Thread: Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

From Leo, we have this recent post:

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

Indiana Court Of Appeals Trips Over Natural Born Citizen Issue.
Posted in Uncategorized on November 13, 2009 by naturalborncitizen
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/

[Ed. UPDATE 6:48 PM. Advanced Indiana broke this story first yesterday.

Also, the Chester Arthur analysis in Footnote 16 reeks. This Indiana decision is pure evil. They have rewritten history to make it appear as if the whole world knew Chester Arthur was a British citizen at birth while history records this blog discovered that fact and first published it to the world in December 2008. Before that time, it was not known. The propaganda has spread from the press to the courts.]

The Indiana Court of Appeals in the Arkeny and Kruse case ( http://tinyurl.com/yd6jzd6 ) has just issued a lame judicial attempt at defining the “natural born citizenâ€

Originally Posted by FreedomFirst

To be "in the works" a fairly "regular" plaintiff would have to prove he'd gone to the U.S. Attorney for D.C., asked for quo warranto, had the QW declined, and THEN pursue the matter himself. (Since DOJ has now entered appearances in court cases to defend Obama's side, the DOJ has conflicted itself out of QW most likely. If a government QW is ever brought, a special prosecutor will be needed.)

A not-so-regular prospective plaintiff might be someone who has an "interested third party" interest (strong and "unique" individual injury) in the matter and could file for QW in his own right, from the very start.

People claiming wrongful job termination, provably instigated by a President whom they contend is without rightful claim to the office (ineligibility), would have that kind of "interested party" status to bring a QW. High-profile terminated people like this guy ...

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and- ... 0361.story

would look to be almost slam-dunkers in being found to have standing.

Good find, FreedomFirst. I have long thought that Walpin had suffered a real loss at the hands of Obama, but I also got the feeling that the fight was not in him (Walpin) to pursue the matter - I appear to have been wrong in my thinking. It is interesting to note this article is dated November 20, 2009, so the matter is still alive. Now I'm concerned about the clock running out, but Darryl Issa's involvement is a good sign.

As additional input regarding the Walpin matter, the Confederate Yankee posted this article November 20, 2009 at:
http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/294960.php

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

Administration's Firing of Walpin May Have Been Part Of Cover-Up to Protect Ally

Doing things the Chicago Way:

A congressional investigation of the volunteer organization AmeriCorps contains charges that D.C. schools chief Michelle Rhee handled "damage control" after allegations of sexual misconduct against her now fiance, Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, a former NBA star and a prominent ally of President Obama, The Washington Examiner has learned.

The charges are contained in a report prepared by Sen. Charles Grassley, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, and Rep. Darrell Issa, ranking Republican on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

The investigation began after the AmeriCorps inspector general, Gerald Walpin, received reports that Johnson had misused some of the $800,000 in federal AmeriCorps money provided to St. Hope, a non-profit school that Johnson headed for several years.

It's really quite simple.

IG Walpin got too close to discovering Johnson and Rhee had misappropriated AmeriCorps funds, including using some of it as "hush money" to keep one or more women from filing charges of sexual misconduct against Johnson. As a favor to Johnson, someone in the Administration—perhaps even Obama himself, considering their relationship—ordered Walpin fired before he could ferret out the truth. But Walpin refused to go quietly.

The White House's orchestrated smear campaign kicked into gear to label Walpin as senile. The tactic failed. Instead, it simply made people wonder just what they was trying to cover up, and why the White House was trying so hard to discredit Walpin.

The media will certainly try to downplay this unfolding drama as much as possible. Solid evidence of the Administration's involvement will certainly be difficult to obtain, and that which found will be shaped and spun to deflect criticism away from the President.

That allowed, it is very difficult to believe that Johnson would have confided his need in this to have Walpin removed to an underling when he has direct access to the President's ear. After all, President Obama has had his own suspected dalliances and cover-ups, so who would Johnson trust more to clean his dirty laundry than his old friend Barack?

Kenya connection comments from a post to Leo :
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com ... gust-1961/

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

Brianroy Says:
November 5, 2009 at 5:38 PM

According to Kenya’s own embassy in Brussels, Kenya recognizes only the Kenyan Citizen father as having the exclusive right to pass on “Natural Born Citizenshipâ€

Canada connection comments from a post to Leo :
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com ... gust-1961/

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

tminu Says:
November 13, 2009 at 1:43 AM

Also, Canada classified Obama’s biographical information which Canadian press tried to access via their version of FOIA.

Obama’s Biography Is A State Secret In Canada

He’s the most high-profile politician in recent history, the winner of a bruising election campaign in which every aspect of his life — from his smoking habit to anti-American comments made by his pastor — came under relentless scrutiny.

But according to Canadian government officials, a biography of U.S. President Barack Obama provided to Prime Minister Stephen Harper shortly after Obama’s inauguration last January qualifies as a state secret.

Under the Access to Information Act, Canwest News Service requested all briefing materials provided to the prime minister ahead of Obama’s visit to Canada in February

Obama’s whirlwind stop in Ottawa on Feb. 19 was his first visit to a foreign country after being inaugurated. After a series of icebreaking meetings, Harper and Obama pledged to co-operate on everything from the financial crisis to clean energy and Afghanistan. But the trip will perhaps best be remembered for the rock-star treatment accorded to Obama, who charmed the public by declaring his love for Canada and picking up a Beavertail dessert on an impromptu stop in the national capital’s Byward Market.

The 77 pages of heavily censored documents released to Canwest include memos to Harper from his foreign-policy adviser, a letter from Canada’s former ambassador to the United States, Michael Wilson, as well as talking points to prepare Harper for the meeting. It also includes biographies of the president and officials who accompanied Obama on the trip to Canada, including National Security Advisor James Jones, National Economic Council director Lawrence Summers, Obama’s chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and White House press secretary Robert Gibbs.
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2199765
Actually, “every aspect of his life,â€

And, finally, from another post to Leo :
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com ... gust-1961/

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

Michael Says:
November 13, 2009 at 10:44 PM

Thinking out loud.

Judge Brown has relied on British law to a large extent, but it appears he has shot himself in the foot.

First I must say that there can be no reasonable comparison between a ‘natural-born’ British subject and a ‘natural-born’ US citizen.

The framers of the USC were building a new nation where the people were the collective ’sovereign’ and were in the process of throwing-off the British monarchical rule.

A British subject was what the revolutionist nation builders were distancing themselves from.

The British monarchy claimed as ’subjects’ all born to British subject parents no matter where the birth took place.

The framers of the USC claimed no one as ’subjects’ or citizens, it was a voluntary commitment to allegiance by only those who declared allegiance to the proposed new republic, to the over-throw of British rule and dedicated them selves to no longer be British subjects, amongst them being also those non-British who originated from other nations.

No comparison, like chalk & cheese.

Interesting to note though that the concept of British ’subject’ was based on jus sanguinis (of the parents)

For the framers of the USC to make mention of ‘natural-born’ citizen, meant that there must have been another type of citizen they had in mind that was to be excluded from eligibility for office of POTUS.

Who in those days could they be referring to?

It is extremely likely that it was not one born in USA to a British soldier or loyalist or one from another nation, who objected the American revolution for independence.

If it was one born in the land with no requirement for parental allegiance, then that would rule out those of British (the enemy) parents.

Then the only ones who might be the other (ordinary) citizens could be those who were already citizens by declared allegiance to the new republic i.e. the revolutionary ex-patriot British and those ex-patriots of other nations.

But only those ‘ordinary’ citizens who were both self declared patriots and 35 years or older, with fourteen years residency in USA were eligible for the office of POTUS if they were not ‘natural-born citizens’. (the ‘grand-father clause’)

Who could qualify, at the time of the framing the USC as ‘natural-born citizens’ of Republic of USA?

Who could qualify in the future, after all the citizens ‘at the time of the adoption’ were expired?

After the expiration of those original US patriots all that was left to qualify for POTUS was a ‘natural-born’, 35 years old or more, with a 14 year residency history in USA.

Article II
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; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

14th Amendment, since ratified/clarified by USA v Kim Wong Ark (as did the British claim subjects) claimed those born in the USA regardless of parental allegiance.

But Article II could not do this at the time of the framing, due to the fact that the British were the enemy with allegiance to their monarch, it was only those at the time who declared allegiance to the new republic that might be qualified for POTUS ………… but they are all dead and gone.

In the present time, I find it difficult to believe that a child born in USA of British parents must be a US citizen without the consent of the parents and although being deemed a US citizen would at best be a dual citizen, due to the British claiming all those born of British parents to be British subjects.

Enough of my ramblings and getting back to Judge Brown of Indiana.

Am I missing something here?

Brown accepts the British ‘law’ that the children of British parents are ‘natural-born subjects’ (jus sanguinis) but with dubious reasoning proposes that USA must accept those born in the land (jus soli) as ‘natural-born’ citizens.

I don’t get it!

[ed. good post.]

April 17, 2012 - the end of the first 42 months of 30 days in the pseudo-president's reign: his proclamation, and TEOTWAWKI.

September 27, 2016 - the end of the second 42 months of 30 days in the pseudo-president's reign, although it may be shortened. (Even the 30 day months could be shortened if the moon were to be disturbed from its present orbit.)

The above schedule is very tentative and even conjectural. But mathematically, the end of the first 42 months cannot be earlier than 4/17/12.

Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC

April 17, 2012 - the end of the first 42 months of 30 days in the pseudo-president's reign: his proclamation, and TEOTWAWKI.

September 27, 2016 - the end of the second 42 months of 30 days in the pseudo-president's reign, although it may be shortened. (Even the 30 day months could be shortened if the moon were to be disturbed from its present orbit.)

The above schedule is very tentative and even conjectural. But mathematically, the end of the first 42 months cannot be earlier than 4/17/12.

Not to seem dumb, but I miss the significance of the 42 months. In fact, I'm confused.

Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan

Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC

April 17, 2012 - the end of the first 42 months of 30 days in the pseudo-president's reign: his proclamation, and TEOTWAWKI.

September 27, 2016 - the end of the second 42 months of 30 days in the pseudo-president's reign, although it may be shortened. (Even the 30 day months could be shortened if the moon were to be disturbed from its present orbit.)

The above schedule is very tentative and even conjectural. But mathematically, the end of the first 42 months cannot be earlier than 4/17/12.

Not to seem dumb, but I miss the significance of the 42 months. In fact, I'm confused.

me too

I'm sorry, I was just thinking "out loud" about Mr. Obama's timetable, beginning from Nov. 5, 2008, if it should happen to be that he were the Man of Sin, the anti-messiah, the pseudo-christ, the phony "God's anointed one." That shows up during the seven year Tribulation Period, which ends at the Second Coming of Jesus, the true Messiah.

I am not suggesting that his ID might be the ac, but I haven't found any biblical prophecies that would rule him out, either. That identity has been attributed to everyone from Cæsar Nero to Napoleon to Henry Kissinger, so I thought I might nominate Mr. Obama.

Just random neuron firings of an idle left lobe.