Thread: Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

UPDATE PLEASE TAKE ACTION ASAP

http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-219719.html

Originally Posted by In response to the Supreme Court's denial of certiorari for [u

Kerchner v. Obama[/u], Charles Kerchner]The Supreme Court has chosen appeasement and inaction over action and dealing with the issue and questions openly in a court of law under the rules of evidence and law. Our constitutional republic and legal system is now compromised and broken.

The court system is broken and dysfunctional in not prosecuting Mr. Obama and his usurpation of the Presidency. Lawyers continue to discuss how changing details of tactics and selecting different evidence "can almost guarantee the US Supreme Court will issue the Writ of Mandamus on Obama." But after about 73 lawsuits have been brought concerning Mr. Obama's ineligibility for office, not one has been considered on the merits or otherwise seen the light of day.

It is past time for, not a change of tactics, but additional points of engagement in the effort to undo the usurpation.

The following are possible venues that do not require access to the compromised judicial system.

• God - pray, and appeal to churches and ministers to pray, for a lawful and Constitutional Presidency and Executive Branch.
  
  The IRS - in practice, a stand-alone agency which answers to no one - about Mr. Obama's numerous filings with fraudulent Social Security numbers.
  
  Banking audit and oversight entities, about his use of fraudulent Social Security numbers on bank accounts.
  
  Credit bureaus, including but not limited to Experian, Trans Union, and Equifax, about his identity thefts re SSN's and aliases.
  
  University certifying entities, to correct registrars' failures to register a student under his correct legal name.
  
  Fraud watch entities that pursue and correct invalid entries in personal, business, medical, and/or government records.
  
  Interpol and private organizations outside the U.S. that investigate identity theft.
  
  Foreign governments, to withdraw recognition of this unlawful usurper as a legitimate, de jure head of state.
  
  International and/or Christian monitors of human rights abuses, to publicly recognize the usurpation as an unlawful, unconstitutional rogue dictatorship which has overpowered the judiciary in its function of checks and balances.

Legitimate and ethical initiatives are welcomed and encouraged.

The IRS - in practice, a stand-alone agency which answers to no one - for his filings with fraudulent Social Security numbers.

finally, this makes sense:

Supreme Court
Supreme Court
Colorado High Court Rules Use of False Social Security Number Not Criminal Impersonation

Published October 29, 2010

| FoxNews.com

The top court in Colorado ruled this week that a man who used a stolen Social Security number to apply for a car loan did not commit criminal impersonation

The state Supreme Court threw out Felix Montes-Rodriguez's 2006 conviction in a 4-3 decision published Monday. Montes-Rodriguez used his own address, birth date and place of employment to apply for a loan, but used a woman's Social Security number that he had been using for work. His immigration status isn't known.

A majority of justices ruled that with so much identifying information on his application, he didn't assume a false identity.

But the other justices said the majority botched the call.

"I not only believe the majority misconstrues the criminal-impersonation statue and reaches the wrong result in this case; but by slicing, dicing, parsing, distinguishing and generally over-analyzing (over the course of some 30 paragraphs) one short and relatively self-explanatory phrase, the majority manages to exclude from the statutory proscription conduct lying at its very heart," Justice Nathan Coats wrote for the minority, according the Denver Post.

YOU MIGHT ALSO BE INTERESTED IN
Judge Orders Macondo Well's Cement Turned Over To US
5 Dumb Car Leasing Mistakes to Avoid
Justice Department to Send Election Observers to Arizona as Concern Rises About Illegal Voters
NOW Defends O'Donnell After One Night Stand Story
Is NASA Covering Up the 100-Year Starship?

Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey, who was among the majority in the decision, is retiring at the end of next month after facing an uphill battle to keep her job in a election next week. Justice Alex Martinez, who also ruled in favor of Montes-Rodriguez, faces a vote on Tuesday.

Prosecutors say the decision has little impact because new laws have stiffened penalties for unauthorized uses of Social Security numbers.

"He could be charged with identity theft and wind up with a harsher punishment anyway," Attorney General John Suthers, whose office fought Montes-Rodriguez's appeal, told the newspaper.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10 ... z16oaEPvv4

Chamorro is a race (Guamanians)...

• the things I learn from debating Obots...

From the phony, forged FactCheck .jpg image:

FATHER'S RACE: AFRICAN

Tell me if you find "African" (not "African American") listed as a race in any of the HHS and CDC documents linked below. I haven't found it yet, and I don't expect to, but I haven't searched them all (yet): specifically, none of the .pdf files.

[quote="U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services"][size=117]Below is an example of the race question as it appears on the U.S. Standard Certificate of Live Birth:

MOTHER’S RACE (Check one or more races to indicate what the mother considers herself)

• White
  Black or African American
  American Indian or Alaska Native (AI/AN) and (Name of the enrolled or principal tribe)
  Asian Indian
  Chinese
  Filipino
  Japanese
  Korean
  Vietnamese
  Other Asian (Specify)
  Native Hawaiian (NH)
  Guamanian or Chamorro
  Samoan
  Other Pacific Islander (OPI) (Specify)
  Other (Specify)

http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/06/Catalog-AI-AN-NA/NVSS-I.htm

“Please select 1 or more categories to describe your race.â€

Supremes punt on Obama eligibility again

Lawyer: Decision 'doesn't mean that this issue goes away'
Posted: November 29, 2010 9:51 pm Eastern

By Brian Fitzpatrick
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=234433


WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court announced today it would not hear Kerchner v. Obama, a case challenging whether President Barack Obama is constitutionally eligible to serve in the Oval Office.

The case is the latest in a lengthy series of cases in which U.S courts have refused to hear any arguments about Mr. Obama's eligibility.

The court effectively killed the Kerchner case with one terse statement: "The motion of Western Center for Journalism for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied."

"I don't think the court helped heal the country," said Mario Apuzzo, the New Jersey attorney who argued the case on behalf of retired Navy CDR Charles Kerchner. "We still don't know Mr. Obama's status. … The court is supposed to take cases that are important, and I can't imagine a case more important than this one."

"You need justice to resolve conflicts between people, and when justice is denied people continue to go after each other in a savage way. We did not get justice, " Apuzzo told WND. "For the court to deny our justice sets the country back terribly."

"This decision did not help Mr. Obama," Apuzzo added. "It did not bring legitimacy to his office. Mr. Obama does not have legitimacy of office by the court or by the consensus of the nation, because many people question whether he is a natural born citizen. How does our nation go forward with this kind of result?"

"This matter should have been addressed by the media and political parties early in the spring of 2008 during the primaries. It wasn't," wrote Kerchner Monday morning. "Congress should have addressed this when asked and when constitutionally it was required to. It didn't. The courts should have addressed the merits of the questions when appealed to early on. They didn't. Everyone in our system of government chose appeasement over confrontation and punted the ball to someone else."

"Now it is far worse," Kerchner continued. "The Supreme Court has chosen appeasement and inaction over action and dealing with the issue and questions openly in a court of law under the rules of evidence and law. Our constitutional republic and legal system is now compromised and broken."

Kerchner v. Obama argued that Mr. Obama is not a "natural born citizen," which article II, section 1 of the constitution requires any U.S. president to be. According to Swiss political theorist Emer de Vattel, whose writings heavily influenced the founding fathers, an American "natural born citizen" must be the child of two parents who were both American citizens. Mr. Obama's father was a British subject, a Kenyan student living temporarily in the United States.

"A person gains allegiance and loyalty and therefore attachment for a nation from either being born on the soil of the community defining that nation or from being born to parents who were also born on that same soil or who naturalized as though they were born on that soil," Apuzzo explained to CNN. "It is only by combining at birth in the child both means to inherit these two sources of citizenship that the child by nature and therefore also by law is born with only one allegiance and loyalty to and consequently attachment for only the United States."

"If they wanted to they could have taken this up," Apuzzo told WND. He surmised the court decided, "I don't want to rock the boat too much because that will make it worse, let me be nice and things will go away."

"None of this is moot. If he runs again in 2012, people will want to know" [whether Mr. Obama is a legitimate president], said Apuzzo. "The issue is not going away. … You're going to have a lot of states that are going to be on this, they will want to see that birth certificate."

Like previous cases challenging Obama's eligibility, Kerchner v. Obama foundered in lower courts on the question of "standing." Mr. Obama's attorneys have avoided addressing the merits of an eligibility case. Instead, they have repeatedly succeeded in persuading courts to dismiss cases because the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue because they could not prove they were directly harmed by Mr. Obama's occupation of the Oval Office.

Another case currently before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, however, Barnett v. Obama, may not be stopped by the standing problem, according to United States Justice Foundation Executive Director Gary Kreep. Kreep, author of the Western Center for Journalism amicus curiae brief cited above by the Supreme Court, represents two plaintiffs in the Barnett case.

Kreep explained that one of the plaintiffs in Barnett v. Obama, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Alan Keyes, was a presidential candidate in 2008.

"According to case law, candidates have standing to challenge the eligibility of other candidates," Kreep told WND. "The Department of Justice, which is handling Obama's defense, is not even addressing standing. They're saying it's a political question," and therefore shouldn't be decided by the courts."

Apuzzo and Kreep both suggested that Supreme Court Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor should have recused themselves from the Kerchner case.

"We've seen Justice Kagan recuse herself in various cases, and here's a case where she did not recuse herself, and also Justice Sotomayor, which struck me as really odd because they were appointed by President Obama," said Apuzzo.

"If he's not eligible to be president, he never was, and it could jeopardize their appointments," said Kreep. "An argument could have been made that they should have recused themselves."

"If either of them had anything to do with any of the eligibility decisions, they should have recused themselves," Kreep added. Kagan, as President Obama's Solicitor General, was "probably" involved in planning his legal strategy in earlier eligibility cases.

Apuzzo suggested Kagan's and Sotomayor's participation might have changed the outcome of the court's deliberations.

"We don't know what the vote was," Apuzzo pointed out. "If it was a dog of a case, you don't need Kagan's or Sotomayor's votes. Why did they leave this ethical cloud hanging in history? For what? For a dog of a case?"

==============

HJ note:

The federal government is lawless simply because there are no downsides for unlawful activity at the federal level. So they break our laws. So what. Who's going to stop them? They are the feds. The SCOTUS as a control on miscreant behavior within the federal government? Not now. Maybe it was at one time, but certainly not now. SCOTUS is now a major part of our problems simply because it also (along with the executive branch and the congress) is NOT supporting our laws.

The states created the federal government specifically to solve certain defined and collective state problems. The feds, drunk with power and via deceitful and dishonest actions, has run away with our country's control. I place the blame for this lawlessness, not on the people directly, but on the state governments. The states created this federal mess, and it must be the states to clean up the federal mess.

Remember the 9-12 march on Washington and no-one in the federal government paid any attention? That was a reported 1.2 million American citizens peacefully asking our government to change its actions, and the federal government refused to listen. That should have been a big red flag for all of us. This is not our government. It does not represent the American people. We are living in a state of tyranny.

Kerchner is no surprise. The feds are circling the wagons, not to protect themselves from evil or from our country's enemies, but to defend itself from exposure to lawful American citizens. What the hell is that all about?

Shut it down. We've wasted too much time already and allowed too many crimes to be committed by the central government. Nullify and shut down the whole federal communist mess. This federal system is NOT working for our benefit.

IMHO, the answers to our problems with the feds lies within our state governments, and we had better change our focus to controlling our own sovereign state governments and using our state resources to control the feds.

And if our state governments are also corrupt, we need to fix them before any meaningful changes will be possible with the federal government.

.

Back in the mid 70's***, there came a time when otherwise law-abiding folks decided that ALL their attempts at seeking solutions thru the 'legal' system were exhausted. They simply WOULD NOT WORK. With absolutely zero options, they were FORCED to take the 'otherwise' route.

How far down precisely the same road can we be with this process? Are we not travelling the same path? Not rhetorical questions.

HOW FAR CAN WE BE? IS THERE AN END? HOW FAR IS FAR ENOUGH?

(***And oh, and I'm not referring to the NINETEEN hundred seventies. More like the SEVENTEEN hundred seventies.)

Rally the American Media against Amnesty, Please take action now!

GO HERE:

http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-219815.html

Originally Posted by MMCDC007

Back in the mid 70's***, there came a time when otherwise law-abiding folks decided that ALL their attempts at seeking solutions thru the 'legal' system were exhausted. They simply WOULD NOT WORK. With absolutely zero options, they were FORCED to take the 'otherwise' route.

How far down precisely the same road can we be with this process? Are we not travelling the same path? Not rhetorical questions.

HOW FAR CAN WE BE? IS THERE AN END? HOW FAR IS FAR ENOUGH?

(***And oh, and I'm not referring to the NINETEEN hundred seventies. More like the SEVENTEEN hundred seventies.)

Well, MMCDC007, we seemed to be cursed with the Chinese curse 'may you live in interesting times.' But, maybe all times are interesting times.

At any rate, there appear to be many more people alive, alert, and involved in the governing process and we have some new Tea Party folks going to congress. There may be hope for us yet.

BTW, welcome to Alipac. We're a fun group of rogue warriors... well, at least some of us are.

Juan

P.S. I just noticed this is my 888th post on Alipac. 888 is good luck to the Chinese. What a kick!

Perhaps another avenue to approach this is through the electoral document manipulation provided to the states by Pelosi and company during the nomination phase...the omission of the paragraph stating constitutional eligibility of the candidate. ???

PLEASE TAKE NEW ACTION ON DREAM ACT HERE: HOUSE VOTE THURSDAY


http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-219869.html