Save Our State  

Go Back   Save Our State > General Forum (non official Save Our State business) > United States Federal government

United States Federal government Topics and information relating to the federal government of interest to SOS associates

WELCOME BACK!.............NEW EFFORTS AHEAD..........CHECK BACK SOON.........UPDATE YOUR EMAIL FOR NEW NOTIFICATIONS.........
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #111  
Old 02-25-2010, 08:33 AM
Twoller Twoller is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,296
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DerailAmnesty.com View Post
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.
__________________
The United States of America is for citizens only! Everyone else OUT.
Criminalize asking party affilation for voter registration! End the "two party system"!
  #112  
Old 02-25-2010, 08:48 AM
Cruisingfool's Avatar
Cruisingfool Cruisingfool is offline
Oath Keeper
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 155
Default Does this sign reveal Obama's birthplace?

Link
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.


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.


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."


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.


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.
  #113  
Old 02-25-2010, 08:57 AM
Cruisingfool's Avatar
Cruisingfool Cruisingfool is offline
Oath Keeper
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 155
Default McCain 'birther' ad rattles J.D. Hayworth

Link
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:



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."
  #114  
Old 02-25-2010, 09:01 AM
Cruisingfool's Avatar
Cruisingfool Cruisingfool is offline
Oath Keeper
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 155
Default Lawyer who challenged Obama: Ineligibility could prove costly

Link
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.


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."
  #115  
Old 02-25-2010, 09:02 AM
Cruisingfool's Avatar
Cruisingfool Cruisingfool is offline
Oath Keeper
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 155
Default Continued due to word limit...

* 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.


"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.
  #116  
Old 02-25-2010, 01:34 PM
DerailAmnesty.com DerailAmnesty.com is offline
"SZinWestLA"
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,003
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Twoller View Post
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.

Dude, I'm not trying to bug you. Really. I'm trying to understand your position. You're not answering the questions I'm asking. Maybe I'm phrasing them poorly.

Look, I comprehend what you've said. You believe:

A. Where Obama was born is irrelevant for the purpose of his being able to occupy the White House.

B. People who value citizenship must reach the same conclusions on this issue as you have.

C. Not all people value their citizenship.

D. The Constitution is being subject to a misinterpretation (perversion)

E. You hold the members of the Supreme Court in low regard.


What I don't understand is why you believe he isn't a citizen. You've stated his father is a British citizen. How does that impact his ability to be the U.S. President?

I'll try to rephrase it ( I really want to understand your argument ).

Which of these do you believe is necessary to be born a U.S. citizen? -

A. One of your parents must be a United States citizen.

B. The child's father must be a United States citizen.

C. Both of your parents must be United States citizens.

D. One parent may be a United States citizen, and the other must have legal residence in the U.S.

E. Neither parent needs to be a United States citizen, but both must have legal residence in the U.S.

F. Other (please describe)



My second question is: Is there something else besides being born a U.S. citizen that is required to hold the presidency (Other than being 35 or older)?


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

CF, please stop scattergun blast posting this thread with cut and pastes from Youtube, WND and writings from that Italian lawyer in Jersey who has an internet blog. I understand why you think Obama shouldn't be President. He was born in Kenya and this whole Hawaii story is a big fat fib, right? I get it. Your position is not lost on me; I'm trying to figure out Twoller's.

Last edited by DerailAmnesty.com; 02-25-2010 at 02:42 PM.
  #117  
Old 02-25-2010, 01:51 PM
Twoller Twoller is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,296
Default

This is from another thread,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Twoller View Post
This is BS. No child not born of two US citizens should be granted birthright citizenship and that child must be born in one of the United States of America. According to this bill, it is not even necessary for either parent to be a US citizen, all they have to do is be in the country legally. And furthermore, the bill should leave no doubt in anyone's mind that it is anything but a clarification of what should have been going from the beginning. It should leave open the possibility of being retroactive.
__________________
The United States of America is for citizens only! Everyone else OUT.
Criminalize asking party affilation for voter registration! End the "two party system"!
  #118  
Old 02-25-2010, 02:03 PM
DerailAmnesty.com DerailAmnesty.com is offline
"SZinWestLA"
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,003
Default

Got it. Thank you. Now I get it. You need two citizen parents and birth in one of the 50 states.

OK, where did you get this notion? On what authority are you relying (If you're going to say the U.S. Constitution, please let me know which Article and Section)?
  #119  
Old 02-25-2010, 04:14 PM
Cruisingfool's Avatar
Cruisingfool Cruisingfool is offline
Oath Keeper
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 155
Default

Your the attorney, please show us so we all satisfied!
  #120  
Old 02-25-2010, 07:42 PM
Twoller Twoller is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,296
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DerailAmnesty.com View Post
Got it. Thank you. Now I get it. You need two citizen parents and birth in one of the 50 states.

OK, where did you get this notion? On what authority are you relying (If you're going to say the U.S. Constitution, please let me know which Article and Section)?
There is nothing more to be said to you. You obviously understand better than I that children who claim citizenship when their parents are not both citizens are complete and utter frauds.

You simply imagine that if you keep asking questions and tasking somebody with rhetoric that you can keep up the appearances of being right.

You aren't right. You are wrong. Claiming birthright citizenship in the US when both parents are not US citizenship spits on the institution of US citizenship without which there would be no constitution.

Posters like you are why we keep ignore lists on forums like this.
__________________
The United States of America is for citizens only! Everyone else OUT.
Criminalize asking party affilation for voter registration! End the "two party system"!
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:52 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright SaveOurState ©2009 - 2016 All Rights Reserved