If you are Guilty as Charged – your best to not offer any of your own Testmony – DO NOT TAKE THE STAND – Perhaps the actions lately are BHO’s way of responding – “Present” …. When Guilty as Charged … you hope your surroguts can keep you free from discovery !
My personal ‘Big Picture’ beliefs, as we see Clinton people being appointed, is that The Clinton Machine has the facts, knowledge and grip on BHO’s xxx already – Likely, this was a longstanding plan to allow the
Voting efforts to compel a Democrate Winner in BHO, allowing HRClinton to become POTUS … where do you think all the money has come from – not from poor blacks as advertised. We are all the butt of this coming Joke.
Tuesday, 18 November 2008 at 19:04 |
We must enact the grass roots effort to post, attach and ‘paint’ the demand for * Obama Truth – Birth Cert Proof * – talk it, text it, sign it, cheap ads in local papers – cause the interest to grow – cause people to care and notice … DO YOU CARE ? Expand the dual citizenship argument too. * Do we not remember – Sarah’s son is just being deployed … what better Patriot to Kick-butt in Washington, DC !!!!! She would equal, no, excede her earlier Alaska election Maverick Status – The President Candidate from No Where … The Presidential Innuageration to No Where!
No doubt, this could even be a ‘Harvard Law School’ – Joke – to dmonstrate perversion of the U S Constitution – to show a weakness
never resolved to date … what if, what up with that … no joke.
Tuesday, 18 November 2008 at 22:52 |
This takes the cake. I have never heard this “story” before today 11/18/08. Don’t you people think the FBI and the CIA have investigated Obama’s background? Let’s face it. Most of the people (in very high secret places) that didn’t what him to become president would have dragged this information into the light before election day. What is this? It sounds like some white supremacist bull. Why is it so bad to have a black man as president? I just can’t get over the prejudice this country still has. I’m just glad it was this black man instead of Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton.
Diane: To which “story” are you referring? On what basis do you assume either the FBI or the CIA could have initiated or conducted an investigation to determine whether Obama is a natural born citizen? And, if people in “very high secret places” had information establishing he is not then, perhaps the reason they are withholding this information is that, contrary to your hypothesis, they actually want him to be POTUS. Finally, while you presume that concerns whether the Constitution is being followed equals racism, you fail to offer any causality. On the other hand, expressing relief the black man who could be President is Obama and not Jackson or Sharpton evidences another form of racism: better a foreign black than a domestic. ADMINISTRATOR
Wednesday, 19 November 2008 at 00:32 |
“The acorn doesn’t fall very far from the tree.”
Wednesday, 19 November 2008 at 01:44 |
Just a thought…..If Obama is found not to be a citizen will Biden really be the POTUS? (that’s scary)
Thursday, 20 November 2008 at 01:12 |
Well that would automatically disqualify BO wouldn’t it and put McCain in his place?
Thursday, 20 November 2008 at 19:09 |
What Happens if Obama is Declared Ineligible to be President….
http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=1037
Friday, 21 November 2008 at 19:12 |
LINK TO PETITION REQUIRING OBAMA TO PROVIDE PROOF. IF YOU WISH, SIGN AND PASS IT ON TO ALL YOUR EMAIL FRIENDS.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81550
Saturday, 22 November 2008 at 08:05 |
with all the controversy about his Birth Certificate, he should be made to show it. If John McCain did then he ought to also.
Sunday, 23 November 2008 at 04:47 |
The Director of the Hawaii State Health Department and the Registrar of Vital Records for the State of Hawaii have publically stated that Obama’s birth certificate is authentic and on file. The information on the Certification of Live Birth that has been posted on the web since June is taken directly from the vault copy birth certificate.
http://www.kitv.com/politics/17860890/detail.html?rss=hon&psp=news
JamesE: Become a more discerning reader when it comes to anything related to Obama. The opening salvo of your linked article reads, “The state’s Department of Health director on Friday released a statement verifying the legitimacy of Sen. Barack Obama birth certificate.” This merely gives us the opinion of the writer. Now, let’s examine the quote on which, presumably, he based his conclusion.
“Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures,” Fukino said.
Note that Ms. Fukino refers to whatever document she holds as a ‘birth certificate,’ while official HI documents related to birth would be either a “Certificate of Live Birth,” issued by the hospital in which a child is born; or a “Certification of Live Birth,” issued to confirm a baby was born, alive, somewhere in HI, within the past year. And, notice that while she states the document is the original on record, this only means, it is the only original she has on record, whatever it is. Also, while attributing the document is related to Senator Obama, she fails to identify the name that appears on his original document. Or confirm the name that appears on this original document is Barack Obama. Or whether Barack Obama, Sr., is listed as his birth father, making the son a subject of the British crown and ineligible for POTUS as having dual nationality at birth. Or whether a subsequent ‘original’ document was issued, showing the name of the birth father as Lolo Soetoro, indicating his Indonesian adoption, thus making him ineligible for POTUS as having Indonesian nationality upon adoption, thus severing his U.S. citizenship. (At best, this makes him a naturalized citizen. At worst, he is an undocumented alien.)
As you can see, despite writing this article, this reporter fails to provide us with any conclusive information that would aid our analysis as to whether Barack Obama is a natural born citizen under the U.S. Constitution and thus eligible for POTUS. And, as a lay person, you have (presumably unintentionally) compounded his mistake.
ADMINISTRATOR
Sunday, 23 November 2008 at 07:36 |
The “Real ID Act” signed by Congress in 2005, requires that
every “Citizen” must provide a copy of Birth Certificate, S.S.#,
and citizenship status. It was supposed to take effect in all 50 States by May 2008, by all DMV.
If Obama has, or, renews his drivers license he must comply.
What about FOIA on Obama’s Children? Their BC would have to show the “Parent’s” info!
Real ID Act………. I think it keep’s getting pushed out..Dan
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,249900,00.html
http://epic.org/privacy/id-cards/real_id_act.pdf
Sunday, 23 November 2008 at 07:55 |
“Searching for a Exact Date”
I have been “Searching” for the EXACT DATE when Stanley Ann Dunham, or her Parent’s, became Resident’s of Hawaii. So far, I have only been able to find that she Graduated High School from Mercer Island, WA in 1960. I’ve read that she was not to Happy to go Hawaii. If Ann was registered to go to the University of Hawaii she most likely would have started classes in September 1960.
Hawaii State Law’s require that a Resident has to have lived there for at least “one” year.
[§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State. (a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.
(b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate. The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.
If Obama was born on August 04, 1961 and (mother)filed for a Birth
Certificate on August 08, 1961, that would mean that
Ann Dunham (a minor) and. or, her Parent’s would have to have taken residence prior to August 04, or, 08 in 1960.
If they took residence in Hawaii “AFTER” August 04, 1960 she would not meet the one year residence that is required.
I have searched numerous website’s to no avail.
Many websites, including wiki-pedia (which can be alltered)
only include the year, not a factual date which could be
questioned. I would wonder if “state or Federal Tax Record’s can be searched for the “True” dates that the
Dunham Family became Legal Resident’s of Hawaii. The
BC of Obama might not have been Legal.
If “anyone” can find this information, it might be very usefull. Also, there are conflicting date’s regarding the
“Marriage” of Ann Dunham & Obama Sr., and if ever
took place, or was even Legal. Please “comment” if you
find any “exact” info. In my Opinion, there are “Huge” cover up’s for Obama, who if “actually” becomes President, He will most likely be submitted to Blackmail and Extortion. (Already starting) Maybe (FOIA) can be used. Thank’s, Dan Report Post reply » 1 day ago
This comment has 0 hidden replies. Show them! 0Vote upVote down Phil Poppet,
If I recall correctly I think Andy Martin has done some research along the lines you’re speaking.
contrariancommentary.blogspot.com is one site to start.
-Phil Report Post reply » 1 day ago
This comment has 0 hidden replies. Show them! 0Vote upVote down Poppet Phil: I had e-mailed Andy on 10/16 suggesting if his Team could find out
anything on the “residence” issue under Hawaii Law 338-17.8
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch...
I noticed that he used 338-18 in his “case”.
Maybe 338-17.8 should be added, and, or investigated.
Another Issue I just thought of is, Investigating Obama’s 2 children’s
Birth Certificate’s with the “Parent’s” , Full Names, Address, “RACE”, etc..
Maybe there are less restriction’s on getting the info in Illinois than Hawaii?
Anyone who might know may “comment”. Dan
Sunday, 23 November 2008 at 17:33 |
At 18 did Barack Obama register , as other American fellows who are citizens have to do?
Another possibility ” natural born ” in genealogy records, at least , has a mother delivering the child . .. If there is no marriage wouldn’t records be kept confidential or if the man is not named . there are no ‘illigitimate’ babies
I am not a fan of our president elect, I am much too pro- life , but are not his comments worthy of quote , in this instance , when he was asked about Sarah Palin’s daughter’s pregnancy? Look it up , sensible sounding to me!
Whatever ! A Republic -Democracy may take a while but it is self- correcting ..
that will happen should the Lord think the nation is deserving .. and even if undeserving , should He be in a forgiving mode .
I can’t be happy about Obama’s obvious positions on abortion. Not a very natural action all the slaughter by abortion of white , black and other helpless babies. Wasted future citizens with the potential to contribute , having eyes ears hands and feet and other essential human qualifications for citizenship.
It is not all up to the heavens ..there is work to be done ..no need to freeze in fear or dismiss the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Tuesday, 25 November 2008 at 18:05 |
Racist garbage! This is an undignified attack by yet another pseudo scholar of the American Constitution! May God save us from such perverted claims to knowledge of the law!
Jacquie: Just to be clear, are you saying the issues raised in this memo as to Obama’s Constitutional eligibility for POTUS are “[r]acist garbage; or that anyone raising these questions of his eligibility is racist? For reference sake, please, analyze the pleadings submitted to the court by Alan Keyes, candidate for President under the American Independent Party, 2008, and former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. under President Reagan, who also seeks a ruling from the court on whether Obama is eligible under the U.S. Constitution to be President. Then, come back here; I will post your response. ADMINISTRATOR
Thursday, 27 November 2008 at 03:31 |
There are several issues to address here. First, some insist Obama must be hiding something since if he would just produce his “long form” birth certificate it would answer all the questions. As the article noted, no official had the legal duty to verify Obama’s citizenship, thus he had no legal duty to provide it to anyone. Even if he did, it would not resolve the issue-first, because Obama’s enemies would insist the “long form” birth certificate was a forgery, and second, because they are now promoting the theory that even if he was born in Hawaii he is ineligible because he father was an alien. He also didn’t need to produce anything to get the cases against him dismissed because the paintiffs lacked standing-as an attorney, I never produce evidence if I can get a case dismissed as a matter of law.
Second, this is primarily a political issue which, Bush v. Gore notwithstanding, the SCOTUS is loathe to get involved in. Contrary to the article, it is not a slam-dunk that Obama Sr.’s alien status makes Obama ineligible for the presidency. No court has ever ruled that a person born on US soil to an American parent is ineligible to be president because another parent is an alien. Thus Obama is not ineligible as a matter of law-his enemies only have an argument that he is ineligible, an argument the courts will not hear. There has been, however, an extensive political process during which the issue could have been brought to the attention of the voters. Obama and Clinton were locked in an extended battle for the Democratic nomination during which she could have made the argument that he was ineligible, but she did not. McCain had months to campaign against Obama for the presidency but he also did not argue that Obama was ineligible. You can’t blame the MSM for not making an issue out of Obama’s father when his opponents didn’t even think it was worth mentioning. Now 67 million Americans have expressed their opinion that Obama is qualified for the presidency, and soon 365 electors will cast their ballots for his election-so why would the SCOTUS risk a constitutional crisis when, through the many months of this presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton, John McCain and 67 million American voters all agree that Obama is eligible to be president?
The theory that members of the Armed Forces would have standing to challenge the election results because if Obama is ineligible for the presidency then any military action ordered by him as CinC would be illegal exposing them to criminal prosecution is also bogus. In order to be convicted of a crime, one must have the requisite intent, thus a soldier cannot be convicted of following the otherwise legal orders of a CinC who was voted president by the electoral college and sworn in as POTUS, thus they would not have standing.
This finally leaves the conspiracy theories: first, that Obama was really born in Kenya and forged his birth certificate, and second, that he was adopted by his stepfather in Indonesia and thereby lost his US citizenship. The Kenyan birth theory is so far-fetched that even on the Texas Darlin blog (and nobody hates Obama more than they do), they have concluded that Obama almost certainly was born in Hawaii. A contemporaneous birth announcement was provided Hawaiian newspapers by the Hawaiian Office of Vital Statistics which in turn received it from a Hawaiian hospital-it was not planted by Obama’s grandparents as part of conspiracy which started at his birth (don’t take my word, its on the Texas Darlin Blog).
The Indonesian adoption theory is based on a school record allegedly filled out by his stepfather stating Obama’s nationality is Indonesian. Obama’s enemies have failed to produce a single document showing Obama was actually adopted, despite the fact that both the Clintons and the GOP had months to conduct opposition research on Obama. Without such documents there is no reason to believe that a formal adoption of Obama by his stepfather occurred, or that even if he was adopted, they took whatever additional steps would have been necessary to make Obama a citizen of Indonesia (as the father of adopted children from China, I know that adopting children does not automatically grant them US citizenship).
You can’t hang your hat on a school record alone-I would hazard a guess that a school in a third-world country would not have demanded extensive documentary evidence that a child was actually a citizen. Heck, at about the same time Obama was being enrolled in school there, my mother lied about my brother’s age to get him enrolled in school in England.
In the extremely unlikely event that one of these conspiracy theories proves out, there is a political process available to resolve the issue-impeachment. There is also the next election, in 2012, when the voters can remove Obama from office themselves if they so choose. The courts are not going to get involved in an attempt to nullify the results of a presidential election. There is no constitutional crisis-the voters have expressed their opinion that Obama is qualified to be president and there is no express definition of “natural born” citizen to the contrary. Your next best shot at getting Obama out as president is the next election four years from now.
Saturday, 29 November 2008 at 05:13 |
Obama is definitely an illegal alien.
Sunday, 30 November 2008 at 17:13 |
obama is a thug, why is this guy hiding his birth certificate, sealed all his transcripts? only one word FAKE. The guy is not a USA citizen and should be taken to gitmo for treason.
Sunday, 30 November 2008 at 17:17 |
I think I will go to the El dorado Kansas court house Monday and file a motion to seek obama’s birth certificate. Wouldn’t that be appropriate since his commie mother stanley ann dunham lived there for a couple of years. google obama’s momma. I think you will be real surprised. Fruit doesn’t fall far from the tree.
Sunday, 30 November 2008 at 20:18 |
On Dec 5 the Supreme Court will either allow or disallow the usurpation of both the Constitution and the Government of the United States — easily the most pivotal decision since our nation’s founding — and the silence of the news media is deafening (if not downright scary).
Sunday, 30 November 2008 at 22:21 |
No matter how many times this garbage is debunked, you people keep bringing it back up.
You lost. Now get over it.
Sunday, 30 November 2008 at 23:21 |
Slagtastic, the USA will lose if Obama gets sworn into office and is NOT eligible. Our national security will be compromised and he will be subject to blackmail from anyone who would KNOW his situation. He has teams of LAWYERS covering for him on this… so you bet there are people who know the truth.
All he has to do is release the records that have been covered up. If they come out OK, then we can all breathe a sigh of relief. If not, the sooner we know the better and the less damage done.
For me, it’s not about whether or not I like that he won, it’s about the integrity of our Constitution and the future stability of our country.
Monday, 1 December 2008 at 01:48 |
If we lay aside the question of Obama being born in Hawaii (he WAS born in Hawaii) and consider only the law cases that seek to disqualify him for reasons other than the location of his birth, we find that there are three approaches.
(1) Revolving around Obama allegedly having lost his US citizenship due to dual nationality with Indonesia, when he went there when his mother re-married and when he attended Indonesian schools.
(2) Revolving around Obama allegedly having lost his US citizenship due to allegedly having traveled on a foreign passport (an Indonesian passport).
(3) Revolving around Obama allegedly not being a natural-born US citizen due to the combination of his having dual nationality at birth because of his father’s being a Kenyan (at the time a British subject since Kenya was a colony at the time).
Taking these up in order.
As to (1) there have been several Supreme Court rulings on this, with the decision being in all cases that a child cannot lose his US citizenship due to having the combination of dual nationality and his parents renouncing his US citizenship when he was a child. The court ruled that only when a person becomes an adult can she or he themselves relinquish US citizenship.
You will see the proof of this at:
http://www.richw.org/dualcit/cases.html
In particular look at the Elg case:
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939)
Marie Elizabeth Elg was born in the US to Swedish parents, who took her back with them to Sweden when she was a baby. Shortly after her 21st birthday, she obtained a US passport and returned to the US.
Some years later, the US government attempted to deport her on the grounds that when her parents had taken her to live in Sweden, she had become a Swedish citizen (under Swedish law), and as a result had lost her US citizenship. It was argued that an 1869 citizenship treaty between the US and Sweden, providing for the orderly transfer of citizenship by immigrants, called for loss of US citizenship following Swedish naturalization. This was one of the so-called “Bancroft Treaties” enacted between the US and numerous other countries between 1868 and 1937.
The Supreme Court ruled, unanimously, that the actions of Elg’s parents in obtaining Swedish citizenship for their daughter could not prevent her from reclaiming US citizenship and returning to the US as an adult, provided she did so within a reasonable time after reaching adulthood.
Obama returned to the USA before he was an adult.
As to (2). It turns out that this is based on a completely mistaken premise. The US has no policy that would strip someone of US citizenship due to she or he traveling on a foreign passport. This is simply not mentioned in the State Department’s advice on the matter. See:
http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_778.html
In addition to travel on a foreign passport not being a reason that one can lose US citizenship, the State Department stress that it is difficult to lose citizenship by accident. This is because its standard for loss of citizenship requires someone to take an active role in relinquishing citizenship. In its words, “with the intention of relinquishing U.S. citizenship.” The State Department guidelines read:
“…the actions listed above can cause loss of U.S. citizenship only if performed voluntarily and with the intention of relinquishing U.S. citizenship. The Department has a uniform administrative standard of evidence based on the premise that U.S. citizens intend to retain United States citizenship when they obtain naturalization in a foreign state, subscribe to a declaration of allegiance to a foreign state, serve in the armed forces of a foreign state not engaged in hostilities with the United States, or accept non-policy level employment with a foreign government.”
As to (3): This is a completely novel legal theory brought by Leo C. Donofrio, which argues that even if Obama was born in Hawaii the simple fact that his father was from Kenya and did not have US citizenship at the time of Obama’s birth meant that Obama was not “natural born” because natural born means more than the place of birth. Donofrio argues that the natural-born citizenship requirement of Article II should be read in the context of the 14th Amendment which says that a citizen must be born or naturalized AND “subject to the jurisdiction” of the USA.
Donofrio argues that Obama was not subject to the jurisdiction of the USA because his father was not a citizen and hence Obama was under the jurisdiction of the other country.
This is a highly novel theory, but the Supreme Court does not often accept novel theories. Moreover, this flies in the face of the simple fact that Article II of the constitution does not specifically rule out dual nationality, and that the common-language definition of a natural-born citizen has so far meant a person who was born in the USA. The issue of jurisdiction is unclear. It is unlikely to mean what Donofrio says, which was that Obama at the time of his birth was under the “jurisdiction” of Kenya or Britain.
More likely, jurisdiction means only that Obama was not born in a foreign embassy or consulate, where he would be under the jurisdiction of a foreign government.
To be sure, he had dual nationality, but the constitution does not rule out people who have dual nationality from being president. If it had intended to do so, it would have. So, the Donofrio theory is unlikely to get the votes of the strict constructionists on the court, and the theory is not likely to get the votes of the liberals or the swing votes.
smrstrauss: I disagree with most of your ‘legal’ analysis – most of the legal cases you cite are inapposite to BO’s status or to pending litigation – but, I appreciate the time you took to pull this together. ADMINISTRATOR
Tuesday, 2 December 2008 at 03:52 |
“Dirty Pool” at the Supreme Court apparently on behalf of Obama currently usurping YOUR Constitution: Leo Donofrio’s companion case, brought by Cort Wrotnowski, with fuller/better briefing showing Obama is not an Article II “natural born citizen” reportedly has been sidetracked to the anthrax lab to deprive the full Court from seeing those filings in connection with Donofrio’s case this Friday, Dec 5, 2008. DO SOMETHING AMERICA!!!
Tuesday, 2 December 2008 at 06:28 |
For more information about what Barack Obama has proffered as evidence that his is a Natural Born Citizen and what he has NOT provided, see these new websites:
http://www.obamacitizenshipfacts.org
or
http://www.obamabirthcertificatefacts.org
Goat
Tuesday, 2 December 2008 at 15:16 |
To Leo Donofrio, our leader, and everybody,
Please do NOT give up! This is exactly what they want us to do – to give up and let them rob us of our freedon, our liberty and our country! If our founding fathers had given up their fight we won’t be enjoying our free country now.
We will seek justice to the end. We will do whatever it takes to uphold the Constitution. Nothing can stop us. The truth will prevail. We can overcome corruption, deceits and whatever they throw at us. The fact that they are resorting to such despictable tactics as using the “anthrax test” as excuse to delay the case show that they are really frightened that the case will be heard. We have made progress and we simply should not and cannot give up now. Leo, we are behind you 100%. Time and patience is on our side. Even if they managaed to drag it on they will only make it worse for themselves – an ineligible president will cause chaos. When/If that happens, we will have even stronger voices, greater strengths to wake up the waylaid Americans, put the traitors where they belong, and put our country back on the right track.
DO NOT GIVE UP!
Wednesday, 3 December 2008 at 00:37 |
Just out of curiosity, what would it take to convince you that Obama’s a natural born U.S. citizen?
Also, you do know, I trust, that Walter Annenberg was a Republican. Judge Surrick in Pennsylvania is a Republican.
Are Republicans in Obama’s pocket, too?
zz: You are all over the board with this post so let me try to answer what I think is your pivotal question: what would it take to convince [me] that Obama is a natural born U.S. citizen? For starters, I am not the issue; what is at stake here is the Constitutional eligibility of the man who could be ‘President.’ And Obama conceded his ineligibility, albeit presumably unintentionally. He said on his web site that when he was born, as the son of a Kenyan national he, too, acquired dual citizenship. But he made clear, he lost that status by virtue of failing to ‘renew his vows.’ Only, by law, being born with dual citizenship means he cannot be a natural born citizen. Now, I have a question for you: on what evidential basis do you presume he is even a U.S. citizen, let alone natural born? ADMINISTRATOR
Wednesday, 3 December 2008 at 08:48 |
smrstrauss:
In the time it took you to write that, you would have been better off having a beer and reflecting on what you were about to type.
Regarding your points:
1) You do realize that there is a difference between “citizen” and “natural born citizen”, right? The Swedish girl was declared a “citizen” .. nothing more.
2) No one is arguing that travelling on a foreign passport is automatic grounds for loss of citizenship. Indonesia, at the time in question, did not recognize dual citizenship. To get an Indonesian passport, you must be an Indonesian citizen. To have attended public school in Indonesia, he again must have been an Indonesian citizen. I shouldn’t have to hold your hand through this.
3) “the common-language definition of a natural-born citizen has so far meant a person who was born in the USA” – Wrong. That is referred to as a “native born citizen”. Refer to U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark and you’ll see the justices make a clear distinction between “native born” and “natural born”.
Wednesday, 3 December 2008 at 16:50 |
Prayers, praying that the TRUTH will come into the light for all to see…Amen.
Wednesday, 3 December 2008 at 22:03 |
Maybe my approach is oer simplistic, but all I need is a certified long form birth certificate and college school records. If he was born an American citizen and went to school as an American citizen (after he turned 18), then I think he’s a citizen (able to run). If, on the other hand he wasn’t born a citizen or he went to school under the guise of being a non-citizen, foreign exchange or whatever (where I feel like he freely gave up any US citizenship he may have had) then he needs to admit he’s not eligible to run and step down. Either way, he needs to give up the paperwork and let us all move on. I don’t like almost everything about him. He scares me for our nation’s sake. Having said that, with the help of the main stream media (who should be VERY ashamed), it appears he bought the election and may be our president… if he is constitutionally eligible. If he doesn’t get with it soon though and give up the information, he’ll be crap to us all, and not our president, forever.
Friday, 5 December 2008 at 01:15 |
jbjd
I am still troubled by the picture of approx. 10 yr old Obama and the
ONLY picture that has ever turned up of him with his “father” Obama Sr.
TAKEN at an AIRPORT……..STRANGE!!
as well as the picture of mother Ann AND OBAMA SR
(Also the only one of them together) no wedding pics or any others that you would expect to see
Note: Sr. was registerred in school in Hawaii in 1961 and Ann was registerred in school in Washington state IN 1961 and didn’t return to the Univesity of Hawaii until after Sr left for Harvard
If in fact those pictures were taken at the Hawaii Airport, then the only logical conclusion that could be drawn is that his appearance had to do with Obama Jr. and something need by Ann Dunham from him as he had nothing to do with his son before or after that photo
We do know these facts
1. Obama was enrolled in Indonesia as Barry Soetorro (adopted)
2. Ann divorced Lolo Soetorro and brought Barry back to Hawaii (1972)
3. Obama meets Obama for the first time in the airport in Hawaii (looks
to be approx 10 yrs old)
4. registerred in school as Barry Obama (1972)
COLB has father listed as African (note: not showing the adoptive parent
Lolo Soetorro)
I am sure that the name change and the timing will be reflected in the vaulted records in Hawaii, more than likely with affadavits by Sr that Jr was his son,etc,……..I would guess dated 1972
Thursday, 11 December 2008 at 17:02 |
Hey jbjd – how about Soldier4Hillary who is a regular poster over at NQ? I think her name is Patty or Patsy. She was a passionate and vocal supporter of HRC but since campaigning for Barry and then accepting the SOS Soldier is not as enamored.
Larry and Susan would know how to get a hold of her. I think she is stationed either at Camp Lejeune or Fort Bragg. She might be interested. As well, she’s a young, black, extremely articulate and very thoughtful woman.
Hey d2d: I tried to get to s4h. I posted at NQ several times, and ‘chatted’ on her radio show. I agree that she would be the perfect Plaintiff or, would surely know someone else who would fit the bill. ADMINISTRATOR
Friday, 12 December 2008 at 15:10 |
I think she’d be perfect too!
You know another person that comes to mind is the young fellow who posted a YouTube video telling the world why he as a young black man wasn’t going to vote for the one. He was very articulate and spoke his mind, which I found refreshing.
Thursday, 18 December 2008 at 18:02 |
The following is a response by the AG’s office to my letter to Jim Hood, AT of MS
Re: Status granted to the Democratic Party on Mississippi ballots
Reese Partridge, Assistant Attorney General of MS, responded to my leeter to Jim Hood (for Jim Hood, Attorney General of MS), by saying that the remedy does not lie with the AT’s office. She noted:
“To the extent that changes in state law will address your concerns, I suggest contacting members of the Mississippi Legislature to sponsor corrective legislation. You concerns may, however, be addressed more fully by seeking to reform party rules at the state and national levels.”
Thursday, 18 December 2008 at 19:05 |
Look,
It HAS ALREADY BEEN DETERMINED that Obama is NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN
because
HE ADMITS OPENLY THAT HIS FATHER WAS A BRITISH CITIZEN at the time of his own birth in 1961.
Ergo, since de Vattel’s “The Law of Nations”, used by our Founding Fathers when writing the Constitution, defines a NBC as
“someone born in the country, whose parents are citizens of the country”
Neither Obama not McCain nor Calero are NBC.
Nor can any court defined them otherwise, or change the definition.
WHY?
Because the definitin of a “natural born citizen” is a historical fact, not a legal determination, it is a truth of history and political philosophy.
You can no more change that definition of De Vattle’s, that you could demand that 1 +1 = 3 just because the Supreme Court says so.
Those who claim Obama is a NBC, have given themselves lobotomies, and abandoned all reason….in a word, they are MAD and INSANE for the sake of their political GOD.
NBC: Wonderful to see someone expend the energy to research the issues affecting this Republic. Just to clarify, no one actually ‘knows’ what a law means until the courts define this through case law. And the term “natural born citizen,” while discussed in other court cases, was never central to the holding of the case. Thus, this “dicta” holds no precedential value. The case the focus of which is a determination of what is the definition of “natural born citizen” will be a case of first impression. ADMINISTRATOR
Thursday, 15 January 2009 at 07:08 |
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (who, I hope, knows the Constitution and all this legal stuff as well as anybody) has a hell of a decision to make on Jan. 20.
Saturday, 17 January 2009 at 23:21 |
We No Longer have a Congress to Write To
This is my response to any one who ever asks me to write another letter the existing Congress, Senate or Supreme Court. NOT UNTIL EVERY ELECTED AND APPOINTED OFFICIAL IN THIS CURRENT SLATE IS REMOVED WILL I WASTE MY INTEGRITY WRITING TO ANY OF THEM. THEY ARE TRAITORS—EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEM. I WILL IN NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM ACKNOWLEDGE OR VALIDATE ANY ONE OF THEM AS MY REPRESENTIVES IN THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT AS THE US CONSTITUTION WAS WRITTEN. EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEM FAILED TO KEEP THEIR OATH TO UPHOLD AND PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION OF AMERICA!
(Though I wrote this to one very well intentioned lady, we will all find ourselves forgetting American is no more.)
You are in as much of a fog of confusion as all of us. On one hand you readily acknolwedge that our Congress and Senate has failed us by refusing to hear the calls and letters we sent them regarding Obama’s “natural born citizen” status. On the other hand you are asking us to write to our Congress regarding a new bill to be voted upon. It is apparent reality hasn’t hit us yet.
If Congress failed America on the most important issue in American history–the installation of a Usurper as President,– what on earth makes you think it is still OUR CONGRESS? We no longer have a Congress, Senate, or Supreme Court that gives a rats tail about us. I will never again write to a dead government.
The only issue left is terminating all our elected officials before their terms expire. WE must concentrate on finding every way to publicly expose them for the treason they committed against America and terminate them for breach of fiduciary duty, misrepresentation, conspiracy, and treason. These elected officials are not politicians in office. They are criminals! They should be behind bars. We should be doing every thing in our power to indict all of them. We must constantly remind the public of Congress, Sennate and The Supreme Court’s betrayal of America! There no longer is a Congress that exists for the people!
Usa Patriots Shout
Wednesday, 21 January 2009 at 16:09 |
You are wrong.
John McCain was not born on a Military Base. His mother left the base and went into the city to a regular hospital. John was born off the base in the city and in a regular hospital.
Besides this was not a regular military base as we have today in most cases.
Even at that the military base would have to be sovereign land of USA.
SORRY I thought about this for a very long time. John McCain is simply not a natural born citizen.
Chewy: Thank you for finally getting this off your chest; next time, don’t wait so long. I, too, agree, JMc is not a NBC, since he was not born on U.S. soil. ADMINISTRATOR
Friday, 30 January 2009 at 11:19 |
jbjd,
I have some thoughts regarding the matter and was hoping you could sort through the issues I have. I’m having difficulty articulating my standing. I’m thinking it has to do with my 5th Amendment right regarding the deprivation “of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” (emphasis on due process). My conundrum as a Soldier, is that the only way I could definitively find out if Mr. Obama is qualified for office is to disobey an executive order and then be tried by courts-martial to discover the lawful nature of the order as determined by a military judge. I am still exploring what my rights are regarding a clear and unambiguous chain of command. If entitled then I should be able to sue in civilian court. If not, then I would have to fall on my sword to get the answer from the Army. I write this in light of what was filed in response to Hollister v. Soetoro by the defendant’s lawyers- http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/9-1.pdf
The following is an email response I sent to Dr. Orly stating my issues:
1. I am required to obey “lawful orders”.
Army Command Policy, Chapter 4-2. Obedience to orders
http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/r600_20.pdf
All persons in the military service are required to strictly obey and promptly execute the legal orders of their lawful seniors.
2. I am required to disobey certain “unlawful orders”.
IAW Article 90
(a) Lawfulness of the order.
(i) Inference of lawfulness. An order requiring the performance of a military duty or act may be inferred to be lawful and it is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate. This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime.
(ii) Determination of lawfulness. The lawfulness of an order is a question of law to be determined by the military judge.
3. I am subject to punishment for disobeying an order from the President under Article 92 (Failure ot obey order or regulation)
http://www.jag.navy.mil/documents/mcm2008.pdf
c. Explanation.
(1) Violation of or failure to obey a lawful general order or regulation.
(a) Authority to issue general orders and regulations.
General orders or regulations are those orders or regulations generally applicable to an armed force which are properly published by the President or the Secretary of Defense, of Homeland Security, or of a military department, and those orders or regulations generally applicable to the command of the officer issuing them throughout the command or a particular subdivision thereof which are issued by:
( i ) a n o f f i c e r h a v i n g g e n e r a l c o u r t – m a r t i a l jurisdiction;
(ii) a general or flag officer in command; or
(iii) a commander superior to (i) or (ii).
***
(c) Lawfulness. A general order or regulation is lawful unless it is contrary to the Constitution, the laws of the United States, or lawful superior orders or for some other reason is beyond the authority of the official issuing it. See the discussion of lawfulness in paragraph 14c(2)(a).
4. I am aware (unfortunately) that significant doubt exists as to the constitutional elegibility of my current Commander in Chief.
5. I have no intent to determine the outcome of this election in an official capacity. I ask the court to determine the the constitutional elegibility of Mr. Obama on the behalf of a citizen who happens to be subject to the unique rules of active service in the Armed Forces. If unanswered, my rights under the constitution have been violated IAW the 5th Amendment:
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
(substantive due process- Laws must be written so that a reasonable person can understand what is criminal behavior ).
6. I have no intent to disobey the orders of the President or the officers appointed over me. Due to my knowledge of the questionable eligibility of President Obama, I have doubts as to if I am culpable in a crime obeying General Orders initiated by a potentially unqualified President. Likewise, I have doubts as to the validity of said orders and thier potential conflict with my oath of enlistment:
“I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the [lawful] orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”
7. I assert that I am entitled to a CLEAR and UNAMIBIGUOUS chain of command as a Soldier subject to OBEYING lawful orders. I recognize the fact a military judge IAW the MCM determines the nature of lawful orders in the case of trials by courts-martial. I contend that a Soldier should know implicitly the legality of an order from the President PRIOR to military trial; such would require a determination by the highest civilian court of these United States.
(d) Obedience to orders. It is a defense to any offense that the accused was acting pursuant to orders unless the accused knew the orders to be unlawful or a person of ordinary sense and understanding would have known the orders to be unlawful.
Discussion
Ordinarily the lawfulness of an order is finally decided by the military judge. See R.C.M. 801(e). An exception might exist when the sole issue is whether the person who gave the order in fact occupied a certain position at the time. An act performed pursuant to a lawful order is justified. See subsection (c) of this rule. An act performed pursuant to an order is excused unless the accused knew it to be unlawful or a person of ordinary sense and understanding would have known it to be unlawful.
Anyway, jbjd, thanks for your reason and clarity regarding this constitutional crisis.
Friday, 30 January 2009 at 14:10 |
jbjd,
Consider…
A. Plaintiff, an active member of the United States Armed Forces, has significant reason to believe defendant is constitutionally ineligible to serve as Commander in Chief and consequently is unable to issue “lawful orders” to said plaintiff.
B. Plaintiff is subject to punishment IAW military jurisprudence due to his awareness of defendant’s questionable eligibility to issue said orders. Plaintiff is required by military regulation to disobey orders that are understood to be unlawful (patently of a criminal nature).
C. Plaintiff can only prove defendants ineligibility through placing himself in peril of military courts-martial due to the regulatory constraints of active service in the Armed Forces. Plaintiff asserts that his 5th Amendment rights have been violated by the defendant regarding the immanent threat of deprivation “of life, liberty,…without due process of law”. Specifically, the defendant is uniquely capable of violating “substantive due process” by which the defendant’s executive orders have subjected plaintiff to laws that are not clearly understood by a reasonable (informed) person as to whether they are of a criminal nature due to the questionable lack of issuing authorities qualification.
D. Plaintiff has three courses of action (COA) for redress of grievances- violate his oath of enlistment to “obey the [lawful] orders of the President” and follow all instructions of his usurping Commander in Chief, disobey the orders of the President and await adjudication by a military judge as to the [lawful] nature of said order, or seek discovery by the highest civilian court of the United States. The first COA is contrary to all precepts regarding the military obligation of service members to disobey “unlawful orders” IAW the Manual for Courts-Martial and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The second and third COA would require defendant to prove his eligibility. The second COA unfairly subjects defendant to potential punishment IAW the regulations of the Armed Forces.
E. Does plaintiff have to risk loss of liberty (or life) to seek redress or is he entitled to discovery by civilian authorities to protect his constitutional rights? Plaintiff contends the third COA is the only reasonable method to resolve the issue of defendant’s constitutional eligibility to serve as plaintiff’s Commander in Chief.
Saturday, 31 January 2009 at 00:16 |
The Washington Post article about McCain’s birth on some “Coco Solo medical facility” (with no documentation of it) is incorrect. There is a BC copy from the Live Birth Records of the Panama Railroad Company that shows McCain was born in Colon Hospital in Colon, Republic of Panama which was not – and still is not – part of the Canal Zone.
It was incorporated in the Hollander v. McCain lawsuit in NH district court under case #1:08-cv-00009 but you have to dig to pull it out.
jtx: Thank you for this comment. However, this would not change the analysis. That is, JMc cannot be said to be a NBC where Panama was at all times and in all places a sovereign nation. ADMINISTRATOR
Thursday, 5 February 2009 at 23:36 |
We are a military family, and we thank you for your attempts to have this Orly person change the terms of her contract. We have tried numerous times and our comments were deleted. We asked her to retract and apologize and she responded by calling us “cowards.” We are not cowards, many members of my family have died in the service of our country. My sons, ARE serving in Iraq. My daughter was deployed a few months ago. Yet, this woman had the audacity to call them, and their families “Cowards,” while they risk their lives, as I did in the past to protect our country. That was the last straw.
We contacted Central Command, and as per their instructions,we cannot comment any further on the matter, beyond what I have stated here.
John Jay: I am so very sorry for any additional anguish Orly’s Release has caused you and your family. In one of my posts, I explained that when I learned of the contents of this Release, I attempted to get her to change this. I heard from another military person who requested assistance in getting the Release he signed, revoked, which I was able to do. Just to be clear, I understand that you did not sign Orly’s Release, correct? Have you read my military Complaint? This was always my dilemma; how to both insulate the military Plaintiff from any legal repercussions and, at the same time, make clear, he/she was in imminent liability to be a Defendant in a subsequent legal proceeding under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. I thought I succeeded admirably; however, I fear, people are conflating this Complaint with Orly’s Release and so, are unwilling to go forward with this. My best thoughts for you and your family. ADMINISTRATOR
Thursday, 5 February 2009 at 23:51 |
JTX, that is a common mistake made as to the City of Colon being in the PMZ. Actually Colon and Panama City were specifically excluded in the treaty. The US had absolutely no jurisdiction over the city of Colon.Here is the Article relevant to the issue. There were changes to this treaty, but this part never changed. McCain is not at natural born citizen. He obtained his citizenship by statute.
(Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty)
ARTICLE II
The Republic of Panama grants to the United States in perpetuity the use, occupation and control of a zone of land and land under water for the construction maintenance, operation, sanitation and protection of said Canal of the width of ten miles extending to the distance of five miles on each side of the center line of the route of the Canal to be constructed; the said zone beginning in the Caribbean Sea three marine miles from mean low water mark and extending to and across the Isthmus of Panama into the Pacific ocean to a distance of three marine miles from mean low water mark *with the proviso that the cities of Panama and Colon and the harbors adjacent to said cities, which are included within the boundaries of the zone above described, shall not be included within this grant.* The Republic of Panama further grants to the United States in perpetuity the use, occupation and control of any other lands and waters outside of the zone above described which may be necessary and convenient for the construction, maintenance, operation, sanitation and protection of the said Canal or of any auxiliary canals or other works necessary and convenient for the construction, maintenance, operation, sanitation and protection of the said ….
John Jay: Nice work. You are absolutely correct in your legal analysis. ADMINISTRATOR