Thread: Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

Originally Posted by FreedomFirst

I'm a technical dunce and can't figure out how to get the radio program on that link to play. Can someone walk me through the steps of what icon I should click to download and/or obtain a playback? (I have QuickTime and Windows Media - will either work?)

If you go to the link offered by MinuteMan (http://www.blogtalkradio.com/mommaEradi ... ark-McGrew), you will go to the McGrew page and it should start playing. If it doesn't, the BlogTalkRadio window in the center of the page allows you to select your player of choice.

Good luck.

Originally Posted by mirse

This is mirse. I would be glad to delete the message you are referring to.

How do I that?

Note: In another messge, I wrote that the person may have made a mistake when he wrote that Obama's mother used another person's social security number.

There should be an edit button on the upper right corner of your post. Click that button and make the changes you desire.

Originally Posted by azwreath

One big question though......if Cheney decided to do this, why did not an all out ruckus break loose on the floor?

On the one hand, people might say that the procedure is so rare that they've gotten rusty in using it at the joint session of Congress. But then, that would be wrong because in 2000, with the contested election out of Florida, there were plenty of Congressional "objectors" who responded to what is supposed to be a routine, prescribed-by-statute, call for objections to the electoral count. Al Gore was the VP, he presided over the session, he was put in the position of being the losing candidate on whose behalf the objections were raised, and the news reports were that he somehow declined the objections.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... tion,_2000

On January 6, 2001, a joint session of Congress met to certify the electoral vote. Twenty members of the House of Representatives, most of them Democratic members of the Congressional Black Caucus, rose one-by-one to file objections to the electoral votes of Florida. However, according to an 1877 law, any such objection had to be sponsored by both a representative and a senator. No senator would co-sponsor these objections, deferring to the Supreme Court's ruling. Therefore, Gore, who was presiding in his capacity as President of the Senate, ruled each of these objections out of order.

Since that Bush v. Gore election got so much media attention, it might be worthwhile to see if C-SPAN covered the joint session and use the videotape from the Congressional session that received the election 2000 EC count as a point of comparison with any videotape from election 2008's session this past week. It would highlight what a normal protocol looks like vs. an abnormal protocol under Cheney.

..Bill Cunningham: "..YOU are a GREAT American.."..!!


Like Kevin James, he's an attorney AND a former Federal Prosecutor..

..so they KNOW what they're talking about..


Bill, like SO MANY other Radio Hosts..

..is getting TIRED of THE usurper,

Mafia Hussein, who's going OUT of his way..

..to HIDE information..!!



He had attorney Philip Burg ( www.ObamaCrimes.com ) on last week, in his third hour..!!

Hmm..

..wonder what he's got to say tonight..? :P



Soo..

I HIGHLY recommend the Bill Cunningham Show..!

..on LIVE EVERY Sunday..

7-10pm PT/10pm-1am ET..

..and right NOW via:

(..one station that’s streaming it), click below..!

KNRS Stream

Bill ('Willie's) Page: http://700wlw.com/pages/onair_willie.html

He's got a regular daily show, this is his LIVE weekend edition..

Happy New Year iQuestionEverything. I hope that the Lord blesses you.

Psalm 91

Official Electoral College Ballot Count on C-Span - Jan 8, 2009

Length - 38:20 - Begin at 7:22

The words of the President of the Senate, Dick Cheney:

[8:22] "Without objection, the tellers will dispense with reading formal portions of the certificates. After ascertaining that certificates are regular in form and authentic, the tellers will announce the votes cast by the electors for each state, beginning with Alabama."

[31:02] "Members of the Congress, the certificates having been read, the tellers will ascertain and deliver the result to the President of the Senate."

[31:49] "The state of the vote for the President of the United States, as delivered to the President of the Senate, is as follows. The whole number of electors appointed to vote for President of the United States is 538, of which a majority is 270. Barack Obama of the state of Illinois has received, for President of the United States, 365 votes."

[33:02] "John McCain of the state of Arizona has received 173 votes."

[33:25] "The state of the vote for Vice-President of the United States, as delivered to the President of the Senate, is as follows. The whole number of electors appointed to vote for Vice-President of the United States is 538, of which a majority is 270. Joseph Biden of the state of Delaware has received, for Vice-President of the United States, 365 votes."

[34:08] "Sarah Palin of the state of Alaska has received 173 votes."

[34:26] "This announcement of the state of the vote by the President of the Senate shall be deemed a sufficient declaration of the persons elected President and Vice-President of the United States, each for the term beginning on the twentieth day of January, 2009, and shall be entered together with a list of the votes on the journals of the Senate and the House of Representatives."

[President of the Senate Dick Cheney refused or failed to allow objections from the floor, as required by 3 USC Ch. 1 § 15.

• "Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received."

Knowing this, Speaker of the House Rep. Nancy Pelosi excitedly stood to her feet and roused vigorous applause and boisterous cheering. President of the Senate Dick Cheney smiled at the applause.]

[35:19] "The purpose of the joint session having been concluded, pursuant to Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 1, 111th Congress, the chair declares the joint session, dissolved." [gavel]

Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC

Official Electoral College Ballot Count on C-Span - Jan 8, 2009

Length - 38:20 - Begin at 7:22

At 8:22, President of the Senate Dick Cheney said, "Without objection, the tellers will dispense with reading formal portions of the certificates. After ascertaining that certificates are regular in form and authentic, the tellers will announce the votes cast by the electors for each state, beginning with Alabama."

Great find MM!!

Now, was the proper procedure for him to call for objections? And did he do so.....or did he just say there were none?

Originally Posted by Devvy Kidd

Realistically, the fix was in before the session even opened... [President of the Senate] Cheney does not ask if there is an objection. As I read the code, he violated the law. The only ones who care are you, me and Americans like Dr. Edwin Vieira, who said this: "Another anomalous illegality. They do not even bother to dissemble any more."

www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd427.htm

Originally Posted by 3 USC Ch. 1 § 15

Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received. When all objections so made to any vote or paper from a State shall have been received and read, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw...

www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/15

Senate President Cheney violated the law.
Don't believe it? Watch the video yourself.



c-spanarchives.org/videoLibrary/ajax/ajax-widget-public.php?type=event_programs&eventid=172885

Since it is imperative we do not get this wrong, is it possible/probable that he asked for objections before the cameras rolled, or it was edited out? It appears to me that even if such was the case, he did not do it in the required order (unless it was edited out by CSPAN)

Supreme Court Denies Certiorari in Primary Lawsuit Challenging Obama's Constitutional Eligibility to Serve as President

By Jeff Schreiber, America's Right

Nearly a week before his inauguration, President-elect Barack Obama likely has one less burden on his shoulders, as the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari today in the first lawsuit which called into question his constitutional eligibility to serve as president of the United States.

A motion filed by a third party seeking permission to file a amicus curiae--"friend of the court"--brief was granted, but with certiorari denied in Berg's case, it is unclear whether granting the amicus curiae motion is anything more than a formality, and whether the conference scheduled for Friday, January 16 in order to weigh an underlying injunction filed by Berg is necessary at this point.

Philip Berg's lawsuit against Obama and the Democratic National Committee, filed on August 21, 2008 and first reported here at America's Right, questioned Obama's eligibility to serve under Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution--which requires in part that the president be a "natural born Citizen" of the United States--and was previously dismissed by the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick from District Court in Philadelphia. While the Supreme Court's denial of Berg's petition for certiorari today was not accompanied by explanation, the mere result shows on its face that at least six Justices agreed with Surrick's determination that Berg lacked standing to sue.

"Of course, I cannot help but be disappointed because the Supreme Court Justices are the ultimate protectors of our Constitution, and in this case they really let us down," Berg said. "They let America down. They let all of us down. This is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated against this country. Forget politics for a minute and just think of the Constitution -- next week, we'll be swearing in a president without even knowing for sure whether or not he's qualified constitutionally to serve in that office. There are so many unanswered questions about Barack Obama and, today, the Court just told us that we're not even permitted to ask."

Berg, a former Pennsylvania gubernatorial and senatorial candidate, former chair of the Democratic Party in Montgomery (PA) County, former member of the Democratic State Committee, and former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania, asserted in his suit that Obama was indeed born in Kenya and not Hawaii as the president-elect maintains, and that if he did have U.S. citizenship, he relinquished it during childhood when he moved to Indonesia with his mother and was adopted by Indonesian stepfather Lolo Soetoro, never reinstating that citizenship upon his return.

From the beginning, Berg sought access to documentation offering proof of Obama's citizenship and past, including but not limited to the long-form, "vault" copy of his Hawaiian birth certificate, and considered the president-elect's failure to produce such documents as a sign that Obama had something to hide. He cited everything from mere Internet rumors to actual Associated Press-confirmed registration forms from Obama's childhood school in Indonesia showing that he was registered under the name "Barry Soetoro," that his religion was listed as "Islam," and that his citizenship was listed as "Indonesia." For Berg, though, it came down to the documentation he didn't have.

"At this point in time, Obama owes it to people to produce the documents," Berg told America's Right just two days after filing suit. "If I’m wrong, even if he doesn’t want to handle it himself and has the person in charge of his campaign communications come out and say, 'here is the vault copy of the birth certificate, here is the certified copy of his Oath of Allegiance from when he came back from Indonesia, this issue should be put to bed and Mr. Berg should withdraw his suit immediately or we’ll sue him to high heaven,' then I’m wrong. If they do not do that within the next day or so, then I know we’re right. If they let the case linger, then I believe we’re right. The challenge I’ve made to them is that, if they don’t produce these documents, then we know they’re wrong."

Berg's case was dismissed at the district court level by Judge Surrick primarily for lack of standing, a procedural check required by the Case or Controversy Clause in Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution as an effort to foster judicial efficacy and limit access to a court of law to those plaintiffs who can show a sufficient "stake" in a particular controversy. To prove standing and thus be eligible to bring suit, a plaintiff must show (1) a particularized--rather than generalized--injury-in-fact, (2) evidence showing that that the party being sued actually caused the plaintiff’s particularized injury-in-fact, and (3) that adjudication of the matter would actually provide redress. Surrick argued that Berg had not adequately showed a particularized injury-in-fact, noting in his memorandum that "regardless of questions of causation, the grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact. To reiterate: a candidate’s ineligibility under the Natural Born Citizen Clause does not result in an injury in fact to voters."

Following the October 24, 2008 dismissal, Berg filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the Supreme Court, arguing that while there is indeed the aforementioned three-prong test for standing, there is no such definitive test for establishing what exactly constitutes an injury-in-fact. Instead, Berg argued in his petition, whether or not a plaintiff has sustained an injury-in-fact depends upon how that plaintiff's factual claims are perceived by the judge on what has been described as a "sliding scale" of speculation, creativity and remoteness. In other words, if the factual support of a plaintiff's allegations is deemed too speculative, too remote, or too creative, then the judge may not find injury, and visa versa.

Though the order list released by the Supreme Court today provides no reason for its denial of certiorari, such a denial inevitably is an affirmation of the district court judge's assertion that Berg's claim, as a mere voter, was far too generalized to satisfy the Case and Controversy Clause of the same Constitution he was attempting to uphold. Whether or not the Justices considered the factual elements of Berg's allegations, without insight gleaned from a rare dissent to a denial of certiorari, is indeed another question left unanswered.

"The biggest question here is if I don't have standing, who does?" Berg asked. "I'm an American citizen, a voting American citizen, asking the Court to uphold our Constitution. If I'm not allowed to ask that, who is?"

Regardless, Berg says that this isn't a fight which he'll give up easily. This issue, he maintains, transcends politics and even transcends individual political candidates. Yes, Barack Obama is the focal point, but it's a matter of upholding the Constitution, he says, of taking into account the intentions of America's founders, men who at the time were still licking their wounds from bitter warfare and were understandably intensely concerned with the need for the highest office in the country to be held by someone fiercely and unequivocally loyal to the fledgling nation. It is for this reason--along, of course, with the "brazen" perpetration of what he repeatedly calls an "enormous hoax"--that Berg says he is so disappointed with the today's news from the Supreme Court; it is for this reason, Berg says, that he wants "to continue standing firm for 320 million Americans."

That continued fight, Berg says, involves an active case currently under seal, as well as a case filed last month on behalf of a retired Air Force colonel, both questioning Obama's eligbility to serve as president of the United States and both centering on the documentation sought in the original action. According to Berg, the plaintiff in the latter case--Col. Gregory S. Hollister, a 20-year veteran with his own litigious history-- filed suit out of concern that, should he be returned from his reserve status to active duty in this tumultuous global climate, his own Oath of Enlistment could conflict with his duty to follow lawful orders.

"If he's reactivated, Col. Hollister comes under a duty to obey lawful orders," Berg said. "The thing is, he's confused because he won't know if the orders that make their way down the chain of command have come from a Commander-in-Chief who is constitutionally eligible to serve in that position and give orders in the first place."

The two other lawsuits, the case filed under seal citing Obama's violations of the False Claims Act as well as the interpleader action filed on behalf of Hollister, are part of what Berg calls a "commitment to finding the truth about Obama for the sake of our Constitution and country," an effort which started with the "hope that the Democratic Party would have done the right thing at its convention in August" and reached its peak today with news from our nation's highest court of law.

"Today was a big setback," Berg said, "but sooner or later, I'm confident that we can find the proper legal avenue to expose the truth about this unbelievable hoax, this circle of lies which has been thrust upon the American people. Barack Obama has lied to all of us, and he needs to be held responsible for doing so. More importantly, we all need to know that our Constitution still controls, that the president of the United States is constitutionally qualified to be there."


http://www.americasright.com/2009/01/su ... ri-in.html


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


Looks like nobody is even going to be allowed to check