Omar is my new hero......He is good at his debates. Too bad congress can't be so logical and truthful
Printable View
Omar is my new hero......He is good at his debates. Too bad congress can't be so logical and truthful
Censorship and Disinformation in America
05.05.2012
By Lawrence Sellin http://pravda-team.ru/eng/image/arti...3/4/47034.jpegAP photo
You will not see an article like this appear in any American mainstream media outlet. Barack Hussein Obama is an illegal President.
He is not now nor has he ever been eligible to be a candidate for or hold that office because his father was a British subject at the time of his birth.
Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution requires that all candidates for the Presidency be "natural born citizens." As defined in the binding Supreme Court precedent of Minor v. Happersett (1875) and confirmed in the subsequent ruling of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (189 8 and others, all candidates for the offices of President and Vice President must be second generation Americans, that is, US citizens of citizen parents at the time of birth.
President and Vice President are the only U.S. political offices with that requirement. It was the intent of the American Founding Fathers that the chief executive and the commander-in-chief of the armed forces would not have dual allegiance or loyalty to a foreign power.
There is no ambiguity, although the Democrat and Republican parties and the media are and have been deliberately trying to confuse the American public as to the true meaning of natural born citizenship.
Case in point.
On May 1, 2012, Fox News Channel anchor Bret Baier posted an explanation of the term natural born citizen that was so factually incorrect that it must be considered propaganda. It is well beyond the scope of this or perhaps any single article to document the full extent of the censorship conducted and the amount of disinformation disseminated, which has continued non-stop since the onset of the 2008 election cycle.
Why did that happen?
The cause stemmed from political expediency and cowardice. Since 1975, there have been numerous attempts by both Democrats and Republicans in Congress to redefine or amend the Article II "natural born citizen" clause.
Having failed to change it legally, politicians seized the opportunity to amend the Constitution by a political fait accompli through the unexpected victory of Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Democrat Presidential primary.
Long before the 2008 campaign, however, Obama supporters were already helping the candidate either hide his genuine personal history or create a false one. The censorship and disinformation campaign about Obama's ineligibility had its origins in February 2008 about the time he began to overtake Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Presidential primary.
Anticipating a likely challenge, Obama supporters, instead of reacting defensively, went on the attack through a fabricated controversy, sustained by the media, which questioned the eligibility of Republican Presidential candidate Senator John McCain. The basis of the challenge was that McCain was born in a Panamanian hospital while his U.S. Navy officer father and his U.S. citizen mother were serving at a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone.
The fake controversy was settled in April 2008 through Senate Resolution 511, which, in essence, was a political deal struck between the Democrats and Republicans that would provide validation for McCain and, at least, cover for Obama on the issue of eligibility.
SR 511, a non-binding resolution with an unrecorded vote, had no force of law, but by passing it Congress created the conditions whereby the Constitution could be amended de facto through a back-room political agreement.
Republican involvement in SR 511 and the fear of being branded a "racist" prevented any meaningful vetting of candidate Obama after he secured the Democrat Presidential nomination in June 2008.
Thus began the conspiracy of silence and the disinformation campaign by the political establishment and the media. Given the effort to prevent discussion of Constitutional ineligibility, it should come as no surprise that the politicians and media also protected Obama from investigation of allegations involving a forged birth certificate, a forged Selective Service registration and the use of a Social Security Number not issued to him.
The Democrats and the media don't want to discuss ineligibility and criminality because they want Obama re-elected. The Republicans can't talk about those issues because of their dereliction of duty, their complicity in a cover-up and their unashamed cowardice.
Regardless of who wins the election in November, it is and has been the intention of both political parties and the media to bury forever questions regarding Obama's ineligibility and crimes. The truth would shake the American political system to its core because exposing Obama would also expose the endemic political corruption in Washington, D.C.
It is all about power and the financial rewards it reaps. The politicians and the media have it and they intend to keep it by any means necessary.
Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is a retired colonel with 29 years of service in the US Army Reserve and a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq. Colonel Sellin is the author of "Afghanistan and the Culture of Military Leadership". He receives email lawrence.sellin@gmail.com
Censorship and Disinformation in America - English pravda.ru
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_4F7FHZurD4...tizenship2.jpgFriday, March 23, 2012
From Conception...To Election
"Preventing an individual with plural loyalties, whether by biological, political or geographic origins, which may present lawful or perceptable doubt as to his allegiances thereof, other than one with the fullmost sovereignty of advanced citizenry, which is that of one who remains Natural-born from conception to election, from assuming the great power of this fragile office, was, without tolerance or vulnerability, the exaction of purpose of our fathers to induce the mandate of presidential eligibility upon our blood-ransomed Constitution..." Pen Johannson ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.
INS DOC FOUND: U.S. CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO ONE EAST AFRICAN-BORN CHILD OF U.S. CITIZEN IN 1961!
IMPLICATIVE DISCOVERY: A government document found buried in the online reference section of a Boston Public Library archive bolsters a growing mountain of evidentiary data against Barack Obama’s constitutional eligibility to be president. The document indicates that a consular officer issued a single certificate of statutory citizenship, within the time frame including August 4, 1961, to a child born to a U.S. citizen between July 1st and December 31st, 1961 in the Kenyan region of Africa. The record also reveals that the certificate was the only one issued for this specific type of arrival in the U.S. over a span of more than 18 months, among thousands from other parts of the world.
By Dan Crosby
of THE DAILY PEN
NEW YORK, NY – A recently discovered rare immigration record found by researchers working on behalf of an ongoing investigation into the Constitutional eligibility of Barack Obama to hold the office of the U.S. presidency reveals that an American consular officer issued a single Certificate of Citizenship to only one passenger arriving in the U.S. from the Kenyan region of Africa between July and December of 1961.
The record shows demographic and status classifications for a passenger who was explicitly recorded at the INS Arrival Inspection Station as an individual being born to a U.S. citizen parent arriving from the Kenyan region of Africa between July 1st and December 31st, 1961.
This information and the dates of its documentation are disturbing given the rare nature of the issuance of certificates of citizenship for children who acquire their citizenship by birth to incoming U.S. citizens in this particular region of Africa.
Read about "Acquired Citizenship": CERTIFICATE OF CITIZENSHIP
These dates not only align with the alleged date of Obama’s birth on August 4, 1961, but also with evidence indicating that Ann Dunham departed from Hawaii beginning in February, 1961, shortly after her undocumented marriage to Obama Sr. The table below shows there were a total of 13 children of U.S. citizens who entered the U.S. from Africa's Kenyan region. It also shows there were 11 from the United Kingdom in the same time in comparison, to demonstrate the consistency of this class of arrivals, regardless of the country of embarkation.
These children were classified by the INS upon arrival based on a passport which already named them when they departed from the U.S. prior, or they received requisite documentation, pre-approved by the U.S. before embarkation, which identified them specifically as children of U.S. citizens who were up to 18 years old.http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-myXWj7NptB...s1961-1962.bmp However, a child who enters the U.S. who was not named on a passport prior to the use of that passport to depart the U.S. must undergo another form of identification process upon returning. A child who did not exist when the parent departed the U.S., in the absence of a passport, must be classified as one of three definitions, a non-resident alien, a derived citizen by parentage or marriage, or a child with acquired citizenship by birth or legal adoption by a U.S. citizen. The following table shows the quantity of children who were granted acquired citizenship from Africa.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-jAbhKvMqf1...h1961-1962.bmpAlso supporting this data is the implication of an African trip by the absence of Dunham’s passport information which is known to have existed from the 1960s, but which was said by State Department officials to have been conveniently discarded as a part of an administrative order to make more file storage space in the 1980s.
We know Dunham used a passport at that time on at least one occasion for her departure with Obama Jr. to Indonesia where the two lived with Lolo Soetoro, Dunham’s second husband. If Dunham had filed for a “renewal” of an old passport, rather than for a new passport in the mid 1960’s for the Indonesian trip, which would have been the common practice for the life of a passport, this would have been indicated on the missing application which would have been included with the series of documents released by an FOIA request in early 2010.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-n5XbX8pWCY...A1960-1961.bmp
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-yCZFXskp9g...sportDocs3.bmpThe Immigration and Naturalization Service published its annual Report of the Immigration and Naturalization Service in 1963, for the year of July 1st, 1961 ending on June 30th, 1962. According to information on page 99 of the report the only certificate of acquired citizenry issued based on the grounds of birth to a U.S. citizen abroad was coincidentally also issued in the same time frame during which Barack Obama’s alleged birth date occurred on August 4th, 1961. http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-LapaNXY6jX...PORT_Cover.bmp
http://archive.org/stream/annualreportofim1962unit#page/99/mode/1up
Successive yearly reports add COC recipients to their roster for births in previous years as applicants receive those certificates for the year they were born. Table 48 shows the total COCs issued in that year (larger number on the left for each region under "Total") for those born under past years' columns. The quantity of recipients with births in each year tend to peak in the fourth year after the birth, according to the report.
COCs are more rarely issued in the same year unless the U.S. citizen parent returns to the U.S. more immediately after the birth. Obviously, the sooner U.S. citizen parent(s) return with their children born abroad, the sooner they would receive the COC after the birth. However, very few COCs (about one in 80) are issued to children the same year the report is published because most children born abroad to U.S. parent(s) don't return to the U.S. for three to five years, according to the report data.
COC delivery is also often delayed while the circumstances of the birth abroad are confirmed for older births who might apply for retroactive COC. However, when a newborn or very young child enters the U.S. bearing a foreign birth registration from an official medical facility or institution identifying the citizen parent, a COC is able to be expedited based on the registration form, the parent(s) testimony and inspection of the child by the INS. In those cases, a COC may be delivered in days, not months or years.
According to the INS, Certificates of Citizenship are issued upon arrival in the U.S. to those who have acquired statutory citizenship (not natural-born citizenship) by birth to at least one U.S. citizen parent within the previous year while that parent(s) was temporarily in another country. COC are notifications provided by the American Consulate Service, via the INS, to individuals born to at least one U.S. citizen abroad in order to provide interim citizen alien status while immigration status is processed and secured. COC are not issued to natural-born citizens or children born to non-U.S. citizen parents arriving in the U.S., nor are COC received through the same process as required for naturalized citizenship, according to the INS.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-tNKeiHRi6k...s1961-1962.bmp http://archive.org/stream/annualreportofim1962unit#page/14/mode/1up
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-JjX5v1dfsI...A1961-1962.bmp A COAC is issued to an arriving child from abroad who is:
- born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one parent with “alien” non-citizen status, or
- born in the U.S. to two alien parents who both naturalize after the child’s birth, or
- born abroad to a U.S. citizen who did not live in (or come to) the United States for a period of time prior to the child’s birth, or
- adopted and is permanently residing in the United States and can become a U.S. citizen by action of law on the date on which all of the following requirements have been met:
- The child was lawfully admitted for permanent residence; and
- Either parent was a United States citizen by birth or naturalization; and
- The child was still under 18 years of age; and
- The child was not married; and
- The child was the parent’s legitimate child or was legitimated by the parent before the child’s 16th birthday (Stepchildren or children born out of wedlock who were not legitimated before their 16th birthday do not derive United States citizenship through their parents.); and
- If adopted, the child met the requirements of section 101(b)(1)(E) or (F) and has had a full and final adoption; and
- The child was residing in the United States in the legal custody of the U.S. citizen parent (this includes joint custody).
There is yet other historical documented evidence supporting the plausibility that Ann Dunham possessed a birth registration for Obama Jr. from Kenya. In 2009, divorce decree documents for Dunham and Obama Sr. revealed that a conspicuously missing page from the section of the court proceedings declaring the custody of Obama Jr. is the same page which corresponds to other divorce records where a birth certificate would be required by a judge in order to determine original parentage at birth for a custody ruling based on HRS 571.
As previously reported by Dr. Jerome Corsi of WND and other sources, the void of documented and testimonial evidence accounting for Ann Dunham’s presence in Hawaii between February and early August of 1961 implies that she had reasons to travel to Kenya shortly after her undocumented marriage to Obama’s alleged father in February of 1961. According to the widely accepted but highly suspicious uncorroborated account of events, Dunham would have been at least three months pregnant at the time of the marriage. It was documented that Obama Sr's father, living in Kenya at the time, denounced the marriage leaving the couple with a reconciliatory reason to travel there.
Following the completion of her classes at the University of Hawaii in winter 1961, the only evidence accounting for Dunham’s presence was months after the alleged marriage, in late August 1961. A transcript of registration to attend fall extension classes at the University of Washington, in Seattle, beginning in late August, 1961 was discovered in 2009.
The previous year’s INS report shows that no other Certificates of Citizenry by birth were issued to anyone arriving from the Kenyan region of Africa between July 1st, 1960 and June 30th, 1961. During this time, the INS recorded 282 alien arrivals from Kenya by air, and three U.S. citizens.
The arrival of these Kenyan aliens is corroborated by the African American Students Foundation Report of Activities 1959-1961 which documents the arrival of African students in the U.S. on September 7, 1960 from Nairobi, Kenya via the second sortie of the Airlift America Project, a project initiated in April 1959 by the AASF and Kenyan politician, Tom Mboya, to bring African students from Nairobi to study in the U.S.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-rndWmHJFwm...tember1960.bmp
However, the INS report appears to fail to account for 13 other passengers which were reported as members of the AASF transport from Kenya. The AASF Report states there were 295 passengers aboard the flights, not 282.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-AfvXbgrNAU...F%2BREPORT.bmpOf the 2397 arrivals from Africa who were originally classified by the INS as “Aliens” between July 1, 1961 and June 30, 1962, only one was from Kenya. INS procedures dictate that arrivals under the age of 18 not possessing a U.S. passport are issued “alien” status until the alleged parents of the child are officially issued a Certificate of Citizenry. The Certificate of Citizenry can then be used in conjunction with state birth registration procedures to acquire a birth certificate for the child.
It should noted that the AASF sent more than 800 students to the United States via the Airlift Project from East Africa in the early 1960s. Some of the student are not accounted by the 1961-1962 Immigration report as having departed from Kenya in the third airlift transport in fall of 1961. However, several of these students attended the University of Chicago where it has been widely speculated they had expenses paid for by six separate U.S. families including the family of Tom and Mary Ayers, parents of domestic terrorist and long-time Obama affiliate, Bill Ayers, with whom Obama served on the Annenberg Education Project Fund board for almost 10 years.
Recent testimony from a retired postal worker who delivered mail to the Ayers' Glen Ellyn, Chicago residence collaborates with AASF report accounts and indicates the Ayers may have a longer history of supporting foreign exchange students than initially suspected. Barack Obama II, was likely one of these foreign students supported by the Ayers in the late 1980s which would explain his engagement to serve with Ayers on the Annenberg Fund board, perhaps as appreciation for the Ayers' help.
A COC is also considered a primary form of identification by the State of Hawaii in 1961 to prove a foreign born infant’s residency in the U.S. prompting the issuance of a standard Certificate of Live Birth under Hawaii Revised Statute 338-17 which would then allocate the location of the birth to the mother’s residence.
Corroborating data from passenger arrivals of flights entering the U.S. between July 1st, 1961 and June 30th, 1962 indicates this one individual may have been originally classified as an alien upon arrival prior to application for derivative citizenship. The INS report shows there was only one individual who was originally classified by the INS as an alien arriving by air from Kenya. This individual was possibly inspected by INS officers in Hawaii upon arrival at the INS station located within Honolulu International Airport sometime in early August of 1961.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/--sGHUQ0X53...ionCountry.bmp
Unfortunately, the report does not give data supporting that this individual was accompanied by a U.S. citizen parent. This may be explained by the disparity of time between being classified as an “alien” in the interim until a COAC was granted and the collection of data for this report’s date of publication.
According to the INS report data, a voluntary birth to a U.S. resident in Africa in 1961, away from the quality of care offered at U.S. hospitals was extremely rare with only eight such cases in more than two years. The rarity of this event would leave an easily referenced recording of the birth abroad. Hawaiian law also specifies that documentation used to issue birth certificates by the Hawaiian Health Department includes certificates of citizenship issued by the Immigration and Naturalization Service upon arrival of children born to U.S. citizens abroad.
THE DAILY PEN: INS DOC FOUND: U.S. CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO ONE EAST AFRICAN-BORN CHILD OF U.S. CITIZEN IN 1961!
Resolution 511
No where in this resolution do they have parent as singular ( one parent )
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Senate Proves Obama Is Ineligible2008~~~~~~~~~~~~~definition : The natives, or natural-born citizens, arethose born in the country, of[ parentS] who are citizenS.Congress tried to settle McCains Natural Born status by passing a resolution…. In doing so they, have proven Obama is ineligible to be POTUS. High lighted about 15 times parentS or citizenS[plural ](both parentS must be citizenS of the U.S.)Obama Sr. was not.Obama says “same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.”:
FactCheck.org Clarifies Barack’s Citizenship
“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.
Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”
April 30, 2008 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE S3645
JOHN S. MCCAIN, III CITIZENSHIP
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar
No. 715, S. Res 511.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 511) recognizing that
John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the resolution.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today we are considering a bipartisan resolution to express the common sense of all in this Chamber that Senator MCCAIN is a ‘‘natural born Citizen,’’ as the term is used in the Constitution of the United
States. Last week the Judiciary Committee voted unanimously to report this resolution to the Senate. I urge Senators to come together to pass this bipartisan resolution without delay. Our Constitution contains three requirements
for a person to be eligible to be President—the person must have reached the age of 35; must have resided in America for 14 years; and must be a ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ of the United States. Certainly there is no doubt that Senator MCCAIN is of sufficient years on this Earth and in this country given that he has been serving in Washington for over 25 years. ‘‘However, some have raised the question whether he is a ‘‘natural born citizen’’ because he was born outside of the United States. JOHN SIDNEY MCCAIN, III, was born to American citizenS on an American Naval base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936. His father was serving in the Navy at that time. It is possible that at the time of our Nation’s founding, the Framers of our Constitution could not imagine how pronounced our commitments overseas would become but it would make no sense to limit the careers of children born to military families simply because they were stationed overseas. Similarly, it would not make sense to punish children born to foreign service families or Ambassadors stationed overseas or children born overseas to American missionaries. They are all American citizens at the time of their birth.Numerous legal scholars have looked into the purpose and intent of the ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ requirement. As far as I am aware, no one has discovered any reason to think that the Framers would have wanted to limit the rights of children born to AmericanS or that such a limited view would serve any noble purpose enshrined in our founding document. Based on the understanding of the pertinent sources of constitutional meaning, it is widely believed that if someone is born to American citizenS anywhere in the world they are natural born citizens.
It is interesting to note that another previous Presidential candidate, George Romney, was also born outside of the United States. He was widely understood to be eligible to be President. Senator Barry Goldwater was born in a U.S territory that later became the State of Arizona. Certainly those who voted for these two Republican candidates believed that they were eligible to assume the office of the President. Because he was born to American citizenS, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator MCCAIN is a ‘‘natural born Citizen’’. I recently asked Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, a former Federal judge, if he had any doubts in his mind. He did not. Former Solicitor General Theodore Olson and Harvard Law School Professor Laurence Tribe also analyzed the issue and came to the same conclusion—that Senator MCCAIN is a natural born citizen eligible to serve as President.
Our bipartisan resolution would make it clear that Senator MCCAIN, born in 1936 on an American Naval base to U.S. citizenS, is a ‘‘natural born Citizen. We should act today on a bipartisan basis to erase any doubt that Senator MCCAIN is eligible to run for President because of his citizenship status. I ask unanimous consent that the legal analysis of Theodore Olson and Laurence Tribe be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP,
Washington, DC, April 8, 2008.
Re legal analysis of question whether Senator
John McCain is a natural born citizen eligible
to hold the office of President.
Hon. PATRICK J. LEAHY,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S.
Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
DEAR CHAIRMAN LEAHY: Pursuant to a request received from the staff of your Committee,
I enclose for your and your Committee’s consideration a copy of my and Professor Laurence Tribe’s analysis of the question whether Senator John McCain is a natural-born citizen eligible, under Article II of the Constitution, to hold the office of President of the United States. Professor Tribe and I are in agreement that the circumstances of Senator McCain’s birth to American parent[S], in the Panama Canal Zone make him a natural-born citizen within the meaning of the Constitution.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of further assistance in this matter.
Very truly yours,
THEODORE B. OLSON.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
Washington, DC, April 8, 2008.
Re legal analysis of question whether Senator John McCain is a natural born citizen eligible to hold the office of President.
Hon. ARLEN SPECTER,
Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary,
U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
DEAR SENATOR SPECTER: Pursuant to a request received from Democratic Committee staff, I enclose for your consideration a copy of my and Professor Laurence Tribe’s analysis of the question whether Senator John McCain is a ‘‘natural born citizen’’ eligible, under Article II of the Constitution, to hold the office of President of the United States. Professor Tribe and I are in agreement that the circumstances of Senator McCain’s birth to American parentS in the Panama Canal Zone make him a natural born citizen within the meaning of the Constitution.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of further assistance in this matter.
Very truly yours,
THEODORE B. OLSON.
MARCH 19, 2008.
We have analyzed whether Senator John McCain is eligible for the U.S. Presidency, in light of the requirement under Article II of the U.S. Constitution that only ‘‘natural born Citizen[s] . . . shall be eligible to the Office of President.’’ U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 5. We conclude that Senator McCain is a ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ by virtue of his birth in 1936 to U.S. citizen parentS who were serving their country on a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone. The circumstances of Senator McCain’s birth satisfy the original meaning and intent of the Natural Born Citizen Clause, as confirmed by subsequent legal precedent and historical practice. The Constitution does not define the meaning of ‘‘natural born Citizen.’’ The U.S. Supreme Court gives meaning to terms that are not expressly defined in the Constitution by looking to the context in which those terms are used; to statutes enacted by the First Congress, Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783,
790–91 (1983); and to the common law at the time of the Founding. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 655 (1898). These sources all confirm that the phrase ‘‘natural born’’ includes both birth abroad to parentS who were citizens, and birth within a nation’s territory and allegiance. Thus, regardless of the sovereign status of the Panama Canal Zone at the time of Senator McCain’s birth, he is a ‘‘natural born’’ citizen because he was born to parentSwho were U.S. citizens. Congress has recognized in successive federal statutes since the Nation’s Founding that children born abroad to U.S. citizens are themselves U.S. citizens. 8 U.S.C. § 1401(c); see also Act of May 24, 1934, Pub. L. No. 73–250, § 1, 48 Stat. 797, 797. Indeed, the statute that the First Congress enacted on this subject not only established that such
children are U.S. citizens, but also expressly referred to them as ‘‘natural born citizens.’’
Act of Mar. 26, 1790, ch. 3, § 1, 1 Stat. 103, 104. Senator McCain’s status as a ‘‘natural born’’ citizen by virtue of his birth to U.S. citizen parentS is consistent with British statutes in force when the Constitution was drafted, which undoubtedly informed the Framers’ understanding of the Natural Born Citizen Clause. Those statutes provided, for
example, that children born abroad to parentS who were ‘‘natural-born Subjects’’ were also ‘‘natural-born Subjects . . . to all Intents, Constructions and Purposes whatsoever.’’
British Nationality Act, 1730, 4 Geol. 2, c. 21. The Framers substituted the word
‘‘citizen’’ for ‘‘subject’’ to reflect the shift from monarchy to democracy, but the Supreme Court has recognized that the two terms are otherwise identical. See, e.g., Hennessy v. Richardson Drug Co., 189 U.S. 25, 34– 35 (1903). Thus, the First Congress’s statutory recognition that persons born abroad to U.S. citizens were ‘‘natural born’’ citizens.
fully conformed to British tradition, whereby citizenship conferred by statute based on the circumstances of one’s birth made one natural born.
There is a second and independent basis for concluding that Senator McCain is a ‘‘natural born’’ citizen within the meaning of the Constitution. If the Panama Canal Zone was sovereign U.S. territory at the time of Senator McCain’s birth, then that fact alone would make him a ‘‘natural born’’ citizen under the well-established principle that ‘‘natural born’’ citizenship includes birth within the territory and allegiance of the United States. See, e.g., Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 655–66. The Fourteenth Amendmentexpressly enshrines this connection between birthplace and citizenship in the text of the Constitution. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1(‘‘All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States. * * * ’’) (emphases added). Premising ‘‘natural born’’ citizenship on the character of the territory in which one is born is rooted in the common-law understanding that persons born within the British kingdom and under loyalty to the British Crown—including most of the Framers themselves, who were born in the American colonies—were deemed ‘‘natural born subjects.’’ See, e.g., 1 William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 354 (Legal Classics Library 1983) (1765) (‘‘Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king.* * * ’’). There is substantial legal support for the proposition that the Panama Canal Zone was indeed sovereign U.S. territory when Senator McCain was born there in 1936. The U.S. Supreme Court has explained that, ‘‘[f]rom 1904 to 1979, the United States exercised sovereignty over the Panama Canal and the surrounding10-mile-wide Panama Canal Zone.’’0’Connor v. United States, 479 U.S. 27, 28 (1986).Congress and the executive branch similarly suggested that the Canal Zone was subject to the sovereignty of the United States. See,e.g., The President—Government of the Canal Zone, 26 Op. Att’y Gen. 113, 116 (1907)(recognizing that the 1904 treaty between the United States and Panama ‘‘imposed upon the United States the obligations as well as the powers of a sovereign within the [Canal Zone]’’); Panama Canal Act of 1912, Pub. L. No. 62–337, § 1, 37 Stat. 560, 560 (recognizing that ‘‘the use, occupancy, or control’’ of the Canal Zone had been ‘‘granted to the United States by the treaty between the United States and the Republic of Panama’’). Thus, although Senator McCain was not born within a State, there is a significant body of legal authority indicating that he was nevertheless born within the sovereign territory of the United States.Historical practice confirms that birth on soil that is under the sovereignty of the United States, but not within a State, satisfies the Natural Born Citizen Clause. For example, Vice President Charles Curtis was born in the territory of Kansas on January 5, 1860—one year before Kansas became a State. Because the Twelfth Amendment requires that Vice Presidents possess the same qualifications as Presidents, the service of Vice President Curtis verifies that the phrase ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ includes birth outside of any State but within U.S. territory. Similarly, Senator Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona before its statehood, yet attained the Republican Party’s presidential nomination in 1964.
[ webmasters memo : but he was never elected ]And Senator Barack Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961—not long after its admission to the Union on August 21, 1959. We find it inconceivable that Senator Obama would have been ineligible for the Presidency had he been born two years earlier.
[ webmaster memo:........ but both parents were NOT citizens of the U.S. .... He was born a British subject ( stated by Obama himself ). There is no doubt that Obama has allegiance to Kenya... he put before the Senate a bill to tax Americas 7% so as to give to other countries. Wonder what country he had in mind ?] http://kilosparksitup.blogspot.com/2008/02/more-on-barack-obama-s2433-global.html
“I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that [every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of [ parentS ] not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…[6]“
- Rep. John Bingham, framer of the 14th Amendment
http://grou.ps/zapem/blogs/3787]Senator McCains candidacy for the Presidency is consistent not only with the accepted meaning of ‘‘natural born Citizen,’’ but also with the Framers’ intentions when adopting that language. The Natural Born Citizen Clause was added to the Constitution shortly after John Jay sent a letter to George Washington expressing concern about ‘‘Foreigners’’ attaining the position of Commander in Chief. 3 Max Farrand, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, at 61 (1911). [ webmaster memo:....Obama has allegiance to Kenya...] It goes without saying that the Framers did not intend to exclude a person from the office of the President simply because he or she was born to U.S. citizens serving in the U.S. military outside of the continental United States; Senator McCain is certainly not the hypothetical ‘‘Foreigner’’ who John Jay and George Washington were concerned might usurp the role of Commander in Chief. Therefore, based on the original meaning of the Constitution, the Framers’ intentions, and subsequent legal and historical precedent, Senator McCain’s birth to parentS who were U.S. citizens, serving on a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936, makes him a ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ within the meaning of the Constitution.LAURENCE H. TRIBE .
THEODORE B. OLSON.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to,the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements be printed in the RECORD. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so rdered. The resolution (S. 511) was agreed to. The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution, with its preamble, is as follows:. 511 Whereas the Constitution of the Unitedof the President, a person must be a ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ of the United States;
Whereas the term ‘‘natural born Citizen’’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1,
is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;
Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit
the constitutional rights of children born to AmericanS serving in the military nor to
prevent those children from serving as their country’s President;
Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the
‘‘natural born Citizen’’ clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term ‘‘natural born Citizen’’; Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders; Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; [ webmasters memo : there is a grandfather clause that allowed the framers of the Constitution to run for President, never to be applied after their passing. I assume no NATURAL BORN citizens were old enough at the time to run for president.Let me make another point : What was the need for the Grandfather clause ? Why even have a grandfather clause if this was not their intent.] and Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizenS on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936:
Now, therefore, be itResolved,
That John Sidney McCain, III, is a ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ under Article II,Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.____________________________________________definition : The natives, or natural-born citizens, arethose born in the country, of[ parentS ] who are citizens.“All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well [**18] as of England.”
Circuit Justice Swayne
http://www.thecommentary.net/1861-circuit-justice-swayne-defines-na…“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of [ parentS ] who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers,and succeed to all their rights [ webmaster memo:........Obama amits he was a Brittish subject passed on the him by his father.... He was born a British subject ( stated by Obama himself ). ] The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
“Law of Nations” Book One, Chapter 19, 212
http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm-stated on Barack Obama’s website:
“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.”
http://www.fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificateWAITE, C.J., Opinion of the Court
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES88 U.S. 162
Minor v. HappersettArgued: February 9, 1875 — Decided: March 29, 1875The CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the court.The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parentS who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words “all children” are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as “all persons,” and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.__________________________________________________ ___________________Obamas own words:
FactCheck.org Clarifies Barack’s Citizenship
“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.
Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”
Justice Horace Gray Clearly Indicated Wong Kim Ark Was Not a Natural Born Citizen.a person belongs is by the law of nations closely dependent on descent; it is almost as universal rule that the citizenship of
[Update in red below 10:25AM]
The SCOTUS decision in Wong Kim Ark has caused more confusion regarding the natural born citizen issue than any other case in US history. One particular passage has been fervently relied upon by Obama eligibility supporters in claiming the case establishes children of aliens – born in the US – as natural-born citizens.
I can understand such reliance. The passage below has been confusing for me as well. Yet, I never truly believed SCOTUS was stating that Wong Kim Ark could be President and Commander In Chief. I just couldn’t find the words to thoroughly distinguish the case.
However, it finally became clear today. The words of the passage suddenly re-arranged the focus of the majority’s intent. Here’s the infamous passage:
The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens…Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate…and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…’
It appears at first glance that the passage claims children of aliens born on US soil are themselves natural-born citizens. And that’s certainly the hard line taken by Obama eligibility supporters. But a closer inspection reveals this is not what the court held.
Have another look:
“…and his child… ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…”Justice Gray does a very revealing compare and contrast here:
- he compares two children
- on the one hand, he mentions the US born child of a resident alien
- on the other hand, he mentions the “natural-born” child of a citizen
Do you see the difference?
He clearly states that only one is natural-born: the child of the citizen.
He says that both are citizens. But only the child of the citizen is natural born – for this is what he is comparing the other one to. So the holding indicates Wong Kim Ark was as much a citizen as any other citizen despite not being natural-born.
– The Court does not say that the child of the alien is a natural-born citizen.
Had the court intended to state that both were natural born, they wouldhave said:
“…and his child, if born in the country, is as much a natural-born citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…”
But that’s not what they said.
- By the Wong Kim Ark decision, both children – the alien born and the natural born – are entitled to the same rights and protections as citizens.
- But only one satisfies the requirements to be President: the natural born child.
- This is because natural born citizen status is only required for one purpose: to be President. There’s no other legal attachment to nbc status.
Being eligible to be President is not a right or protection of citizenship. For example, not all natural born citizens can be President. Those who are not 35 years old and/or have not been residents in the US for 14 years – though they may be natural born citizens – are NOT eligible to be President.
Here’s the final holding of the case:
The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question…whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States…becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. (Emphasis added.)
This is the core holding of the case. It states that only one question is presented: whether the child is a citizen. The single question presented is not whether the child is a natural-born citizen.
If Justice Gray and the majority deemed Wong Kim Ark to be a natural-born citizen then that’s what they would have said. But they didn’t. And this in a very detailed and thorough opinion where “natural-born” was used to compare and contrast the children of citizens to the children of aliens.
I still don’t agree with the Court’s analysis of the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” language in the 14th Amendment, but I’ll save that for another post.
My analysis above doesn’t conclusively establish that Obama is not eligible to be President. His case is distinguished from Wong Kim Ark’s in that Obama’s mother was a US citizen. His father was never a US citizen and as such Obama (admits) he was governed by Great Britain at birth.
This presents a unique question of first impression for the Supreme Court. Based upon my review of history and law, I don’t believe Obama is eligible to be President. But it’s certainly not an easy decision either way you look at it. Yet, this is the kind of difficult decision our Supreme Court exists to answer.
I continue to press this issue for fear that it will continue to erode the chain of command. The brave men and women of our military deserve to know for certain that their Commander is Constitutionally eligible to lead them.
SCOTUS ought to revisit Cort Wrotnowski’s case if they truly care about the future of this nation and the health of our republic… which is being torn apart by this issue as we speak.
I personally don’t care who the President is anymore. I’ll never care again. Both McCain and Obama have damaged the office and this nation severely by their willingness to put us through this. It doesn’t matter who the President is. We’ll still be at war. We will still have poverty, hatred, racism, fascism, sarcasm, nukes, etc… the new boss is the same as the old boss. We do get fooled again. Everytime. But if we let this sit and the chain of command erodes… Goodbye Ms. American Pie.
[ webmasters memo : there is a grandfather clause that allowed the framers of the Constitution to run for President, never to be applied after their passing. I assume no NATURAL BORN citizens were old enough at the time to run for president.Let me make another point : What was the need for the Grandfather clause ? Why even have a grandfather clause if this was not their intent.]
the parents determines it— that of the father where the children are lawful, and where they are bastards, that of the mother,
without regard to the place of their birth; and that must necessarily as the correct canon, since nationality is in its essence
dependent on descent. Foundlings must, of course, constitute an exception to this rule; they belong to the State in which they
are found.”
And the same principle is affirmed by Savigny.1 ” Citizenship,” says he, ” indicates birth in a legal marriage where the
father himself has the right of citizenship. ILLegitimate children acquire by origio citizenship in the native place of the mother.”
This rule of international law that the political status of the father is impressed upon the child where legitimate, and that of
the mother where illegitimate, is found in reason and established according to the dictates of sound policy. As stated by Vattel: 2
” By the law of nature alone children follow the condition of their father and enter into all their rights; the place of birth produces
no change in this particular, and can not of itself furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him.”
Generally no nation considers as aliens the children of its citizens or subjects born abroad; but, on the contrary, they are deemed
to be citizens or subjects. Now, should the common-law rule prevail in such country where such children are born, it is evident
that there would arise an immediate conflict between the place of birth and the country of the father, which might lead to very serious
consequences. Inasmuch as the country where such persons were born claims as citizens or subjects persons born abroad whose
fathers were citizens or subjects at the time of such birth, it should, upon principle, reciprocally recognize the right of a foreign nation
to claim as citizen or
1 Savigny on Private International 2 Vattel’s Law of Nations, sect. 215.
Law, sect. 851.
subjects the children born abroad whose fathers at the time of such birth citizens or subjects of such foreign nation.
The common-law rule making every person born within the limits of a nation, or rather within the power and
obedience of the sovereign, a citizen thereof, is manifestly impolitic. The Chinese, for instance, are a people foreign
to us in every respect; they have resided amongst us for upwards of thirty years, and during the whole of that time
have rigidly adhered to the peculiar customs, habits and methods of their forefathers. Although all this time surrounded
by American civilization itn has wholly failed to make any impression upon them; they segregate themselves from the
mass of people and establish a colony according to Oriental ideas in order that they may live in a manner similar to
those in China; the are antagonistic to our civilization; know nothing and refuse to know anything of our institutions
and are utterly incapable of self-government; they do not come here animus manendi, but as soon as the obtain a
competency, either by their labor or otherwise, the return to their native land to enjoy it. Their children born American
soil are Chinese form their very birth in all respects, just as much so as though they had been born and reared in China;
they inherit the same prejudices, the same customs, habits, and methods of their ancestors; in short, they are subject
to the same civilization and adhere to it with as much tenacity as did their forefathers.
Now it is evident that such persons are utterly unfit, wholly incompetent, to exercise the important privileges of an
American citizen, a title which it was aim of out ancestors to make as proud as the king; and yet under the commom-law
rule they would be citizens.
Again, to consider as a citizen a child born here and who only resided here the first five or six years of his life and
whose father was an alien and always remained such is manifestly contrary to the dictates of sound policy. In order to the
naturalization of his father we justly require of five years prior to his admission to citizenship. As remarked by
Chancellor Kent, 1 ” A moderate previous residence becomes material to enable
12 Kent Com, 29.
aliens to acquire the knowledge and habits proper to make good citizens, who can combine the spirit of freedom with a love
of the law. Strangers, on their first arrival, and before they have had time to acquire property and form connections and attach-
ments, are not to be presumed to be acquainted with our political institutions, or to fell pride or zeal in their stability and success.”
We also require a declaration to be made at least two years prior ti his admission to citizenship, that it is his bona fide intention
to become a citizen and to renounce forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty,
and particularly to the prince, potentate, state or sovereignty of which he may be at the time a citizen or subject. He must also
have resided within the territory, where the court admitting him is held, for the period of one year prior to his admission, when
he must take oath that he will support the constitution, and that he absolutely renounces all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign
prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, and particularly by name to the prince, potentate, state or sorereignty to which he ownes
allegiance. It must also appear to the court admitting him that he is a man of good moral character,attached to the principles
of the constitution and disposed to the good order and happiness of the same; and yet in respect to his child, who is just as much
an alien as his father, we would, under the common-law, consider him a citizen without naturalization.”
If the common-law rule were to prevail in this country the policy adopted by Congress in respect to the admission of
foreigners to citizenship would be defeated; Congress has seen fit to confine the privilege of becoming a American citizen to the
Caucasains and African races; yet under the common-law rule the children of all persons, irrespective of race, who were born
within the United States would be citizens.
The evils which result from an indiscriminate admission of foreigners into the body politic are well exemplified by the action
of Caracalla, who ” for the purpose of a more extened taxation leveled all distinctions and communicated the freedom of the
city to the whole Roman world.” As a consequence, the pride of country and the observance of honor which characterized
the Roman ctitzen became extinguished and was no longer felt.
We will revert to the case of Lynch v. Clarke. The vice-chancellor, in commenting upon the rule as stated by Mr. Dana. 1 that if an Amercian
citizen goes to England and marries a woman who is an alien and has issue born in England, that that issue is not an alein, but a citizen
of the United States, abd that, upon the same principle, if an English subject, comes into the United States and marries a woman is an
Amercican, and has a child by her, born here, it can not inherit here, because the child folloes the allegiance of its father, says:
” This is manifestly a non-sequitur, because, in the first case put, the child, if born in England og an American father, unquestionably owes
allegiance in England, . is a subject of that country, and may inherit there. Yet he is, as the author says, a citizen of the United States, also.
( An embarrassing position to be in. ) And by the same rule, the child born here, of the English father, is a citizen, and may inherit as in England.”
The vice-chancellar is thus compelled to admit the absurd, untenable, and now exploded, doctirne of double allegiance.2
The vice-chancellar was laboring under a misapprehension when he stated that , in order to avert an imaginary evil which he contends the
rule of international law produces, to wit, the perpetuation of a “race of aliens,” the doctrine of elestion was resorted to; that is, that the child,
upon arriving at majority, would have a right to elect as his country either the place of his birth, or the country of his father. This doctrine has
never had a place in international law; but has prevailed, if it does not now prevail, in those countries where the common-law
rule, or a rule similar to it, existed; thus, ” England and Portugal the child of an alien, born therein, is English or Portuguese, but he may
elect ti recur to his nationality of parentage,” 3
14 dana’s abridgment, 701, ch. 131, 2 See Ludlum v. Ludlum, 81 Barb.
art. 2, sect. 8. 417; Rev. Stats. U. S. , sect. 1999
3 Hall on International Law, sect. 08.
Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, so far as it relates to this question, and which is but declaratory
of the principles of international law, is as follows : —— “
All persons born, or naturalized, in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
The phrase in the above section ” subject to the jurisdiction thereof” does not mean territorial jurisdiction, as has been held in some
cases, 1 but means national jurisdiction; that is the jurisdiction which a nation possesses ove those who are its citizens or subjects as such.
The phrase as used in the consitution was intended to have a negative opertation; that this is true, and that territorial jurisdiction was not
meant, is evident from section 1992,2 which is a part of section 1, of what is known as the ” Civil Rights Bill,” and which was enacted by the
same Congress which framed and proposed the Fourteenth Amendment to the constitution; that section is as follows
” All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign powers, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be
citizens of the United States,” As before stated, generally every nation claims as a citizen or subject the child born abroad whose
father was at the time of such birth a citizen or subject of the country making such claim; and this is supposted by the principle of
international law before referred to. Now, it is obvious that such child would be subject to a foreign power, to wit, the
country of his father, which of course would exclude him from being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
In conclusion in the Slaughter House Cases. 8 in reference to the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment
before referred to, and which is decisive of the question ” the phrase ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ was intended to exclude
from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”
1 McKay v. Campbell, 2 Sawyer, 129; 2 Rev. Stat. U.S.
Spencer v. Board, 1 McArthur, 177 3 16 Wall. 78.
Birth,therefore,does not ipso facto confer citizenship, and is essentail in order that a person be a native or natural born citizen
of the United States, that his father be at the time of the birth of such person a citizen thereof, or in case he be illegitimate,
that his mother be a citizen thereof at the time of such birth.
George D. Collins
Senate Proves Obama Is Ineligible …in Resolution 511 « Texas My Texas
Thursday, May 31, 2012
Attorney Larry Klayman: Florida Judge Sets June Court Hearing For Obama Ballot Challenge
Obama Release Your Records on 1:14 PM
FLORIDA COURT SETS HEARING ON
OBAMA BALLOT CHALLENGE FOR JUNE 18, 2012
Judge Terry Lewis States "Natural Born Citizen" Definition Will Be Decided
Via Email from Sam Sewell
May 31, 2012, Tallahassee, FL - Activist attorney Larry Klayman announced today that Judge Terry Lewis of Leon County, FL has set a hearing on June 18th, 2012 at 9:00am to hear arguments from both sides about whether the eligibility of President Barack Hussein Obama can be determined in open court. Judge Lewis made crucial rulings in the famous Bush v. Gore case in 2000.
Florida's election statutes provide broad protections for voters to ensure that the integrity of the election system is beyond reproach. One of such laws allows voters to challenge the nomination of a candidate who is not eligible for the office he is seeking. Plaintiff Michael Voeltz, a registered the Democrat, challenged the eligibility of President Obama because he was not born to two citizen parents and thus not a "natural born citizen" as required by Article II the U.S. Constitution.
During the hearing over discovery issues, which Mr. Klayman wants to take the week of June 18, Judge Lewis noted that Mr. Klayman's brief cited legal authority that a president, to be eligible, must have two (2) U.S. citizen parents, but President Obama and the other defendants cited no authority to the contrary. Mr. Klayman had cited the U.S. Supreme Court case of Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875). Judge Lewis ordered further briefing on this issue prior to the hearing.
Klayman stressed that the eligibility is very important particularly with this president, Barack Hussein Obama. He added: "The framers were not stupid. They understood that a president with divided loyalties could present a security and other risks for our nation. Obama's Muslim heritage, which emanates from his Kenyan father (who had to be deported from the U.S.), frankly explains why he frequently sides with and takes actions to further the interests of Muslim nations against the United States; specifically his refusal to take forceful action against the Islamic Republic of Iran and its leaders over nuclear armament and human rights violations and atrocities."
In a CNN interview yesterday Donald Trump stated "Obama hates this subject" meaning the eligibility issue. This is because he appears not to be a legitimate American president, but instead an imposter who has fooled many. Unfortunately, the American people are the victims. It's time that Obama, despite his protestations in proving his eligibly, either put up or shut up by coming forward with real proof, not doctored, computer-generated "proof" that he is eligible. The courts should finally require this real proof as to whether he is eligible for office.
The case is entitled Voeltz v. Obama, et. al. (No. 2012 CA 467) and is being heard in the Circuit Court Of The Second Judicial Circuit In And For Leon County, Florida. To request an interview please contact Adrienne Mazzone at (561) 750-9800.
WATCH THE COMPLETE SHERIFF JOE PRESS CONFERENCE ABOUT OBAMA'S FORGED IDENTITY DOCUMENTS HERE: Sheriff Joe Press Conference Live-Stream | Article II Super PAC
SHERIFF JOE TEA-PARTY PRESENTATION VIDEO HERE: Lord Monckton - Sheriff Joe Video | Article II Super PAC
-ARTICLE II ELIGIBILITY FACTS HERE: Article II Eligibility Facts | Article II Super PAChttp://www.scribd.com/doc/85065212/N...Mar-2012-pg-15
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogs...ida-judge.html
I would like to believe that this judge will show some backbone but we have seen how judges succumb to intimidation and threats from Soetoro's hired thugs. Look for this hearing to be dropped suddenly before the court date. Remember, you heard it here.Quote:
Originally Posted by AirborneSapper7
Very good video Airborne. Proof that even the ignorant among us can ascertain the truth when it's spelled out clearly!
Hawaii Senior Elections Clerk: 'Obama NOT Born in Hawaii'
5/31/12
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=9-QxEHcLD3o#!
In his interview with Wolf Blitzer, Donald Trump fumbled on the part where he was asked to name someone in a position of authority in Hawaii that questioned Obama's birth.
Well, we have an answer for him. Timothy Lee Adams, a Hawaii Senior Elections Clerk that does not believe Obama was born in Hawaii.
Adams emphatically states in his Masters Thesis: “. . .in my professional opinion, Barack Obama was NOT (emphasis added) born in the United States, and there is no Hawaii long-form birth certificate.” (Pg. 30, 31)Here is a link to his Thesis' abstract.
Contrast this man’s statement, a man who was vetted for military, civil, and academic service, with the Verification of Birth certified statement of Alvin T. Onaka, State Registrar, signed and issued to Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett on May 22, 2012. Onaka’s document says: “Pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes 338-14.3, I verify the following: A birth certificate is on file with the Department of Health indicating that Barack Hussein Obama, II was born in Honolulu, Hawaii.” Now Onaka’s 12 point official Department of Health document bearing the seal of the State of Hawaii, also says, pt. 7, “Birthplace of Father: Kenya, East Africa,” providing official authentication and documentation that the sitting President of the United States does not carry the Natural Born Citizenship status as required by Article II, Sect. 1, clause 5, of our U.S. Constitution, the higher standard required to hold the office of President!
Hawaii Senior Elections Clerk: 'Obama NOT Born in Hawaii'
Voeltz v. Obama: Obama, Define Natural Born Citizen!
6/4/12
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QK6_bfP34mw#!
Judge Terry Lewis of Leon County, Florida has agreed to hear a case on Obama's eligibility.
- When: June 18, 2012, 9AM
- Where: Leon County, FL
- Jurisdiction: Circuit Court Of The Second Judicial Circuit
This not about his birth but rather about what the definition of a "natural born citizen" is.
There are some doubts.
Nobody denies that you are a citizen if you are born on US soil. The question is whether there are special qualifiers that must be true to make someone "natural born", i.e.
- both parents born on US soil OR
- both parents being US citizens irregardless of their birthplace OR
- only one parent born on US soil or US citizen
- none of the above.
If #4 is true then the anchor baby of illegal immigrants would also be eligible. Would that have been okay with the founders?
The lawyer in the case is Larry Klayman and here is what he said in a press release:
Klayman stressed that the eligibility is very important particularly with this president, Barack Hussein Obama. He added: "The framers were not stupid. They understood that a president with divided loyalties could present a security and other risks for our nation. Obama's Muslim heritage, which emanates from his Kenyan father (who had to be deported from the U.S.), frankly explains why he sides frequently with and takes actions to further the interests of Muslim nations against the United States; specifically his refusal to take forceful action against the Islamic Republic of Iran and its leaders over nuclear armament and human rights violations and atrocities."
Klayman's work is supported by ConstitutionActionFund.org, a non-profit raising money for the legal challenge.
Voeltz v. Obama: Obama, Define Natural Born Citizen!
That's forgivable, as are The Choom Gang of 33 or so years ago, and his 20 years of auditing under Jeremiah Wright's instruction on Marxist Black Liberation Theology. Admission to Harvard Law School through association with Percy Sutton and Khalid Abdullah Tariq al-Mansour, a.k.a. Donald Warden, mentor at Berkeley to young Black Panthers Huey Newton and Bobby Seale, disciples of Malcolm X... not so good.Quote:
Originally Posted by kathyet
But the three facts that will bust his case and remove him from the Presidency are:
- his birth in Coast Province General Hospital in Mombasa, Kenya, to
- his father of record, Barrack Hussain Obama, Sr., who was a Kenyan British Protected Citizen and never a U.S. citizen, and
- his mother, Anna Dunham Obama, who was 117 days shy of the "physically present in the United States... not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years," which the INA of 1952, as worded and in effect in 1961, required of her in order to confer her U.S. citizenship to her foreign-born child of an alien.
Other storms he may weather without losing the ship, but those three facts will sink Her Majesty's Ship Obamapop.
The U.S. Customs and Immigration Service has purged its web pages which document Section 301(a)(7) INA 1952 as it was in effect in 1961, which therefore apply to Barack Obama II, including the section that reads "ten years residence in the U.S. five after attaining the age of fourteen," concerning a U.S. citizen, an alien, and their foreign-born offspring.
http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=2b289cf41dd6b70a61a078a9fbfbc 379Quote:
http://www.uscis.gov/apology_files/logo.jpg
404 - Requested Page Not Found on Site
The page you requested is not on our site.
Please look for related information on the USCIS Home Page.
Sorry for any inconvenience.
Anderson v Holder 4 27-10 citz case later overruled 3-12-12
However, the purged information is still available in the U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) Volume 7 - Consular Affairs.
N.B. the phrase, "still is applicable to persons born during that period."
The above information is also quoted in the case of Anderson v Holder, No. 07-74042 (9th Cir. March 12, 2012), at Section 7.Quote:
7 FAM 1133.2-2 Original Provisions and Amendments to Section 301
(CT:CON-317; 12-08-2009)
a. Section 301 as Effective on December 24, 1952: When enacted in 1952, section 301 required a U.S. citizen married to 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, and still is applicable to persons born during that period. As originally enacted, section 301(a)(7) stated:
Section 301. (a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(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: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States by such citizen parent may be included in computing the physical presence requirements of this paragraph.
You would think so but it HASN'T worked yet!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC
Did Barack Obama Intentionally Misidentify Former Boss to Hide Affiliation with Saul Alinsky?
posted on June 6, 2012 by da Tagliare
Jerry KellmanSo many things that come from Barack Obama are fiction that it’s hard to know when it’s real or when he’s lying again. Case in point is his birth and background. According to investigative reports, his birth certificate and Selective Service Card are both forgeries. The only campaign example he can come up with to demonstrate his policies is a fictional girl named Julia. The job creation figures in his campaign commercials are also fictional and in no way represent the real world. The list of Obama fictions goes and on, but I would like to talk about one that has recently come to light.
In his supposed autobiography, Dreams From My Father, Obama talks about his time in Chicago when he became a community organizer in the 1980s. In his book, Obama refers to his boss as Marty Kaufman. However, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd identified Obama’s boss as Jerry Kellman.
Kellman was responsible for hiring a young Barack Obama to work for the Developing Communities Project (DCP) in Chicago. At the time, Kellman was the chief of DCP and hired Obama to be the director and lead organizer for the organization.
So one would wonder why Obama referred to Jerry Kellman as Marty Kaufman in his book?
Perhaps it has to do with the fact that Kellman was trained or schooled by Saul Alinsky. Those of you that are nor familiar with Alinsky, he is reported to be a community organizer and author of Rules for Radicals. Although Alinsky never officially linked himself with any political party or ideology, many of his views were socialistic in nature.
It seems that Obama was a perfect fit for Kellman and his Alinsky training. Quoting from David Maraniss’s book, Barack Obama: The Story, Dowd reported Another Alinskyite emerges from Obama’s past
that Kellman described a young Barack Obama as,
“He was not unwilling to take risks, but was just this strange combination of someone who would have to weigh everything to death and then take a dramatic risk at the end. He was reluctant to do confrontation, to push the other side because it might blow up – and it might. But one thing Alinsky did understand was that within reason, once something blows up, to a certain degree it doesn’t hurt, it helps.”
With the influence of Alinsky, Obama also had opportunity to deal with terrorist Bill Ayers while working at DCP. Bill Ayers’ father, Thomas Ayers had founded Chicago United and Alliance for Better Chicago Schools (ABC). Ayers senior brought Obama on board with ABC since he was the DCP organizer at the time.
It makes me wonder about Obama and his thinking when he tries to hide some of his past links to radicals such as Alinsky and Ayers and then turn around award the prestigious Medal of Freedom to a well-known socialist. His actions are inconsistent and devious, both signs of a person that cannot be trusted with anything important, especially the United States of America.
Read more: Did Barack Obama Intentionally Misidentify Former Boss to Hide Affiliation with Saul Alinsky? - Godfather Politics
Plane as the nose on your face and yet!!!
In Indonesia, yes, his name was changed to Barry Soetoro [Soebarkah] AS A MINOR, and he became an Indonesian citizen AS A MINOR, which required renouncing U.S. citizenship AS A MINOR, none of which affected his name and citizenship in the U.S. after he became an adult, unless perhaps on the college admission forms. However, unless Indonesia notified the U.S. State Dept., and it appears that Indonesia did not, nothing changed in the U.S. at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by anitamanninen1 at GodfatherPolitics
It also appears that he used whichever name was most convenient at the moment: Barack Obama II, Barry Soetoro, Barry Obama, Steve Dunham (born to Anna Dunham in Mombasa, Kenya, then and there denied and rejected by the Obama family as not being one of theirs), Bâri M. Shabazz (born to Stanley Ann by Malcolm X) . . .
So no one in the Hawaii DOH was any the wiser when he returned to Hawaii in 1971 and was reclaimed or acknowledged by Barrack Hussain Obama, Snr., who immediately rendered him to Stanley Armour and Madelyn Dunham. The Dunhams should then have adopted him officially, which would have hidden permanently any genuine and original COLB and Certificate of Live Birth resembling the corresponding counterfeit documents. But Hawaii could still be holding forth the purported "original birth documents" if the Dunhams never adopted young Barack. To not adopt him would seem quite strange, because he lived with them in Honolulu from 1971 until he left for Occidental College in 1979. Also, in 1971, his mother returned to Indonesia without Barack/Barry/Bâri/Steve for a year before starting her Master's degree at the Univ. of Hawaii in Sept., 1972.
Did Barack Obama Intentionally Misidentify Former Boss to Hide Affiliation with Saul Alinsky? - Godfather Politics
Atty. Orly Taitz has been smacked down by the California GOP in her bid for Dianne Feinstein's U.S. Senate seat.
The earliest polls showed Dr. Orly Taitz at 9%, and the CA GOP anointed, Elizabeth Emken, at 1%.
Polls the day before the election showed Atty. Orly Taitz at 11% and Elizabeth Emken at 9%.
Partial election results for June 6th show Sen. Dianne Feinstein at 49.3%, Elizabeth Emken at 12.5%, and Atty. Orly Taitz at 3.1%.
I am too cynical about elections and votes and ballots to add any analysis to those observations.
received by e-mail
HOW NO ONE GETS A REASSIGNED SS NUMBER
An intensive investigation has revealed the identity of the man whose Social Security number (SSN) is being used by President Obama:
Jean Paul Ludwig, who was born in France in 1890, immigrated to the United States in 1924, and was assigned SSN 042-68-4425 (Obama's current SSN) on or about March 1977.
Ludwig lived most of his adult life in Connecticut . Because of that, his SSN begins with the digits 042, which are among only a select few reserved for Connecticut residents.
Obama never lived or worked in that state! Therefore, there is no reason on earth for his SSN to start with the digits 042. None whatsoever!
Now comes the best part! Ludwig spent the final months of his life in Hawaii where he died.
Conveniently, Obama's grandmother, Madelyn Payne Dunham, worked part-time in the Probate Office in the Honolulu Hawaii Courthouse, and therefore had access to the SSNs of deceased individuals.
The Social Security Administration was never informed of Ludwig's death, and because he never received Social Security benefits there were no benefits to stop and therefore, no questions were ever raised.
The suspicion, of course, is that Dunham, knowing her grandson was not a U.S. Citizen, either because he was born in Kenya or became a citizen of Indonesia upon his adoption by Lolo Soetoro simply scoured the probate records until she found someone who died who was not receiving Social Security benefits, and selected Mr. Ludwig's Connecticut SSN for Obama.
Just wait until Trump gets past the birth certificate and onto the issue of Barry O's use of a stolen SSN. You will see leftist heads exploding, because they will have no way of defending Obama.
Although many Americans do not understand the meaning of the term "natural born" there are few who do not understand that if you are using someone else's SSN it is a clear indication of fraud.
Let's all get this information out to everybody on our mailing lists. If the voters of this great nation can succeed in bringing this lying, deceitful, cheating, corrupt, impostor to justice it will be the biggest and best news in decades for our country and the world.
************************************************** **************************************************
Very Interesting Bit of Detective Work -
1. Back in 1961 people of color were called 'Negroes.' So how can the Obama 'birth certificate' state he is African-American when the term wasn't even used at that time?
2. The birth certificate that the White House released lists Obama's Birth as August 4, 1961. It also lists Barack Hussein Obama as his father. No big deal, right? At the time of Obama's birth, it also shows that his father is aged 25 years old, and that Obama'sfather was born in " Kenya , East Africa ". This wouldn't seem like anything of concern, except the fact that Kenya did not even exist until 1963, two whole years after Obama's birth, and 27years after his father's birth. How could Obama's father have beenborn in a country that did not yet exist? Up and until Kenya was formed in 1963, it was known as the " British East Africa Protectorate."
3. On the birth certificate released by the White House, the listedplace of birth is "Kapi'olani Maternity Gynecological Hospital ."This cannot be, because the hospital(s) in question in 1961 were called "KauiKeolani Children's Hospital" and "Kapi'olani Maternity Home", respectively. The name did not change toKapi'olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital until 1978,when these two hospitals merged. How can this particular name of the hospital be on a birth certificate dated 1961 if this name had not yet been applied to it until 1978?
Resources:
Kapiolani Women and Children | About Us
Post-colonial history (from Wikipedia)
History of Kenya - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Kenya - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Why hasn't this been discussed in the major media?????
Golly, do you think the major media might be in on the con?Quote:
Originally Posted by AirborneSapper7
As for using a dead man's Social Security No., how does Mr. Obama expect to draw Social Security retirement benefits from his work at a Baskin-Robbins in Honolulu, Business International Corp. in New York City, ACORN and affiliates in Chicago, and the Univ. of Chicago?
See Hawaii‘s Official Form Verifying They Have Obama’s Birth Certificate
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 6:06pm by http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/u....thumbnail.jpg Mytheos Holt
Comments (58)
Well, that’s one bit of suspicion brought low. KYFI has reproduced Hawaii’s “Verification of birth certificate” form in full on their website, and we are able to bring you the following image of the much-dramatized document.
(Related: Hawaii: We‘ve Officially Verified Obama’s Birth Certificate for AZ Sec. of State)
http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/u...rification.png
Alvon T. Onaka is listed as the State Registrar for Hawaii. The date issued is May 22, 2012.
Hawaii‘s Form Verifying the Existence of Barack Obama’s Birth Certificate Now Viewable Online | TheBlaze.com
No doubt the Hawaii Dept. of Health does have something documenting Barack Obama II's birth occurring somewhere in the world outside a Hawaii hospital. That was issued on Aug. 8, 1961, generated on the basis of an application submitted on Aug. 7, 1961, probably by his grandmother Madelyn Dunham in the absence of Anna Dunham Obama and her newborn son.
That original "something" has never been released to the public, although the crude forgery released at whitehouse.gov on April 27, 2011, may well have been computer-fabricated from pieces of it and information on it.
[Pardon me... To the best of my knowledge and deduction, and I can't imagine any other way,] the original application fraudulently claimed the birth took place in Honolulu, Hawaii. It also included other erroneous information: notably, Obama Sr.'s birthplace and birth year. The forged LFBC and the forgery of a COLB (abstract) stamped "Jun 6 2007", published by Factcheck.org on June 12, 2008, are merely Photoshopped representations of some or all of the fraudulent information on the original application.
TeaParty.org is offering to make up to 1 million calls exposing Mr. Obama as a fraud, for 23¢ a call.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeaParty.org
I don't fault the Tea Party for being late to the party, or for financial opportunism, or for the "15 Non-negotiable Core Beliefs" not including the U.S. Constitution with all its articles and sections, or for failing to mention Mr. Obama's Kenyan British Protected Citizen and never a U.S. citizen father, or for leaving out the central Constitutional requirement that no person except a "natural born Citizen" is eligible for the Office of President, or for failing to explain that:
a "natural born Citizen" isone born in the country
of parents who were citizens. *
If the Tea Party makes known that Mr. Obama is ineligible to be the President and why, that is enough.
The Tea Party message doesn't mention that, either? Maybe the Tea Party will accept correction. Unfortunately for Tea, <contact@teaparty.org> user is over quota.
Quote:
* The U.S. Supreme Court interpretation is from Minor v. Happersett (1875) 88 US 167 (p. 167), repeated verbatim in Wong Kim Ark (1898 ) 169 US 655, 679-680, 708 ff., and stated similarly in The Venus (1814) and Shanks v. DuPont (1830).
Relating a personal experience in attempting to educate a liberal on Obama's ineligibility to hold the office of POTUS. It has been very educational, if not a numbingly frustrating journey to say the least. The most profound revelation was of the absolute unwillingness of this individual to accept ANY evidence that Obama is indeed a usurper. The evidence presented was met with derision at every turn and the common answer was "all birthers are clowns and are wasting their time", or "there are no facts to prove that Obama is ineligible, only innuendo". "Arpaio is a clown and an criminal and should be thrown in jail, etc". Here is an exerpt from a recent email from this person...
"I am no longer interested in studying the birther issue. I did so at your request, and quickly determined that there is nothing to it. I recognize that you have a different opinion -- but that's all it is -- an opinion -- and it flies in the way of what is rational. I pity your dedication to this -- and even if you are right -- which will never be proven -- it will come to nothing. Your reliance on Arpaio makes me feel sorry for you. He's a crackpot and your defense of him calls into question your own common sense."
Does this sound familiar? The only part I tend to believe is his comment "...and even if you are right -- which will never be proven -- it will come to nothing."
Regardless, we all know well what we are up against. Alinsky tactics at their best.
I agree, the Tea Party is walking in a mine field on this topic. They need to ensure that their means to an end is intelligently thought through.
Obama fraud 'biggest potential crime' in U.S. history
Citizenry urged not to abandon 'irradiated' eligibility issue
Published: 1 hour ago
http://www.wnd.com/files/2012/04/120...ma-340x170.jpg
An award-winning journalist and author is describing the question over Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president the “biggest potential crime in all of American history.”
The comments come from Diana West, a columnist known for her boldness and penchant for eliciting dropped jaws. Her writings appear on Fridays on WND’s commentary page.
She was being interviewed by Frank Gaffney, founder of the Center for Security Policy, on his Secure Freedom Radio program recently.
According to the show’s promotion, “Despite the results of Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Cold Case Unit, which found that both Obama’s birth certificate and Selective Service Registration card had been forged, Obama’s behavior in the ’08 elections and the very words of the Constitution itself, the government has not allowed for a thorough and fair investigation into the issue of Obama’s eligibility.”
West’s reaction is that Americans should be questioning exactly what is going on.
The nation is “looking at a great unsolved mystery, the greatest potential crime of all of American history,” she told Gaffney. “What we’re looking at is a president of the United States whose documentation has not been presented, vetted, corroborated,” she said.
Gaffney noted that the subject has become “irradiated.”
The issue has been raised in dozens of lawsuits and other legal challenges to Obama’s occupancy of the Oval Office, and his pursuit of a second term in office. Yet the courts and media and combined to make sure “this is a subject that does make it into America’s living rooms and parlors,” West said.
“It’s not considered polite conversation.
But according to documentation in some of the legal challenges that have been filed, the potential danger simply is unquantifiable. The questions that would arise should Obama’s ineligibility be verified: What about the laws he’s signed? What about international positions he has had America adopt. And what would happen to the actions of a president who really wasn’t.
West said the problem isn’t complicated; it’s only the definition of “natural born citizen,” which is what the Constitution requires for presidents.
“This was a specific designation that was much discussed among the Founders in order to eliminate any possibility of divided loyalties in the commander of the American armed forces,” she said.
She cited an 1800s U.S. Supreme Court case that said a “natural born citizen” is the offspring of two citizen parents. Obama’s father, Barack Obama Sr., was in the United States only as a student and never was even a citizen.
West discussed a currently pending court case in Florida that raises the specific issue of the parentage of natural born citizens.
She explained that the judge in that case already has noted that while those criticizing Obama have cited a legal definition for natural born citizen, those who support the president have failed to cite a single instance that supports their position.
“The mystery must be solved,” she said.
Listen to the interview:
Audio at the page link
While serving as an editorial writer for the Washington Times, West began writing a regular column in 1999. It went to syndication shortly following Sept. 11, 2001.
West won second place for editorial writing in the Maryland-Delaware-D.C. Press Association Contest in 2001. She left the Times in 2002 to write her first book, “The Death of the Grown-Up: How America’s Arrested Development Is Bringing Down Western Civilization” (St. Martin’s Press).
Not one to shy away from controversial commentary, West explores such topics as Islam’s claim to be “a religion of peace,” society’s efforts to “protect” children from Mother’s Day and Obama’s eligibility questions.
Obama fraud ‘biggest potential crime’ in U.S. history
http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/obama-fraud-biggest-potential-crime-in-u-s-history-2/
AirborneSapper7, unfortunately, even Frank Gaffney and Diana West failed to define "natural born Citizen" correctly (call in line: 800-332-7131). As determined by the U.S. Supreme Court, the definition is this:
a "natural born Citizen" is
one born in the country
of parents who were citizens.
The definitive and authoritative U.S. Supreme Court interpretation is from
Minor v. Happersett (1875) 100 U.S. 1; 88 U.S. 167 (at p. 167), repeated
verbatim in Wong Kim Ark (1898 ) 169 U.S. 655, 679-680, 708 ff., and
though not repeated verbatim, stated harmoniously in Perkins v. Elg (1939)
307 U.S. 349-350, The Venus (1814), and Shanks v.DuPont (1830).
But, of course, everyone here already knows that . . .
_________________________________________________
Or their worst.Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasBorn
"...and even if you are right -- which will never be proven -- it will come to nothing." Satan's main tool: discouragement. But Satan is the original loser, always has been, always will be. Ultimately, good always triumphs. Even if he has a temporary lead, even if he wins the game, he always loses the series. The odds against his legion are:
∞-to-stupid.
Jesus said to Peter, "But I have prayed for you, that your faith should not fail; and when you have returned to Me, strengthen your brethren.” - Luke 22:33
"Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour. Resist him, steadfast in the faith, knowing that the same sufferings are experienced by your brotherhood in the world. But may the God of all grace, who called us to His eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after you have suffered a while, perfect, establish, strengthen, and settle you. To Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen." - 1 Peter 5:8-11
Sound like anyone we know? Even when my faith in the resurrection of the dead faltered, I have always denied reincarnation. But this may be the best example yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Kreis
Waiting to see what exactly comes forth from the CCP in July as announced. According to Corsi, it is pretty damning. Will ANY of the MSM be at this press conference? Have any of them gathered the courage to do what's right? We need to make sure that the results don't fall silent but ring from every corner of the U.S.!
Sam Vaknin, author of Malignant Self-love: Narcissism Revisited,
has written about Barack Obama's psychological make-up.
"Pride goes before destruction,Quote:
Barack Obama - Narcissist or Merely Narcissistic?
Do You Recognize Barack Obama in These Texts? - First Series
Obama's Nobel Prize will Exacerbate His Narcissistic Tendencies
More here:
Global Politician- Newsletter
http://www.analyst-network.com/profile.php?user_id=79
http://www.losangeleschronicle.com/authors/view/941
DISCLAIMER
I am not a mental health professional. Still, I have dedicated the last 12
years to the study of personality disorders in general and the Narcissistic
Personality Disorder (NPD) in particular. I have authored nine (9) books
about these topics, one of which is a Barnes and Noble best-seller
("Malignant Self-love: Narcissism Revisited"). My work is widely cited in
scholarly tomes and publications and in the media. My books and the content
of my Web site are based on correspondence since 1996 with hundreds of
people suffering from the Narcissistic Personality Disorder (narcissists) and
with thousands of their family members, friends, therapists, and colleagues.
More about my credentials here:
Sam Vaknin: Setting the Record Straight
Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited, a work of reference about the
Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) is available from Barnes and Noble and Amazon:
BARNES & NOBLE | Malignant Self Love: Narcissism Revisited by Sam Vaknin, Narcissus Publications | Paperback
And a haughty spirit before a fall." - Proverbs 16:18
The Ghostfighters
June 11, 2012
ROMNEY, RUBIO, McCAIN AND NATURAL BORN CITIZEN
Filed under: McCAIN AND NATURAL BORN CITIZEN — prowlland @ 8:00 pm
ROMNEY, RUBIO, McCAIN AND NATURAL BORN CITIZEN
By J.B. Williams
June 11, 2012
NewsWithViews.com
The recent release of my previous column titled Rubio Can Lock the Election for Obama resulted in numerous reader emails that demonstrate a continuing confusion over the indisputable definition and application of the term Natural Born Citizen. This follow up column is written to remove all confusion from the topic, once and for all.
Sadly, most of the people concerned with this topic believe they each know the truth, even though they do not agree on what the truth is. Most opinions are based upon second source or third hand information, most of it motivated by political agenda.
My objective is to establish through first source evidence the true meaning of the term Natural Born Citizen as used by our Founders in Article II of the Constitution, and spread the truth, no matter who it helps or harms in the political arena. I have written on this subject extensively and my only loyalty here is to the truth, no matter who it serves.
The true definition of Natural Born Citizen
Simply stated, a Natural Born Citizen is a second (or more) generation citizen by birth right. None of the Founding Fathers were Natural Born Citizen as they all became first generation citizens the moment they created our nation. As a result, they had to exclude themselves from the NBC requirement, even though most of them were born on soil (aka Native Citizen), or none of them could have held the office of President.
The term Natural Born Citizen was borrowed from Vattel’s treaties The Law of Nations, based upon the unalienable rules of Natural Law. Most people understand and agree on this. Then, they begin cherry-picking their facts from there, in all cases, based upon their individual political agendas rather than a careful and complete study of the facts.
I direct you to four sections in particular…
The Law of Nations – Book 1 – Chapter 19 – Sections 212, 213, 214 and 215 – The true definition of NBC is given in these sections.
§ 212. Citizens and natives (the section most people are familiar with) READ IN ENTIRETY PAYING CLOSE ATTENTION TO SECTIONS I HAVE HIGHLIGHTED.
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
212 – Defines Natural Born Citizen as the natural offspring of a Citizen Father. Vattel explains this three times in this section. Just as all birthrights follow the blood of the father, so does natural rights of citizenship. This debunks the theory that “both parents” must be legal citizens at the time of birth of any offspring. Only the Father confers Natural Born Citizenship.
§ 213. Inhabitants (Refers to situations like Rubio’s)
“The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners, who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound to the society by their residence, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside in it;
and they are obliged to defend it, because it grants them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the law or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united to the society without participating in all its advantages. Their children follow the condition of their fathers; and, as the state has given to these the right of perpetual residence, their right passes to their posterity.”
213 addresses “citizen” and “inhabitants” – not Natural Born Citizens defined in 212. Rubio falls into this category as he was born in the U.S. – however, his parents (specifically his father) were legal citizens of Cuba at the time of Marco’s birth. Due to our 14th Amendment based upon this section from Vattel, Marco became an inhabitant at birth, and an “anchor baby citizen” via our current immigration and naturalization laws. But because his Father was a legal citizen of Cuba, his father conferred natural citizenship rights to Cuba upon Marco’s birth. It is on this basis that Marco Rubio is NOT a Natural Born Citizen of the United States.
§ 214. Naturalization (58) (confirms everything I just told you about Rubio)
“A nation, or the sovereign who represents it, may grant to a foreigner the quality of citizen, by admitting him into the body of the political society. This is called naturalization. There are some states in which the sovereign cannot grant to a foreigner all the rights of citizens, — for example, that of holding public offices — and where, consequently, he has the power of granting only an imperfect naturalization. It is here a regulation of the fundamental law, which limits the power of the prince. In other states, as in England and Poland, the prince cannot naturalize a single person, without the concurrence of the nation, represented by its deputies. Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.”
215 answers the question of soil, or Native Born versus Natural Born
§ 215. Children of citizens born in a foreign country (NO born on soil requirement)
“It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed. (59) By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say “of itself,” for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise. But I suppose that the father has not entirely quitted his country in order to settle elsewhere. If he has fixed his abode in a foreign country, he is become a member of another society, at least as a perpetual inhabitant; and his children will be members of it also.”
This pertains to John McCain, who was born in Panama due to his father’s military deployment. As Vattel explains in section 215, where a person is born cannot take away the Natural Born Birthright that passes via Natural Law from Father to Son. Because John McCain’s Father was indeed a well-known legal citizen of the United States at the time of John’s birth, no matter where the birth took place, Natural Born Citizenship passed from John’s Father to John at birth. John McCain is a Natural Born Citizen of the United States, no matter what else people think about John McCain.
In this regard, the United States Senate got it exactly right in their 99-0 Sen. Res. 511 clearing John McCain to pursue the office of President in 2008. Using the exact same definition used to clear John McCain, Barack Hussein Obama and Marco Rubio would fail the test. The fact that the U.S. Senate is on record getting it right demonstrates that the entire U.S. Senate is complicit in the fraudulent seating of Barack Hussein Obama in the people’s White House. It also proves it was a premeditated crime…
NOTE: This also relates to Mitt Romney – “I say “of itself,” for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise. But I suppose that the father has not entirely quitted his country in order to settle elsewhere. If he has fixed his abode in a foreign country, he is become a member of another society, at least as a perpetual inhabitant; and his children will be members of it also.” – Mitt Romney’s Father may have held dual citizenship as a result of being born in Mexico, the natural son of a U.S. Citizen Father. This could disqualify Mitt’s Father from holding the offices of President and Vice President. However, Mitt was born in the USA the natural son of the legal citizen Father, with no direct divided loyalties. While Mitt’s Father may have been disqualified, Mitt does not appear to be.
Just in case there is any doubt concerning McCain, Vattel goes further on the subject of the McCain circumstance in section 217
§ 217. Children born in the armies of the state (John McCain)
“For the same reasons also, children born out of the country, in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen who is absent with his family, on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.”
One does not quit citizenship rights when deployed abroad by our government. In fact, even if a soldier deployed abroad sires a child, with a foreign mother, that child is still a Natural Born Citizen of the USA as those rights pass from Father to child at birth.
Are you with me so far? Rubio is NOT a Natural Born Citizen of the USA, John McCain is…..right? Barack Obama is NOT a Natural Born Citizen no matter whether he was born in Hawaii or Kenya…. right?
Now for Romney….
According to all available records on Romney, his Grandfather was a legal citizen of the United States who became an “inhabitant” of Mexico long before Mitt’s birth. Mitt’s father was born in Mexico, the natural offspring of a legal US citizen living in Mexico. Remember from above that soil changes nothing. According to all evidence available at present, Mitt’s father was born a Natural Born Citizen of the United States, even though his parents were “inhabitants” of Mexico at the time.
Mitt’s Father later returned to the United States and became Governor of Michigan, something a non-citizen could not do. Mitt was born in Michigan, the natural offspring of a legal citizen Father, making Mitt a Natural Born Citizen of the United States at birth.
So, McCain and Romney both pass the NBC test according to Vattel and The Law of Nations. Rubio, Obama and others like Jindal DO NOT pass the test. Every member of the U.S. Supreme Court knows the truth presented in this column, as do every member of the U.S. Senate, most members of the House and almost every judge in the country.
This is why there is a concentrated effort to redefine the term to mean any citizen, protecting all who remain involved in the greatest electoral fraud ever perpetrated on any democratic society.
The reason the Natural Born requirement must be eliminated is it is not possible to stand up a Global Government in the United States so long as only Natural Born Citizens can lead our government.
That’s why our Founders placed the requirement there – and that’s why people are hell-bent to remove it.
The Ghostfighters
As has been discussed here before, Emerich de Vattel's The Law of NationsQuote:
Originally Posted by J. B. Williams
is not the law of this nation.
De Vattel did not create the then-existing international law; he merely codified it. The concept of "natural born" had existed perhaps as long as the idea of a "citizen", back to Plato and Herodotus in the 4th and 5th c. B.C., and they undoubtedly wrote down what they had received in the oral tradition from antiquity. The Greeks may also have drawn from the legal documents of the Medes and the Persians before them, perhaps from the Law of Moses in the mid-15th c. B.C., perhaps from the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi over three hundred years before that, and perhaps even from the papyri of ancient Egypt.
The Common Law and the writings of William Blackstone and John Locke served as the basis for most of the U.S. Constitution. However, on matters of nationality, citizenship, naturalization - wherever the notion of "Crown and subjects" would come into play - the Framers looked to The Law of Nations for de Vattel's understanding of a nation governed by the people, and the free citizens of such a nation.
The Framers and their peers and contemporaries understood the legal term of art, "natural born Citizen," without it being defined explicitly. They saw no need to spell out a legal idiom well known to 18th century Americans who were well-educated in the knowledge of Europe. But 88 years after the ratification of the Constitution, people were not as well agreed upon the meaning of this legal term of art.
As established in 1875 by the U.S. Supreme Court, this is the authorized definition:
A "natural born Citizen" is
one born in the countryThe definitive and authoritative U.S. Supreme Court interpretation is from
of parents who were citizens.
Minor v. Happersett (1875) 100 U.S. 1; 88 U.S. 167 (at p. 167), repeated
verbatim in Wong Kim Ark (1898 ) 169 U.S. 655, 679-680, 708 ff., and
though not repeated verbatim, stated harmoniously in Perkins v. Elg (1939)
307 U.S. 349-350, The Venus (1814), and Shanks v.DuPont (1830) . . .
Emerich de Vattel and J. B. Williams notwithstanding.
06/12/12 Butterdezillion posted her analysis of her correspondence with the Hawaii Dept. of Health about Virginia Sunahara, Barack Obama II's birth record donor.
Virginia Sunahara and HDOH Fraud
1. Why the birth index had to be altered:
only one person can have a BC# at a time.
A birth is a unique event that doesn’t happen twice to the same person (like marriage, for instance). So every birth certificate is supposed to represent one real person. That person’s name may change (after an adoption or name change, for instance), but that BC# represents a real person that was born, like a vehicle identification number represents an exact vehicle, regardless of what paint or license plate changes it undergoes. That BC# is the very identity of the person.
Two people might have the same name, but they cannot have the same BC#. Only one name can be used for a BC# at a time. When somebody is adopted, they are given a new birth certificate that shows a different name and different parents, to reflect the new LEGAL relationships. Everything else about the birth certificate is the same, including the BC#. But the old BC with the old name and parents is invalidated, and only the new BC is legally valid. That BC# has to be filed under the new name. When an adoption is set aside, the old, original BC becomes valid again, and the adoptive BC is invalidated.
So there is a way for names to be changed for a particular BC#, but only one of those names can be legally valid at a time. In the Electronic Verification of Vital Events (EVVE) System (in which HI participates), the way a record is marked as non-valid is by a void flag. If it’s clicked, the record is non-valid; otherwise the default is for a valid record. When an adoption takes place, they create a new record with the same BC# as the old one and then click the void flag for the old one. To set aside an adoption, they just take the void flag off of the original name and make the adoptive name void. Within the computer system, it only takes a click by the right worker to get rid of one name and put a different one in its place.
But only one of those names using that BC# can be valid at once, since only one baby was born under that number. And if you print out a list of valid names (such as a birth index), only one of those names will be on the list. So if you want to steal somebody’s BC# in the computer database, you have to fudge things to get both the real person AND the BC# thief on the list.
The Hawaii DOH changed their 1960-64 birth index so that it would include legally non-valid names. We know this because they have both the adoptive and birth names for 2 guys, even though the birth names are legally non-valid. So the altered birth index allows for both a real person and a BC# thief to show up in the birth index. But only one at a time could show up as valid in the database.
2. How we know there was a BC# thief in the database:
Because Virginia Sunahara’s name was in the birth index but not the database.
Virginia Sunahara’s name is in the 1960-64 birth index. We know they have a birth record for her, because her COLB has been disclosed to her brother. We know her COLB is for a real person, because she is buried in Mililani Cemetery. But when I requested a non-certified COLB for either Virginia or Tomiyo Sunahara (as the HDOH Administrative Rules allow any person to receive), I received an official response saying that there were no records for her.
Normally requests associated with Obama were sent to Janice Okubo, and she always gave the standard [horsefeathers] answer that I was not authorized to receive a non-certified COLB, death certificate, or whatever I was asking for. That’s why it surprised me when I got the response saying that there were no records responsive to my request for Virginia’s non-certified COLB.
Later on, I called the HDOH office to find out what had happened to my money order and request for the 1961 birth index the HDOH had told me I could get for $98.75. The secretary couldn’t find any record of my request even though I had received an e-mail in response to it already. All of a sudden, she asked me if the request had to do with Obama. I asked if that would make any difference. She said yeah, that all requests about Obama were supposed to go to Janice Okubo. Everything else goes to the “fulfillment department” to be processed according to standard protocols.
So what happened is this: All my other requests for non-certified abbreviated vital records were clearly related to Obama (Stanley Ann Dunham, Madelyn Dunham, Obama, etc) so they went to Okubo, who gave me the [horsefeathers] denial.
Okubo was afraid to tell the lower-level staffers that Virginia Sunahara is actually Obama, so when my request for Virginia Sunahara’s record came in, it went to the fulfillment office instead of being routed to Janice Okubo to be obfuscated. So this is the only request related to Obama that went to somebody besides Janice Okubo. If it had been sent to Okubo, she would have said I was not authorized to receive what I had requested, like she did with all the other requests. The fact that I got a different response confirms that this request never went to Janice Okubo like the others.
According to the OIP, the first step in the normal protocols is always to check to see whether the record even exists. So that’s what the secretary did; she checked the birth database for Virginia Sunahara. I had asked for the record for either Virginia Sunahara or Tomiyo Sunahara, so she would have queried the name of Sunahara for both of those records. That’s double-checking the Sunahara name. And she found nothing there. So she sent me a response saying there wasn’t a record responsive to my request. The record under Virginia’s BC# was being used by some other name at that point.
IOW, the HDOH changed Virginia Sunahara’s record in the birth database to somebody else’s name. And they got caught because they didn’t tell their lowly secretary that any request regarding Virginia Sunahara was actually about Obama, so she processed the request honestly instead of sending it to Okubo to have her lie and obfuscate.
3. Why we can be almost certain that Obama was the thief of Virginia Sunahara’s BC#:
Because the date filed/BC# “discrepancy” fits her extremely rare birth – death - and wrong-name –on – the-death-certificate situation, and the anomalies on Obama’s long-form indicate the base record that was altered to create Obama’s forged long-form was for a girl born at Wahiawa Hospital with an R for the 3rd letter of her first name (which matches Virginia’s birth situation).
The BC# on Obama’s BC is #[15 61 10]641, even though it was filed (given a number, as per Janice Okubo’s UIPA response) 3 days before the Nordyke twins were given the numbers [15 61 10]637 and [15 61 10]638. Okubo said that Oahu BC’s were “almost always” filed (numbered) the same day they were accepted by a local registrar. For an Oahu BC to be accepted by the local registrar on a Tuesday (Aug 8th) and yet not be numbered until after the BC’s that came in on Friday (11th) would be very rare. If there was information missing from the BC the local registrar would clarify that with the hospital or parents before accepting the record and sending it on to the state registrar’s office. For it to be accepted by the local registrar, it had to appear complete on first glance, but have some kind of discrepancy that only showed up at the state registrar’s office.
And that fits the circumstance for Virginia Sunahara. She was born at Wahiawa Hospital on Aug. 4, 1961, with a BC listing her as Virginia Sunahara, but she died at Kapiolani Hospital the next day.
Her death certificate wrongly listed her as Tomiyo Sunahara (after her father Tomio), which showed up in both newspaper death announcements. The local registrar accepted the BC immediately on Aug 8th and sent it on to the HDOH, because it was complete.
But the HDOH had received Sunahara’s DEATH certificate a day earlier (using the first name Tomiyo), and because the death certificate was required to list the birth certificate # on it, they would have held out the death certificate to be matched with the birth certificate when it came in. But when the BC [#15 61 11080] came in the next day, it was under the name Virginia instead of Tomiyo.
After a BC was numbered, it could only be changed by a formal amendment, so when the BC came in and the name discrepancy was found, the workers wanted to make sure the name was right before numbering it, to spare the family having to file a formal amendment after all the grief they had already suffered. Clarifying what the real name was supposed to [be] involved communicating with the parents, which took more time than a simple phone call to a hospital, and that would explain why Virginia’s BC was accepted on Tuesday [Aug. 8th] but not numbered until Friday [Aug. 11th].
No such reason would exist for a standard hospital birth like Obama’s long-form claims he had. That date filed/BC# discrepancy is a very rare fingerprint that only matches a situation like Virginia’s, complete with the death certificate error. And this fingerprint shows up on Obama’s birth record.
Some other things show up on Obama’s birth record that also confirm the connection between Obama’s forged birth certificate and Virginia Sunahara. Specifically, the anomalies on Obama’s forged long-form show that:
a) the M for “male” was changed,
b) the local registrar is the registrar that shows up on another WAHIAWA HOSPITAL BC but not Kapiolani, and
c) the third letter of the first name – R - was not [cut and pasted] in; it was retained from the BC that was used as the base document for the forgery.
IOW, the things that had to be altered from the base document show that the base document belonged to a girl who was born at Wahiawa Hospital and - like Barack - had an R for the third letter of her name. That fits Virginia perfectly.
4. Why the HDOH would give Virginia’s brother a COLB for her but not let him see or get a copy of the original birth certificate:
Because computer records are easy to manipulate. Paper records are not so easy, and especially when the document you have to work with already has its fingerprints all over a high-profile forgery. And especially when you have Sheriff Joe conducting a criminal investigation that will never end until at least one or two complete microfilm rolls is available for forensic testing, including the age of the microfilm and the method of numbering BC’s over the course of an unspecified period of time.
Another COMPUTER record could easily be created for Virginia using some other dead child’s BC# [15 61 11080], and then flagging that child’s record as non-valid so Virginia could appear to have a valid BC using that BC#. The BC#’s could actually even be left that way – just reassigned. And nobody would know the difference, as long as nobody came along and asked for the record of the child who was stuck with the void record, as I had done for Sunahara before they gave her somebody else’s BC#.
The number they gave Sunahara is so far out of sequence with the “date filed”/BC# that it makes no sense whatsoever. In a stunt with CNN which aired the day before Obama released his forged long-form, the HDOH issued a COLB to Stig Waidelich (who had been flown in by CNN to do this stunt, apparently with the HDOH’s cooperation, because they issued a COLB the same day as it was supposedly requested, instead of requiring a week’s notice as their website says)… that also is so far out of sequence for the “date filed”/BC# that the only way to make all those numbers work is if the HDOH issued BC#’s totally randomly.
Some have tried to explain all these discrepancies by saying that BC’s were collected for a month, alphabetized, and then numbered, but that contradicts Okubo’s statement that Oahu BC’s were numbered the same day as they were accepted by the local registrars and transferred to the HDOH. And in any event, Sunahara was given a number later than Waidelich.
So, in trying to make it seem like “date filed”/BC# discrepancies [skipping all the way from 15 61 10641 on Aug. 8th to 15 61 11080 on Aug. 11th] are run-of-the-mill occurrences, the HDOH has almost certainly altered/reassigned BC#’s to such an extent that they will NEVER be able to make forged microfilm rolls that make any sense. They are backed into a corner. And they run the risk of somebody having in their file cabinet a birth certificate that pre-dates the reassignment of BC#’s…
Ultimately, an audit of the computer transaction logs would reveal all the number-swapping that’s been done, by whom, and when. The transactions logs are processing records and are not confidential, but the HDOH spent several months delaying and eventually using 3 different excuses, which were each debunked in turn, before concluding that the transaction record could not be disclosed to me because it would frustrate a legitimate government function.
As if stealing other people’s BC#’s was a legitimate government function. The inmates are running the prison, I think…
http://butterdezillion.files.wordpre...hdoh-fraud.pdf
This discussion at ALIPAC is now up to 398,501 views!
W
The hearing is Monday June 18th at 9 am EST
Watch Florida eligibility hearing live
WND-TV to provide free live-stream from courtroom of Bush v. Gore judge
Published: 15 hours ago
TALLAHASSEE, Florida – WND-TV will provide gavel-to-gavel, live video coverage of the latest challenge to Barack Obama’s constitutional eligibility in a courtroom hearing that could deny him ballot access to this all-important electoral swing state in November.
Judge Terry Lewis, best known for presiding over the 2000 Bush v. Gore election dispute, will consider arguments from attorney Larry Klayman and attorneys for the Obama campaign. The hearing will focus on Obama’s claim to be a “natural born citizen,”” as required under Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution.
Lewis is credited with making crucial rulings in the contested 2000 presidential election, when ultimately a Florida vote recount was halted by the U.S. Supreme Court and George W. Bush was declared the winner.
Sign up now to get access to WND-TV’s special free, live-stream page prior to the hearing.
WND-TV has been designated by the court as the official pool TV service providing all other TV stations and networks with feeds.
Klayman’s law firm filed the challenge to Obama’s name on the ballot on behalf of Michael Voeltz, “a registered member of the Democrat Party, voter, and taxpayer in Broward County, who was an eligible elector for the Florida Primary of Jan. 31, 2012.”
Klayman’s work is being supported by the Constitution Action Fund, a non-profit raising money for the legal challenge.
Klayman told WND that during a hearing last month on discovery issues in the case, Lewis noted that the plaintiff’s brief cited U.S. Supreme Court case Minor v. Happersett from 1875 defining “natural born citizen” as the offspring of two citizens of the nation, while the Obama campaign’s arguments provided no citations.
The definition of the term is critical. Such a step has not been reached in any of the more than 100 legal cases that have been brought over Obama’s eligibility since before his election in 2008.
The U.S. Constitution imposes a special citizenship status requirement on occupants of the Oval Office. The “natural born citizen” requirement is not imposed on other federal officials. From the writings of the Founders, its apparent aim was to ensure that no person who had divided loyalties – to the United States and any other nation – would serve as commander in chief.
Klayman has argued that since Obama, by his own admission, was not born to two citizen parents, he is not a “natural born citizen” and, therefore, is ineligible to be a candidate on the state’s election ballot.
Florida’s election statutes provide broad protections for voters to ensure that the integrity of the election system is beyond reproach. One of the laws allows voters to challenge the nomination of a candidate who is not eligible for the office he is seeking.
“Obama’s briefs [said] it would be an undue burden and expense to have discovery,” Klayman said.
The judge said he wanted Obama’s representatives to cite the “authority” on which they based their argument that it isn’t necessary to have two citizen parents to be a natural-born citizen.
WND earlier reported on the case, which raises some of the same issues that have been raised in other state ballot challenges across the nation. Specifically it alleges:
“On or about April 2011, only after years into his presidency, and under media and political pressure, Barack Hussein Obama published on the Internet an electronic version of a purported birth certificate alleging his birth in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961, to American citizen mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, and Kenyan British subject father, Barack Obama Senior.
“There is credible evidence indicating that this electronically produced birth certificate is entirely fraudulent or otherwise altered. No physical, paper copy of the actual long form birth certificate has been produced in order to definitively establish Barack Hussein Obama’s birth within the United States.”
The action follows by weeks the release of Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s investigation into Obama’s antecedents. The six-month-long investigation done by professional law enforcement officers working on a volunteer basis for Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse found that there is probable cause to believe there was forgery involved in the production of Obama’s birth certificate, and fraud in presenting that document as a genuine document.
The plaintiff has submitted affidavits from Arpaio and others to support their claim.
Sign up now to get access to WND-TV’s special free, live-stream page prior to the hearing.
The case explains that even if Barack Hussein Obama was born within the United States, he is still not a “natural-born citizen” as required by the U.S. Constitution. That’s because, “Barack Obama Sr. was born in the British Colony of Kenya on June 18, 1936. Birth in Kenya made Barack Obama Sr. a British subject, according to and governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948.”
A case filing explains: “No physical, paper copy of defendant Obama’s birth certificate has been presented to establish his eligibility. … Defendant Obama has electronically produced a copy of what he purports to be his ‘birth certificate.’ Nevertheless, there is evidence to suggest that the electronically produced birth certificate is entirely fraudulent or otherwise altered.”
The argument also cites Barack Obama Sr.’s birth in Kenya, making him a “British subject.”
Sign up now to get access to WND-TV’s special free, live-stream page prior to the hearing.
Watch Florida eligibility hearing live
I do believe this is one of the most comprehensive, if not the most comprehensive, one stop place on the net to find information on this topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by ALIPAC
I would like to be optimistic about the hearing outcome but we know how corrupt and cowardly our judges have become. Judge Carter is the first one who got everyone's hopes up but then suddenly folded after being intimidated. It's going to take a different tact to bring the criminal in the WH to justice.
I wish we could replace the like button with an agree button, because while I agree with you, I sure do not like it one bit.Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasBorn
WND EXCLUSIVE
Investigator: Foreigners bought Hawaii birth certificates
'A Mafia operation was run in the early infancy of the state'
Published: 1 hour ago
http://www.wnd.com/files/2011/10/runruh.jpg by Bob Unruh
http://www.wnd.com/files/2012/01/Cer...e3-253x275.jpg The lead investigator for Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse – which already has found probable cause that Barack Obama’s publicly released birth certificate is a forgery – says any Hawaii documentation for Obama’s birth that exists would probably would be of little value.
Mike Zullo, a retired New Jersey detective now heading Arpaio’s volunteer investigative team, explained in an interview that at the time of Obama’s birth during the state’s early years, Hawaii birth documentation routinely was purchased by foreigners for children not born in the state.
Arpaio’s investigation was launched last September after constituents came to the sheriff with their concern that Obama was ineligible for the presidency and would perpetrate a fraud by placing his name on the state’s ballot.
Zullo’s comments came in an interview with Tea Party Power Hour host Mark Gillar.
Gillar described the process in the 1960s: Foreign nationals, primarily from Japan, would fly to Hawaii and buy a birth registration for their son or daughter, not with the goal of one day having them become president, but to obtain the benefits of being a U.S. citizen.
Zullo said that when he was in Hawaii last month following up on leads, he talked to older locals who “informed us about a syndicate operation, a Mafia operation if you will, being run in the early infancy of the state of Hawaii where birth certificates were being sold to Japanese refugees on a black market basis.”
Does anyone really know where Obama is from? Find out the startling truth from New York Times best-selling author Jerome Corsi.
At that time, Japan was still undergoing post-war reconstruction while America was an established superpower.
Zullo said there was a business in Hawaii in “birth certificates … for profit.”
Obama released an image of a Hawaiian birth certificate last year as “proof positive” of his birth in the U.S. and “natural born” citizenship, a constitutional requirement for the presidency.
There have been numerous challenges to Obama’s eligibility. Some say that regardless of where he was born, he isn’t qualified because the Founding Fathers understood a natural-born citizen to be the offspring of two U.S. citizens. Obama’s father was a foreign national who only attended school in the U.S.
Zullo also debunked again the contention that 1961 newspaper birth announcements prove anything. He argued the listings were generated automatically by the state and delivered for publication based on the registration of any child with the state.
“Anybody that is hanging their hat on a newspaper entry to prove … Barack Obama [was] born in the state of Hawaii doesn’t know what they’re talking about,” he said.
The births of Japanese children whose parents purchased Hawaii birth certificates also would be listed in the papers, he explained.
During that time period, Japanese parents would fly to Hawaii so their children, born in Japan, could have the benefits of American citizenship, he said.
For that reason, he said, Obama can’t claim that a Hawaii birth certificate is proof he was born in the state.
The interview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiTFfrm5jvY&feature=player_embedded
The interview also addressed unanswered questions about the “discovery” of the Obama birth documentation. Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie, when elected, promised to track down the documentation to put to rest the arguments over Obama’s birth location and eligibility.
The governor eventually concluded, in January 2011, that there was something “written” in state records, but he was unable to produce any documents to the public.
Then, when Obama requested a certified copy of the original documentation three months later, state officials reportedly produced the documentation.
Abercrombie is no longer eager to address the issue.
Earlier this week, WND tried to find out what happened to the governor’s self-initiated research into Obama’s birth documentation.
Initially, Abercrombie spokeswoman Donalyn Delacruz told WND she was happy to help with questions – until she found out the subject.
When WND asked in an email for an explanation of why Abercrombie’s investigation could not turn up the documentation, she refused to answer.
“What news organization are you with?” she demanded. “We get frequent ‘birther’ questions and this would fall in that category.”
Subsequently, she refused to respond to email questions.
When WND called, a receptionist in the office responded to the same inquiry with “That’s been done” – apparently meaning president had released the birth certification image. But she promised to take a message and have someone call back.
No one did.
WND had questions about the anomalous results: The governor’s stated inability to find the documentation and the state agency’s later simple recovery and alleged duplication of the same record.
It was shortly after his election that Abercrombie vowed to end the questions from those who doubted Obama’s status as a “natural born citizen.”
Stated Abercrombie then: “We’ll do what we can as quickly as we can to make it inevitable that only those who wish the president ill, only the ones with a political agenda, will be the ones doing this kind of thing.
“The president is entitled to the respect of his office and he’s entitled to have his mother and father respected,” he said.
He said he was instructing his attorney general and the chief of the state’s health agency to look at what legal avenues could be used to release information.
“This is a transparent state in terms of our communication with one another,” Abercrombie said. “This is the Aloha state. We care for each other, we look out for each other, we’re family.”
He told CNN in that interview that he would pursue the information regardless of the feelings of the White House.
“It’s a matter of principle with me. I knew his mom and dad. I was here when he was born. Anybody who wants to ask a question honestly could have had their answer already,” he announced.
Obama’s narrative states that he was born Aug. 4, 1961, at Kapiolani Hospital in Honolulu.
However, after a flurry of high-profile media interviews in which he blasted “birthers,” Abercrombie suddenly went silent even though polls reveal nearly six on 10 doubt Obama’s own eligibility story.
He told the Honolulu Star-Advertiser about Obama’s documentation: “It actually exists in the archives, written down.” The London Daily Mail, however, noted Abercrombie “suggested that a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Barack Obama may not exist within the vital records maintained by the Hawaii Department of Health.”
Yet, when Obama wanted the records, the state instantly waived a ban on reproducing long-form birth certificates and copies were produced to be delivered to Judith Corley, a private attorney.
WND continues to report on multiple legal challenges to Obama over his status as a “natural born citizen.” The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states: “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”
Some of the lawsuits question whether Obama actually was born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama’s American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.
Other challenges have focused on Obama’s citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.
Further, others contend it’s impossible for him to be considered a “natural born citizen” as his father was a foreign national.
Among the various campaigns raising questions about Obama’s past:
- There’s the “Your Papers, Please?” edition of the Whistleblower, the explanation for why there have been dozens of lawsuits over the issue, and why millions of Americans want Obama to prove he’s constitutionally qualified to be president.
Investigator: Foreigners bought Hawaii birth certificates
The drumbeat against Obama grows louder. I posted this in other news but wanted to be sure and share it here: Mark Steyn: Earthly woes mount as Obama's rhetoric soars | obama, moon, together - Opinion - The Orange County Register
Atty. Orly Taitz: On 6/12/12, Sheriff Joe Arpaio stepped up his "probable cause for
a lawsuit" statement to a sworn affidavit of forged identification documents. She has
filed motions to add his affidavit to her submissions to the Court of Appeals in D.C.
and in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Jackson, Miss..
She submitted on the same day a similar Motion for Judicial noticeQuote:
Originally Posted by Atty. Orly Taitz
and a petition for an emergency evidentiary hearing in Mississippi.