Thread: Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

[size=117]I tried to post or link this eyewash for blinded Obots at the LA Times blog.
But the LA Times wouldn't take it. "We're sorry. We cannot post this data."

For those with eyes to see and ears to hear...

1. John Jay advised George Washington specifically to eliminate any possibility of an English nobleman marrying
an American citizen and having a son become the President. The Framers of the Constitution understood a
"natural born Citizen" to be a citizen with no other loyalties at birth, that is, one born in the country of parents
who were then citizens. Every elected President born since 1787 was born on soil under U.S. jurisdiction,
of parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of that birth.

Until now.

2. Barack Obama Snr., a Kenyan, was a British protected citizen, which made Barack Obama II also
a British protected citizen, whose "birth was governed by British law," as Mr. Obama wrote in his book.
Dual citizenship is prima facie NOT natural born citizenship.

Can anyone explain how a person whose birth was governed by British law could possibly be a natural born citizen
of the United States? We're waiting...

3. The last person who could vouch for Mr. Obama's Hawaiian birth, his Grandmother Dunham in Honolulu,
died the day before the election.

All we have left is a computer-generated image that two or three counterfeiting and forgery experts
have declared a fake. If you doubt their expert testimony, here is a list of a dozen flaws in the computer graphics.
Knock yourself out.
http://www.alipac.us/ftopic-137238-days ... -1376.html

4. Grandmothers don't lie, politicians do.

His paternal step-grandmother has testified that she was present at his birth in the hospital in Mombasa, Kenya.
His half-sister and half-brother have joined her in that claim. Everyone in Kenya knows he was born in Kenya.
On Nov. 5, the day after the election, the Kenyan National Assembly went on record stating, in reference to Kenyan
celebrations of Mr. Obama’s election victory, that a “Kenyan is ruling the USA,â€

Minuteman, as you have well indicated, Obama's cronies are busy cleaning and controlling the internet and media. This is pretty scary stuff and I wonder how many people even realize what's happening right under their noses?!

[quote="MinutemanCDC_SC"][size=117]I tried to post or link this eyewash for blinded Obots at the LA Times blog.
But the LA Times wouldn't take it. "We're sorry. We cannot post this data."

For those with eyes to see and ears to hear...

1. John Jay advised George Washington specifically to eliminate any possibility of an English nobleman marrying
an American citizen and having a son become the President. The Framers of the Constitution understood a
"natural born Citizen" to be a citizen with no other loyalties at birth, that is, one born in the country of parents
who were then citizens. Every elected President born since 1787 was born on soil under U.S. jurisdiction,
of parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of that birth.

Until now.

2. Barack Obama Snr., a Kenyan, was a British protected citizen, which made Barack Obama II also
a British protected citizen, whose "birth was governed by British law," as Mr. Obama wrote in his book.
Dual citizenship is prima facie NOT natural born citizenship.

Can anyone explain how a person whose birth was governed by British law could possibly be a natural born citizen
of the United States? We're waiting...

3. The last person who could vouch for Mr. Obama's Hawaiian birth, his Grandmother Dunham in Honolulu,
died the day before the election.

All we have left is a computer-generated image that two or three counterfeiting and forgery experts
have declared a fake. If you doubt their expert testimony, here is a list of a dozen flaws in the computer graphics.
Knock yourself out.
http://www.alipac.us/ftopic-137238-days ... -1376.html

4. Grandmothers don't lie, politicians do.

His paternal step-grandmother has testified that she was present at his birth in the hospital in Mombasa, Kenya.
His half-sister and half-brother have joined her in that claim. Everyone in Kenya knows he was born in Kenya.
On Nov. 5, the day after the election, the Kenyan National Assembly went on record stating, in reference to Kenyan
celebrations of Mr. Obama’s election victory, that a “Kenyan is ruling the USA,â€

Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC

I tried to post or link this eyewash for blinded Obots at the LA Times blog.
But the LA Times wouldn't take it. "We're sorry. We cannot post this data."

MinuteMan,

I've never tried to do the online submission to any news paper. My only contact with the newspapers in the past has been through the opinion pages, and even on those pages there have often been topic filters - for about twenty years I can recall - maybe forever, I don't know. Having said that, the days of news print may have past.

I think conservative, Christian, law abiding folks missed the boat by not having more news channels of their own. Even the Christian Science Monitor (Boston) has stopped its newspaper printing and has an online presence only.

In the LA basin, Orange County is the conservative stronghold. You might try the Orange County Register (http://www.ocregister.com/) - it's the newspaper for all conservative readers, and I would bet there are already articles and submissions on this topic.

I have hope, but I am afraid something is going to happen to stop this judge

Bombshell: Orders revoked for soldier challenging prez

Major victory for Army warrior questioning Obama's birthplace

Posted: July 14, 2009 -- 9:53 pm Eastern

By Chelsea Schilling and Joe Kovacs
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104009

Dr. Orly Taitz

A U.S. Army Reserve major from Florida scheduled to report for deployment to Afghanistan within days has had his military orders revoked after arguing he should not be required to serve under a president who has not proven his eligibility for office.

His attorney, Orly Taitz, confirmed to WND the military has rescinded his impending deployment orders.

"We won! We won before we even arrived," she said with excitement. "It means that the military has nothing to show for Obama. It means that the military has directly responded by saying Obama is illegitimate – and they cannot fight it. Therefore, they are revoking the order!"

She continued, "They just said, 'Order revoked.' No explanation. No reasons – just revoked."

A hearing on the questions raised by Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook, an engineer who told WND he wants to serve his country in Afghanistan, was scheduled for July 16 at 9:30 a.m.

"As an officer in the armed forces of the United States, it is [my] duty to gain clarification on any order we may believe illegal. With that said, if President Obama is found not to be a 'natural-born citizen,' he is not eligible to be commander-in-chief," he told WND only hours after the case was filed.

"[Then] any order coming out of the presidency or his chain of command is illegal. Should I deploy, I would essentially be following an illegal [order]. If I happened to be captured by the enemy in a foreign land, I would not be privy to the Geneva Convention protections," he said.

The order for the hearing in the federal court for the Middle District of Georgia from U.S. District Judge Clay D. Land said the hearing on the request for a temporary restraining order would be held Thursday.

Want to turn up the pressure to learn the facts? Get your signs and postcards asking for the president's birth certificate documentation here.

Cook said without a legitimate president as commander-in-chief, members of the U.S. military in overseas actions could be determined to be "war criminals and subject to prosecution."

He said the vast array of information about Obama that is not available to the public confirms to him "something is amiss."

"That and the fact the individual who is occupying the White House has not been entirely truthful with anybody," he said. "Every time anyone has made an inquiry, it has been either cast aside, it has been maligned, it has been laughed at or just dismissed summarily without further investigation.

"You know what. It would be so simple to solve. Just produce the long-form document, certificate of live birth," he said.

Cook said he was scheduled to report for duty tomorrow, on July 15, to deploy to Afghanistan as part of President Obama's plan to increase pressure of insurgent forces there.

He told WND he would be prepared for a backlash against him as a military officer, since members of the military swear to uphold and follow their orders. However, he noted that following an illegal order would be just as bad as failing to follow a legal order.

Before news of the orders being revoked were reported, MSNBC anchor Keith Olbermann tonight called Cook a "jackass" and Taitz a "conwoman," as he labeled both of them the "worst persons in the world." He flayed the soldier as "an embarrassment to all those who have served without cowardice."

Named as defendants in the case are Col. Wanda Good, Col. Thomas Macdonald, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Obama, described as "de facto president of the United States."

According to the court filing, Cook affirmed when he joined the military, he took the following oath: "I, Stefan Frederick Cook, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the president of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

According to the claim, "Plaintiff submits that it is implicit though not expressly stated that an officer is and should be subject to court-martial, because he will be derelict in the performance of his duties, if he does not inquire as to the lawfulness, the legality, the legitimacy of the orders which he has received, whether those orders are specific or general."

The military courts offer no option for raising the question, so he turned to civilian courts to consider "a question of paramount constitutional and legal importance: the validity of the chain of command under a president whose election, eligibility, and constitutional status appear open to serious question."

"Barack Hussein Obama, in order to prove his constitutional eligibility to serve as president, basically needs only produce a single unique historical document for the Plaintiff’s inspection and authentication: namely, the 'long-form' birth certificate which will confirm whether Barack Hussein Obama was in fact born to parents who were both citizens of the United States in Honolulu, Hawaii, in or about 1961," explains the complaint.

Taitz said she will attend the hearing to amend the temporary restraining order to an injunction because more members of the military have joined the cause.

"We are going to be asking for release of Obama's records because now this completely undermines the military. It revoked this order, but it can come up with another order tomorrow. It can come up with orders for other people," she said. "Am I going to be flying around the country 1,000 times and paying the fees every time they issue an order?"

Taitz said the issue "must be resolved immediately," and she will continue working to ensure Obama proves he is eligible for office.

"We're going to be asking the judge to issue an order for Obama to provide his vital records to show he is legitimately president," she said. "We're going to say, we have orders every day, and we'll have revocations every day. This issue has to be decided."

She said there cannot be any harm to the president if he is legitimately holding office.

"If he is legitimate, then his vital records will prove it," Taitz said. "If he is illegitimate, then he should not have been there in the first place."

Asked what this decision means for every other serviceman who objects to deployment under a president who has not proven he is eligible for office, Taitz responded:

"Now, we can have each and every member of the military – each and every enlistee and officer – file something similar saying 'I will not take orders until Obama is legitimately vetted.'"

Multiple questions have been raised about what that would mean to the 2008 election, to the orders and laws Obama has signed and other issues, including whether he then is a valid commander-in-chief of the military.

Remainder of the WND article is found here:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104009

Dr. Orly Taitz announcement and other posts here:

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/

Billboard in PA

Originally Posted by grandmasmad

Minuteman posted this at EXACTLY the same moment I posted!!!!!!!!!!!!...I don't know how to delete....sorry!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/
http://vrwcgrapevine.blogspot.com/2009/ ... rd-on.html
Obama eligibility case will be heard on merits!!
GREAT NEWS ALERT!!

Obama eligibility case will be heard on merits !!
Please distribute everywhere.

Just got off the phone with Orly Taitz, the attorney in Keyes v. Obama.

At the hearing today at the Federal Court building in Santa Ana, Judge Carter said the following:
1. There will be a trial.
2. It will be heard on the merits.
3. Nothing will be dismissed on proceedural issues.
4. The trial will be expeditious, and the judge pledged to give case priority.
5. Being a former Marine he realizes the importance of having a Constitutionally qualified POTUS/CINC.
6. Judge stated that if Obama isn’t Constitutionally qualifed he needs to leave the White House.

The DOJ will be involved with the case also…. I wasn’t clear if they would be trying to get to the truth or they would just be blindly representing Obama.

Orly will be adding members of the military from California as plaintiffs also.This is from what my interpretation of our conversation.Orly, asked me to disseminate this information out for her, she will be doing a posting later after she gets some sleep.

Please say a prayer of protection for Orly, her family, and Judge Carter. Please also pray that the truth will come to light regarding Obama and justice will be done.
Dr Orly Taitz, Esq site here!

WOOHOO!!!

*****
I believe that Obama is a fraud and a liar, but I'm sorry, I don't think this California lawsuit is going anywhere.

I have the sad feeling that this California judge will quickly dismiss this lawsuit like other judges across the country have done several times in the past.

Originally Posted by WorldNetDaily.com

Bombshell: Orders revoked for soldier challenging prez

Major victory for Army warrior questioning Obama's birthplace

"We won! We won before we even arrived," she said with excitement. "It means that the military has nothing to show for Obama. It means that the military has directly responded by saying Obama is illegitimate – and they cannot fight it. Therefore, they are revoking the order!"

She continued, "They just said, 'Order revoked.' No explanation. No reasons – just revoked."

Maj. Cook won, but it is a calculated concession by the military. They avoided a court decision which would establish a precedent for other military personnel who want orders issued through a legitimate chain of command, that is, one headed by a lawful, Constitutionally eligible, Commander-in-Chief.

Or maybe the Army felt this particular case was just too much trouble.

Without regard to the legitimacy of the CinC, or even if there were no CinC, the military must independently maintain its internal authority and its ability to issue orders. In other words, the CinC is not the identity of the military, and the military is more than an agent of the CinC; it exists in its own right. And that's a good thing.

It would have been hard for the military attorneys to claim that Maj. Stefan Cook did not have standing to bring suit, especially since he was the defendant.

It is widely known throughout Europe and Africa that Kenyan-born Barack Obama is not a lawful U.S. President. Therefore, it would have been impossible to claim that Maj. Cook's argument was specious, that the Geneva Convention would not protect him if he were captured.

In this case in the U.S. District Court in Columbus, Georgia, are the three notorious, "devil's advocate" law firms, involved?
__________________________________________________ __

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

U.S. ARMY HUMAN RESOURCES COMMAND

1 RESERVE WAY

ST. LOUIS, MO 63132-5200

AHRC-PLM-S 14 JUL 2009

ORDERS A-06-916551R

COOK STEFAN FREDERICK EAD8 MAJ EN 000 00 0000

W096AA

THE FOLLOWING ORDER IS REVOKED OR RESCINDED AS SHOWN.

ACTION: REVOKE

SO MUCH OF: FORMAT 162 A-06-916551 AHRC DATED 09 JUN 2009

PERTAINING TO: EXTENDED ACTIVE DUTY ORDER OF

COOK STEFAN FREDERICK

000 00 0000 MAJ EN 21B

FOR ARMY USE: AUTHORITY: 10 USC 12301 (D)

ACCT CLAS: 21 9/0 2010.0000 01-1100 P1A1000 11**/12** VFRE F3203 5570 01FFGU 12161 21 9 2020.0000 B1 B1TC 135197 21T1/21T2 COO7803T916551 VFRE F4209 AZTD2E 12161 CIC: 2920B1AZTD12161 9199-STL-18JUL09

FORMAT: 705

************** LOUIS B. WINGATE
* AHRC * COL, FA

* OFFICIAL * COMMANDING

**************

DISTRIBUTION: 1 SOLDIER

1 SOC CENTRAL (SOCJ1) 7115 S BDRY BLVD 813-828-6378 MACDILL AFB FL 33621

1 USA ELM HQ USSOUTHCOM 3511 NW 91ST AVENUE MIAMI FL 33172

After nearly six months of postponements in Keyes v. Obama, Mr. Obama's defense attorneys didn't even show up in court! The U.S. Attorneys had to step in, even though Orly Taitz maintained that Mr. Obama was not eligible for taxpayer-provided counsel as President in a case filed before the inauguration.

Perhaps his 3 law firms decided the U.S. District Court in Santa Ana, California (convenient to Hollywood), should be the scene of the showdown.

Please offer ideas about why Mr. Obama's civilian attorneys chose to default at the opening hearing.

Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC

After nearly six months of postponements in Keyes v. Obama, Mr. Obama's defense attorneys didn't even show up in court! The U.S. Attorneys had to step in, even though Orly Taitz maintained that Mr. Obama was not eligible for taxpayer-provided counsel as President in a case filed before the inauguration.

Perhaps his 3 law firms decided the U.S. District Court in Santa Ana, California (convenient to Hollywood), should be the scene of the showdown.

Please offer ideas about why Mr. Obama's civilian attorneys chose to default at the opening hearing.

A couple of thoughts.

1. Orange County is a conservative county in an otherwise really liberal state. So, if you're going to have a constitutional case heard, this might be a good place for the good guys to do it. Bad for Obama, good for us.

2. Why didn't Obama's civilian attorneys attend the hearing? Jurisdiction. If I'm correct in my thinking, had Obama appeared in any manner, he would have been granting the court jurisdiction over him personally, and we know he doesn't want to do that. Much better for him to have the U.S. government defend him than to have the burden placed on himself. Also remember that his strategy has been to delay, delay, delay, and provide nothing requested from him.

FreedomFirst, you must have some thoughts on this question.