Thread: Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

Originally Posted by cayla99

I am on the fence about McCains status. He may have been born at the nearest hospital which was not on a US base, but he WAS BORN to TWO citizen parents, whom were only out of the country because the father was in service to this nation.

Professor Chin's analysis seems to start and end with the "assumption" (misguided) that McCain's claim to birth inside the "zone" (on not the soil of Panama) was accurate. McCain made that claim in order to strengthen his contention that he'd been born on "soil" that was under U.S. jurisdiction. But that didn't happen until a year later (in 1937) with the legislation which straightened out the problems of birth status of individuals born to Americans inside the Zone. Which was a problem unique to the Zone.

Had the geographical correction been made by Chin, to comport with the facts unearthed by Fred Hollander once he obtained the original birth certificate, what MIGHT logically have happened would have been a finding of U.S. citizenship at birth (same kind of citizenship granted to any child of two U.S. citizens who happens to be born abroad) but not "natural born" citizenship because the birth was not on soil that was under U.S. jurisdiction AND because the country of Panama at that time conferred "ius soli" citizenship to anyone born on its soil. To secure the privilege of U.S. citizenship, however, the American parents are supposed to report the birth ASAP to the nearest consulate to obtain the necessary official recognition. Not sure if McCain's parents did that or not.

Originally Posted by cayla99

I am on the fence about McCains status. He may have been born at the nearest hospital which was not on a US base, but he WAS BORN to TWO citizen parents, whom were only out of the country because the father was in service to this nation.

My point originally was not clearly stated, but implied. Sorry.

On the one hand we had the Tribe-Olson Opinion providing arguments why McCain WAS eligible to be POTUS, and on the other hand we have Gabriel (Jack) Chin showing us how McCain WAS NOT eligible to be POTUS. Both arguments are found in the original linked Scribd document.

Both arguments addressed the nbc issue, and I believe there is reason to look at both sides of both arguments so that we may apply some of the logic with regard to Obama's eligibility.

McCain is no longer viable as a POTUS candidate - he's had his shot at the top job, and he failed. Now he can act as a consultant to future candidates, but that is all he can do. So, on a personal basis, I don't care about McCain's citizenship or nbc eligibility either. He's passe.

Remember, however, that neither candidate was nbc eligible in 2008, and my personal belief is that the closer we investigate both candidates and the actual election procedures (evidence is showing increasing signs of widespread Democratic Party urban election fraud in 200, the more we will understand what actually happened in 2008 and this will provide us with techniques on how to prevent similar unlawful candidate selection and election activities in the future.

The more reading I do on the current state of affairs in the United States, the more concerned I have become about the overwhelming infiltration of communists into our government in recent years. The reason why Obama (IMO, merely a figurehead and shill in this government) is so open in his embracement of socialism and Marxism is because he is surrounded with a stupid/co-dependent electorate and an already existing and powerful elite communist support mechanism within the government and without the government (e.g. Soros) that gives him license and freedom to promote the Marxist agenda openly.

The communists already control us and our government, so they are now openly acting out their agenda and they don't have to act in a stealthy manner as they had to act in years past. Tragically, the shadow communist government is now able to act out its devastation of the U.S. in the open.

The existence of the shadow government helps explain why the Million Patriot March on 9-12 and the widespread patriotic Tea Parties had no effect on government representative's actions - the miscreants no longer fear public disclosure or criticism - they ARE in control of us now.

So, no matter how logically and legally right we are about Obama and his eligibility problem, he will never be removed from office unless, perhaps, the military steps in and forcefully restores our lawful government (and in consideration of the military's PC reaction to the Ft Hood massacre, I have serious doubts about the military leadership helping the American people).

My perception is that we will soon see the absolute and complete destruction of the United States of America, including our money system, our life style, our standard of living, and every freedom loving thing we believe in. The one worlders are getting closer to slamming the gavel and closing our nation down. We will not be able to pass our free republic on to our children.

Unless we stop them dead in their tracks.

So, if you believe what I have just written, the only remaining question we all have to individually ask and answer is, what are we going to DO about the overtaking of our government by the elitists and the communists, and the destruction of our nation? If anything.

For each of us that see clearly and understand the real problems our nation faces (we have chosen to take the 'red' pill), there will be an individual answer. The sum of our individual decisions will determine the future of our country. It's that simple.

I increasingly know what my answer is, and what I will be doing about the problem in the coming months and years. But that is my personal decision and is not suitable for inclusion in an open forum like Alipac.

Looking back to July of last year, some of the nbc issues we are discussing were considered even then. In Arkansas.

BTW, I have asked Jack Chin (via e-mail) what his thoughts may be regarding Obama's eligibility. I couldn't find anything written by him on the subject.

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

McCain, and Perhaps Obama, Not Eligible for President
Posted by Mark Moore, Arkansas Watch
Friday, July 11, 2008
http://arkansaswatch.blogspot.com/2008/ ... gible.html

On top of the ongoing doubts about the authenticity of Barak Obama's Hawaiian birth certificate ( http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php? ... geId=69126 ), now a thorough look at John McCain's eligibility status indicates that that he is not Constitutionally qualified to serve as President.

Adam Liptak, reporter for the International Tribune, cites Arizona State professor Gabriel Chin, ( http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/11/ ... mccain.php ) who has done the most comprehensive study known to date on the matter.

"The analysis, by Prof. Gabriel J. Chin, focused on a 1937 law that has been largely overlooked in the debate over McCain's eligibility to be president. The law conferred citizenship on children of American parents born in the Canal Zone after 1904, and it made John McCain a citizen just before his first birthday. But the law came too late, Professor Chin argued, to make McCain a natural-born citizen.

"It's preposterous that a technicality like this can make a difference in an advanced democracy," Professor Chin said. "But this is the constitutional text that we have.""

It appears that a straightforward reading of the law is that John McCain is not eligible to serve as President of the United States. Our Founders never intended for us to have an overseas empire, therefore they made no provision for children born to our occupation forces in those protectorates to be "natural born" citizens.

Congress did not "fix" the law allowing for the children of empire to be eligible for President until 1937, McCain was born a year later (and it was not even clear that Congress could really do this until a court ruling in 1971). A voter has launched a suit claiming that McCain is not eligible to serve. Notice from the link (page 2) that not even John McCain's people are telling the judge he is eligible under the points of the law, only that the person suing does not have sufficient standing to do so.

McCain's lawyer claims that this 1937 "fix" was what Congress meant all along, but it's not the same thing. Saying that citizens who work in your embassy (or are on vacation or business to another county) can bear children there who are citizens is different from saying foreign born children from colonies you control are citizens. One is a rule for Republics, the other for Empire.

[b][i]But of course if we are now an Empire, the rule of law no longer matters. If that is the case, the power brokers will foist McCain on us regardless of the niceties of the law, which seem to matter only as they constrain the common citizens, but are brushed aside when they run afoul of the plans of the powerful. A case in point is chilling quote from Liptak's article.... "Several legal experts said that Professor Chin's analysis was careful and plausible. But they added that nothing was very likely to follow from it.

â€

Mario's got a new advertisement.

Obama's Constitutional Lack of Eligibility - The Three Enablers - 2009-11-30 issue Wash Times National

You can see it here: http://tinyurl.com/yczeqmv

As if to emphasize my earlier post to Cayla regarding our state of affairs, Timothy Baldwin just today published this article on NewsWithViews. It would seem that Timothy has some similar views.

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

OBAMA'S BIRTH OR AMERICA'S REBIRTH?

By Timothy N. Baldwin, JD.
November 29, 2009
NewsWithViews.com

Let us assume for the moment that it became revealed that Barak Obama was not a natural born citizen of the United States, proving that he was ineligible to be President of the United States. Ok, now what? Would Obama be removed from office? Perhaps. Then what? Joseph Biden would be our next President. Ok, then what? Would the United States be freer? Would the States and the people regain their sovereignty stolen by the federal government? Would America’s form of government revert back to its original nature and character of 1787? Would self-government, the consent of the governed, limited government and federalism once again become the guiding principles throughout these states united? Would the ideals and principles of freedom once again become popular, accepted and advanced by the people and their agents in government?

Since the Confederate States of America lost the war in 1865 against the union-destroying aggressions of Abraham Lincoln and his military, the federal government has egregiously encroached upon the powers and sovereignty of the people and the states respectively. Regulations, controls, taxation, deception, falsehoods, subterfuge, “bait and switchâ€

Originally Posted by FreedomFirst

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

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

LD has shut down his blog except for its "notice" stating that he's shut down the blog. Highlander, did you save anything offline? Or put things on Scribd?

Leo posted on Thanksgiving, airing his QW thoughts in contrast to Mario Puzo. Later, there was an exchange between the two in the comments area. Here's the main post:

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com ... -warranto/
« Apologies to John Charlton of The Post and Email.



Misconceptions About Quo Warranto.


[UPDATE: Nov. 27, 2009 10:24 AM. Mr. Apuzzo's reply and my response thereto appear in the comments to this post.]
There is quite a bit of confusion regarding the federal quo warranto statute. 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 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
Quo Warranto Legal Brief – Part 2
Quo Warranto Legal Brief – Part 3
I will draw from these previous publications to correct Apuzzo’s recent mistakes.
Mr. Apuzzo stated on November 9th, 2009:

Before we begin, we must understand that a quo warranto action is a direct attack on an office holder, questioning his qualifications to hold an office and therefore his warrant and authority to occupy that office. It does not challenge any action taken by that person while having been in office. This type of action is to be distinguished from one where the plaintiff brings an indirect attack (collateral attack) against that office holder, arguing that some action taken by him or her is invalid because he or she is not qualified to hold the office from which the action is taken… Andrade v. Lauer, 729 F.2d 1475 (D.C.Cir.1984). As we shall see below, this distinction is important, for it can be argued that direct attacks must satisfy the requirements of a quo warranto action while indirect attacks must satisfy the requirements of the de facto officer doctrine. Mr. Donofrio does not explain which one of these approaches he proposes to take against Obama.
I have discussed the difference between collateral attacks and direct attacks in quo warranto on multiple occasions going all the way back to March 2009 when I introduced my readers to the important DC Court of Appeals case – Andrade v. Lauer:

- Under the holding in ANDRADE v. LAUER, 729 F.2d 1475, 234 U.S.App.D.C. 384 (1984), the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has held that the defacto officer’s doctrine does not prohibit “collateral attacksâ€

The "exchange" found Puzo writing a lengthy comment and Donofrio writing rejoinders (in brackets after the abbreviation "Ed.") so that points (Puzo's) and counterpoints (Donofrio's) were embedded throughout. The original had different colors which helped, insofar as LD didn't always insert an END bracket.


[b]puzo1 Says:
November 27, 2009 at 3:04 AM

Leo,
I am surprised that you state that I missed the Newman statement: “there might be cases under the civil service law in which the relator would have an interest and therefore a right to be heard.â€

Originally Posted by FreedomFirst

Originally Posted by FreedomFirst

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

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

LD has shut down his blog except for its "notice" stating that he's shut down the blog. Highlander, did you save anything offline? Or put things on Scribd?

FreedomFirst, I have both quo warranto articles (Apuzzo & Donofrio) up on Scribd, but I don't know which specific article you are looking for. On Donofrio's article, I included the three earlier QW articles as part of the article. Does that help?

See:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23240330/Mari ... o-Warranto
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23227876/Leo- ... o-Warranto

All of my articles are found here:
http://www.scribd.com/people/documents/ ... an-del-sur

Where is the federal judicial system that even understands what federalism is and is willing to contradict ninety years of court opinions and rulings that have virtually stripped states of their retained rights under the tenth amendment? The answer is, no where!

I am afraid my friends that this is the hard cold truth. The courts do not care about the constitution. Remember the following, just a small sample of twisting of the straight forward wording:

Article 1, section 9: No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

United States v. Carlton, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that retroactive tax laws did not violate the constitutional prohibition on ex post facto legislation, provided their retroactive application was "supported by a legitimate legislative purpose furthered by rational means"

The holding of Calder remains good law: the ex post facto provision of the Constitution (Art. I, § 10, cl.1) applies solely to criminal cases, not civil cases.

http://www.michaelariens.com/ConLaw/cases/calder.htm



In Kelo v. City of New London, the Supremes decided in a reverse robin hood policy when it came to eminent domain. It is now ok to take from the poor to give to the rich if it means a few more pennies of tax revenue for the city

We won't even attempt to take on the infringements of the second amendment.

Originally Posted by FreedomFirst

The "exchange" found Puzo writing a lengthy comment and Donofrio writing rejoinders (in brackets after the abbreviation "Ed.") so that points (Puzo's) and counterpoints (Donofrio's) were embedded throughout. The original had different colors which helped, insofar as LD didn't always insert an END bracket.

I did not include any of this conversation in my documents. I saw this for the first time with your post this morning.

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

09:56 a.m. EST - I've now updated the Leo Donofrio article on Scribd to include your recent quoted comments between Leo and Mario.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/23227876/Leo- ... o-Warranto