Thread: Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

Historical significance of July 17:

Napoleon surrendered in 1815
Davis was sworn in as president of the Confederate States
The Carpathia sank
Tibet abolished surfdom
Disneyland opened lol
Reagan accepted the nomination for president

Take your pick on why they find it significant.

Lies, lies, lies - Obama has a reason. Here's why ...

It's a national embarrassment. He's the president of the United States, but he lies as easily as breathing. Barack Obama lies constantly. He lies every time he talks to the American public. He has lied about his birth, his childhood, his education, his influences and associations, his religion, his accomplishments, his policies, his true beliefs and his plans for America's future. His entire presidency has been a seamless fabric of deception and duplicity. But why? The answer may surprise you … Click here to read the full article.

Sheriff Joe and the CCP claim to now have the identity of the persons responsible for the fraudulent BC posted online. I would think that this would be pretty earth shattering news but the hubub has been strangely silent. I would also think that if indeed the forgers have been identified, their lives would be in serious jeopardy. Protective custody? Witness relocation? Anybody know what's going on?

Originally Posted by TexasBorn

Sheriff Joe and the CCP claim to now have the identity of the persons responsible for the fraudulent BC posted online.

Meaning the computer fabrication of a Hawaii Certificate of Live Birth, released at the White House and posted at whitehouse.gov on April 27, 2011? Surely Sheriff Joe wasn't referring to the computer fabricated COLB that FactCheck released on June 12, 2008, which was brought into the world by FactCheckers Jess Henig and Joe Miller.
_____________________________________________

Obama's 'missing year' at Columbia found?
Clearinghouse claims its reports were wrong, transcript still under wraps
Published: July 8, 2012

by Jerome R. Corsi

NEW YORK – Two separate database reports from the National Student Clearinghouse have contradicted President Obama’s claim he attended Columbia University for two years. The reports have added to the intrigue generated by Obama’s unwillingness to discuss his time at the Ivy League institution, his refusal to release educational records, and the fact that many political science students and faculty there in the early 1980s say they don’t remember him.

Swirling amid the black hole of information are a host of theories about Obama’s whereabouts – particularly during the 1981-1982 school year – including speculation he was working for the CIA in Pakistan.

Now, the clearinghouse, with permission from Columbia, has decided to make an exception to its media policy and address WND’s inquiry into the discrepancy. Why do clearinghouse records indicate Obama was at the school only during the 1982-83 school year while Obama and Columbia’s spokesman have insisted he began attending the New York City school in the fall of 1981?

Janine Greenwood, vice president and general counsel for the clearinghouse, told WND there was a “computer error” in their system that has been corrected. She said she confirmed with Columbia that Obama was at the university for two academic years, not one.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s next news conference on his probe of Obama’s eligibility is set for Tuesday, July 17. Sign up to watch it live-streamed for free on WND.

Greenwood said she “tried to untangle this” discrepancy one year ago after two “DegreeVerify certificates” from the Herndon, Va.-based clearinghouse –obtained through a fee-based request – indicated Obama attended Columbia College at Columbia University only in the 1982-1983 academic year, from Sept. 1, 1982 until May 31, 1983, receiving a Bachelor of Arts degree May 17, 1983.

“All I know is [the record] was right originally, and somewhere along the line it went off the rails, and then it was right again,” she said.

“We basically had two records running simultaneously, and it just depended on how you input the name and the other information as to which records you got,” she explained to WND in an interview Friday.

Greenwood confirmed a disclaimer on the clearinghouse website stating the organization relies on the accuracy of the information supplied by each educational institution and cannot edit, modify or delete any student degree or enrollment data.

Continued at http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/record-shows-obama-at-columbia-only-1-year/

Janine Greenwood said, “We basically had two records running simultaneously, and it just depended on how you input the name and the other information as to which records you got.”

That sounds like the truth to me. Maybe not what they wanted us to know, but these things do slip out. Atty. Orly Taitz claimed 1 year at Columbia all along: 1982-1983.

I still hold to 0 years at Columbia, as did all 400 Columbia Univ. students from that year whom FOX News interviewed, poli sci majors and professors, and the 2008 Libertarian candidate for Vice-President, Wayne Allyn Root, poli sci and pre-law, the macher of CU '83. Wayne Root on "Your World with Neil Cavuto" - FOX News

"...take note, you have sinned against the Lord;
and be sure your sin will find you out." - Numbers 33:23b

Yes Minuteman, that's what I understand. The computer generated forgery. Am I missing something??

Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC

Meaning the computer fabrication of a Hawaii Certificate of Live Birth, released at the White House and posted at whitehouse.gov on April 27, 2011? Surely Sheriff Joe wasn't referring to the computer fabricated COLB that FactCheck released on June 12, 2008, which was brought into the world by FactCheckers Jess Henig and Joe Miller.
_____________________________________________


Janine Greenwood said, “We basically had two records running simultaneously, and it just depended on how you input the name and the other information as to which records you got.”

That sounds like the truth to me. Maybe not what they wanted us to know, but these things do slip out. Atty. Orly Taitz claimed 1 year at Columbia all along: 1982-1983.

I still hold to 0 years at Columbia, as did all 400 Columbia Univ. students from that year whom FOX News interviewed, poli sci majors and professors, and the 2008 Libertarian candidate for Vice-President, Wayne Allyn Root, poli sci and pre-law, the macher of CU '83. Wayne Root on "Your World with Neil Cavuto" - FOX News

"...take note, you have sinned against the Lord;
and be sure your sin will find you out." - Numbers 33:23b

If you are missing something, Texasborn, it is insignificant compared to what the Obamapologists are missing: that is, their honesty, integrity, ethics, scruples, credibility, honor, and whatever it is that they lose by forswearing their oaths to support and defend the Constitution, choosing rather to vouch for an obvious fraud whom they all know is an impostor.

"The computer generated forgery" accurately describes both the long-form "Certificate" that the White House released on April 27, 2011, and the "Certification" or "COLB", an abstract of computer data, that FactCheck released on June 12, 2008. Neither one has any real or probative value without corroborating evidence, such as a birth certificate endorsed by a hospital.

The purported LFBC adds insult to injury by "documenting" that the purported Hawaiian birth took place at Kapio'lani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital, thereby putting the Kapio'lani Hospital Administration and Medical Records Departments on the spot to cover for the lie, with no hospital record of the birth. Neither is there an Admissions account number for Anna Dunham Obama having ever been a patient at Kapio'lani, nor at any other hospital in Honolulu, for that matter. Everyone involved, from Gov. Abercrombie to each and every file clerk in the Medical Records Dept. at Kapiolani Hospital, knows that Mr. Obama has no genuine, valid birth record in Honolulu, and they are all required to lie to cover for the Emperor who has no birth certificate.

Except for this one, of course:

Dear Mr. _______,

I'm not interested in meeting your candidates,
but know in advance: not meeting the criteria has consequences.

If Gov. Romney selects or has selected a VP candidate who, like Mr. Obama,
is NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, you can count on Constitutionalists
and others sworn to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies,
foreign and domestic, turning out en masse to defeat you, because you claim
to be conservatives. We don't expect Democrats, Democratic Socialists, libs
or progressives, Euro-style socialists, communists, or globalists to support
a Constitution that they seek to overthrow. But you claim to advocate for
a Constitutional government. The alternative is lawlessness.

A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN is

one born in the country
of parents who were citizens.

That is the established, authoritative interpretation of nbC according to the unanimous
decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett (1875). Their definition
was quoted as authoritative SCOTUS precedent in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898 ),
in both the opinion and the dissent. Other U.S. Supreme Court decisions that agree
with or corroborate the Minor v. Happersett interpretation of "natural born Citizen"
include: The Venus (1814), Shanks v. DuPont (1830), and Perkins v. Elg (1939).
There are others; these are the most clearly supportive.

If you strive according to the rules, you may win the crown.
If you try to skirt around the rules, you may hit a concrete abutment.

Working against the rules is like tacking a sailboat against the wind,
like pushing a trailer load of steel uphill, or like digging a hole in mud.
When you're done, or when you've given up, you'll wish you had
just played by the rules and let the rules defeat your opponent.

Because the rules - the Constitution - will defeat Mr. Obama.
But if you spit on the Constitution too, the rules will defeat you.

Because when it comes to measuring up
a venture capitalist who betrays the Constitution
versus a communist who betrays the Constitution,
there ain't two cents wurtha differnce.

Sincerely in Christ,

Supremes asked: Who is 'natural born citizen?'

It's the issue at the heart of the question of Obama's eligibility to serve as president of the U.S. ... what it a "natural born citizen"? Until now, Obama's attorneys have deflected the question with procedural victories in lower courts that saw other cases dismissed. But they didn't stop this case. Finally the question has arrived at the Supreme Court's doorstep ... Click here to read the full article.

In response to a complaint about bringing up questions
about former Gov. Mitt Romney regarding Bain Capital:

Originally Posted by Mr. Obama

All topics are fair game in a presidential campaign, for both candidates.

______________________________________

Commenting on Bob Unruh's WND article, "Supremes Asked, 'Who Is 'Natural Born Citizen?'":

Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC

This issue is resolved and had been for hundreds of years, without question . . . until pirates and brigands hijacked the U.S. ship of state in this century, taking advantage of the dumbing-down of the populace about the U.S. founding documents, including the Constitution.

In 1787 America, the only citizenship that existed was that conferred from the father to the child, if a father existed to confer it. Nothing else mattered.

The identified father's citizenship, through the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" phrase, also guided and restricted Amendment XIV. (See statements about the "jurisdiction" phrase by Sen. Jacob Howard, Sen. Lyman Trumbull, and Rep. John Bingham, the Framers of Amendment XIV.)

U.S. citizenship by jus soli (law of the soil) did not exist for 110 years after the ratification of the Constitution (except for fatherless children) . . . until Wong Kim Ark in 1898. U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Melville Fuller and the eminent jurist Associate Justice John Marshall Harlan were out-polled by "Tory" Associate Justice Horace Gray, who re-instituted King George III's "taxation law," an abusive overreach which made anyone born on British soil a taxable subject of the Crown, even those born to foreigners just passing through (except for foreign emissaries).

In the U.S., a woman's citizenship was that of her husband until well into the 20th century. If her husband was not a U.S. citizen, she had no U.S. citizenship of her own to pass along to her children. (Incidentally, this was a strong disincentive for American women to marry foreigners, unlike the opposite incentive today, when a foreigner can gain U.S. citizenship by marriage to a U.S. citizen, and an unmarried American woman can lure a foreign man to the altar with the bait of possible U.S. citizenship.)

The U.S. Constitution, Art. ii, § 1, ¶ 5, reads, "No person except a natural born Citizen... shall be eligible to the Office of President."

To the Framers of the U.S. Constitution, "natural born Citizen" required at least "a citizen born to a citizen father," because that was the only citizenship there was, if there was an identified father. No U.S. Supreme Court decision has ever changed or even challenged that.

Therefore, to settle the current disputes, it is not even necessary to appeal to the established, extant U.S. Supreme Court interpretation from Minor v. Happersett (1875), that is:

"A natural born citizen is
one born in the country
of parents who were citizens."

The Supreme Court has spoken. "It Has Been Decided." According to Stare Decisis, as well as the original intent of the Framers of the Constitution of the United States, as Amended, there is nothing more for the U.S. Supreme Court to decide. Any revision of the "natural born Citizen" phrase in Art. ii, § 1, ¶ 5, requires not just a Senate Resolution, but an Amendment to the Constitution, passed by each chamber of Congress with a 2/3's vote , ratified by 3/4's of the states, and signed by the President (and we don't have one of those, de jure, at this time).

Unrelated to the following, I see no news from Sheriff Joe Arpaio and the Maricopa Co. Cold Case Posse.
__________________________________________________ ___________

You don't prevail over evil by means of flesh and blood; the arm of flesh will fail you.

There is supernatural spiritual evil at work, which we overcome by:
humbling ourselves to obey the Lord;
repenting of sin, calling upon the Lord for forgiveness, and trusting in Christ for salvation;
and seeking the Lord until we find Him, and then following Him (2 Chronicles 7:14, sort of).

Over 80 court cases have failed to get 'er done. Appeals to Congress have fallen on deaf ears (with fingers in them, while singing, "LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LA LA LA LA..."). Appeals to federal and local law enforcement have hardly struck fear in the hearts of the usurper and his minions. Appeals to the lamestream media to report the truth to the sheeple have been duly ignored. Even the pulpits (or should I say, especially the pulpits) prefer the false security of 501(c)(3) tax exemptions to the shelter of the Almighty while waging a holy war against the lies of the deceiver and destroyer of men's souls.

The problem is that we 21st century Americans are too soft, too lazy, and too stuck in our ways to fast and pray and repent. Edmund Burke wrote, "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing," or something like that. We'd rather follow the sheep tails in front of us to the slaughter than resist the devil in the name of Jesus and see him flee.