This post was an oops. Sorry.
Printable View
This post was an oops. Sorry.
Former British policeman backs Barack Obama 'birthers' conspiracy theory
A former British policeman is using his Scotland Yard training to help the Birthers, a group of conspiracy theorists, in trying to unseat President Barack Obama.
Published: 11:00AM GMT 23 Nov 2009
Neil Sankey, who has almost 20 years experience serving in Special Branch and the Bomb Squad, is now devoting his energies to proving that Mr Obama is not a natural born US citizen.
He joined the Birthers after meeting Orly Taitz, one of the leaders of the group, which disputes Mr Obama’s claim that he was born in Hawaii.
Over the past year, Mr Sankey has been integral in some of the most aggressive efforts to remove him from office by claiming that his presidency is illegitimate.
He tried to block Obama's inauguration last year by contacting all 538 electoral college representatives who formally elect the president.
Mr Sankey has also carried out an investigation into Mr Obama's personal identification history which he claims shows a suspicious number of social security numbers
He has refuted allegations that his attempts are racially motivated, claiming that he disagrees with Mr Obama’s politics and is convinced that he is not genuine.
Mr Sankey, who moved to California in the 1980s to set up his own private detective agency, told the Guardian: “The objection is not Obama's colour but his politics.
“I like him as a person, I just wish he was genuine.
“It's quite obvious to me — America is heading towards a socialised state just as has happened in Europe. Socialised medicine, everyone on the dole, and when everything collapses you tip the scales into Marxism."
Mr Sankey joined Hampshire Police in 1961 before being seconded as a detective sergeant to Scotland Yard. During the 1970s he tracked left wing political groups and the IRA. He became a naturalised American in 1985.
He believes that his British police training is proving crucial to the work he is now pursuing for the Birthers. He said he uses the same techniques he employed to analyse the IRA's associations, to trace Mr Obama’s past.
Taitz added: “He has had superb training. I have the greatest respect for Scotland Yard.â€
Thought you guys would like this, BTW there is a poll question too!!
KDVR Denver
6:20 PM MST, November 20, 2009
http://www.kdvr.com/media/photo/2009...0-20160512.jpg
WHEAT RIDGE, Colo. - Call it Freedom of Speech. A billboard recently erected in Wheat Ridge compares President Barack Obama to a terrorist and questions his U.S. citizenship.
The billboard, located at 4855 Miller Road, shows two cartoonish images of Obama wearing a Muslim turban and reads "PRESIDENT or JIHAD?"
It also says "BIRTH CERTIFICATE - PROVE IT!" alluding to the conspiracy theory which claims Barack Obama was born in Kenya rather than Hawaii, which would disqualify him for the office of President.
The words "WAKE UP AMERICA! REMEMBER FT. HOOD!" appear on the bottom of the billboard.
The sign belongs to a car dealership.
"Since Fort Hood, I've had it," owner Phil West told FOX 31 News Friday. "You can't suggest things. You can't profile. You gotta call a spade a spade."
"Everything I have read about Mr. Obama points right to the fact that he is a Muslim. And that is the agenda of what Muslim is all about. It's about anti-American, it's about anti-Christianity," West said.
The Anti-Defamation League condemned the sign, as did AM760 radio host David Sirota, who discussed the sign and interviewed West on his program Friday morning.
"It's out of control," Sirota said. "This conservative hatred of Barack Obama is out of contol, and this brings together all those strands of it: the racism, the anti-Muslim fervor. It's one thing to criticise the president on health care, or Wall Street reform, or immigration. But this is outrageous. And I think it's a fair question to ask why these questions about religion and ancestry are being directed so viciously at the first African-American President of the United States."
While the ADL issued a statement calling the billboard an exploitation of the Ft. Hood shootings that is "divisive and offensive, and perpetuates hateful and harmful stereotypes about Muslims", prominent conservatives have been silent thus far.
"That could suggest that conservative leaders are afraid to confront the extreme fringe of their base," Sirota said. "Or it suggests they actually condone this message. Either way, it's disturbing."
Sirota is an unabashed liberal, but not all self-identified conservatives who drove past the sign Friday disagree with him.
"I'm not concerned with that at all," said Linda Alexander, of Golden, in regard to the dispute over President Obama's American citizenship. "He was elected, he's the president -- that's it, as far as I'm concerned. Some people just can't accept that, obviously."
But Keith Walters, another passing driver, saw nothing wrong with the billboard.
"I can't honestly say he's a Jihadist, but there's a lot of things that are questionable," Walters said. "The whole birth certificate controversy. From what I've read, there's no proof Obama isn't a Muslim. And I don't believe there's any racism [in the billboard]. I think that should be a question asked to any president who -- they have some questionable backgrounds."
Supporters of the birth certificate theory, known as 'Birthers,' believe the Certification of Live Birth produced by the state of Hawaii is a forgery. (view the birth certificate)
http://www.kdvr.com/news/kdvr-obama-bil ... 2065.story
:D[/quote]
Poll Question: Do you agree with the Billboard's Message?
A billboard in [Denver suburb] Wheat Ridge compares President Barack Obama to a terrorist and questions his U.S. citizenship (view the billboard).
Agree (8155 responses) 90.4%
Disagree (590 responses) 6.5%
Don't Care (281 responses) 3.1%
9026 total responses
(Results not scientific)
"What's the Constitution got to do with it?" was not a selectable choice.
So, in spite of the biased article, the ayes have it, by a 13 to 1 margin over the nays.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC
We are losing a little ground
billboard in Wheat Ridge compares President Barack Obama to a terrorist and questions his U.S. citizenship (view the billboard).
Do you agree with the message, disagree, or don't care?
*
Agree (12819 responses)
88.9%
*
Disagree (1186 responses)
8.2%
*
Don't Care (416 responses)
2.9%
14421 total responses
(Results not scientific)
Losing ground...maybe...but very little ground. I'd say the numbers speak for themselves pretty loudly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cayla99
[quote="HighlanderJuan"][size=117]Mind you, we must remember, that Barack accepts the authenticity of this Nairobi Media, and in his open letter to Kenya, appearing in the 01/18/2009 issue
http://www.eastandard.net/InsidePage.ph ... atid=4&a=1
He states perhaps an admission: “My own city of Chicago has been the home of some of the most corrupt local politics in American history, from patronage machines to questionable elections.â€
Allow me to be the first to wish you and your family a blessed Thanksgiving Day.
Remember to thank the Lord for all your many blessings and for Jesus' love He showed on the cross.
AmenQuote:
Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC
I thank the Lord daily for all of you. I would like to share the words of a true Patriot on this day
George Washington's 1789 Thanksgiving Proclamation
Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me to "recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:"
Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.
And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.
Given under my hand, at the city of New York, the 3d day of October, A.D. 1789.
Joseph Farah's Thanksgiving Prayer, Nov. 26, 2009
Thank You, Lord, for allowing me to live in the greatest country in the world – one where we as citizens are permitted to live in freedom, to speak our minds, to debate the great issues of the day openly and without fear, and, most of all, to worship You and to tell others about You and Your Gospel of saving grace and redemption.
We as Americans take all this for granted too often.
Yet, from the earliest commemorations of Thanksgiving here in America, this was the common denominator that brought people of the New World together.
I'm so thankful to be part of a country where worshipping You is not a crime – yet.
I'm thankful we have the opportunity to tell others about You.
I'm thankful You have blessed this land in so many ways.
I'm thankful for the way You chastise this land and judge it with leaders unworthy of this nation's great heritage but who are, in Your wisdom, necessary to correct us and reveal our iniquities.
I'm thankful for Your patience with Americans, who, despite their countless blessings, do not often recognize from where they come.
I'm thankful we have abundant food today – that we get to celebrate this solemn occasion in the warmth of our homes, with our families and friends.
I'm thankful we have such abundance that we can share it with those less fortunate, not just here in our homeland, but around the world.
I'm thankful You gave Your Son, Jesus Christ, as a sacrifice for us so that we could be saved from our sin and, through Him, share the precious gift of an eternal life with You.
I'm thankful for that second chance You have given me and anyone else who is willing to repent and accept that grace.
I'm thankful You have surrounded me with people who understand this gift and who share the good news with others.
I'm thankful for the opportunity You have given me and so many others to serve as salt and light in a fallen world that rejects this gift and Your commandments for a rich life here on Earth.
I'm thankful for missionaries who take this message around the world no matter the cost.
I'm thankful for the true ambassadors of Your love who serve to encourage others.
I'm thankful You have given me a vehicle to make this proclamation that can be read and heard by people around our country and the world.
I'm thankful You have given me a partner, Elizabeth, who appreciates these blessings as much as I do.
I'm thankful You have given me children who, born into abundance, can appreciate from where it flows.
I'm thankful for the loving parents and siblings You gave me.
I'm thankful You have met my every need, if not my every desire.
I'm thankful for my colleagues at this news service who never grow weary of the enormous challenges involved in bringing the world important information every day in the context of a worldview centered around You.
I'm thankful that even though my words are so inadequate in expressing my gratitude that You hear them any way.
I'm thankful that despite all the problems we see plaguing our country and our world, You have given us a simple solution – to turn back to You.
That simple solution appears in Your Word – 2 Chronicles 7:14:
I'm thankful that not only do individuals have a second chance with You, Lord, but nations do as well.
- If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.
I'm thankful for all the people who hear and read this prayer of gratitude and understand what I am trying to convey. I'm thankful for all of them who remember You today – the meaning, the reason for Thanksgiving. I'm thankful for all of them who put You first, who humble themselves, and pray, and seek Your face, and turn from their wicked ways.
I'm thankful to You today, Lord, that You honor Your promises.
I'm thankful today, Lord, for You.
Rodearmel v Clinton (usurper) case dismissed
By: Devvy
November 22, 2009
Periodically I have given updates on a case I've followed closely since late January (2009) when it was filed: Rodearmel v Clinton.
This case was filed to remove another usurper (besides Comrade Obama/Soetoro) from office: Marxist Hillary Clinton. There is no doubt in my mind the legal issues raised by Judicial Watch are 100% on point. I have noted my concerns in past columns that the District Court might dismiss the case because of standing and the quo warranto process:
"However, there is a possibility the court is going to throw this out because of the Quo Warranto statute. The defendants moved to dismiss and in their filing, there is an important footnote; number 6 at the bottom of page 16:
6 "The D.C. Court of Appeals has observed that a plaintiff who seeks to directly attack the appointment of an official (as opposed to attacking an action of that official) will rarely if ever have standing. See Andrade v. Lauer, 729 F.2d 1475, 1496-97 (D.C. Cir. 1984). In the same case, the court suggested that the only proper way to assert such a direct attack is through an action for a writ of quo warranto. See id. at 1497 (citing cases). A quo warranto action may only be brought by the Attorney General of the United States or the United States Attorney or, if these Executive Branch officials decline a request, by a private party who has obtained leave of court. See D.C. Stat. §§ 16-3502-3503; see also Rae v. Johnson, 1993 WL 544295, at *1"
<>On October 29, 2009, the same day Barnett v Obama was dismissed by the Federal Court in Santa Ana, California , so, too was Rodearmel. Dang. Sure do get tired of hearing "dismissed."
As with so many of the citizenship cases, the Rodearmel decision had a familiar refrain: Standing, lack of any harm (immediate or imminent) brought to Mr. Rodearmel as yet, and jurisdiction. See page 9 of the decision. Judicial Watch has filed the Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court; the details can be read here.
Regarding the dismissal of Kerncher v Obama, we see the same lanaguage as most of the other cases: standing and whether the plaintiffs have or will be harmed by the usurper sitting in the White House. (See page 7 7) In an interview following the dismissal: "The lawyer (Apuzzo) said it is important that the court did not rule Obama was born in Hawaii, nor did it rule that the claim was frivolous. It simply said the case was dismissed because of a jurisdiction issue. "By the court finding that plaintiffs do not have standing and that their claims present a political question, the court was able to avoid having to address the underlying merits of the Kerchner case."
The standing issue is nothing more than evasion of justice in my opinion. Dr. Edwin Vieira summed it up quite succinclty in a column he wrote over a year ago:
"The judge in Berg v. Obama dismissed the case, not because Obama has actually proven that he is eligible for “the Office of President,â€
Latest from Berg: http://obamacrimes.com/
(Philadelphia, PA – 11/26/09) – Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the first Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama on 08/21/08 challenging Obama’s lack of Constitutional “qualificationsâ€
Leo Donofrio has some issues with Mario Apuzzo's references to quo warranto. The complete article, with parts 1,2,3, is loaded on Scribd.com:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23227876/Leo- ... o-Warranto
==================
Misconceptions About Quo Warranto
Posted in Uncategorized on November 26, 2009 by naturalborncitizen
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
There is quite a bit of confusion regarding the federal quo warranto statute ( http://tinyurl.com/yg7humv ). Since the statute will most likely be invoked by private citizens in the near future, I will discuss some of the confusion floating about. Recently, Mario Apuzzo Esq. added to the confusion with a blog post ( http://tinyurl.com/yk5s23y ) that contains multiple misconceptions regarding the federal quo warranto statute and applicable case law.
I know Mr. Apuzzo is an honorable attorney and an intelligent man. I do not want my readers to get the impression that I am advocating otherwise. Regardless, it is necessary for me to strongly counter the impression his recent report has given the public.
I will ask that readers please bone up on the exhaustive work I published back in March which Mr. Apuzzo failed to acknowledge in his post. My previous three part series can be found at the following links:
Quo Warranto Legal Brief – Part 1 (below, page 6)
Quo Warranto Legal Brief – Part 2 (below, page 10)
Quo Warranto Legal Brief – Part 3 (below, page 23)
I will draw from these previous publications to correct Apuzzo’s recent mistakes.
Complete Leo article is located here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23227876/Leo- ... o-Warranto
Mario's original article can be found here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23240330/Mari ... o-Warranto
SAMUEL JOSEPH WURZELBACHER,
Plaintiff, vs.
HELEN JONES-KELLEY, et al.,
Defendants.
Civil Action 2:09-CV-162
Judge Marbley
Magistrate Judge King
I had not followed the 'Joe the Plumber' case, but just reviewed the Preliminary Pretrial Order and was pleased to see that the case is a Title 42 action. I like Title 42 actions. I think we should have more Title 42 actions against government miscreants... against people just like Barack Obama... brought by people just like fired IG Walpin.
This is the Preliminary Pretrial Order:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/files/docu ... hedule.pdf
I just came across this interesting article by University of Arizona Prof. Gabriel J. Chin, and believe it a sound discussion on the topic of McCain's ineligibility to be POTUS. I similarly believe its legal arguments can be applied to the Obama situation at the same time.
Why McCain Cannot Be President
Gabriel J. Chin
The University of Arizona
James E. Rogers College of Law
http://www.law.arizona.edu/Faculty/getp ... ultyid=147
August, 2008
http://tinyurl.com/ydc2cvl
======================
Why McCain Cannot Be President
Because Senator John McCain was not a citizen at birth, he is not a “natural born Citizenâ€
Poll Question: Do you agree with the Billboard's Message?
A billboard in Wheat Ridge compares President Barack Obama to a terrorist and questions his U.S. citizenship (view the billboard).
Do you agree with the message, disagree, or don't care?
Agree (13731 responses)
87.3%
Disagree (1528 responses)
9.7%
Don't Care (463 responses)
2.9%
15722 total responses
(Results not scientific)
FOX31 KDVR.com on Facebook
The poll is still up and you can vote more than once :lol:
Why, Grandmasmad, are you suggesting that we do as the Obots do? All's fair in love and war?Quote:
Originally Posted by grandmasmad
The means justify the ends? Or is that, "The ends justify the means," or "The means justify ending them"?
[quote="HighlanderJuan"][size=117]The Tribe-Olson Opinion [Why is "opinion" capitalized? To give it the air of authority as established legal precedent?] suggests that the Canal Zone, then under exclusive U.S. jurisdiction, may have been covered by the Fourteenth Amendment’s grant of citizenship to “all persons born . . . in the United States.â€
Why, Grandmasmad, are you suggesting that we do as the Obots do? All's fair in love and war?Quote:
Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC
The means justify the ends? Or is that, "The ends justify the means," or "The means justify ending them"?
[quote="HighlanderJuan"][size=117]The Tribe-Olson Opinion [Why is "opinion" capitalized? To give it the air of authority as established legal precedent?] suggests that the Canal Zone, then under exclusive U.S. jurisdiction, may have been covered by the Fourteenth Amendment’s grant of citizenship to “all persons born . . . in the United States.â€
Some legal pyro-technics between Donofrio and Puzo on the Quo Warranto legal issue.
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com ... -warranto/
Professor Chin's analysis seems to start and end with the "assumption" (misguided) that McCain's claim to birth inside the "zone" (on not the soil of Panama) was accurate. McCain made that claim in order to strengthen his contention that he'd been born on "soil" that was under U.S. jurisdiction. But that didn't happen until a year later (in 1937) with the legislation which straightened out the problems of birth status of individuals born to Americans inside the Zone. Which was a problem unique to the Zone.Quote:
Originally Posted by cayla99
Had the geographical correction been made by Chin, to comport with the facts unearthed by Fred Hollander once he obtained the original birth certificate, what MIGHT logically have happened would have been a finding of U.S. citizenship at birth (same kind of citizenship granted to any child of two U.S. citizens who happens to be born abroad) but not "natural born" citizenship because the birth was not on soil that was under U.S. jurisdiction AND because the country of Panama at that time conferred "ius soli" citizenship to anyone born on its soil. To secure the privilege of U.S. citizenship, however, the American parents are supposed to report the birth ASAP to the nearest consulate to obtain the necessary official recognition. Not sure if McCain's parents did that or not.
My point originally was not clearly stated, but implied. Sorry.Quote:
Originally Posted by cayla99
On the one hand we had the Tribe-Olson Opinion providing arguments why McCain WAS eligible to be POTUS, and on the other hand we have Gabriel (Jack) Chin showing us how McCain WAS NOT eligible to be POTUS. Both arguments are found in the original linked Scribd document.
Both arguments addressed the nbc issue, and I believe there is reason to look at both sides of both arguments so that we may apply some of the logic with regard to Obama's eligibility.
McCain is no longer viable as a POTUS candidate - he's had his shot at the top job, and he failed. Now he can act as a consultant to future candidates, but that is all he can do. So, on a personal basis, I don't care about McCain's citizenship or nbc eligibility either. He's passe.
Remember, however, that neither candidate was nbc eligible in 2008, and my personal belief is that the closer we investigate both candidates and the actual election procedures (evidence is showing increasing signs of widespread Democratic Party urban election fraud in 2008), the more we will understand what actually happened in 2008 and this will provide us with techniques on how to prevent similar unlawful candidate selection and election activities in the future.
The more reading I do on the current state of affairs in the United States, the more concerned I have become about the overwhelming infiltration of communists into our government in recent years. The reason why Obama (IMO, merely a figurehead and shill in this government) is so open in his embracement of socialism and Marxism is because he is surrounded with a stupid/co-dependent electorate and an already existing and powerful elite communist support mechanism within the government and without the government (e.g. Soros) that gives him license and freedom to promote the Marxist agenda openly.
The communists already control us and our government, so they are now openly acting out their agenda and they don't have to act in a stealthy manner as they had to act in years past. Tragically, the shadow communist government is now able to act out its devastation of the U.S. in the open.
The existence of the shadow government helps explain why the Million Patriot March on 9-12 and the widespread patriotic Tea Parties had no effect on government representative's actions - the miscreants no longer fear public disclosure or criticism - they ARE in control of us now.
So, no matter how logically and legally right we are about Obama and his eligibility problem, he will never be removed from office unless, perhaps, the military steps in and forcefully restores our lawful government (and in consideration of the military's PC reaction to the Ft Hood massacre, I have serious doubts about the military leadership helping the American people).
My perception is that we will soon see the absolute and complete destruction of the United States of America, including our money system, our life style, our standard of living, and every freedom loving thing we believe in. The one worlders are getting closer to slamming the gavel and closing our nation down. We will not be able to pass our free republic on to our children.
Unless we stop them dead in their tracks.
So, if you believe what I have just written, the only remaining question we all have to individually ask and answer is, what are we going to DO about the overtaking of our government by the elitists and the communists, and the destruction of our nation? If anything.
For each of us that see clearly and understand the real problems our nation faces (we have chosen to take the 'red' pill), there will be an individual answer. The sum of our individual decisions will determine the future of our country. It's that simple.
I increasingly know what my answer is, and what I will be doing about the problem in the coming months and years. But that is my personal decision and is not suitable for inclusion in an open forum like Alipac.
Looking back to July of last year, some of the nbc issues we are discussing were considered even then. In Arkansas.
BTW, I have asked Jack Chin (via e-mail) what his thoughts may be regarding Obama's eligibility. I couldn't find anything written by him on the subject.
================
McCain, and Perhaps Obama, Not Eligible for President
Posted by Mark Moore, Arkansas Watch
Friday, July 11, 2008
http://arkansaswatch.blogspot.com/2008/ ... gible.html
On top of the ongoing doubts about the authenticity of Barak Obama's Hawaiian birth certificate ( http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php? ... geId=69126 ), now a thorough look at John McCain's eligibility status indicates that that he is not Constitutionally qualified to serve as President.
Adam Liptak, reporter for the International Tribune, cites Arizona State professor Gabriel Chin, ( http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/11/ ... mccain.php ) who has done the most comprehensive study known to date on the matter.
"The analysis, by Prof. Gabriel J. Chin, focused on a 1937 law that has been largely overlooked in the debate over McCain's eligibility to be president. The law conferred citizenship on children of American parents born in the Canal Zone after 1904, and it made John McCain a citizen just before his first birthday. But the law came too late, Professor Chin argued, to make McCain a natural-born citizen.
"It's preposterous that a technicality like this can make a difference in an advanced democracy," Professor Chin said. "But this is the constitutional text that we have.""
It appears that a straightforward reading of the law is that John McCain is not eligible to serve as President of the United States. Our Founders never intended for us to have an overseas empire, therefore they made no provision for children born to our occupation forces in those protectorates to be "natural born" citizens.
Congress did not "fix" the law allowing for the children of empire to be eligible for President until 1937, McCain was born a year later (and it was not even clear that Congress could really do this until a court ruling in 1971). A voter has launched a suit claiming that McCain is not eligible to serve. Notice from the link (page 2) that not even John McCain's people are telling the judge he is eligible under the points of the law, only that the person suing does not have sufficient standing to do so.
McCain's lawyer claims that this 1937 "fix" was what Congress meant all along, but it's not the same thing. Saying that citizens who work in your embassy (or are on vacation or business to another county) can bear children there who are citizens is different from saying foreign born children from colonies you control are citizens. One is a rule for Republics, the other for Empire.
[b][i]But of course if we are now an Empire, the rule of law no longer matters. If that is the case, the power brokers will foist McCain on us regardless of the niceties of the law, which seem to matter only as they constrain the common citizens, but are brushed aside when they run afoul of the plans of the powerful. A case in point is chilling quote from Liptak's article.... "Several legal experts said that Professor Chin's analysis was careful and plausible. But they added that nothing was very likely to follow from it.
â€
Mario's got a new advertisement.
Obama's Constitutional Lack of Eligibility - The Three Enablers - 2009-11-30 issue Wash Times National
You can see it here: http://tinyurl.com/yczeqmv
As if to emphasize my earlier post to Cayla regarding our state of affairs, Timothy Baldwin just today published this article on NewsWithViews. It would seem that Timothy has some similar views.
=====================
OBAMA'S BIRTH OR AMERICA'S REBIRTH?
By Timothy N. Baldwin, JD.
November 29, 2009
NewsWithViews.com
Let us assume for the moment that it became revealed that Barak Obama was not a natural born citizen of the United States, proving that he was ineligible to be President of the United States. Ok, now what? Would Obama be removed from office? Perhaps. Then what? Joseph Biden would be our next President. Ok, then what? Would the United States be freer? Would the States and the people regain their sovereignty stolen by the federal government? Would America’s form of government revert back to its original nature and character of 1787? Would self-government, the consent of the governed, limited government and federalism once again become the guiding principles throughout these states united? Would the ideals and principles of freedom once again become popular, accepted and advanced by the people and their agents in government?
Since the Confederate States of America lost the war in 1865 against the union-destroying aggressions of Abraham Lincoln and his military, the federal government has egregiously encroached upon the powers and sovereignty of the people and the states respectively. Regulations, controls, taxation, deception, falsehoods, subterfuge, “bait and switchâ€
LD has shut down his blog except for its "notice" stating that he's shut down the blog. Highlander, did you save anything offline? Or put things on Scribd?Quote:
Originally Posted by FreedomFirst
Leo posted on Thanksgiving, airing his QW thoughts in contrast to Mario Puzo. Later, there was an exchange between the two in the comments area. Here's the main post:
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com ... -warranto/
« Apologies to John Charlton of The Post and Email.
Misconceptions About Quo Warranto.
[UPDATE: Nov. 27, 2009 10:24 AM. Mr. Apuzzo's reply and my response thereto appear in the comments to this post.]
There is quite a bit of confusion regarding the federal quo warranto statute. Since the statute will most likely be invoked by private citizens in the near future, I will discuss some of the confusion floating about. Recently, Mario Apuzzo Esq. added to the confusion with a blog post that contains multiple misconceptions regarding the federal quo warranto statute and applicable case law.
I know Mr. Apuzzo is an honorable attorney and an intelligent man. I do not want my readers to get the impression that I am advocating otherwise. Regardless, it is necessary for me to strongly counter the impression his recent report has given the public.
I will ask that readers please bone up on the exhaustive work I published back in March which Mr. Apuzzo failed to acknowledge in his post. My previous three part series can be found at the following links:
Quo Warranto Legal Brief – Part 1
Quo Warranto Legal Brief – Part 2
Quo Warranto Legal Brief – Part 3
I will draw from these previous publications to correct Apuzzo’s recent mistakes.
Mr. Apuzzo stated on November 9th, 2009:
Before we begin, we must understand that a quo warranto action is a direct attack on an office holder, questioning his qualifications to hold an office and therefore his warrant and authority to occupy that office. It does not challenge any action taken by that person while having been in office. This type of action is to be distinguished from one where the plaintiff brings an indirect attack (collateral attack) against that office holder, arguing that some action taken by him or her is invalid because he or she is not qualified to hold the office from which the action is taken… Andrade v. Lauer, 729 F.2d 1475 (D.C.Cir.1984). As we shall see below, this distinction is important, for it can be argued that direct attacks must satisfy the requirements of a quo warranto action while indirect attacks must satisfy the requirements of the de facto officer doctrine. Mr. Donofrio does not explain which one of these approaches he proposes to take against Obama.
I have discussed the difference between collateral attacks and direct attacks in quo warranto on multiple occasions going all the way back to March 2009 when I introduced my readers to the important DC Court of Appeals case – Andrade v. Lauer:
- Under the holding in ANDRADE v. LAUER, 729 F.2d 1475, 234 U.S.App.D.C. 384 (1984), the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has held that the defacto officer’s doctrine does not prohibit “collateral attacksâ€
The "exchange" found Puzo writing a lengthy comment and Donofrio writing rejoinders (in brackets after the abbreviation "Ed.") so that points (Puzo's) and counterpoints (Donofrio's) were embedded throughout. The original had different colors which helped, insofar as LD didn't always insert an END bracket.
[b]puzo1 Says:
November 27, 2009 at 3:04 AM
Leo,
I am surprised that you state that I missed the Newman statement: “there might be cases under the civil service law in which the relator would have an interest and therefore a right to be heard.â€
FreedomFirst, I have both quo warranto articles (Apuzzo & Donofrio) up on Scribd, but I don't know which specific article you are looking for. On Donofrio's article, I included the three earlier QW articles as part of the article. Does that help?Quote:
Originally Posted by FreedomFirst
See:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23240330/Mari ... o-Warranto
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23227876/Leo- ... o-Warranto
All of my articles are found here:
http://www.scribd.com/people/documents/ ... an-del-sur
I am afraid my friends that this is the hard cold truth. The courts do not care about the constitution. Remember the following, just a small sample of twisting of the straight forward wording:Quote:
Where is the federal judicial system that even understands what federalism is and is willing to contradict ninety years of court opinions and rulings that have virtually stripped states of their retained rights under the tenth amendment? The answer is, no where!
Article 1, section 9: No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
United States v. Carlton, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that retroactive tax laws did not violate the constitutional prohibition on ex post facto legislation, provided their retroactive application was "supported by a legitimate legislative purpose furthered by rational means"
The holding of Calder remains good law: the ex post facto provision of the Constitution (Art. I, § 10, cl.1) applies solely to criminal cases, not civil cases.
http://www.michaelariens.com/ConLaw/cases/calder.htm
In Kelo v. City of New London, the Supremes decided in a reverse robin hood policy when it came to eminent domain. It is now ok to take from the poor to give to the rich if it means a few more pennies of tax revenue for the city
We won't even attempt to take on the infringements of the second amendment.
I did not include any of this conversation in my documents. I saw this for the first time with your post this morning.Quote:
Originally Posted by FreedomFirst
==============
09:56 a.m. EST - I've now updated the Leo Donofrio article on Scribd to include your recent quoted comments between Leo and Mario.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23227876/Leo- ... o-Warranto
Judging from LD's past track record, my guess is that he'll revive his blog when "news" of what he's pursuing through the courts is ready for explanation. No biggie.Quote:
Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan
I think you are right. He has this love/hate thing with this whole topic, leaving the rest of us wondering who is going to win the battle: Leo or Leo.Quote:
Originally Posted by FreedomFirst
But I didn't know he had anything in his own name going through the courts. Did I miss something or did I just forget?
He seems to be advising other people a/k/a "clients" in whose names different legal recourse might be sought.Quote:
Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan
If I thought it would be successful, I'd file my own pro se suit. I just think we are too far gone as a sovereign nation for justice to prevail.Quote:
Originally Posted by FreedomFirst
Do you know any of his clients aside from Miss Tickly?
HI Dept. of Health admits Obama’s COLB is faked
November 28, 2009 by John Charlton
ADMISSIONS MADE IN EMAIL TO CONCERNED CITIZEN
by John Charlton
(Nov. 28, 2009) — The final nail has been driven into the coffin of Obama’s online COLB (Certification of Live Birth), which was released in 2008 by his campaign to bolster his claims of being born in the United States of America, and which has been used as the reason, motive, or simply the excuse by members of Congress and politicians throughout the country, to explain away doubts regarding Obama’s eligibility.
The now infamous COLB alleged that Barack Hussein Obama II was born on Aug. 4, 1961 to Barack Hussein Obama I and Stanley Ann Dunham, in Hawaii.
However, the Department of Health has never corroborated the authenticity of the document. Rather, in an email to the publisher of The Right Side of Life website, Okubo admitted that the Hawaii Department of Health had no documents on file to establish that any such COLB was issued by them in 2007, even though the online COLB bears a 2007 seal.
Todays newest revelation discounts entirely the authenticity of the information on the alleged COLB, which bears the notation “Date filed by Registrar.â€
Now that Leo Donofrio has (hopefully, only temporarily) shut down his blog, we can no longer communicate with him there.
www dot blogtext dot org / naturalborncitizen / contactme dot html
is a possible contact point, but it may be dead. Does anyone have another? PM me if you do.
Appeals briefs scheduled in Obama eligibility challenge
'We look forward to moving ahead with this very important constitutional case'
Posted: November 29, 2009
9:17 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
A briefing schedule has been announced by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a case alleging Congress failed in its constitutional duties by refusing to investigate the eligibility of Barack Obama to be president, according to an attorney handling the challenge.
WND previously reported on the lawsuit filed by lead plaintiff Charles F. Kerchner Jr. and others against Congress.
Attorney Mario Apuzzo filed the action in January on behalf of Kerchner, Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell James Lenormand and Donald H. Nelson Jr. Named as defendants were 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 case asserts "when Obama was born his father was a British subject/citizen and Obama himself was the same."
The Constitution also 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.
Now the attorney has posted an online statement that the brief on behalf of the appellants is due Jan. 4, 2010.
In an e-mail announcing the schedule, Kerchner wrote, "We look forward to moving ahead with this very important constitutional case along the legal pathway to the ultimate decision maker for this historic and precedence setting lawsuit, the U.S. Supreme Court."
He continued. "They will determine the answer to the pressing legal question of what is a 'natural born citizen' of the USA per Article II constitutional standards and did Obama and the U.S. Congress violate the Constitution and statutory laws and my constitutional rights during the 2008 election cycle."
"I say Obama does not meet the founders and framers intent for the Article II eligibility clause. I say Obama is a deceiver and a usurper," he wrote today.
Apuzzo earlier argued in his notice of appeal that the district court judge "avoided" a conclusion on the merits of the case.
"We allege that Obama has not conclusively proven that he was born in Hawaii. More importantly, we also allege that he is not an Article II 'natural born Citizen' because when Obama was born his father was a British subject/citizen and Obama himself was the same," he wrote.
The lawyer said it is important that the court did not rule Obama was born in Hawaii, nor did it rule that the claim was frivolous.
It simply said the case was dismissed because of a jurisdiction issue.
"By the court finding that plaintiffs do not have standing and that their claims present a political question, the court was able to avoid having to address the underlying merits of the Kerchner case. With such a decision, the American people unfortunately still do not know where Obama was born and whether he is an Article II 'natural born Citizen' and therefore constitutionally eligible to be president and commander in chief," the attorney said.
"A court cannot refuse to hear a case on the merits merely because it prefers not to due to grave social or political ramifications," he continued. "The court's opinion dismissing the Kerchner complaint/petition did not address the real Kerchner case but rather looked for a way to dismiss the case without having to reach the merits of the question of whether Obama is an Article II 'natural born citizen.'
"The American people deserve to know whether Obama was in fact born in Hawaii. More importantly, even if he is born in Hawaii, given that he was born with dual allegiance and citizenship, the American people deserve to know whether he is an Article II 'natural born citizen' which would make him eligible to be president," the attorney said.
WND reported earlier when Kerchner publicly argued the courts have an obligation to make a decision on Obama's eligibility.
He wrote, "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."
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 – at a cost confirmed to be at least $1.7 million – 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 that was dismissed by U.S. District Judge David Carter in California. It also now is heading to the appeals level.
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=117141
Orky Taitz has filed an FOIA with DHS on Stanley Ann Dunham:
http://tinyurl.com/ylpzghq
Quote:
Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan
I emailed the following to dr_taitz at yahoo dot com , but she often doesn't read my emails.
Would you please send dr_taitz at yahoo dot com a ditto with the following text?
Dr. Taitz, your FOIA about Stanley Anne Dunham (dec'd.) did not request or mention a Form FS-240, Consular Report of Birth of a Citizen of the United States of America. If she gave birth outside the U.S., she had to get an FS-240 to establish U.S. citizenship for the child back in the U.S.. If an FS-240 appeared with Barack Obama II's name on it, it would bust the case wide open.
You don't have to mention Barack Obama II as the subject of the FOIA. A seemingly innocuous request for any FS-240 filed by Stanley Anne Dunham in 1961 will retrieve the record without causing alarm, if it is to be had.
I hope the recipients of the FOIA understand that if they find the incriminating evidence, they are subject to some pretty severe penalties if they destroy it, especially if other proof happens to surface later that proves the existence of the documentation they destroyed.
I sent Orly your message via her FaceBook account. I think that is monitored.Quote:
Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC