Thread: Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

There appears to be growing belief that we are actually trying to deal with a shadow government, not a legitimate U.S. government and that is why we are all so frustrated and unsuccessful. I recently came across this article from The Constitution Society in Texas. You might give it a read and think about the issues of lawlessness and non-responsiveness from our government once again.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/20917411/Cons ... Government

If the article is to be believed, then it would seem that we must try to uncover and expose the shadow government, because exposure destroys its effectiveness....

Simple to say, maybe difficult to do.

Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC

More recommended reading, well researched and well-written by Linda A. Melin:

Barack Obama and Harvard professor Laurence Tribe, who seeks to broaden "natural born Citizen."

Congress has attempted several times to redefine "natural born Citizen" during the past 35 years.

S.R. 511 certified Sen. McCain but was passed to circumvent Mr. Obama's ineligibility for the Presidency.

Thanks, MinuteMan. Good reading.

We've discussed this before, but here's a reminder.

Originally Posted by Steve Baldwin

...there are questions about how he paid for his Harvard Law School education since, despite a claim by Michelle Obama, no one has produced any evidence that he received student loans. The Obamas will not release any student loan details despite repeated requests from the Chicago Tribune. However, it appears that his Harvard education may have been paid for by a foreign source.

Barack Obama and Khalid Al-Mansour: orthodox Muslim, black nationalist, and enemy of Israel.

Khalid Al-Mansour, an advisor to Saudi prince Al-Walid bin Talal, told Manhattan Borough president, Percy Sutton, that he was raising money for Obama’s Harvard tuition.

Saudi Prince Al-Walid bin Talal, world's 19th richest man ($23B) and nephew of Saudi King Abdullah.

Incidentally, Prince Talal is the largest donor to [Chicago-based] CAIR, a Muslim group declared by the U.S. Government in 2007 as an unindicted co-conspirator in a terrorist financing trial. At least three of CAIR’s leaders have been indicted for terrorist activities. Al-Mansour’s admission opens up speculation as to whether Muslim interests have assisted Obama’s career in the hope he would eventually be in a position someday to promote their interests.

"The Mystery of Barack Obama Continues" at WesternJournalism.com .

WND Exclusive BORN IN THE USA?

Plaintiff: Courts must hear eligibility arguments

Cites Marshall opinion that to refuse is treason

Posted: October 12, 2009
10:20 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

A plaintiff in one of the cases challenging Barack Obama's eligibility to be president says federal courts must hear the challenges, because to do otherwise would be treason.

The claim comes from Charles F. Kerchner Jr., a lead plaintiff in the Kerchner vs. Obama & Congress lawsuit handled by attorney Mario Apuzzo.

Apuzzo filed suit in January on behalf of Kerchner, Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell James Lenormand and Donald H. Nelson Jr. Named as defendants are Barack Hussein Obama II, the U.S., Congress, the Senate, House of Representatives and former Vice President Dick Cheney along with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

The case focuses on the alleged failure of Congress to follow the Constitution. That document, the lawsuit states, "provides that Congress must fully qualify the candidate 'elected' by the Electoral College Electors."

The Constitution provides, the lawsuit says, "If the president-elect shall have failed to qualify, then the vice president elect shall act as president until a president shall have qualified."

"There existed significant public doubt and grievances from plaintiffs and other concerned Americans regarding Obama's eligibility to be president and defendants had the sworn duty to protect and preserve the Constitution and specifically under the 20th Amendment, Section 3, a Constitutional obligation to confirm whether Obama, once the electors elected him, was qualified," the case explained.

See the movie Obama does not want you to see: Own the DVD that probes this unprecedented presidential eligibility mystery!

"Congress is the elected representative of the American people and the people speak and act through them," the lawsuit said.

The defendants "violated" the 20th Amendment by failing to assure that Obama meets the eligibility requirements, the lawsuit said.

Now on the attorney's blog, Kerchner has written, "The federal courts and judges are committing treason to the Constitution by not taking jurisdiction and getting to the merits in the various cases before them regarding the Article II eligibility clause question for Obama."

He said his basis for such a statement is the opinion of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall, who wrote in an 1821 case, Cohens vs. Virginia:

"It is most true that this court will not take jurisdiction if it should not: but it is equally true, that it must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid; but we cannot avoid them. All we can do is, to exercise our best judgment, and conscientiously to perform our duty. In doing this, on the present occasion, we find this tribunal invested with appellate jurisdiction in all cases arising under the constitution and laws of the United States. We find no exception to this grant, and we cannot insert one."

Kerchner added, "The … judges in the … cases should simply read the words of U.S. Supreme court Chief Justice Marshall from the past and take jurisdiction of the constitutional question of the Article II eligibility clause in the Constitution and proceed to a fact finding hearing and trial on the merits.

"I say Obama is NOT eligible. But we need the federal courts to take the cases and get a SCOTUS ruling to settle this," he said.

WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."

Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

Further, others question his citizenship by virtue of his attendance in Indonesian schools during his childhood and question on what passport did he travel to Pakistan three decades ago.

Adding fuel to the fire is Obama's persistent refusal to release documents that could provide answers and the appointment of myriad lawyers to defend against all requests for his documentation. While his supporters cite an online version of a "Certification of Live Birth" from Hawaii as his birth verification, critics point out such documents actually were issued for children not born in the state.

The ultimate questions remain unaddressed to date: Is Obama a natural born citizen, and, if so, why hasn't documentation been provided? And, of course, if he is not, what does it mean to the 2008 election or the U.S. Constitution if it is revealed that there has been a violation?

WND has reported on another case, being heard by U.S. District Judge David Carter in California. He released a ruling a week ago noting the government's motion to dismiss was being taken "under submission." But he also approved a final calendar for the case to be proceeding in his court.

Under the schedule ordered by the judge the final pretrial conference is scheduled Jan. 11, 2010, while the jury trial is Jan. 26, 2010.

WND also has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes his kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and his adoption records.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=112707

...government's motion to dismiss was being taken "under submission." ...

Can someone explain to me what this means? Is this ultimately a way out for Carter if he is squeezed hard enough?

Also would appreciate if someone can explain in simple terms the following sequence of events and describe the potential roadblocks to the jury trial in January.

Motion for Summary Judgment Hearing December 7, 2009, at 8:30 a.m.

File Motion for Summary Judgment November 16, 2009

Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment November 26, 2009

Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment November 30, 2009

Final Pretrial Conference January 11, 2010, at 8:30 a.m.

Jury Trial January 26, 2010, at 8:30 a.m.


It is stunning to me that a trial of such historical significance is getting virtually no media coverage??!!!! Are we to believe that this really ISN'T an important trial?

...government's motion to dismiss was being taken "under submission." ...
It means that U.S. District Judge David O. Carter is studying the case and considering his options before rendering his opinion and his verdict. He may be taking pains to get every detail right against the expected immediate appeal... or he may fear for his life and the lives of his family. Pray for Judge Carter, for his safety and for his right decision.

Joy Behar's interview on CNN with Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq., is accepting comments.

Apparently, Joy Behar's opinion is on the screen next to Dr. Taitz:
"Lunatic Fringe?"


"I only regret that I have but one life to give for my country."
- American patriot Nathan Hale, before being hanged by the British for treason.

Obama birthplace lawyer fined for legal misconduct

October 13th, 2009
posted by Martin Wisckol, Politics reporter
Updated at 12:35 p.m. with reaction from Taitz.

A Georgia federal judge today fined Mission Viejo lawyer Orly Taitz $20,000 for legal misconduct in her claims that Barack Obama was born in Kenya and so should be removed as president.

In sanctioning Taitz, U.S. District Court Judge Clay D. Land wrote that one recent Taitz response to the court “is breathtaking in its arrogance and borders on delusional. She expresses no contrition or regret regarding her misconduct. To the contrary, she continues her baseless attacks on the Court….â€

Deleted because the link didn't work.

JD2

The link worked, maybe it was a quirk with OC but it seems fine. PM if you still want me to delete.

Click here to read Land’s 43-page ruling, which details Taitz misconduct and the flaws with her motion to have Land recused from the case.

43 pages sounds a bit like a diatribe that would play well to his choir. Sounds more like a pot to the kettle issue.

Dixie

Originally Posted by Dixie

The link worked, maybe it was a quirk with OC but it seems fine. PM if you still want me to delete.

Click here to read Land’s 43-page ruling, which details Taitz misconduct and the flaws with her motion to have Land recused from the case.

43 pages sounds a bit like a diatribe that would play well to his choir. Sounds more like a pot to the kettle issue.

Dixie

This link works to get to the article:
http://tinyurl.com/yhmygey

And this link should work to get to a copy of the ruling:
http://tinyurl.com/ygpqgjy

Dixie, I agree with your comments about diatribes.