Nope. I thought he was with you Cayla?! :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by cayla99
Printable View
Nope. I thought he was with you Cayla?! :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by cayla99
Now TB that is how nasty rumors are born 8O :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasBorn
Leo didn't address the 'may' vs 'shall' wording, but this article does help with additional view of the quo warranto statute.
==================
[b]Quo Warranto For “Interested Personsâ€
I believe Orly has the heart of a lion and the tenacity of a pit bull when it comes to this case. However, I don't think she has a clue as to what she should be doing and is going to screw up every avenue we have, getting cases dismissed so they can never be tried again, simply on technical issues resulting from her cluelessness on the procedures of the courts.
Cayla, you may be right. However, none of us can know what she has in mind or what her strategy might be. One thing....have we seen any high power attorney out there with any wins under their belt? I admire her courage and strength and maybe she is the catalyst to get people off their duff and muster their own courage to stand up and do something. In the absence of any other serious efforts out there, ordinary Americans with a thirst for the truth should all pray and support this brave lady as much as possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by cayla99
When a High Churchman criticized Dwight L. Moody's street evangelism methods,
Moody replied, "Sir, I believe in the way I'm doing it more than the way you aren't doing it."
Recommended reading:
Obama’s COLB Lacks Legal Veracity. What Now?
10/04/2009
by MissTickly aka Terrik.
_________________________________________
[quote="KenDunbar"][size=117]For those opposed to the historical definition of “natural born citizenâ€
On Obama's short form birth certificate that we see on the internet, there is this phrase stamped on the bottom:
"Date filed by registrar" and the date "Aug. 8,1961."
1. "Date accepted by registrar": But as I understand it---and from what I have seen on other Hawaii birth certificates displayed on the internet---a valid Hawaii birth certificate up to at least 1985 should have the following: "Date accepted by registrar".
2. As I understand it, the phrase "Date filed by registrar" could mean that the person was not born in a hospital.
3. One question I have is this: If Obama's birth certificate is stamped with "Date filed by registrar" on "Aug. 8,1961", at what point in the past 50 years was Obama's 1961 birth certificate moved up into the more legally important category of "Date accepted by registrar"?
a. 50 years is obviously a very long time, so I would think that sometime in those long 50 years, Obama's birth certificate would move up from status of "Date filed by registrar" to the more legally important status of "Date accepted by registrar."
b. Go ahead and check your short form birth certificate if you have one, and tell us if there is a stamp like "Date filed by registrar" like on Obama's short form, or if there is a more important stamp like
"Date accepted by registrar."
c. Suggestion: If your short form birth certificate has "Date filed by registrar" instead of the more serious "Date accepted by registrar"---"accepted" is the key word here---then I suggest that you contact your state officials and demand to know why your birth certificate has "Date filed by registrar" instead of the more serious "Date accepted by registrar.
4. My point is this: If the Obama short form birth certificate we see on the internet has "Date filed by registrar" instead of the more legally important "Date accepted by registrar", then there is something seriously wrong with the Obama birth certificate, because it only has the worthless "Date filed by registrar."
5. So, in my opinion, resolving the "Date filed by registrar" vs. "Date accepted by registrar" issue could go a long way in answering the question of whether Obama was or was not born in Hawaii.
6. That is, if Hawaii officials are holding an Obama birth certificate with "Date accepted by registrar" stamped on it, then they have a moral and ethical duty to release it to the public.
7. But if Hawaii has no Obama birth certificate with the stamp "Date accepted by registrar", then Hawaii officials have even more of a moral and ethical duty to tell us, because Obama could be in a lot of trouble if there is NO Obama Hawaii birth certificate that is stamped with "Date accepted by registrar".
8. NOTE: If you were born in Hawaii, do you have a Hawaii short form birth certificate like the one Obama displays on the internet? Does it have "Date filed by registrar", or does it have "Date accepted by registrar"? Let us know.
9. Born in a non-Hawaii state: Do you have a short form birth certificate from a state other than Hawaii? Does it have something like "Date filed by registrar" on it, or does it have something like "Date accepted by registrar"? Let us know.
10. If you were born in a hospital in a non-Hawaii state, does your short form birth certificate say something like "Date filed by registrar", or does it say something like "Date accepted by registrar"?
I'm asking because I read on the internet somewhere that "Date filed by registrar" could mean that the person was NOT born in a hospital.
11. Myself, I guess I'm lucky, because I have been able to save my long form birth certificate, the one with the names of the doctor and the hospital on it, so I have never had the need to order a short form birth certificate.
SCOTUS: No Private Right To Quo Warranto.
Posted in Uncategorized on October 11, 2009 by naturalborncitizen
Since federal case law pertaining to the writ of quo warranto is so scarce, research on the issue is rather simple. This is why I am shocked and confused as to why the DOJ did not cite the case UNITED STATES of America ex rel. STATE OF WISCONSIN v. FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION. I recently explained the strict holding in the case – that no US District Court other than the DC District Court may entertain a quo warranto proceeding.
The deception is circling on all fronts. Decepticons are busy issuing defective legal analysis alleging that there is a private right to bring quo warranto against a United States national office holder. I can tell you with certainty that there is no such right now, and there was none at the common law. But don’t take my word for it. Instead, review the following passages from the leading United States Supreme Court decision pertaining to quo warranto: NEWMAN v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA EX REL. WILLIAM J. FRIZZELL: http://tinyurl.com/ygycrpm
Usurpation of a public office from an early day was treated as a crime, and, like all other crimes, could be prosecuted only in the name of the King by his duly authorized law officers. When a judgment was obtained against the intruder he was not only ousted from his office, but fined for his criminal usurpation. A private citizen could no more prosecute such a proceeding in his own name than he could in his own name prosecute for the crime of murder… (Emphasis added.)
There was never a private right to bring quo warranto. It was always brought in the name of the government. This is further illustrated by the SCOTUS as follows:
In 1902 Congress adopted a District Code, containing a chapter on quo warranto which though modeled after the English statute, differed therefrom in several material particulars. The writ was treated as a civil remedy; it was not limited to proceedings against municipal officers, but to all persons who in the District exercised any office, civil or military. It was made available to test the right to exercise a public franchise, or to hold an office in a private corporation. Instead of providing that ‘any person desiring to prosecute‘ might do so with the consent of the court, certain restrictions were imposed and one enlargement of the right was made. These provisions have never received judicial interpretation. This case must, therefore, be determined according to the special language of that Code, in the light of general principles applicable to quo warranto,—the prerogative writ by which the government can call upon any person to show by what warrant he holds a public office or exercises a public franchise. (Emphasis added.)
While all of the above sets the stage, the following establishes definitive precedent by the SCOTUS on this issue:
The District Code still treats usurpation of office as a public wrong which can be corrected only by proceeding in the name of the government itself. (Emphasis added.)
And the following is the policy behind the restriction:
But there are so many reasons of public policy against permitting a public officer to be harassed with litigation over his right to hold office, that the Code not only does not authorize a private citizen, on his own motion, to attack the incumbent’s title, but it throws obstacles in the way of all such private attacks. It recognizes, however, that there might be instances in which it would be proper to allow such proceedings to be instituted by a third person, but it provides that such ‘third person’ must not only secure the consent of the law officers of the government, but the consent of the supreme court of the District of Columbia, before he can use the name of the government in quo warranto proceedings. (Emphasis added.)
Beware of false sentinels.
Get ready, you are going to be hearing much more about the writ of quo warranto in the days and weeks ahead.
Leo C. Donofrio Citizen Attorney
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com
More recommended reading, well researched and well-written by Linda A. Melin:
Barack Obama and Harvard professor Laurence Tribe, who seeks to broaden "natural born Citizen."
Congress has attempted several times to redefine "natural born Citizen" during the past 35 years.
S.R. 511 certified Sen. McCain but was passed to circumvent Mr. Obama's ineligibility for the Presidency.
There appears to be growing belief that we are actually trying to deal with a shadow government, not a legitimate U.S. government and that is why we are all so frustrated and unsuccessful. I recently came across this article from The Constitution Society in Texas. You might give it a read and think about the issues of lawlessness and non-responsiveness from our government once again.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20917411/Cons ... Government
If the article is to be believed, then it would seem that we must try to uncover and expose the shadow government, because exposure destroys its effectiveness....
Simple to say, maybe difficult to do.
Thanks, MinuteMan. Good reading.Quote:
Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC
We've discussed this before, but here's a reminder.
"The Mystery of Barack Obama Continues" at WesternJournalism.com .Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Baldwin
WND Exclusive BORN IN THE USA?
Plaintiff: Courts must hear eligibility arguments
Cites Marshall opinion that to refuse is treason
Posted: October 12, 2009
10:20 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
A plaintiff in one of the cases challenging Barack Obama's eligibility to be president says federal courts must hear the challenges, because to do otherwise would be treason.
The claim comes from Charles F. Kerchner Jr., a lead plaintiff in the Kerchner vs. Obama & Congress lawsuit handled by attorney Mario Apuzzo.
Apuzzo filed suit in January on behalf of Kerchner, Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell James Lenormand and Donald H. Nelson Jr. Named as defendants are Barack Hussein Obama II, the U.S., Congress, the Senate, House of Representatives and former Vice President Dick Cheney along with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
The case focuses on the alleged failure of Congress to follow the Constitution. That document, the lawsuit states, "provides that Congress must fully qualify the candidate 'elected' by the Electoral College Electors."
The Constitution provides, the lawsuit says, "If the president-elect shall have failed to qualify, then the vice president elect shall act as president until a president shall have qualified."
"There existed significant public doubt and grievances from plaintiffs and other concerned Americans regarding Obama's eligibility to be president and defendants had the sworn duty to protect and preserve the Constitution and specifically under the 20th Amendment, Section 3, a Constitutional obligation to confirm whether Obama, once the electors elected him, was qualified," the case explained.
See the movie Obama does not want you to see: Own the DVD that probes this unprecedented presidential eligibility mystery!
"Congress is the elected representative of the American people and the people speak and act through them," the lawsuit said.
The defendants "violated" the 20th Amendment by failing to assure that Obama meets the eligibility requirements, the lawsuit said.
Now on the attorney's blog, Kerchner has written, "The federal courts and judges are committing treason to the Constitution by not taking jurisdiction and getting to the merits in the various cases before them regarding the Article II eligibility clause question for Obama."
He said his basis for such a statement is the opinion of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall, who wrote in an 1821 case, Cohens vs. Virginia:
"It is most true that this court will not take jurisdiction if it should not: but it is equally true, that it must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid; but we cannot avoid them. All we can do is, to exercise our best judgment, and conscientiously to perform our duty. In doing this, on the present occasion, we find this tribunal invested with appellate jurisdiction in all cases arising under the constitution and laws of the United States. We find no exception to this grant, and we cannot insert one."
Kerchner added, "The … judges in the … cases should simply read the words of U.S. Supreme court Chief Justice Marshall from the past and take jurisdiction of the constitutional question of the Article II eligibility clause in the Constitution and proceed to a fact finding hearing and trial on the merits.
"I say Obama is NOT eligible. But we need the federal courts to take the cases and get a SCOTUS ruling to settle this," he said.
WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's 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 he was actually 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 question his citizenship by virtue of his attendance in Indonesian schools during his childhood and question on what passport did he travel to Pakistan three decades ago.
Adding fuel to the fire is Obama's persistent refusal to release documents that could provide answers and the appointment of myriad lawyers to defend against all requests for his documentation. While his supporters cite an online version of a "Certification of Live Birth" from Hawaii as his birth verification, critics point out such documents actually were issued for children not born in the state.
The ultimate questions remain unaddressed to date: Is Obama a natural born citizen, and, if so, why hasn't documentation been provided? And, of course, if he is not, what does it mean to the 2008 election or the U.S. Constitution if it is revealed that there has been a violation?
WND has reported on another case, being heard by U.S. District Judge David Carter in California. He released a ruling a week ago noting the government's motion to dismiss was being taken "under submission." But he also approved a final calendar for the case to be proceeding in his court.
Under the schedule ordered by the judge the final pretrial conference is scheduled Jan. 11, 2010, while the jury trial is Jan. 26, 2010.
WND also has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes his kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and his adoption records.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=112707
...government's motion to dismiss was being taken "under submission." ...
Can someone explain to me what this means? Is this ultimately a way out for Carter if he is squeezed hard enough?
Also would appreciate if someone can explain in simple terms the following sequence of events and describe the potential roadblocks to the jury trial in January.
Motion for Summary Judgment Hearing December 7, 2009, at 8:30 a.m.
File Motion for Summary Judgment November 16, 2009
Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment November 26, 2009
Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment November 30, 2009
Final Pretrial Conference January 11, 2010, at 8:30 a.m.
Jury Trial January 26, 2010, at 8:30 a.m.
It is stunning to me that a trial of such historical significance is getting virtually no media coverage??!!!! Are we to believe that this really ISN'T an important trial?
...government's motion to dismiss was being taken "under submission." ...
It means that U.S. District Judge David O. Carter is studying the case and considering his options before rendering his opinion and his verdict. He may be taking pains to get every detail right against the expected immediate appeal... or he may fear for his life and the lives of his family. Pray for Judge Carter, for his safety and for his right decision.
Joy Behar's interview on CNN with Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq., is accepting comments.
Apparently, Joy Behar's opinion is on the screen next to Dr. Taitz:
"Lunatic Fringe?"
"I only regret that I have but one life to give for my country."
- American patriot Nathan Hale, before being hanged by the British for treason.
Obama birthplace lawyer fined for legal misconduct
October 13th, 2009
posted by Martin Wisckol, Politics reporter
Updated at 12:35 p.m. with reaction from Taitz.
A Georgia federal judge today fined Mission Viejo lawyer Orly Taitz $20,000 for legal misconduct in her claims that Barack Obama was born in Kenya and so should be removed as president.
In sanctioning Taitz, U.S. District Court Judge Clay D. Land wrote that one recent Taitz response to the court “is breathtaking in its arrogance and borders on delusional. She expresses no contrition or regret regarding her misconduct. To the contrary, she continues her baseless attacks on the Court….â€
Deleted because the link didn't work.
JD2
The link worked, maybe it was a quirk with OC but it seems fine. PM if you still want me to delete.
43 pages sounds a bit like a diatribe that would play well to his choir. Sounds more like a pot to the kettle issue.Quote:
Click here to read Land’s 43-page ruling, which details Taitz misconduct and the flaws with her motion to have Land recused from the case.
Dixie
This link works to get to the article:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dixie
http://tinyurl.com/yhmygey
And this link should work to get to a copy of the ruling:
http://tinyurl.com/ygpqgjy
Dixie, I agree with your comments about diatribes.
His screed is contemptible. Hubris appears to be setting up the good judge for a really bad fall on judicial review. I have never seen anyone in a position of authority so cast aside self-restraint to spew such vile bile.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dixie
Wouldn't he have a clue that the Obama usurpation could fail, leaving him holding the bag for a fraud? When the impostor is exposed, Judge Clay Land will be on record for authoring 43 pages of indefensible contempt, his rash summary judgment which turned aside 180 pages of exhibits and evidence from Dr. Taitz.
Not to mention that Judge Clay Land was just wrong, wrong, wrong, and arrogant about it to boot.
He had his opinion prepared on his laptop computer before Maj. Stephan Cook's trial. He appears to have prejudged any and all plaints which Army personnel originate at neighboring Fort Benning, a deployment post for Iraq and Afghanistan.
When the impostor is exposed, Judge Clay Land will be on record for authoring 43 pages of indefensible contempt, his rash summary judgment which turned aside 180 pages of exhibits and evidence from Dr. Taitz.Quote:
Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC
I would argue that the imposter has already been exposed. IMO, it is up to the honor of our legal system now to impose the appropriate sentence upon this usurper Barry Soetoro! Our country is in for the fight of it's life.
On CNN, Joy Behar "interviews" Orly Taitz, Esq.. http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=4889
I don't know whether Dr. Orly Taitz deserves to be commended for suffering being ill-treated and talked-over by Joy Behar on CNN, or to be shown the error of her naîveté for putting herself in the position of being used without being heard.
10 : the number of days that Judge David Carter has had the DoJ motion to dismiss Barnett v. Obama under submission.
Minuteman, I only hope that Judge Carter is taking these 10 days to carefully review the facts rather than falling to the fear of ridicule and threat. Surely he is aware of the dangerous repercussions of failing to allow the truth to be revealed.Quote:
Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC
Just got this in my inbox. You gotta love archived webpages.
http://web.archive.org/web/200406271...ws26060403.htm
This is from Eastern Standard Newspaper in Africa.
Kenyan-born Obama all set for US Senate
Kenyan-born US Senate hopeful, Barrack Obama, appeared set to take over the Illinois Senate seat after his main rival, Jack Ryan, dropped out of the race on Friday night amid a furor over lurid sex club allegations.
The allegations that horrified fellow Republicans and caused his once-promising candidacy to implode in four short days have given Obama a clear lead as Republicans struggled to fetch an alternative.
Ryan’s campaign began to crumble on Monday following the release of embarrassing records from his divorce. In the records, his ex-wife, Boston Public actress Jeri Ryan, said her former husband took her to kinky sex clubs in Paris, New York and New Orleans.
Dateline: Sunday, June 27, 2004
http://www.GOOOH.com
Thanks, Armbruster. I put a copy of the article up on Scribd.com:Quote:
Originally Posted by armbruster512
http://tinyurl.com/yfq5898
Obama warns Kenya again
Published on 23/09/2009
By Susan Anyangu
US President Barack Obama has warned Kenya, which he fondly refers to as the land of his grandfathers, that there would be no retreat on the road to a new constitution.
His government also declared its eye is on Kenya, especially on how the country tackles corruption and impunity.
US Ambassador to Kenya Michael Ranneberger also warned Washington will get tough on Kenya in the next few weeks. He delivered Obama’s caution that there will be no pulling out of the road to a new constitution to avoid recurrence of post-election violence in 2012.
Rest of the article:
http://www.standardmedia.co.ke/InsidePa ... 610&cid=4&
==================
Interesting to note that our usurper president Obama is totally destroying our own Constitution, and yet is deeply involved in Kenya's constitution development.
Am I missing something, or is this just another smoking gun showing what divided loyalties will do when found in a U.S. President?
And he's preaching to Kenyans about corruption. Hah! What a roaring hypocrite.
We need to get rid of this guy asap. He's NOT an American.
It is interesting what you can learn from a press that is not against you knowing and understanding politically incorrect information.
I'll put a copy of this up on Scribd if I can't find a copy of the whole paper.
====================
Mazrui on President Barack Obama’s triple heritage
Published on 07/06/2009
http://www.standardmedia.co.ke/InsidePa ... id=289&a=1
By Prof Ali Mazrui
The 44th President of the United States has a triple ancestral heritage. Obama is descended from Africans, from Muslims and from mainstream Americans. In the bid to be elected President of the US, Barack Obama emphasised his affinity with mainstream Americans, and underplayed his African and his Muslim ancestry.
There are great expectations of his presidency among Muslims and people of African descent, both within the United States and worldwide.
The basis of such expectations have to rely on three kinds of credentials Obama may have. One set of credentials on which we would base our expectations are existential credentials concerning Obama’s own identity and his personal character and attributes. Obama’s intelligence, his social and political skills and his personal style of leadership are, of course, part and parcel of the man.
Also existential is his African and Muslim ancestry. He is the first United States’ president whose father was born a Muslim and whose grandfather was, by all accounts, devout in the faith. He is the first President none of whose names were either European or Jewish. His first name was based on the Swahili name Baraka (blessing), his second name Hussein is Arabo-Muslim, and his family name Obama is indisputably Luo from Kenya. It is to his credit that he never tried to suppress his middle name Hussein, which was politically the most risky in the United States.
He is also the first United States’ President whose childhood education was partly in a Muslim country, indeed, within the most populous Muslim society in the world, Indonesia.
Obama’s childhood was also in Hawaii, arguably the most multicultural part of the United States.
Obama probably learnt more about Islam from his Indonesian stepfather (the mother’s second husband) than from his biological Kenyan father.
His school in Indonesia was secular and not a traditional madrasa. But his fellow students were overwhelmingly Muslim, as were indeed the majority of his instructors. He was exposed to Islam in the human composition of the school even if not necessarily in the syllabus and the curriculum.
A President in Action
Next to these existential criteria for basing our expectations of the Obama presidency are the credentials of performance itself. Within his first one hundred days Obama made no spectacular move to either Africa or Black America apart from First Lady Michelle’s visits to black schools and to places which help to feed the poor and the homeless of Washington, DC. Obama had also expressed concern about the crisis of Darfur in the Sudan and tried to have an input in the quest for solving the problem.
But although his Afro-oriented gestures in his first one hundred days were modest, Obama’s moves towards the Muslim world were more substantial. His first major television interview for foreign audiences was with Arabiya television network addressed to the Arab world. He also addressed the people of Iran on their national day, extending America’s hand of goodwill if Iran would "unclench its own fist" towards America.
For the Arab-Israeli conflict President Obama appointed as his Envoy the former majority leader in the US Senate, George Mitchell, an experienced mediator and negotiator who had successfully mediated the Good Friday Agreement for Northern Ireland in 1998.
Unlike President Bill Clinton who disproportionately entrusted the Arab-Israeli dispute to American Jews to handle, Senator George Mitchell has Lebanese, as well as Irish ancestry.
Obama also appointed Richard Holbrook, another very experienced and distinguished mediator, as special envoy for both Pakistan and Afghanistan. Obama also invited the Presidents of both Afghanistan and Pakistan to join him at the White House early in May 2009 for more fundamental evaluation of their joint policies towards the Taliban insurgents in both countries and towards general struggle against Muslim extremists at large.
Although the Government of Israel which came to power early this year was at best lukewarm about a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian problem, the Obama Administration has emphasised to both the Israelis and the Arabs that a two-state solution is still the policy of the United States. Vice-President Joseph Biden has also emphasised that two-state approach to Jewish audiences within the United States.
Obama’s policy towards Africa has been less noteworthy than his moves towards the Muslim world. The President may feel inhibited precisely because his father was not only an African but also a citizen of an African country. Obama may be cautious not to betray either racial nepotism or a manifest bias towards Africa. When faced with a dilemma between helping Kenya and helping Bangladesh, Obama may feel compelled to help Bangladesh as a poorer and more deserving supplicant for American aid.
The point has been raised whether Africa on its own would have been better off if Hillary Clinton had been elected President of the United States instead of Barack Obama.
Global Africa and Global Ummah
Obama’s Africa policy may become more active in a positive sense in the months and years ahead. But on the evidence so far it does seem credible that the African continent itself would have been better off if Hillary Clinton had become President of the United States.
On the other hand, if we examine the Black world as a whole instead of just the African continent, Obama’s election to the Presidency of the United States has set a remarkable precedent in upward political mobility. The United States is only the first white majority country to have elected a man of colour to its highest office in the land. This American precedent may lead on to the election of a Black Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, a Black President of France, and even a Black Chancellor of Germany before the end of this twenty-first century. A Somali Prime Minister of Italy in another 50 years is no longer inconceivable. After all, the United States has had a Luo President sooner than has Kenya, which has a population of several million Luo.
It is also not often realised that Obama is not only the most powerful Black man in world politics today, but the most powerful man of colour in the history of civilization. As we have mentioned before, Obama is more powerful than the Pharaoh who forced Moses out of Egypt, more powerful than the Ethiopian Emperor who defeated the Italians in 1896, more powerful than Shaka Zulu who ‘stands out as the greatest of them all and his legend has captured the imagination of both European and African writers, inspiring novels, biographies, and historical studies in several tongues.
When we say Obama is more powerful than Shaka Zulu, Ramses II of Egypt, and Menelik II of Ethiopia, we do not mean Obama is greater than any of them. We do not know yet how great Barack Obama is likely to be.
What we do know is that he is Commander in Chief of US forces, which are greater than all the African armies in history added together. Currently it is estimated that the United States has one thousand (yes, 1000) military bases overseas.
In sheer power, there is therefore no doubt that Barack Obama is in a class by himself among Black leaders in the history of civilisation. But what about Obama’s impact upon African Americans?
Black voters in the United States voted for Obama in percentages of over 90 per cent — after some hesitation in the early stages of his primary campaign for the presidency. But in the course of his first 100 days there was some Black disenchantment because Obama was perceived as being in denial about the importance of such African American concerns as affirmative action and reparations for past injustices. At African American public meetings to grade Obama’s performance during those 100 days, some graded him as low as C-. Others gave him an Incomplete.
But in fairness to President Obama some of his most important policies were bound to benefit millions of African Americans, although the policies were not specifically focused on African Americans. His aspiration to make health service as affordable and universal as possible was bound to benefit hundreds of thousands of uninsured African Americans. His plan to try and make college education more affordable was also bound to benefit generations of young Blacks if Obama succeeded. Indeed, many of these policies were likely to yield greater benefits to African Americans than even affirmative action — which in the past had often benefited more white women than Black men.
With regard to health policies affecting the African continent, Obama has a tough act to follow when compared with George W Bush. President Bush persuaded Congress to allocate billions of dollars to combat HIV-Aids in Africa and the Caribbean countries.
Bush’s strategy against HIV-AIids abroad was arguably his most enlightened policy, though his accompanying condition of sexual abstinence was naive and often honoured more in the breach than the observance.
Religion and Voting Behaviour
In our analysis we have now transitioned from Obama’s credentials of performance to his credentials of pledges. The pursuit of affordable health and affordable education are pledges in the process of implementation. Also a pledge in the process of implementation is Obama’s campaign promise of giving a tax cut of some kind to about 90 per cent of the working population. Again beneficiaries of this pledge are bound to include millions of African Americans, as well as some of the six million Muslims who are United States’ citizens.
In the campaign of 2008 neither the Republicans nor the Democrats courted the Muslim vote overtly. On the contrary, the Obama campaign was sensitive to the erroneous charge that he was a closet Muslim. Muslims were particularly offended when Obama’s organisers removed Muslim women wearing the hijab from proximity to Barack Obama at a rally when a lot of cameras were targeting the candidate.
Muslims also complained that although Obama was prepared to be seen at Christian and Jewish places of worship, he very carefully avoided visiting a mosque during the campaign. After all, even President George W. Bush had visited a mosque.
Muslim defenders of Barack Obama felt that the choice before Muslim voters was between a Muslim-friendly candidate Barack Obama and a future Muslim-friendly President Obama in the White House. The Muslim voters could not have both.
Obama had to avoid playing the Muslim card when he was campaigning. But with the first 100 days as President, Obama was saying that he had Muslim relatives. He had also raised the issue of US relations with the Muslim world to a high level of urgency.
He had pledged to end the war in Iraq. He had pledged to support the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state alongside Israel. He had pledged to combine military action in Afghanistan and Pakistan with considerable American resources for nation-building and economic development. Many of these pledges became explicit after Obama had been elected rather than promises in his campaign. His performance beyond the first 100 days is still awaited with bated suspense. In conclusion, Obama’s existential assets of Africanity, Muslim ancestry and personal skills are potentially assets for his policies towards the Muslim world and for his impact upon the Black world. Obama is likely to be more cautious in his policies towards the African continent to avoid the charge of ancestral bias and racial partisanship. But his election to the highest office of the most powerful country in the world may have broken the glass ceiling in other white majority countries thousands of miles away from the shores of the United States.
— This is an edited version of a paper presented by Prof Ali Mazrui and other professors at a seminar at the International Institute of Islamic Thought, Washington DC, on April 17
The Orange County register
Friday, October 16, 2009
Lawyer Orly Taitz tries patience of federal court
Obama birthplace lawyer can be handful for the judges hearing her cases.
Martin Wisckol
Columnist: The Buzz
The Orange County Register
mwisckol@ocregister.com
U.S. District Judge David O. Carter has been presiding patiently over Mission Viejo lawyer Orly Taitz's effort to oust Barack Obama from the presidency on the allegation that he was born in Kenya.
Carter's kept his cool while Taitz failed to serve Obama's lawyer with her complaint, attempted (and failed) to dismiss two of her clients, attempted (and failed) to have a magistrate judge removed, and attempted (and failed) to have a witness testify during an administrative hearing.
She also had 40 to 100 of her supporters call Carter's Santa Ana office daily to encourage him to rule in their favor. Carter responded by simply telling Taitz to knock it off.
But even judges can run out of patience, as U.S. District Judge Clay D. Land demonstrated with Tuesday's $20,000 fine of Taitz for misconduct, issued along with a scathing, 43-page sanction.
In his order, Land detailed the limits to which his patience had been stretched in a similar Obama-birthplace suit filed by Taitz in Georgia. Land noted that Taitz failed to follow basic court procedure, and that he'd overhauled his court's schedule to accommodate Taitz.
In return, Land wrote, Taitz used the courtroom to grandstand for the press, and repeatedly filed frivolous motions.
"Rather than assert legitimate legal arguments, counsel chose to accuse the Court of treason and of being controlled by the 'Obama machine.' She had no facts to support her claims - but her diatribe would play well to her choir," Land wrote.
In a footnote, Land explained that he'd been contacted by one of Taitz's supporters, who "challenged the undersigned (Land) to a 'round of fisticuffs on the Courthouse Square,' (and) asserted that the President is not human."
Fighting the regime
The fine got Taitz even more steamed, and she's vowed to appeal it. Land, she said, was in the pocket of the "oppressive" Obama Administration.
"He's scared to go against the regime," she said. "He's trying to intimidate me and other lawyers to stay away from this issue."
Among other things, Land said he threw out Taitz's case because the constitution dictates that it's Congress' job to determine whether the president meets the qualifications to hold office. Land goes on to cite several circumstances to support the idea that the issue should not be decided by the courts.
"Perhaps an eccentric citizen has become convinced that the President is an alien from Mars, and the courts should order DNA testing to enforce the constitution," Land wrote sarcastically, then added the footnote quoted above.
Santa Ana's Judge Carter is considering the same constitutional issue in a motion to dismiss, which he heard arguments for on Oct. 5. Among those predicting dismissal is the conservative dean of the Chapman School of Law, John Eastman, who remains unconvinced that Obama's birth documents are valid but believes it's a matter for Congress, not the courts.
The basic idea is that interpretation of the qualifications for the presidency is a political – rather than legal – issue.
"It's called the political-question doctrine," said Eastman, who specializes in constitutional law. "The regulation of qualifications are assigned to Congress."
Contact the writer: 714-285-2867
e-mail: mwisckol@ocregister.com
Land doesn't impress me as a judge who exercises professional conduct. It seems apparent from his statements.
TexasBorn, it was even more apparent in his courtroom on July 16 for Maj. Stephan Cook v. Col. Good et al.Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasBorn
Judge Land was contemptuous to Orly Taitz in his tone of voice, facial expression, and demeanor. I don't recall him agreeing to any point of fact in her presentation. He was in continuous full attack mode against Maj. Cook and Orly Taitz. The Army attorneys seemed embarrassed to be defending the Army while Judge "Hostile" Land was seemingly prosecuting Orly Taitz and Maj. Cook, who was actually the plaintiff.
Judge Land called a recess before delivering his verdict. After 15 minutes, he returned with his opinion, which was lengthy and obviously prepared beforehand, and his verdict, "dismissed for lack of standing, the deployment orders having been revoked." In her closing arguments, Dr. Taitz had already shredded the "lack of standing" verdict before he rendered it - she knew the drill and she saw it coming.
Judge Land's written words will not show it upon review, but he was spiteful to Maj. Cook and especially to Orly Taitz. On the other hand, Dr. Taitz could be more respectful and not provoke judges to anger. Just her tone of voice openly incites to retaliation. A lawyer must win over a judge by convincingly presenting evidence, precedents, logic, and arguments, and then "closing the deal" - not by picking a fight with the one who will rule on the case!
[quote=MinutemanCDC_SC]Maj. Gen. Childers, Lt. Col. Graef, Maj. Cook v. Col. Good, Col. Wingate, Col. MacDonald, Dr. Robert M. Gates, USSecDef, Barack Hussein Obama, de facto President of the United States
Courtroom proceedings are unfamiliar to me, but Major Stefan Cook v. Col. Good et al was a disheartening eye-opener about how unjust "justice" can be. This morning at 9:30 AM, July 16, 2009, I saw either a preview of the Tribulation or a look back at the Inquisition, in U.S. Distruct Judge Clay Land's second-floor courtroom in the U.S. Post Office and Federal Courthouse, Columbus, Georgia - eight miles north of Ft. Benning.
Everything in this courtroom seemed backwards and turned upside down.
http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/6...donitshead.jpg
Judge Land acted like an aggressive prosecutor, Dr. Taitz, the prosecuting attorney, acted like a defender of her wrongly attacked client, and the Army defense attorneys acted like bystanders who refused to get involved. Perhaps this travesty would be best understood if presented in reverse order, so you could see how events were addressed before they happened.
_________________________________________________
1) Dr. Taitz asked that this case serve as representative of the other 170 or so military personnel. She told Judge Land that if he did not accept a representative case on behalf of the others, she would potentially have to bring each one before his court. He declined her request without comment, apparently not taking it seriously.
The blonde female Army defense attorney mentioned Navy Capt. Schiver, Maj. Cook's civilian job supervisor at defense subcontractor Simtech in Pensacola. Capt. Harris had named a July 15, 2009 (yesterday), date of deployment to Afghanistan for Maj. Cook because Maj. Cook had asked for a July 15th date. He had volunteered before Mr. Obama took office, and reaffirmed that on May 15, 2009. She claimed that he should not be allowed to change the request he had so recently made. She said the proper procedure was a ???????-43 review process as to whether orders should be revoked.
She stated that the 11th Circuit has addressed this military [deployment?] procedure as early as 2003; yet, Maj. Cook did not use those channels.
__________________________________________
2) Dr. Taitz only made a ten or fifteen minute presentation, in which she presciently disassembled and defused the "no standing" ruling which Judge Land would make a half hour thereafter. This was hardly a shot in the dark, there having been 48 previous "no standing" rulings by self-shielding judges, none of whom has been willing to step out of line and get involved in actually judging between the fraud and the victim.
An almost as blonde female Army Major followed Dr. Taitz with a ten or fifteen minute recitation of how the military expected issues to be addressed through channels [in an ideal, untainted world]. The Army defense attorney stated that Maj. Cook had not taken an Article 138 complaint through channels, which is the prescribed procedure.
Dr, Taitz objected to that statement as not true, because she had taken the presentment to Adm. Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, asking what was the proper route for determining the legitimacy of the chain of command for orders. Adm. Mullen's legal counsel told her that because the [de facto] Commander-in-Chief is a civilian, he is not subject to the military determination of legitimacy of chain of command. Therefore, an Article 138 complaint could not require verification of legitimacy of a civilian CinC. [Therefore, Article 138 through channels would be pointless in this particular case.]
Then the Army defense attorney simply restated the necessity of submitting an Article 138 complaint through channels. Otherwise, the Army defense attorney comported herself satisfactorily and without offense.
Judge Land asked Dr. Taitz if she had evidence of her statement. "Evidence... Evidence!" She said she could present a written affidavit, but she had not brought the original determination, not expecting that the Army attorney would make such a false statement. Judge Land then denied Dr. Taitz' testimony in lieu of written evidence, leaving the argument in the Army's favor, that an Article 138 complaint had not been submitted through channels, and Maj. Cook had gone outside of channels and filed in a civilian court.
The Army defense attorney claimed that filing in a civilian court was improper for determination of legitimacy of chain of command, and the judge appeared to agree. N.B. the Catch-22: the JCS had already determined that a military complaint process cannot validate a civilian Commander-in-Chief, yet Maj. Cook cannot validate a military chain of command in a civilian court;. Did anyone mention that this eventuality had never happened before, and that it would cause a Constitutional crisis?
Although this contradiction was apparent to all, Judge Land accepted it into the record. More than once, I feared I would be reprimanded for my involuntary gasps of disbelief. I should have been able to restrain one moan, though. By contrast, Maj. Stefan Cook sat ramrod straight and, although I could not see his face, he did not make any untoward motions throughout.
__________________________________________
3) After a 15 minute recess, Judge Clay Land closed the case by rebuking Dr. Taitz for four or five minutes in a statement apparently prepared BEFORE the trial, the gist (NOT A QUOTE) of which was the following:
Of course, that was not at all the intent of Maj. Cook's request for a temporary restraining order. As a volunteering officer, he could have revoked his own orders at any time up to deployment. Maj. Cook's plaint was for clarification of the chain of command, so that he could lawfully go to Afghanistan, as he had volunteered to do and wanted to do. But the judge specifically said he would not order discovery of Mr. Obama's birth certificate, that being interference by the judicial branch with the executive branch according to the separation of powers . . .
- This court is ruled by the same Constitution your client uses to prompt his refusal of military orders. You came here intending to uncover Pres. Obama's birth certificate. The Constitution defines the separation of powers, and this court will not overstep those bounds to rule on the Executive Branch.
Maj. Cook, your orders to Afghanistan have been revoked; you will not be getting any more orders. Retired Maj. Gen. Childers and Lt. Col. Graef attached their names to this case based on possible orders; this court will not rule on hypotheticals. Your employment in Pensacola is beyond the jurisdiction of this court. Your complaint fails to meet the three requirements for standing. Therefore, this case is dismissed for lack of standing.
You have your orders revoked; that is what your restraining order demanded.
Actually, that is what is necessary, and what was intended by the checks and balances of a tripartite government. Separation of powers and checks and balances are opposing weights on the scales of justice. They must balance, or there is no justice.
__________________________________________
4) "Federal court only has authority of actual cases and controversies," Judge Land said. "The entire action is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction."
This bland statement does not communicate the contemptuous glare and hostile tone of voice which Judge Land showed the plaintiff, and especially Orly Taitz, when he read aloud the requirements for standing. Such "justices" hate her for challenging their unjust tyranny from the bench, their throwing the law under the bus and ruling according to agenda and worldview.
Quote:
Originally Posted by "U.S. District Judge Clay Land read, not":26x7teq5
Thus, he spotlighted the irony:
I) Maj. Cook suffered injury in that his reserve status is probably revoked along with the orders for Afghanistan. The judge told him he would not be receiving further orders from the Army. The injury is concrete and particularized to him alone, actual and imminent, like day before yesterday.
II) Maj. Cook suffered injury in that the DOD had leaned on his boss to fire him from his job at defense subcontractor Simtech. Maj. Cook was fired from his civilian job less than 24 hours after his orders were revoked. Of course, DOD will claim there was no causal connection.
III) Injury would not only be addressed by a favorable decision, but a mere court order for discovery of the usurper's birth documents would end the reign of terror for everyone before it gets really, really dire.
Dr. Orly Taitz replied to Judge Land, "This is a mockery of justice."
And so it was. It merely covered the judge upon judicial review.
We all rose to show respect for the judge upon his two entrances. I had to force myself to rise to show him respect when he finally left. But, after the trial, I did render respect where respect was due - to Maj. Stefan Cook. I saluted him and told him he was the bravest man I had ever met. He said, "It's moral courage." I continued to stare at him, wanting to weep. He turned away, saying, "You make me want to cry." He could feel the emotion. Pray for this just man, unjustly persecuted to hide the wickedness of another [snip].
Someone said afterward that this was just the wrong judge. We all expressed our hopes for U.S. District Judge David O. Carter in California for Keyes v. Obama.
But today, this was truly a kangaroo court; the judge had even prepared his final opinion before the case began.
__________________________________________________ ____
5) On the sidewalk in front of the U.S. Post Office and Federal Courthouse, Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq., and much-decorated Middle East combat veteran Major Stefan F. Cook patiently explained to hostile and provoking reporters about:
his uniform sprinkled with medals and ribbons and combat buttons;
his four combat tours in the Middle East vs. the "coward objector" slander thrown at him;
his volunteering for another Afghanistan tour under Pres. Bush, but since March, having second thoughts (Geneva Convention) about serving in combat under a de facto Commander-in-Chief who had not demonstrated his natural born citizenship so as to be a legitimate head of state;
the intricacies of citizenship vs. natural born citizenship;
non-binding Sen. Res. 511 approving Sen. John McCain's purported natural born citizenship vs. the absence of examination of Sen. Obama's bona fides (Dr. Taitz misspoke that John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, although his Panama birth certificate states he was born in Colon Hospital, Colon, Republic of Panama);
that natural born citizenship required two citizen parents, not just one, plus birth on soil under U.S. jurisdiction;
Emmerich de Vattel's The Law of Nations, and how its principles of international law were incorporated into the U.S. Constitution;
the 14th Amendment definition of citizenship and why that was irrelevant to natural born citizenship; yet its primary author, Rep. John Bingham, incidentally described natural born citizenship as birth on U.S. soil to parents who are citizens;
and so much more, in her inimitable meticulous detail.
That contrasted with the lack of opportunity given in court to present the same character witness and the history of natural born citizenship. It just didn't come up in the courtroom. Neither did Mr. Obama's proof of qualification or the lack thereof.
- MinutemanCDC_SC .... 7/16/09
I learned today that if you're lost in the backwoods of west Georgia at midday, with no shadows,
no road signs, the gas gauge on "E", and no bars on the cellphone, you're REALLY LOST![/quote:26x7teq5]
I would like to know if anyone has seen this Associated Press story on Barack Obama back in 2004 ?
I suggest you read it, and ACT on it. Eventually the entire Truth will come out, for now THIS article seems to answer our questions.
http://patdollard.com/wp-content/upload ... enyaap.png
Patriot, yes I've read this and I bet it will be scrubbed from the internet soon.Quote:
Originally Posted by PatriotofPast
I believe the evidence is overwhelming already but our corrupt judges and politicians will do everything they can to ignore. Their attitude is "So? What do you expect us to do...overturn the election of a popularly elected President?" It's beyond mind boggling.
It looks like you have been reading my mind again TBQuote:
Originally Posted by TexasBorn
I've figured out that I am very prejudiced against progressives. Is that bad?
==========================
BORN IN THE USA?
Plan killed to make 'naturalized' citizens eligible
Failed 2004 proposal would have given immigrants entry to Oval Office
________________________________________
Posted: October 17, 2009
12:45 am Eastern
By Bob Unruh
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=113183
A congressional committee deliberated only five years ago a plan that would have opened the door to allowing immigrants and others who do not qualify as "natural born" citizens in the United States entry into the Oval office – but ended up killing the plan.
One of the advocates for the plan was Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., whose comments still are available in an audio file posted at Talk Radio News: http://media.talkradionews.com/audio/2158.mp3
"I believe in the right of the people to choose as they wish. People say, 'Well you're amending the Constitution.' The fact is in 1789 the notion of direct democracy was not the one that governed," the congressman said.
"Clearly in terms of world history the people who came to the American continent… They went for the first time to self governance, but they didn't go all the way. We have evolved substantially since that time, I think in a good direction," he said.
"We do have now this major obstacle in the way of the voters, and we say to them, 'We don't trust you, you could get fooled, I mean, they might, some foreign country might sucker you by getting some slick person and mole him into the United States or her and get that person citizenship and then years later have that person get elected president and you'll be too dumb to notice.'
"I don't think that's accurate and I don't think that ought to be the governing principal. I really believe that the people of the United States ought to have the right to elect as president of the United States someone they wish," he said.
The hearing was held Oct. 5, 2004, by the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee on the subject of "Maximizing voter choice: Opening the president to naturalized Americans."
The proposal was before the questions over Barack Obama's birth place – and therefore eligibility to be president under the Constitution's demand for a "natural born" citizen in the Oval Office – became an issue.
Among those providing testimony on the proposal were Chairman Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah; Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.; Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and several experts.
"What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen. But a child who is adopted from a foreign country to American parents in the United States is not eligible for the presidency. Now, that does not seem fair or right to me," Hatch said, according to a transcript of the proceedings.
"Similarly, it is unclear whether a child born to a U.S. serviceman overseas would be eligible."
He cited both a constitutional amendment as well as proposed legislative resolutions that were written to change that.
"This restriction has become an anachronism that is decidedly un-American. Consistent with our democratic form of government, our citizens should have every opportunity to choose their leaders free of unreasonable limitations. Indeed, no similar restriction bars any other critical members of the government from holding office, including the Senate, the House of Representatives, the United States Supreme Court, or the president's most trusted cabinet officials," he said.
Instead of seeing a need to limit the chief executive of the United States to someone with a "natural born" loyalty, he said, "The history of the United States is replete with scores of great and patriotic Americans whose dedication to this country is beyond reproach, but who happen to have been born outside of our borders."
Then-Sen. Don Nickles, R-Okla., submitted testimony that he thought a statutory change could facilitate plans to allow "naturalized" citizens to be eligible to be president.
"Many Americans would probably be surprised to learn that a constitutional question remains as to whether a child born abroad to a U.S. citizen serving in the military or serving at a government post are not clearly, indisputably eligible to seek the highest office in our land.
Nor is it clear whether a child born overseas to a citizen traveling or working abroad is eligible to run for president. There are strong legal arguments that say these children are eligible, but it certainly is not an inarguable point," he said.
He continued, "Some citizens are ineligible to transmit citizenship to a biological child born abroad because of a failure to meet certain statutory criteria such as having lived in the United States for 5 years, 2 of which had to be after the age of 14," he noted.
Testimony submitted by Matthew Spalding of the Heritage Foundation raised some concerns.
"The attachment of the president must be absolute, and absolute attachment comes most often from being born and raised in – and educated and formed by – this country, unalloyed by other native allegiances. The natural born citizen requirement for the presidency seeks to guarantee, as much as possible, this outcome where it matters most," he said.
"The question is whether you can expand the eligibility to non-native-born citizens without undermining the wisdom and caution inherent in the framers' design. One proxy would be a significant citizenship requirement, along with a significantly increased residency requirement. How much? The question is enough to approximate the attachment that comes with having lived in America for almost all of one's life, thus fundamentally shaped by this regime, its history, institutions, and way of life. The average of 20th century presidents is 54.
A 35-year citizenship requirement, combined with a residency requirement increase, would assure that most would-be presidents are citizens before they are 18 years old and residents for much of the time thereafter," he submitted.
But he said opening the presidency to naturalized citizens raises the question of dual citizenship that must be addressed, there must be a deliberate effort to teach American traditions and any such move should be implemented years out to take out politics.
The issue of Obama's eligibility is significant, since there are a number of lawsuits alleging that if he was not born in the U.S., he does not meet the requirement in the Constitution that the president be a "natural born" citizen.
Those lawsuits continue in several parts of the country, and in fact a California federal judge has scheduled a trial on the dispute to begin in January.
WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's 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 he was actually 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.
Complicating the situation is Obama's decision to spend sums exceeding $1 million to avoid releasing an original long-form state birth certificate that would put to rest the questions. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=106138
WND also has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes his kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and his adoption records. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=100613
Because of the dearth of information about Obama's eligibility, WND founder Joseph Farah has launched a campaign to raise contributions to post billboards asking a simple question: "Where's the birth certificate?"
The campaign followed a petition that has collected more than 475,000 signatures demanding proof of his eligibility, the availability of yard signs raising the question and the production of permanent, detachable magnetic bumper stickers asking the question.
The "certification of live birth" posted online and widely touted as "Obama's birth certificate" does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same "short-form" document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii. The true "long-form" birth certificate – which includes information such as the name of the birth hospital and attending physician – is the only document that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not permitted its release for public or press scrutiny.
Oddly, though congressional hearings were held to determine whether Sen. John McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president as a "natural born citizen," no controlling legal authority ever sought to verify Obama's claim to a Hawaiian birth.
///
Texas, I've stored a copy up on Scribd:Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasBorn
http://www.scribd.com/doc/21141411/Stan ... te-6-27-04
The Federal Courts Are Committing Treason to the Constitution!
Chief Justice John Marshall’s voice from the past cries out for taking jurisdiction in today’s Obama Article II eligibility cases.
Per the great U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall, the federal courts and judges are committing treason to the Constitution by not taking jurisdiction and getting to the merits in the various cases before them regarding the Article II eligibility clause question for Obama.
It is worth keeping in mind the words of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall when he wrote in Cohens v. Virginia 19 US 264 (1821):
[i]“It is most true that this Court will not take jurisdiction if it should not: but it is equally true, that it must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid; but we cannot avoid them. All we can do is, to exercise our best judgment, and conscientiously to perform our duty. In doing this, on the present occasion, we find this tribunal invested with appellate jurisdiction in all cases arising under the constitution and laws of the United States. We find no exception to this grant, and we cannot insert one.â€
"We do have now this major obstacle in the way of the voters, and we say to them, 'We don't trust you, you could get fooled, I mean, they might, some foreign country might sucker you by getting some slick person and mole him into the United States or her and get that person citizenship and then years later have that person get elected president and you'll be too dumb to notice.'Quote:
Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan
Isn't this exactly what just happened to us? Barney Frank, you are a truly a first class crystal ball reader. I mean, gosh, it's almost like you had PLANNED just this very thing to happen! :twisted:
Thanks to patriots like you Highlander the truth cannot stay hidden. One question though. Why couldn't Scribd be scrubbed just like all the other websites?Quote:
Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan
http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2008/ ... yan_am.php
Have you already seen this one?Quote:
November 26, 2008
Video: Kenyan Ambassador admits Obama born in Kenya
Topics: Political News and commentaries
Via the Mike In The Morning show on WRIF radio, in Detroit, Michigan that called the Kenyan Embassy, and spoke to the Kenyan Ambassador to the United States, Peter Ogego, who admitted that it is a well known fact that Barack Obama was born in Kenya, and plans are underway to build a memorial at the site of his birth.
The entire phone call can be heard here: