Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.
Joined: Aug 17, 2007 Posts: 4443 Location: Indiana, formerly of Northern Cal
Posted: Mon Jan 12, 2009 12:15 pm Post subject:
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."
Looks like nobody is even going to be allowed to check _________________ Proud American and wife of a wonderful <strong>LEGAL</strong> immigrant from Ireland.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing." -Edmund Burke (1729-1797)
Joined: Dec 07, 2007 Posts: 7164 Location: Tarheel State
Posted: Mon Jan 12, 2009 12:25 pm Post subject:
Quote:
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.
If this is all true, treason and traitors are all around us.
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.
Anybody know anything about that sealed lawsuit? Is it being handled by Berg but concealing the name of a plaintiff? Or is it being handled by some other attorney and Berg is just informally aware of it?
Berg is going absolutely nowhere with that claim of Kenyan birth, unless he acquires hard evidence like a foreign birth certificate.
Joined: Aug 17, 2007 Posts: 4443 Location: Indiana, formerly of Northern Cal
Posted: Mon Jan 12, 2009 12:56 pm Post subject:
FreedomFirst wrote:
From that quoted article:
Quote:
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.
Anybody know anything about that sealed lawsuit? Is it being handled by Berg but concealing the name of a plaintiff? Or is it being handled by some other attorney and Berg is just informally aware of it?
Berg is going absolutely nowhere with that claim of Kenyan birth, unless he acquires hard evidence like a foreign birth certificate.
I heard he had a request in for the Kenyan cert, but received a letter back from the Kenyan records department stating all records of Obamas birth in Kenya had been sealed by the government of Kenya. Berg looks at the fact that they are saying they had something to seal as admitting to having a Kenyan birth cert on Obama.
As far as the sealed case is concerned, the ONLY thing that Berg has said is that it exists and has been filed. _________________ Proud American and wife of a wonderful <strong>LEGAL</strong> immigrant from Ireland.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing." -Edmund Burke (1729-1797)
Joined: Apr 11, 2008 Posts: 2866 Location: You want some of this?
Posted: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:56 pm Post subject:
WHERE ARE WE??? THIS IS NOT THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!! I THOUGHT WE HAD A CONSTITUTION?? WHY SHOULD ANYONE OBEY THE LAW ANYMORE WE DON'T EVEN ANY VALID ONES ANYMORE!!! _________________ Work Harder Millions on Welfare Depend on You!
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.
Anybody know anything about that sealed lawsuit? Is it being handled by Berg but concealing the name of a plaintiff? Or is it being handled by some other attorney and Berg is just informally aware of it?
Berg is going absolutely nowhere with that claim of Kenyan birth, unless he acquires hard evidence like a foreign birth certificate.
I heard he had a request in for the Kenyan cert, but received a letter back from the Kenyan records department stating all records of Obamas birth in Kenya had been sealed by the government of Kenya. Berg looks at the fact that they are saying they had something to seal as admitting to having a Kenyan birth cert on Obama.
Either Obama and gang ordered the records sealed (as usual), or the Kenyan government did so to use as blackmail (or both).
I keep hearing this fraud (Obama) talk about "transparency". So far it's been just the opposite. Who does this guy think he's kidding? _________________
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.
Anybody know anything about that sealed lawsuit? Is it being handled by Berg but concealing the name of a plaintiff? Or is it being handled by some other attorney and Berg is just informally aware of it?
Berg is going absolutely nowhere with that claim of Kenyan birth, unless he acquires hard evidence like a foreign birth certificate.
I heard he had a request in for the Kenyan cert, but received a letter back from the Kenyan records department stating all records of Obamas birth in Kenya had been sealed by the government of Kenya. Berg looks at the fact that they are saying they had something to seal as admitting to having a Kenyan birth cert on Obama.
As far as the sealed case is concerned, the ONLY thing that Berg has said is that it exists and has been filed.
Yes, I agree that if the Kenyan government sent a letter back stating, in any way, that records relating to obama's birth are sealed, it is implying that there was a Kenyan birth.
Otherwise, wouldn't the response have been that there were no birth records on file in Kenya for this individual? That's generally the response given, for instance, when someone is researching a family tree and is barking up the wrong one, is it not?
It would be wonderful if the Kenyan government put their foot in their mouth and planted it, accidentally, on certain backsides involved in this scam. And it wouldn't be the first time that a very complex plan was unraveled by one simple mistake.
As for the sealed lawsuit......I wonder if this has anything to do with the comment I read on Phil's site awhile back from his assistant. She could not mention specifics, of course, but there was something mentioned about some apparent doozie of evidence which had been obtained by someone, the implication being that when it finally comes to light, it's going to impact this thing big time.
Just my opinion of course, but I think that if I were obama and his cronies, I'd be more concerned about a sealed lawsuit than I would be about others out in the open
Joined: Apr 01, 2007 Posts: 658 Location: Sturgis S Dakota
Posted: Tue Jan 13, 2009 8:27 am Post subject:
We The PEONS, of The United States of America...
The word "people" needs to come out of this Cherrished Document, because WE DO NOT HAVE STANDING...
The Guardians of THE LAW have said so.
So if The PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE STANDING... Who does? _________________
MY eyes HAVE seen the GLORY... And that GLORY BELONGS to US... We the PEOPLE!
Joined: Nov 29, 2008 Posts: 624 Location: Portland, ME
Posted: Tue Jan 13, 2009 9:30 am Post subject:
THE TRAITORS IN CONGRESS
By Lynn Stuter
January 13, 2009
NewsWithViews.com
"On January 8, 2009, with no objection being raised, Congress — House and Senate — voted unanimously to certify the Electoral College.
Not one legislator, Republican or Democrat, Senator or Representative, could or did refute even one of the undisputed facts concerning the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to the office of president under Article II, Section 1, United States Constitution. Not one!"
Joined: Aug 17, 2007 Posts: 4443 Location: Indiana, formerly of Northern Cal
Posted: Tue Jan 13, 2009 9:46 am Post subject:
I am getting disheartened by this whole thing. I have learned the American people no longer have power. The courts say we need to vet the candidates when we vote, but how can we when we are not allowed to see the documents or question anything they say? I fear NOBODY in government, not even the SCOTUS cares about our constitution any more. _________________ Proud American and wife of a wonderful <strong>LEGAL</strong> immigrant from Ireland.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing." -Edmund Burke (1729-1797)
Joined: Nov 29, 2008 Posts: 624 Location: Portland, ME
Posted: Tue Jan 13, 2009 10:00 am Post subject:
cayla99 wrote:
I am getting disheartened by this whole thing. I have learned the American people no longer have power. The courts say we need to vet the candidates when we vote, but how can we when we are not allowed to see the documents or question anything they say? I fear NOBODY in government, not even the SCOTUS cares about our constitution any more.
No time to get sad. Time to get fired up. The battle to re-take our government starts with each one of us. Each of us has to become a renewed Patriot. We have already started to learn about the law, and must continue the learning process. Remember, one of government's reasons for running the school systems is to keep us dumbed down and ignorant. But, you know, all learning is self taught, so our education is really our own responsibility.
Americans only excel when challenged. Isn't re-taking our government a big enough challenge for us? You bet it is. So, let's get going! Nothing is more important for our own happiness and our children's future.
[Hey! Watch it boyo!!!!!! Us Irish-American types are wonderful wonderful people as a rule. Unless of course you are talking about the Chicago branch, but heck, the Chicago branch of any group is crooked. Not all of the Kennedys were bad either. Cousin Ronnie was me favorite Leprechaun POTUS though.
Begosh and begorrah ... you might get me teeny Scottish dander up.
Joined: Aug 17, 2007 Posts: 4443 Location: Indiana, formerly of Northern Cal
Posted: Tue Jan 13, 2009 10:39 am Post subject:
HighlanderJuan wrote:
cayla99 wrote:
I am getting disheartened by this whole thing. I have learned the American people no longer have power. The courts say we need to vet the candidates when we vote, but how can we when we are not allowed to see the documents or question anything they say? I fear NOBODY in government, not even the SCOTUS cares about our constitution any more.
No time to get sad. Time to get fired up. The battle to re-take our government starts with each one of us. Each of us has to become a renewed Patriot. We have already started to learn about the law, and must continue the learning process. Remember, one of government's reasons for running the school systems is to keep us dumbed down and ignorant. But, you know, all learning is self taught, so our education is really our own responsibility.
Americans only excel when challenged. Isn't re-taking our government a big enough challenge for us? You bet it is. So, let's get going! Nothing is more important for our own happiness and our children's future.
Let's roll!
You are right, Berg himself is taking this in stride and not giving up. Also, this case is NOT DEAD!
Quote:
01/12/2009: PRESS RELEASE - U.S. Supreme Court denies Berg vs. Obama Berg states he is disappointed for the 300+ million U.S. citizens, for our “Forefathers” and for the tens of thousands that have died defending “our” Constitution and we will fight on as Obama is “not qualified” to be President
(Contact information and PDF at end)
(Lafayette Hill, PA – 01/12/09) - Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “qualifications” to serve as President of the United States and his case, Berg vs. Obama, in the U.S. Supreme Court announced today that the U.S. Supreme Court has “denied” our Petition For Writ of Certiorari Before Judgment.
Berg said, “I am disappointed for the 300+ million U.S. citizens, our ‘Forefathers’ and for the tens of thousands that have died defending ‘our’ Constitution.
I am committed to keep our efforts going to continue litigation until the truth of Obama being ‘not qualified’ for President comes out. The Obama candidacy is the biggest ‘HOAX’ ever to be put forth to the citizens of the United States in 230 years.
In addition to the current case in the U.S. Supreme Court, we have or will have:
1. A case filed two [2] months ago captioned Berg vs. Obama, said case ‘under seal’ so I cannot comment further;
1. The case of Hollister vs. Barry Soetoro a/k/a Barack Hussein Obama, filed 12/31/08 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 08-02254; said case being an ‘Interpleader’ case with the Plaintiff, a retired Colonel from the U.S. Air Force, who is questioning whether to obey or disobey an order if Obama recalls him, based upon whether or not Obama is a ‘qualified’ President;
1. The case that was denied in the U.S. Supreme Court is still pending in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Berg vs. Obama, with our Brief due by January 20, 2009; and
1. If Obama is sworn in as President, we will file a Petition for Writ of ‘Quo Warranto,’ a case that will challenge Obama as being ineligible to serve as President because he is ‘not qualified.’
Berg states ‘if Obama is sworn in’ because Obama knows he is ‘not qualified’ and he should hold a Press Conference and Obama should state that I, as a black American, received more votes than anyone else on November 4, 2008 for President and on January 8, 2009 the Joint Session of Congress counted the Electoral College votes and announced that I am President-elect, but because of things in my background, I cannot be sworn in as President. However, Obama is not man enough to state the above!
More and more people are aware of the fact that Obama does not meet the ‘qualifications’ for President. When the truth finally comes out, individuals including Barack Hussein Obama, Michelle Obama, Howard Dean [Chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC)], other top officials of the DNC, senior campaign staff and some of his new administration should be brought into the criminal justice system, indicted and tried with incarceration for those convicted.”
Berg continued, “Obama is setting himself up to be blackmailed and perhaps he is already being blackmailed. He was the candidate for ‘change,’ but look at his cabinet – 70% from President Clinton’s days and how about his Secretary of Defense, Gates. Give me a break!
There is nothing more important than ‘our’ U.S. Constitution and we will fight on!”
_________________ Proud American and wife of a wonderful <strong>LEGAL</strong> immigrant from Ireland.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing." -Edmund Burke (1729-1797)
Astute readers will recall that the original CIA chief was to be John Brennan, and then there were a variety of explanations about why Brennan didn't get the nod even as Leon Panetta, with no prior intelligence experience, did get the nod.
The possibility that his past statements on use of torture as an interrogation technique might scuttle his chances of Senate confirmation as CIA chief ...
The president-elect's decision comes only six weeks after Brennan was forced to pull out of contention for the directorship of the CIA because of fears that his statements supporting some controversial interrogation techniques would have complicated his confirmation. The firm Brennan heads, the Analysis Corp., and its corporate parent have earned millions of dollars over the past decade assisting several federal agencies and private firms on counterterrorism. Those oil and telecommunications firms have worked in countries beset by violence, including Mozambique, Liberia, Colombia and Pakistan -- all of which have been topics of intense policy debate in Washington. The parent corporation, London-based Global Strategies, has been a target of critical news accounts about harsh actions by its hired soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq. Obama has criticized the actions of similar firms, such as Blackwater Worldwide, and co-sponsored legislation to ensure that such firms are subject to U.S. laws even when operating overseas. Brennan also has attracted personal criticism from human rights experts for defending the CIA's long-standing practice of forced renditions, or transfers, of terrorism suspects for interrogations, a position that forced the withdrawal in late November of his candidacy to head the CIA.
But after advising Obama on intelligence throughout the campaign, Brennan gets a "nod" that needs no Senate confirmation, as the White House advisor on counter-terrorism
Now ... remember how there were reports back in the spring of 2008 or even earlier that two "contract employees" of the State Department got fired because they "accidentally" got into the passport files of Obama while trying to "really" obtain other information that was legitimate to their work? And how the media portrayed it as maybe "dirty tricks" of some kind, or a violation of Obama's privacy? Other reports were that all three front-runners (Obama, Clinton and McCain) had their files invaded by these "curious" outside contractors working under security clearances. I don't recall any of those articles mentioning which contractor was involved, which employed the two "contract workers" who got fired. Leave it to Newsmax to get more details of the story, by bird-dogging the report of the internal investigation.
Obama's Intelligence Adviser Involved in Security Breach
Monday, January 12, 2009 1:46 PM
Obama’s top terrorism and intelligence adviser, John O. Brennan, heads a firm that was cited in March for breaching sensitive files in the State Department’s passport office, according to a State Department Inspector General’s report released this past July. The security breach, first reported by the Washington Times and later confirmed by State Department spokesman Sean McCormack, involved a contract employee of Brennan’s firm, The Analysis Corp., which has earned millions of dollars providing intelligence-related consulting services to federal agencies and private companies.
During a State Department briefing on March 21, 2008, McCormack confirmed that the contractor had accessed the passport files of presidential candidates Barack Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and John McCain, and that the inspector general had launched an investigation.
Sources who tracked the investigation tell Newsmax that the main target of the breach was the Obama passport file, and that the contractor accessed the file in order to “cauterize” the records of potentially embarrassing information.
“They looked at the McCain and Clinton files as well to create confusion,” one knowledgeable source told Newsmax. “But this was basically an attempt to cauterize the Obama file.”
At the time of the breach, Brennan was working as an unpaid adviser to the Obama campaign.
"This individual's actions were taken without the knowledge or direction of anyone at The Analysis Corp. and are wholly inconsistent with our professional and ethical standards," Brennan’s company said in a statement sent to reporters after the passport breach was made public.
The passport files include “personally identifiable information such as the applicant’s name, gender, social security number, date and place of birth, and passport number,” according to the inspector general report.
The files may contain additional information including “original copies of the associated documents,” the report added. Such documents include birth certificates, naturalization certificates, or oaths of allegiance for U.S.-born persons who adopted the citizenship of a foreign country as minors.
The Obama campaign acknowledged at its “Fight the Smears” Web site that Obama was a foreign national until the age of 18, by virtue of his father’s British then Kenyan citizenship.
“Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982,” the Web site stated.
“Fight the Smears” attempted to debunk rumors that Obama was not a U.S. citizen by producing a 2007 computer-generated copy of his certification of live birth.
“The truth is, Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native citizen of the United States of America,” the Web site states.
However, “native citizen” is a colloquialism, not a legal term. It is not the same as “natural-born citizen,” the requirement to be president set out in Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution.
Chief Justice John Roberts has scheduled a Supreme Court conference on Jan. 23 on Lightfoot v. Bowen, one of several cases alleging that Obama is not a “natural born” citizen because of his birthright British citizenship.
The State Department chalked up the passport file snooping discovered in March 2008 to “imprudent curiosity” by contract employees hired to help process passport applications. Asked by reporters during a campaign stop in Portland, Ore., to comment on the breach, Obama said that attempts to “tap into people’s personal records” were “a problem not just for me but for how our government functions.
"I expect a full and thorough investigation. It should be done in conjunction with those congressional committees that have oversight so it's not simply an internal matter," he added.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice phoned Obama and personally apologized for the breach. “I told him that I myself would be very disturbed if I learned that somebody had looked into my passport file,” Rice told reporters. She phoned Clinton and McCain and offered similar apologies. Following the breach, State Department managers met with Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph Biden, whose committee has oversight over the Foreign Service and the passport office. Biden will be sworn in as Obama’s vice president on Jan. 20.
The State Department Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued a 104-page report on the breach last July. Although it is stamped “Sensitive but Unclassified,” the report was heavily redacted in the version released to the public, with page after page blacked out entirely. The problems posed by the breach were so serious that the inspector general recommended that the State Department conduct “vulnerability and risk assessments of all passport systems” to identify security weaknesses and suggest “a timetable for implementing corrective actions.”
Acting Assistant secretary for administration William H. Moser sent a six-page reply concurring with the recommendation, all but one paragraph of which was blacked out because of the sensitivity of the information it contained. Had Brennan been appointed CIA director, as rumored in the Obama campaign shortly after the election, senators also would have questioned him about an article he wrote in an obscure foreign policy magazine over the summer.
The article, entitled “The Conundrum of Iran: Strengthening Moderates without Acquiescing to Belligerence,” appeared in the July issue of "The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science." Among other recommendations, it argued that the next U.S. administration should grant political legitimacy to the terrorist organizations Hezbollah and Hamas, and should exercise “strategic patience” with Iran rather than engaging in “bellicose” rhetoric and coercive diplomacy.
What the reference to "cauterized" tells me is that if any ordinary U.S. citizen (now relegated to being "We the Peons" instead of "We the People") were to file a FOIA request, the files would be sanitized.
Joined: Apr 11, 2008 Posts: 2866 Location: You want some of this?
Posted: Tue Jan 13, 2009 12:33 pm Post subject:
Well at least we all know what standing Americans have in our country now! NONE!!!! And the powers that be can only be taken down forcefully with the help of of EVERYONE or at least a strong 2/3 majority with military on the peoples side, unless the people can manage this task our out of control government will continue to rule our lives with their oppressive and disregarded positions on all the issues that will make or break our country!! I would like to be more optimistic but with the attitude and fear that MOST Americans have for our govt. they will continue to bully us around and things will just continue to get worse!If americans rallied around stopping our out of control government we would have to band together stronger than we all did after 9-11. That is just what I see as the only realistic solution. _________________ Work Harder Millions on Welfare Depend on You!
I am getting disheartened by this whole thing. I have learned the American people no longer have power. The courts say we need to vet the candidates when we vote, but how can we when we are not allowed to see the documents or question anything they say? I fear NOBODY in government, not even the SCOTUS cares about our constitution any more.
I know how you feel.
I for one will not acknowledge Obama as my president since he won't provide documents of proof. He is a usurper. _________________
Joined: Apr 01, 2007 Posts: 658 Location: Sturgis S Dakota
Posted: Tue Jan 13, 2009 2:03 pm Post subject:
As a parent with STANDING (with my kids), I suggest a "Pink Slip" Campaign.
Send them TO EVERY SOB IN WASHINGTON DC who refuses to give THE PEOPLE STANDING IN A COURT OF LAW!!!!
THE PEOPLES COURT... Who The Hell do these people think they are?
As my Dad use to tell us kids :
"I do NOT care How RICH or POWERFUL ANYONE IS (or thinks they are)... We ALL WIPE OUR BUTTS THE SAME!"
Those are words I try to live by, simple & to the point. _________________
MY eyes HAVE seen the GLORY... And that GLORY BELONGS to US... We the PEOPLE!
Joined: Nov 17, 2006 Posts: 4517 Location: California
Posted: Tue Jan 13, 2009 3:37 pm Post subject:
Doots wrote:
cayla99 wrote:
I am getting disheartened by this whole thing. I have learned the American people no longer have power. The courts say we need to vet the candidates when we vote, but how can we when we are not allowed to see the documents or question anything they say? I fear NOBODY in government, not even the SCOTUS cares about our constitution any more.
I know how you feel.
I for one will not acknowledge Obama as my president since he won't provide documents of proof. He is a usurper.
The fix is in. And the starry-eyed Obama supporters don't even want to hear the truth. The ones I know just shirk this off and say they'd rather not hear it. And that we should give him a chance. My response is if they don't care about the Constitution they are NOT Americans themselves.
The fix is in. And the starry-eyed Obama supporters don't even want to hear the truth. The ones I know just shirk this off and say they'd rather not hear it. And that we should give him a chance. My response is if they don't care about the Constitution they are NOT Americans themselves.
Keep in mind that the so-called guardians of the Constitution who have broader audiences and who might have provided counteracting reports about the "natural born" controversy were not exactly jumping up on their soapboxes to do so.
Compelling evidence of "why" is found right here
Bobby Jindal was born to Indian immigrant parents shortly after they arrived in the U.S. on student visas. He would not pass muster under a classic definition of "natural born" and people need to know that. In an era where multiculturalism is praised as a virtue, and where the U.S. should hardly be under attack from that perspective since we've been a "nation of immigrants" longer than most (or, indeed, any although Western Europe is finding out what it's like), the GOP talking heads wanted some "Great Multicultural Hope for 2012" to emerge.
So eager were they about Jindal being the quick and easy way "out of the wilderness" for the Republican party, that the Constitution, for them, is what you throw under the bus.
Just remember the conclusion of that article from McGrew, contributing it to I.O. website and to Pravda ...
Quote:
Many people have speculated that Obama may be a “Manchurian Candidate” a planted enemy, masquerading as an American, for the purpose of taking over the United States. Speculations have pointed to the Middle East and terrorist organizations. That does seem to be a possibility as there are so many anti-American statements and activities by Obama and his supporters. It may sound like more fantasy spy novel dreams.
But if the speculation can be considered, in some degree of seriousness, the question to be asked first is: Who, what organization, has had the time and the resources, to move throughout our political system, convincing Congressmen, Senators, both Federal and State, 50 Governors, Attorney Generals, Secretaries of State, hundreds of State legislators, thousands of local, county, State and Federal political party hacks, FBI, CIA and various State and Federal agencies, Federal Courts, even the US Supreme Court.... Who has that ability to keep all these people silent? Who has the ability to force the entire Republican Party, Nationwide, Statewide and even local politicians into stone cold silence without a peep being uttered against Obama? Would it not make sense for the Republican Party to expose him, or at least pose questions?
It is absolutely preposterous to believe that this has all been planned for 40 years and perpetrated by some outside group of super secret elites. It makes more sense to consider that all the mysteries and lies about Obama have only one single purpose which is to throw us off the trail, divide us in our investigative efforts. The countless lies and unavailable documentation sends us up one blind alley after another, only to find another lie to chase to nowhere. Eliminate the enormous complexities and concentrate on the simplest of clues, the most obvious suspects that our mind does not want us to see, and we may just discover that in reality, the culprits are hiding in plain sight, right under our noses.
With that in mind, I can think of only two organizations that have proven that they can hide, and have hidden, their actions against us in plain sight. Only two organizations can organize and corrupt the thousands of players involved in this “Master of the Game” endeavor. And rather than risk their wrath by exposing them in writing, I will only say that the name of one organization starts with the letter “D” and rhymes with Emocrat and the other starts with “R” and rhymes with Epublican.
From another blog, there were reports of some kind of a "flap" on radio last night about whether there might be a visa re-entry record showing Stanley Ann Dunham (?Obama?) re-entering the U.S. on August 10, 1961. Supposedly the "false reports" may have broken into Gretawire then have been erased.
Was anyone listening to one of the Internet radio programs? The attorney in Broe v. Reed, in order to clarify the flap, supposedly posted that he has no such document in hand at this time.
Last edited by FreedomFirst on Wed Jan 14, 2009 10:40 pm; edited 1 time in total
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Contribute/Join
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Unless of course you are talking about the Chicago branch, but heck, the Chicago branch of any group is crooked. Not all of the Kennedys were bad either. Cousin Ronnie was me favorite Leprechaun POTUS though.
