Thread: Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan

DENIES EVERYTHING IT CAN TO DROP ELIGIBILITY CASE

by John Charlton, The Post and Mail
http://tinyurl.com/yb2tg2f

http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009 ... g-vs-obama

I cannot put into words how this makes me feel.

"The Court’s opinion is available on the web in its entirety."
http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/084340p.pdf
If you can be provoked to anger, you should not read it.

3rd Circuit Court Justice Dolores Korman Sloviter of Philadelphia, a Carter appointee, opined for Justices Julio Fuentes and Thomas Hardiman as well.
"In light of the public’s interest in the final resolution of this case . . .
and the obvious lack of any merit in Berg’s contentions . . ."
She denied Mr. Berg standing to argue the merits of the case, then disrespected the merits of his contentions.

She closed with this slam: "Because there is no case or controversy, we will affirm the District Court’s order dismissing Berg’s action."

That was the ultimate "spit-in-your-eye" to Mr. Berg. For attempting to provoke Mr. Berg into sanctionable behavior, Justice Dolores Korman Sloviter should be sanctioned herself for contempt of court.

Taxation without representation is tyranny.

Subjugation without standing in court is slavery.

Election outside the Constitution is usurpation, and

usurpation without checks and balances is dictatorship.

Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC

Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan

DENIES EVERYTHING IT CAN TO DROP ELIGIBILITY CASE

by John Charlton, The Post and Mail
http://tinyurl.com/yb2tg2f

http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009 ... g-vs-obama

I cannot put into words how this makes me feel.

"The Court’s opinion is available on the web in its entirety."
http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/084340p.pdf
If you can be provoked to anger, you should not read it.

3rd Circuit Court Justice Dolores Korman Sloviter of Philadelphia, a Carter appointee, opined for Justices Julio Fuentes and Thomas Hardiman as well.
"In light of the public’s interest in the final resolution of this case . . .
and the obvious lack of any merit in Berg’s contentions . . ."
She denied Mr. Berg standing to argue the merits of the case, then disrespected the merits of his contentions.

She closed with this slam: "Because there is no case or controversy, we will affirm the District Court’s order dismissing Berg’s action."

That was the ultimate "spit-in-your-eye" to Mr. Berg. For attempting to provoke Mr. Berg into sanctionable behavior, Justice Dolores Korman Sloviter should be sanctioned herself for contempt of court.

Taxation without representation is tyranny.

Subjugation without standing in court is slavery.

Election outside the Constitution is usurpation, and

usurpation without checks and balances is dictatorship.

It's time for a nationwide tax revolt...for starters. Enough is enough.

Newly elected governor of VA was quoted as saying "no way" to Obamacare health reform getting implemented in his state, if it's going to dump a bunch of new "burdens" onto the state's Medicare and Medicaid "share" of funding formulas, or impose a costly "public option" that hits state coffers.

California simply can't afford it either. None of the ten states identified this week by Pew Research as "basket cases" of fallen off revenues and looming sky-high deficits can afford it.

Arizona is already looking at a referendum that would amend their state constitution in ways that would allow nullification of federal "force it down their throats" proposals like healthcare or which would impede any ability of private insurers to offer options and plans which anybody could sign up for.

In the gun control area, KY and MT have either bills or laws which seek to "nullify" any federal law relating to guns in instances where a gun is manufactured, sold and owned solely inside the states.

Look for more of these nullification laws and stances to start coming to the fore as DC goes totally berserk with its push toward socialism. The Commerce Clause has been over-used to the point of abuse; officials in many states are clearly recognizing that and looking for ways to stem the tide.

Originally Posted by FreedomFirst

Look for more of these nullification laws and stances to start coming to the fore as DC goes totally berserk with its push toward socialism. The Commerce Clause has been over-used to the point of abuse; officials in many states are clearly recognizing that and looking for ways to stem the tide.

Even worse, the feds are using the commerce clause to regulate and control business between the states, and it is my understanding that the commerce clause was intended to allow the feds to facilitate commerce between the states.

It looks like power does corrupt absolutely.

Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan

Originally Posted by FreedomFirst

Look for more of these nullification laws and stances to start coming to the fore as DC goes totally berserk with its push toward socialism. The Commerce Clause has been over-used to the point of abuse; officials in many states are clearly recognizing that and looking for ways to stem the tide.

Even worse, the feds are using the commerce clause to regulate and control business between the states, and it is my understanding that the commerce clause was intended to allow the feds to facilitate commerce between the states.

It looks like power does corrupt absolutely.

And when the states pass laws in which the commerce clause was written to protect us from, DC does nothing! such as for 10 years California had a tax on any vehicle brought in from out of state, regardless of whether or not it had "California emissions" on the vehicle. The tax wasn't little either, I think it was something like $500.00.It took well over a decade for the courts to decide it was unconstitutional, when they did, refunds were only given to those who applied for them and still had their original receipt from paying the tax. When asked, the legislators who implemented the tax said they KNEW it was unconstitutional when they did it, but at the end of the day, even after the refunds, California was still billions ahead. IMHO everyone who voted on the original bill should have been fined 500 dollars for every vehicle that the tax was charged on.

Originally Posted by TexasBorn

It's time for a nationwide tax revolt...for starters. Enough is enough.

TexasBurn, a tax revolt means nothing to a government which prints whatever amount of money it needs... or wants... or pleases.

Originally Posted by cayla99

Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan

Originally Posted by FreedomFirst

Look for more of these nullification laws and stances to start coming to the fore as DC goes totally berserk with its push toward socialism. The Commerce Clause has been over-used to the point of abuse; officials in many states are clearly recognizing that and looking for ways to stem the tide.

Even worse, the feds are using the commerce clause to regulate and control business between the states, and it is my understanding that the commerce clause was intended to allow the feds to facilitate commerce between the states.

It looks like power does corrupt absolutely.

And when the states pass laws in which the commerce clause was written to protect us from, DC does nothing! such as for 10 years California had a tax on any vehicle brought in from out of state, regardless of whether or not it had "California emissions" on the vehicle. The tax wasn't little either, I think it was something like $500.00.It took well over a decade for the courts to decide it was unconstitutional, when they did, refunds were only given to those who applied for them and still had their original receipt from paying the tax. When asked, the legislators who implemented the tax said they KNEW it was unconstitutional when they did it, but at the end of the day, even after the refunds, California was still billions ahead. IMHO everyone who voted on the original bill should have been fined 500 dollars for every vehicle that the tax was charged on.

And you're right - that's a state issue. The Californians keep electing folks who don't represent their best interests, and they get what they vote for.

I came across this interesting post on jbjd's blog, and thought it worth passing along. The post below was presented to the South Carolina Elections Board as a followup to a previous complaint of election fraud perpetrated by Nancy Pelosi in 2008. [emphasis added below was mine]

Noting this state action, I wonder if any of the other state election fraud complaints have born fruit. Anyone know for sure?

Sourced from: http://jbjd.wordpress.com/

========================

Virginia State Board of Elections
What: SBE Meeting
When: Friday, October 9, 2009
Time: 11:00 am EST
Where: General Assembly Building, 4th Floor East Conference Room

TESTIMONY OF d2i TO THE VIRGINIA BOARD OF ELECTIONS:

Good morning, Madam Chair, and members of the Board of Elections,

My name is (name omitted) and I am a long time resident of this great Commonwealth of Virginia. I sincerely thank you for this opportunity to provide citizen testimony to the Board. I will keep my remarks brief.

I am here today seeking a response to the complaint I delivered to the Board almost 3 (three) weeks ago, charging that during the 2008 general election, The Honorable Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, acting in the non-governmental role of Chair, 2008 DNC Convention, committed election fraud by Certifying to this Board that Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee for President of the United States, was Constitutionally eligible for the job so that you would place his name on our general election ballot, even though based on documents in the public record she could not have ascertained whether Mr. Obama was eligible for the job.

Let me explain how I came to file this complaint.

I followed the 2008 primary very closely. At some point, I began hearing rumors concerning whether Barack Obama was a natural born citizen. Evidently, these rumors reached the candidate, too. Because in June 2008, he created a web site called “Fight the Smearsâ€

jbjd has posted two very interesting and informative Revolution Radio interview audio posts on her page: http://jbjd.wordpress.com/

==========

drkate has launched her own blog talk radio show called, "Revolution Radio" and I was the premier guest on Wednesday, October 28, along with her guest co-host d2i. (Part II of the show was aired live on Wednesday, November 4, 2009, at 9:00 PM EST.) Here is the blurb she posted to announce the show.

"Welcome to drkate's Revolution Radio! Tonight we get right down to work, with two very special guests in “Witness to Election Fraudâ€

All of these lawsuits depend upon an independent judiciary which is neither corrupt, intimidated, nor coerced by organized crime, Is|amist terrorists, communist/globalist influences, or a usurpation government.

• From what I saw of U.S. District Judge Clay Land's outrageous hostility, prejudice, spite and malice toward Maj. Cook and Orly Taitz, whom Judge Clay Land sanctioned $20,000 for bringing a legitimate suit of national consequence;
  
  from what witnesses noted about U.S. District Judge David O. Carter's change in countenance, conversation, and conduct, his hiring as his clerk an attorney from Perkins Coie, the law firm defending Mr. Obama, his reversal of his announced plans for conducting the case, and his breaking his promise to hear the case on the merits;
  
  from the mockery of justice in 30 other cases where the judges have dismissed Obama eligibility suits with very similar statements, all provided by the Obama defense attorneys, that plaintiffs lack standing to bring suit;
  
  from the chorus of judgments, all in perfect harmony, that neither the plaintiffs nor anyone else outside an elite and totally politicized group of 1133 persons (state electors and secretaries of state, members of Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court) has any right to sue for redress of grievances in case of an unlawful usurpation of federal office; and
  
  from U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder's eight months of stalling, ignoring, and otherwise obstructing progress of quo warranto suits in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, where lawsuits about usurpation of federal office may be brought by the United States, by third parties with a direct injury, or if neither the U.S. nor injured parties bring a plaint, by interested persons without any of the connections specified here;
  
  it has been demonstrated many times over that the courts are no longer free and independent to hear cases against Mr. Obama, whether as a result of coercion, corruption, or intimidation.

The state electors, the U.S. Congress, and the federal courts are all derelict of duty in not disqualifying an Art. II, § 1, Constitutionally ineligible candidate for the office of President. I hereby propose that the U.S. military has the duty and the responsibility to act to overturn the unlawful and unconstitutional coup d'état executed in 2008 by the Democratic Party leadership and a candidate for President who was known to be Constitutionally disqualifed as far back as 2004.

After a televised debate in 2004 between candidates for U.S. Senator from Illinois, Alan Keyes and Barack Obama:

Keyes: "You are not even a natural born citizen."

Obama: "That’s OK. I am not running for president, I am only running for Senate."