BREAKING! Obama Papers Leaking Out! Birth Papers-School Papers Exposed! [Archive]

Cruisingfool

02-08-2010, 06:49 PM

Link (http://jimbonews.blogspot.com/2010/02/breaking-obama-papers-leaking-out-birth.html)
Sunday, February 7, 2010
BREAKING! Obama Papers Leaking Out! Birth Papers-School Papers Exposed!
The following information [that] Obama has spent over a million dollars in lawyers fees to hide is now being exposed. This was sent over to us by Concerned Women for America. Since the media will not help America, but WILL help the Marxist pretender who was swooped into the White House by The Communist Party, U.S.A., we must insist that Americans in Congress and The Senate take immediate action.

Lolo Soetoro, Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro, baby Maya Soetoro, and 9 year old Barry Soetoro.

This registration document, made available on Jan. 24, 2007, by the Fransiskus Assisi school in Jakarta, Indonesia, shows the registration of Barack Obama under the name Barry Soetoro made by his step-father, Lolo Soetoro.

Name: Barry Soetoro
Religion: Islam
Nationality: Indonesian
How did this little INDONESIAN Muslim child - Barry Soetoro, (A.K.A. Barack Obama) get around the issue of nationality to become President of the United States of America?

In a move certain to fuel the debate over Obama's qualifications for the presidency, the group "Americans for Freedom of Information" has released copies of President Obama's college transcripts from Occidental College ..

The transcript indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia while an undergraduate at the school. The transcript was released by Occidental College in compliance with a court order in a suit brought by the group in the Superior Court of California . The transcript shows that Obama (Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship for foreign students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program. To qualify for this scholarship, a student must claim foreign citizenship.

This document provides the smoking gun that many of Obama's detractors have been seeking - that he is NOT a natural-born citizen of the United States - necessary to be President of these United States. Along with the evidence that he was first born in Kenya , here we see that there is no record of him ever applying for US citizenship..

Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation has released the results of their investigation of Obama's campaign spending. This study estimates that Obama has spent upwards of $950,000 in campaign funds in the past year with eleven law firms in 12 states for legal resources to block disclosure of any of his personal records.

Mr. Kreep indicated that the investigation is still on-going but that the final report will be provided to the U.S. attorney general, Eric Holder.

Mr. Holder has refused comment on this matter.

Let Those Republicans in The House Take Action NOW to get Obama out of the White House BEFORE the country is totally destroyed, and we are all enslaved, which is his intention and the intention of The Comunist Party USA - THE leftist MEDIA is hiding this from the public.

Rev. Austn Miles is a pastor-chaplain in Northern California who unwinds by finding the lighter side of the news. Visit his website by going to:
http://www.revaustinmiles.com/

Dawes

02-08-2010, 08:59 PM

Jeanfromfillmore

02-08-2010, 09:04 PM

http://amfoi.wordpress.com/2010/01/12/obama-hoax-chump-of-the-day-john-preiss/

I think the above story was a hoax that was set up on purpose. I think they are purposely retaliating bogus info from Barack with their own bogus info.

Maybe it is true, but nothing has been uncovered about his college records.The Obamaites put this stuff out there on purpose because they can then declare everything about it is bogus. Any possibility of truth gets tainted with the polluted propaganda.

Don

02-09-2010, 04:29 AM

The birther controversy is very troubling. There's enough "creepiness" about this guy and his background to fuel a lot of skepticism and paranoia, but it's not easy to know what's authentic and what's bogus. I don't think there is any silver bullet in so far as this issue is concerned. Even if it could be proven that he was born in Kenya, who would support his ouster? Very few.

The search for the truth is still important, but sound political and constitutional opposition are the most important things.

Star

02-09-2010, 11:48 AM

Investigators declare, “Obama never attended Columbia University”

February 8th, 2010
American Grand Jury has archived extensive records over the past year which we used in our jury hearings. We now believe beyond a reasonable doubt that Obama is not a “natural born” citizen and it is even possible that he may be an illegal alien.

We also have records showing the Democratic National Convention fraudulently declared Obama constitutionally eligible while never vetting the “natural born” requirement with the electorate.

Now, new evidence has come to light whereby Dr. James Manning has declared that Obama never attended Columbia University [New York].

Dr. Manning has hired a team of investigators to comb over every bit of available evidence to validate his declaration.

Manning’s investigators conclusively state that:

) Columbia University will not divulge whether the “alleged” diploma issued was in the name of Barry Soetoro or Barack Hussein Obama. No public record exists regarding the diploma.

2) Obama alleges he attended Columbia in 1982, 1983. But, the investigators have been UNABLE to turn up a single shred of written documentation for the years 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984 that show where Obama appeared on a school roster, register, faculty memo, bulletin board, school awards, dean’s list; where Obama’s name appeared in a yearbook, club record, fraternity record, extra curricular activity member roster, student newspaper, student radio or tv activity; where Obama appeared in any records as a worker, employee, laborer in or about Columbia University; where Obama enrolled in any sports activity or program.

3) As a graduating senior in 1983 he does not appear in any Political Science (his major) or Granduating Class yearbook or invitation records.

4) There is absolutely no documentation of any kind to show Obama attended, lived, worked or played at Columbia University during the investigated 4 years.

5) Interviewed professors, college employees, students (who were at Columbia during the years in question) have failed to turn up a single person that can remember Obama. This is irrefutable evidence. Think about your own situation if Obama had attended your college? A “now-famous” person went to your school? Many would be able to say, “of course I remember.” At Columbia, not a single person has been able to say he or she remembers Obama.

Video under article:
http://americangrandjury.org/

rs232c

02-09-2010, 05:23 PM

I didn't find a link to the Barry registration, but if it is what I am thinking of it has been circulated for awhile. It is one of many source documents, both verified and fraud-ed, to come out of the birther movement. At this point in time the crusade to prove Barry's qualifications invalid has had it's grounds cut off at it's head since the October 29th, 2009 decision against Dr. Orly Taitz's suit in Santa Anna, CA. There are no other meritorious cases pending that I know of since then.

For myself, the issue has gone beyond Barry and rests as a constitutional crisis where the following questions must be answered by our legal system:

1. What are the legal requirements to become President of the United States, the process that must be followed to complete to meet the requirements, and who has the standing to redress or challenge those findings, certifications, or assertions?

2. Which of these legal requirements are open to the public for inspection and scrutiny, open to the government for inspection and scrutiny, and which of these are protected against inspection and scrutiny as a candidate's privacy and civil rights?

To date, following the birther movement, I have learned that:

1. When lawyers study the Constitution, they do not study the Constitution; they study what judges have said about the Constitution.

2. What the judges have said about the plethora of filings on all levels, up to and including the Supreme Court, to challenge Barry's candidacy (he declared himself Obama, his birth name, while attending a community college with no mention to any legal process) is that no one has standing to demand a certificate of live birth from anyone else, and if anyone does, it would be the responsibility of Congress itself who has not politically seen fit to date to resolve this crisis either now or in the future.

There was a bill introduced to do just this in 2009, but has been laughed at so far as far as I can tell.

The other political mood is to overturn the natural born citizen requirement so the followers of Arnold can elect him president. Something else, thankfully, that has lost traction over the years. The framers saw that our president must not have any allegiances to other countries, and in my view, we already had that with Bush. Barry has not yet warmed up.

As far as precedent goes, Chester A. Arthur was not a natural born citizen as defined in his day and was elected president. This discovery wasn't made for many, many years I believe. When discovered, no one in politics cared.

Do we? I do.

Cruisingfool

02-09-2010, 06:48 PM

Your damn right I care!

DerailAmnesty.com

02-10-2010, 12:15 AM

Rim05

02-10-2010, 03:59 AM

Twoller

02-10-2010, 07:13 AM

I have never gotten into this Birther Thing. It just seems like a Dirty Harry movie. How did someone think about it in 1961, some simply will never give up their only hope. It seems like Comedy Forum to me.

The compulsion to corrupt US citizenship goes back a long way and the obsession like that existed in the Obamination's mother is only matched by the reactionaries who insist in inflating the basic issue into something or somewhere else. Sort of like the assassination of JFK.

The guy should not even be a citizen, much less a president. It doesn't matter where he was born, what does matter is what is beyond debate, which is who his father was -- a noncitizen.

Cruisingfool

02-10-2010, 01:07 PM

Rim05

02-10-2010, 07:45 PM

DerailAmnesty.com

02-10-2010, 08:13 PM

The guy should not even be a citizen, much less a president. It doesn't matter where he was born, what does matter is what is beyond debate, which is who his father was -- a noncitizen.

That assertion is flat out wrong. You have misstated federal law pertaining to birthright citizenship.

Obama's mother is a U.S. citizen; further, his father was lawfully in the United States on a student visa (two currently irrelevant legal points). Obama was born on U.S. soil. Hence, he's a citizen.

Not only is what you have stated inaccurate, it would be inaccurate if the law was modified in the fashion many border security activists would like to see undertaken. Currently, a child is legally a U.S. citizen if he is born on U.S. soil, regardless of his parents' unlawful residency status. Many individuals feel this is the result of a perversion/misinterpretation of the Civil War Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. They opine that a person should not receive legal residency if born in our country, if one or more parents is an illegal alien. Even under this formula, Barack Obama would be a citizen.

So Twoller, you've got me confused. Assuming Obama was born in Hawaii, why isn't he a citizen?

Kathy63

02-11-2010, 06:54 AM

A couple questions for those of you who believe that Barack Obama is illegitimately occupying the White House:

A. If Barack Obama never attended Columbia, where he is thought to have completed his undergraduate education, how did he get into Harvard Law School?

B. How many people would have to unanimously agree to perpetuate, and then participate in, a successful conspiracy to lie about a Hawaiian state government birth certificate, and fake records relating to completing a 4 year degree at an Ivy League university?

No one ever needed to lie about a Hawaiian birth certificate. Look up the Hawaiian law. Because of a quirk in the law, any parent who is a resident of Hawaii can have the child's birth registered in the state any time up to their first birthday. That's why Hawaii has a registration of live birth instead of a certificate of live birth. The only "certificate" is the vault copy with the doctor's signature. He might very well be a natural born citizen and we would know that if he would permit that vault copy to be made public.

Then there is the question of the Indonesian adoption. Indonesian law provides that only citizens can attend school. ozbama went to school in Indonesia. Those two facts lend itself to the ordinary conclusion that little Barry was adopted by Sotero and made an Indonesian citizen and in fact during his time in Indonesia he did go by the name of Barak Sotero. According to US law, a parent cannot voluntarily change the citizenship of an American born child. The child has only to file proper documents with the government reclaiming his citizenship status. There is not only no documentation to clear up the adoption question but whether or not he was required to or did file anything reclaiming his status as citizen of the United States.

The right questions aren't being asked. It isn't so much that college and university records don't exist. It is not quite as bad as the evil little creature plopped down and became an overnight presidebt, it is as bad as someone having backtracked and removed everything in his background. Why, what is in those records that the great and powerful ozbama doesn't want seen? What could it be that he would rather remain the subject of attacks on his citizenship than confronted and put to rest? It is something that he at least considers worse than the speculation.

Up until this presidebt every other one as a candidate, had to produce and open up all their records. We know what John Kerry's school records say, we know that Al Gore was rather lazy and didn't get good grades. We know that George Bush got rather good grades compared to his opposition. We have no idea what Little Barry's records say at all. He has gotten a pass at producing them. Just like he has gotten a pass at making public the results of his annual physical exam and tax returns.

I am personally convinced that ozbama is not a citizen, I am absolutely convinced that there is something that he is hiding and would like to know what that is.

Rim05

02-11-2010, 07:23 AM

I cannot speak for Obama or anyone else, however, TRY TO FORCE ME TO DO ANYTHING AND SEE HOW FAR YOU GET. I have no idea why he has his records sealed but again , after all I have read for the last 2 plus years of all the discontent I will not bother to state what I think the reason is. ;)

PochoPatriot

02-11-2010, 10:20 AM

That assertion is flat out wrong. You have misstated federal law pertaining to birthright citizenship.

Obama's mother is a U.S. citizen; further, his father was lawfully in the United States on a student visa (two currently irrelevant legal points). Obama was born on U.S. soil. Hence, he's a citizen.

Not only is what you have stated inaccurate, it would be inaccurate if the law was modified in the fashion many border security activists would like to see undertaken. Currently, a child is legally a U.S. citizen if he is born on U.S. soil, regardless of his parents' unlawful residency status. Many individuals feel this is the result of a perversion/misinterpretation of the Civil War Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. They opine that a person should not receive legal residency if born in our country, if one or more parents is an illegal alien. Even under this formula, Barack Obama would be a citizen.

So Twoller, you've got me confused. Assuming Obama was born in Hawaii, why isn't he a citizen?

Ah, Sam, people like the one you're addressing have already made up their minds, so don't confuse them with the facts.

As an aside, this is one of the rabbit holes the border security movement has gone down, and lost a great deal of credibility due to it.

Kathy63

02-11-2010, 10:34 AM

When dealing with a criminal enterprise it is always wise to use any weapon available.

Like this.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/32752.html

“We just hit him with a freight train,” one Democratic official familiar with the anti-Coats effort said Monday. “It’s Politics 101: Frame the guy early.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/...l#ixzz0fG0ETcSf

It's the democratic political process FRAME THE GUY EARLY.

Considering that democrats want ozbama to take the next step, which is not only frame the guy but take out the opposition by assassination, gagsta style, it will be interesting to see how the public puts up with it.

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/02/09/...cans/index.html

Channel your inner Al Capone and go gangsta against your foes. Let 'em know that if they aren't with you, they are against you, and will pay the price.

Democrats are basically criminals. Accusing ozbama of not being a citizen is mild, really mild compared with encouraging the government to engage in assassinations.

Cruisingfool

02-11-2010, 07:57 PM

That assertion is flat out wrong. You have misstated federal law pertaining to birthright citizenship.

Obama's mother is a U.S. citizen; further, his father was lawfully in the United States on a student visa (two currently irrelevant legal points). Obama was born on U.S. soil. Hence, he's a citizen.

Not only is what you have stated inaccurate, it would be inaccurate if the law was modified in the fashion many border security activists would like to see undertaken. Currently, a child is legally a U.S. citizen if he is born on U.S. soil, regardless of his parents' unlawful residency status. Many individuals feel this is the result of a perversion/misinterpretation of the Civil War Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. They opine that a person should not receive legal residency if born in our country, if one or more parents is an illegal alien. Even under this formula, Barack Obama would be a citizen.

So Twoller, you've got me confused. Assuming Obama was born in Hawaii, why isn't he a citizen?

You sir are flat out wrong! Obummers mother was under the age of 18 at the time of birth of this turd! She was married to a british citizen when she popped out this turd, you might want to check out the Law!

Cruisingfool

02-11-2010, 08:16 PM

Ah, Sam, people like the one you're addressing have already made up their minds, so don't confuse them with the facts.

As an aside, this is one of the rabbit holes the border security movement has gone down, and lost a great deal of credibility due to it.

Wouldn't you consider a person in this Country, serving as President, that has every item of his History sealed, and his Grandmother is on video in Mombasa, Kenya clearly stating she witnessed her grandturd being born in Mombasa, Kenya, as an illegal alien?

Cruisingfool

02-11-2010, 08:29 PM

Link (http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/02/10/eegad-stop-mischaracterizing-the-eligibility-issue/)
Eegad! Stop Mischaracterizing the Eligibility Issue

IT’S NOT JUST THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE!

by V. Harlow, blogging at http://www.vventures.net

(Feb. 10, 2010) — The eligibility issue has constantly been mischaracterized as a “citizenship” issue or a “birth certificate” issue, and major media outlets keep playing on this same theme over and over, ridiculing those who want the truth.

I suspect they are partially driven by fear: fear they won’t get interviews, fear they won’t get invitations, fear they won’t get to cover important issues if this issue is included in what they cover. Even Fox News continues to ridicule and mischaracterize this very important Constitutional issue.

Can we attack this administration on other valid issues? Yes, of course. I don’t advocate doing anything less. It’s not right to push aside the very valid and important Constitutional issue of the eligibility of the current resident of White House to hold the job as though it is of no consequence. There have been people scoffing for over a year now, yet lawsuits continue. The issue is law. The highest office in the land, the one responsible for upholding our laws and protecting our freedoms, is the issue.

Most reasonable people don’t question the “citizenship” of Obama. The Constitution has special requirements for holders of the presidency. One of them is “natural born citizen.” That is a higher standard than “citizen.” It is a higher standard than “native citizen.”

Some people signed off on Obama’s qualification rather cavalierly either knowingly or carelessly. They need to be held to account.

It’s easy to ridicule and destroy the reputations and careers of people fighting this battle, but it’s wrong. Orly Taitz, regardless of whether or not one questions her professionalism, does not deserve the treatment she has received from anonymous callers, malicious supporters of Obama, or from major media outlets. She comes willing and determined to defend our Constitution, while so many charged with that responsibility have forsaken it completely.

Donofrio, Pidgeon, Berg, Kreep, and others fighting the battle do not deserve the ridicule. The American people overwhelmingly want to know the truth.

An honest hearing is required.

© 2010, The Post & Email, Inc. All rights reserved internationally, unless otherwise specified.

Star

02-12-2010, 08:07 AM

The Constitution has special requirements for holders of the presidency. One of them is “natural born citizen.” That is a higher standard than “citizen.” It is a higher standard than “native citizen.”

DerailAmnesty.com

02-12-2010, 08:20 AM

You sir are flat out wrong! Obummers mother was under the age of 18 at the time of birth of this turd! She was married to a british citizen when she popped out this turd, you might want to check out the Law!

I do check out the law every now and then. What impact would Obama's mother being a minor and married (to anyone from anywhere) have upon the citizenship of her Hawaiian-born child?

The Constitution has special requirements for holders of the presidency. One of them is “natural born citizen.” That is a higher standard than “citizen.” It is a higher standard than “native citizen.”

Alright, then it is important where he was born, right? OK, what is the difference between a natural born citizen and a native citizen? Also, I'd be curious to know where you found or find the source that is the substance of your answer.

No one ever needed to lie about a Hawaiian birth certificate. Look up the Hawaiian law. Because of a quirk in the law, any parent who is a resident of Hawaii can have the child's birth registered in the state any time up to their first birthday. That's why Hawaii has a registration of live birth instead of a certificate of live birth. The only "certificate" is the vault copy with the doctor's signature. He might very well be a natural born citizen and we would know that if he would permit that vault copy to be made public.

And how many people have access to the vault, Kathy? Are they all Obama sympathizers and supporters? How much money would it be worth to someone ... anyone ... to get a copy of this thing to a news source, presuming it states he was born in Kenya, Indonesia, MexiCali or whatever the story is this week?

Also, your response doesn't address how he got into law school, years before he ever held elected office, if he didn't complete his undergraduate work at Columbia as has been represented.

Eagle1

02-12-2010, 08:35 AM

Attorney Phil Berg of Obamacrimes.com has provide the specifics of why Obama isn't a citizen down to the minutae.

Phil is licensed to practice before the Supreme Court and has presented cases there before.

I have personally conversed with Phil and his reasons for declaring that Obama is not a citizen are well documented on his website.

DerailAmnesty.com

02-12-2010, 08:45 AM

Cruisingfool

02-12-2010, 02:02 PM

Yeah, and he was a Hillary supporter. If you really want a knowledgeable conversation, you really need to study the facts!

DerailAmnesty.com

02-12-2010, 09:49 PM

Yeah, and he was a Hillary supporter. If you really want a knowledgeable conversation, you really need to study the facts!

You didn't answer the question. What impact would Obama's mother being a minor and married (to anyone from anywhere) have upon the citizenship of her Hawaiian-born child?

Rim05

02-13-2010, 05:18 AM

What impact would Obama's mother being a minor and married (to anyone from anywhere) have upon the citizenship of her Hawaiian-born child?

Good question. But, when a person is hell bent on trying to do something they want more than anything, then some of the time they must stray from reality/reason. There is a time to accept reality.

Cruisingfool

02-13-2010, 10:13 AM

You didn't answer the question. What impact would Obama's mother being a minor and married (to anyone from anywhere) have upon the citizenship of her Hawaiian-born child?

First off, his grandmother is on video saying she was a witness in Mobassa, Kenya, in the village where he was born. So I'm not sure where you come up with Hawaiia-born child. If he really was born in Hawaii there wouldn't be a problem with his mothers age.

Link (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78931)
Democrat: Obama's grandma confirms Kenyan birth
'This has been a real sham he's pulled off for the last 20 months'
Posted: October 23, 2008
11:33 pm Eastern

© 2010 WorldNetDaily

http://www.wnd.com/images/PhilipBerg2.jpg
Philip J. Berg

The Pennsylvania Democrat who has sued Sen. Barack Obama demanding he prove his American citizenship – and therefore qualification to run for president – has confirmed he has a recording of a telephone call from the senator's paternal grandmother confirming his birth in Kenya.

The issue of Obama's birthplace, which he states is Honolulu in 1961, has been raised enough times that his campaign website has posted an image purporting to be of his "Certification of Live Birth" from Hawaii.

But Philip J. Berg, a former deputy attorney general for Pennsylvania, told the Michael Savage talk radio program tonight that the document is forged and that he has a tape recording he will soon release.

"This has been a real sham he's pulled off for the last 20 months," Berg told Savage. "I'll release it [the tape] in a day or two, affidavits from her talking to a certain person. I heard the tape. She was speaking [to someone] here in the United States."

He said the telephone call was from Obama's paternal grandmother affirming she "was in the delivery
room in Kenya when he was born Aug. 4, 1961."

Berg said he's pursuing the issue because of "the most important document in the United States," the U.S. Constitution.

"Nothing is more important than enforcing the Constitution," he said. "The Constitution's provisions are very small for qualifying for president. One, be over 35, and he is. Two, be in the country 14 years, and he has been. Three, be a natural-born citizen. He is not."

Obama campaign officials acknowledged the dispute by posting the image purporting to be a copy of his certification of live birth earlier this year. But they've declined to return WND requests for comment on the issues.

WND reported earlier this week Berg's claim that Obama has legally "admitted" the accusations included in his lawsuit, including that he was born in Mombosa, Kenya, by not responding to the allegations.

Berg filed suit in U.S. District Court in August alleging Obama is not a natural-born citizen and is thus ineligible to serve as president of the United States.

His lawsuit is demanding that the courts verify Obama's original birth certificate.

Berg has cited Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which states that unless the accused party provides written answer or objection to charges within 30 days, the accused legally admits the matter.

Since Obama filed only motions to dismiss the case and did not actually answer the claims, according to Rule 36, Obama has legally admitted he is not a natural-born citizen., asserted Berg, who has taken his information public through his website.

Berg addressed the existence of a birth announcement in the Honolulu Advertiser newspaper, featured on the Atlasshrugs2000 website, that suggests Obama was born in the city Aug. 4, 1961.

But Berg explained to Savage he believes Obama's mother was near the end of her pregnancy and unable to travel by plane, so Obama was born in Kenya. The family then traveled to Hawaii and registered the birth and submitted the newspaper announcement.

Besides Berg's lawsuit, several other court challenges also have been filed, including one in Washington state where petitioners are seeking to have the Washington secretary of state "verify Obama's eligibility" to serve prior to the election.

The claim states, "The 'certificate' that Mr. Obama has posted on his official Website is a 'Certification of Live Birth,' and not a 'Birth Certificate' from Hawaii. There is no indication on even this certificate as to specifically where the birth took place."

Berg also told Savage there is no information available on which hospital Obama's mother used in Hawaii.

The Washington state case also alleges, "Wayne Madsen, Journalist with Online Journal as a contributing writer and published an article on June 9, 2008, stating that a research team went to Mombasa, Kenya, and located a Certificate Registering the birth of Barack Obama, Jr. at a Kenya Maternity Hospital, to his father, a Kenyan citizen and his mother, a U.S. citizen.

When Jerome Corsi, senior WND investigator reporter, recently traveled to Kenya to investigate several questions about the candidate, he was told the records were sealed and would not be made available.

Though it hasn't given Berg the evidence he seeks, the Obama campaign has publicly answered allegations that the candidate was born in Kenya and faked his Hawaii birth certificate.

"Smears claiming Barack Obama doesn't have a birth certificate aren't actually about that piece of paper," says the "Fight the Smears" section of Obama's website, "they're about manipulating people into thinking Barack is not an American citizen.

"The truth is, Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native citizen of the United States of America," the campaign website states. It also includes images of the Hawaii certificate bearing the name Barack Hussein Obama II.

The Washington claim states, "If in fact Obama was born in Kenya, the laws on the books in the United States at the time of his birth stated if a child is born abroad and one parent was a U.S. Citizen, which would have been his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, Obama's mother would have had to live ten (10) years in the United States, five (5) of which were after the age of fourteen (14). At the time of Obama's birth, his mother was only eighteen (18) and therefore did not meet the residency requirements under the law to give her son (Obama) U.S. Citizenship much less the status of 'natural born.'"

Berg said he believed it also was a complication that Obama's mother divorced his father, married and moved to Indonesia for several years and Obama attended school there at a time when, Berg said, only Indonesia citizens were allowed in schools. Records that are available from Indonesia revealed Obama was registered in school as Barry Soetoro, and his religion was listed as Islam.

When Obama later returned to Hawaii, within the United States, there should have been a government document affirming his citizenship, but that also cannot be found. If that was not processed properly, Berg said, Obama would be in a situation even worse than not being a natural-born citizen.

"If he didn't go through immigration, he now is illegal and has been an illegal alien. He couldn't even hold the position of senator for Illinois," Berg said.

Further, Berg said he suspected Obama's college records may indicate he received aid as a foreigner, and that's why those records have been withheld by the campaign.

"I really think it's because it probably indicates he's from Kenya, or Indonesia, or received foreign aid," Berg said.

"I feel very confident saying these things," Berg told Savage.

Here you can do some learning, as I am not going to dig through all this mess, just to answer your questions. A typical liberal spine job!

Cruisingfool

02-13-2010, 10:15 AM

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=98546

HE FULL STORY
Is Obama constitutionally eligible to serve?
WND's complete archive of news reports on the issue
Posted: January 05, 2010
1:48 am Eastern

© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Barack Obama, the man elected president

Oklahoma firecracker takes on Obama eligibility
Candidate: 'If he claims he was born at Kapi'olani, I want him to show proof'

'I don't know whether Obama's a U.S. citizen'
Growing list of lawmakers, talker questioning eligibility of president

Obama's prayer: 'Don't question my citizenship'
Raises issue of eligibility in speech at annual breakfast gathering

Chrysler bankruptcy lawyers raise eligibility question
Defense of dealer dismissals cites question of Obama's birth

Courts can remove ineligible chief executive
Precedent cited in appeal of California challenge to president's tenure

D.C. court case demands Obama explain eligibility
Contends president's allegiance is to Britain, Kenya, Indonesia

Democrats suddenly interested in Obama birth certificate
Senate campaign director has plan to harm Republicans running for offices

Even Californians doubt president's eligibility
Survey says 1 in 3 have unanswered questions

Birth certificate 'baloney': 'Official' doesn't mean real
Investigation shows how terrorists, fakers could pass as U.S. citizens

Hawaii launches defense to Obama birth queries
Posts 'vital records' Web page saying responses 'not' required

Appeals court told Obama 'security risk'
Eligibility case says 'usurper' lacks 'constitutional authority'

Obama's eligibility becomes war between the states
Lawmakers jump into fray, seek answer to constitutional question

3 dozen lawmakers want proof of Obama eligibility
Proposal would demand state officials independently verify information

Birthers, is Secret Service watching you?
Agents pay visits to those who question Obama's eligibility

White House mum on eligibility demand
Congressman's question to president confirmed

Newspapers' birth announcements: So what?
Critics rely on routine published statements in Honolulu

Report: Congressman challenges Obama eligibility
'This forever changes the public discourse'

Glenn Beck on birther issue: 'Dumbest thing I've ever heard'
Claims controversy is political 'dream come true' for Obama
--WND

Guess how 'the One' will be honored next
Obama Day, Park, High School, Birthplace – if only they can figure exactly where that is
--WND

Guess what AOL users say about eligibility questions
67% polled support Palin's remarks about Obama birth
--WND

Palin: OK to press Obama's eligibility
Voters 'rightfully' making doubt about birth certificate an issue
--WND

Appeals brief scheduled in Obama eligibility challenge
'We look forward to moving ahead with this very important constitutional case'
--WND

Judge dismisses California eligibility challenge
Plaintiffs promise appeal of ruling protecting Obama
--WND

Does eligibility court clerk have ties to Obama?
Wikipedia editors scrub page over 'fears that some birther might go nuts'
--WND

Michelle contradicts Obama nativity story
Divulges Ann Dunham was 'very young and very single' at birth of U.S. president
--WND

Appeal filed in Obama eligibility argument
'Court cannot refuse to hear a case because it prefers not'
--WND

Obama law tab up to $1.7 million
'Grass-roots army' contributions used to crush eligibility lawsuits?
--WND

Judge accused of 'intimidation'
Eligibility lawyer takes $20,000 penalty to next level
--WND

Judge tosses eligibility case against Congress
'We've lost a skirmish. Now on with the war in the higher courts!'
--WND

Obama from Kenya, archived report says
Revives worry about president's eligibility for office
--WND

Plaintiff: Courts must hear eligibility arguments
Cites Marshall opinion that to refuse is treason
--WND

Judge sets 'final' calendar for eligibility challenge
Ruling suggests there will be a trial, but doesn't confirm it
--WND

Judge: Eligibility dispute is 'serious'
Says case will be expedited when representation lined up
--WND

Obama eligibility case survives 1st court test
Judge hears arguments, refuses immediate dismissal demand
--WND

Obama eligibility to see its day in court?
Pivotal hearing decides whether 'birther' case will be trashed, heard on merits
--WND

Obama from Kenya, archived report says
Revives worry about president's eligibility for office
--WND

Eligibility attorney mocked, fined $20,000
Judge: Perhaps 'eccentric citizen' convinced president 'alien from Mars'
--WND

Senator says Obama's birth location doesn't matter
Tim Johnson: He's natural-born citizen 'regardless' of place
--WND

Was Obama's birth out of wedlock?
Book rekindles speculation parents never married
--WND

Congressman: Obama has something to hide
It's not citizenship, but 'there's some other issue there'
--WND

Judge stalls access to Obama birth data
Says he'll adjust trial date if plaintiffs need time for researching prez records
--WND

Motion: Judge follows 'illegitimate chain of command'
Document alleged evidence 'courts are subject to external control'
--WND

Judge threatens eligibility lawyer with $10,000 fine
Says case, appeal of dismissal frivolous
--WND

Feminist Camille Paglia: Birthers have a point
Tells radio audience 'there are legitimate questions about the documentation'
--WND

Eligibility lawyer urges focus on the goal
Taitz says 'attacks' need to be directed at Obama
--WND

Judge ridicules eligibility case
Trashes soldier's complaint, compares merits to 'Alice in Wonderland'
--WND

Legislator takes eligibility question to election officials
'I expect somebody to come up with some answers; so far that hasn't happened'
--WND

President's lawyers say eligibility question over
Argue for dismissal of lawsuit over Obama's qualifications
--WND

Legislator takes eligibility question to election officials
'I expect somebody to come up with answers; so far that hasn't happened'
--WND

Soldier ordered not to challenge Obama's eligibility?
Army doctor claims she was barred from answering judge's call to court
--WND

Eye-popper: Is Nancy Pelosi in on eligibility cover-up?
Online images for certification of nomination raise questions
--WND

Birth-certificate seller surfaces as witness
Testifying in case challenging President Obama's eligibility
--WND

Obama presents 'nativity myth' to schoolkids
Evidence shows mother actually left days after president born
--WND

'Birth certificate' billboards on the Net
Ads reach targeted audience, extend campaign reaching millions a day
--WND

Shocker! Judge orders trial on eligibility issue
Arguments planned Jan. 11 for major Obama challenge
--WND

Panic in D.C.? Justice urges birth suit tossed
Late motion filed by feds as case ready for hearing
--WND

Billboard campaign hits San Antonio
'Where's the birth certificate?' Still no answers
--WND

Arguments for eBay birth certificate fall short
Jerome Corsi responds to seller of purported Kenyan document
--WND

Official Obama nativity story continues to unravel
Girlfriend places mother in Seattle in August 1961
--WND

Guess who's latest player in birth-certificate billboards
Huge signs by interstate will be seen by 300,000 per day in Denver alone
--WND

eBay birth certificate called fraud
Hospital refuses to authenticate document
--WND

Did Obama's grandmother say he was born in Kenya?
Audio! Witnesses contend interpreter tried to change her answer to 'Hawaii'
--WND

County grills pastor over 'Where's birth certificate?'
Democrats want church service as polling place terminated
--WND

Franks joins demand for eligibility proof
Gives Obama 2008 pass, but would require papers in 2012
--WND

Congressman eyes lawsuit over president's eligibility
Republican finds birth certificate sizzling topic at Arizona town hall
--WND

eBay seller releases video of 'Obama birth certificate'
Barack's dad had bachelor pad, mother left Hawaii with baby
--WND

Tom Delay – proud 'birther'
'Constitution specifically says you have to be natural born citizen'
--WND

Obama's parents didn't live at newspaper birth address
Barack's dad had bachelor pad, mother left Hawaii with baby
--WND

Eligibility billboard campaign goes viral
Americans make homemade 'Where's the birth certificate?' signs
--WND

Obama's MySpace page: I'm 52 years old, not 48
Would place president's birth during time Hawaii was a territory
--WND

Birth certificate fraud: It's been done before
FBI, Department of Justice have record of bribe scandal
--WND

Obama mama: 6 lost months
No documented record of whereabouts, activity leading up to baby's birth in '61
--WND

'Where's the birth certificate?' Vegas, baby!
Eligibility billboard campaign hits jackpot in heart of the Strip
--WND

CNN gives boot to talk radio hosts
Described as 'all noise' and too predictable
--WND

Gibbs stumbles explaining Obama's birthplace
'The president was born … uhm … in … uhh, uhh … was born'
--WND

'Doonesbury' pokes fun at constitutional question
Cartoonist Trudeau suggests Hitler would want documentation of eligibility, too
--WND

Federal judge calls soldier's Obama challenge 'frivolous'
Stunned warrior: 'I might get crushed in the wheels of the Chicago machine'
--WND

Evidence challenges claim over Obama's birth address
Father in bachelor pad while mom left islands
--WND

Globe: Obama's Hawaiian birth document fake
Cover story in tabloid suggests Canadian connection
--WND

Blogger: I created Kenya document
Posts images of document, says 'You've been punk'd'
--WND

'Where's the birth certificate?' The movie
'A Question of Eligibility' lays foundation for understanding hot issue
--WND

Obama law tab up to $1.4 million
'Grass-roots army' contributions being used to crush eligibility lawsuits?
--WND

Bill would force Obama to reveal birth documents
Hawaii senator: 'Why wouldn't they be available to the public?'
--WND

Obama birth doc update: Kenya sources weigh in
Comparison with similar certificates suggests fakery, WND probe reveals
--WND

Dig this: Media actually probed other candidates
Divulged personal documents on arrests, surgeries, colleges
--WND

Obama 'mama': 15 days from birth to Seattle class
Dunham signed up for assignments just 2 weeks out of delivery room
--WND

Timeline surrounding Barack Obama's purported birth

Kenyan document ignites firestorm over authenticity
Online Aussie paperwork cited for 'striking similarities'
--WND

1,200 send Obama request for records
'American people are becoming more aware of this obstinacy on your part'
--WND

What does 'natural born citizen' legally mean?
Debate whether British dad's baby meets constitutional requirement for president
--WND

Now Glenn Beck slams Obama birth issue
'What, are you going to take him out of office? You can't do that'
--WND

Harry Reid: Not 1 minute for 'phony issue' of birth
Senate floor criticisms make sure dispute is in Congressional Record
--WND

Farah's birthday challenge: A $10,000 gift to hospital
WND editor says he will make donation if Obama releases long-form document
--WND

HuffPost blogger, college prof: Release birth certificate
'It's so easy. I think most of us have ours in our important papers at home'
--WND

Hawaii refuses to verify president's online COLBs
Officials mum on images released by Obama's campaign, FactCheck.org
--WND

Andrew Sullivan: Release the birth certificate
Influential columnist, blogger joins, then unjoins call for official 'transparency'
--WND

Is this really smoking gun of Obama's Kenyan birth?
Attorney files motion for authentication of alleged 1960s certificate from Africa
--WND

New poll shows birthers growing
Majority of GOP, Southerners question president's birthplace
--WND

Join 445,000 others in seeking citizenship proof
Petition demands verification of Obama's eligibility
--WND

Expert: Watch loyalty, not certificate of birth
Cites Obama's references to Islam, denial of America's Christianity
--WND

Where's monument for Obama's birthplace?
Most presidents have parks, plaques, but No. 44 could be left out
--WND

Farah: 'White House wants to silence dissent'
WND chief tells radio listeners why birth certificate story still alive
--WND

No. 11 signs onto demand for eligibility proof
Former judge now cosponsor for Posey plan
--WND

Vanished: Obama exposer disappears off Net
Owner vows: 'This guy is coming down, there's nothing anybody can do about it'
--WND

Guess how many ways to get Hawaii 'birth certificate'
Some required nothing more than assertion from an adult
--WND

Cruisingfool

02-13-2010, 10:20 AM

Photostat of Susan Nordyke's 1961 Hawaii birth certificate (Courtesy Honolulu Advertiser)

Will Hawaii destroy Obama's birth certificate?
Investigator cites procedural changes that could allow it
--WND

Unveiled! Hawaii's 1961 long-form birth certificates
Real documents include name of doctor, hospital
--WND

Lou Dobbs: Just produce birth certificate
CNN anchor says Obama's presidential actions could be 'illegal'
--WND

New doubts revealed in Obama's nativity story
School documents show mother left father within weeks of birth
--WND

The latest on 'Certification of Live Birth'
Officials confirm 'Obama document' not necessarily accurate
--WND

Congressional support for proof of eligibility grows
10th congressman now supports election law change
--WND

$100,000 offered for proof of eligibility
Businessman asks how president can issue orders 'if he is not qualified'
--WND

Left rises to squash CNN's Lou Dobbs
E-mail campaign to get 'stupid, overpaid, racist wingnut off air once and for all'
--WND

Hawaii's statement on Obama birth record breaks law?
Health spokeswoman has pointed to statute that bars her from comment
--WND

Hawaii health official: Trust me
'Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen'
--WND

CNN wrong once again – birth record not destroyed
Hawaii contradicts network boss' claim that Obama certificate no longer exists
--WND

Fax blast asking states to investigate eligibility
Campaign seeks audit by attorneys general of election documentation
--WND

Gibbs: 10,000 more important issues than eligibility
But he admits at news briefing questions won't go away
--WND

Soldier's case against Obama to be class-action?
Army major challenged orders based on questions about president's eligibility
--WND

Why eligibility story is still alive
Public awareness triggered by Farah's billboard campaign
--WND

Passport seeker has no sympathy for Obama
Says he can't cross river to visit family without showing birth certificate
--WND

AOL poll from July 2009

AOL poll: 81% want Obama to release it
Say president should show American people birth certificate
--WND

'Shut up Lou Dobbs' campaign hits stride
CNN anchor simply wants birth certificate revealed
--WND

WND being censored from search engines?
Obama birth certificate links buried on Google News site
--WND

White House stonewalling on 'birth letter'
Ignores repeated requests to authenticate Obama message declaring exact hospital
--WND

Hawaiian newspapers don't prove birthplace
Announcements published in 1961 not solid evidence of U.S. location
--WND

Obama's online 'birth cert' misses 'proving' eligibility
'There are some documents that say things that aren't true'
--WND

Limbaugh: 'Obama has yet to prove he's a citizen'
Radio giant blasts president's refusal to show long-form birth certificate
--WND

Birth records get murky when adoption involved
Dual citizenship can result, parents names changed
--WND

Demand soars for eligibility postcards
Birth certificate issue remains uppermost in readers concerns
--WND

'Birth certificate' seller vanishes into thin air
Dubious eBay character dodges agent, lawyer, verification team
--WND

Another paper changes 'Obama's origin'
Deletes reference to continent of president's birth
--WND

'Birth hospital': Letter for real
New images of 'Obama document' at center of eligibility controversy
--WND

Barack Obama states in this purported letter from him on what appears to be White House stationery that he was born at the Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women and Children in Honolulu.

Lib talker, Lou Dobbs now asking eligibility questions
Radio, television, newspapers taking note of long-running dispute
--WND

'Begone!' Georgia judge orders fired reservist
Officer's orders to Afghanistan jerked after challenge to Obama's eligibility
--WND

Pentagon orders soldier fired for challenging prez
Army warrior terminated from job after questioning Obama eligibility
--WND

Join 445,000 others in seeking citizenship proof
Petition demands verification of Obama's eligibility
--WND

Bombshell: Orders revoked for soldier challenging prez
Major victory for Army warrior questioning Obama's birthplace
--WND

'Documents' show Obama birthplace in Hawaii?
News site claims unidentified records reveal president's U.S. roots
--WND

Americans go crazy for birth certificate post cards
Hilarious gift with important message strikes chord with patriots
--WND

Eligibility arguments to get court hearing
'For 1st time, we have a judge who's listening'
--WND

Now White House joins 'birth hospital' cover-up
Spokesman belittles WND reporter, asks 'what reporting' has been done
--WND

U.S. officer demands answer: Is Army 'corps of chattel slaves?'
Court challenge demands conscientious objector status unless evidence provided
--WND

Wikipedia says Obama born in Kenya
Online encyclopedia can't make up its mind on president's birthplace
--WND

Just who delivered baby Barack Obama?
Physician who attended birth remains shrouded in mystery
--WND

Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women and Children in Honolulu, Hawaii

Obama's 'birth hospital' in astonishing cover-up
Hospital once proudly celebrated president, now in active mode to hide 'proof'
--WND

News reports: Obama born in Africa
Ghana paper calls Africa 'continent of his birth'
--WND

Obama 'smear' site vanishes from Web
Statements scrubbed on birth certificate
--WND

Obama birth letter: Is this thing for real?
See what hospital posted on website, then pulled down hour after story
--WND

Hawaii Supremes asked to take 'action' on WND report
Story documented conflicting Obama birthplace claims
--WND

Hawaii upgrades 'certification of live birth'
State dumps exclusion on document for home lands program
--WND

Eligibility claims attracting high-level interest
Joint Chiefs counsel, Justice Department now involved
--WND

Queen's Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii

U.S. hospitals 'wouldn't have to disclose Hitler'
Whether Obama or anyone else, facilities keep their lips sealed
--WND

News sites swap Obama's birthplace like magic
UPI, Snopes change location within hours of WND report
--WND

Obama calls Jakarta his 'old hometown'
Was president citizen of world's most populous Muslim nation?
--WND

Obama birth mystery: More than 1 hospital
Myth-busting website, news articles say president not born in location he claims
--WND

Hospital won't back Obama birth claim
Honolulu's Kapi'olani Medical Center refuses to confirm White House letter
--WND

Holder 'conflict' cited in eligibility case
Lawyer says attorney general must enforce Constitution
--WND

Want to send Barack Obama a message?
'Where's the birth certificate?' postcards available now
--WND

eBay seller claims certified Kenya birth certificate
Says copy sports embossed seal, signature of physician
--WND

For 6th time, eBay 'birth certificate' seller erased
Doubts grow as document, video, contact missing
--WND

Screenshot of eBay auction claiming to have Obama's 'Kenyan birth certificate'

'Citizen grand jury' organizers deliver accusations
'Presentments' against Obama given to White House, FBI
--WND

The latest on eBay's 'Kenyan birth certificate'
Now it's an autographed photograph for sale
--WND

Check out latest eligibility billboard location
See 'birth certificate' campaign that revived debate nationwide
--WND

eBay warns buyers off $1 mil 'Kenyan birth certificate'
Administrators tell members who contacted seller not to respond again
--WND

President Obama (White House photo)

Lawyer notifying president of lawsuit
California case challenges Obama's eligibility
--WND

Obama secrecy could prevent recognition of birthplace
Most presidents' homes provided federal designation
--WND

Will 'truth about Obama' be sold on eBay?
Bids soar past $15,000 for alleged proof of president's Kenyan birth
--WND

The ad campaign that revived eligibility debate
See the impact of 'birth certificate' billboards nationwide
--WND

Hawaiian newspaper to WND: Drop dead
Star-Bulletin rejects full-page ad asking for help on Obama's birth
--WND

'Kenyan birth certificate' remains eBay mystery
Investigator who traveled to Africa 'skeptical' document is real deal
--WND

'Proof' of Kenyan birth scrubbed twice on eBay
But seller of 'Obama's birth certificate' dodges administrators to post 3rd time
--WND

For sale on eBay: Obama's 'Kenyan birth certificate'
Seller claims Mombasa document 'certified copy'
--WND

Judge: Eligibility dispute is 'serious'
Says case will be expedited when representation lined up
--WND

Billboard on I-35 in Waco, Texas

Eligibility issue hits local news
Radio anchor: 'Most still very much in doubt'
--WND

Question on everyone's mind
Bumper stickers highlight eligibility doubts
--WND

Hearing set on default in Obama eligibility case
Judge asks for 2nd confirmation that president notified of case
--WND

$10,000 bounty for any witness to Obama's birth
Editor encourages readers to help him up the ante
--WND

Billboard cartel says no to questioning Obama
Trade group headed by Democrat donor discouraged acceptance of eligibility
--WND

What's the difference?
Compare 'long-form' Hawaiian birth certificate with Obama's
--WND

Shocker! Most Americans know of Obama eligibility questions
Despite near media blackout on coverage, 49.3% 'troubled,' think he should release birth certificate
--WND

Gibbs gets 2nd shot at eligibility question
But he doesn't answer attorney's query about piles of sealed records
--WND

Grass roots sign onto eligibility billboard campaign
Washington state 'Where's the Birth Certificate' sign appears
--WND

Appeal promised of eligibility lawsuit
Accuses Obama of fraudulently serving as senator
--WND

Trifecta: 3rd media outfit bans Obama eligibility ads
Clear Channel joins CBS, Lamar in dissing constitutional question
--WND

Businessman boots Lamar over eligibility issue
Billboard company disses birth certificate question, now losing business
--WND

Rush LImbaugh

Shep Smith attacks right-wing 'crazies'
Rips people questioning eligibility as being 'out there in a scary place'
--WND

Rush Limbaugh pummels Obama on birth certificate
Radio giant clowns about president's similarities, differences with God
--WND

Question that won't go away
So what's the problem with an ordinary piece of paperwork?
--WND

Obama: Where have all his records gone?
Footprints of president's own history either vanish or remain covered up
--WND

Door slams on Hawaiian hospital records
Is Obama eligible? 'We cannot respond to your inquiries'
--WND

2nd major billboard company rejects eligibility campaign
Lamar Outdoor: 'misleading to indicate there's question about president's birth certificate'
--WND

Obama 'birth certificate' not acceptable in Hawaii
Even state requires long-form document for some eligibility, identification
--WND

All topics open to discuss – except Obama eligibility
100% of posts scrubbed from White House transparency site ask about birth certificate
--WND

'Birthers' battle on – eligibility battle at next level
White House can't avoid questions about citizenship in 'open government dialogue'
--WND

Eligibility billboards dubbed 'misleading'
Trade association defends CBS ban on 'Where's the birth certificate?'
--WND

'Transparent' White House blacklists 'birthers'
Obama eligibility topic missing from plans for next phase of dialogue
--WND

White House 'Open Government Dialogue' website overrun with concerns about president's eligibility

Cover-up: CBS bans eligibility billboards
Industry signange leader rejects campaign asking 'Where's the birth certificate?'
--WND

Surrounding Obama with eligibility question
Websites, billboards, press briefing -- and bumper stickers
--WND

White House dialogue site scrubbed of eligibility posts
Many Obama birth certificate queries yanked from 'transparency' debate
--WND

Eligibility explodes on White House 'dialogue' site
77% of voters demand Obama release long-form birth certificate
--WND

Obama asks which public records you want to see
On White House site, most answer establishing his eligibility to serve
--WND

Appeals court dumps eligibility arguments
'I am totally disappointed that there has been this delay'
--WND

Birth certificate issue No. 1 at Fox News
Obama eligibility most talked about topic on news website
--WND

Cruisingfool

02-13-2010, 10:22 AM

If that's a birth certificate, I'll ...
New campaign helps people creatively express 'flushtration' over eligibility
--WND

New bid to unseal Obama's birth certificate
Challenge claims Hawaii waived privacy by talking about document
--WND

Obama flack laughs off birth certificate question
'It's on the Internet, Lester,' claims Gibbs at White House briefing
--WND

Media find eligibility billboard campaign irresistible
Effort to see Obama's document covered by the London Times
--WND

Birth certificate campaign tops $45,000
'This is the way the truth will win in the end,' says organizer
--WND

Americans vote with wallets to see Obama documents
$75K already given to 'truth and transparency' billboard campaign
--WND

Grand juries cite Obama for ineligibility, treason
Hundreds of 'presentments' being handed to prosecutors
--WND

Unwrapped! Birth certificate billboard No. 1
First sign erected in 'truth and transparency' campaign
--WND

Obama eligibility lawyer cites dangers from delays
'Every passing day impacts lives of Americans'
--WND

U.S. bonkers for Obama birth certificate billboards
Campaign strikes chord on presidential eligibility issue
--WND

U.S. Supreme Court

The 'Where's the birth certificate?' campaign
Would you like to see this billboard in your town?
--WND

How to get eligibility ruling from Supremes
Lawyer outlines strategy to prompt court decision
--WND

2nd congressman: Prove eligibility
Virginia representative signs onto plan to demand evidence
--WND

Eligibility attorney plans return to Supreme Court
Says, 'I will be filing until I get an answer'
--WND

Eligibility case defendants don't want to answer now
Lawyer for Obama, Congress says representation decision unmade
--WND

Is Obama campaign cash quashing eligibility suits?
FEC shows more than $1 million paid to top law firm since election
--WND

Join 445,000 others in seeking citizenship proof
Petition demands verification of Obama's eligibility
--WND

Orly Taitz announces new blog
California attorney behind Obama eligibility lawsuits moves battle to fresh website
--WND

Did state election papers include eligibility perjury?
Campaign seeks investigation by attorneys general of documentation
--WND

Kentucky elections officer wants eligibility investigated
Refers matter to state attorney general for review
--WND

See where 'barrysoetoro.com' takes you on Internet
What does website using president's childhood moniker mean?
--WND

'Twittered' eligibility case lawyer faces threat of sanctions
Team defending Obama, Biden warns of 'costs, expenses, fees'
--WND

Orly Taitz (WND photo / Chelsea Schilling)

Meet fierce blonde behind Obama eligibility lawsuits
Soviet Union survivor: President spits in face of every U.S. citizen
--WND

Doubt about Obama eligibility spreads
Writer concedes 'ambiguities' weren't 'satisfactorily resolved'
--WND

What about the hospital of his 'birth'?
Hawaii moves to make Obama childhood home national landmark
--WND

Analyst warns eligibility could become flashpoint
'It is morphing now to include members of the armed forces'
--WND

Supreme Court asked to cooperate with FBI
Attorney investigating Obama's eligibility reports cyber attacks
--WND

The ultimate special report on eligibility
Why millions still demand proof Obama is constitutionally fit for office
--WND

Eligibility judge backs off sanctions threat
Instead 'reprimands' attorney representing military officer
--WND

Citizen grand jury indicts Obama
Groups in 20 more states reviewing eligibility claims
--WND

Keyes to appeal case on Obama's eligibility
Lawyer says dismissal 'eviscerates' Constitution's rules for president
--WND

Federal criminal complaint contends Obama ineligible
Ex-officer alleges prez used 'contrivance, concealment, dissembling and deceit'
--WND

Eligibility lawyer says Homeland Security shadowing him
Reports incidents involving county, federal agents
--WND

Obama open for questions from you today
Farah urges readers ask most obvious: Where's the birth certificate?
--WND

Justice, Supremes confirm getting eligibility challenge
Taitz documents demanding proof of Obama's birthplace to be reviewed
--WND

Suggesting eligibility proof gets congressman scorned
Faces comments including, 'Take the Reynolds Wrap off your head'
--WND

Vice President Joe Biden

Biden jokes about Obama's birth certificate at dinner
Says Cheney left copy of document in vice presidential desk
--WND

Supremes read Kansas blog?
Focused on page dealing with claims of ineligibility
--WND

Taitz to FBI: Investigate 'tampering' at Supremes
'305 million Americans need to know if foreign national is usurping presidency'
--WND

Man critical of Obama case judge visited by marshals
'I told your Gestapo goons we had nothing to talk about'
--WND

Judge ripped for using blog eligibility hearsay
Obama case lawyer says he's entitled to birth certificate discovery hearing
--WND

Chief justice accepts 'eligibility' petition
Roberts agrees to read Obama docs, consider WND's 330,000 signers
--WND

U.S. Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla.

Eligibility bill hits Congress
Representative files law requiring candidates show birth certificate
--WND

Court: No need for state to check prez' eligibility
Judge throws out complaint brought on behalf of Keyes
--WND

Did Supreme Court clerk torpedo eligibility cases?
Taitz submits motion for rehearing in case challenging Obama's citizenship
--WND

Why are there still questions about qualifications?
Arguments of president's defenders never actually addressed eligibility
--WND

What congressmen say about eligibility
Lawmakers' letters insist 'president was born in Hawaii'
--WND

Antonin Scalia

Scalia: You need 4 votes for Obama eligibility case
Lawyer confronts justice about prez's qualifications
--WND

Is Snopes.com infallible?
If website calls Obama eligible, then he must be, right?
--WND

Eligibility issue sparks 'edit war'
Wikipedia blocks users from posting criticism of Obama
--WND

Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility
Mention of citizenship issues deleted in minutes, 'offending' users banned
--WND

Judge James Robertson

Judge: Eligibility issue thoroughly 'twittered'
Dismisses case brought by retired military officer
--WND

Republican senator says Snopes settled 'eligibility'
Arizona's Kyl cites website that assumes Hawaiian birth
--WND

Senator: Eligibility is up to the voters
Republican Martinez implies constitutional requirement for presidency can be bypassed
--WND

U.S. soldier gagged on prez's eligibility
Military member seeking documentation silenced
--WND

More military officers demand eligibility proof
Plaintiff: 'In the worst case … it's going to be revolution in the streets'
--WND

Obama eligibility tops AOL News
Internet reports mock 'Birthers' who want constitutional proof
--WND

California used to check prez candidates' eligibility
Lawsuit seeks school records to verify citizenship status
--WND

Retired Maj. Gen. Carroll Childers

Major General says president's eligibility needs proof
'Most important, what I really want is the truth'
--WND

Eligibility lawyer argues for president's deportation
Berg seeks proper treatment for 'illegal alien'
--WND

2nd U.S. soldier in Iraq challenges eligibility
Says issue could decide if 'we are a Constitutional Republic'
--WND

Soldier questions eligibility, doubts president's authority
'As an officer, my sworn oath to support and defend our Constitution requires this'
--WND

Senator questions Obama eligibility
Shelby: 'They said he was born in Hawaii, but I haven't seen any birth certificate'
--WND

Eligibility petition hits quarter-million mark
Nearly 3,000 a day question Obama's constitutional suitability
--WND

Alan Keyes: Stop Obama or U.S. will cease to exist
Claims 'communist usurper' plunges country into chaos
--WND

States reviewing 'eligibility' challenges
Montana tables plan while Oklahoma's gets committee approval
--WND

Keyes: President 'has something to hide' about eligibility
Says Dem 'asked to be chosen, therefore must answer'
--WND

'Sanctions' sought in eligibility case
President's attorneys file motion demanding birth, college records be withheld from public
--WND

State lawmakers: Prove you're president, Mr. Obama
Case being assembled to demand eligibility documentation
--WND

Eligibility issue: McCain checked but not Obama
Lawsuit contends Congress failed to qualify Democrat for Oval Office
--WND

Congress sued to remove prez from White House
'Defendants had to ensure the Constitution is upheld'
--WND

What did president tell Supreme Court?
Lawyer in eligibility case seeks records of secret discussions
--WND

Has newspaper really solved eligibility question?
Retired teacher cited as proof but she claims no first-hand knowledge
--WND

President's meeting with judges questioned
Lawyer challenging eligibility raises issue of secret conference
--WND

Eligibility battle rages on 3 fronts
Court, Congress and college challenged on constitutionality
--WND

Join 445,000 others in seeking citizenship proof
Petition demands verification of Obama's eligibility
--WND

Please check eligibility, thousands ask Supremes
Another round of urgent requests delivered to high court
--WND

Latest eligibility challenge rejected
Justices' conference results in no action on constitutional questions
--WND

Eligibility issue to follow Obama into Oval Office
Supreme Court sets 'natural born' conference to follow inauguration
--WND

Watch Obama commercial they don't want you to see
Fox, CNN, MSNBC refuse ads questioning Barack's eligibility
--WND

Supreme Court to take up eligibility question again
Conference to evaluate claims president-elect isn't qualified
--WND

FedEx Supreme Court on Obama's eligibility
WND makes it easy, cheaper to ask justices to resolve questions
--WND

AOL: Growing majority worried over eligibility
Even half in Illinois say issue should be reviewed, resolved
--WND

Berg files new challenge to eligibility
'There is nothing more important than our U.S. Constitution'
--WND

Attorney Stephen Pidgeon

Eligibility case finds 'standing'?
New suit claims unique state law enables citizens to demand proof
--WND

Most covered-up of 2008: Natural-born citizen
WND editors join with readers to determine the year's top 10
--WND

Message to Congress: Protect Constitution
Effort seeks volunteers to challenge eligibility
--WND

Eligibility remains focus of Supremes' conferences
Dispute posted on docket twice after Electoral College votes in
--WND

Supreme Court to talk about Obama 3rd time
Berg eligibility case set for conference Jan. 9
--WND

More challenges fail in Supreme Court
Kennedy turns back cases based on eligibility questions
--WND

Investigator casts doubt on Obama's birth residence
Neighbor believes family didn't live at address in newspaper announcement
--WND

Obama citizenship issue has merit, AOL poll says
Nation seeks answers to questions about president-elect's eligibility
--WND

Supreme Court refuses 2nd challenge to eligibility
Case alleges dual citizenship disqualifies Obama for office
--WND

Status report: The eligibility issue
Several cases still challenge whether senator can become president
--WND

Thousands advise electors to check eligibility
But 1 who teaches 'Marxist theory' ridicules concerns
--WND

Democrat's eligibility 'facts' knocked down
'If a guy ain't natural born, he can't be president'
--WND

Electors challenged to investigate birth dispute
'Only reasonable explanation' is he wasn't born in the U.S.
--WND

Supremes turn down request to stop Electoral vote
But Friday, high court will consider another case in flood of eligibility challenges
--WND

Keyes' lawyers invite public to 'join the fight'
High-profile eligibility lawsuit may succeed where others have failed
--WND

Eligibility question? FedEx Electoral College members
WND follows up Supreme Court letter campaign with historic 1st
--WND

Join exploding demand for citizenship documentation
230,000 already have signed petition
--WND

Eligibility dispute, Part 2, scheduled by Supremes
Court rejects claim challenging candidacy, schedules another for Friday conference
--WND

Supreme Court denies 1st eligibility challenge
Justices won’t give questions about qualifications full hearing
--WND

Demonstrators protesting Obama's eligibility and praying before the U.S. Supreme Court

Will Supremes review citizenship arguments?
Lawsuit: Even with a valid birth certificate, 'he still wouldn't be eligible to be president'
--WND

Eligibility dispute story spreads
Now National Press Club event scheduled on challenge to Oval Office occupant
--WND

More than 60,000 letters sent to U.S. Supreme Court
WND readers deliver urgent requests to review Obama citizenship
--WND

'Natural-born' requirement called 'stupidest provision'
Also 'discriminates, outdated, undemocratic and assumes birthplace a proxy for loyalty'
--WND

Pravda raises Obama eligibility issue
Other media outlets begin reporting concerns over president-elect's citizenship status
--WND

Document posted on Barack Obama's "Fight the Smears" website.

Hawaii hospitals: Obama not born here
Blog claims calls, visits to medical facilities reveal no birthplace of president-elect
--WND

Electoral College scam: Where dead people vote
Lawyer challenging eligibility seeks investigation of process
--WND

Democrat asks Supreme Court to halt electors
Obama lets deadline slip by without responding to petition, so attorney takes next step
--WND

Print, TV ads demand citizenship proof from Obama
Concerned Americans look to media to compel president-elect to release documents

Cruisingfool

02-13-2010, 10:34 AM

Imaging guru: 'Certification' of birth time, location is fake
'It would be hard to perform as president from behind jail cell door at Leavenworth'
--WND

Obama, DNC elude citizenship lawsuit deadline
Solicitor general's office dodges questions about birth certificate complaint
--WND

FedEx the Supremes about Obama's eligibility
WND makes it easy, cheaper to ask justices to resolve questions
--WND

Chasm dividing Americans over birth certificate widens
Opinions include, 'Constitution means what we say'
--WND

Ambassador Peter Ogego

Embassy: Obama not born in Kenya
Office claims ambassador was speaking about president-elect's father in radio interview
--WND

Orders from new president to spark lawsuit every time
Lawyer lining up plaintiff groups until citizenship dispute addressed
--WND

Proofin' the prez: Who's in charge?
Constitutional lawyer says electors have duty to investigate citizenship
--WND

Prez passes on Obama's eligibility
'I don't think I have anything to say on that,' says spokesman
--WND

100,000 petitioners: If you're eligible, show us the proof!
Throngs sign online demand, reveal frustration over secrecy
--WND

Shades of Florida in 2000! Could Supremes decide '08?
'Justices free to make their own determination regarding the specifics of the general election'
--WND

Petition to see the birth certificate
Join WND to help answer eligibility question
--WND

Is he or isn't he? The debate over Obama's eligibility
New feature focuses on birth certificate, the U.S. Constitution and doubts
--WND

Supremes to review citizenship arguments
Case challenging candidacy set for 'conference' of justices
--WND

We're in 'good shape' over Obama's birthplace
Presidential spokeswoman suggests there's no controversy
--WND

Supremes to review citizenship arguments
Case challenging candidacy set for 'conference' of justices
--WND
Alan Keyes
Alan Keyes

'Constitutional crisis' looming over Obama's birth location
Alan Keyes lawsuit warns America may see 'usurper' in Oval Office
--WND

Obama camp: Lawsuits by citizens are 'garbage'
Legal challenges spring up across U.S., demand proof of eligibility for office
--WND

Will Supreme Court have say in presidency?
Schedule includes campaign response to questions on Obama birthplace
--WND

Doubts persist about Obama birth certificate
Considerable evidence still points to candidate's birth in Kenya
--WND

Supremes asked to halt Tuesday's vote
Constitutional crisis feared over Obama's 'qualifications'
--WND

Gov. Linda Lingle, R-Hawaii

Obama's birth certificate sealed by Hawaii governor
Says Democratic senator must make request to obtain original document
--WND

Judge dismisses Obama birth certificate lawsuit
Rules voters don't have standing to 'police' constitutional requirements for president
--WND

Democrat: Obama's grandma confirms Kenyan birth
'This has been a real sham he's pulled off for the last 20 months'
--WND

Obama 'admits' Kenyan birth?
Campaign doesn't respond to claims in lawsuit over birth certificate
--WND

DNC steps in to silence lawsuit over Obama birth certificate
Democrat suing his own party says it's 'like they're in cahoots'
--WND

Philip J. Berg, one of the first to take Obama eligibility question to court

Democrat sues Sen. Obama over 'fraudulent candidacy'
Lawsuit disputing U.S. citizenship based in part on discredited claims
--WND

2 campaigns seek 'truth' about Obama's birth
Eligibility for presidency hinges on American citizenship
--WND

Obama birth certificate: Real or phony baloney?
Authenticity of crucial document staked on Daily Kos-derived image
--WND

Blogger reveals Obama birth certificate
'All information is what we have been told before'
--WND

Is Obama's candidacy constitutional?
Secrecy over birth certificate, demand for 'natural-born' citizenship cited
--WND

Cruisingfool

02-13-2010, 10:54 AM

Good question. But, when a person is hell bent on trying to do something they want more than anything, then some of the time they must stray from reality/reason. There is a time to accept reality.

Yes there is, and there is time to accept that you were naive enough to vote an illegal alien in as President!

I was not dumb enough to vote somebody into this high of office, clearly knowing nobody has ever seen his birth certificate. The only thing that has been shown is a COLB, which anybody, from anywhere could of gone to Hawaii and got one that looked just like obummers.

fDIVEfVGLBQ

Cruisingfool

02-13-2010, 11:31 AM

Dear WorldNetDaily Reader:

There have been lawsuits filed all over the country challenging Barack Obama to prove he is a "natural born citizen" as required by the Constitution. The most high-profile of these cases has been prepared and argued by WND's friends at the United States Justice Foundation (https://secure.conservativedonations.com/usjf_appellate_wnd/?a=3616), a public interest law firm with high principles.

People are always asking me what they can do to further the eligibility issue. The answer? Support the groundbreaking and relentless work of the USJF!

Below, please find an important update from their Executive Director, Gary Kreep.

Joseph Farah
Joseph Farah
Editor and Chief Executive Officer
WorldNetDaily

Dear Defender of the U. S. Constitution!

FEBRUARY 1, 2010, is the beginning of real freedom in America! That was the day that I, on behalf of all Americans, filed our Opening Appellants Brief (AOB) in the Appellant Court against the Defendants-Respondents: supposed president BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, Vice-president Joe Biden, Secretary of the State of California Debra BOWEN, and others.

On behalf of YOUR United States Justice Foundation (USJF), I respectfully requested a REVERSAL of the trial court judgment sustaining the Respondents’ “demurrer,” which means that the defendant in a case does not dispute the truth of the allegations in the lawsuit, but claims that there are not sufficient legal grounds to justify a court granting relief.

I know that you already admire these great Americans that I represent in this historic lawsuit: Dr. Alan KEYES (Presidential candidate for the American Independent Party in 2008), Vice-Presidential nominee for the same party in 2008, Dr. Wiley Drake, and California Elector Markham Robinson. As you know, these are all great, patriotic Americans.

At issue is the eligibility requirement of Barack Hussein Obama to serve as President of the United States!!

I’ve received hate mail. I’ve had threats made against my life. I’ve been relentlessly ridiculed by the mainstream media. But yet I continue the fight to SEARCH FOR THE TRUTH!! America deserves the truth.

YOU DESERVE THE TRUTH!!

Please, CLICK HERE, to send your largest possible donation to help in this legal fight for the United States Constitution. As an American citizen, YOU have a right to know if Barack Hussein Obama is, indeed, an American citizen! Not only is it your right, it is a requirement of the U. S. Constitution for him to be a “natural born citizen to serve as President! (https://secure.conservativedonations.com/usjf_appellate_wnd/?a=3616) Please, give generously, and please do so TODAY! This fight is extremely expensive (Mr. Obama’s lawyers have, according to published reports, already spent over $1.7 Million just to hide the truth from us and our allies in this confrontation!!)

The mainstream media has called me every name in the book. But, like a well-trained lawyer, I answer their charges: line-upon-line, precept upon precept.

I am not mean-spirited, as depicted by the liberal media. If Mr. Obama produced a real birth certificate that proved that he was a “natural born” citizen of the United States of America, I would be the first one to “salute” him as president. HOWEVER--

As of this very moment, there has been NO GENUINE, BONAFIDE, MEANINGFUL, EVIDENCE, shown by him or by his lawyers to satisfy a court of law that he is an American citizen, must less a “natural born” citizen!! NONE!!

We’ve been at this fight for well over one year; and, now, I believe that we have a legal case that has a real “LEGAL BITE” to our contention that Barack Hussein Obama is not the President of the United States, according to our own United States Constitution!!

The issue of whether Mr. Obama is eligible to serve as President of the United States is one that has “significant political overtones,” given that it has a direct relation to the election of the most powerful political office in the United States (for the world, for that matter). But it is an issue that is a defining moment, for which the Court can make a determination, because the requirements are clearly stated in Article II, Section 1, Clause 4, of the U. S. Constitution. And courts routinely decide questions of law and of fact such as the issue in this case.

But there are many enormous forces coming against the United States Justice Foundation (USJF)! This is no ordinary case. This is like the war of the gladiators; actually more like David and Goliath! Not to be flippant, but, basically, USJF is David; and Mr. Obama is Goliath!! The supposed “forces of change” has come against us with everything that they’ve got!! As a lawyer, I shouldn’t use the word “mafia” -- but it is absolutely unbelievable what we are facing !!

And yes, “little David” is unbelievably underfunded!

[/URL]CLICK HERE to assist in this legal battle to learn the truth!! YOU have a right to know that Barack Hussein Obama is an American citizen! It is a requirement of the U. S. Constitution for him to be a “natural born citizen,”to serve as President. Please, give generously, and please do so TODAY! This fight is very costly. My staff is over-worked, and we cannot match the resources of Mr. Obama’s legal “dream team.” Mr. Obama has already spent over $1.7 Million in legal fees, according to published reports, just to hide the truth from YOU!

As of the filing of our brief on Monday, Barack Hussein Obama has not allowed independent or official access to his vault (original hospital) birth records and supporting hospital records. Mr. Obama’s citizenship status has been challenged in over 20 different legal actions in various federal and state courts, which challenges cast doubt on the validity of the electoral process, regardless of the outcome.

Here is the short of what we know at this very moment: Mr. Obama entered this race for President without having met the eligibility requirements for the office of President of the United States. As a result, Dr. Alan Keyes and Dr. Drake have been injured because they did not have fair competition for the offices they sought. They were not given a fair opportunity to obtain votes for President and Vice-President of the United States! They sustained “injuries,” according to Federal Court case law.

I know that all this sounds like a lot of legal terminology---but all that we simply want is the TRUTH---is Barack Obama qualified, by our own U. S. Constitution, to serve as President of the United States.

NO---I am not on some “witch hunt,” as the media has painted me. Veterans, soccer moms, businessmen, school kids, seniors, divorcees, hard workers---all they want is THE TRUTH! Especially our men serving in “harm’s way” in our military--they really need to know!!

Did you know that John McCain had a lawsuit filed against him, to force him to establish his citizenship (Hollander v. McCain) during his campaign for President! After he produced evidence and official documents, and after Congressional hearings (!), the U. S., by Senate Resolution 511, John McCain was recognized as a “natural born citizen.” If he had to go through these “hoops”---why didn’t his presidential opponent have to do the same??

Here is how our United States Constitution actually reads: “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”

[URL="https://secure.conservativedonations.com/usjf_appellate_wnd/?a=3616"]Please let us know, TODAY, if you wish to help us to get to the bottom of this critical Constitutional battle , by CLICKING HERE. Do you want to know if Barack Hussein Obama is a “natural born” American citizen! Please, give generously today! (https://secure.conservativedonations.com/usjf_appellate_wnd/?a=3616)

Here is how our brief, in part, reads: “APPELLANTS allege that OBAMA is legally disabled by his birth status. Therefore, all votes cast in favor of the OBAMA/BIDEN joint and severable ticket by the California Electors should be deemed null and void, since the votes were cast for an individual ineligible to run for the office of President of the United States.”

It’s just that plain and simple!

Never in my wildest imagination would I ever think of me having to do this in the United States of America. And, despite what you may have been told by the Obama-controlled media, there are a number of legal precedents for this action.

Like former radical, Black Panther leader Eldridge Cleaver, who was taken off Presidential ballots , both in Utah and in California (the California removal resulted in the ACLU filing a lawsuit to put him back on the Presidential ballot that went all the way up to the United States Supreme Court—and California won that case!) for not being old enough...

Like former North Dakota Governor Thomas H. Moodie, who was duly elected to be that state’s governor; however, afterward, it was discovered that he had not resided in the state for a requisite five years before running for office, and, because of that ineligibility, he was REMOVED from office by that State’s Supreme Court in 1935.

I assure you; I am not on a personal vendetta against Barack Hussein Obama. JUST LET US KNOW THE TRUTH!! The bottom line: voters DO NOT have the power, or the right, (according to the U. S. Constitution!!) to determine the eligibility of a candidate---no matter how popular that person may be!

Here is the crux of this particular case: Ms. Bowen, the California Secretary of State, did NOT exercise her required “due diligence,” by certifying candidates to run for office without verifying that they had met all of the requirements of eligibility for office.

What proof do we need?

• An original birth certificate, showing the name of the hospital and the name and signature of the doctor who delivered the candidate

• A passport with immigration stamps, and verification from the governments where the candidate has resided, verifying that he did not, and does not, hold citizenship of these countries

• Any other documents that could certify an individual’s citizenship and/or qualification for office.

Will you help us today . . . to get to the bottom of this crisis---all we want is the TRUTH!!

PLEASE, CLICK HERE, to send your donation to help in this legal fight for the United States Constitution. As an American citizen, YOU have a right to know if Barack Hussein Obama is a “fellow” American! Please give to assist us today in this battle of David and Goliath!
(https://secure.conservativedonations.com/usjf_appellate_wnd/?a=3616)

I watched Mr. Obama at his first State of the Union address last week; then his revealing budget speech, shortly before I filed these pleadings in court. Amazingly, I asked myself (just like tens of millions of other inquiring Americans!!)---what in the world does Barack Hussein Obama have to hide?? With your continued help, we shall soon see what he has been hiding!! Thank you for your support and for your prayers for our success.

Please do what you can -– with a grateful heart,

Gary Kreep, Executive Director
United States Justice Foundation

P. S. We are on the brink of the real truth!! What does it take to just get a signed copy of a birth certificate? Why has Mr. Obama spent over $1.7 million, according to published reports, just to hide the truth from United States citizens? Please, assist us today...

CLICK HERE to help in this costly battle for the very soul of the United States Constitution. YOU have a right to know if Barack Hussein Obama is a “natural born” American citizen! Please, give generously to the USJF, and please do so TODAY! This fight has been going on for over one year. The costs continue to mount. Thank you for caring! (https://secure.conservativedonations.com/usjf_appellate_wnd/?a=3616)

To Donate by check, please mail to:
United States Justice Foundation
National Processing Center
PO Box 131637
Dept Code 3616
Houston, TX 77219-1637

The United States Justice Foundation (USJF) is a non-profit organization, whose tax-exempt status under IRS section 501(c)(3) has been recognized by the Internal Revenue Service. Your contributions are tax deductible. Corporate contributions may be accepted.

MowMyOwn

02-13-2010, 03:12 PM

Please, CLICK HERE, to send your largest possible donation to help......

CLICK HERE to assist in this legal battle to learn the truth!!....

by CLICKING HERE. Do you want to know if Barack Hussein Obama is a “natural born” American citizen!......

Please, give generously today!.....

PLEASE, CLICK HERE, to send your donation.....

Please do what you can -– with a grateful heart,.....

P. S.
CLICK HERE to help in this costly battle for the very soul.....

give generously to the USJF, and please do so TODAY!.....

I wonder how much interest "World Net Daily" has in "their friends" at the "United States Justice Foundation" ;)

Cruisingfool

02-13-2010, 04:20 PM

Some people want to know the truth, don't you? Seems how your State used to be a conservative State, but now is a liberal state, that is the going to be the very first state that goes bankrupt! :D

Cruisingfool

02-13-2010, 04:25 PM

Link (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=124973)
BORN IN THE USA?
Attorney facing penalties wants birth docs for defense
'Hardship on plaintiff greatly outweighs hardship on defendant'
Posted: February 13, 2010
12:10 am Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

A California lawyer who has shepherded several of the high-profile legal challenges to Barack Obama's eligibility to be president has filed a pleading in federal court in Washington, saying she faces a $20,000 penalty and a threat to her law license and needs the president's birth documents to defend herself.

Attorney Orly Taitz told WND she submitted the pleading today to Chief Judge Royce Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Taitz said she applied for a preliminary injunction, because her understanding of the rules of procedure for the district court shows a hearing or decision must be returned within 20 days.

Among the cases she has handled have been one in California on behalf of presidential candidate Alan Keyes which now is on appeal, another in Georgia on behalf of Maj. Stefan Cook and yet another in Georgia on behalf of Capt. Connie Rhodes.

WND has reported efforts to raise the question of Obama's eligibility at the state and national levels since before the 2008 election.

Numerous lawsuits have been filed alleging Obama did not meet the U.S. Constitution's requirement that a president be a "natural born citizen." The lawsuits have asserted he either was not born in Hawaii as he claims or was a dual citizen because of his father's British citizenship at the time of his birth.

The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."

Demand the truth by joining the petition campaign to make President Obama reveal his long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate!

However, none of the cases filed to date has been successful in reaching the plateau of legal discovery so that information about Obama's birth could be obtained. Most have been dismissed at the lower court level based on judges' decisions that the plaintiffs did not have "standing" – or the prospect of a personal injury in the cases.

Taitz' filing in Washington argues she's facing a $20,000 penalty imposed by Judge Clay D. Land in the Rhodes case and possible action by the California Bar Association, to which Land forwarded his highly critical order.

"Plaintiff is seeking a preliminary injunction … to obtain the vital records of the defendant prior to the February 26 deadline for document and response submission of the response by the plaintiff to the [California] bar," she wrote. "Plaintiff is seeking a preliminary injunction within 20 days, as prescribed by LCvR 65.1 (d) to be scheduled by the court prior to March 1."

She said the U.S. Supreme Court has concluded, in a previous case, a sitting president "has no immunity from civil law litigation against him from acts done before office and not related to the office."

Taitz stated she has "a unique standing to bring this case as she suffered unique damages and she was … harmed by the actions of the defendant."

Her "Defend Our Freedoms Foundation" has been under repeated hacker attacks. She operates through a mailing address of 29839 Santa Margarita Parkway, Suite 100, Rancho Santa Margarita, Calif., 92688.

"Obama has refused to unseal any of his original vital records," she said. "No one was allowed to see his original birth certificate, college application records, financial aid forms or his medical records," she argues. "The only record Obama presented was a short version Certification of Live Birth issued in 2007 which didn't provide the name of the hospital, name of the doctor in attendance or signatures of any witnesses.

"In light of the fact that the state of HI statute 338-17 allowed foreign born children of Hawaiian residents to get Hawaiian birth certificates and statute 338-5 allowed birth certificates to be obtained without any corroborating documents from any hospitals, there is no verifiable prima facia evidence of Obama's birth in Hawaii," she argues.

"Plaintiff is seeking an order by this honorable court directing the defendant to release by February 26, 2010, his original birth certificate, which was allegedly obtained based on the defendant's birth in Kapi'olani hospital in Hawaii [in 1961]," she seeks.

She's also asking for school and university records as well as passport records.

"When one compares the weight of hardships on both parties, the hardship on the plaintiff greatly outweighs the hardship on the defendant," she said.

She argued that the U.S. attorney's office should not handle Obama's defense.

"In case the U.S. attorney's office is not recused and it is found that the defendant has committed federal criminal offenses, the same U.S. attorney's office will be prosecuting him, which will deny him fair trail."

WND has reported lawmakers in a number of states have responded to the Obama controversy by proposing eligibility requirements, including Oklahoma, Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Virginia and New York.

The proposals essentially are moving the same direction as a federal measure proposed by Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla.

Posey's H.R. 1503 states:

"To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require the principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of President to include with the committee's statement of organization a copy of the candidate's birth certificate, together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution."

The bill also provides:

"Congress finds that under … the Constitution of the United States, in order to be eligible to serve as President, an individual must be a natural born citizen of the United States who has attained the age of 35 years and has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years."

The sponsors' goal is for the bill to become effective for the 2012 presidential election. The legislation now is pending in a House committee and has more than a dozen co-sponsors.

Key to the arguments over Obama's eligibility is the fact that his original long-form birth certificate never has been released. A second significant factor is the multitude of documents that Obama has kept from the public.

Besides his actual birth documentation, the still-concealed documentation includes kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records.

Thirdly, another significant factor is the estimated $1.7 million Obama has spent on court cases to prevent any of the documentation of his life to be revealed to the public.

http://www.wnd.com/images/misc/mandalayatnight1.jpg
"Where's The Birth Certificate?" billboard helps light up the night at the Mandalay Bay resort on the Las Vegas Strip.

Because of the dearth of information about Obama's eligibility, WND founder Joseph Farah has launched a campaign to raise contributions to post billboards asking a simple question: "Where's the birth certificate?"

The campaign followed a petition that has collected more than 490,000 signatures demanding proof of his eligibility, the availability of yard signs raising the question and the production of permanent, detachable magnetic bumper stickers asking the question.

The "certification of live birth" posted online and widely touted as "Obama's birth certificate" does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same "short-form" document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii. The true "long-form" birth certificate – which includes information such as the name of the birth hospital and attending physician – is the only document that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not permitted its release for public or press scrutiny.

Oddly, though congressional hearings were held to determine whether Sen. John McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president as a "natural born citizen," no controlling legal authority ever sought to verify Obama's claim to a Hawaiian birth.

Your donation – from as little as $5 to as much as $1,000 – can be made online at the WND SuperStore. (Donations are not tax-deductible. Donations of amounts greater than $1,000 can be arranged by calling either 541-474-1776 or 1-800-4WND.COM. If you would prefer to mail in your contributions, they should be directed to WND, P.O. Box 1627, Medford, Oregon, 97501. Be sure to specify the purpose of the donation by writing "billboard" on the check. In addition, donations of billboard space will be accepted, as will significant contributions specifically targeted for geographic locations.)

If you are a member of the media and would like to interview Joseph Farah about this campaign, e-mail WND.

PochoPatriot

02-13-2010, 07:56 PM

Wouldn't you consider a person in this Country, serving as President, that has every item of his History sealed, and his Grandmother is on video in Mombasa, Kenya clearly stating she witnessed her grandturd being born in Mombasa, Kenya, as an illegal alien?

I am quite satisfied with the documents I have seen. This is a rabbit hole that was invented by people that dislike the President for reasons other than his politics, IMHO.

Cruisingfool

02-14-2010, 06:29 AM

You are definitely have your right to your own opinion. I'm totally convinced he is hiding something of interest, as we have never had a President with 100 % of his background documents sealed.

DerailAmnesty.com

02-14-2010, 07:19 AM

First off, his grandmother is on video saying she was a witness in Mobassa, Kenya, in the village where he was born. So I'm not sure where you come up with Hawaiia-born child. If he really was born in Hawaii there wouldn't be a problem with his mothers age.

Thank you for the answer, but you mentioned the President's mother being married to a British citizen, as well. How would that impact the citizenship of an American-born child?

Cruisingfool

02-14-2010, 08:38 AM

Cruisingfool

02-14-2010, 09:05 AM

Link (http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=298876907218&ref=ts)
Operation Hawaii Five-OBAMa

Host: Obama Release Your Records (http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=298876907218&ref=ts#!/group.php?gid=248105051039)

Type: Causes - Protest (http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=298876907218&ref=ts#!/search/?o=4&sfxp=1&c1=2&c2=25)

Network: Global

Date: Wednesday, February 17, 2010

Time: 12:00pm - 8:00pm

Location: Home or wherever there is a phone and internet from 12 pm est - 8 pm est...

Description

This event is due to the actions of the Hawaii Department of Health in regards to Obama's vital recordS.

The Hawaii DOH is openly circumventing UIPA Laws that would allow parts or even all of Obama's vital recordS to be released, due to Hawaii public statements on his vital recordS. The pressure is mounting in Hawaii and officials are being moved around like musical chairs.

Hawaii DOH officials, to this day, still refuse to verify any of the 3 different COLB's posted online by Obama's campaign.

It's time to CALL and EMAIL the DOH/GOVT officials in Hawaii and demand they uphold the UIPA Laws and release Obama's vital recordS.

On February 17th, 12pmest-8pmest, we are asking all to bombard the Hawaii Officials listed below.

Demand they uphold the UIPA Laws and release Obama's vital recordS.

Hawaii Department of Health
Administration Directory
1250 Punchbowl St.
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Phone (808) 586-4400
Fax (808) 586-4444

DOH Communications Director,
Chiyome Fukino
Phone (808) 586-4400
Fax (808) 586-4444
E-mail: janice.okubo@doh.hawaii.gov

Deputy Director,
Susan Jackson
Phone (808) 586-4412
E-mail: sharon.abe@doh.hawaii.gov

Governor's Office
Governor Linda Lingle
Phone: 808 586-0034
Fax: 808 586-0006
web contact form: https://cs.ehawaii.gov/gov-ors/ctg-ci.html

Lieutenant Governor,
JAMES R."DUKE" AIONA, JR.
Phone: (808) 586-0255
Fax: (808) 586-0231
e-mail: ltgov@hawaii.gov

Department of the Attorney General
Hawaii AG, Mark Bennett
Telephone: (808) 586-1500
Fax: (808) 586-1239
web contact form; http://hawaii.gov/ag/main/contact_dept/main/forms/general_responses

In the mean time, burn up these web contact forms.

Governor Linda Lingle; https://cs.ehawaii.gov/gov-ors/ctg-ci.html

Hawaii AG, Mark Bennett; http://hawaii.gov/ag/main/contact_dept/main/forms/general_responses
__________________________________________________ ________

Don't forget about the White House Phone/Cyber Blitz on February 19th.

Operation Release III; http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=323296514201

__________________________________________________ ________

Some background on the Hawaii DOH.

Hawaii Department of Health refuses OIP’s request THAT THEY DISCLOSE PUBLIC DOCUMENTS BY DEC. 21st. The Post & Email can go public with the fact that the Department is in open violation of Hawaii Law regarding the request made by its editor, Mr. John Charlton, on Sept. 27, 2009, and which on Dec. 8, 2009, the Office of Information Practices warned them of the violation and demanded they respond to the request by Dec. 21st.

http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/12/21/hi-department-of-health-refuses-oips-request-2

http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/12/18/hi-department-of-health-publically-rebuffs-inquiries-for-obamas-vital-records

http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/10/09/hi-attorney-generals-office-denies-policies-on-nbc

http://www.examiner.com/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2009m10d14-Barack-Obama-and-State-of-Hawaii-on-the-ropes

http://www.examiner.com/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2009m10d1-Hawaiian-Law-Demands-Obama-records-be-made-public

More recent reports posted at the ORYR Fan Page: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Obarack-Release-Your-Records/207517629659

Rim05

02-14-2010, 10:57 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rim05
Good question. But, when a person is hell bent on trying to do something they want more than anything, then some of the time they must stray from reality/reason. There is a time to accept reality.

Yes there is, and there is time to accept that you were naive enough to vote an illegal alien in as President!

I was not dumb enough to vote somebody into this high of office, clearly knowing nobody has ever seen his birth certificate. The only thing that has been shown is a COLB, which anybody, from anywhere could of gone to Hawaii and got one that looked just like obummers.

You Sir, do not know who I voted for and neither does anyone else on this or any other forum. It is called personal business, OK? I am certainly not being driven crazy about where the President was born.

PochoPatriot

02-14-2010, 12:44 PM

You Sir, do not know who I voted for and neither does anyone else on this or any other forum. It is called personal business, OK? I am certainly not being driven crazy about where the President was born.

That's the problem with conspiracy theories, they never get answered, because there is always someone, somewhere hiding in the shadows, and keeping the "truth" concealed. I saw this with the lefties and their infatuation with the JFK assassination conspiracy and the 9/11 "truthers". Sadly, the right has jumped on this one, just as they did with Clinton and the Arkansas "mafia" and the Vince Foster conspiracy. It got so bad with all his anti-Clinton stuff that I actually had to stop listening to George Putnam, because they were still harping on it a year after Clinton left the Oval Office.

Rim05

02-14-2010, 02:44 PM

There are some who have said they have found the smoking gun and they keep waiting for the bullet to hit. Ms Orley said how many months ago that he would be in chains with in 30 days. How much truth can you put in a tape from Kenya by Farrah? :rolleyes:

Cruisingfool

02-14-2010, 06:03 PM

Cruisingfool

02-14-2010, 06:28 PM

That's the problem with conspiracy theories, they never get answered, because there is always someone, somewhere hiding in the shadows, and keeping the "truth" concealed. I saw this with the lefties and their infatuation with the JFK assassination conspiracy and the 9/11 "truthers". Sadly, the right has jumped on this one, just as they did with Clinton and the Arkansas "mafia" and the Vince Foster conspiracy. It got so bad with all his anti-Clinton stuff that I actually had to stop listening to George Putnam, because they were still harping on it a year after Clinton left the Oval Office.

conspiracy theories?

Let me ask you one simple question, and I hope you do not find it too hard.

Why exactly is everyone of his background records (aka... birth certificate, college records, etc.) sealed?

PochoPatriot

02-14-2010, 08:11 PM

Ayatollahgondola

02-14-2010, 09:35 PM

conspiracy theories?

Let me ask you one simple question, and I hope you do not find it too hard.

Why exactly is everyone of his background records (aka... birth certificate, college records, etc.) sealed?

Yes, conspiracy theories. That is why I won't get sucked into theis rabbitt hole with you. If you and the rest of your ilk want to destroy this movement then keep on with this wacko conspiracy stuff. You can join she who will not be named on the endless trail of conspiracy theories.

Look....Can I interject here, not as a moderator or anything, but just a bystander?
this birth certificate controversy is not a big thing for me, not because I think it's a false front or a big scam either one, but rather because I have too much to do already. I don't see that much harm in people following a lead, as long as it is kept within the boundaries of good time management and proper disclosure. Having spent innumerable hours researching public records, I have come to the conclusion that people see what they want regardless of what the record says. Even judges and jurors. You can place damning hard evidence before whomever you want, and if they have a bent to see it a certain way, that's what will be seen. This plays the same for both sides of the Obama legitimacy controversy. What I'm saying here is both of you are probably right in some fashion, so don't let it create a rift between you. We all know that many in our government at that level are liars, else we wouldn't be here telling them we are onto their BS about illegals. We also know that Chelena will parrot anything that turns peoples' ears and eyes in her direction, and facts are as she wants to twist or create them, so there is no oracle on this issue to turn to yet. However there is one person who could have ended the majority of suspicion a long time ago, and his reluctance to do so may be more related to division than fraud. In any case, obama gets no quarter from me because he supports the fraud of illegal aliens and open borders, so why the hell should it matter if someone pressures him on the record? My theory is that we are not wrong to hammer him over the illegal alien issue, just as they are not wrong to hammer him on his qualifications. We're all at least hammering Obama, so we are somewhat united

Rim05

02-15-2010, 04:56 AM

AG, I am not going to c/p any part of you post. My plain and simple complaint is, I AM TIRED OF IT ALREADY. All this howling is not going to change who he is or where he was born. I am so glad that I don't have to look at BUSH any more. Republicians will never get over losing to Obama no matter what he does. They will also never admit that GWB and his invasion of Iraq and no border control (maybe most) has a lot to do with what is wrong in the US today. I have stayed out of the birther bit for how many months now. I have also never said a word against Chelene, however she is the first one to declare on the old SOS that Obama is an Illegal Alien. Now all her supporters took up her cry. I AM MY OWN PERSON AND NO ONE CONTROLS MY MIND. I don't need to yell and cry but I do need to let people know we are supposed to be about Illegal Immigration. Some people have lost there way but I don't know what way they had in the beginning.

Cruisingfool

02-15-2010, 06:12 AM

Ayatollahgondola

02-15-2010, 06:20 AM

I've been following this long before Chelene every said anything. I asked PochoPatriot one easy question, and he goes off on the conspiracy bs. And RIMO on the other forum was one of the main instigators bringing politics into the forum, not me.

I will continue to post every article I find, so that people can make judgment by themselves.

SOS is no stranger to controversial subjects. Passionate exchanges are to be expected, but I was hoping to remind that we can disagree on one thing and unite on the other, so try not to damage your relationships by making one subject a do or die issue.

Rim05

02-15-2010, 06:26 AM

And RIMO on the other forum was one of the main instigators bringing politics into the forum, not me

Selective memory there. I replied to politics and was attacked by others because I am Dem. Does not bother me because I do know how and who to vote for no matter the party.
Obama does not need me to defend anything. If he was able to be elected I have no desire to interfer.

PochoPatriot

02-15-2010, 07:56 AM

I asked PochoPatriot one easy question, and he goes off on the conspiracy bs.

One thing I have learned from dealing with conspiracy theorists, like you, is that no amount of evidence is sufficient to "prove" anything related to his//her pet conspiracy. I have seen the evidence and I am convinced that the man is a natural born American citizen. Anyone who believes differently is a conspiracy theory nut that needs to leave this one alone.

PochoPatriot

02-15-2010, 08:10 AM

Look....Can I interject here, not as a moderator or anything, but just a bystander?
this birth certificate controversy is not a big thing for me, not because I think it's a false front or a big scam either one, but rather because I have too much to do already. I don't see that much harm in people following a lead, as long as it is kept within the boundaries of good time management and proper disclosure. Having spent innumerable hours researching public records, I have come to the conclusion that people see what they want regardless of what the record says. Even judges and jurors. You can place damning hard evidence before whomever you want, and if they have a bent to see it a certain way, that's what will be seen. This plays the same for both sides of the Obama legitimacy controversy. What I'm saying here is both of you are probably right in some fashion, so don't let it create a rift between you. We all know that many in our government at that level are liars, else we wouldn't be here telling them we are onto their BS about illegals. We also know that Chelena will parrot anything that turns peoples' ears and eyes in her direction, and facts are as she wants to twist or create them, so there is no oracle on this issue to turn to yet. However there is one person who could have ended the majority of suspicion a long time ago, and his reluctance to do so may be more related to division than fraud. In any case, obama gets no quarter from me because he supports the fraud of illegal aliens and open borders, so why the hell should it matter if someone pressures him on the record? My theory is that we are not wrong to hammer him over the illegal alien issue, just as they are not wrong to hammer him on his qualifications. We're all at least hammering Obama, so we are somewhat united

Thank you for echoing my point, AG. I see "birthers" as a distraction to what should be the real focus of our anger, ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. Every step down stupid rabbit holes like Obama's citizenship, the Federal Reserve conspiracy theories, 9/11 "truth", and the like further destroy our credibility with the general public.

When I was on the leadership committee on the old board, she who will not be named asked my if that org should go after Muslims. After thinking about it for a few days, I advised her against it because it would damage our credibility with the general public.

Now I realize that many of you may have low opinions of the general public, but it is they that will move the country in the right way when they are educated. We are the ten percent that really care. The ten percent that get involved. The ten percent that live, breathe and bleed this movement. We were able to stop amnesty back in 2006. The reason is that we were focused like a laser beam on ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION, and we educated the public about it. The reason why socialized health care has been beaten back is back the people, is because people focused in on it and educated the public.

We have to get back to that focus and lead! If the birthers, the anti-Federal Reservists, and other conspiracy theorists don't like it, then too bad. Thank you for your help, but we have a country and culture to save. Stopping the illegal invasion of this country and any future amnesties are the only hills I am willing to die on at this time. I know this is harsh, but damn it, we need to get back on track!

Ayatollahgondola

02-15-2010, 08:13 AM

Ayatollahgondola

02-15-2010, 08:23 AM

Thank you for echoing my point, AG. I see "birthers" as a distraction to what should be the real focus of our anger, ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. Every step down stupid rabbit holes like Obama's citizenship, the Federal Reserve conspiracy theories, 9/11 "truth", and the like further destroy our credibility with the general public.!

I personally don't care if people discuss this issue, as that shouldn't destroy our credibility. Taking it up as an official pursuit would destroy our credibility, and you're right, it did when Chelena made it so back in the old days. We're not here to dash anyones hopes of uncovering nefarious plots or exposing facts. We just need to keep things like this in perspective as to how they affect us in the present. Right now there's alot of speculation, but the chances of it altering our course are still pretty remote, so it shouldn't dominate or be at the forefront our activities

Cruisingfool

02-15-2010, 09:06 AM

One thing I have learned from dealing with conspiracy theorists, like you, is that no amount of evidence is sufficient to "prove" anything related to his//her pet conspiracy. I have seen the evidence and I am convinced that the man is a natural born American citizen. Anyone who believes differently is a conspiracy theory nut that needs to leave this one alone.

Okay, here goes another easy question. Please post the evidence you have seen, so that I too can be convinced. It is the liberal mentality to attack a person who asks a question, that doesn't blend in with their beliefs. I have yet to call you a name, and I can look back through this thread and count many times you have called me names.

I asked you why all of his records are sealed (as nobody has seen them, so I would like to know where you got your proof). As all the evidence I have investigated over a two-year period, suggest we have an illegal alien as president, but you say you have proof, please post it. I find it ironic that you are supposed to be fighting illegal immigration, but you are willing to overlook your own party. I'm convinced that Bush and Cheney had to know there was a problem here, but refused to get involved.

All I want to know, is the truth!

DerailAmnesty.com

02-15-2010, 09:54 AM

It wouldn't, but this is very clearly not the case. If you would read all of reading I supplied to you, you surely wouldn't be asking me the questions that you are.

They are printed in black and white.

I'm asking you questions about what you wrote. Specifically, you stated:

Originally Posted by Cruisingfool
You sir are flat out wrong! Obummers mother was under the age of 18 at the time of birth of this turd! She was married to a british citizen when she popped out this turd, you might want to check out the Law!

After you posted this, however, you told me that his mother's age at the time of birth is irrelevant as is his father's British citizenship. So now you really have me scratching my head. Why did you mention these things in the first place?

MowMyOwn

02-15-2010, 02:38 PM

Some people want to know the truth, don't you?

Lets pretend that the "Unites Sates Justice Foundation" finds that Obama was born a citizen, would you accept their word?

PochoPatriot

02-15-2010, 02:53 PM

Okay, here goes another easy question. Please post the evidence you have seen, so that I too can be convinced. It is the liberal mentality to attack a person who asks a question, that doesn't blend in with their beliefs. I have yet to call you a name, and I can look back through this thread and count many times you have called me names.

Conspiracy theorists will not accept any evidence that contradicts their preconceptions. That is why I won't live or die on this hill. If you chose to, that is your choice, but I won't join you.

I asked you why all of his records are sealed (as nobody has seen them, so I would like to know where you got your proof). As all the evidence I have investigated over a two-year period, suggest we have an illegal alien as president, but you say you have proof, please post it.

As I have said, the evidence I have seen is more than enough to convince me. Enough said.

I find it ironic that you are supposed to be fighting illegal immigration, but you are willing to overlook your own party.

Find it whatever you like. My fight is illegal immigration, not the delusions of Joseph Farah and World Nut Daily.

I'm convinced that Bush and Cheney had to know there was a problem here, but refused to get involved.

And this is what makes you a conspiracy nut in my book. Why would the opposition party NOT trumpet this through conservative talk radio? Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, Elder, et al. all think you guys are wacked.

All I want to know, is the truth!

No, you want your presuppositions and prejudices fed, and nothing regardless of how devastating it is to them will change them.

Your problem, is that you want everyone to agree with you, and they don't you dismiss them as stupid, or "sheeple", or whatever pejorative of the daily you conspiracy theorists have at your disposal.

My time with this topic is done.

Cruisingfool

02-15-2010, 02:54 PM

I'm asking you questions about what you wrote. Specifically, you stated:

Originally Posted by Cruisingfool
You sir are flat out wrong! Obummers mother was under the age of 18 at the time of birth of this turd! She was married to a british citizen when she popped out this turd, you might want to check out the Law!

After you posted this, however, you told me that his mother's age at the time of birth is irrelevant as is his father's British citizenship. So now you really have me scratching my head. Why did you mention these things in the first place?

Good grief, if obummer was born in Kenya, which all evidence states, this was his home country of his father, a british citizen. She was under the age of 18, which under Law (which you should know) would not make him a US Citizen, but a dual citizen of different countries. Which under Law (that you should know) would make him not qualified to be president of the USA.

Cruisingfool

02-15-2010, 03:00 PM

Conspiracy theorists will not accept any evidence that contradicts their preconceptions. That is why I won't live or die on this hill. If you chose to, that is your choice, but I won't join you.

As I have said, the evidence I have seen is more than enough to convince me. Enough said.

Find it whatever you like. My fight is illegal immigration, not the delusions of Joseph Farah and World Nut Daily.

See, there you go again with your liberal tactics of name calling. If you would like to have an open discussion, post your PROOF that you say you have, that has convinced you that he is a US Citizen. You can spin it all you want, and your childish name calling, but personally I think you have your head up your BUTT!

And this is what makes you a conspiracy nut in my book. Why would the opposition party NOT trumpet this through conservative talk radio? Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, Elder, et al. all think you guys are wacked.

No, you want your presuppositions and prejudices fed, and nothing regardless of how devastating it is to them will change them.

Your problem, is that you want everyone to agree with you, and they don't you dismiss them as stupid, or "sheeple", or whatever pejorative of the daily you conspiracy theorists have at your disposal.

My time with this topic is done.

You forgot to answer my easy questions, the typical liberal spin job. Make all the posts saying you have proof, but resort to name calling, because you have no proof.

Enjoy the future, as you are going to need all the help you can get! :D

Cruisingfool

02-15-2010, 03:02 PM

Lets pretend that the "Unites Sates Justice Foundation" finds that Obama was born a citizen, would you accept their word?

Yes I would, because nobody, including PachoPatriot, RIMO, or SZ has no proof other wise.

Cruisingfool

02-15-2010, 03:12 PM

Link (http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/a_further_inquiry_into_obamas_1.html)
February 14, 2010
A Further Inquiry into Obama's Origins
By Jack Cashill

Last week I contributed an article (http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/another_look_at_obamas_origins.html) to American Thinker on Obama's origins that evoked a good deal of informed response. In it, I argued that the failure of the mainstream media to document the first year of Barack Obama's life has rendered the media accounts of the year before his birth suspect.

Here is what we know about Obama's first year. On August 19, 1961, fifteen days after Obama's presumed birth (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=106018), his mother, "Stanley Ann Dunham," enrolled for classes at the University of Washington at Seattle.

The apolitical Washington State historical blog HistoryLink (http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&file_id=8926) confirms Ann's arrival in August 1961, identifies her Capitol Hill apartment in Seattle, names the courses she took, and documents an extended stay by Ann and little Obama into the summer of 1962.

Incredibly, not one of the mainstream media accounts I consulted -- including four book-length biographies, several long-form magazine and newspaper bios, Obama's official campaign biography, and Obama's 1995 memoir Dreams From My Father -- places Ann and Obama anywhere other than in Hawaii during that first year.

Given this collective failure and the Obama camp's squirrelly response to questions about his birth certificate, another look at the circumstances leading up to that birth is warranted. To restore logic and order to this investigation, I turn to a structure we know as Occam's Razor: "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate.'' This translates roughly as "Multiple variables are not to be posited without necessity." Let me start with the timeline and cast of characters.

Late summer, 1960

Stanley and Madelyn Dunham and 17-year-old daughter Stanley Ann (henceforth "Ann") leave the Seattle area for Hawaii. Ann does not want to go.

Fall, 1960

Ann enrolls at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, where 23-year-old Barack Obama, Sr. is a student.

Spring semester, 1961

Ann fails to enroll at the University of Hawaii.

February 2, 1961

Barack Sr. and Ann marry in Maui.

August 4, 1961

Barack Obama is reportedly born in Honolulu's Kapiloani Hospital for Women and Children.

August 19, 1961

Ann Dunham enrolls at the University of Washington in Seattle.

Summer 1962

Ann and baby Obama return to Hawaii.

Fall 1962

Barack Sr. leaves for Harvard.

Spring 1963

Ann re-enrolls at the University of Hawaii.

January 1964

Ann files to divorce Barack Sr.

What follows are four possible scenarios to explain the circumstances of Obama's birth. Each involves a different set of biological parents.

Ann Dunham and unknown Seattle male

In the original article, I floated the possibility that the progressive and adventurous 17-year-old Dunham was impregnated by a black man while the family was still living in the Seattle area. If so, this pregnancy could have prompted the family to uproot to Hawaii where no one knew them and where mixed-race babies were more accepted.

Although this theory would make sense of the family's abrupt move to Hawaii and Ann's seemingly sudden departure to Seattle after Obama's birth, it introduces too many variables that I was unable to substantiate.

Barack Sr. and Ann Dunham

In football jargon, this scenario would be the ruling on the field. It stands until conclusive evidence can be found to overturn it. The most formal evidence for it is a divorce document issued in 1964, to wit, "[t]hat one child has been born to said Libellant and Libellee as issue of said marriage, to wit: BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II, a son, born August 4, 1961." The libellant in question is Stanley Ann D. Obama. The libellee is Barack Hussein Obama, Sr.

This document aligns with names and dates on the more questionable "certification of live birth" that the Obama campaign posted online, as well as with the newspaper postings soon after the August 4 birth.

This scenario conforms to the story line that the young Obama heard growing up from his mother and grandparents, namely that the brilliant, charismatic Barack Sr. had swept the quiet Ann off her feet, impregnated her, married her, and left reluctantly for Harvard after a year of nurturing baby Obama in Hawaii.

Propping up this narrative is chatty Hawaii Democratic congressman Neil Abercrombie, who knew Barack Sr. at the University of Hawaii. "Little Barry, that's what we called him," Abercrombie told the Chicago Tribune about baby Obama while "recalling his days with Obama Sr. and his future wife, Ann Dunham, at the University of Hawaii."

There could not have been many such "days." The most compelling evidence against this scenario is Ann's documented enrollment at the University of Washington immediately after Obama's reported birth and Barack Sr.'s departure for Harvard immediately upon Ann's return to Hawaii.

In addition, all details about the marriage remain elusive. Obama himself writes in Dreams, "In fact, how and when the marriage occurred remains a bit murky, a bill of particulars that I've never quite had the courage to explore."

A couple marries in a different county like Maui to keep the notification out of the local news. No one attended the wedding -- not Abercrombie, not Ann's parents. In fact, no one in Barack Sr.'s clique seemed to know there was a relationship, let alone a wedding.

Neil Abercrombie's brother Hal never saw Ann and Barack Sr. together. Another clique member, Pake Zane, who had distinct memories of the outsized Barack Sr., could not recall Ann at all. If the young couple were making their home on Kalanianole Hwy. as the newspaper announcements claim, some friend should have at least remembered.

When Abercrombie and Zane visited their pal in Nairobi in 1968, Barack Sr. shocked them by not inquiring at all about his wife and then-six-year-old child (although he would visit the Dunhams four years later). In July 2008, speaking at a university roundtable, Michelle Obama said of Barack's mother that she was "very young and very single when she had him." This may not have been a slip of the tongue.

At least a few respondents to the last article cited the likeness of Obama to his half-brother, Mark Ndesandjo, also mothered by a white woman, as proof of Barack Sr.'s biological paternity. Beyond color, I do not see any particular resemblance (photo here). The adult Obama does not look like Barack Sr., and as Abercrombie concedes, he does not sound at all like him either.

Stanley Dunham and unknown black woman

The evidence for this scenario is all circumstantial. "You know," Stanley's brother Ralph has said of Obama, "he looks exactly like Stanley. He looks exactly like my brother, only he's dark." Admittedly, grandsons can look like their grandfathers, but Ralph is right. The similarity between the two is striking.

The photo below, likely taken upon Barack Sr.'s departure for Harvard in 1962, shows not only Stanley's stunning resemblance to Obama, but also his inexplicable fondness for a black man who allegedly knocked up his daughter and is now abandoning her and his grandson. This photo is not an anomaly. As Obama recounts in Dreams, "Gramps" has only good things to say about his prodigal son-in-law.

Cruisingfool

02-15-2010, 03:13 PM

http://www.americanthinker.com/Obama%20family%20-%20Cashill%20article.JPG
One other critical bit of evidence for this theory is a poem Obama wrote as a 19-year-old called "Pop." The poem begins:

Sitting in his seat, a seat broad and broken

 In, sprinkled with ashes, 

Pop switches channels, takes another 

Shot of Seagrams, neat, and asks 

What to do with me, a green young man

As I reported last week, most reviewers think this poem is about Stanley Dunham, and with some cause. "I can still picture Gramps leaning back in his old stuffed chair after dinner," writes Obama in Dreams, "sipping whiskey and cleaning his teeth with the cellophane from his cigarette pack."

If "Pop" refers to Gramps, then Obama seems to be confronting him with the recognition that Gramps is actually his father. Obama calls the poem "Pop," after all, not "Gramps."

"Under my seat, I pull out the  Mirror I've been saving," writes Obama. Yes, the two look alike and they smell alike. Pop has big ears, and he even has "the same amber  stain on his shorts that I've got on mine." The poem ends with bittersweet reconciliation when Pop stands and asks for a hug. Writes Obama:

I see my face, framed within

Pop's black-framed glasses

And know he's laughing too.

Gramps did wear black-frame glasses, and as to the "amber stain" reference, more on that later.

The mother in this scenario would have to have been black. Obama tells us in Dreams that Gramps frequented otherwise-all-black bars and hung out with the card-carrying communist Frank Marshall Davis, an African-American with Kansas and Chicago roots. In communist circles, the sharing of sex partners was not uncommon.

If a black woman, perhaps a friend of Davis's, gave birth to a child of Dunham's, Barack Sr. would have obliged the Dunhams by marrying Ann and claiming paternity in return for all the potential benefits of having an American wife and baby.

We also know that Stanley Dunham so desperately wanted a boy that he named his only child "Stanley Ann." Raising the young Obama would fulfill that desire. It would also explain the special relationship between him and Obama and the subsequent coolness of Obama's grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, or "Toot," to the whole charade. It might also explain Ann's distance from her presumed son, whom she would desert for long periods to advance her career.

This theory makes sense of the secret marriage in Maui, Stanley's enduring fondness for Barack Sr., the powerful resemblance between Stanley Dunham and Obama, and the Dunhams' apparent willingness to subsidize mother and baby in Seattle.

What remains unclear is what Ann would get out of the deal. True, she never wanted to leave Seattle in the first place, and Obama would have been (in this scenario) her little brother, but the burdens she would have assumed do not seem balanced by the benefits gained. This scenario also introduces one major unsubstantiated variable: the unknown black mother.

Ann Dunham and Frank Marshall Davis

Several of the respondents to last week's article, including a literary analyst I have previously referred to as Mr. West, argued for a relationship between Ann Dunham and Frank Marshall Davis. Although there is no particular physical resemblance between Obama and Davis other than color -- the undeniable resemblance is to Stanley Dunham -- there are some other connections worth pursuing.

An outspoken progressive, 17-year-old Ann arrived in Hawaii in 1960 angry and rebellious. She did not want to be there. An affair with the married, 54-year-old Davis would have suited her politics and sated her need for revenge. In 1946, Davis, then 40, married a 21-year-old white socialite. Young white women obviously did not scare him off -- not by a long shot.

This is all speculative and would be wildly so were it not for the poem "Pop." The whiskey-drinking, the smoking, the dispensing of sage advice, and the black-frame glasses fit Davis as well as they do Stanley Dunham. "I was intrigued by old Frank," Obama writes in Dreams, "with his books and whiskey breath and the hint of hard-earned knowledge behind the hooded eyes." One sequence in "Pop" actually fits Davis better.

Makes me smell his smell, coming

From me; he switches channels, recites an old poem

He wrote before his mother died,

Writes Obama in Dreams, "[Davis] would read us his poetry whenever we stopped by his house, sharing whiskey with Gramps out of an emptied jelly jar." It was Davis who instructed Obama in the ways of blackness. "I'm just telling you to keep your eyes open," Davis told him on one occasion. "Stay awake." Davis is an important figure in Obama's life. Obama alludes to him on nine separate occasions in Dreams. If "Pop" were Davis, then Obama may use the honorarium to suggest no more than an African-American godfather. Then again, "Pop" may have been a literal designation.

As something of a side note, what caught Mr. West's eye were the similarities in poetic style between Davis and the Obama of "Pop." What struck both of us is that "Pop" is much more sophisticated than "Underground," a silly poem about fig-eating apes that also appears under Obama's name in the spring 1981 edition of Occidental College's literary magazine, Feast. Whether "Pop" refers to Gramps or Davis, it would not surprise me if Davis provided substantial help with the poem, a pattern that would repeat itself with Bill Ayers in the writing of Dreams.

One other issue that needs to be addressed, and a sensitive one, is that of sex. As reported in the U.K.'s Telegraph (and elsewhere), in 1968 Davis published under the pseudonym Bob Greene an only slightly fudged autobiographical manuscript titled Sex Rebel: Black. In the book, Davis concedes that "under certain circumstances I am bisexual" and that he was also "a voyeur and an exhibitionist." If Davis is "Pop," then this could explain the "amber stain" on the shorts of both mentor and initiate. How else to explain those stains?

One chapter of Sex Rebel deals with the seduction by Davis and his wife of a 13-year-old girl called "Anne," who was introduced to him by a trusting relative. "I'm not one to go in for Lolitas. Usually I'd rather not bed a babe under 20," he writes, "But there are exceptions."

An amateur photographer, Davis had once started a photography club in Chicago. It has not been verified that he shot the nude photos floating around the internet of a woman who looks stunningly like Ann Dunham, nor has "Anne's" identity been confirmed. Still, there would have been nothing out of character for either Ann or Davis to have collaborated on this project.

Were the married Davis the father, and had Dunham introduced his daughter to Davis, it may explain what Obama has described as "the complicated, unspoken transaction between the two men." In this scenario, both would have had a vested interest in finding someone else to take the paternity rap. By keeping the marriage secret, they would have allowed Barack Sr. to continue living the life of a single man.

Barack Sr. had a lot to offer, starting with his pigmentation. Besides, as a Kenyan, he would have given the boy more than a name. He would give him a distinctive identity as an "African" -- his race listed on the certification of birth -- a more respected ethnicity in the America of the 1960s than "Negro." Indeed, Obama has built his career around his exotic identity. Were he named after Frank Marshall Davis or any other American, he may never have been elected president.

This scenario would help explain why Barack Sr. blithely blew off his new family when he headed for Harvard a year after Obama's birth, rejecting a reported opportunity to take both wife and child to New York. More importantly, it would explain why Ann went to Seattle so promptly after the birth and with so little fuss. This would have been her baby, and she was proud of him. In addition, her departure would have allowed Barack Sr. to live life as he pleased in Hawaii. If Abercrombie saw "little Barry," it was almost assuredly after Ann returned.

This theory might also iron out some chronology wrinkles. An August 4 birth would suggest an early November conception. Obama biographer Christopher Andersen, however, reports that Ann told the Dunhams of her pregnancy in "late October." Presuming a missed period as first alarm, this would put conception in early September -- before Ann would have met Barack Sr. This earlier conception date better explains both why Ann did not enroll for a second semester and how she was able to leave by mid-August for Seattle. If all this is true, however, it presumes active date-manipulation by Team Obama -- a big "if."

Then, finally, there is the Chicago connection. Davis first arrived in Chicago in 1927 and ultimately left for Hawaii in 1948. Upon moving to Chicago nearly sixty years after Davis first arrived, Obama "imagined Frank in a baggy suit and wide lapels, standing in front of the old Regal Theatre, waiting to see Duke or Ella emerge from a gig." In a very real way, Chicago may have been his homeland, not Kenya, and he would have known it.

The Davis-as-father scenario may not be conclusive enough to override the ruling on the field, but it would explain the Obama camp's fear of documentation, and it deserves, at the very least, further review in the booth.

on "A Further Inquiry into Obama's Origins"

PochoPatriot

02-15-2010, 03:17 PM

You forgot to answer my easy questions, the typical liberal spin job. Make all the posts saying you have proof, but resort to name calling, because you have no proof.

Enjoy the future, as you are going to need all the help you can get! :D

Yep, I'm a liberal! And you even place me in great company.

Yes I would, because nobody, including PachoPatriot, RIMO, or SZ

Better than being a lonely jackass.;)

MowMyOwn

02-15-2010, 03:28 PM

C'mon you guys .... chill.

Cruisingfool

02-15-2010, 03:42 PM

Oh, I'm not attacking him, its the other way around. I have posted (and will continue to do so) the proof I have. I have asked him 3 easy questions, and he has yet to even answer one of them, but yet he goes on a personal attack, which is expected from a liberal.

I proudly served my Country, and I took an Oath, to Support And Defend the US Constitution, against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

If this isn't an attack on the US Constitution, I have no idea what is!

DerailAmnesty.com

02-15-2010, 07:55 PM

Good grief, if obummer was born in Kenya, which all evidence states, this was his home country of his father, a british citizen. She was under the age of 18, which under Law (which you should know) would not make him a US Citizen, but a dual citizen of different countries. Which under Law (that you should know) would make him not qualified to be president of the USA.

OK, got it. I was under the impression from previous posts that his birth in Hawaii was not being questioned or was considered irrelevant; but as I look back now, I see that was someone else's post. Forgive me, I'm having a hard time keeping the stories straight.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Pocho, you've been dealt the death blow. Liberal, around these parts, is the term reserved solely for those shown the most contempt. It's worse than neocon, fake patriot or even instigator. In fact, traitor isn't even in the same ballpark

I specifically recall being on the "wrong side" of an argument on another site, and when the accusations really got ugly, the charge leveled at me (completely unrelated to the conversation we were having) was liberal. Specifically, I was accused of having A) voted for Barack Obama, and B) supporting reparations for African-Americans.

Dude, I'll light a candle for you and inform your next of kin ;^)

Cruisingfool

02-15-2010, 08:14 PM

I fully believe you two have all the evidence to back your claims, so anyday you want to let the cat out of the bag..... Go for it! ;)

DerailAmnesty.com

02-15-2010, 09:42 PM

I fully believe you two have all the evidence to back your claims, so anyday you want to let the cat out of the bag..... Go for it! ;)

Point of Clarity: Aside from saying I can't keep all the stories straight, I haven't made any claims.

From what I can gather from this thread -

A. Star is convinced Obama never attended Columbia.

B. You insist that Obama was born outside the United States but if our president had been born in the U.S., he'd be a citizen eligible to occupy the White House.

C. Twoller says whether or not he was born in Hawaii is irrelevant, because his father wasn't a U.S. citizen and, therefore, his offspring can't hold the presidency.

At this point, I'm going to drink a glass of milk, take two aspirin and hope my head isn't still spinning in the morning.

May the force be with all three of you.

REWHBLCAIN

02-16-2010, 05:40 AM

http://news-political.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/scales-of-justice.jpg
Sunday, 14th February 2010
An interesting situation has developed over the last year or so regarding challenging the qualifications and eligibility of people to hold the offices they hold.

In one, Hillary Clinton’s appointment as Secretary of State has been challenged on the basis that when she was a U.S. Senator, immediately prior to being appointed by President Obama as Secretary of State, the Senate increased the salary of that position three times. The U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 6, clause 2, provides: “No senator or representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been [increased] during such time.”

That language prohibits Mrs. Clinton from holding the office of Secretary of State, despite a “legislative fix” to roll back the compensation increase before she actually took office, according to a challenge by Judicial Watch, which disputed the appointment in the name of a State Department employee.

The details of the complaint are less important than the reason for it being dismissed by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The Court concluded the State Department employee lacked legal standing to bring suit.

Another similar case involves President Barack Obama, whose citizenship, and thus his eligibility to be President of the United States, has been called into question by some citizens. A number of suits have been filed, and most have been dismissed, some of them because, again, those filing the suits lack legal standing to sue a candidate or office holder.

Here is a definition of legal standing:

The legally protectible stake or interest that an individual has in a dispute that entitles him to bring the controversy before the court to obtain judicial relief.

Standing, sometimes referred to as standing to sue, is the name of the federal law doctrine that focuses on whether a prospective plaintiff can show that some personal legal interest has been invaded by the defendant. It is not enough that a person is merely interested as a member of the general public in the resolution of the dispute. The person must have a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy.

If a senator or representative is prohibited by constitutional provision from holding an office for which the body he/she served in has voted a pay increase, exactly who has standing to challenge that individual’s eligibility? If the employees of the State Department – who are sworn to uphold the Constitution and are thus prohibited from acting on orders from a Secretary that is ineligible for the office – don’t have standing to challenge their boss’s eligibility, who does have standing?

The people who question Mr. Obama’s citizenship are held in contempt by his supporters, and others who believe that Mr. Obama is a citizen as required by the Constitution. But taking the personalities and party affiliations out of the question, the fundamental issue is an important one.

Suppose for the sake of discussion that someone who isn’t a naturalized citizen manages to get through the campaign and is nominated at his/her party, wins the election and is sworn in as President, and at no time along the way was he/she required to prove citizenship. This seems an absurdly unlikely possibility, but the fact is that a candidate’s citizenship is assumed, rather than ascertained. In such a case, how do the American people remove a President from office who isn’t a citizen if no U.S. citizen has standing in the courts to bring the action?

Put another way, what is the point of having laws and established procedures on the books if no one has the standing necessary to apply them by bringing a court action?

In a country where virtually anyone can file a suit against virtually anyone else for any reason (or no reason), citizens are prohibited from filing suit against an elected leader unless they have “standing,” which seems to be so tightly defined as to eliminate nearly everyone who might believe there’s a reason to sue a leader.

If a citizen had irrefutable proof that an elected or appointed official was for some reason ineligible to hold that office, the citizen would be unable to file suit to remove the ineligible official unless he/she met the very thin definition of standing; the citizen would have to show that his/her personal legal interest had been invaded by the illegal President or Secretary in order to remove him/her from office.

And if no one has standing to sue for dismissal, or if those with standing do not sue, the ineligible official would continue to hold office. That is fundamentally wrong in this country, which prides itself on freedom and the rule of law.

For judges to view standing so narrowly in cases of eligibility to hold office is judicial tyranny. It should not be difficult to hold officials accountable to the requirements of the offices they hold or seek.

Cruisingfool

02-16-2010, 10:32 AM

Point of Clarity: Aside from saying I can't keep all the stories straight, I haven't made any claims.

From what I can gather from this thread -

A. Star is convinced Obama never attended Columbia.

B. You insist that Obama was born outside the United States but if our president had been born in the U.S., he'd be a citizen eligible to occupy the White House.

C. Twoller says whether or not he was born in Hawaii is irrelevant, because his father wasn't a U.S. citizen and, therefore, his offspring can't hold the presidency.

At this point, I'm going to drink a glass of milk, take two aspirin and hope my head isn't still spinning in the morning.

May the force be with all three of you.

Atleast you didn't call anybody any names, but rather then post the evidence you have, you do the usual spin as expected.

PachoPatroit says he has seen enough, he is convinced that obummer is a US Born Citizen. He hasn't posted any of the evidence he says he has, but does the usual spin job, and starts name calling.

Then RIMO rattles off with her one line rants (always in bold), but hasn't posted any evidence to the contrary ( which is fully expected).

REWHBLCAIN

02-16-2010, 10:48 AM

Atleast you didn't call anybody any names, but rather then post the evidence you have, you do the usual spin as expected.

PachoPatroit says he has seen enough, he is convinced that obummer is a US Born Citizen. He hasn't posted any of the evidence he says he has, but does the usual spin job, and starts name calling.

Then RIMO rattles off with her one line rants (always in bold), but hasn't posted any evidence to the contrary ( which is fully expected).Don't let it bother you.

Wasn't the doubts of global warming once linked into folks who were called conspiracy nuts also? We all know how that is finally panning out.

Cruisingfool

02-16-2010, 10:56 AM

Link (http://puzo1.blogspot.com/)
Monday, February 15, 2010
"Obama's Constitutional Eligibility Question" - New Policy - "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" - Washington Times National Weekly - Monday 15 Feb 2010 - pg 5

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_nR98wXbvC_E/S3l-K7YFbMI/AAAAAAAAACU/SlyNjTSXVBY/s200/Hawaii+NBC+adv+20100215+electronic+tear+sheet.jpg

Another New AD - "Obama's Constitutional Eligibility Question" - New Policy - it's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" - Washington Times National Weekly - Monday 08 Feb 2015 Issue - pg 5:

Obama refuses to address the legal question about his Constitutional Eligibility to be sitting in the Oval Office. He has never conclusively proven to any controlling legal authority that he is a "natural born Citizen" of the USA to "constitutional standards" as is constitutionally required to be eligible for the office of President and Commander-in-Chief of the military.

http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/2010-02-18/news/orly-taitz-at-the-head-of-the-birther-movement-has-her-love-life-displayed-in-court/

Many people do not know there is a difference between a "Citizen" and a "natural born Citizen." Being a "Citizen" of any type (http://www.scribd.com/doc/11737124/Citizenship-Terms-Used-in-the-US-Constitution-The-5-Terms-Defined-Some-Legal-Reference-to-Same), whether an Article II natural born Citizen (http://www.scribd.com/doc/11737124/Citizenship-Terms-Used-in-the-US-Constitution-The-5-Terms-Defined-Some-Legal-Reference-to-Same), 14th Amendment born Citizen (http://www.scribd.com/doc/11737124/Citizenship-Terms-Used-in-the-US-Constitution-The-5-Terms-Defined-Some-Legal-Reference-to-Same), 14th Amendment naturalized Citizen (http://www.scribd.com/doc/11737124/Citizenship-Terms-Used-in-the-US-Constitution-The-5-Terms-Defined-Some-Legal-Reference-to-Same), or statutory born Citizen under a Congressional Act, (http://www.scribd.com/doc/11737124/Citizenship-Terms-Used-in-the-US-Constitution-The-5-Terms-Defined-Some-Legal-Reference-to-Same), means you are a member of the society and entitled to all its rights and privileges. But under our Constitution to serve in the singular most powerful office in our government, that is to be the President and Commander-in-Chief of our military under our Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, of our Constitution you need to be a "natural born Citizen." Being a "natural born Citizen (http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/09/natural-born-citizen-clause-requires.html)" cannot be conveyed by any laws of man and can only be conveyed by the facts of nature at the time of your birth and circumstances of your birth, i.e., being born in the country to two citizens (http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/09/natural-born-citizen-clause-requires.html) of the country. (Legal Treatise "The Law of Nations - Principles of Natural Law" (http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/08/law-of-nations-and-not-english-common.html)" Section 212 by E. Vattel 1758, SCOTUS Decision Venus 1814, SCOTUS Decision Minor v Happersett 1874). This new advertorial is designed to help educate the public pictorially about the fact that Obama is NOT a Natural Born Citizen of the USA and thus is ineligible under our Constitution to the office he sits in. Obama is a Usurper who was allowed to be put there by millions in foreign money, a corruptly led Congress, and an enabling main stream media. This is a constitutional crisis and a national security (http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/08/why-natural-born-citizen-clause-is.html) concern that must be addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court or our Republic, Constitution, and Liberties are in great danger.

Obama is hiding the truth from the People with an enabling media and is refusing to answer questions on his Article II constitutional eligibility to be President and Commander in Chief of the military. In fact he said last week people should not even question him about it. With him his constitutional eligibility and exact citizenship status policy is, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell (http://www.scribd.com/doc/26885850/Citizen-v-natural-born-Citizen-It-s-Don-t-Ask-Don-t-Tell-20100215-Issue-Wash-Times-Natl-Wkly-pg-5)" ... and hope it goes away. Well it is not going away. This is a constitutionally based legal eligibility question. Obama's election fraud and cover up will be revealed (http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/01/i-believe-fix-was-in-for-2008-election.html). The truth and the Constitution will win the day in the end and We the People will constitutionally remove the Usurper from his illegally obtained office.

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Commander USNR (Retired)
Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner v Obama & Congress
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/ ... help the cause: http://www.protectourliberty.org/

PochoPatriot

02-16-2010, 04:51 PM

Creepingfool,

In the hopes that we can have clarity before consensus, let's be clear on what constitutes a "natural born citizen" in the eyes of current Constitutional law. It is irrelevant to me what you and other "birthers" think the law should be.

So what are the Constitutional requirements for holding the office of the President? Article 2, Section 1 of the United States Constitution says the following:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Let's deal with them on a point be point basis:

1. Natural born Citizen.
According to any history book you read, I presume that you read things other than World Nut Daily, Hawaii became a state on on Aug. 21, 1959. Barack Obama was born in Hawaii on Aug. 4, 1961. Nearly two years after Hawaii became a state. So I don't see why this is an issue. Please illuminate me, in your own words, why this is a problem. As an aside, there was a group that attempted to do what you "birthers" are doing to Sen. Barry Goldwater. He was born in Arizona when it was still a territory, and not a State. It was also done to John McCain and Dick Cheney.

Further "natural born Citizen" is not really defined. In fact, this term was left to the States to define until the 14th Amendment.

2. A Citizen of the United States.
Please note that the Constitution uses the conjunction "or" indicating that the President can be either a "natural born Citizen" or a "Citizen of the United States." So it seems to me that legal citizens can become President. Then again I am just a layman in regards to Constituional law, and would be open to an opinion form our resident attorney-at-law.

3. Must be 35 years old or older.
President Obama was born in 1961. He was elected in 2008. Simple math demonstrates that he is eligible on that front.

4. Fourteen years a resident of the United States.
This is were there is some ambiguity in the Constitution. Are the 14 years cumulative or consecutive. It's not really clear, but either way, President Obama meets this requirement.

On all four of these elements, I see no reason why President Obama is disqualified, but then again maybe I'm just to liberal to see the issues, right?

Now, regarding the U.S. law about birth parents. I don't see how it affects anything, since current U.S. states that any person born in the United States IS a citizen, period. Again, whether you or I think that "birth right citizenship" is good for this country or not is irrelevant. Current U.S. law says this is the way it is, and that is that.

Further, the citing of this law is silly. Why would a sitting U.S. Senator running for the Presidency, gathering millions of dollars do that if he, and his advisers knew that he might be ineligible due to some obscure law? Besides, if this was an issue, and, as your claimed, Bush and Cheney were in on it, it does not explain why talk radio did not jump all over this issue. But that's what makes conspiracy theories so fun. The more people that don't respond in the manner you want you can label as ignorant, stupid, or liberal. This is why I tend to stay away from conspiracy theories, because too many people in the know can and will talk.

Now on to the alleged forgery of President Obama's birth certificate. I see no reason to dismiss this as a forgery. Perhaps you can tell me why I should. Again use your own words, and nothing from World Nut Daily. Further, why would a major Presidential candidate risk his candidacy over a forged birth certificate. Further, the certificate is consistent with others issued in that era in Hawaii. Lastly, those who have touched and examined the certificate, have attested to its authenticity. Why would anyone lose professional credibility over a fraudulent birth certificate?

Then you have the birth announcements found in the major newspapers from Honolulu, which list a birth of a boy to "Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama." I guess you are going to tell me that these newspapers in some sort of premonition about this particular baby made it all up?

The Kenyan birth certificate forgery. Yes, this is a forgery, for a number of reasons, which I will list.

1. The document is dated Feb. 17, 1964 and bears a marking identifying it as from "The Republic of Kenya." Just one small problem. This name was not officially adopted until Dec. 12, 1964. In February of 1964 Kenya was known as The Dominion of Kenya. So what do you do with those extra 10 months? Are you going to tell me that somehow, someone in Kenya knew that the country was going to change its official name, and placed it on an official document some ten months before the fact?

2. Barack Obama's father's age is incorrect. He would have been 24 or 25, not the listed age of 26.

3. Barak Obama's birth place is listed as Mombasa, Kenya. Just one problem, Mombasa was not part of Kenya until Dec. 12, 1963. Prior to this date, Mombasa was part of a country called Zanzibar.

4. Mombasa was hundreds of miles away from Obama, Sr's. home town. Nairobi would have been much closer, not to mention in the actual country of Kenya.

5. This forgery was exposed as being a copy of an Australian. The forgery contains many of the same numerical markings as the original.

6. The Taitz document is also a forgery for the following reasons:
Citing Mombasa as the city of birth. The distance (over 1,000 miles) of Mombasa (eastern Kenya on the Indian Ocean) to Obama's home (southwestern Kenya) versus Nairobi's.

It based on these reasons that I dismiss the claims of "birthers" and place them JFK conspiracy nuts, 9/11 "truthers", Federal Reserve nuts, and other conspiracy nuts. Now if you want to convince me, you have to come at me with some hard facts. The burden of proof is on the "birthers". You are making the positive assertion. President Obama has no reason to respond to your nutty claims. The fact that he has, and the "birthers" dismiss it is not surprising. That is conspiracy theory 101: Deny the facts presented by those you oppose.

Now whether you agree with me or not is of no concern to me. I believe that hardcore "birthers" in this movement are detrimental to our credibility. Sadly, we have to deal with you. I would hope that we deal with you be keeping you far from the public as possible.

Edited to add: I call you a "conspiracy nut" not because I wish to dismiss your arguments, but because you have truly earned that moniker based on your posts here and on other boards.

Rim05

02-16-2010, 06:53 PM

World Nut Daily

This is the best phrase in this entire thread. :)

Cruisingfool

02-17-2010, 09:01 AM

I see you are back to your typical liberal mentality, name calling. And I see RIMO the one line ranter showed up as well. :p

I am going to pick apart everything you just posted, but of course I will do one at a time, and there is also a limit of 15,000 words on this forum per post, so I will have to break it up.

Link (http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/09/natural-born-citizen-clause-requires.html)

Tuesday, September 8, 2009
The Natural Born Citizen Clause of Our U.S. Constitution Requires that Both of the Child’s Parents Be U.S. Citizens At the Time of Birth

When interpreting the Constitution, we must decide whether we will look to the document as an original and static one whose meaning has already been established at a given time by the People and its Framers or one that is living and which can be changed over any given time by a court of law. See the address of Justice Antonin Scalia to the 2008 Annual National Lawyers Convention on November 22, 2008, at the Mayflower Hotel, in Washington, D.C. http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubid.1193/pub_detail.asp. (advocates originalism rather than living constitutionalism). I submit that Article II’s “natural born Citizen” clause has a fixed and knowable meaning which was established at the time of its drafting and should therefore be interpreted through the eyes of the original Framers that drafted and ratified the clause so as to determine what they intended the clause to mean (original intent theory). I also submit that we should interpret the “natural born Citizen” clause in a way that reasonable persons living at the time of its adoption would have declared the ordinary meaning of the text to be (original meaning theory). This is not living constitutionalism but rather originalism or textualism as applied to interpreting the Constitution. It is this latter approach that I will utilize in this article.

E. Vattel stated in 1758, as translated into English in 1797: "The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see, whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country." E. Vattel, The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law, Sec. 212 Citizens and natives. In Footnote 1 at the end of Sec. 212, Vattel stated that “as a general rule” the child inherits his father’s citizenship, or his mother’s but only if she is not married.

The first thing that we have to understand about what Vattel wrote is that he made a distinction between a “citizen” and a “natural born Citizen.” A citizen is simply a member of the civil society who is bound to the society by certain duties and subject to its authority. “Citizens” also participate equally in all the advantages the society has to offer. On the other hand, a “natural born Citizen” means much more than just “citizen.” Vattel required that for a child to be a “natural born citizen,” or what he called in French in his 1758 first edition of The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law, les naturels, ou indigenes (the “natives or indigines”-The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253 (1814)), the child must be born in the country to both parents who are also citizens of the same country.

In the original French, Vattel wrote: "Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays de parents citoyens,” meaning the "natives or indigines" are those born in the country of citizen parents. Both the Framers and later English translators of Vattel's treatise replaced the words"natural born Citizen" for the words "natives or indigenes." From Madison's notes, we see that there were some delegates who were concerned about foreigners. For example, from Max Farrand's transcripts of Madison's notes (August 9 and August 13, 1787), there is the following concerning the House of Representatives eligibility requirements: "Mr. Gerry wished that in future the eligibility might be confined to Natives." The word "native" occurs multiple times in the notes for these two days. (The phrase "natural born citizen" was not used here by the delegates.). The word "native" was a synonym for the phrase "natural born citizen." The delegates had already used the term “natural born citizen” when proposing the requirements for President, Vice President, and either House of Congress and later used the word “natives” when referring to eligibility requirements for the House of Representative. There is further evidence of this in at least three works: Blackstone's "Commentaries on the Laws of England" (see Book the First: The Rights of Persons; Chapter the Tenth: Of People, Whether Aliens, Denizens or Natives.), translations of Quintilian's "Institutio Oratoria", and the 1797 English edition of Vattel's "The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law."

In the beginning of his definition, Vattel required that the children be born of “parents” who are citizens. The use of the word “parents” refers to both mother and father. If he required only one parent such as the father, he would have said “of fathers who are citizens” and not “of parents who are citizens.” He did later refer to “fathers,” but only because wives automatically acquired the citizenship of their husbands the same way children did. This rule was carried into our own naturalization laws, wherein citizenship can be derived from a close relation. Historically, a number of U.S. laws have provided for the automatic naturalization of children or wives (not husbands) of naturalized U.S. citizens. In some periods of our history, these laws provided that married women derived citizenship from their husband and had no control over their status. Under the Act of 10 February 1855, a woman automatically became an American upon marrying a U.S. citizen or following the naturalization of her foreign husband. Kelly v. Owen, 74 U.S. 7 Wall. 496 (1868). The 1922 Married Women's Act (or the Cable Act) finally severed the link between naturalization and marital status for most women. Hence, if Vattel meant to focus only on “fathers,” he would have used “fathers” throughout his definition and never mentioned “parents” when he first defined “natural born Citizen,” for there would not have been any need to use the word “parents” when “fathers” would have sufficed. Hence, Vattel would have focused on the citizenship of the father since that citizenship would determine that of both the mother and child. It is also noteworthy that Vattel had no problem allowing the child to inherit the citizenship of the mother when the mother was not married to the child’s father. Given that Vattel in effect really focused on the citizenship of both the child’s father and mother in defining a “natural born Citizen,” Vattel’s definition of a “natural born Citizen” does not violate the equal protection guarantee embedded in the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420 (1998); Nguyen v. INS, 533 U.S. 53, 121 S.Ct. 2053; 150 L.Ed.2d 115 (2001).

There is other evidence in his treatise that shows that Vattel meant to refer to both the child’s mother and father in his definition of a “natural born citizen.” When defining what a country is in Section 122, he stated the “term signifies the state, or even more particularly the town or place, where our parents had their fixed residence at the moment of our birth…. A man ought to preserve gratitude and affection for the state to which he is indebted for his education, and of which his parents were members when they gave him birth….” In commenting on the citizenship status of children born at sea at Section 216, he stated that a child born abroad a foreign vessel that is docked in a port belonging to their own nation is reputed born in the country, provided “she [the mother] and her husband have not quitted their native country to settle elsewhere.” In commenting upon vagrants in Section 219he stated: “Vagrants are people who have no settlement. Consequently those born of vagrant parents have no country, since a man’s country is the place where, at the time of his birth, his parents had their settlement (Section 122), or it is the state of which his father was then a member…” Given that Vattel in effect really focused on the citizenship of both the child’s father and mother in defining a “natural born Citizen,” Vattel’s definition of a “natural born Citizen” does not violate the equal protection guarantee embedded in the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420 (1998); Nguyen v. INS, 533 U.S. 53, 121 S.Ct. 2053; 150 L.Ed.2d 115 (2001).

The Framers were very familiar with William Blackstone. We can also see in the writings of Blackstone that the allegiance of both parents to the King was needed to avoid dual allegiance in the child. Blackstone wrote:

"When I say, that an alien is one who is born out of the king's dominions, or allegiance, this also must be understood with some restrictions. The common law indeed stood absolutely so; with only a very few exceptions: so that a particular act of parliament became necessary after the restoration, for the naturalization of children of his majesty's English subjects, born in foreign countries during the late troubles. And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once. Yet the children of the king's embassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England's allegiance, represented by his father, the embassador. To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband's consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king's ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain (emphais in the original)."

Cruisingfool

02-17-2010, 09:03 AM

William Blackstone, Commentaries 1:354, 357--58, 361-62 (1765). We can see that even the English Parliament gave importance to a child having both parents be “in the allegiance of the king,” which under English common law meant the parents would have been “natural born subjects.” By having both parents be “natural born subjects,” the child would not have been born with any other conflicting allegiance other than the one that attached from the foreign soil. Parliament was willing to live with any allegiance attaching to the child from the foreign soil but not with any that may attach by descent from one of the parents, the latter one being by nature a much more stronger one. It was only later in time that the rule was made less restrictive and allowed for just the father to be a “natural born subject.”

There is historical evidence that the Founders borrowed from the Dutch much more heavily than from the British when making the new nation. During the revolutionary period Dutch law provided for citizenship by jus sanguinis. There is considerable evidence that the Framers were also influenced by the citizenship law of Holland. “The American colonists had become familiar with the rights of citizenship possessed in other countries, both from the fact that some of them resided in Holland for a time, before they came to America, and from the further fact that the New York colony was essentially Dutch in its original settlement and government.” John S. Wise, A Treatise on American Citizenship (1906). In Holland, “[c]itizenship could be acquired in several ways. Probably the most common was birth. Some towns accepted everyone as citizen who was baptized in a local church. But more commonly it was required that one’s parents were citizens too. . . .” R. Po-chia Hsia & Henk F. K. van Nierop, Calvinism and Religious Toleration in the Dutch Golden Age 161(2002). “One’s parents” would necessarily included one’s mother and father. This Dutch law is consistent with Vattel’s definition of what is a “natural born citizen.”

Apart from the heavy Dutch influence upon the Founders, when the Framers drafted the Constitution, they relied heavily upon Vattel to guide them. Citizenship was a topic that affected U.S. relations with other nations. Given that citizenship affects "the behavior of nation states with each other" (Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004), the Founders would have looked to the law of nations to define it for the purposes of the new nation. The law of nations definition on citizenship also gave uniformity to the subject area, which the Framers wanted to achieve for citizenship laws as they did for naturalization laws. Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1, 36 (Wheat) (1824). They would therefore have referred to and accepted Vattel's law of nations definition to give meaning to what an Article II “natural born Citizen” was.

The meaning of a “natural born Citizen” as expressed by Vattel, including that both parents of the child must be citizens at the time of the child’s birth in order to make the child a “natural born Citizen,” was carried forward in American history following the Founding. The standard provided by Vattel has not changed in our jurisprudence and is still valid today as it was during the Founding. Also, the Fourteenth Amendment has not changed the meaning of a “natural born Citizen.” Legislative activity by the early Congresses provides insight into the question of whether Vattel required one or two parents to be citizens. There are Congressional acts that were passed after the Constitution was adopted that give us insight into what the Framers of the Constitution meant by “natural born Citizen.” The 1790 Congress, many of whose members had been members of the Constitutional Convention, passed the Naturalization Act of 1790 (1 Stat.103,104) which provided that “And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.” This phrasing followed the literal terms of British statutes, beginning in 1350, under which persons born abroad, whose parents were both British subjects, would enjoy the same rights of inheritance as those born in England; beginning with laws in 1709 and 1731, these statutes expressly provided that such persons were natural-born subjects of the crown.” The Naturalization Act of 1790 declared these children to be "natural born Citizens," but only retrospectively. See Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U.S. 657 (1927). It is interesting to note that George Washington was president of the Constitutional Convention and President of the United States when this bill became law and if he had disagreed with the two U.S. citizen-parent requirement, he could have vetoed this bill. One would then at first think that this legislation strongly suggests that the Framers of the Constitution understood this phrase to refer to citizenship acquired from both of the child’s parents at birth, regardless of whether or not that birth had taken place in the United States. This statute shows what role the parents played in the minds of the early founders.

While only retrospectively, the First Congress was willing to declare a child born out of the United States to two United States parents a “natural born Citizen.” This was not consistent with what Vattel wrote in The Law of Nations of Principles of Natural Law, at Sec. 215. Children of citizens, born in a foreign country, where he declared these children just “citizens” and not “natural born citizens”: "It is asked, whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (Sec. 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot of itself furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say 'of itself,' for civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise. . . .” (emphasis supplied). Clearly, Vattel addressed the question of whether these children are “citizens,” not “natural born citizen.” He does not address the question of whether they are “natural born citizens” because according to his own definition, a child had to be born “in the country” in order to be a “natural born citizen.” Being born abroad and therefore not “in the country,” such a child could not be a “natural born citizen.”

In this connection and as an aside which applies to the question of whether Senator McCain is an Article II “natural born Citizen,” it should be noted that according to Vattel, being physically born out of the country did not necessarily mean that one was not born “in the country.” Vattel explained that if a child was born “in the armies of the state,” that child was “reputed born in the country; for a citizen, who is absent with his family on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.” Vattel, Sec. 217. Since this child would have been born in the foreign “armies of the state,” he would normally not be granted citizenship in the country in which he was physically born. Additionally, the country on whose soil the child might be born might adhere to a jus sanguinis system of conferring citizenship (meaning that born on its soil alone would not confer citizenship and therefore allegiance and loyalty on the child). Being born under those conditions, this child would therefore be born with sole allegiance to the country of his parents and would qualify as a “natural born citizen” of that country.

While the 1790 act naturalized all "persons" and so included women, it also declared that "the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States...." This prevented the automatic grant of citizenship to children born abroad whose mother, but not father, had resided in the United States. Citizenship was inherited exclusively through the father. As we have seen above, Congress did not remove the inequity until 1934. This focus on the father as the source of citizenship (but not meaning that the status of the mother was not considered) is consistent with what Vattel wrote in Section 212 of The Law of Nations. This is further evidence that the Framers relied upon Vattel in defining citizenship for the new Republic.

In 1795 the Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1795 which removed the words “natural born” from the term “natural born citizen” and thereby just left “citizens” as the status to be given to children born out of the United States. The fact that the 1790 Act as written was short lived and was only retrospective shows that Congress just wanted to make certain persons born abroad during the early years of the Republic “natural born Citizen” so that they could be eligible to be President. This sort of special allowance was comparable to the grandfather clause of Article II which allowed a “citizen” to be President provided that he was such at the time of the adoption of the Constitution which the Framers in 1790 knew occurred in 1789. It seems that the Third Congress passed this amendment to the 1790 Act to clarify for those living at that time who was and who was not a “natural born Citizen” per the Framers intent at that time, since the 1790 Act had introduced confusion into that subject regarding the use of those special words as found in Article II. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 714 (1898) (Fuller, C.J., dissenting) (statute “passed out of abundant caution to obviate misunderstandings” about the citizenship status of foreign-born children of Americans). It is again important to note that George Washington was also President in 1795, making him aware of this change by the Third Congress. If he disagreed with the clarification and change in the wording in the new 1795 Act, he would have vetoed it. The 1790 and 1795 Acts are contemporaneous evidence of who the Framers meant to include as “natural born Citizens.” Pryor, The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility: An Approach for Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty, 97 Yale L.J. 881 (1988).

Subsequent Supreme Court cases have stated that in interpreting the Constitution, we must look to the common law that the Framers accepted at the time of the Founding. There is strong historical evidence that the Framers in constituting the new Constitutional Republic rejected the English common law and accepted the new federal common law which emanated from the law of nations. On this subject, see my article included at this blog entitled, The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law as U.S. Federal Common Law Not English Common Law Define What an Article II Natural Born Citizen Is. Indeed, as we will see below, our Supreme Court adopted that definition when defining a “natural born Citizen” and thereby incorporated it into U.S. federal common law.

The definition and two-parent requirement has been reiterated by the Supreme Court and other courts in the cases of The Venus, 12U.S. 253(1814), Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242 (1830), Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856), Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) , Ex parte Reynolds, 20 F. Cas. 582 (C.C.W.D. Ark 1879), United States v. Ward, 42 F. 320 (1890); Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), and Ludlam, Excutrix, & c., v. Ludlam, 26 N.Y. 356 (1863). It has also been confirmed by renowned legislators, including Senator Trumbull, the author of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and Representative John A. Bingham, the architect of the 14th Amendment to our Constitution.

In the case of The Venus 12 U.S. 253, 289 (1814), Justice John Marshall said: "Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says 'The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.'”

Cruisingfool

02-17-2010, 09:03 AM

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), did not directly deal with Article II "natural born Citizen." But there are parts of the Dred Scott decision that are relevant to the question of what is a “natural born Citizen.” The case clearly defined “natural born citizen.” While as repugnant as slavery was and still is, no court or amendment has over turned the meaning of “natural born citizen” from Dred Scott. The main point is that in deciding what a "citizen" was in 1857, both the majority and dissent went back to 1787 to examine what the Framers and the people of that time considered a "citizen" to be. The Court said that the Constitution must be understood now as it was understood at the time it was written. The judges did not disagree that one had to look back to the Founding Fathers. What they disagreed on is what the public opinion was at that time as to whether a freed slave was a citizen. In this regard, we know that the case was overruled by the Thirteenth Amendment. As to the “natural born Citizen” clause, the Court said: "The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights. Again: I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . ." Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 476-77 (1857). As can be seen from the quoted language, the Court actually removed from the Vattel’s definition the reference to “fathers” and “father” and replaced it with “parents” and “person,” thus showing that it is not just one parent (the father) that needs to be a citizen, but the “parents,” i.e., both mother and father. Also, both Vattel and the Court stated that “if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.” The controlling language is “a foreigner.” In the English language, the letter “a” is an indefinite article meaning one. Hence, the use of the word “a” shows that only one is required. We know that a child has both a mother and father and the “a” would necessarily refer to either the mother or father. Surely, if the child were born of one parent who was not a citizen, he would be “born there of a foreigner,” who would be either his foreign mother or father. As can be seen, it is our United States Supreme Court that has made this reading and interpretation of Vattel. This understanding of Vattel is not only correct but also binding upon us.

Chief Justice Waite, in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), stated: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first." Here we can see that the U.S. Supreme Court in all three of these cases adopted Vattel’s definition of what a “natural born Citizen” is, and specifically repeated his two U.S.-parent test. Dred Scott even removed the word “father” and replaced it with the word “parents.”

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 (Act of April 9, 1866) first established a national law that provided: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.” Civil Rights Act of April 9, 1866 (14 Stat. 27). Not being subject to a foreign power includes being free from any political and military obligations to any other nation and not owing any other nation direct and immediate allegiance and loyalty. The primary author of this Act was Senator Trumbull who said it was his intention “to make citizens of everybody born in the United States who owe allegiance to the United States.” Additionally, he added if a “negro or white man belonged to a foreign Government he would not be a citizen.” In order for this requirement to be satisfied, clearly both parents of the child must be U.S. citizens, for if one is not, the child would inherit the foreign allegiance and loyalty of foreign parent and would thereby “belong to a foreign Government.” Rep. John A. Bingham, who later became the chief architect of the 14th Amendment's first section, in commenting upon Section 1992 of the Civil Rights Act, said that the Act was “simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen” (emphasis supplied). Rep. Bingham said “parents.” He did not say “one parent” or “a mother or father.”

Now let us turn to the Fourteenth Amendment. Senator Trumbull, when commenting on that Amendment declared: “The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.” Sen. Howard added: “the word jurisdiction, as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.” On May 30, 1866, Senator Howard continued: "This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Govern- of the United States, but will include every other class of persons." Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, 1st Session, May 30, 1866, P. 2890, col. 2. Again, only if the both parents of the child were citizens at the time of birth could the child be subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States, not owe allegiance to any foreign power, and not be a person “born in the United States who are foreigners [or aliens].”

There then followed Supreme Court cases that discussed citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment. In The Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 73 (1873), in discussing the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause said: “[t]he phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” Even the dissenting opinion affirmed that the citizenship clause was designed to assure that all persons born within the United States were both citizens of the United States and the state in which they resided, provided they were not at the time of birth subjects of any foreign power. Again, only if both parents of the child were citizens at the time of birth could the child not be considered a citizen or subject of a foreign State born within the United States, be subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States, and not be subject to any foreign power.

In Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884), the Supreme Court specifically addressed what is meant by “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” and held: "The persons declared to be citizens are 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.' The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired." Only if the child’s both parents were citizens at the time of birth could the child be “completely subject to their [U.S.] political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.

U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), did not address what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is. Rather, the Supreme Court there gave a new, divergent, and incorrect interpretation of the “subject to the jurisdiction” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and vetoed the will of the People and their Legislature to declare Wong a U.S. “citizen” under the unique circumstances of that case. While the case did approvingly cite Minor v. Happersett, since the case only dealt with what is a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen,” the case cannot in any event be used to explain what the Founders meant by Article II’s “natural born Citizen” clause. Justice Antonin Scalia, during his address to the 2008 Annual National Lawyers Convention on November 22, 2008, at the Mayflower Hotel, in Washington, D.C., gave three reasons in ascending order (the last being the most compelling) which would serve justification for overturning a prior case: how wrong was it, i.e., was it blatantly and malicious improperly decided ; how well has the public accepted the case; and did the decision cast the Court as a policy maker rather than an interpreter of the law. Given that the Wong Court did not give Congress and the Executive the wide deference that they deserve in exercising its immigration and naturalization powers (Nguyen v. INS, 533 U.S. 53, 121 S.Ct. 2053; 150 L.Ed.2d 115 (2001) and the Scalia factors, the Wong decision is a prime candidate for reversal.

We have seen that the citizenship status of the parents of a child determines whether that child is born a “natural born Citizen.” Why should we want the child’s parents to be citizens? Alexander Hamilton explained what happens to a person when he or she becomes a citizen of the country: "But there is a wide difference between closing the door altogether and throwing it entirely open; between a postponement of fourteen years, and an immediate admission to all the rights of citizenship. Some reasonable term ought to be allowed to enable aliens to get rid of foreign and acquire American attachments; to learn the principles and imbibe the spirit of our government; and to admit of a probability at least, of their feeling a real interest in our affairs. A residence of not less than five years ought to be required. " Alexander Hamilton, The Works of Alexander Hamilton, (Federal Edition), vol. 8 > EXAMINATION OF JEFFERSON’S MESSAGE TO CONGRESS OF DECEMBER 7, 1801 1 > paragraph 827. Additionally, the development in the formative years of a child’s minority of a relationship between citizen parents and their child is essential to the child’s ties and allegiance to the United States. Nguyen v. INS, 533 U.S. 53, 121 S.Ct. 2053; 150 L.Ed.2d 115 (2001) (addressing the importance of the tie between a child and his U.S. citizen father before the child’s 18th birthday as a crucial ingredient in the child attaching and owing allegiance to the United States and that the U.S. government has a “profound” important interest and objective in promoting that link; showing that a child must meet all statutory preconditions [would also mean constitutional requirements] no matter how much one may deem them to be unfair or onerous in order to be bestowed U.S. citizenship). But we have seen that United States Supreme Court case law, the early 1790 and 1795 Naturalization Acts, legislative history of the Civil Rights Act of the 1866, and the Fourteenth Amendment all conclusively show that Vattel was understood to say that both parents had to be citizens in order for a child to be a “natural born Citizen.” The Founders, our Supreme Court, Congress, and framers of the Fourteenth Amendment all adopted Vattel’s law of nations definition and two-parent requirement and made it part of Article II, United States citizenship federal common law, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and the Fourteenth Amendment, respectively. It also would not make sense to allow just one U.S. citizen parent to be sufficient, for each parent has just as much influence as the other on his or her child.

Cruisingfool

02-17-2010, 09:16 AM

Cruisingfool

02-17-2010, 09:17 AM

The purpose of Article II’s “natural born Citizen” clause is to exclude foreign influence from the Office of President and Commander in Chief. It “cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interposes a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments . . .” Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:Sec 1472-73 (1833). Remember that Vattel said that if a child is born on a nation's soil to a non-citizen father (meaning parents), that place "will be only the place of his birth, and not his country." Article II’s “natural born Citizen” clause looks only to the moment of birth and not thereafter. This interpretation is consistent with Jay’s underlining the word “born” in his 1787 letter to General (later President) Washington. In other words, to meet that special Presidential eligibility requirement, one must be born a “natural born Citizen” and cannot acquire that status later in life. Under the British Nationality Act 1948, when Obama was born in 1961 his father was a British subject/citizen and Obama himself was a British subject/citizen by descent from his father. Under the British Nationality Act 1981, today Obama can still be a British Overseas Citizen (BOC). See my April 7, 2009 article on this topic at this blog entitled, Obama, the President of the U.S., Is Currently Also a British Citizen. Hence, when Obama was born he failed to meet the two-U.S.-citizen-parent test which caused him to be born subject to a foreign power. See my article at this blog entitled, Being Born Subject to a Foreign Power, Obama Cannot be President and Military Commander. It is inescapable that Obama is not and cannot be an Article II “natural born Citizen” and is therefore not eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg, NJ 08831
9-8-09
Amended on 12-20-09
Amended on 12-21-09

Cruisingfool

02-17-2010, 09:20 AM

Okay, that is just one of the many coming articles, but I want to see how you spin your way around this one....

I'll be patiently waiting your spin job! :D

MowMyOwn

02-17-2010, 01:34 PM

Maybe you aught to argue this over at Daily Koss or Huffington Post, you'll have a bigger audience over there.

DerailAmnesty.com

02-17-2010, 04:38 PM

Don't let it bother you.

Wasn't the doubts of global warming once linked into folks who were called conspiracy nuts also? We all know how that is finally panning out.

Oh, rest assured that you'll pay for that blashphemy. I'm reporting you to Al Gore, Rob Reiner and Leonardo DiCaprio this very moment.

REWHBLCAIN

02-17-2010, 06:25 PM

Oh, rest assured that you'll pay for that blashphemy. I'm reporting you to Al Gore, Rob Reiner and Leonardo DiCaprio this very moment.Rob Reiner? The old meat head?

Have not heard his name in a while.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQygMz7sGoo

PochoPatriot

02-18-2010, 03:18 PM

Okay, that is just one of the many coming articles, but I want to see how you spin your way around this one....

I'll be patiently waiting your spin job! :D

Copy and paste jobs do not sway me. I am curious if you are able to put down the theories in a post of your own words? If I wanted to read conspiracy nuts, I can go to any lunatic fringe website. YOU tell me what YOU think, not what you can cut and paste.

Cruisingfool

02-18-2010, 03:23 PM

What part of both parents must be US Citizens in order for their off spring to be a Natural Born Citizen, do you not understand? :p

Cruisingfool

02-18-2010, 03:34 PM

Link (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=125351)
BORN IN THE USA?
Oops! Obama tells another nativity fib?
Records indicate father not part of Kenyan airlift, as prez said
Posted: February 16, 2010
11:00 pm Eastern

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

http://www.wnd.com/images/barackobamasr.jpg
Barack Obama Sr.

Official documents catch Barack Obama in another apparent misrepresentation of his life story, this time challenging a claim made during his campaign that his father was part of a JFK-era airlift to bring Kenyan students to the U.S. to study in American universities.

WND research indicates Barack Obama Sr. was not brought to Hawaii in 1959 by any airlift of Kenyan students organized by baseball great Jackie Robinson, John F. Kennedy or the African-American Students Foundation, the AASF.

Nor was Barack Obama Sr. on any of the three subsequently chartered airplanes in what became known as the "second airlift" organized by Kenyan Luo politician Tom Mboya in 1960 after the Joseph P. Kennedy Jr. Foundation contributed $100,000 to AASF.

Moreover, after a thorough search of the Jackie Robinson papers at the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress, WND can find no mention of Barack Obama Sr. in the files on deposit, either as an applicant or candidate for an airlift from Kenya to study in the U.S.

The manifest of the 81 students actually flown from Kenya Sept. 9, 1959, in a plane chartered by Jackie Robinson in conjunction with the AASF does not contain Barack Obama Sr.'s name. Robinson was assisted by singer Harry Belafonte and actor Sidney Poitier.

In Hawaii before first student airlift

By the time of the Sept. 9, 1959, airlift to New York City, Barack Obama Sr. was already in Honolulu, enrolled in classes as an undergraduate at the University of Hawaii.

WND previously published official affirmation from the University of Hawaii that Barack Obama Sr. was enrolled for the 1959 fall term.

The first article documenting Barack Obama Sr.'s presence in Hawaii was by journalist Shurei Hirozawa in the Honolulu Star Bulletin on Sept. 18, 1959, only nine days after the Jackie Robinson airlift.

The article suggested Barack Obama Sr., then fully settled in Hawaii and enrolled at the university, had used personal savings to pay his travel expenses from Kenya to Hawaii and tuition costs at the university.

"But the money [Barack Obama Sr.] saved will only stretch out for two semesters or less because of the high cost of living in Hawaii, he found out," wrote Hirozawa. "He'll work, he says, and possibly apply for a scholarship."

Obama claims JFK responsible

Barack Obama Jr.'s claim that John F. Kennedy brought his father to the U.S. was made in a March 4, 2007 speech, from the pulpit of the historic Brown Chapel A.M.E. Church in Selma, Ala.

Obama declared he owed his very existence to Selma, according to a transcript of the speech and a video clip posted on YouTube.com.

A few minutes into the speech, Obama began discussing the protests in Selma and Birmingham, Ala., that were instrumental to Martin Luther King building the civil rights movement in the 1960s.

Obama invented dialogue of Kennedy advisers, musing, "It worried the folks in the White House who said, 'You know, we're battling communism. How are we going to win hearts and minds all across the world if right here in our own country, John, we're not observing the ideals set forth in our Constitution? We might be accused of being hypocrites."

Obama continued: "This young man named Barack Obama got one of those tickets and came over to this country. He met this woman whose great-great-great-great-grandfather had owned slaves. But she had a good idea there was some craziness going on, because they looked at each other, and they decided that we know that (in) the world as it has been it might not be possible for us to get together and have a child."

Kennedy, however, was not in the White House until Jan. 20, 1961, and he did not participate in the organization of the September 1959 airlift.

The historical record is further established by a background memorandum prepared by Sen. John Kennedy's office in August 1960, while JFK was running for president.

The memo documents that JFK met with Mboya – but after the 1959 airlift had already occurred. Mboya met with JFK at Hyannis Port July 26, 1960, while Kennedy was running for president.

Mboya's goal was to convince JFK to fund a second airlift of African students to the U.S.

The memo further documents that the State Department, despite intervention by Vice President Richard Nixon, had already turned down Mboya's request for a second airlift to bring in 200 African students who had received scholarships from U.S. schools.

The Kennedy family, utilizing the Joseph P. Kennedy Jr. Foundation, decided to give Mboya a $100,000 donation to pay for the second airlift, in memory of JFK's brother who was killed in World War II.

Knowing the Kennedy family was going to pay for the second airlift, Nixon prevailed on the State Department to reverse its earlier negative decision.

The African-American Students Foundation, however, decided to accept the Kennedy Foundation's offer, preferring the willing generosity of the privately offered financing to the obvious hostility the State Department had initially expressed to the group's request.

Mboya's decision was a rebuke to Nixon, who had failed to deliver the State Department until after the Kennedy family had stepped forward with funding.

At the time, the State Department was turning down Mboya's request in deference to the government of Jomo Kenyatta, which had argued, contrary to Mboya, that young, talented Kenyans should study closer to home and attend Makerere College in neighboring Uganda, instead of being trained in American universities.

Still, the myth of JFK's role in bringing President Obama's father to the U.S. persisted, reported again Jan. 10, 2008, by Washington-based reporter Elana Schor of London's Guardian newspaper.

On March 30, 2008, Michael Dobbs published an article in the Washington Post, carefully entitled "Obama Overstates Kennedy's Role in Helping His Father," so as not to characterize candidate Obama's Selma remarks as a lie.

"Obama spokesman Bill Burton acknowledged yesterday that the senator from Illinois had erred in crediting the Kennedy family with a role in his father's arrival in the United States," Dobbs wrote. "[Burton] said the Kennedy involvement in the Kenya student program apparently started 48 years ago, not 49 years ago as Obama has mistakenly suggested in the past."

To correct the "overstatement," Dobbs incorrectly reported that Barack Obama Sr. had come to the United States in the Sept. 9, 1959, initial airlift organized by Jackie Robinson without the financial support of the Kennedy family.

"There was enormous excitement when the Britannia aircraft took off for New York with the future Kenyan elite aboard," Dobbs wrote of the first airlift. "After a few weeks of orientation, the students were dispatched to universities across the United States to study subjects that would help them govern Kenya after the departure of the British. Obama Sr. was interested in economics and was sent to Hawaii, where he met, and later married, a Kansas native named Ann Dunham."

Further corroboration that Barack Obama Sr. was not on the first airlift is provided by Tom Shachtman in his 2009 book, "Airlift to America."

On page 9 of the book, Shachtman confirms Mboya was unable to transport Barack Obama Sr. to the United States on any of the airlifts organized by Jackie Robinson or the AASF.

Nativity story

WND also has reported that contrary to the president's statements, his father did not abandon the family in Hawaii when he accepted an invitation to study at Harvard in 1962.

Documents uncovered by WND also have raised questions about whether President Obama's parents ever lived together as husband and wife, despite Obama's repeated assertions his parents lived together in Hawaii during the first two years of his life.

WND has reported the only documentation for Ann Dunham's marriage to Barack Obama Sr. comes from their divorce documents that list the marriage date as Feb. 2, 1961.

In actuality, it isn't clear Obama's parents were married, since official records have never been produced showing a legal ceremony took place. No wedding certificate or photograph of a ceremony for Dunham and Obama Sr. has ever been found or published.

WND previously reported Michelle Obama stated at a public event that her husband's mother was "very young and very single" when she gave birth to the future U.S. president.

Cruisingfool

02-18-2010, 03:36 PM

OS9Z4LiQhOY

Mystery Photo-Is this the Dunham/Obama wedding? Were is Ann? Did she take the photograph? I think that might be Grandma, making the peace sign.
Update: The morning after I posted this video, WND posted a story, which now proves that Obama's father was not part of the scholarship programs which airlifted students from Kenya-So, another of Obama's lies has been exposed. So it is possible that Obama Sr. did arrive on a ship.
Forward Message

PochoPatriot

02-18-2010, 03:36 PM

What part of both parents must be US Citizens in order for their off spring to be a Natural Born Citizen, do you not understand? :p

I find no such requirement in U.S. case law, though I have found plenty of allegations in the lunatic conspiracy writings. I'll take law over lunatics any day, and twice of Sunday.

Cruisingfool

02-18-2010, 07:52 PM

Nice spin job try, once again, post your evidence (which you don't have!) :p

Cruisingfool

02-18-2010, 07:58 PM

yu3jtx_xbUg

PochoPatriot

02-18-2010, 08:03 PM

Nice spin job try, once again, post your evidence (which you don't have!) :p

Typical conspiracy nut retort. Hey, that's fine. I would rather be labeled a liberal by a conspiracy nutjob like you, than continue in this jungle of argumentum ad verecundium.

Cruisingfool

02-19-2010, 09:45 AM

Link (http://obamacrimes.com/)
Philip J. Berg, Esq. to Attend CPAC 2010 in Washington, D.C. 2/18/10 through 2/20/10

For Immediate Release: – 02/18/2010
For Further Information Contact:
Philip J. Berg, Esquire
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
Cell (610) 662-3005
(610) 825-3134
(800) 993-PHIL [7445]
Fax (610) 834-7659

philjberg@obamacrimes.com

Berg to Attend CPAC 2010 in Washington, DC 2/18 to 2/20
* * *
Berg States that Announcement of
“Birth Certificate March on Washington”
to Demand Obama Resign
forced Obama to address the issue at

National Prayer Breakfast
* * *
Date for March to be Announced Soon
and
Urgent Need for Funds

(Lafayette Hill, PA – 02/18/10) – Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the first Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “qualifications” to serve as President of the United States stated that “WE THE PEOPLE” by and through Philip J. Berg and Obamacrimes.com forced Obama to address the issue at the National Prayer Breakfast on Thursday, February 4, 2009 ! Obama, in part of his speech referred for the first time since the question of his being “Constitutionally eligible” stated,

“But surely you can question my policies without questioning my faith, or, [pause] for that matter,my citizenship.“ [Laughter and applause.] [emphasis added]

Berg said, “I knew that if we continued our efforts, those of obamacrimes.com, to expose Obama not being ‘Constitutionally eligible’ to be President, as this is the greatest ‘HOAX’ in the history of our country, that being over 230 years and the fact that Obama’s actions are a fraud !”

The actual words stated by Obama:
“Civility also requires relearning how to disagree without being disagreeable; understanding, as President [Kennedy] said, that “civility is not a sign of weakness.” Now, I am the first to confess I am not always right. Michelle will testify to that“. [Laughter.]

“But surely you can question my policies without questioning my faith, or, [pause] for that matter, my citizenship.” [Laughter and applause.] [emphasis added]

Berg said, “WOW, it is about time ! This is great. Our announcement of the ‘Birth Certificate March on Washington’ demanding Obama resign as President as he is ‘Constitutionally ineligible’ to be President was the Press Release that caused Obama to react.”
Berg stated, “Because of the response to date, shortly, we will announce the date for the “Birth Certificate March on Washington.”

Further, “We need Funds ASAP to be able to publicize the March and start to arrange specifics for the ‘Birth Certificate March on Washington.’ Go to obamacrimes.com to make your contribution.”

Berg is requesting all citizens of the United States to email, fax or mail a “copy” of their Birth Certificate that will be presented to Obama demanding that Obama resign because he has failed to produce his long form [vault] Birth Certificate and other citizenship documents [Obama, an Indonesian Citizen ?] to show he is “Constitutionally eligible” to be President. Please redact any personal information that you wish.

Berg related an email he received. A woman from Texas told me she registered her thirteen [13] year old nephew for school. When registration was finished, her nephew asked the Principal, “Can I ask you a question?” The Principal said, “Yes.” Her nephew said, “How come I had to show my Birth Certificate to register for school, but Obama did not have to show his to be President ?”

Berg said, “That email motivated me to continue to expose Obama for the fraud he is !”

Berg continued, “Since the Courts are taking their time to get to the point of allowing ‘Discovery,’ it is time to motivate the citizens of the United States for a ‘Peaceful Revolution’ to expose the ‘HOAX’ of Obama, the biggest ‘HOAX’ in the history of our country, in over 230 years !”

Berg wants people to email, fax or mail a copy of their Birth Certificate to:

Email = philjberg@obamacrimes.com
Fax = (610) 834-7659
Mail = Obamacrimes
555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531

Berg said, “Then, we will be preparing them to deliver to Obama demanding that he resign from the Office of President as he has not proven that he is “Constitutionally eligible” to be President and that Obama has not produced legal documents to show he legally changed his name from his ‘adopted’ name of ‘Barry Soetoro’ from Indonesia.

I am proceeding for the 305 + million people in ‘our’ U.S.A., for ‘our’ forefathers and for the 3.2 million men and women that have died and/or been maimed defending our Constitution with our ‘Peaceful Revolution’ to prove that Obama is not Constitutionally qualified/eligible to be President.”

Berg continued, “I still have cases pending in the Federal Courts. Go to obamacrimes.com to see the status of each case.”

Berg concluded, “I will be attending the CPAC 2010 Convention in Washington, DC from Thursday, 2/18 to Saturday, 2/20 at the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel. The Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) will be helpful for me to spread the message that Obama is a fraud, a phony and Obama has put forth the biggest ‘HOAX’ in the history of our great nation,”

Phil Berg will be available for Press Interviews at CPAC 2010 – Contact Phil at cell (610) 662-3005.

For copies of all Press Releases and Court Pleadings, go to:

obamacrimes.com

Cruisingfool

02-20-2010, 05:20 PM

5FlEbBZLzo0

Dawes

02-21-2010, 01:35 PM

You didn't answer the question. What impact would Obama's mother being a minor and married (to anyone from anywhere) have upon the citizenship of her Hawaiian-born child?

First, you answer the question why you think he is a Hawaiian born child.

The only way to prove that is to show an Official State of Hawaii Birth Certificate. So far, he has not produced one. The only thing they have is a Certificate of Live Birth, which under state law, is NOT an official Birth Certificate. It is basically just a certificate to show the child was born alive and not dead.

This certificate can not be used as documentation for a U.S. Passport application.

So without that type of documentation, it would lead to other documents being produced that would lead to the original document, whatever that document may be.
Yes, he has a passport but what does it say on it?

Yes, he went to an American university, but what is on the application and financial paperwork.

Without any U.S. documentation produced, how does one jump to the conclusion you jump too?

He ran for president because some Democrats sent in a 2nd certified copy of a certificate saying he could run for president. That was the only thing that would have held him back. Of course, Nancy Pelosi would never lie about a thing like that, now, would she?

DerailAmnesty.com

02-22-2010, 09:27 PM

First, you answer the question why you think he is a Hawaiian born child.

Why? I didn't say he was. In fact, I haven't represented anything about Obama, other than I can't keep track of all the theories/positions you birther types have been espousing here in support of your proposition.

Before CF climbed into the SOS campus clocktower and started spraying this thread with pump-action posts by the dozens (at which point I changed channels), from what I could gather, there were three essential points being made:

1. Obama was born outside the United States and is therefore ineligible to be President.

2. Obama never attended Columbia.

3. Whether or not Obama was born in Hawaii is irrelevant, because his father wasn't a U.S. citizen and, therefore, he shouldn't hold the presidency.

To a man, you Birther-ites agree that the former Senator from Illinois has no legal business occupying the White House. However, the assertions you folks roll out in support of your position are so varied, often times conflicting, and mostly requiring extensive conspiracies involving parties with wildly disparate interests to be accurate, that they strain the limits of credibility. Guys, you can't even agree on what the story is. So let me ask you, who really killed JFK? Was it the Cubans, the mob associates of Onassis or the CIA?

Twoller

02-23-2010, 07:47 AM

Why? I didn't say he was. In fact, I haven't represented anything about Obama, other than I can't keep track of all the theories/positions you birther types have been espousing here in support of your proposition.

Before CF climbed into the SOS campus clocktower and started spraying this thread with pump-action posts by the dozens (at which point I changed channels), from what I could gather, there were three essential points being made:

1. Obama was born outside the United States and is therefore ineligible to be President.

2. Obama never attended Columbia.

3. Whether or not Obama was born in Hawaii is irrelevant, because his father wasn't a U.S. citizen and, therefore, he shouldn't hold the presidency.

To a man, you Birther-ites agree that the former Senator from Illinois has no legal business occupying the White House. However, the assertions you folks roll out in support of your position are so varied, often times conflicting, and mostly requiring extensive conspiracies involving parties with wildly disparate interests to be accurate, that they strain the limits of credibility. Guys, you can't even agree on what the story is. So let me ask you, who really killed JFK? Was it the Cubans, the mob associates of Onassis or the CIA?

It doesn't matter what people agree to. What only matters is what is beyond debate. The only thing that is truly beyond debate is that his father was not a US citizen. Not only is this beyond debate, but it also puts into dramatic highlight the crisis of US citizenship that has come to bear at this point. Anchor babies are the issue here and the fact that we have a fraud in the white house that should not be there at a time when the issue of birthright citizenshiip needs to be confronted the most is no accident.

This is just like the weird JFK conspiracies theories and the other weird conspiracie theories surrounding the WTC terrorist attack. They exist to deflect from what is clearly apparent and beyond debate.

Cruisingfool

02-23-2010, 05:04 PM

Why? I didn't say he was. In fact, I haven't represented anything about Obama, other than I can't keep track of all the theories/positions you birther types have been espousing here in support of your proposition.

Before CF climbed into the SOS campus clocktower and started spraying this thread with pump-action posts by the dozens (at which point I changed channels), from what I could gather, there were three essential points being made:

1. Obama was born outside the United States and is therefore ineligible to be President.

2. Obama never attended Columbia.

3. Whether or not Obama was born in Hawaii is irrelevant, because his father wasn't a U.S. citizen and, therefore, he shouldn't hold the presidency.

To a man, you Birther-ites agree that the former Senator from Illinois has no legal business occupying the White House. However, the assertions you folks roll out in support of your position are so varied, often times conflicting, and mostly requiring extensive conspiracies involving parties with wildly disparate interests to be accurate, that they strain the limits of credibility. Guys, you can't even agree on what the story is. So let me ask you, who really killed JFK? Was it the Cubans, the mob associates of Onassis or the CIA?

You have been asked many questions, at which you turn the whole subject around, and go on the same name calling (birthers) as PachoPatriot, RIMO, but not one of you have posted a legitimate response to any of thee questions.

So now we lead down the inferior road of "Conspiracy Theory".

Rim05

02-23-2010, 06:26 PM

You have been asked many questions, at which you turn the whole subject around, and go on the same name calling (birthers) as PachoPatriot, RIMO, but not one of you have posted a legitimate response to any of thee questions.

I have no plan to join in your rants. Barack Obama does not need me to argue for him and nothing anyone can say will change your mind. Good Bye.

DerailAmnesty.com

02-23-2010, 06:56 PM

It doesn't matter what people agree to. What only matters is what is beyond debate. The only thing that is truly beyond debate is that his father was not a US citizen. Not only is this beyond debate, but it also puts into dramatic highlight the crisis of US citizenship that has come to bear at this point. Anchor babies are the issue here and the fact that we have a fraud in the white house that should not be there at a time when the issue of birthright citizenshiip needs to be confronted the most is no accident.

You're right, insofar as your statement that Obama's father is not a U.S. citizen is concerned, that is. No one (to my knowledge) has ever claimed he was. That part is not your problem. What is your problem is federal law. You don't seem to understand it. I'll give you a reprint of much of what I posted last time you made this assertion (a post, I might add, to which you didn't respond):

That assertion is flat out wrong. You have misstated federal law pertaining to birthright citizenship ...

Not only is what you have stated inaccurate, it would be inaccurate if the law was modified in the fashion many border security activists would like to see undertaken. Currently, a child is legally a U.S. citizen if he is born on U.S. soil, regardless of his parents' unlawful residency status. Many individuals feel this is the result of a perversion/misinterpretation of the Civil War Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. They opine that a person should not receive legal residency if born in our country, if one or more parents is an illegal alien. Even under this formula, Barack Obama would be a citizen.

So I'll ask you again, Twoller. How does Obama's father's citizenship status prevent our current president from holding office?

Twoller

02-23-2010, 08:11 PM

....

Not only is what you have stated inaccurate, it would be inaccurate if the law was modified in the fashion many border security activists would like to see undertaken. Currently, a child is legally a U.S. citizen if he is born on U.S. soil, regardless of his parents' unlawful residency status. Many individuals feel this is the result of a perversion/misinterpretation of the Civil War Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. They opine that a person should not receive legal residency if born in our country, if one or more parents is an illegal alien. Even under this formula, Barack Obama would be a citizen.[/i]

So I'll ask you again, Twoller. How does Obama's father's citizenship status prevent our current president from holding office?

The only reason that a child is "legally" declared a citizen if born on US soil is because of a perversion of the US constitution and a perversion of our whole institution of US citizenship. Just because you can collect enough people to say that Obama or anyone like him is a US citizen doesn't make him or them US citizens.

For anyone who actually cares about their own US citizenship and the citizens of any country where such a thing is respected, there simply is no other conclusion.

Cruisingfool

02-24-2010, 10:45 AM

You're right, insofar as your statement that Obama's father is not a U.S. citizen is concerned, that is. No one (to my knowledge) has ever claimed he was. That part is not your problem. What is your problem is federal law. You don't seem to understand it. I'll give you a reprint of much of what I posted last time you made this assertion (a post, I might add, to which you didn't respond):

That assertion is flat out wrong. You have misstated federal law pertaining to birthright citizenship ...

Not only is what you have stated inaccurate, it would be inaccurate if the law was modified in the fashion many border security activists would like to see undertaken. Currently, a child is legally a U.S. citizen if he is born on U.S. soil, regardless of his parents' unlawful residency status. Many individuals feel this is the result of a perversion/misinterpretation of the Civil War Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. They opine that a person should not receive legal residency if born in our country, if one or more parents is an illegal alien. Even under this formula, Barack Obama would be a citizen.

So I'll ask you again, Twoller. How does Obama's father's citizenship status prevent our current president from holding office?

Link (http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/09/natural-born-citizen-clause-requires.html)
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
The Natural Born Citizen Clause of Our U.S. Constitution Requires that Both of the Child’s Parents Be U.S. Citizens At the Time of Birth
When interpreting the Constitution, we must decide whether we will look to the document as an original and static one whose meaning has already been established at a given time by the People and its Framers or one that is living and which can be changed over any given time by a court of law. See the address of Justice Antonin Scalia to the 2008 Annual National Lawyers Convention on November 22, 2008, at the Mayflower Hotel, in Washington, D.C. http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubid.1193/pub_detail.asp. (advocates originalism rather than living constitutionalism). I submit that Article II’s “natural born Citizen” clause has a fixed and knowable meaning which was established at the time of its drafting and should therefore be interpreted through the eyes of the original Framers that drafted and ratified the clause so as to determine what they intended the clause to mean (original intent theory). I also submit that we should interpret the “natural born Citizen” clause in a way that reasonable persons living at the time of its adoption would have declared the ordinary meaning of the text to be (original meaning theory). This is not living constitutionalism but rather originalism or textualism as applied to interpreting the Constitution. It is this latter approach that I will utilize in this article.

E. Vattel stated in 1758, as translated into English in 1797: "The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see, whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country." E. Vattel, The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law, Sec. 212 Citizens and natives. In Footnote 1 at the end of Sec. 212, Vattel stated that “as a general rule” the child inherits his father’s citizenship, or his mother’s but only if she is not married.

The first thing that we have to understand about what Vattel wrote is that he made a distinction between a “citizen” and a “natural born Citizen.” A citizen is simply a member of the civil society who is bound to the society by certain duties and subject to its authority. “Citizens” also participate equally in all the advantages the society has to offer. On the other hand, a “natural born Citizen” means much more than just “citizen.” Vattel required that for a child to be a “natural born citizen,” or what he called in French in his 1758 first edition of The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law, les naturels, ou indigenes (the “natives or indigines”-The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253 (1814)), the child must be born in the country to both parents who are also citizens of the same country.

In the original French, Vattel wrote: "Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays de parents citoyens,” meaning the "natives or indigines" are those born in the country of citizen parents. Both the Framers and later English translators of Vattel's treatise replaced the words"natural born Citizen" for the words "natives or indigenes." From Madison's notes, we see that there were some delegates who were concerned about foreigners. For example, from Max Farrand's transcripts of Madison's notes (August 9 and August 13, 1787), there is the following concerning the House of Representatives eligibility requirements: "Mr. Gerry wished that in future the eligibility might be confined to Natives." The word "native" occurs multiple times in the notes for these two days. (The phrase "natural born citizen" was not used here by the delegates.). The word "native" was a synonym for the phrase "natural born citizen." The delegates had already used the term “natural born citizen” when proposing the requirements for President, Vice President, and either House of Congress and later used the word “natives” when referring to eligibility requirements for the House of Representative. There is further evidence of this in at least three works: Blackstone's "Commentaries on the Laws of England" (see Book the First: The Rights of Persons; Chapter the Tenth: Of People, Whether Aliens, Denizens or Natives.), translations of Quintilian's "Institutio Oratoria", and the 1797 English edition of Vattel's "The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law."

In the beginning of his definition, Vattel required that the children be born of “parents” who are citizens. The use of the word “parents” refers to both mother and father. If he required only one parent such as the father, he would have said “of fathers who are citizens” and not “of parents who are citizens.” He did later refer to “fathers,” but only because wives automatically acquired the citizenship of their husbands the same way children did. This rule was carried into our own naturalization laws, wherein citizenship can be derived from a close relation. Historically, a number of U.S. laws have provided for the automatic naturalization of children or wives (not husbands) of naturalized U.S. citizens. In some periods of our history, these laws provided that married women derived citizenship from their husband and had no control over their status. Under the Act of 10 February 1855, a woman automatically became an American upon marrying a U.S. citizen or following the naturalization of her foreign husband. Kelly v. Owen, 74 U.S. 7 Wall. 496 (1868). The 1922 Married Women's Act (or the Cable Act) finally severed the link between naturalization and marital status for most women. Hence, if Vattel meant to focus only on “fathers,” he would have used “fathers” throughout his definition and never mentioned “parents” when he first defined “natural born Citizen,” for there would not have been any need to use the word “parents” when “fathers” would have sufficed. Hence, Vattel would have focused on the citizenship of the father since that citizenship would determine that of both the mother and child. It is also noteworthy that Vattel had no problem allowing the child to inherit the citizenship of the mother when the mother was not married to the child’s father. Given that Vattel in effect really focused on the citizenship of both the child’s father and mother in defining a “natural born Citizen,” Vattel’s definition of a “natural born Citizen” does not violate the equal protection guarantee embedded in the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420 (1998); Nguyen v. INS, 533 U.S. 53, 121 S.Ct. 2053; 150 L.Ed.2d 115 (2001).

There is other evidence in his treatise that shows that Vattel meant to refer to both the child’s mother and father in his definition of a “natural born citizen.” When defining what a country is in Section 122, he stated the “term signifies the state, or even more particularly the town or place, where our parents had their fixed residence at the moment of our birth…. A man ought to preserve gratitude and affection for the state to which he is indebted for his education, and of which his parents were members when they gave him birth….” In commenting on the citizenship status of children born at sea at Section 216, he stated that a child born abroad a foreign vessel that is docked in a port belonging to their own nation is reputed born in the country, provided “she [the mother] and her husband have not quitted their native country to settle elsewhere.” In commenting upon vagrants in Section 219he stated: “Vagrants are people who have no settlement. Consequently those born of vagrant parents have no country, since a man’s country is the place where, at the time of his birth, his parents had their settlement (Section 122), or it is the state of which his father was then a member…” Given that Vattel in effect really focused on the citizenship of both the child’s father and mother in defining a “natural born Citizen,” Vattel’s definition of a “natural born Citizen” does not violate the equal protection guarantee embedded in the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420 (1998); Nguyen v. INS, 533 U.S. 53, 121 S.Ct. 2053; 150 L.Ed.2d 115 (2001).

The Framers were very familiar with William Blackstone. We can also see in the writings of Blackstone that the allegiance of both parents to the King was needed to avoid dual allegiance in the child. Blackstone wrote:

Cruisingfool

02-24-2010, 10:45 AM

"When I say, that an alien is one who is born out of the king's dominions, or allegiance, this also must be understood with some restrictions. The common law indeed stood absolutely so; with only a very few exceptions: so that a particular act of parliament became necessary after the restoration, for the naturalization of children of his majesty's English subjects, born in foreign countries during the late troubles. And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once. Yet the children of the king's embassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England's allegiance, represented by his father, the embassador. To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband's consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king's ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain (emphais in the original)."

William Blackstone, Commentaries 1:354, 357--58, 361-62 (1765). We can see that even the English Parliament gave importance to a child having both parents be “in the allegiance of the king,” which under English common law meant the parents would have been “natural born subjects.” By having both parents be “natural born subjects,” the child would not have been born with any other conflicting allegiance other than the one that attached from the foreign soil. Parliament was willing to live with any allegiance attaching to the child from the foreign soil but not with any that may attach by descent from one of the parents, the latter one being by nature a much more stronger one. It was only later in time that the rule was made less restrictive and allowed for just the father to be a “natural born subject.”

There is historical evidence that the Founders borrowed from the Dutch much more heavily than from the British when making the new nation. During the revolutionary period Dutch law provided for citizenship by jus sanguinis. There is considerable evidence that the Framers were also influenced by the citizenship law of Holland. “The American colonists had become familiar with the rights of citizenship possessed in other countries, both from the fact that some of them resided in Holland for a time, before they came to America, and from the further fact that the New York colony was essentially Dutch in its original settlement and government.” John S. Wise, A Treatise on American Citizenship (1906). In Holland, “[c]itizenship could be acquired in several ways. Probably the most common was birth. Some towns accepted everyone as citizen who was baptized in a local church. But more commonly it was required that one’s parents were citizens too. . . .” R. Po-chia Hsia & Henk F. K. van Nierop, Calvinism and Religious Toleration in the Dutch Golden Age 161(2002). “One’s parents” would necessarily included one’s mother and father. This Dutch law is consistent with Vattel’s definition of what is a “natural born citizen.”

Apart from the heavy Dutch influence upon the Founders, when the Framers drafted the Constitution, they relied heavily upon Vattel to guide them. Citizenship was a topic that affected U.S. relations with other nations. Given that citizenship affects "the behavior of nation states with each other" (Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004), the Founders would have looked to the law of nations to define it for the purposes of the new nation. The law of nations definition on citizenship also gave uniformity to the subject area, which the Framers wanted to achieve for citizenship laws as they did for naturalization laws. Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1, 36 (Wheat) (1824). They would therefore have referred to and accepted Vattel's law of nations definition to give meaning to what an Article II “natural born Citizen” was.

The meaning of a “natural born Citizen” as expressed by Vattel, including that both parents of the child must be citizens at the time of the child’s birth in order to make the child a “natural born Citizen,” was carried forward in American history following the Founding. The standard provided by Vattel has not changed in our jurisprudence and is still valid today as it was during the Founding. Also, the Fourteenth Amendment has not changed the meaning of a “natural born Citizen.” Legislative activity by the early Congresses provides insight into the question of whether Vattel required one or two parents to be citizens. There are Congressional acts that were passed after the Constitution was adopted that give us insight into what the Framers of the Constitution meant by “natural born Citizen.” The 1790 Congress, many of whose members had been members of the Constitutional Convention, passed the Naturalization Act of 1790 (1 Stat.103,104) which provided that “And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.” This phrasing followed the literal terms of British statutes, beginning in 1350, under which persons born abroad, whose parents were both British subjects, would enjoy the same rights of inheritance as those born in England; beginning with laws in 1709 and 1731, these statutes expressly provided that such persons were natural-born subjects of the crown.” The Naturalization Act of 1790 declared these children to be "natural born Citizens," but only retrospectively. See Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U.S. 657 (1927). It is interesting to note that George Washington was president of the Constitutional Convention and President of the United States when this bill became law and if he had disagreed with the two U.S. citizen-parent requirement, he could have vetoed this bill. One would then at first think that this legislation strongly suggests that the Framers of the Constitution understood this phrase to refer to citizenship acquired from both of the child’s parents at birth, regardless of whether or not that birth had taken place in the United States. This statute shows what role the parents played in the minds of the early founders.

While only retrospectively, the First Congress was willing to declare a child born out of the United States to two United States parents a “natural born Citizen.” This was not consistent with what Vattel wrote in The Law of Nations of Principles of Natural Law, at Sec. 215. Children of citizens, born in a foreign country, where he declared these children just “citizens” and not “natural born citizens”: "It is asked, whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (Sec. 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot of itself furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say 'of itself,' for civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise. . . .” (emphasis supplied). Clearly, Vattel addressed the question of whether these children are “citizens,” not “natural born citizen.” He does not address the question of whether they are “natural born citizens” because according to his own definition, a child had to be born “in the country” in order to be a “natural born citizen.” Being born abroad and therefore not “in the country,” such a child could not be a “natural born citizen.”

In this connection and as an aside which applies to the question of whether Senator McCain is an Article II “natural born Citizen,” it should be noted that according to Vattel, being physically born out of the country did not necessarily mean that one was not born “in the country.” Vattel explained that if a child was born “in the armies of the state,” that child was “reputed born in the country; for a citizen, who is absent with his family on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.” Vattel, Sec. 217. Since this child would have been born in the foreign “armies of the state,” he would normally not be granted citizenship in the country in which he was physically born. Additionally, the country on whose soil the child might be born might adhere to a jus sanguinis system of conferring citizenship (meaning that born on its soil alone would not confer citizenship and therefore allegiance and loyalty on the child). Being born under those conditions, this child would therefore be born with sole allegiance to the country of his parents and would qualify as a “natural born citizen” of that country.

While the 1790 act naturalized all "persons" and so included women, it also declared that "the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States...." This prevented the automatic grant of citizenship to children born abroad whose mother, but not father, had resided in the United States. Citizenship was inherited exclusively through the father. As we have seen above, Congress did not remove the inequity until 1934. This focus on the father as the source of citizenship (but not meaning that the status of the mother was not considered) is consistent with what Vattel wrote in Section 212 of The Law of Nations. This is further evidence that the Framers relied upon Vattel in defining citizenship for the new Republic.

In 1795 the Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1795 which removed the words “natural born” from the term “natural born citizen” and thereby just left “citizens” as the status to be given to children born out of the United States. The fact that the 1790 Act as written was short lived and was only retrospective shows that Congress just wanted to make certain persons born abroad during the early years of the Republic “natural born Citizen” so that they could be eligible to be President. This sort of special allowance was comparable to the grandfather clause of Article II which allowed a “citizen” to be President provided that he was such at the time of the adoption of the Constitution which the Framers in 1790 knew occurred in 1789. It seems that the Third Congress passed this amendment to the 1790 Act to clarify for those living at that time who was and who was not a “natural born Citizen” per the Framers intent at that time, since the 1790 Act had introduced confusion into that subject regarding the use of those special words as found in Article II. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 714 (1898) (Fuller, C.J., dissenting) (statute “passed out of abundant caution to obviate misunderstandings” about the citizenship status of foreign-born children of Americans). It is again important to note that George Washington was also President in 1795, making him aware of this change by the Third Congress. If he disagreed with the clarification and change in the wording in the new 1795 Act, he would have vetoed it. The 1790 and 1795 Acts are contemporaneous evidence of who the Framers meant to include as “natural born Citizens.” Pryor, The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility: An Approach for Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty, 97 Yale L.J. 881 (1988).

Cruisingfool

02-24-2010, 10:46 AM

Subsequent Supreme Court cases have stated that in interpreting the Constitution, we must look to the common law that the Framers accepted at the time of the Founding. There is strong historical evidence that the Framers in constituting the new Constitutional Republic rejected the English common law and accepted the new federal common law which emanated from the law of nations. On this subject, see my article included at this blog entitled, The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law as U.S. Federal Common Law Not English Common Law Define What an Article II Natural Born Citizen Is. Indeed, as we will see below, our Supreme Court adopted that definition when defining a “natural born Citizen” and thereby incorporated it into U.S. federal common law.

The definition and two-parent requirement has been reiterated by the Supreme Court and other courts in the cases of The Venus, 12U.S. 253(1814), Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242 (1830), Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856), Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) , Ex parte Reynolds, 20 F. Cas. 582 (C.C.W.D. Ark 1879), United States v. Ward, 42 F. 320 (1890); Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), and Ludlam, Excutrix, & c., v. Ludlam, 26 N.Y. 356 (1863). It has also been confirmed by renowned legislators, including Senator Trumbull, the author of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and Representative John A. Bingham, the architect of the 14th Amendment to our Constitution.

In the case of The Venus 12 U.S. 253, 289 (1814), Justice John Marshall said: "Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says 'The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.'”

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), did not directly deal with Article II "natural born Citizen." But there are parts of the Dred Scott decision that are relevant to the question of what is a “natural born Citizen.” The case clearly defined “natural born citizen.” While as repugnant as slavery was and still is, no court or amendment has over turned the meaning of “natural born citizen” from Dred Scott. The main point is that in deciding what a "citizen" was in 1857, both the majority and dissent went back to 1787 to examine what the Framers and the people of that time considered a "citizen" to be. The Court said that the Constitution must be understood now as it was understood at the time it was written. The judges did not disagree that one had to look back to the Founding Fathers. What they disagreed on is what the public opinion was at that time as to whether a freed slave was a citizen. In this regard, we know that the case was overruled by the Thirteenth Amendment. As to the “natural born Citizen” clause, the Court said: "The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights. Again: I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . ." Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 476-77 (1857). As can be seen from the quoted language, the Court actually removed from the Vattel’s definition the reference to “fathers” and “father” and replaced it with “parents” and “person,” thus showing that it is not just one parent (the father) that needs to be a citizen, but the “parents,” i.e., both mother and father. Also, both Vattel and the Court stated that “if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.” The controlling language is “a foreigner.” In the English language, the letter “a” is an indefinite article meaning one. Hence, the use of the word “a” shows that only one is required. We know that a child has both a mother and father and the “a” would necessarily refer to either the mother or father. Surely, if the child were born of one parent who was not a citizen, he would be “born there of a foreigner,” who would be either his foreign mother or father. As can be seen, it is our United States Supreme Court that has made this reading and interpretation of Vattel. This understanding of Vattel is not only correct but also binding upon us.

Chief Justice Waite, in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), stated: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first." Here we can see that the U.S. Supreme Court in all three of these cases adopted Vattel’s definition of what a “natural born Citizen” is, and specifically repeated his two U.S.-parent test. Dred Scott even removed the word “father” and replaced it with the word “parents.”

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 (Act of April 9, 1866) first established a national law that provided: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.” Civil Rights Act of April 9, 1866 (14 Stat. 27). Not being subject to a foreign power includes being free from any political and military obligations to any other nation and not owing any other nation direct and immediate allegiance and loyalty. The primary author of this Act was Senator Trumbull who said it was his intention “to make citizens of everybody born in the United States who owe allegiance to the United States.” Additionally, he added if a “negro or white man belonged to a foreign Government he would not be a citizen.” In order for this requirement to be satisfied, clearly both parents of the child must be U.S. citizens, for if one is not, the child would inherit the foreign allegiance and loyalty of foreign parent and would thereby “belong to a foreign Government.” Rep. John A. Bingham, who later became the chief architect of the 14th Amendment's first section, in commenting upon Section 1992 of the Civil Rights Act, said that the Act was “simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen” (emphasis supplied). Rep. Bingham said “parents.” He did not say “one parent” or “a mother or father.”

Now let us turn to the Fourteenth Amendment. Senator Trumbull, when commenting on that Amendment declared: “The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.” Sen. Howard added: “the word jurisdiction, as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.” On May 30, 1866, Senator Howard continued: "This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Govern- of the United States, but will include every other class of persons." Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, 1st Session, May 30, 1866, P. 2890, col. 2. Again, only if the both parents of the child were citizens at the time of birth could the child be subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States, not owe allegiance to any foreign power, and not be a person “born in the United States who are foreigners [or aliens].”

There then followed Supreme Court cases that discussed citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment. In The Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 73 (1873), in discussing the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause said: “[t]he phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” Even the dissenting opinion affirmed that the citizenship clause was designed to assure that all persons born within the United States were both citizens of the United States and the state in which they resided, provided they were not at the time of birth subjects of any foreign power. Again, only if both parents of the child were citizens at the time of birth could the child not be considered a citizen or subject of a foreign State born within the United States, be subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States, and not be subject to any foreign power.

Cruisingfool

02-24-2010, 10:47 AM

In Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884), the Supreme Court specifically addressed what is meant by “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” and held: "The persons declared to be citizens are 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.' The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired." Only if the child’s both parents were citizens at the time of birth could the child be “completely subject to their [U.S.] political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.

U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), did not address what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is. Rather, the Supreme Court there gave a new, divergent, and incorrect interpretation of the “subject to the jurisdiction” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and vetoed the will of the People and their Legislature to declare Wong a U.S. “citizen” under the unique circumstances of that case. While the case did approvingly cite Minor v. Happersett, since the case only dealt with what is a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen,” the case cannot in any event be used to explain what the Founders meant by Article II’s “natural born Citizen” clause. Justice Antonin Scalia, during his address to the 2008 Annual National Lawyers Convention on November 22, 2008, at the Mayflower Hotel, in Washington, D.C., gave three reasons in ascending order (the last being the most compelling) which would serve justification for overturning a prior case: how wrong was it, i.e., was it blatantly and malicious improperly decided ; how well has the public accepted the case; and did the decision cast the Court as a policy maker rather than an interpreter of the law. Given that the Wong Court did not give Congress and the Executive the wide deference that they deserve in exercising its immigration and naturalization powers (Nguyen v. INS, 533 U.S. 53, 121 S.Ct. 2053; 150 L.Ed.2d 115 (2001) and the Scalia factors, the Wong decision is a prime candidate for reversal.

We have seen that the citizenship status of the parents of a child determines whether that child is born a “natural born Citizen.” Why should we want the child’s parents to be citizens? Alexander Hamilton explained what happens to a person when he or she becomes a citizen of the country: "But there is a wide difference between closing the door altogether and throwing it entirely open; between a postponement of fourteen years, and an immediate admission to all the rights of citizenship. Some reasonable term ought to be allowed to enable aliens to get rid of foreign and acquire American attachments; to learn the principles and imbibe the spirit of our government; and to admit of a probability at least, of their feeling a real interest in our affairs. A residence of not less than five years ought to be required. " Alexander Hamilton, The Works of Alexander Hamilton, (Federal Edition), vol. 8 > EXAMINATION OF JEFFERSON’S MESSAGE TO CONGRESS OF DECEMBER 7, 1801 1 > paragraph 827. Additionally, the development in the formative years of a child’s minority of a relationship between citizen parents and their child is essential to the child’s ties and allegiance to the United States. Nguyen v. INS, 533 U.S. 53, 121 S.Ct. 2053; 150 L.Ed.2d 115 (2001) (addressing the importance of the tie between a child and his U.S. citizen father before the child’s 18th birthday as a crucial ingredient in the child attaching and owing allegiance to the United States and that the U.S. government has a “profound” important interest and objective in promoting that link; showing that a child must meet all statutory preconditions [would also mean constitutional requirements] no matter how much one may deem them to be unfair or onerous in order to be bestowed U.S. citizenship). But we have seen that United States Supreme Court case law, the early 1790 and 1795 Naturalization Acts, legislative history of the Civil Rights Act of the 1866, and the Fourteenth Amendment all conclusively show that Vattel was understood to say that both parents had to be citizens in order for a child to be a “natural born Citizen.” The Founders, our Supreme Court, Congress, and framers of the Fourteenth Amendment all adopted Vattel’s law of nations definition and two-parent requirement and made it part of Article II, United States citizenship federal common law, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and the Fourteenth Amendment, respectively. It also would not make sense to allow just one U.S. citizen parent to be sufficient, for each parent has just as much influence as the other on his or her child.

The purpose of Article II’s “natural born Citizen” clause is to exclude foreign influence from the Office of President and Commander in Chief. It “cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interposes a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments . . .” Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:Sec 1472-73 (1833). Remember that Vattel said that if a child is born on a nation's soil to a non-citizen father (meaning parents), that place "will be only the place of his birth, and not his country." Article II’s “natural born Citizen” clause looks only to the moment of birth and not thereafter. This interpretation is consistent with Jay’s underlining the word “born” in his 1787 letter to General (later President) Washington. In other words, to meet that special Presidential eligibility requirement, one must be born a “natural born Citizen” and cannot acquire that status later in life. Under the British Nationality Act 1948, when Obama was born in 1961 his father was a British subject/citizen and Obama himself was a British subject/citizen by descent from his father. Under the British Nationality Act 1981, today Obama can still be a British Overseas Citizen (BOC). See my April 7, 2009 article on this topic at this blog entitled, Obama, the President of the U.S., Is Currently Also a British Citizen. Hence, when Obama was born he failed to meet the two-U.S.-citizen-parent test which caused him to be born subject to a foreign power. See my article at this blog entitled, Being Born Subject to a Foreign Power, Obama Cannot be President and Military Commander. It is inescapable that Obama is not and cannot be an Article II “natural born Citizen” and is therefore not eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg, NJ 08831
9-8-09
Amended on 12-20-09

Cruisingfool

02-24-2010, 10:50 AM

Link (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=125985)
Appeals court: We're listening to eligibility case
Judges grant permission for lengthy filing in case challenging Obama
Posted: February 23, 2010
11:08 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

http://www.wnd.com/images/bobama4-8.JPG

An appeals court has indicated it is listening to arguments in a case that challenges Barack Obama's occupancy in the Oval Office with a ruling that gives special permission for an extra-long document to be filed in the case.

WND has reported on the case brought by attorney Mario Apuzzo in January 2009 on behalf of Charles F. Kerchner Jr., Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell James Lenormand and Donald H. Nelson Jr.

Named as defendants were Barack Hussein Obama II, the U.S., Congress, the Senate, House of Representatives, former Vice President Dick Cheney and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

The case alleges Congress failed to follow the Constitution, which "provides that Congress must fully qualify the candidate 'elected' by the Electoral College Electors."

The complaint also asserts "when Obama was born his father was a British subject/citizen and Obama himself was the same." The case contends the framers of the U.S. Constitution, when they adopted the requirement that a president be a "natural born citizen," excluded dual citizens.

According to a posting on Apuzzo's website, the rules of procedure for the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals provide that an appellant's opening brief is not to exceed 14,000 words.

See the movie Obama does not want you to see: Own the DVD that probes this unprecedented presidential eligibility mystery!

However, Apuzzo wrote, "because of the extraordinary nature and complexity of the question of whether putative President Barack Obama is an Article II 'natural born citizen' and therefore eligible to be president, whether my clients … have standing to bring an action against Obama and Congress in which they maintain that Obama is not a 'natural born citizen' and that Congress failed to meet its constitutional duty to protect my clients by assuring them that Obama is a 'natural born Citizen…' I was compelled to file a brief which contained 20,477 words."

"By order dated February 22, 2010, the Honorable Circuit Judge Michael A. Chagares on behalf of the Motion's Panel of the 3rd Circuit Court of appeals granted plaintiffs' motion for leave to file the overlength brief."

"This is great news because the case will now continue forward as scheduled," he said. "Obama's and Congress's opposition brief was initially due on Feb. 22, 2010. The Department of Justice obtained a 14-day extension to file that brief, making the new due date March 8, 2010.

"After they file their opposition brief, I will then have 14 days within which to file a reply to that brief," he said.

He said his background information in the case confirms that two U.S. Supreme Court decisions reveal the definition for "natural born citizen" is found not in the Constitution but in common law.

"We maintain that Obama is not an Article II 'natural born citizen' because he lacks unity of citizenship and allegiance from birth which is obtained when a child is born in the United States to a mother and father who are both United States citizens at the time of birth," he said.

"Obama's father was only a temporary visitor to the United States when Obama was born and never even became a resident let alone a citizen. Not being an Article II 'natural born citizen,' Obama is not eligible to be president and commander in chief," he said.

He also argues that Obama has failed to prove that he was born in Hawaii by revealing his documentation.

"If he fails to do so, the alleged fact is not proven, even if the opposing party produces no further evidence," he said.

On Apuzzo's website, a forum page participant said, "It will be interesting to see how Mr. Obama's legal team stretches, 'We have nada!' into 14,000 words."

The lead plaintiff, Kerchner, has posted an online statement: "This is not going to go away until Obama stops hiding ALL his hidden and sealed early life documents and provides original copies of them to a controlling legal authority and reveals his true legal identity from the time he was born until the time he ran for president.

"Obama at birth was born British and a dual citizen. He holds and has held multiple citizenship during his lifetime. He's a citizenship chameleon as the moment and time in his life suited him and he is not a 'natural born citizen' with sole allegiance … to the USA as is required per the Constitution," he said.

The appeal further challenges that not only might Obama not be a "natural born citizen," he might not even be in the United States legally.

"If Obama was not born in the United States, there exists a possibility that Obama could be an illegal alien," it states.

WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."

Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Demand the truth by joining the petition campaign to make President Obama reveal his long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate!

Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born. And still others contend he holds Indonesian citizenship from his childhood living there.

Adding fuel to the fire is Obama's persistent refusal to release documents that could provide answers and the appointment – at a cost confirmed to be at least $1.7 million – of myriad lawyers to defend against all requests for his documentation. While his supporters cite an online version of a "Certification of Live Birth" from Hawaii as his birth verification, critics point out such documents actually were issued for children not born in the state.

WND also has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes his kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and his adoption records.

Because of the dearth of information about Obama's eligibility, WND founder Joseph Farah has launched a campaign to raise contributions to post billboards asking a simple question: "Where's the birth certificate?"

http://www.wnd.com/images/misc/mandalayatnight1.jpg
"Where's The Birth Certificate?" billboard at the Mandalay Bay resort on the Las Vegas Strip

The campaign followed a petition that has collected more than 490,000 signatures demanding proof of his eligibility, the availability of yard signs raising the question and the production of permanent, detachable magnetic bumper stickers asking the question.

The "certification of live birth" posted online and widely touted as "Obama's birth certificate" does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same "short-form" document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii. The true "long-form" birth certificate – which includes information such as the name of the birth hospital and attending physician – is the only document that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not permitted its release for public or press scrutiny.

Oddly, though congressional hearings were held to determine whether Sen. John McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president as a "natural born citizen," no controlling legal authority ever sought to verify Obama's claim to a Hawaiian birth.

DerailAmnesty.com

02-24-2010, 10:02 PM

The only reason that a child is "legally" declared a citizen if born on US soil is because of a perversion of the US constitution and a perversion of our whole institution of US citizenship. Just because you can collect enough people to say that Obama or anyone like him is a US citizen doesn't make him or them US citizens.

For anyone who actually cares about their own US citizenship and the citizens of any country where such a thing is respected, there simply is no other conclusion.

Well, the Supreme Court has reached another conclusion but ...

You're giving me a non-responsive answer. I understand what you're saying. You believe where Obama was born is irrelevant for the purposes of his citizenship status. What I don't understand is how you feel Obama's father's lack of U.S. citizenship impacts his right to be President.

Let me narrow it down for you:

1) What do you believe is required for a person to be born a U.S. citizen?

2) Is there anything besides citizenship, based upon your understanding of the Constitution, required to hold the presidency?

Twoller

02-25-2010, 08:33 AM

Well, the Supreme Court has reached another conclusion but ...

You're giving me a non-responsive answer. I understand what you're saying. You believe where Obama was born is irrelevant for the purposes of his citizenship status. What I don't understand is how you feel Obama's father's lack of U.S. citizenship impacts his right to be President.

Let me narrow it down for you:

1) What do you believe is required for a person to be born a U.S. citizen?

2) Is there anything besides citizenship, based upon your understanding of the Constitution, required to hold the presidency?

I don't know why you keep bugging me about it. I've made myself perfectly clear on the subject and so is the constitution and its history, despite what the rat crackers in the supreme court say about it. If you value your own citizenship -- and not everybody does -- there is no other conclusion.

Cruisingfool

02-25-2010, 08:48 AM

Link (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=126110)
Does this sign reveal Obama's birthplace?
Man who posted original photo goes public with mystery's truth
Posted: February 24, 2010
8:06 pm Eastern

By Joe Kovacs
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

The old saying goes, "Seeing is believing," but in this age of Photoshop, you can't always trust your own eyes.

http://www.wnd.com/images/kenyabirthplacesign400.jpg
E-mails circulating on the Internet contain this image of a billboard purporting Kenya to be the birthplace of President Barack Obama.

An online image of a road sign ostensibly declaring Kenya to be the birthplace of Barack Obama is a hoax, according to the man who posted the original photograph on his website, before someone else apparently fudged it.

"I know that this picture is not taken in Kenya," said Norway native Jan Krogh, speaking to WND from his current home in Vilnius, Lithuania. "It's clear that there can be no doubt that it's some joke or some hoax."

See the movie Obama does not want you to see: Own the DVD that probes this unprecedented presidential eligibility mystery!

The image, which has been showing up in e-mail inboxes across the U.S. in recent days, displays a green and white billboard with the message, "Welcome to Kenya, Birthplace of Barack Obama." It also features some text in Arabic.

Some of the e-mails carrying the photo have written messages such as:

* "Sign on highway in Northern Kenya, near Sudan border."

* "Just got back from a trip to Africa. One of the places we stopped for fuel was Kenya!!! Couldn't resist not photographing this billboard."

While WND has been unable to determine the identity of the prankster, Krogh, 45, said he's certain the false image was based on his photograph of an actual welcome sign for the Middle East town of Madha, located in Oman on the Arabian Peninsula.

http://www.wnd.com/images/welcometomadhasign400.jpg
Former journalist Jan Krogh says this photo from Madha, Oman, that he posted on his Geosite website has apparently been altered to proclaim Barack Obama was born in Kenya. (courtesy geosite.jankrogh.com)

"I received this photo in 2002," Krogh indicated. "It is taken in Oman. I know the photographer." He said the person who actually took the snapshot is a Swedish colleague.

"If you're looking at the foreground. It's the same spot on the metal plots," he continued. "I can see that it's the same background. There is a blue spot in the bottom-left corner which I also have on my photo, which is not from the background, but maybe some pollution on the screen."

http://www.wnd.com/images/kenyasigncomparison800.jpg
A side-by-side comparison of the two images reveals the similarities. Jan Krogh says the sign proclaiming Kenya to be the birthplaces of Barack Obama has obviously been based on a photograph welcoming visitors to Madha, Oman, that is posted on his own website.

On his Geosite website, Krogh, a former journalist for Scandinavian publications who himself has hopskotched the globe, displays numerous images from Oman, including a second photo of the Madha welcome sign taken from a different angle.

http://www.wnd.com/images/omansignangle600.jpg
The sign welcoming visitors to Madha, Oman, as seen from another angle. (courtesy geosite.jankrogh.com)

"I'm 100 percent sure that these photos were taken where I had written that they were taken," he told WND.

When WND asked him why he thought someone would surreptitiously take his image and transform it into a message about the American president's birthplace, Krogh said:

"I have no background to know why. At least in Scandinavia, we don't care where President Obama was born, if it was in Kenya or any other place in the world."

He added: "I don't believe the person who did this did [it] in order to [make] some quick money. "I guess it was maybe some practical joke. I don't know."

Jan Krogh, a Norwegian citizen now living in Vilnius, Lithuania, has documented his world travels online. Here he points to a border marker in the European country of Liechtenstein. (courtesy Jan Krogh)

WND informed Krogh of the ongoing controversy in America concerning the constitutional eligibility of Obama to hold the U.S. presidency, and the fact the commander in chief has still not released his long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate to confirm his actual birthplace.

"I'm glad that you are telling me this so I can be prepared when the American Embassy calls me," Krogh told WND.

Demand the truth by joining the petition campaign to make President Obama reveal his long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate!

Caleb Payne, a former Arabic linguist for the National Security Agency, saw the billboard allegedly from Kenya and tells WND: "I can assure you that the sign is a fake, not because of the picture, but because the Arabic text is completely incorrect. First, it is written left-to-right (Arabic is actually written from right to left) and second: the characters are not connected. Still funny, though! If you are curious, the Arabic reads as follows: Under Kenya is the Arabic for 'Hawaii.' The text at the bottom reads: 'Not Barack Obama's birthplace.'"

The issue of whether Obama is legally qualified to serve in the White House continues to be one of high importance for many Americans.

Citizens such as Jeanette Walker of Loudon, Tenn., continue to wonder: "Will Obama be required to prove his eligibility for his run in 2012? He should be, just as should anyone else vying for the job. I still believe he's ineligible."

In fact, as WND is reporting today, a legislative committee in Arizona has just endorsed a bill that would require presidential candidates to prove – by submitting a birth certificate – they are qualified for the office under the Constitution's demand that they be a "natural born citizen."

Ironically, no controlling legal authority ever directly addressed the question of whether Obama met the requirements to be president, that is being 35 years of age, a resident for at least 14 years and a "natural born citizen."

WND also has reported lawmakers in Oklahoma, Georgia, Indiana, Virginia and New York are considering similar legislation.

Leaders on a growing list also are asking question, including Tennessee gubernatorial candidate Ron Ramsey, Hawaii state Sen. Will Espero, U.S. Rep. Nathan Deal, R-Ga., former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, former House majority leader Tom DeLay, U.S. Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., U.S. Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., feminist icon Camille Paglia, New Hampshire State Rep. Laurence Rappaport, former Rep. J.D. Hayworth, R-Ariz., and prominent commentators Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Mark Levin, Lou Dobbs, Peter Boyles and WND's Chuck Norris and Pat Boone.

WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."

Some of the lawsuits question whether Obama was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

Complicating the situation is Obama's decision to spend sums estimated in excess of $1.7 million to avoid releasing a state birth certificate that would put to rest all of the questions.

WND has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records.

Because of the dearth of information about Obama's eligibility, WND founder Joseph Farah has launched a campaign to raise contributions to post billboards asking a simple question: "Where's the birth certificate?"

The campaign followed a petition that has collected more than 490,000 signatures demanding proof of his eligibility, the availability of yard signs raising the question and the production of permanent, detachable magnetic bumper stickers asking the question.

The "certification of live birth" posted online and widely touted as "Obama's birth certificate" does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same "short-form" document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii. The true "long-form" birth certificate – which includes information such as the name of the birth hospital and attending physician – is the only document that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not permitted its release for public or press scrutiny.

Oddly, though congressional hearings were held to determine whether Sen. John McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president as a "natural born citizen," no controlling legal authority ever sought to verify Obama's claim to a Hawaiian birth.

Cruisingfool

02-25-2010, 08:57 AM

Link (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=126112)
McCain 'birther' ad rattles J.D. Hayworth
Senate challenger: 'I believe he's a citizen of the country. Case closed'
Posted: February 24, 2010
11:20 pm Eastern

By Chelsea Schilling
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

A new political campaign ad for Arizona Sen. John McCain attacks "birthers" – and specifically assails McCain's challenger J.D. Hayworth for referencing the topic of President Obama's eligibility.

"It smacks of desperation," Hayworth told WND. "I think John's a good man who is getting some very bad advice. I think this will provide a backlash that sadly, but accurately, portrays the level of panic in the McCain campaign. It's most unfortunate."

The ad begins, "These are serious economic times. Yet some are consumed by conspiracies."

The campaign ad for McCain can be seen below:

28qf6QOfpC0

The film flashes to an interview with eligibility attorney
Orly Taitz.

"Obama is completely illegitimate for U.S. president for two reasons: Not only because he did not provide the place of his birth, but also because both parents have to be U.S. citizens," Taitz states.

Then it shows a clip of Philip Berg, the first to bring court challenges to Obama's eligibility under the U.S. Constitution's requirement that presidents be a "natural born citizen."

"Obama knows he is not natural born, as he knows where he was born and he knows he was adopted in Indonesia," Berg said. "If Obama really had a Hawaiian birth certificate, we would have seen it by now."

Then the ad shows Hayworth, former Arizona congressman, radio talk-show host and McCain's challenger for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate, stating, "All I'm saying is, for every race across the country – especially with identity theft in the news – it would be great that people can confirm who they say they are."

The ad also quotes Hayworth during a July 15, 2009, segment on the "J.D. Hayworth Radio Show": "Sad fact is, questions continue. And until President Obama signs his name and, in fact, has the records revealed, the questions will remain."

Hayworth told WND, "I never said, as an advocate, that it was a concern." He said "lefty blogs" claim that because he discussed the issue, he must be a supporter of it.

"When I had the temerity to bring up an issue on the air, suddenly I must be an impassioned advocate of it," he said. "I think to argue about the eligibility of President Obama is akin to arguing the eligibility of Chester Alan Arthur. Some historians do that, but it's a moot point. This man is president. I believe he's a citizen of the country. Case closed."

As WND reported, in a Jan. 26 appearance on "Hardball," Hayworth asked Chris Matthews, "Well, gosh, we all had to bring our birth certificates to show we were who we said we were, and we were the age we said we were, to play football in youth sports. Shouldn't we know exactly that anyone who wants to run for public office is a natural-born citizen of the United States, and is who they say they are?"

In the ad for McCain, photos of Taitz, Berg and Hayworth appear as a narrator states, "The only difference between these people, only one is running for the U.S. Senate."

"Good thing Arizona has a senator standing up for us," the ad reads.

"Sen. John McCain, reducing the size of government, cutting spending, growing jobs and protecting our nation," it continues. "John McCain, character matters."

McCain is shown smiling and wearing a cap with "U.S. Navy" embroidered on the front. The ad's small print reads, "Paid for by friends of John McCain."

At a January town-hall meeting in Surprise, Ariz., McCain reportedly disagreed with an audience member on Obama's birthplace and questioned whether being born in the United States should still be a requirement for presidential candidates.

"If someone (was born elsewhere) and came here as a 1 year old, and served a productive life, I'm not sure," he said.

As WND reported, a legislative committee in Arizona has just endorsed a bill that would require presidential candidates to prove – by submitting a birth certificate – they are qualified for the office under the Constitution's demand that they be a "natural born citizen."

The bill would require the submission of documentation and also have state officials independently verify the accuracy of documents used to affirm the constitutional eligibility of presidential candidates.

A recent Tax Day Tea Party poll reveals many in the tea-party movement support Hayworth rather than McCain. The poll asked nearly 3,500 people, "Would you support J.D. Hayworth in his run against John McCain in 2010?"

Hayworth received support from 79 percent of respondents, or 2,738 votes. An additional 8 percent said they would rather support someone else against McCain, and 3 percent said they would rather stick with a third-party candidate. A mere 9 percent said McCain "should be left alone."

"Much to our surprise, there appears to be an overwhelming amount of support for Hayworth within the movement," writes Eric Odom. "A lot of activists are looking to oppose John McCain in some way, shape or form."

Cruisingfool

02-25-2010, 09:01 AM

Link (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=126137)
Lawyer who challenged Obama: Ineligibility could prove costly
USJF chief: 'This is completely uncharted territory'
Posted: February 25, 2010
12:15 am Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

An attorney whose legal brief in a case challenging Barack Obama's eligibility revealed a Supreme Court can remove an ineligible chief executive now has released an analysis confirming that if Obama isn't eligible, he could be charged under a number of felony statutes.

And that's just on the federal level; any state charges would be in addition, as would charges against individuals who may have helped him in the commission of any of the acts, according to Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation.

Kreep has been involved in several of the cases that have raised challenges to Obama's occupancy of the Oval Office, including two in California. One is on appeal in the state court system and names California Secretary of State Debra Bowen as defendant. The other, in the federal court system, is on appeal before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Both make claims on behalf of individuals and political candidates in California over Obama's presence on the 2008 election ballot.

http://www.wnd.com/images/misc/100201moodie.jpg
North Dakota Gov. Thomas Moodie, removed from office when the state Supreme Court found him ineligible

WND several weeks ago reported when Kreep's legal research revealed two precedents he believes would be applicable in the Obama case. In one, state officials arbitrarily removed a candidate from an election ballot because it was not proven the candidate was qualified for office. In another, the North Dakota Supreme Court removed the sitting governor from office when it was documented he was not eligible under the state's requirements.

Now Kreep has released an analysis of the federal laws he believes could be applied should Obama ultimately be shown to be ineligible.

"If he is not eligible, he could be charged not only under with these crimes, but potentially with crimes in a number of states where he falsely represented that he was qualified to run, as well as people who helped him," Kreep told WND.

Further, there could be any number of challenges to virtually anything he did as president: his nominations, his executive orders and his signing of legislation.

"This is completely uncharted territory," Kreep told WND. "It could all be challenged as invalid. There has to be a sitting president for [actions] to be valid. If he's not qualified, if he's not the president, it isn't valid."

The research, done on Kreep's behalf by USJF staff attorney Chris Tucker, cited the following statutes that could apply:

* False Personation of Officer or Employee of the United States (18 U.S.C. § 912).

It states: "Whoever falsely assumes or pretends to be an officer or employee acting under the authority of the United States or any department, agency or officer thereof, and acts as such, or in such pretended character demands or obtains any money, paper, document, or thing of value, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both."

The USJF analysis said, "Basically this statute calls for 1) Fraudulent intent, and 2) an overt act to accomplish the inducement of one giving over a thing of value. If it were found that Barack Obama was not a natural born citizen, as required by the U.S. Constitution Art. II § 1, he will have assumed the office of president fraudulently to obtain money (among other things) by way of his annual salary. The Supreme Court has upheld convictions for False Personations in U.S. v. Lepowitch, (63 S.Ct. 914), and Lamar v. U.S., (36 S.Ct. 535)."

* Conspiracy to Commit Offense or to Defraud United States (18 U.S.C. 371).

It states: "If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor."

The USJF analysis said, "As in all conspiracies, there must be two or more persons working in concert to achieve an illegal act, so the president would need a co-conspirator for this statute to apply. The state of Hawaii is being very secretive about the whereabouts or even existence of Mr. Obama's supposed birth certificate. If the officials in charge of keeping these records know of its non-existence, then they would be co-conspirators with the objective of defrauding the United States as to the citizenship status of Barack Obama. There, however, must be an 'in concert' element met, meaning that these officials are withholding the proof at the direction of Mr. Obama. Is it possible that these officials love Barack Obama so much that they are withholding these documents out of the goodness of their own hearts? Yes, possibly, however unlikely. It is reasonable to infer that the Hawaiian officials are working 'in concert' with Mr. Obama to suppress this information, since each would face both civil and criminal suits, not to mention the loss of furthering their own political goals."

* Activities Affecting Armed Forces During War (18 U.S.C. 2388(a)).

It states: "(a) Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully makes or conveys false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies; or

"Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or willfully obstructs the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, to the injury of the service or the United States, or attempts to do so—Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both."

The USJF analysis said: "Intent is fully at issue here; however, President Obama made it clear during his campaign that his full intent when entering office would be to scale down the conflict with Afghanistan and Iraq, eventually leading to a full withdrawal. His statements of being a natural born citizen to obtain the office of commander in chief were in effort to interfere with the attempts by the former commander in chief's attempt at engaging the enemy in these two countries, for the purpose of national security.

"In the case of Schulze v. U.S. (259 F. 189) Petitioner was convicted under this statute, and the question of intent was at issue. The court stated, 'It is true that in charging the offense it is unnecessary to allege the intent; the offense being one whose very definition necessarily includes intent. In such a case it is necessary only to aver in apt terms the acts done. The intent will be inferred. The charge is not unlike that of treason, the indictment for which needs go no further than to follow the language of the statute which defines the offense. (United States v. Greathouse, 2 Abb.U.S. 364, Fed. Cas. No. 15,254)…

"This means that intent is inferred from the act itself. Mr. Obama has already announced that the efforts in Afghanistan will be scaled back, and a full withdrawal is planned for 2011. Furthermore, the announcement of this strategy works to the aid of our enemy, who now knows to sit in caves and wait out the U.S. for only a year or so. This certainly works interrupt our operations and promote the success of our enemy."

* False Statement in Application and Use of Passport (18 U.S.C. 1542).

It states: "Whoever willfully and knowingly makes any false statement in an application for passport with intent to induce or secure the issuance of a passport under the authority of the United States, either for his own use or the use of another, contrary to the laws regulating the issuance of passports or the rules prescribed pursuant to such laws; or

"Whoever willfully and knowingly uses or attempts to use, or furnishes to another for use any passport the issue of which was secured in any way by reason of any false statement—Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 25 years (if the offense was committed to facilitate an act of international terrorism (as defined in section 2331 of this title)), 20 years (if the offense was committed to facilitate a drug trafficking crime (as defined in section 929 (a) of this title)), 10 years (in the case of the first or second such offense, if the offense was not committed to facilitate such an act of international terrorism or a drug trafficking crime), or 15 years (in the case of any other offense), or both."

The USJF analysis said: "To obtain a U.S. passport one must show a valid birth certificate or some other form of identification showing U.S. citizenship. Barack Obama would have to have furnished some sort of birth certificate or other document showing he is a citizen. Of course, even if he was not a natural born citizen, he could show naturalization or some other citizenship papers. However, if these documents are spurious, then he would be guilty pursuant to the first paragraph, and to then use his illegally obtained passport, he would also be guilty under the second paragraph as well."

* False Personation of Citizen of the United States (18 U.S.C. 911).

It states: "Whoever falsely and willfully represents himself to be a citizen of the United States shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both."

The analysis said: "If Mr. Obama is not a natural born citizen, then he must have other proof of United States citizenship. If he has neither of these, then as acting head of state he is holding himself out to be a citizen of the United States, and is therefore liable under this section as well."

Cruisingfool

02-25-2010, 09:02 AM

* Perjury (18 U.S.C. 1621).

It states: "Whoever—(1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or

"(2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true; is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This section is applicable whether the statement or subscription is made within or without the United States."

The USJF analysis said: "Mr. Obama has taken the oath of office of POTUS, in front of Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, John Roberts, in which he promises to 'defend the Constitution'. As an illegal alien, or even a non-natural born citizen, he would be acting as an ineligible president. Furthermore, as an attorney, and a former professor of constitutional law, Barack Obama would have full knowledge of the requirements for an eligible candidate for the office of POTUS. This shows that he has willfully stated that he will and is acting contrary to his presidential oath."

The USJF document showed that all of the charges require a specific intent.

"Mr. Obama knows, or at least should know, the place of his birth and the status of his citizenship, as all, or nearly all, adults in the world do. He has, therefore, willfully and knowingly made repeated false claims as to his citizenship, and this makes him absolutely liable for the above mentioned crimes," the analysis said.

The organization's earlier research, now included in its appeal documentation, found that in 1968, the Peace and Freedom Party submitted the name of Eldridge Cleaver as a qualified candidate for president of the United States.

The then-California Secretary of State, Frank Jordan, found that, according to Mr. Cleaver's birth certificate, he was only 34 years old, one year shy of the 35 years of age needed to be on the ballot as a candidate for president. Jordan, using his administrative powers, threw him off the ballot.

The other is a court precedent in which the governor of North Dakota was removed from office after the state Supreme Court determined he did not meet the state constitution's eligibility requirements.

"Even though Obama was elected to this office, this ineligibility constitutes a legal disability for the office of president of the United States," the USJF brief states. "In 'State ex rel. Sathre v. Moodie,' after Thomas H. Moodie was duly elected to the office of governor of the state of North Dakota, it was discovered that Thomas H. Moodie was not eligible for the position of governor, as he had not resided in the state for a requisite five years before running for office, and, because of that ineligibility, he was removed from office and replaced by the lieutenant governor," the brief explains.

North Dakota's historical archives document the case.

The Democrat was nominated by his party for governor in 1934 and beat his Republican opponent, Lydia Langer.

"As soon as the election was over, there was talk of impeachment, but no charges were filed," the state's archives report. "After Moodie's inauguration on January 7, 1935, it was revealed that he had voted in a 1932 municipal election in Minnesota. In order to be eligible for governor, an individual has to have lived in the state for five consecutive years before the election. The State Supreme Court determined that Governor Moodie was ineligible to serve, and he was removed from office on February 16, 1935," the state reports.

The president's lawyers in many of the cases have said, and judges have agreed so far, that the courts simply don't have jurisdiction over a question of eligibility because of the Constitution's provision that president's must be removed by impeachment, which rests with Congress.

In one case, the president's lawyers prominently argued, "The Constitution's commitment to the Electoral College of the responsibility to select the president includes the authority to decide whether a presidential candidate is qualified for office.

"The examination of a candidate's qualifications is an integral component of the electors' decision-making process. The Constitution also provides that, after the Electoral College has voted, further review of a presidential candidate's eligibility for office, to the extent such review is required, rests with Congress," the president's lawyers argued.

WND has reported on the multiple legal cases challenging Obama's eligibility in addition to efforts to raise the question at the state and national levels.

Several state legislatures are working on proposals that would require presidential candidates to submit proof of their eligibility. And a similar proposal has been introduced in Congress by Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla.

The claims are that Obama does not meet the U.S. Constitution's requirement that a president be a "natural born citizen." The lawsuits have asserted he either was not born in Hawaii as he claims or was a dual citizen because of his father's British citizenship at the time of his birth.

The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."

However, none of the cases filed to date has been successful in reaching the plateau of legal discovery, so that information about Obama's birth could be obtained.

The White House has not replied to numerous requests for comment.

Besides Obama's actual birth documentation, the still-concealed documentation for him includes kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, his files
from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records.

Another significant factor is the estimated $1.7 million Obama has spent on court cases to prevent any of the documentation of his life to be revealed to the public.

http://www.wnd.com/images/misc/mandalayatnight1.jpg
"Where's The Birth Certificate?" billboard helps light up the night at the Mandalay Bay resort on the Las Vegas Strip.

Because of the dearth of information about Obama's eligibility, WND founder Joseph Farah has launched a campaign to raise contributions to post billboards asking a simple question: "Where's the birth certificate?"

The campaign followed a petition that has collected more than 490,000 signatures demanding proof of his eligibility, the availability of yard signs raising the question and the production of permanent, detachable magnetic bumper stickers asking the question.

The "certification of live birth" posted online and widely touted as "Obama's birth certificate" does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same "short-form" document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii. The true "long-form" birth certificate – which includes information such as the name of the birth hospital and attending physician – is the only document that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not permitted its release for public or press scrutiny.

Oddly, though congressional hearings were held to determine whether Sen. John McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president as a "natural born citizen," no controlling legal authority ever sought to verify Obama's claim to a Hawaiian birth.