Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gene Stone, commenting at minutemennews.com

http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/users...jpg?1370474052

He doesn't want a third term. He wants a PERMANENT TERM, as an Islamic State North American caliph.

---

Exactly, but don't expect him to be campaigning for North America. He hasn't been so far, except for his recent "youth outreach" to Central America, which probably has more to do with a Cloward-Piven man-made crisis than with campaigning for himself.

His sights have always been global, from global expansionist Communism, to a global government and a worldwide Caliphate. The ancestors of today's globalist Eurocentric banksters (the Fed, IMF, World Bank, CFR, TLC, NAU, Bilderbergs et al) lost their fatted calf in 1781, when the United States gained sovereignty, free of the Crown and European monarchies. The banksters have been trying to get "their" colonies back ever since.

But Europe's elites haven't exactly welcomed Mr. Obama's ascendancy, as have western Africa, China, Mumbai, and the OIC, especially Egypt, Pakistan, and Indonesia. Maybe later, the Sudan, Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Yemen, Wahhαbi Arαbia, and Kenya will welcome him as well, probably after he leaves the Office of President of the U.S. like the husk of a butterfly's cocoon, and his Kenyan origin no longer excludes him but commends him.

So if he does have any future at all outside of a cage at Gitmo, he will have to settle for seeking a worldwide Caliphate, based upon militant Is1am and terrorism, like ISIS, instead of the future One World Government, based upon finance, commerce, and apostate churchianity devoid of Christ, a totalitarian world empire that will conquer under the banner of disarmament.

I DON'T KNOW WHEN, K? And neither does the prophet of your choice. Mr. Obama is plainly planning to rule an imminent worldwide caliphate in the immediate future, even though that is like planning to win the lottery.

But the One World Government and the worldwide Caliphate won't last two four year terms, or even two terms of 42 thirty-day months, before the Lord Jesus Christ returns from heaven with all His saints, and the beast and the false prophet, as they are figuratively depicted, are cast into a very real lake of fire. That's all at the end of the Book.

The Bible doesn't identify Mr. Obama specifically - not by name, at least, and only if one chooses to envision him there, even as others have seen Cæsar Nero, Cæsar Domitian, Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan, Suleiman I (the Magnificent), Napoleon Bonaparte, and Adolph Hitler before him. I don't know, and I won't know before the rapture, in which Jesus will snatch away all Christian believers to be forever with the Lord, just before the pseudo messiah is revealed. I'm looking up for the Lord Jesus Christ, the King of kings, not for the antichrist.

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/pr...Cs=w426-h255-p



Rep. Blackburn: Impeaching ‘Imperialist’ Obama Is On Table


Share this Tweet this Google +
August 28, 2014 5:51 pm

• Obama Nation

(Newsmax) – Impeachment, censure and legal action are all on the table as the House considers how to discipline President Barack Obama for his “imperialist” conduct in bypassing Congress with executive orders, Rep. Marsha Blackburn told Newsmax TV on Thursday.

Blackburn, a Tennessee Republican, didn’t rule out any of these responses in an interview with”MidPoint” host Ed Berliner to discuss the president’s latest threatened maneuver — to secure a global climate change agreement without congressional approval.

But she suggested the federal judiciary already has set clear limits on the president’s authority.

“What you’re going to see is us look at censures,” said Blackburn. “You’re going to see us continue to look at taking the president to court.

“Impeachment is out there,” she continued, “but I have to tell you, I kind of appreciate the fact the Supreme Court has found this administration guilty 12 different times and found them in error, in abeyance.

“And every time they go to court they are shown and proven to be outside of the rule of the law,” she said.

Blackburn scoffed at the White House’s latest effort to press ahead on another front — immigration — by crafting what the Associated Press called a “blame-it-on-Congress legal justification” for stopping deportation proceedings against millions of illegal immigrants.

That executive order could come before the end of summer, the AP reported. The administration’s argument is that Congress underfunded immigration enforcement and therefore defaulted to the president, who must decide where to assign the government’s limited resources.

The president already stayed deportation for some 800,000 children who arrived here illegally, through a 2012 executive order called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).

Setting priorities based on budgeting means deferring deportation for some or all of the estimated 11.5 million undocumented migrants inside the country, the administration argued.

“That is absolutely ridiculous and the president knows that’s ridiculous,” said Blackburn, adding, “Here again, they feel like the means they’re going through justifies the ends that they want to reach. They don’t want to work with Congress. They don’t want to address these issues one at a time.

“If the president wanted to do something on this, he could take up the two bills that are sitting on [Senate Majority Leader] Harry Reid’s desk right now that we passed on August 1: My legislation that would freeze the DACA program and … legislation that would put the money in place — reprogram funds — to put the National Guard on the border and secure that southern border.

“That would be a great start,” said Blackburn, “and if the president really wants something done, that’s where he ought to be looking.”

Blackburn also criticized the president’s attempted end-around on climate change — a “politically binding” international agreement to abide by caps on greenhouse gas emissions, coupled with a “name and shame” enforcement regime for countries that don’t enforce the limits.

The caps are based on existing global treaties the Senate has refused to ratify, but the White House contends this new agreement would pass muster because it’s not a legally binding treaty of the type requring Senate approval.

Blackburn said the president is wrong on both the law and the science of climate change linked to emissions of heat-trapping carbon dioxide.
“What we are seeing from more scientists is an agreement that this [global warming] is a cyclical process that we have been through, and we don’t need to be signing or expanding other agreements,” she said.

She said Obama’s move also ignores how much the U.S. already has done to lower CO2 output through energy efficiency and diversification of energy sources beyond oil and coal.

“There is a right way and a wrong way to go about this,” said Blackburn. “The president’s process is an extremist approach, and it is something that he’s trying to do as a political gimme to the radical environmentalists that support him.

“Many of us are conservationists,” said Blackburn, adding, “What we are not for is going about implementing the policies just for the sake of doing the policy.”

A potential House lawsuit against the president — for which lawmakers have set aside $350,000 to pay lawyers, should the case go forward — is aimed at overturning his decision to waive the employer mandate for the Affordable Health Care Act.

“This is specifically why we’re taking him to court,” said Blackburn. “The president treats laws as suggestion, and he needs to realize it’s his job not to pass the law — his job is to implement the law.

“If he doesn’t like [the laws], then come back to us,” she said. “He doesn’t have time for this. He is an imperialist president; he wants to act like he’s the king.”
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/mar.../28/id/591498/


- See more at: http://www.teaparty.org/rep-blackbur....B8Q3ogLs.dpuf

Hoping for Change in 2016 is Futile
and the Wrong Response to Fraud.
(Reposted here to remind people to take into account the 1982 Consent Decree in DNC et al v RNC et al, Case No. 09-4615 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.)

Why the GOP won’t challenge vote fraud:
the RNC committed political suicide in 1982.

Posted on November 15, 2012 by Dr. Eowyn

It’s major duct tape time ’cause you’ll need it to keep your head from exploding.

Are you ready for this?

Here we go….

There is now compelling and undeniable evidence that MAJOR vote fraud had been perpetrated in the November 2012 Election. See FOTM’s posts chronicling the extensive pervasive fraud by going to our “2012 Election” page below our FOTM masthead, and click on those post links colored dark green.

But our screaming and hollering are to no avail. No one is listening to us. Not even the Republican Party.

Here’s why….

The Republican Party made an agreement 30 years ago with the Democrat Party NOT to ensure voting integrity and NOT to pursue suspected vote fraud.

Yes. You read it correctly.

In fact, legally the GOP cannot ensure voting integrity, nor can it prevent vote fraud.

Here’s the astounding reason, which is kept from the American people.

http://fellowshipofminds.files.wordp...-gop.jpg?w=500

PolitiJim writes for Gulag Bound, November 13, 2012, that during the weekly True the Vote webcast, Catherine Engelbrecht related a meeting she had with Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee (RNC), asking what the GOP would do about voter integrity. The answer?

Nothing. They aren’t legally able to.

http://fellowshipofminds.files.wordp...echt.jpg?w=500True the Vote’s Catherine Engelbrecht
(read more about her, here)

This all goes back to a lawsuit 31 years ago, in 1981. The following is compiled from an account on The Judicial View, a legal website specializing in court decision research and alerts, and from “Democratic National Committee v Republican National Committee,” Case No. 09-4615.

In 1981, during the gubernatorial election in New Jersey (NJ), a lawsuit was brought against the RNC, the NJ Republican State Committee (RSC), and three individuals (John A. Kelly, Ronald Kaufman, and Alex Hurtado), accusing them of violating the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 1971, 1973, and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

The lawsuit was brought by the Democratic National Committee (DNC), the NJ Democratic State Committee (DSC), and two individuals (Virginia L. Peggins and Lynette Monroe).
The lawsuit alleged that:

• The RNC and RSC targeted minority voters in New Jersey in an effort to intimidate them.
  
  
• The RNC created a voter challenge list by mailing sample ballots to individuals in precincts with a high percentage of racial or ethnic minority registered voters. Then the RNC put the names of individuals whose postcards were returned as undeliverable on a list of voters to challenge at the polls.
  
  
• The RNC enlisted the help of off-duty sheriffs and police officers with “National Ballot Security Task Force” armbands, to intimidate voters by standing at polling places in minority precincts during voting. Some of the officers allegedly wore firearms in a visible manner.
  

To settle the lawsuit, in 1982, the RNC and [the New Jersey] RSC entered into an agreement or Consent Decree, which is national in scope, limiting the RNC’s ability to engage or assist in voter fraud prevention unless the RNC obtains the court’s approval in advance. The following is what the RNC and RSC, in the Consent Decree, agreed they would do:

[I]n the future, in all states and territories of the United States:

(a) comply with all applicable state and federal laws protecting the rights of duly qualified citizens to vote for the candidate(s) of their choice;

(b) in the event that they produce or place any signs which are part of ballot security activities, cause said signs to disclose that they are authorized or sponsored by the party committees and any other committees participating with the party committees;

(c) refrain from giving any directions to or permitting their agents or employees to remove or deface any lawfully printed and placed campaign materials or signs;

(d) refrain from giving any directions to or permitting their employees to campaign within restricted polling areas or to interrogate prospective voters as to their qualifications to vote prior to their entry to a polling place;

(e) refrain from undertaking any ballot security activities in polling places or election districts where the racial or ethnic composition of such districts is a factor in the decision to conduct, or the actual conduct of, such activities there and where a purpose or significant effect of such activities is to deter qualified voters from voting; and the conduct of such activities disproportionately in or directed toward districts that have a substantial proportion of racial or ethnic populations shall be considered relevant evidence of the existence of such a factor and purpose;

(f) refrain from having private personnel deputized as law enforcement personnel in connection with ballot security activities.

The RNC also agreed that the RNC, its agents, servants, and employees would be bound by the Decree, “whether acting directly or indirectly through other party committees.”

As modified in 1987, the Consent Decree defined “ballot security activities” to mean “ballot integrity, ballot security or other efforts to prevent or remedy vote fraud.”

Since 1982, that Consent Decree has been renewed every year by the original judge, Carter appointee District Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise, now 88 years old. Long retired, Debevoise comes back [annaully] for the sole purpose of renewing his 1981 order for another year.

http://fellowshipofminds.files.wordp...pg?w=675&h=900
U.S. District Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise

In 2010, the RNC unsuccessfully appealed “to vacate or modify” the Consent Decree in “Democratic National Committee v Republican National Committee,” Case No. 09-4615 (C.A. 3, Mar. 8, 2012). (I paid The Judicial Review $10 for the PDF of Case No. 09-4615 and uploaded the 59-page document to FOTM’s media library. To read Case No. 09-4615, click here!)

This is a summary of the appeals judge’s ruling, filed on March 8, 2012:

In 1982, the Republican National Committee (“RNC”) and the Democratic National Committee (“DNC”) entered into a consent decree (the “Decree” or “Consent Decree”), which is national in scope, limiting the RNC’s ability to engage or assist in voter fraud prevention unless the RNC obtains the court’s approval in advance. The RNC appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey denying, in part, the RNC’s Motion to Vacate or Modify the Consent Decree. Although the District Court declined to vacate the Decree, it did make modifications to the Decree. The RNC argues that the District Court abused its discretion by modifying the Decree as it did and by declining to vacate the Decree. For the following reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment.

Surprise! The judge who denied the RNC’s appeal to “vacate” the 1982 Consent Decree is an Obama appointee, Judge Joseph Greenaway, Jr., of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

http://fellowshipofminds.files.wordp...away.jpg?w=500
Judge Joseph Greenaway, Jr.,
U.S. Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit

Guy Benson of Townhall.com points out that in last Tuesday’s election, Obama only won by 406,348 votes in 4 states:

• Florida: 73,858
• Ohio: 103,481
• Virginia: 115,910
• Colorado: 113,099

Those four states, with a collective margin of 406,348 votes for Obama, add up to 69 electoral votes. Had Romney won 407,000 or so additional votes in the right proportion in those states, he would have 275 electoral votes.

All four states showed Romney ahead in the days leading up to the election. But on November 6, Romney lost all four states by a substantial margin, all of which have precincts that inexplicably went 99% for Obama, had voter registrations that exceeded their population, and had experienced problems with voting machines.

This election was stolen by the Democrats via vote fraud. Despite all the evidence of fraud, the Republican Party has been strangely silent about it.

Now you know why.

I’ll leave you with one last, even more disturbing thought:

The RNC and DNC made their Consent Decree 30 years ago, in 1982. The agreement in effect gives a carte blanche to the Democrat Party to commit vote fraud in every voting district across America that has, in the language of the Consent Decree, “a substantial proportion of racial or ethnic populations.” The term “substantial proportion” is not defined.

The Democrat Party knew this 30 years ago, more than enough time to put a plan in place to identify and groom their “perfect candidate” — in the words of Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) in 2008, a “light-skinned” black Democrat who has “no Negro dialect unless he wanted to have one.”

• Being a black Democrat, this perfect candidate would get the support of almost all black Americans (96% in 2008!) and other racial minorities (two-thirds of Hispanics in 2008 ).
  
  
• Being a “light-skinned” black with “no Negro dialect”, this perfect candidate would get the support of white Americans perpetually guilt-ridden about America’s original sin of slavery.

It doesn’t matter if this “perfect candidate” has dubious Constitutional eligibility to be president. They would see to it that his original birth certificate (if there is one) would never see the light of day. The same with his other documents — his passports, school and college records, draft registration, and medical records (so we’ll never know why Obama has that very long scar from one side of his head to the other.)

Now, we understand the significance of the account Tom Fife wrote during the 2008 presidential campaign. Fife, a U.S. government contractor, claims that in 1992 while he was visiting Moscow, a woman with undying allegiance to Soviet Communism (the Soviet Union had recently collapsed, on December 31, 1991) told him that a black man named Barack, born of a white American woman and an African male, was being groomed by communists to be, and would be elected, President of the United States.

Now, we finally understand the cryptic remark made in May 2010, by Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan: “Obama was selected before he was elected.”

In 2008, this “perfect candidate” won the presidential election. And despite his many failures in his first term, he would be reelected in 2012 for a second term via massive vote fraud. But nothing would be done about the vote fraud, because of that Consent Decree signed by the RNC 30 years ago.

The Republican Party is dead — and with it, the U.S. two-party system as well — and the sooner we voters recognize that the better.

The question that remains is whether the American Republic is also dead.

UPDATE (Nov. 16, 2012):

Since I published this post yesterday, we’ve been asking each other: “What can I/we do about this?” Here are my suggestions:

1. If you are a registered Republican, QUIT! Switch your voter registration ID to non-partisan Independent.

2. Stop donating money, not even one penny, to the GOP. Tell them why.

3. Spread the word. Please send the URL of this post (http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.c...ut-vote-fraud/) to:

• EVERYONE on your email list.
• Media people for whom you have email addresses.
• Tea Party groups you know.
• Post the link on your Facebook page.
• Post the link as your comment on websites and blogs you visit.

4. Write your state’s attorney general and ask him/her to investigate vote fraud in your state. Click here!

UPDATE (Nov. 21, 2012):

5 days after I’d published this and 7 days after PolitiJim of GulagBound published his acount, someone in the conservative establishment media is writing about this — WND’s Bob Unruh. Click here for his article, “GOP Legally Barred From Fighting Vote Fraud”. But it’s still the sound of crickets from conservative talk radio, even though I’ve sent my post to Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, and a reader had also sent it to Mark Levin.


http://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2012...ut-vote-fraud/
http://www.rense.com/general95/howthegop_dev.html
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-3rd-circuit/1595813.html
http://judicialview.com/Court-Cases/Civil-Procedure/Democratic-National-Committee-v-Republican-National-Committee/10/201975

http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/def...?itok=1ojdP1E5

STOP TRASHING OBAMA
by COL. ROBERT F. CUNNINGHAM and PATRICK RISHOR
11 months ago | 8766 views


ALBUQUERQUE, NM – 15 October 2013 -- Quit trashing Obama's accomplishments. He

has done more than any other President before him. Here is a list of his

impressive accomplishments:

First President to apply for college aid as a foreign student, then deny he was a foreigner.

First President to have a social security number from a state he has never lived in.

First President to preside over a cut to the credit-rating of the United States.

First President to violate the War Powers Act.

First President to be held in contempt of court for illegally obstructing oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.

First President to require all Americans to purchase a product from a third party.



First President to spend a trillion dollars on "shovel-ready" jobs when there was no such thing as "shovel-ready" jobs.

First President to abrogate bankruptcy law to turn over control of companies

to his union supporters.



First President to by-pass Congress and implement the Dream Act through

executive

fiat.



First President to order a secret amnesty program that stopped the deportation

of illegal immigrants across the U.S., including those with criminal

convictions.



First President to demand a company hand-over $20 billion to one of his

political

appointees.



First President to tell a CEO of a major corporation (Chrysler) to resign.



First President to terminate America’s ability to put a man in space.



First President to cancel the National Day of Prayer and to say that America

is no longer a Christian nation.



First President to have a law signed by an auto-pen without being present.



First President to arbitrarily declare an existing law unconstitutional and

refuse

to enforce it.



First President to threaten insurance companies if they publicly spoke out on

the reasons for their rate increases.



First President to tell a major manufacturing company in which state it is

allowed

to locate a factory.



First President to file lawsuits against the states he swore an oath to protect

(AZ, WI, OH, IN).



First President to withdraw an existing coal permit that had been properly

issued

years ago.



First President to actively try to bankrupt an American industry (coal).



First President to fire an inspector general of AmeriCorps for catching one of

his friends in a corruption case.



First President to appoint 45 czars to replace elected officials in his office.



First President to surround himself with radical left wing anarchists.



First President to golf more than 150 separate times in his five years in

office.



First President to hide his birth, medical, educational and travel records.



First President to win a Nobel Peace Prize for doing NOTHING to earn it.



First President to go on multiple "global apology tours" and concurrent "insult

our friends" tours.



First President to go on over 17 lavish vacations, in addition to date nights

and Wednesday evening White House parties for his friends paid for by the

taxpayers.



First President to have 22 personal servants (taxpayer funded) for his wife.



First President to keep a dog trainer on retainer for $102,000 a year at

taxpayer

expense.



First President to fly in a personal trainer from Chicago at least once a week

at taxpayer expense.



First President to repeat the Holy Quran and tell us the early morning call of

the Azan (Islamic call to worship) is the most beautiful sound on earth.



First President to side with a foreign nation over one of the American 50 states



(Mexico vs Arizona).



First President to tell the military men and women that they should pay for

their

own private insurance because they "volunteered to go to war and knew the

consequences."



Then he was the First President to tell the members of the military that THEY

were UNPATRIOTIC for balking at the last suggestion.



How is this hope and change' working out for you?

Read more: The Gilmer Mirror - STOP TRASHING OBAMA

http://www.gilmermirror.com/view/ful...G-OBAMA-------

Canadian TV Goes Birther: 62% Say Obama is Not an American Citizen

Dean Garrison 5 hours ago

There are two definitive schools of thought within the "birther" movement. However, more often than not, you are exposed to only one. Not all "birthers" believe that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. In fact, many believe that this is somewhat irrelevant. Many, like myself, believe that since Barack Obama, Sr. was not a citizen of the United States when Barack Obama, Jr. was born that our President may be a "citizen" but that he is a not a "natural born citizen" and thus ineligible to hold the office of President.

Though it is doubtful that you will see any American owned media outlets devoting programs to this debate (seems highly unlikely six years later), Richard Syrett of The Conspiracy Show decided to go where American media refuses to. He devoted an entire episode of his program to this debate and it aired Monday on Canadian television.

Our friends at Birther Report summarize the broadcast:

As reported here Canadian broadcaster Richard Syrett interviewed Attorney Mario Apuzzo, Attorney Phil Berg, computer expert Karl Denninger and Allenna Leonard of Democrats Abroad. The show focused on Obama's forged birth certificate and the Article II natural born Citizen clause in the U.S. Constitution. Full show below…

The host says Birthers that conclude a natural born Citizen is one born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents (Vattel) stand on pretty solid ground but notes the other side could provide a compelling counter-argument (Blackstone). Syrett said to dismiss Birthers as racist is extremely unfair. He also believes evidence suggesting Obama's birth certificate is a forgery is not conclusive but says it deserves further investigation and serious media scrutiny. Syrett warned viewers that if Obama is not eligible and he forged his birth certificate the United States would be plunged into a constitutional crisis unparalleled in its history. His full conclusion excerpted here…

You can watch the entire episode here. .

The debate over the definition of "natural born citizen" has largely been in trying to determine the intentions of our founders. Both sides can roll out historical court decisions to seemingly support their case, but I prefer to start at the beginning. What is perceived as true in 2014 was not necessarily true in 1790. I always encourage people to do their own research. However, in the course of that research I would suggest that you start with our first congress. My interpretation is that BOTH parents must be citizens to create a "natural born citizen." If not, then why the distinction between a simple "citizen" and a "natural born citizen?"

It is a logical question.
For what it is worth, I don't believe that Ted Cruz is eligible either, but you should do your own research and come to your own conclusions.
America will not grow stronger until people begin to think for and educate themselves.

http://cdn.freedomoutpost.com/wp-con...USCongress.png

Source
Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.

http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/09/ca...rican-citizen/

Homeland Security Bombshell: President Barack Obama is not eligible to work in the US

Dean Garrison 2 hours ago


Ever heard of E-Verify?

Most employers have. E-Verify is a free verification system under the umbrella of the Department of Homeland Security. Registered employers can use this system to make sure that job applicants are eligible for employment.
Interestingly enough, our own President doesn't pass muster. As it would turn out, Barack Obama has been given the job of "leader of the free world," but is not eligible to be a fry cook at your local Burger King.
The man couldn't even get a job sweeping the floors at the White House yet he is living there.
How can this be?
This is a media and government cover up. It goes way beyond what you might think. Big right wing news sources have been accused of their complicity in the matter as well.
I will show you documents that leave little doubt to my claims, but ultimately it probably won't matter. This is the biggest fraud in American history and no one in congress seems to care, courts won't even hear the case, and the citizens are more worried about how many TD passes their fantasy QB has today than the fact that a usurper is in office.
Nevertheless, I present the truth.
Barack Obama was caught using a social security number that was clearly not issued to him, as far back as 2010. He has used it on numerous occasions but there have been aggressive attempts to get rid of the evidence. It is hard to find these images using search engines. Try for yourself.
This is from a 2009 tax return. Even though there is a line through the social security number, it is pretty easy to make out as 042-68-4425. Some say this number was assigned to a man that was born in 1890. Who it may belong to is not important. The important fact is that Barack Obama has used, on numerous, occasions, a social security number that is very likely not rightfully his.
http://cdn.freedomoutpost.com/wp-con...ax-form-09.png

Even the left-leaning Snopes, though "officially" debunking this story as "false," has really not been able to totally debunk the story. "042" social security numbers are common to Connecticut, not Hawaii, and there is a lot of question surrounding this number, no matter who it might actually belong to:

Why Barack Obama's Social Security card application might have included a Connecticut mailing address is something of a curiosity, as he had no known connection to that state at the time, but by itself that quirk is no indicator of fraud.

Maybe it is not 100% proof of fraud, but can they at least admit it is reason enough to investigate?
http://cdn.freedomoutpost.com/wp-con...y-prefixes.jpg

I was born in Kansas and my SSN starts with 512. There may be exceptions but it is highly unlikely that a man born in, and living in, Hawaii would be assigned a "042" number.
Dr. Eowyn recently published an article called 10 Reasons you shouldn't shop at Costco. It is an outstanding article but I am not sure how many will read it. I don't have a Costco within 100 miles of me, so I would be one to naturally not care much about boycotting a place I have never shopped at. But I do care about what came in #1 on Doc's list:

1. Costco knows Obama's Connecticut-issued Social Security number is fraudulent, but supports him anyway.

Costco not just uses, but takes pride in using the Department of Homeland Security's E-Verify program to ensure their employees are eligible to work in the United States by screening documents of new hires against DHS and Social Security Administration (SSA) records. In fact Costco has this notice on their website:

"Federal law requires all employers to verify the identity and employment eligibility of all persons hired to work in the United States."

On August 17, 2011, a Costco employee who had not voted for Obama, discovered Obama failed E-Verify. Here's his/her account:

I ran Obama's name, the SSN he uses, 042-68-4425 and the birth date he claims, through an E-Verify check and it came back flagged with a Special Indicator Code (SIC) for fraud . . . special indicator #8 which identifies an SSN that was determined to have been assigned based on fraudulent documents or no documents and is only given after an Office of Inspector General (OIG) investigation.

We know Obama put that number on his forged Selective Service registration in 2008, we know he used it when he filed his tax return in 2010, and we know that as of March 2012, long after I ran the E-Verify check, he was still using it.

We also know that this SSN was not issued to Barack Obama. It was issued to someone with a Connecticut address in March 1977.

Where was Obama in March 1977? He was a fifteen year old attending high school in Hawaii! He never lived in Connecticut or traveled to Connecticut as a teenager.

What document do you have to provide to the SSA to prove citizenship when applying for a SSN? A birth certificate.

Someone who uses a stolen SSN, one that he obtained without providing any documentation of age or citizenship, does so because they don't have a birth certificate that would prove they are a U.S. citizen. They don't have a birth certificate that would qualify them for a SSN. They plain don't have one or the one they have identifies them as a citizen of another country.

On April 27th, 2011 Barack Obama posted a forged birth certificate on the White House website. That forgery explains why Obama is using a stolen SSN. [...]

Costco employs over 140,000 people and yet the person they advocated to occupy the highest office in the land, Barack Obama, failed E-Verify. Costco demands that their employees prove their citizenship and/or eligibility status but fails to hold their man in the White House to the same standard.

Note: The Costco employee is not the first to discover that Obama fails E-Verify. In 2011, a researcher in Seattle, Washington named Linda Jordan ran the SSN Barack Obama had used on his 2010 tax return through E-Verify and discovered that the SSN had been flagged with a Special Indicator Code for fraud. It was not Obama's SSN. Since then she has continued to work to expose Obama's use of forged identity documents that he used to get on the ballot and in to the White House. She is the owner of We The People T.V. at obamasfakeid.com.

There you have it. Barack Obama is President of the United States but is not eligible to spray the lots at your local McDonald's or collect carts at your local Wal Mart.
Below is an image of an official e-verify report run on Barack Hussein Obama's fraudulent social security number.
http://cdn.freedomoutpost.com/wp-con...ls-463x600.jpg

So how does one simply go from being ineligible to flip burgers to arguably being the most powerful man in the world?
The truth is that all large media sources and both "parties" in congress are complicit. There is no longer regard for law in America. There aren't enough good guys to overcome those who are hiding these things from America. Those who will speak up are simply disregarded as crazy conspiracy theorists, even when their stories are backed with solid evidence.
We are being set up for a fall and that's a fact.
Be ready because it is coming.
Source
Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.
You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.


Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/09/ho...ORgq5LOyZ8o.99

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/pr...6s=w426-h239-p

Obama's Ineligibility Is Still The Elephant In The Room

Evalyn Bennett December 5, 2012

There is an elephant in the room, and it is not the Republican Party. It is the failure of numerous U.S. citizens in positions of authority to properly vet the qualifications of Barack Hussein Obama and to share that knowledge with all U.S. citizens.

Since those in positions of authority have failed to do their duty, it is left to ordinary citizens to fill the void. Here is what this citizen has deduced from the available facts in making her own attempt to vet Barack Obama. First, I present my conclusion: In January 2008 Barack Hussein Obama II took an oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. For nearly four years he has been the principle violator of its provisions.
How so?
He is the only person on earth who currently has to fulfill the Constitutional requirement stated in Article II, Section 1:

"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; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

This statement gives a very short list of the qualifications needed to hold the most powerful elected position in our nation, yet Barack Obama is unable to fulfill the first requirement: He is not a natural born citizen of the United States. Obama declares that his father was from Kenya, thus making him a dual British-U.S. citizen at birth. For over four years, Barack Obama has perpetrated a lie that he is legally eligible to campaign for, be elected to, and hold the office of President of the United States.
Why is Barack Obama ineligible to be President, and how did he still manage to be elected in 2008 and re-elected in 2012? The following summary of facts compiled by Paul Hollrah, a two-time member of the U.S. Electoral College, explains the matter. In his treatise "The Obama Eligibility Question," Hollrah informs us that "the 'natural born' question rests principally on the necessity of both parents being U.S. citizens." His conclusion is based on numerous statements related to the drafting of the Constitution's citizenship requirement in Article II, Section 1 and its subsequent interpretation throughout U.S. history, including as recently as the McCain-Obama election.

First, "the Founders relied heavily on the work of Swiss philosopher Emerich de Vattel" who "in his 1758 legal treatise, The Law of Nations... defines the term 'natural born Citizen' as follows: '...The natives, or natural-born citizens are born in the country, of parents who are citizens...The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children...' (emphasis added)."
Second, "In 1866, John A. Bingham, chief framer of the 14th Amendment, which granted citizenship to the freed slaves, wrote as follows: 'Every human being born within the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty (emphasis added) is, in the language of the Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.'"
Third, in the only defining precedent established by the U.S. Supreme Court (Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) the Court concludes, “'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.'”
Fourth, in 2008, former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson (a conservative Republican) and Harvard Law professor Laurence H. Tribe (a liberal Democrat) were tasked with researching whether Senator John McCain (who was born in the Panama Canal Zone,) is a natural born citizen. "In a March 19, 2008 memorandum, Olson and Tribe concluded that, 'Based on original meaning of the Constitution, the Framers’ intentions, and subsequent legal and historical precedent, Sen. 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.'"
Fifth, "...in an April 10, 2008 statement, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said, '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. Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen (emphasis added)."
And finally, in April 20, 2008 a Senate resolution approved by a vote of 99-0 (Senator John McCain abstaining) declared: “'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 it Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a ‘natural born citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.' Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) voted in favor of the resolution."

Now that we know the meaning of "natural born citizen," let's get back to the question of Barack Obama's citizenship at birth. Assuming, from his own declaration and the long form birth certificate posted on the White House web site, that Barack Hussein Obama II was born to Barack Hussein Obama of Kenya, East Africa and Stanley Ann Dunham of Wichita, Kansas, Paul Hollrah's analysis clearly demonstrates that President Obama was a dual citizen at birth. Only one of his parents (his mother) was a U.S. citizen; his father was from Kenya (a British colony at the time) and a subject of Great Britain. The British Nationality Act of 1948, Part 2, Section 5(1) reads,

"Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth..."

Because Barack Hussein Obama was a citizen of Kenya, Barack Hussein Obama II was thereby born "a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent" and was thus a dual citizen (British-U.S.) at birth. He is therefore not a "natural born citizen," because his parents (plural) were not both U.S. citizens.
The series of events in 2008 clearly indicate the Democratic Party was concerned with vetting the qualifications of John McCain. Why were they not equally diligent in researching the eligibility of Barack Obama? That question still remains to be answered. Hollrah's treatise points out that only one of the Democratic National Committee's 2008 certifications to the election boards of the various states (Hawaii's) affirmed that Barack Hussein Obama II met the constitutional requirements for the Office of President of the United States; the other forty-nine certifications read only that "...the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States..." (emphasis added). Let me repeat that: In 2008 the National Convention of the Democratic Party did not uniformly certify the legal eligibility of Barack Obama as a candidate for President! Yet his name appeared on the ballots of fifty states and the District of Columbia.
The Democratic Party thus failed to vet Obama as a candidate for office.
The Electoral College then failed to vet his qualifications as President-elect. Hollrah writes, "Between November 4, 2008, the date of the General Election, and December 15, 2008, the date on which the Electoral College met to cast their votes, most Democratic electors were made aware of serious questions relating to Obama’s eligibility. However, none of the Democratic electors raised a serious question about Obama’s eligibility prior to casting their electoral ballots… a violation of their oath of office and a complete and total subversion of the very purpose of the Electoral College." Federalist Papers #68, written by Alexander Hamilton in 1788, explains the role of the Electoral College in choosing a President. Hamilton explains that the Electoral College consists of representatives chosen by popular vote of the people who are entrusted to "vote for some fit person as President." Hamilton states that "the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station" and this "small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations." In other words, the Electoral College both vets (investigates the qualifications of) and chooses the President. The 2008 Electoral College failed in its responsibility to vet the Constitutional eligibility of Barack Obama.
There is one final opportunity for a President to be vetted before taking office. Hollrah informs us, "The third and final vetting opportunity occurs in early January following each election when the Congress meets in joint session to certify the votes of the Electoral College. As the final failsafe step in the electoral process, the members of Congress have the duty to insure themselves of the qualifications of the candidates selected by the Electoral College." The Congress failed to fulfill this duty when they voted to certify the 2008 Electoral College votes for Barack Obama.
Will the history of the 2008 election repeat itself?
Will the Democratic National Committee knowingly certify a candidate for office who is ineligible? (Hint: They already did.)
Will the Democratic Party electors of the Electoral College, scheduled to meet on December 17, 2012, cast their votes for Barack Hussein Obama II even though he is ineligible? Their response remains to be seen, but, according to Hollrah, their first duty is to uphold the Constitution.
Will the members of Congress certify the votes of the Electoral College, or will they fulfill their oath of office to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" and reject any Electoral College votes for Barack Obama?
I challenge the electors and Congressional representatives of each state to personally vet Barack Obama for eligibility under the Constitution, as I have done, and to cast their votes according to their findings. For the sake of all U.S. citizens, the vetting process should also be done publicly prior to the Electoral College meeting and joint session of Congress. Experts should be called to give testimony to prove or disprove Obama's eligibility for office so that the electors, Congress, and all citizens of the United States can make an informed decision about Barack Obama's Constitutional eligibility to take the oath of office in January 2013.
Three simple qualifications: natural born citizen, 35 years old, 14 years a resident of the United States. Does Barack Hussein Obama II meet all of them? The future of our constitutional republic depends on the answer to that question and how our representatives respond to the careful examination of all facts.
The challenge is on to remove the elephant from the room.
Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.
You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/12/ob...tQYkgY7O1KR.99

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dean Garrison for D.C. Clothesline

http://cdn.freedomoutpost.com/wp-con...USCongress.png

www.dcclothesline.com/2014/09/04/canadian-tv-goes-birther-65-say-obama-natural-born-citizen/

---

"And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens..."

It specifically does NOT say:
"And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be natural born citizens..."

Such a statute would change the meaning of Art. ii, § 1, ¶ 5, reinterpreting the Constitution without amending it or so much as submitting the statute to the Supreme Court for judicial review.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the Constitution of the United States, Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress;

---

The problem with the "definition" of foreign-born children of citizens in the Naturalization Act of 1790 is that it is neither a definition nor does it define "natural born citizen." Parsed correctly, it says that foreign-born children of U.S. citizens shall be considered as - that is, reckoned as, counted as, esteemed as, or thought of as, but not defined as, identical to, or deemed - natural born citizens, who make up a different group that is not defined in the text pictured above.

According to interpretation by the unanimous Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett (1875), according to international law as codified by de Vattel in The Law of Nations (1758 ), and according to nearly all historical references dating back to Plato (5th c. BC), the legal idiom or term of art, "natural born citizen," normally means: "one born in the country to parents who were citizens." Normally, that is, outside the totalitarian overreach of King George III, who extended "natural born subject" to include every soul born subject to the Crown.

Not that Democrats in Congress didn't try, seven times between June 11, 2003, and April 14, 2005, to change the "natural born Citizen" eligibility requirement to the Office of President (and Vice-President) - each measure incidentally making Mr. Obama eligible for the Presidency: mere coincidence, no doubt. .

"When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." - Humpty Dumpty in Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass (1871). Humpty Dumpty was sometimes identified as King Richard III of England. But this statement by Humpty Dumpty might be more aptly attributed to King George III.

[ED.: Atty. Mario Apuzzo clarified the distinction between the wording of the Naturalization Act of 1790 and the Naturalization Act of 1795, which deleted the words "natural born" from the 1790 text pictured above.]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atty. Mario Apuzzo

Thursday, May 28, 2009

Natural Born Citizen Through the Eyes of Early Congresses

Not much information exists on why the Third Congress deleted "natural born" from the Naturalization Act of 1790 when it passed the Naturalization Act of 1795. There is virtually no information on the subject because they probably realized that the First Congress committed errors when it passed the Naturalization Act of 1790 and did not want to create a record of the errors.

It can be reasonably argued that Congress realized that under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress is given the power to make uniform laws on naturalization and that this power did not include the power to decide who is included or excluded from being a presidential Article II "natural born Citizen." While Congress has passed throughout United States history many statutes declaring who shall be considered nationals and citizens of the United States at birth and thereby exempting such persons from having to be naturalized under naturalization laws, at no time except by way of the short-lived “natural born” phrase in Naturalization Act of 1790 did it ever declare these persons to be “natural born Citizens.” The uniform definition of "natural born Citizen" was already provided by the law of nations and was already settled. The Framers therefore saw no need nor did they give Congress the power to tinker with that definition. Believing that Congress was highly vulnerable to foreign influence and intrigue, the Framers, who wanted to keep such influence out of the presidency, did not trust Congress when it came to who would be President, and would not have given Congress the power to decide who shall be President by allowing it to define what an Article II "natural born Citizen” is.

Additionally, the 1790 act was a naturalization act. How could a naturalization act make anyone an Article II "natural born Citizen?" After all, a "natural born Citizen" was made by nature at the time of birth and could not be so made by any law of man.

Finally, allowing a child born on foreign soil to be President would have invited conflict with the foreign nation on whose soil the child was born. For example, Great Britain adhered to the concept of perpetual natural allegiance. Just imagine the Framers allowing a child born in Great Britain to two U.S. citizen parents (a perpetual natural born subject under English common law) after the adoption of the Constitution (post Article II grandfather time period) to be President and Commander in Chief of the United States. Also, “natural born Citizen” status, having a uniform definition under the laws of nations, could not be made to depend on the laws of the foreign country in which the child would be born to U.S. citizen parents. Congress realized their errors in passing the 1790 Act and corrected it in 1795.

What is important about these two naturalization acts which were passed in the early part of the founding of the Republic and which is also reflected in the Constitution itself, is that they show that the Framers of the Constitution clearly saw a distinction between a “Citizen” and a “natural born Citizen.” They show that the Framers rejected English common law which in addition to how it granted “natural born subjectship” through jus solis also made a child a “natural born subject” if born out of the King’s dominion to parents who were “natural born subjects” (jus sanguinis). Under the law of nations which the Framers adopted for the new United States, a “natural born Citizen” was a child born in the United States to a mother and father who were at the time of the child’s birth both United States citizens and a “Citizen” was any person who became a citizen by naturalization. A “Citizen” had the same civil and political rights as a “natural born Citizen” except he was not eligible to be President if born after the adoption of the Constitution. Only by becoming a citizen could a father and derivatively from him the mother give to their child the inherited right to be a “natural born Citizen.” Not including the American Indians because they belonged to a different nation and blacks because they were or their parents had been slaves, the United States was a new nation and only after its new citizens gave birth to a new generation of Americans could that new generation be called indigenous, natives or “natural born Citizens” of the United States. All those who were born British subjects before the adoption of the Constitution (which included the Founding Fathers themselves), actually became naturalized United States citizens by electing to become a United States citizen by adhering to the revolutionary cause rather than chosing to become British subjects by remaining loyal to Great Britain. They could not elect to become “natural born Citizens” because they were born British subjects.

From these early naturalization statutes, we can see that it is not sufficient to be a born “citizen” under the Fourteenth Amendment to qualify as a Presidential Article II “natural born Citizen.” While this amendment constitutionally makes those who qualify under its terms to be “citizens,” it does not nor was it ever intended to make these individuals Article II “natural born Citizens.” The framers of the Fourteenth Amendment were well aware that Article II refers to “natural born Citizen” and that Article I and Article IV refer to “Citizen.” By chosing the word “citizen,” they left intact the original meaning of “natural born Citizen” as it existed under the law of nations which the Founders adopted as the national law of the new United States.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg NJ 08831
Email: apuzzo [AT] erols.com
TEL: 732-521-1900 ~ FAX: 732-521-3906
BLOG: puzo1.blogspot.com

puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/05/natural-born-citizen-through-eyes-of.html

---