Thread: Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

Joseph Farah's Thanksgiving Prayer, Nov. 26, 2009

Thank You, Lord, for allowing me to live in the greatest country in the world – one where we as citizens are permitted to live in freedom, to speak our minds, to debate the great issues of the day openly and without fear, and, most of all, to worship You and to tell others about You and Your Gospel of saving grace and redemption.

We as Americans take all this for granted too often.

Yet, from the earliest commemorations of Thanksgiving here in America, this was the common denominator that brought people of the New World together.

I'm so thankful to be part of a country where worshipping You is not a crime – yet.

I'm thankful we have the opportunity to tell others about You.

I'm thankful You have blessed this land in so many ways.

I'm thankful for the way You chastise this land and judge it with leaders unworthy of this nation's great heritage but who are, in Your wisdom, necessary to correct us and reveal our iniquities.

I'm thankful for Your patience with Americans, who, despite their countless blessings, do not often recognize from where they come.

I'm thankful we have abundant food today – that we get to celebrate this solemn occasion in the warmth of our homes, with our families and friends.

I'm thankful we have such abundance that we can share it with those less fortunate, not just here in our homeland, but around the world.

I'm thankful You gave Your Son, Jesus Christ, as a sacrifice for us so that we could be saved from our sin and, through Him, share the precious gift of an eternal life with You.

I'm thankful for that second chance You have given me and anyone else who is willing to repent and accept that grace.

I'm thankful You have surrounded me with people who understand this gift and who share the good news with others.

I'm thankful for the opportunity You have given me and so many others to serve as salt and light in a fallen world that rejects this gift and Your commandments for a rich life here on Earth.

I'm thankful for missionaries who take this message around the world no matter the cost.

I'm thankful for the true ambassadors of Your love who serve to encourage others.

I'm thankful You have given me a vehicle to make this proclamation that can be read and heard by people around our country and the world.

I'm thankful You have given me a partner, Elizabeth, who appreciates these blessings as much as I do.

I'm thankful You have given me children who, born into abundance, can appreciate from where it flows.

I'm thankful for the loving parents and siblings You gave me.

I'm thankful You have met my every need, if not my every desire.

I'm thankful for my colleagues at this news service who never grow weary of the enormous challenges involved in bringing the world important information every day in the context of a worldview centered around You.

I'm thankful that even though my words are so inadequate in expressing my gratitude that You hear them any way.

I'm thankful that despite all the problems we see plaguing our country and our world, You have given us a simple solution – to turn back to You.

That simple solution appears in Your Word – 2 Chronicles 7:14:

• If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

I'm thankful that not only do individuals have a second chance with You, Lord, but nations do as well.

I'm thankful for all the people who hear and read this prayer of gratitude and understand what I am trying to convey. I'm thankful for all of them who remember You today – the meaning, the reason for Thanksgiving. I'm thankful for all of them who put You first, who humble themselves, and pray, and seek Your face, and turn from their wicked ways.

I'm thankful to You today, Lord, that You honor Your promises.

I'm thankful today, Lord, for You.

Rodearmel v Clinton (usurper) case dismissed

By: Devvy
November 22, 2009

Periodically I have given updates on a case I've followed closely since late January (2009) when it was filed: Rodearmel v Clinton.

This case was filed to remove another usurper (besides Comrade Obama/Soetoro) from office: Marxist Hillary Clinton. There is no doubt in my mind the legal issues raised by Judicial Watch are 100% on point. I have noted my concerns in past columns that the District Court might dismiss the case because of standing and the quo warranto process:

"However, there is a possibility the court is going to throw this out because of the Quo Warranto statute. The defendants moved to dismiss and in their filing, there is an important footnote; number 6 at the bottom of page 16:

6 "The D.C. Court of Appeals has observed that a plaintiff who seeks to directly attack the appointment of an official (as opposed to attacking an action of that official) will rarely if ever have standing. See Andrade v. Lauer, 729 F.2d 1475, 1496-97 (D.C. Cir. 1984). In the same case, the court suggested that the only proper way to assert such a direct attack is through an action for a writ of quo warranto. See id. at 1497 (citing cases). A quo warranto action may only be brought by the Attorney General of the United States or the United States Attorney or, if these Executive Branch officials decline a request, by a private party who has obtained leave of court. See D.C. Stat. §§ 16-3502-3503; see also Rae v. Johnson, 1993 WL 544295, at *1"

<>On October 29, 2009, the same day Barnett v Obama was dismissed by the Federal Court in Santa Ana, California , so, too was Rodearmel. Dang. Sure do get tired of hearing "dismissed."

As with so many of the citizenship cases, the Rodearmel decision had a familiar refrain: Standing, lack of any harm (immediate or imminent) brought to Mr. Rodearmel as yet, and jurisdiction. See page 9 of the decision. Judicial Watch has filed the Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court; the details can be read here.

Regarding the dismissal of Kerncher v Obama, we see the same lanaguage as most of the other cases: standing and whether the plaintiffs have or will be harmed by the usurper sitting in the White House. (See page 7 7) In an interview following the dismissal: "The lawyer (Apuzzo) said it is important that the court did not rule Obama was born in Hawaii, nor did it rule that the claim was frivolous. It simply said the case was dismissed because of a jurisdiction issue. "By the court finding that plaintiffs do not have standing and that their claims present a political question, the court was able to avoid having to address the underlying merits of the Kerchner case."

The standing issue is nothing more than evasion of justice in my opinion. Dr. Edwin Vieira summed it up quite succinclty in a column he wrote over a year ago:

"The judge in Berg v. Obama dismissed the case, not because Obama has actually proven that he is eligible for “the Office of President,â€

Latest from Berg: http://obamacrimes.com/

(Philadelphia, PA – 11/26/09) – Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the first Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama on 08/21/08 challenging Obama’s lack of Constitutional “qualificationsâ€

Leo Donofrio has some issues with Mario Apuzzo's references to quo warranto. The complete article, with parts 1,2,3, is loaded on Scribd.com:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23227876/Leo- ... o-Warranto

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

Misconceptions About Quo Warranto

Posted in Uncategorized on November 26, 2009 by naturalborncitizen
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/

There is quite a bit of confusion regarding the federal quo warranto statute ( http://tinyurl.com/yg7humv ). Since the statute will most likely be invoked by private citizens in the near future, I will discuss some of the confusion floating about. Recently, Mario Apuzzo Esq. added to the confusion with a blog post ( http://tinyurl.com/yk5s23y ) that contains multiple misconceptions regarding the federal quo warranto statute and applicable case law.

I know Mr. Apuzzo is an honorable attorney and an intelligent man. I do not want my readers to get the impression that I am advocating otherwise. Regardless, it is necessary for me to strongly counter the impression his recent report has given the public.

I will ask that readers please bone up on the exhaustive work I published back in March which Mr. Apuzzo failed to acknowledge in his post. My previous three part series can be found at the following links:

Quo Warranto Legal Brief – Part 1 (below, page 6)
Quo Warranto Legal Brief – Part 2 (below, page 10)
Quo Warranto Legal Brief – Part 3 (below, page 23)

I will draw from these previous publications to correct Apuzzo’s recent mistakes.

Complete Leo article is located here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23227876/Leo- ... o-Warranto

Mario's original article can be found here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23240330/Mari ... o-Warranto

SAMUEL JOSEPH WURZELBACHER,
Plaintiff, vs.

HELEN JONES-KELLEY, et al.,
Defendants.

Civil Action 2:09-CV-162
Judge Marbley
Magistrate Judge King

I had not followed the 'Joe the Plumber' case, but just reviewed the Preliminary Pretrial Order and was pleased to see that the case is a Title 42 action. I like Title 42 actions. I think we should have more Title 42 actions against government miscreants... against people just like Barack Obama... brought by people just like fired IG Walpin.

This is the Preliminary Pretrial Order:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/files/docu ... hedule.pdf

I just came across this interesting article by University of Arizona Prof. Gabriel J. Chin, and believe it a sound discussion on the topic of McCain's ineligibility to be POTUS. I similarly believe its legal arguments can be applied to the Obama situation at the same time.

Why McCain Cannot Be President
Gabriel J. Chin
The University of Arizona
James E. Rogers College of Law
http://www.law.arizona.edu/Faculty/getp ... ultyid=147
August, 2008
http://tinyurl.com/ydc2cvl

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

Why McCain Cannot Be President

Because Senator John McCain was not a citizen at birth, he is not a “natural born Citizenâ€

Poll Question: Do you agree with the Billboard's Message?
A billboard in Wheat Ridge compares President Barack Obama to a terrorist and questions his U.S. citizenship (view the billboard).

Do you agree with the message, disagree, or don't care?

Agree (13731 responses)

87.3%

Disagree (1528 responses)

9.7%

Don't Care (463 responses)

2.9%

15722 total responses

(Results not scientific)



FOX31 KDVR.com on Facebook
The poll is still up and you can vote more than once

Originally Posted by grandmasmad

The poll is still up and you can vote more than once

Why, Grandmasmad, are you suggesting that we do as the Obots do? All's fair in love and war?
The means justify the ends? Or is that, "The ends justify the means," or "The means justify ending them"?
[quote="HighlanderJuan"][size=117]The Tribe-Olson Opinion [Why is "opinion" capitalized? To give it the air of authority as established legal precedent?] suggests that the Canal Zone, then under exclusive U.S. jurisdiction, may have been covered by the Fourteenth Amendment’s grant of citizenship to “all persons born . . . in the United States.â€

Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC

Originally Posted by grandmasmad

The poll is still up and you can vote more than once

Why, Grandmasmad, are you suggesting that we do as the Obots do? All's fair in love and war?
The means justify the ends? Or is that, "The ends justify the means," or "The means justify ending them"?
[quote="HighlanderJuan"][size=117]The Tribe-Olson Opinion [Why is "opinion" capitalized? To give it the air of authority as established legal precedent?] suggests that the Canal Zone, then under exclusive U.S. jurisdiction, may have been covered by the Fourteenth Amendment’s grant of citizenship to “all persons born . . . in the United States.â€

Some legal pyro-technics between Donofrio and Puzo on the Quo Warranto legal issue.

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