Thread: Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

Originally Posted by TexasBorn

I have sadly come to recognize the ugly reality of the situation we face with Obama. The upcoming Carter hearing with Orly Taitz will be derailed. Her case will never see the light day in a U.S. courtroom, nor will any other case. The powers that be, including the Supreme Court will never allow these cases to proceed. Why? Because the judges in this country fear that overturning the election of a popularly elected President would create chaos in our streets and in our government...and because money talks.

The power of the courts to "enforce" a decision that NBC means one thing and Obama doesn't fit the description might be more at the forefront of the judges' minds as they bounce this Hot Political Potato around. The courts can't call out the military, or National Guard, or other folks in uniforms to pack up a POTUS' possessions from the White House.

Our only hope is to turn him into a lame duck before he has completed his first year in office. We have to put a stranglehold on congress and the purse strings.

If the Zogby and Rasmussen polls are any indication, he's well on his way to becoming lame duck. Letting the Congressional Dems loose to fashion a health care reform measure was a Recipe for Disaster and he's paying the price, as that becomes the lightning rod issue for all other dissatisfactions to get aired. He's lost his earliest supporters (the "progressive wing") and he never had the support of his detractors (the "constitutionalists" and the fiscally sane).

Some interesting quotes from the mid-20th:

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater

I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is "needed" before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents "interests," I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.

Originally Posted by FreedomFirst

Some interesting quotes from the mid-20th:

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater

I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is "needed" before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents "interests," I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.

Profound. I wish I had appreciated Goldwater more, and that we had a Congress filled with people just like him.

decalogosintl.org/?p=256

The information in the [newspaper birth] announcement, Obama's attorneys claim, can only have been drawn from a list of weekly registrations supplied by Hawaiian Vital Records and routinely published therefrom. This irrefutably undermines the credibility of any Certifica-TION of Live Birth Obama could ever show (including a printed version) as prima facie evidence: if the announcement draws its information and probity from the longform Certific-ATE, and the address given in the announcement and previously entered on the longform is a felonious lie... then what other entries on that Certific-ATE in Hawaii are untrue ?

Surely any COLB submitted by Obama's lawyers to a court is unlikely to be recognized as sufficient if challenged and the burden of proof is on them as to why there should not be an examination of the longform?
# Mike C on February 8th, 2009 8:06 am
__________________________________________________ __________

"... if the announcement draws its information and probity from the longform Certific-ATE, and the address given in the announcement and previously entered on the longform is a felonious lie... then what other entries on that Certific-ATE in Hawaii are untrue?"

Originally Posted by FreedomFirst

Originally Posted by TexasBorn

I have sadly come to recognize the ugly reality of the situation we face with Obama. The upcoming Carter hearing with Orly Taitz will be derailed. Her case will never see the light day in a U.S. courtroom, nor will any other case. The powers that be, including the Supreme Court will never allow these cases to proceed. Why? Because the judges in this country fear that overturning the election of a popularly elected President would create chaos in our streets and in our government...and because money talks.

The power of the courts to "enforce" a decision that NBC means one thing and Obama doesn't fit the description might be more at the forefront of the judges' minds as they bounce this Hot Political Potato around. The courts can't call out the military, or National Guard, or other folks in uniforms to pack up a POTUS' possessions from the White House.

Our only hope is to turn him into a lame duck before he has completed his first year in office. We have to put a stranglehold on congress and the purse strings.

If the Zogby and Rasmussen polls are any indication, he's well on his way to becoming lame duck. Letting the Congressional Dems loose to fashion a health care reform measure was a Recipe for Disaster and he's paying the price, as that becomes the lightning rod issue for all other dissatisfactions to get aired. He's lost his earliest supporters (the "progressive wing") and he never had the support of his detractors (the "constitutionalists" and the fiscally sane).

Some interesting quotes from the mid-20th:

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater

I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is "needed" before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents "interests," I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.

Freedom, the one thing that is incomprehensible and frightening at the same time is how Obama and the Dems. continue full steam ahead with their radical agenda DESPITE the plummeting poll numbers and DESPITE the obvious constitutional violations of their actions and plans. Are they Kamikazee's?? In normal circumstances, a first term POTUS and his congressional allies want just one thing...a second term. So, why are they committing what amounts to political suicide? Have they decided that they are above the law and can't be touched or voted out of office? MOD EDIT The whole thing is mind boggling.

It is reported that Fox News will be at the Carter hearing. I find it interesting that they have given this issue little coverage in the days leading up to the hearing but choose NOW to show up and cover it. Sly like a Fox?

It is reported that Fox News will be at the Carter hearing. I find it interesting that they have given this issue little coverage in the days leading up to the hearing but choose NOW to show up and cover it. Sly like a Fox?

Originally Posted by TexasBorn

It is reported that Fox News will be at the Carter hearing. I find it interesting that they have given this issue little coverage in the days leading up to the hearing but choose NOW to show up and cover it. Sly like a Fox?

Do you have a link to where this is being reported? My sense of Orly is that she's very tenacious but she's deficient in handling cases in a lawyerly manner. This next linked article has cross links to other material suggesting that there are still procedural glitches, and that Orly might have overblown (or misunderstood) Judge Carter's commitment to have the case decided on the merits. Procedural requirements can't be blown off as mere "niceties" if a case is going to withstand appeals.

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/tait ... ling-click

Meanwhile, FactCheck "blinked" and admitted an error in their claims about Obama's Kenyan citizenship. Also might have done a little "website scrubbing" ...

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com ... -analysis/

Filed with Court Declaration of Lucas Daniel Smith and a copy of Kenian hospital Birth Certificate for Barack Hussein Obama

I don't know that it is a good idea to put the weight of the case on a Kenyan BC of uncertain origin by way of a shady source. It could cause the judge to ignore the issue of dual citizenship by parentage. It could blow up in Dr. Taitz's face and discredit other stronger arguments.

On the other hand, it may be just what is needed to get a hearing for those stronger arguments.

Originally Posted by TexasBorn

Freedom, the one thing that is incomprehensible and frightening at the same time is how Obama and the Dems. continue full steam ahead with their radical agenda DESPITE the plummeting poll numbers and DESPITE the obvious constitutional violations of their actions and plans. Are they Kamikazee's?? In normal circumstances, a first term POTUS and his congressional allies want just one thing...a second term. So, why are they committing what amounts to political suicide? Have they decided that they are above the law and can't be touched or voted out of office? MOD EDIT The whole thing is mind boggling.

Let's suppose for a minute that you have complete control of 1) the government - including the congress, the courts, and the military, 2) the financial community, and 3) industry. Now let's suppose that you intend to rule with an iron fist over the people - just like a communist regime.

Are you going to be concerned with poll numbers or with declining popularity? Did Castro? Does Putin?

You get the idea.

The only difference between there and here is 1) our freedom of speech, 2) our belief in God, 3) our armed society, 4) our belligerent attitude, 5) our freedom of movement, and 6) maybe (QED) our determination to remain free of oppression.

Let's see what happens in the coming months. If Obama and congress balk, then we know we have a chance at recovery (short of rebellion). If they don't balk, then we will be faced with more serious solutions to our nation's takeover by the communists.

But, as one wise park ranger told me recently - The American Revolution isn't over.

Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC

Filed with Court Declaration of Lucas Daniel Smith and a copy of Kenian hospital Birth Certificate for Barack Hussein Obama

I don't know that it is a good idea to put the weight of the case on a Kenyan BC of uncertain origin by way of a shady source. It could cause the judge to ignore the issue of dual citizenship by parentage. It could blow up in Dr. Taitz's face and discredit other stronger arguments.

On the other hand, it may be just what is needed to get a hearing for those stronger arguments.

Minuteman, the same thoughts crossed my mind. Does Orly know something we don't? Maybe she sees that taking the path of dual citizenship by parentage is strewn with too many constitutionally interpretative potholes. She might be quite clever to focus on the "records" issue, ie; place of birth, passport records, college records, school records, etc. A defense attorney may have difficulty casting sufficient doubt on the validity of plaintiff claims that "sealed" records are necessary to prove constitutional eligibility. IMO, an honest judge would find it very difficult to throw out a case with this approach.