Go to www.khow.com and go to peter boyles page for Obamas selective service registration, just like his ss number being from connectuit, the numbers are all screwey!
Printable View
Go to www.khow.com and go to peter boyles page for Obamas selective service registration, just like his ss number being from connectuit, the numbers are all screwey!
ALERT!!! Help shut down Illegal Alien License Mills!
http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-227270.html
Its not an issue of citizenship and never was. Its about being a Natural Born Citizen. Now it all comes down to exactly how they rule it works, if 1 parent is not a US Citizen but born on US soil what are they considered? The US also has US Birth Abroad so what does that count as? My son was born overseas but not on a military base, and I'm American so whats my son considered specifically?Quote:
Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC
There are numerous holes which really don't matter except for the POTUS and they are abusing every one of them. Now I personally don't think he was eligible of course but yah.
But yah, we'd have to prove somehow that its bogus which would be very hard to do because we'd be required to have bulletproof evidence and many of the possibilities would be off limits such as specific Grandma in Kenya's words having any meaning and other things. It would need to be a case that skips straight to the SC as no lower judge would touch it with a 100 foot pole.
When there is no father on the birth certificate and no valid marriage to create a legal basis for a newborn drawing citizenship through paternity, the well-settled law is that the child draws citizenship from the SOLE parent capable of conferring it: the mother. And this has been settled law from before Vattel.Quote:
Originally Posted by ReformUSA2012
The 1948 British Nationality Act governing at the time of Obama's birth allowed for a retroactive claim to British citizenship if the biological father later married the mother. But no British citizenship at the time of a child's birth if it was out of wedlock.
This loophole is what you would see Obama exploit, in a heartbeat, if the NBC issue ever received a full hearing. He would point to there being no marriage license and/or to there being a bigamous (null, void, of no legal effect) marriage if a license is ever located.
BORN IN THE USA?
Obama's Social Security number goes to court
Complaint in federal district seeks evidence of suspected fraud
Posted: February 07, 2011
8:55 pm Eastern
By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2011 WorldNetDaily
President Barack Obama participates in a national tele-town hall meeting at the Holiday Park Multipurpose Senior Center with senior citizens to discuss the Affordable Care Act and ways to combat scams targeting seniors in Wheaton, Maryland on June 8, 2010. Secretary of Health and Human Service Kathleen Sebelius was on hand to moderate the questions from seniors. UPI/Gary Fabiano/Pool Photo via Newscom
An attorney who has aggressively pursued the release of President Obama's Hawaii long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate filed a complaint in federal court yesterday to force the release of Obama's Social Security files.
"I'm not asking for Obama's Social Security number," Attorney Orly Taitz told WND, acknowledging that the Social Security Administration will not release the number of a living person. "I want related information, including information about deceased individuals that will help us prove whether or not Obama has committed Social Security fraud."
Taitz filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to force the Social Security Administration to respond to her Freedom of Information Act request seeking information on Obama's Social Security number.
At the heart of Taitz's complaint to the court is the suspicion that Obama has engaged in Social Security fraud by using a number initially issued to another person.
Taitz contends the Social Security number Obama has used the most often since around 1980 was, according to Lexis Nexis and Choice Point, initially assigned to an elderly individual born in 1890 who resided in Connecticut.
In her complaint, Taitz claims that Obama is linked in national databases to some 39 different Social Security numbers, including one allegedly issued in1976 or 1977 to a person born in 1890 who was living in Connecticut at the time of the Social Security application.
"In and around 1976-1977 due to new Social Security requirements multiple elderly individuals, particularly women, who were housewives and never worked before, applied to obtain Social Security Benefits," Taitz explained in her complaint.
"Therefore the date of birth of 1890 originally connected to [Obama's Social Security number] was consistent with many other examples of elderly individuals, born between 1890-1915, applying for Social Security cards for the first time between 1976-1977."
This is Taitz's second FOIA request to the Social Security Administration, seeking to obtain Obama's Social Security records. An earlier request was denied May 18, 2010, on privacy grounds.
The D.C. court denied Taitz's appeal to the previous FOIA filing on the grounds that the appeal was filed prior to the final determination by the Social Security Administration.
On Oct. 4, 2010, Taitz filed a second FOIA request with the Social Security Administration, refining her request in an attempt to avoid the privacy concerns that determined the agency's previous denial.
So far, the Social Security Administration has not responded to Taitz's second FOIA request, despite six certified letters she has sent the agency since Oct. 4, 2010.
To buttress her arguments, Taitz submitted to the federal court affidavits signed by private investigators Susan Daniels and John Sampson.
Both Daniels and Sampson state that in the 1980s, Obama assumed as his own a Social Security number that had been applied for in Connecticut and was issued by the Social Security Administration between the years 1976 and 1977
Sampson, a retired senior investigator with the Department of Homeland Security, provided in his affidavit an expert opinion that there is no reasonable explanation for a person residing in Hawaii to get a Social Security number issued in Connecticut.
"The affidavits of the private investigators indicates Obama is using a fraudulent Social Security number," she said, "so I am requesting information from the Social Security Administration that would help us track down the Connecticut-issued number Obama is using as well as the multiple Social Security numbers that show up for Obama in the private investigator databases."
Daniels, in a previous interview with WND, said the Social Security Administration never re-issues Social Security numbers.
"A person who wants to hide their true identity often picks up the Social Security number of a deceased person, thinking that nobody would ever look into it," Daniels said. "I think it was sometime in the 1980s that Obama decided to hide who he really is."
The Social Security website confirms the first three digits in Obama's Social Security number are reserved for applicants with Connecticut addresses, 040-049.
WND previously reported that Obama worked as a teenager in Hawaii at a Baskin-Robbins ice cream store in the Makiki neighborhood on Oahu, which USA Today documented still was in operation one year after Obama's inauguration.
A current photograph of the Baskin-Robbins can be seen on the website "Obama's Hawaii Neighborhood."
WND can find no record of any Social Security number Obama used working at the Baskin-Robbins.
Politifact.com, a website typically supportive of Obama, claims he worked at the Baskin-Robbins in 1975 or 1976, prior to the issuance of the Connecticut Social Security number he is currently using.
There is nothing in the public record that would document Obama ever lived in or even visited Connecticut during his high school years.
There also is no indication in the limited background documentation released by the Obama 2008 presidential campaign or by the White House to establish that Obama ever lived in Connecticut.
Nor is there any suggestion in Obama's autobiography, "Dreams from My Father," that he ever had a Connecticut address.
Also, nothing can be found in the public record that indicates the president visited Connecticut during his high school years.
Barack Obama Sr. lived in Hawaii from 1959 until June 1962, when he moved to Massachusetts to attend Harvard University; nothing can be found in the public record that indicates Barack Obama Sr. ever had a Connecticut address.
WND has further confirmed that the Social Security number in question links to Obama in the online records maintained by the Selective Service system. Inserting the Social Security number Obama is currently using, his birth date and his last name produced a valid Selective Service number identified with Obama.
Here is a screen capture that shows the Selective Service cross-verification of the Social Security Number that President Obama is currently using:
http://www.wnd.com/images/selectiveservice.JPG
WND has also reported that the Social Security Administration has decided to randomize all future Social Security numbers issued, beginning on or about June 25, 2011, in a move that will eliminate state-specific assignment of the Social Security numbers..
Read more: Obama's Social Security number goes to court http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=261033#ixzz1DOEx9gcd
This is indeed a sticky wicket. But no worries. His birth in Coast Province General Hospital in Mombasa, Kenya, makes him a Kenyan and a British Protected Subject by birth, and it also voids any claim to U.S. citizenship inherited from his 18 year old mother.Quote:
Originally Posted by FreedomFirst
In 1961, the year that Barack Obama was born, Anna Obama could not transmit to her son Barack citizenship of any kind, according to Sec. 301 (a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (in effect until 1986).
[quote="A professional investigator hired by Western Journalism"][size=117]“ 7 FAM 1133.2-2 Original Provisions and Amendments to Section 301
(CT:CON-204; 11-01-2007)
“a. Section 301 as Effective on December 24, 1952: When enacted in 1952, section 301 required a U.S. citizen married to [incorrect: parentage, not marriage, was the criterion] an alien to have been physically present in the United States for ten years, including five after reaching the age of fourteen, to transmit citizenship to foreign-born children. The ten-year transmission requirement remained in effect from 12:01 a.m. EDT December 24, 1952, through midnight November 13, 1986...
“As originally enacted, section 301(a)(7) stated:
Section 301. (a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
. . .
[b](7) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years...â€
Quote:
Originally Posted by [url=http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=261393
"They effectively will destroy the constitutional rule of law?"
I only question Mr. Unruh's use of the future tense. We now live under the constitutional rule of law only insomuch as it does not interfere with the rule of the usurper and the Gang of 545+ in Washington, D.C..
With a hat tip and a thank you to natborncit, here is the text of the Nebraska eligibility bill. [I added indentations and corrected typos.] http://nebraskalegislature.gov/FloorDoc ... /LB654.pdf
Quote:
Originally Posted by [url=http://nebraskalegislature.gov/FloorDocs/Current/PDF/Intro/LB654.pdf
[quote=MinutemanCDC_SC]With a hat tip and a thank you to natborncit, here is the text of the Nebraska eligibility bill.
[I added indentations.] http://nebraskalegislature.gov/FloorDoc ... /LB654.pdf
[/quote:2wm0nbd3]Quote:
Originally Posted by "[url=http://nebraskalegislature.gov/FloorDocs/Current/PDF/Intro/LB654.pdf
It's beyond the comprehension of my pea size peasant brain to understand why states would EVER find it necessary to draft bills to validate and ensure the eligibility of a POTUS candidate. Unbelievable!! Think about it! It looks like to me that the states are sending a clear message to the federal government "We don't trust you to do your job so we are going to protect ourselves." Isn't this exactly what a state might do before it finally secedes and declares it's independence? Is this what we're coming to?
Legislation is necessary because each state legislature decides how to select it's Presidential Electors. Currently all state's choose to do it by a popular vote. (All states except Nebraska and Maine give the winner of the statewide popular vote all it's electroal votes. Nebraska and Maine allocate a portion of their electoral votes according to the popular vote by congressional district.)
Since the voting for President is actually 50 separate state elections (all held on the same day), it is up to each state to administer it's presidential election under it's state election laws.
The memo at this web site
http://www.scribd.com/doc/41131059/CRS- ... -Questions
from the Congressional Research Service confirms that there is NO federal eligibility check for president (see paragraphs 2-4).
Nebraska's proposed legislation would also make it a felony for a Presidential Elector from the state to vote for a candidate who is not certified by the Secretary of State as eligible.
I never liked the way we do presidential elections. I always liked the idea of it being 1 vote for 1 vote against per person. This gets screwed up majorly when people in one state who are out numbered in another lose their votes pretty much.
Just doesn't make sense how its currently done. As I see it it seems 65-70% of Americans want one thing done yet they get cut down by a flawed electoral vote as states can rig electoral vote elections through numerous means.
The Nebraska LB654, as generally presented by MinuteMan, is now posted on Scribd.com.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/48662379/Nebr ... -Elections
This document is downloadable as text or as PDF document.
Quote:
Originally Posted by natborncit
Quote:
Originally Posted by For the Congressional Research Service, Atty. Jack Maskell
Quote:
Originally Posted by natborncit
Thank you, natborncit, for checking in at the ALIPAC "Barack Obama's citizenship questioned" topic. You honor us with your presence and benefit us with your insight gained from many years of experience. We hope you gain from the 4000+ posts about Mr. Obama's ineligibility for office which are collected here. It will only take you a few weeks (or months) to read through them all, and by then, we'll have a fresh batch! :lol:
Just kidding - we know it takes more than reading, blogging, writing emails, and pressing for redress of grievances to oust a foreign-born, foreign-backed dictator from de facto authority over the Dept. of Justice and the Dept. of Defense.
But we have the Right Man on our side, the Man of God's own choosing,
The Lord of Hosts is He, without Whom our striving would be losing.
Everyone, welcome natborncit to ALIPAC!
"WELCOME TO ALIPAC natborncit!" Yeah by the time you read all this "Trump will be in office!"
Two states are considering bills that contain additional eligibility requirements that trump a long-form birth certificate
February 13, 2011
The Birther Card
By Cindy Simpson
45 Comments
Hawaii's new governor, Neil Abercrombie, stirred the "birther" pot just before Christmas when he promised to launch an expedition for Obama's long form birth certificate. Chris Matthews reported on the Abercrombie quest, and though calling himself an "enemy of the birthers," surprised us by acknowledging that the advertised short form is indeed a different document than an actual long form certificate and that it should be released. Matthews' guests on the segment agreed, noting once it was out they could "make even more fun of the birthers."
But less than a month later, when it was Abercrombie's turn to produce the long form, he turned up empty-handed, and instead offered some ambiguous lines about something "written down" that "actually exists."
Enter a new player to the game: journalist friend of Abercrombie, Mike Evans, on the radio a few days later touting "There is no Barack Obama birth certificate in Hawaii -- absolutely no proof at all that he was born in Hawaii." Evans backtracked after the story went national, saying he "misspoke" and had not conversed personally with Abercrombie, and that this error occurred in only one of the 34 interviews he had done that morning. Further research, however, found that Evans repeated his misstatement more than once and "appeared to be reading from a script and ad-libbing around it as he read."
In the American Thinker article, "The Birther Trial Balloon," it was speculated that perhaps this entire performance was a sort of media test run to see how the public would react to the non-release of the certificate in advance of Obama's run for 2012 reelection. Writer Andrew Walden, in the AT article, "Hawaii's Governor Manipulates Birthers," concluded that the spectacle was indeed a production, choreographed however for a different result: "to shift political discussion away from the thumping Obama took in the November midterms" by further ridiculing "birtherism."
Really, though, the debacle did seem more like an episode of The Three Stooges, especially with the timing of one little tidbit reported by CBS News a couple of days later -- that Abercrombie's new Health Director (responsible for the state's vital records) "abruptly quit." So, until that position is filled, the buck of maintaining Obama's birth certificate has stopped at Abercrombie's desk. (We can only speculate why, if the former Governor Linda Lingle asked the previous Health Director, Chiyome Fukino, to "go personally view the birth certificate in the birth records of the Department of Health," couldn't Abercrombie authorize himself to do likewise.)
At any rate, it appeared the chips were down for the "birther enemies," so when it was back around the table last week for Chris Matthews' turn, he admitted that Obama has the "new kind" of birth certificate "which is this digital thing printed out" and apparently no long form. (Leaving the rest of us to wonder exactly what this newfangled one was the short version of.) And anyway, according to Matthews, people only ask to see the old-fashioned kind and put Obama under "this kind of assault" because...
Obama has a funny name, and he is black.
Matthews resorted to playing the trump from his standard liberal repertoire -- the race card, and swooped up all the chips while implying that the birthers aren't playing with a full deck and all their fuss is a bunch of "malarkey."
But Matthews isn't the only pundit playing this type of game -- conservative talkers have politely turned a blind eye to the birther story, and instead of dealing us any real investigating or reporting, play silently along and slap the hands of the birthers clamoring for a spot at the table. Birthers, unperturbed with all the eye-rolling and name-calling, stubbornly continue to interrupt the game anyway, and are not, as Matthews lamented, "shamed into non-existence."
Conservative politicians have all been good sports, too, beginning with John McCain, who produced his long-form certificate back in the 2008 race. McCain was deemed qualified as a "natural born citizen" by Senate Resolution 511 (co-sponsored by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama), but then meekly folded without a call for Obama to reciprocate.
In his article, "Obama's Republican Guard," Jack Cashill opines that the lack of Republican political response on the birther controversy is due to a conservative media "gone soft," who "instead content themselves with commenting on the news that the mainstream media create."
Cashill didn't allude to racist accusations as a cause for the conservative avoidance of the "birther" issue, but the results of a quick Google search using the terms "birther" with "racism" reveal that the race card is indeed a large part of the story. The mainstream media leads with that card often, and conservatives' failure to call them out on it comes off as complicity in a game of political correctness, and weakness instead of colorblind sportsmanship. Americans are then unfairly dealt a censored reporting of a serious constitutional issue.
John Boehner, when pressed on the eligibility issue said: "The state of Hawaii has said that President Obama was born there. That's good enough for me." That's not good enough, though, for a growing swath of the population, unwilling to give these leaders the excuse of a media gone soft, whatever the motivation of that softness. According to World Net Daily, "10 of the United States -- controlling 107 Electoral College votes -- are now considering some type of legislation" that requires presidential candidates to provide proof of constitutional eligibility.
Two of the states' proposed bills contain additional eligibility requirements that trump a long-form birth certificate, even a pricey $100 souvenir version crafted by Hawaii lawmakers. The Arizona bill requires: "A sworn statement attesting that the candidate has not held dual or multiple citizenship and that the candidate's allegiance is solely to the United States of America." The Nebraska bill further requires that the candidate attest to three conditions on the day of his birth: he was subject only to the jurisdiction of the U.S., owed allegiance to no other country, and that both his mother and father were U.S. citizens.
Dual citizenship, a divided allegiance that experts contend the Constitution's framers sought to avoid for the Presidency, is a status created when the country of a child's birth (documented by a birth certificate) and the country of citizenship of the parents are in conflict. Obviously the Arizona and Nebraska legislators concerned themselves with crafting laws supporting the Constitution's finer points of eligibility rather than the sensational search for the missing long form.
Unless Obama pulls out a certificate listing a birth father other than the one Abercrombie remembers seeing him with as a child, or reneges on the assertion on his "Fight the Smears" campaign website that he had, until age 23, foreign citizenship from his Kenyan father, he won't qualify for the ballots in these two states.
So far, the media has focused only on the requirement for the long form and fretted over its assorted details, but once they catch on to these other provisions, the ensuing stir will no doubt require a play of both the racist and xenophobia cards, just as we've seen in the recent immigration reform debate.
Voters are successfully getting the message to their state legislatures: They need more information to "come to the conclusion of [Obama's] citizenship" than just seeing or hearing the President (Wouldn't we love to ask Robert Gibbs exactly what he meant by "seeing.").
As we near the 2012 elections, the powerful in conservative circles must acknowledge the birther controversy if for no other reason than the political risk of alienating this substantial percentage of voters with doubts as to Obama's constitutional eligibility.
In the American Thinker article, "The Race Game and Obama's Campaign for 2012," Jack Kerwick noted that "race promises to play at least as large a role in the next election as it played in the last presidential race. Rest assured: it is on this that Barack Obama and his cronies are counting." Kerwick rightly concludes: "If the GOP wants to prevail in the election of 2012, it is imperative that they muster the will to reckon with its racial subtext."
The GOP must also muster the will to reckon with the mainstream media. Instead of constantly playing defense by allowing liberals to initiate and control the conversation, Republicans must begin to lead a rational discourse. They do not need to follow suit when the media or Obama and his team attempt to link questions of constitutionality with lack of civility or racism.
Conservatives cannot continue to sidestep the role of race in both its response to the eligibility dilemma and in the upcoming elections. Liberals have shown they aren't reluctant to play the race card in any game.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/02/ ... _card.html
many links on this post
An interesting side of Barack Obama we may have missed before.
From this site: http://imaginativeworlds.com/forum/show ... had-to-Die
==============
Note from Rayelan:
Sherman Skolnick and I had been friends since the 80s. He was a friend of my friend, Mae Brussell the reigning Queen of conspiracy.
I always had a strange feeling about Sherman dying shortly before Barack Obama announced his run for President. I KNEW that Sherman HAD to have known something about this man... and his untimely death prevented him from telling HIS side of the story while Barack was running for President.
I know that Sherman's relatives took all of his research and tossed it into a dumpster. Sadly, that's what usually happens to the work of researchers like Sherman.
Even though I googled the names Skolnick and Obama many times, I never saw this article. A friend just sent it to me.
Raye,
Maybe this info was posted already.
This was the first time I remember hearing it.
Before the 2004 election, Skolnick says he outed BO was a British agent/asset... Skolnick died about 11 months before BO announced his presidential run.
See:
http://www.cloakanddagger.de/home%20...RETS%20TWO.htm
CLOAK'S EXCLUSIVE AUGUST 2005 STORY
EXPOSING OBAMA's KENYAN BIRTHPLACE
FORCES OBAMA TO SANITIZE HIS PASSPORT FILE
Insiders Report It Was Accomplished With The Assistance of the Clinton Mob
CLOAK EXCLUSIVE!
Filed 8/28/05
BRITISH SPY FINGERED:
ACCUSATIONS CONFIRMED!
BY
SHERMAN SKOLNICK
CLOAK Co-host Sherman Skolnick prior to the 2004 Election fingered Barack Obama running in Illinois for the U.S. Senate as a British Intel agent born in Kenya. Skolnick, as a co-spy watcher unmasked Obama on his regular CLOAK program, Shop Talk From Plot H.Q.
Today Russian President V. Putin ordered U.S. Senator Barack Obama who is also tight with MOSSAD, to be held in custody under suspicion of being a British operative illegally spying in Russia at off-limits secret facilities.
Spying with Obama, who was locked up, was U.S. Senator Richard Lugar, pro-Bush, was detained by Putin but unlike Obama, quickly released.
http://www.rumormillnews.com/pix6/Lugar-Obama.jpg
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar and Committee member Barack Obama at a base near Perm, Russia. This is where mobile launch missiles are being destroyed by the Nunn-Lugar program.
Lugar delegation detained for three hours in Perm after inspecting nuke weapons facility. US Senator Richard Lugar, who was briefly detained with a US delegation in Perm, Siberia, after inspecting the site, which is being dismantled with US funding.
Nils BÃ¥hmer/Bellona
A US delegation headed by Republican Senator Richard Lugar, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was detained Sunday for three hours at an airport in the Siberian city of Perm, Russia before being allowed to leave the country for Ukraine in a diplomatically chaotic incident Sunday. Charles Digges, 29/08-2005
US officials were nonetheless anxious to downplay the incident in an apparent effort to avoid diplomatic fallout with the increasingly hard-line regime of Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has publicly expressed dismay over a number of US-Russian disarmament programmes.
(Note from Rayelan:
Make sure you copy these articles and post them all over the internet... because info like this can quickly be scrubbed.)
Full Article at:
http://www.bellona.no/bellona.org/en...peration/39511
LUGAR, OBAMA DETAINED IN RUSSIA DELEGATION RELEASED AFTER STANDOFF RESOLVED
A U.S. delegation headed by Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was detained Sunday for three hours at an airport in Russia before being allowed to leave the country for Ukraine.
Russian border guards at the airport in the Siberian city of Perm demanded to search the U.S. government aircraft carrying the delegation, which also included Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., who was making his first foreign trip since becoming a senator. Obama is also a member of the Foreign Relations Committee.
American officials, citing a U.S.-Russian agreement that does not allow such inspections, refused to allow the search, leading to a three-hour standoff at the airport, ...
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-14177951.html
.
Here are the two broken links in the previous post, corrected.Quote:
Originally Posted by [url=http://imaginativeworlds.com/forum/showthread.php?11330-Why-Sherman-Skolnick-had-to-Die
Here are some threads very much worth reading. They discuss some angles we haven't mentioned.
http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/20 ... ou-to-see/
http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/20 ... n-summary/
http://jbjd.org/2009/10/10/if-it-looks-like-a-duck/
http://jbjd.org/2010/01/06/out-of-the-mouths-of-babes/
http://obamasgarden.wordpress.com/2011/ ... -his-name/
http://thedailypen.blogspot.com/2011/01 ... tisan.html
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=12495
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=12495
INTEGRITY OR A MISSING BIRTH CERTIFICATE
By Frosty Wooldridge
February 14, 2011
http://www.newswithviews.com/Wooldridge/frosty636.htm
For the past week, Denver, Colorado radio talk show host Peter Boyles, and his crack producer Greg Hollenback, www.khow.com , interviewed top journalists and historians on the ramifications of Barack Obama investing $2.5 million to conceal his long-form birth certificate and other records.
A 'long-form birth certificate' constitutes the only valid form of an American's birth and foundation for citizenship. Yet, Obama and his cadre of lawyers will not allow it to be presented in order to silence all Americans concerned about his qualifications to remain president of the United States. Additionally, his lawyers conceal his high school, college, social security and draft registration records. Anything else?
Additionally, Boyles discovered that Obama's mother never married his father and never lived with him contrary to his books, Dreams From My Father and Audacity of Hope. Obama congers a story proven to be fictitious by historians on Boyles' show. Nonetheless, true to form, your Main Stream Media will not touch the issue. In fact, squashes it at every juncture!
If any president will not willingly offer proof of U.S. citizenship, what does this convey about withholding truth. If authorities ask for your birth certificate to run for any political office, will you produce it?
Congratulations! You're an American and proud of it! You validate the U.S. Constitution that allows all citizens the 'right' to run for public office and serve our nation. We call this rule-of-law, which maintains the bedrock of our civilization.
Does citizenship as a president matter to you? Who was Obama as Barry Soetoro from Indonesia? What solid aspects of citizenship does he lack from not being an All-American boy? Does he maintain his Islamic upbringing that may concern us? U.S. citizens may want to know!
Today, Arizona and Connecticut along with an increasing number of states introduce bills that expect anyone running for president of the United States to prove their citizenship by producing their long-form birth certificate, e.g., states' rights in action!
Does citizenship matter to receive U.S. social services? Today, in excess of 20 million people violate U.S. entry laws with impunity—displacing $346 billion in taxpayer funded services from your pocket. (Source: www.TheSocialContract.com )
Does the current U.S. paradigm of corruption and subversion reflect us as citizens? If that path continues, what effect will we reap? Planetary examples: Egypt riots started over food, corruption and jobs. Tunisia riots started over food, corruption and jobs!
What correlation do you see in these issues?
Americans enjoy responsibility to choose. We stand at choice-point daily. When we neglect our responsibilities, we receive the consequences from cause and effect.
Via the U.S. Constitution, we benefit from states' rights powers, which means we can neutralize the lack of integrity of Obama and Congress. No small matter!
Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce, attorney Chris Kobach, Oklahoma House member Randy Terrill, Virginia's Roy Beck, Washington's Dan Stein, Arizona Governor Janet Brewer, Maine Governor Paul LePage, New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez—all proactively choose effective enforcement of our laws.
Admittedly, our federal government attempts to squelch American patriots at every turn—but Obama and Congress cannot continue as U..S. citizen numbers proliferate. Their passionate actions provide hope for the future. Roy Beck's 1.2 million citizen army, bi-partisan, at www.NumbersUSA.org expands in muscle and influence that benefits citizens and future generations.
Without action, we as individuals and a nation continue tolerating corruption at our growing peril. The natural effect of our collective choices—or lack thereof —produced the results we face today, i.e, we failed to vote for candidates with integrity that would have represented our nation and laws. Collective abdication won't cut it much longer!
Instead, Congress remains as corrupt and disingenuous as many of the governments falling around the world.
Once we citizens demand that Obama and Congress enforce our laws, or we replace them with candidates that will—the sooner we prove our creative abilities to maintain our civilization. In essence, each of us becomes the United States Constitution.
In order to win, show up! Remind yourself of your power in this Republic. Strength to your sword arm!
.
[quote=MinutemanCDC_SC]Here are the two broken links in the previous post, corrected.Quote:
Originally Posted by [url=http://imaginativeworlds.com/forum/showthread.php?11330-Why-Sherman-Skolnick-had-to-Die]Rayelan[/url]":14ulexpo][size=7]Before the 2004 election, Skolnick says he outed BO was a British agent/asset... Skolnick died about 11 months before BO announced his presidential run.
See:
[url="http://www.cloakanddagger.de/home%20page%20items/CLOAK%20STATE%20SECRETS%20TWO.htm
Here are some threads very much worth reading. They discuss some angles we haven't mentioned.
http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/20 ... ou-to-see/
http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/20 ... n-summary/
http://jbjd.org/2009/10/10/if-it-looks-like-a-duck/
http://jbjd.org/2010/01/06/out-of-the-mouths-of-babes/
http://obamasgarden.wordpress.com/2011/ ... -his-name/
http://thedailypen.blogspot.com/2011/01 ... tisan.html
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=12495
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=12495 [/quote:14ulexpo]
Thanks, MinuteMan, I didn't have time or energy to track down the accurate links, and it is good that you have done so. The Kenya connection was, I believe, from the earlier Sherman Skolnick article which I have also not tracked down.
I posted this article because 1) I had not heard of Sherman Skolnick or Mae Brussell before, but they both seem like very interesting folks to investigate, and 2) I thought the death of Skolnick just prior to Obama's election as senator was interesting as well.
We may find that, like Clinton, there will be many mysterious murders in Obama's past. It is clear the ruling elite will readily kill or otherwise remove from circulation anyone who threatens their control of the country.
I am beginning to think we may need our own secret army just to remove the killers from the power elite's private army that goes around killing whistle blowers and others who threaten exposing the truth to the people.
All of this may explain why there are not more whistle blowers - every one is attacked, and often killed, by the power elite. And this happens in America.
.
BTW, a clever way of spending some good quality time with an informant or spy is to hold him aside because of travel restrictions. I mention this in connection with Obama's being 'held' by the Russians during his trip to Perm.
"Russian border guards at the airport in the Siberian city of Perm demanded to search the U.S. government aircraft carrying the delegation, which also included Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., who was making his first foreign trip since becoming a senator. Obama is also a member of the Foreign Relations Committee."
You have to ask, why would Obama get such a trip opportunity as a freshman senator?
I am really quite suspicious of the intelligence agencies and the possible connections with Obama, a man who has shown us over and over again that he cannot be trusted.
.
Background on Sherman Skolnick
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... n_Skolnick
Sherman Skolnick (July 13, 1930 – May 21, 2006) was a Chicago-based activist.
At the age of six, Skolnick was paralyzed by polio, and he used a wheelchair for the rest of his life.
Skolnick was founder and chairman of the Citizens Committee to Clean Up the Courts, which he started in 1963. He used the local press to distribute his reports, later establishing a telephone hotline, public access television show, and a web site.
Skolnick's investigations caused the resignation of two Illinois Supreme Court justices, Roy J. Solfisburg Jr. and Ray Klingbiel, who, as Skolnick reported, had accepted bribes of stock from a defendant in a case on which they ruled. The scandal catapulted John Paul Stevens, special counsel to an investigating commission, to fame as a justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. In 2001, the story became the subject of a book, "Illinois Justice," by Kenneth A. Manaster.
Towards the end of his life, Skolnick served as co-host with Lenny Bloom for a Canadian radio show named "Cloak & Dagger." The show was taken off the airwaves, despite very high market ratings, following a controversial interview with former German Defense Minister Andreas von Bülow, in which Von Bulow claimed that the terrorist September 11, 2001 attacks were an inside job. Cloak & Dagger then became an internet podcast, which subsequently relocated to a German web server due to relentless hacking attacks.
At the end of every radio broadcast, Skolnick would sign off with the following statement: "To Hell with the Queen of England!"
Skolnick's final written works include an 81-part series entitled "The Overthrow of the American Republic," and a 16-part series entitled "Coca-Cola, the CIA, and the Courts." On radio podcast with Lenny Bloom, much commentary was devoted to CIA drug dealing, the "9-11 Truth Movement," and also a belief that the Jesuit Order, through co-optation of the Vatican, controls world events. His material is generally un-copyrighted. Other major collaborators with Skolnick and Bloom include Webster Tarpley, Stew Webb, Tom Heneghan, Eric Jon Phelps, and Ralph Schoenman.
The several subjects detailed above represent only the tip of the iceberg for Skolnick's wide area of expertise. Each article and podcast which Skolnick participated in contained many fascinating details covering a wide range of topics, overlooked by popular culture. He was, in his own words (usually attributed by Skolnick towards his radio guests), "a treasury of wisdom and knowledge." However, a criticism would be that he often made extraordinary claims without citing a source or reference.
Skolnick frequently referred to the mainstream media as "the liars and w-h-o-r-e-s of the oil-soaked, spy-riddled monopoly press." After his death in 2006, Skolnick leaves behind a number of like-minded admirers as well as critics.
[quote="[url=http://www.aim.org/aim-column/nbc%27s-david-gregory-worries-about-legitimacy-of-obama-presidency/]For Accuracy in Media, Cliff Kincaid[/url]"]NBC’s David Gregory Worries about Legitimacy of Obama Presidency
By Cliff Kincaid | February 14, 2011
[size=117]NBC “Meet the Pressâ€
O'Reilly & Rove sicken me
I'm increasingly convinced there is a serious and widespread conspiracy to avoid pursuing our constitutional laws in this country. Tonight I made the mistake of tuning in the O'Reilly Factor to listen to O'Reilly and Carl Rove discuss the Obama birther issue.
I came away disgusted in both men, and in Fox.
O'Reilly and Rove argued heatedly back and forth that the argument Obama wasn't born in America was a distraction supported by the White House, and that anyone who still pursued the topic was daft (my word, not theirs). At no time did either man mention the words 'natural born citizen' nor did they mention the fact that the real issue is about Obama's father who was a British subject, and therefore made Obama ineligible to ever be a 'natural born citizen' and thus prevents him from ever becoming POTUS.
What was further irritating was O'Reilly's bold statement that he had already investigated the issue and was satisfied there was nothing of substance. So, 2/3 of Americans who question Obama's roots have no standing anyplace in the media, with the possible exceptions of Canada Free Press, Pravda, and the Post & Email.
So, I want to know, how long are we going to be faced with a usurper in office simply because the power elite want him to stay there, and refuse to allow anyone to publicly address the constitutional question of his eligibility?
If we could remove Obama by marching on Washington, I would do it.
The crime and corruption in Washington makes me want to puke.
.
When The United States Supreme Court tells Allen Keyes that he has "No Standing" when it comes to Deciding the Legitamacy of Barrack Obama, then Honestly, Who Does?
When a Decorated Soldier asks "Are these Orders Legal?" And goes to Prison for asking. In my humble opinion... We are Living in a Rogue Nation. On Two different occasions, a Federal Judge has Told the Obama Administration that its Drilling Ban and Obamacare are UnConstitutional, and they Continue to Ignore the Ruling with Nothing being done to them.
Tell me WHY, with all the Fake Social Security Numbers, 2.5 Million Dollars in Attorneys Fees to Hide his Records (his past), The Media turning a Blind Eye (even Beck, O'Reilly)... Where are Our Voices? Not in Washington DC thats for sure. You can BET that we are ALL going to get a visit from one of Mr. Obamas NEW IRS Agents (Brown Shirts).
His way of telling us to shut up and do what HE SAYS. Our Future Is?
Citizen Tells Senate Minority Leader Why Obama is not a natural born Citizen
189Share 0diggsdigg
“HE WAS NOT ELIGIBLE TO RUNâ€
Did we already see this?
Otunnu on Luo Tribe Member Being Elected President, Oct. 25, 2008
Harvard Law School Reunions, Oct. 25, 2008
http://www.archive.org/details/OtunnuOn ... Oct.252008
Olara Otunnu (Harvard Law, 1978) relating the remark of Kenyan historian Ali Mazrui on the oddity that a member of Kenya's Luo tribe (Barack Obama, a Kenyan citizen and Luo tribe member from birth) may become president of the United States before a Luo tribe member becomes president of Kenya. "Town Hall Forum: An Examination of Race, Age, Gender & Religion in the 2008 Election," Harvard Law School Reunions, Oct. 25, 2008, 9:15 a.m. (Austin Hall, 1st Floor, West), at 60:17 mark
Listen to the short audio clip.
[quote="kathyet"]Citizen Tells Senate Minority Leader Why Obama is not a natural born Citizen
189Share 0diggsdigg
“HE WAS NOT ELIGIBLE TO RUNâ€
"I'm glad to hear that you don't think there has to be a judge on the court," said [NY Congressman Jose] Serrano, "because I'm not a judge; I've never been a judge."
"And you don't have to be born in the United States," said Thomas, referring to the Constitution, which requires the president to be a natural born citizen but has no such clause for a Supreme Court justice, "so you never have to answer that question."
"Oh really?" asked Serrano. "So you haven't answered the one about whether I can serve as president, but you answer this one?"
"We're evading that one," answered Thomas, referring to questions of presidential eligibility and prompting laughter in the chamber. "We're giving you another option."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7qEH-tKoXA
====================
Gee, who would have seen that one coming?
The whole WND article is found here:
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=264897
Barack the Muslim
Here are a couple of videos that will be interesting for you to watch. Both are concerned with Barack Obama, the Muslim. The first video is an intro to the second 30 minute interview with Avi Lipkin.
Intro video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Jhx_2TqffE
Interview video:
http://tinyurl.com/27bjw92
video at the link..
BORN IN THE USA?
Stunner! Supremes to give eligibility case another look
Challenge to Obama getting 2nd conference before court
Posted: February 17, 2011
2:23 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2011 WorldNetDaily
U.S. President Barack Obama (R) delivers remarks at the Chrysler Indiana Transmission Plant II in Kokomo, Indiana on November 23, 2010. Obama along with Vice President Joe Biden traveled to Kokomo as part of their White House to Main Street tour of areas helped by the Recovery Act and auto industry bailout. UPI/Brian Kersey Photo via Newscom
In a stunning move, the U.S. Supreme Court has scheduled another "conference" on a legal challenge to Barack Obama's eligibility to occupy the Oval Office, but officials there are not answering questions about whether two justices given their jobs by Obama will participate.
The court has confirmed that it has distributed a petition for rehearing in the case brought by attorney John Hemenway on behalf of retired Col. Gregory Hollister and it will be the subject of a conference on March 4.
It was in January that the court denied, without comment, a request for a hearing on the arguments. But the attorney at the time had submitted a motion for Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, who were given their jobs by Obama, to recuse.
Should Obama ultimately be shown to have been ineligible for the office, his actions, including his appointments, at least would be open to challenge and question.
At the time, the Supreme Court acknowledged the "motion for recusal" but it changed it on official docketing pages to a "request." And it reportedly failed to respond to the motion.
Available to order now! The definitive answer on Obama's eligibility, in "Where's The Birth Certificate?" by New York Times best-selling author Dr. Jerome Corsi.
Hemenway then submitted a request for a rehearing, pointing out that the situation appeared to be violating the rules of the U.S. Supreme Court.
(Story continues below)
He also argued that if court members continue to "avoid" the dispute they effectively will "destroy the constitutional rule of law basis of our legal system."
"We have not exaggerated in presenting the question of the constitutional rule of law being at stake in this matter," Hemenway wrote in a petition for rehearing before the high court. "A man has successfully run for the office of president and has done so, it appears, with an awareness that he is not eligible under the constitutional requirement for a person to be president.
Case motion for recusal of Sotomayor and Kagan
"Despite a vigorous campaign that he has conducted to make 'unthinkable' the very idea of raising the issue of his eligibility under the Constitution to 'be' president the issue has not gone away," Hemenway said.
"Instead it has steadily grown in the awareness of the public. Should we be surprised that he shows no respect for the constitutional rule of law? What else would we expect?" he wrote.
The U.S. Supreme Court today did not respond to WND questions today about whether the two justices would participate in the conference, and there was no response to WND's request that questions be forwarded to the justices themselves about their plans.
"The real question here is one of getting members of the judiciary to take seriously the oath that they swore to protect and preserve the Constitution," Hemenway wrote in his petition for rehearing. "To continue to avoid the issue will destroy the constitutional rule of law basis of our legal system when it is under vigorous assault as surely as if the conscious decision were made to cease preserving and protecting our founding charter."
That the justices are "avoiding" the Obama issue already has been confirmed by one member of the court. It was last year when Justice Clarence Thomas appeared before a U.S. House subcommittee that the issue arose.
Docketing information from Supreme Court
Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y., raised the question amid a discussion on racial diversity in the judiciary.
"I'm still waiting for the [court decision] on whether or not a Puerto Rican can run for president of the United States," said Serrano, who was born in the island territory. "That's another issue."
Yet after Serrano questioned him on whether or not the land's highest court would be well-served by a justice who had never been a judge, Thomas not only answered in the affirmative but also hinted that Serrano would be better off seeking a seat in the Supreme Court than a chair in the Oval Office.
"I'm glad to hear that you don't think there has to be a judge on the court," said Serrano, "because I'm not a judge; I've never been a judge."
"And you don't have to be born in the United States," said Thomas, referring to the Constitution, which requires the president to be a natural born citizen but has no such clause for a Supreme Court justice, "so you never have to answer that question."
"Oh really?" asked Serrano. "So you haven't answered the one about whether I can serve as president, but you answer this one?"
"We're evading that one," answered Thomas, referring to questions of presidential eligibility and prompting laughter in the chamber. "We're giving you another option."
The video:
Hemenway's arguments came in the petition for rehearing that followed the decision last month by the court not to hear the arguments. However, he pointed out in the petition for rehearing that the U.S. Supreme Court appears to have broken its own rules in his case by failing to respond to a pending recusal motion.
That circumstance is enough, he argues, for another hearing to be held on the case, and this time without participation by the two justices appointed to the court by Obama.
Laurence Elgin, one of the experts working with the Constitutional Rule of Law Fund and website and monitoring the Hollister case, said the attorneys wanted Kagan and Sotomayor to remain out of the arguments since both were appointed to their lifetime posts by Obama and clearly would have a personal interest in the dispute if Obama was found to be ineligible and his actions, including his appointments, void.
Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee during the fourth day of her confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington on July 16, 2009. UPI/Kevin Dietsch Photo via Newscom
Hemenway submitted such a motion, but since the motion never was given a response, it should be acted on as if it were granted by the court, the petition for rehearing argues.
"Petitioners would request the court to rehear their petition and in doing so to consider the consequences of their motion for recusal of December 30, 2010 being treated as conceded because it was not opposed in a timely fashion under the rules of this court," said the document, submitted to the court.
"Rule 21 (4) of the court requires that any motion shall have an opposition to it filed, if one is to be filed, 'as promptly as possible considering the nature of the relief sought … and, in any event, within 10 days of receipt.' Thus by January 14, 2011, when petitioners' petition was denied without comment, the respondents had failed to respond to the motion," Hemenway wrote.
"Therefore, as a matter of due process of the court, petitioners suggest that the court should have on that day considered the possibility that the motion had been conceded by respondents with an examination of the consequences of that failure," the brief explains.
"If petitioners are entitled to have their motion for recusal as conceded because of lack of a timely opposition, as petitioners contend is the case, then the court was obliged to make sure that the Justices Sotomayor and Kagan did not participate in the decision. Yet there was no statement that they did not participate," the brief states.
The brief further argues that because of the lack of a response or acknowledgment by the court, the court should have considered "the law of nations on matters of citizenship such as the phrase in question here as placed in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, namely, the requirement that a president 'be' a 'natural born citizen.'"
Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan, President Obama's pick to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens, testifies during the second day of her confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington on June 29, 2010. UPI/Kevin Dietsch Photo via Newscom
The argument continued, "Thus, it would seem, with all due respect, that if the court is required to and does treat the petitioners' motion for recusal as conceded the court would be required to consider the intent of the Framers of the Constitution in choosing the Article II phrase 'natural born citizen.'
"That is, of course, assuming that the majority of its members still believe that the intent of the Framers is essential to the constitutional rule of law in this country," the filing said.
In the original petition to the high court, the pleadings noted that if Obama is not constitutionally eligible, it will create a crisis.
"If proven true, those allegations mean that every command by the respondent Obama and indeed every appointment by respondent Obama, including the appointment of members [Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor] of this and every other court, may be only de facto but not de jure [by right of law]," stated the pleading.
"Further, his signature on every law passed while he occupies the Oval Office is not valid if he is not constitutionally eligible to occupy that office de jure," it continued.
"Thus, it is not hyperbole to state that the entire rule of law based on the Constitution is at issue. Moreover, it would indicate that the respondent Obama ran for the office of president knowing that his eligibility was at the very least in question," it continued.
Elgin earlier confirmed that Hemenway, as the attorney of record, got the notice from the court that the certiorari petition was denied without comment. But he said there was nothing from the court on the motion for recusal.
The order on Jan. 18 from the high court simply listed case 10-678, Hollister, Gregory S. v. Soetoro, Barry, et al as "denied" with no explanation.
It appears from the court's documentation that Kagan and Sotomayor participated in the "conference," the meeting at which Supreme Court justices determine which cases they will take. On other cases there are notations that Kagan or Sotomayor did not participate, and the Hollister case is without any such reference.
Although proceedings are not public, it is believed that a case must earn four votes among the nine justices before it is heard.
WND reported when another eligibility case attorney who has brought cases to the high court, Orly Taitz, approached Justice Antonin Scalia about the issue.
"Scalia stated that it would be heard if I can get four people to hear it. He repeated, you need four for the argument. I got a feeling that he was saying that one of these four that call themselves constitutionalists went to the other side," Taitz said.
At that time, the Supreme Court was considered to have a 4-4 conservative-liberal split, with one swing vote on most issues. On the conservative side generally was Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Samuel Alito, Scalia and Thomas. Justice Anthony Kennedy often is the swing vote. The liberal side frequently included Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens.
Stevens and Souter have departed since then and have been replaced by Obama with the like-minded Kagan and Sotomayor. Presumably, should there be only seven justices in the discussion, three votes might be sufficient to move the case forward.
Hollister's case is one of the longest-running among those challenging Obama's eligibility.
Elgin told WND that the case, throughout the district and appellate court levels, never was denied standing, a major hurdle that has torpedoed many of the other eligibility disputes to rise to the level of court opinions.
The petition for rehearing explains that the "certification of live birth" posted online by the Obama campaign in 2008 cannot be cited as proof, since "Sun Yat Sen, the Chinese nationalist leader," was granted "the same type of document that the respondents have claimed on the Internet and from the White House 'proves' that the respondent Obama was born in Hawaii."
It cited as an example of Obama's disconnect from the "rule of law" his administration's "illegal ban on offshore drilling," which was struck down by Judge Martin Feldman.
"They immediately came back and instituted a further illegal ban, showing no respect for the rule of law at all," the petition argues.
Further is the recent judge's ruling in Florida that Obama's health-care law is unconstitutional.
"The respondent Obama and those working for him have made it clear that they intend to ignore the decision and proceed as if they never opposed it vigorously in court and the decision never happened," the argument explains.
The Hollister case made headlines at the district court level because of the ruling from District Judge James Robertson of Washington.
Judge James Robertson
In refusing to hear evidence about whether Obama is eligible, Robertson wrote in his notice dismissing the case, "The issue of the president's citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America's vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama's two-year-campaign for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a court."
Along with the sarcasm, the evidence pertinent to the dispute was ignored.
The fact that the evidence never was reviewed and the judge based a "biased" decision on "a completely extrajudicial factor" -- twittering -- prevented Hollister from having the constitutional rule of law applied, the court file explains.
The motion to recuse explained that federal law requires that judges exclude themselves when circumstances arise that would involve "even the appearance of impartiality."
"It would seem literally to apply to Justice Kagan in any case since she was serving as Solicitor General during the pendency of this and other cases involving the ineligibility question. The U. S. Attorney did make a brief appearance in this case in the appellate document and did appear in many parallel cases," the motion said.
The president is represented by a private law firm in the current case.
"Historical analysis establishes, therefore, that ... respondent Obama, since his father was a Kenyan of British citizenship and not a U. S. citizen, was not 'eligible to the office of president,…' Therefore his appointment of the present Justices Sotomayor and Kagan are not valid appointments under the Constitution and they should not, therefore, be sitting as justices deciding upon our petition if this court itself observes the law it has set out under the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. Otherwise the concept of a rule of law based upon the Constitution, which we contend is at issue in our petition, is being flouted at the very outset of consideration of the petition," the motion explained.
Neither is Hollister a novice on the issue of eligibility, it explains.
"It is a matter of record that Colonel Hollister, while on active duty in the Air Force, in a career from which he honorably retired, inquired into the legitimacy of President Clinton's orders because President Clinton participated, while at Oxford, in communist protest marches in Eastern Europe against the Vietnam War at a time when we were at war with communism in Vietnam, something that would seem to violate the Fourteenth Amendment," the site explains.
While the district judge dismissed the case because it had been "twittered," the appeals court adopted his reasoning but wouldn't allow its opinion affirming the decision to be published, the petition explains.
Hollister's concern rests with the fact that as a retired Air Force officer in the Individual Ready Reserve, it is possible that he could be subject to Obama's orders.
"If Congress called up the Air Force Individual Ready Reserve the respondent Obama would have to give the order … If, as it appears, those orders would not be lawful, Col. Hollister would be bound … to question them and look to the respondent [Vice President Joe] Biden as constitutionally next in succession for lawful orders," the pleading said.
The case doesn't have the "standing" dispute that has brought failure to so many other challenges to Obama's eligibility, the pleading explains, because Robertson "found that it had jurisdiction of the case, and therefore that petitioner Hollister had standing."
John Eidsmoe, an expert on the U.S. Constitution now working with the Foundation on Moral Law, has told WND a demand for verification of Obama's eligibility appears to be legitimate.
Eidsmoe said it's clear that Obama has something in the documentation of his history, including his birth certificate, college records and other documents that "he does not want the public to know."
WND has reported on dozens of legal and other challenges to Obama's eligibility. Some suggest he was not born in Hawaii has he claims; others say his birth location makes no difference because a "natural born citizen" was understood at the time to be a child of two citizen parents, and Obama's father was subject to the British crown when Barack Obama was born.
Read more: Stunner! Supremes to give eligibility case another look http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=264897#ixzz1EKZ8KiXC
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=264897
Kathyet
Am I reading the begining right saying they will hold another conference on the subject or only another conference is requested? So much stuff there yah get kinda lost.
Just want to know as it stands today what is being done and what chances currently are there of even having a conference or hearing?
As far as I can tell the justices try to ignore it and the other side keeps bringing it up,
from the article
A spokeswoman for the court told WND the motion for recusal was received Dec. 30, but the justices wouldn't treat it as an actual motion for the court, just as a "request."
"These types of requests are not treated as motions, but are requests that are forwarded by the clerk's office to the justice or justices to which the request is addressed. The requests are handled by the individual justice or justices.
"If a justice recuses from a case the recusal is noted on the docket typically at the time the court issues an order acting on the case," the spokeswoman said.
However, the document prepared for the Supreme Court clearly stated "Motion for Recusal of Justices Sotomayor and Kagan," and a second time, "Petitioners' Motion to Recuse."
But the court spokeswoman declined to respond to the inquiries about the procedures regarding recusal of justices who have a personal stake in such cases -- what ethical guidelines are used by the court to determine those cases and whether there was a violation of the court rules in the case.
In the original petition to the high court, the pleadings noted that if Obama is not constitutionally eligible, it will create a crisis.
"If proven true, those allegations mean that every command by the respondent Obama and indeed every appointment by respondent Obama, including the appointment of members [Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor] of this and every other court, may be only de facto but not de jure [by right of law]," stated the pleading.
"Further, his signature on every law passed while he occupies the Oval Office is not valid if he is not constitutionally eligible to occupy that office de jure," it continued.
"Thus, it is not hyperbole to state that the entire rule of law based on the Constitution is at issue. Moreover, it would indicate that the respondent Obama ran for the office of president knowing that his eligibility was at the very least in question," it continued.
Elgin earlier confirmed that Hemenway, as the attorney of record, got the notice from the court that the certiorari petition was denied without comment. But he said there was nothing from the court on the motion for recusal.
The order on Jan. 18 from the high court simply listed case 10-678, Hollister, Gregory S. v. Soetoro, Barry, et al as "denied" with no explanation.
It appears from the court's documentation that Kagan and Sotomayor participated in the "conference," the meeting at which Supreme Court justices determine which cases they will take. On other cases there are notations that Kagan or Sotomayor did not participate, and the Hollister case is without any such reference.
Although proceedings are not public, it is believed that a case must earn four votes among the nine justices before it is heard.
WND reported when another eligibility case attorney who has brought cases to the high court, Orly Taitz, approached Justice Antonin Scalia about the issue.
"Scalia stated that it would be heard if I can get four people to hear it. He repeated, you need four for the argument. I got a feeling that he was saying that one of these four that call themselves constitutionalists went to the other side," Taitz said.
At that time, the Supreme Court was considered to have a 4-4 conservative-liberal split, with one swing vote on most issues. On the conservative side generally was Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Samuel Alito, Scalia and Thomas. Justice Anthony Kennedy often is the swing vote. The liberal side frequently included Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens.
Stevens and Souter have departed since then and have been replaced by Obama with the like-minded Kagan and Sotomayor. Presumably, should there be only seven justices in the discussion, three votes might be sufficient to move the case forward.
Hollister's case is one of the longest-running among those challenging Obama's eligibility.
Elgin told WND that the case, throughout the district and appellate court levels, never was denied standing, a major hurdle that has torpedoed many of the other eligibility disputes to rise to the level of court opinions.
The petition for rehearing explains that the "certification of live birth" posted online by the Obama campaign in 2008 cannot be cited as proof, since "Sun Yat Sen, the Chinese nationalist leader," was granted "the same type of document that the respondents have claimed on the Internet and from the White House 'proves' that the respondent Obama was born in Hawaii."
It cited as an example of Obama's disconnect from the "rule of law" his administration's "illegal ban on offshore drilling," which was struck down by Judge Martin Feldman.
"They immediately came back and instituted a further illegal ban, showing no respect for the rule of law at all," the petition argues.
Further is the recent judge's ruling in Florida that Obama's health-care law is unconstitutional.
"The respondent Obama and those working for him have made it clear that they intend to ignore the decision and proceed as if they never opposed it vigorously in court and the decision never happened," the argument explains.
The Hollister case made headlines at the district court level because of the ruling from District Judge James Robertson of Washington.
Judge James Robertson
In refusing to hear evidence about whether Obama is eligible, Robertson wrote in his notice dismissing the case, "The issue of the president's citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America's vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama's two-year-campaign for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a court."
Along with the sarcasm, the evidence pertinent to the dispute was ignored.
The fact that the evidence never was reviewed and the judge based a "biased" decision on "a completely extrajudicial factor" -- twittering -- prevented Hollister from having the constitutional rule of law applied, the court file explains.
The motion to recuse explained that federal law requires that judges exclude themselves when circumstances arise that would involve "even the appearance of impartiality."
"It would seem literally to apply to Justice Kagan in any case since she was serving as Solicitor General during the pendency of this and other cases involving the ineligibility question. The U. S. Attorney did make a brief appearance in this case in the appellate document and did appear in many parallel cases," the motion said.
The president is represented by a private law firm in the current case.
"Historical analysis establishes, therefore, that ... respondent Obama, since his father was a Kenyan of British citizenship and not a U. S. citizen, was not 'eligible to the office of president,…' Therefore his appointment of the present Justices Sotomayor and Kagan are not valid appointments under the Constitution and they should not, therefore, be sitting as justices deciding upon our petition if this court itself observes the law it has set out under the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. Otherwise the concept of a rule of law based upon the Constitution, which we contend is at issue in our petition, is being flouted at the very outset of consideration of the petition," the motion explained.
Neither is Hollister a novice on the issue of eligibility, it explains.
"It is a matter of record that Colonel Hollister, while on active duty in the Air Force, in a career from which he honorably retired, inquired into the legitimacy of President Clinton's orders because President Clinton participated, while at Oxford, in communist protest marches in Eastern Europe against the Vietnam War at a time when we were at war with communism in Vietnam, something that would seem to violate the Fourteenth Amendment," the site explains.
While the district judge dismissed the case because it had been "twittered," the appeals court adopted his reasoning but wouldn't allow its opinion affirming the decision to be published, the petition explains.
Hollister's concern rests with the fact that as a retired Air Force officer in the Individual Ready Reserve, it is possible that he could be subject to Obama's orders.
"If Congress called up the Air Force Individual Ready Reserve the respondent Obama would have to give the order … If, as it appears, those orders would not be lawful, Col. Hollister would be bound … to question them and look to the respondent [Vice President Joe] Biden as constitutionally next in succession for lawful orders," the pleading said.
The case doesn't have the "standing" dispute that has brought failure to so many other challenges to Obama's eligibility, the pleading explains, because Robertson "found that it had jurisdiction of the case, and therefore that petitioner Hollister had standing."
John Eidsmoe, an expert on the U.S. Constitution now working with the Foundation on Moral Law, has told WND a demand for verification of Obama's eligibility appears to be legitimate.
Eidsmoe said it's clear that Obama has something in the documentation of his history, including his birth certificate, college records and other documents that "he does not want the public to know."
WND has reported on dozens of legal and other challenges to Obama's eligibility. Some suggest he was not born in Hawaii has he claims; others say his birth location makes no difference because a "natural born citizen" was understood at the time to be a child of two citizen parents, and Obama's father was subject to the British crown when Barack Obama was born.
http://www.wnd.com/images/misc/123010hollister.jpg
Read more: Supreme Court told: Don't avoid eligibility http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=261393#ixzz1EL3u1wro
Kathyet
patriotupdate.com/3262/supreme-court-schedules-conference-on-obamas-eligibility
Thank you for that good article from WorldNetDaily.
Does anyone expect that Associate Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan would recuse themselves just because they should? If I understand recusal correctly, it is voluntary on the part of the recusing justice. A justice is not required by law to recuse; it is up to his or her own sense of justice, ethics, and honor.
But these two are not just, ethical, or honorable persons, any more than is Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who came to the Supreme Court by way of an ACLU project directorship.
For six years, Sonia Sotomayor was a member of La Raza (The Race), the Hispanic Ku Klux Klan (although its apologists call it an Hispanic version of the NAACP, attempting to hitch illegal aliens to lawful American citizens' struggle for their civil rights).
Good blog MinutemanCDC_SC. Thanks for sharing it.
An Open Letter to America
BARACK OBAMA…PRESIDENT OR PRETENDER? by Robert Quinn (Feb. 20, 2011) — Neil Abercrombie, Dem. Governor of Hawaii and long-time friend of Obama family members, said he would obtain Obama’s original Hawaiian Department of Health Birth Certificate (Certificate of Live Birth) to settle the Presidential issue for good. Two weeks later, he now says that no [...]
BARACK OBAMA…PRESIDENT OR PRETENDER?
by Robert Quinn
Barack Hussein Obama has not released any of his personal records, including an original birth certificate. He also claims a British father, which would seem to have made him a British citizen at birth. How, then, could be qualify as a "natural born Citizen" to be President of the United States?
(Feb. 20, 2011) — Neil Abercrombie, Dem. Governor of Hawaii and long-time friend of Obama family members, said he would obtain Obama’s original Hawaiian Department of Health Birth Certificate (Certificate of Live Birth) to settle the Presidential issue for good. Two weeks later, he now says that no Birth Certificate was found in Hawaii’s records, only a “written notationâ€
Brilliant, and concise.Quote:
Originally Posted by daughter of the king at forums.hannity.com
Attorneys Mario Apuzzo, Leo Donofrio, Orly Taitz, John Hemenway, Philip Berg, Stephen Pidgeon, Gary Kreep, and yes, even "Dr. Cal Lightman" would be proud, daughter of the King.
When did the impostor assert that he was born in Hawaii? He usually hedges: "Others say I was not born in Hawaii."
Very close, but not precisely, Dr. Corsi.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Jerome R. Corsi for WorldNetDaily
6085 K. Hwy. was also the Dunhams' daughter's residence of record until Aug. 19, 1961, when her night classes began at the University of Washington in Seattle..
http://www.wnd.com/images/090818anno...iresidence.JPG
Anna Dunham Obama probably lived with her parents, Stanley and Madelyn Dunham, in the rented 400 sq. ft. trailer "guest house" in the back yard at 6085 Kalaniana'ole Highway. Two blocks off Waikiki Beach on Honolulu's main street, and now assessed at $700,000, the big house would have been a bit pricey for a furniture store manager and a bank loan interviewer, even if it had been available to rent. Although the actual owners did not live at 6085 K Hwy. when they purchased the house in 1958, the Polk directory documents that they did live there by 1963, indicating that they possibly (probably?) lived there in 1961.
Madelyn and/or Stanley Armour Dunham recorded the Dunham family address when they submitted a handwritten registration of a non-hospital birth to their daughter. We have found no record of Anna Obama being in Hawaii between February of 1961 and 1963. But if the registration were dated before Aug. 19th, 1961, Anna conceivably might have submitted it herself... theoretically.
What makes that so improbable is the two additional 2670 mile flights for a new mother and baby. They had already traveled from Mombasa (where the birth took place), to Nairobi, to London with an intermediate stop, to Toronto, to Vancouver with an intermediate stop, across the U.S. border without a passport for the baby (easy in 1961), and to Seattle. Additional flights from Seattle to Honolulu and return, just to register the birth, would have been an unnecessary hardship on the new mother and baby. If Madelyn Dunham had wanted to see her grandson right away, it would have been far more convenient for her to fly to Seattle and back to Honolulu by herself.
The birth registration is the handwritten evidence that Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie was seeking in the archives. If Anna Obama's signature is not on the handwritten registration, making it public would not further the deception: the Honolulu birth myth. Gov. Abercrombie also should have been seeking the resulting official (and final) State of Hawaii birth document (registration, certificate, certification): signed, embossed, and filed, amended in 1967(?) and refiled, amended again in 1971 and refiled, and locked up in the Hawaii Dept. of Health vault... where it was supposed to be.
Birthers, Birth Certificates, Constitutional Crisis, Obama’s eligibility
Not only will Obama eligibility lies be exposed, so will the media who protected him
By Dr. Laurie Roth
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Like most of you, I realize you can’t agree with every TV or radio talk show host on every issue. However, we see the push and necessity to support our own and lift the banner of conservative common sense high, especially with this radical regime in the White House.
As a national radio talk show host therothshow.com , I realize all too much the sound bite theatre, ratings pressure and competition, even jealousy among radio and TV hosts. I am a growing host and have done national radio and TV for years…I understand ego. At the very least hosts want to keep their jobs, grow big and make lots of money during their careers. With all that in mind I find it growingly unforgivable that who I would expect to be leaders in my field, media and entertainment, continue to marginalize, minimize and insult those daring to question Barack Obama’s eligibility.
Not all the big hosts have thrown the ‘questioning’ crowd under the bus including Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Lou Dobbs. I have heard them on various occasions question Obama’s eligibility. Rush even has called Obama an imposter. Yet it is still far from enough pressure and depth.
The self proclaimed leaders on cutting issues Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly, the Holy Grail of No Spin and media courage, apparently can’t find any courage when it comes to honestly taking on and exploring this growing issue of concern by the masses regarding Obama’s eligibility. They have insulted and demeaned so-called ‘birthers.’
This is not just a birther opinion crises, this is a legal and constitutional crises supported and protected by the media! This is also a huge crime against America in my opinion. Should this not be a mainstream issue on ALL news shows until it is resolved?
Bill O’Reilly has said on his show that he has seen the Long form Birth Certificate. That is a lie. It has been locked away and only the ‘Certification of Live Birth’ has been displayed by Obama’s staff and shown to others. That is the document Hawaii offers to foreign born individuals.
Some have said that if Obama had not been born in Hawaii, Hillary Clinton would have found out as much as she wanted the Presidency that bad. Even if Hillary and Bill wanted to find it and expose it she couldn’t have. She may think she is God but she ain’t. Obama has paid big bucks to lock it away well before he was elected so no one could have seen it.
Beck has implied that Birthers are discrediting themselves so why should Obama show the birth certificate? How is digging for the truth to protect our country and constitution ‘discrediting’ ourselves? Other conservative crusaders credited with boldness and honesty on most accounts have also minimized and insulted birthers and the eligibility issue such as Ann Coulter and Andrew Breitbart, whom I interviewed at CPAC this year.
Did the Owners of Fox and the money people behind Fox influence Beck and O’Reilly? Something has to be up since everyone of the conservative headliners has mostly gone the other way on this critical issue. They have done the opposite of displaying honesty, integrity, intelligence and courage on this growing national emergency of an issue.
Recently at CPAC in DC, I interviewed Dr. Jerri Corsi, who has done an in depth investigation into Obama and his eligibility. As I shared in my last article, he said the real story, regardless of where the long form birth certificate is, is that Obama lied. It is a proven fact that Obama was not born in Hawaii. Corsi has checked all records, media and hospitals in existence there and it is a fact that Obama was not born there. His new book called ‘Where is the Birth Certificate’ comes out on the shelves in May but can be pre ordered now.
Dr. Corsi’s book will put much needed heat and momentum to the fire. Will the big boys and mainstream media wake up then? I’m curious how the ‘No Spin Zone’ and other spin machines of conservative news will go when the truth of it all finally is exposed—and it will be. There will be so much spin that Fox and their hosts will look like messy tornadoes twirling down the halls. America, congress and lawyers will have to pick up a very large constitutional mess. It is coming.
As you consider the facts and your position, remember Governor Neil Abercrombie waltzing back and forth, “I found it and have seen it….then ‘I misspoke and haven’t seen it’ while we also have had Tim Adams, a Hawaii Elections Clerk in 2008 weigh in. He signed an affidavit saying there was no birth certificate for Obama in Hawaii in 2008.
Oh well….as the big fancy hosts apparently believe, this is a distraction and no big deal. Yes, they must be right. Who am I but a brain injured, struggling, wanna be Talk Show host. Let me review the pathetic and hallucinogenic fact trail defining my mental illness:
1. Obama has paid nearly 2 million dollars to hide all his records, including his long form birth certificate.
2. Obama’s own step Grandmother and 2 Bishops have signed affidavits that he was born in Mombassa, Kenya. These and others are posted on obamacrimes.com
3.Members of Kenyan parliament and even the former Ambassador to Kenya say he was born there.
4. Award winning, investigative Journalist Dr. Jerry Corsi has gone through all records possible in Hawaii and determined that it is not possible that Obama was born there.
5. Governor of Hawaii Neil Abercrombie has seen the Birth Certificate, then not seen the Birth Certificate….translation….he changed his story and lied.
6. Tim Adams, a Hawaii Elections Clerk in 2008 signed an affidavit stating that there was no birth certificate for Obama in Hawaii in 2008.
7.Though there have been over a dozen law suits against Obama on eligibility grounds and hero, Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin has been Court marshaled and convicted on three counts of disobeying orders. He pleaded guilty on four counts related to disobeying orders. He and his attorney were hoping and expecting discovery to force Obama to show his birth certificate. Lakin was not allowed discovery and exculpatory evidence. That is a crime in itself when most likely Lt. Col. Lakin is correct. Obama is NOT his commander and Chief. Oh, who cares……it is just a brave, decorated Lt. Col and medical Doctor who has faithfully served his country for many years. Let him rot in prison as the real crimes take place at the White House and in our media.
I will not let this go. Invent some more slander and names. I’m getting bored with those used so far.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/33647
Where is the Media Research Center on Obama’s Eligibility?
111Share
“YOUR SILENCE IS DEAFENINGâ€
Illegals MARCH ON AUSTIN! PLEASE TAKE IMMEDIATE ACTION!!!!
http://www.alipac.us/ftopicp-1188666.html#1188666