Thread: Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan

Originally Posted by Hylander_1314

Thanks for the missing Thirteenth Ammendment. I had forgotten about that one. If you look here: http://www.byronwine.com/files/1871.pdf it is the Congressional Act of 1871 that swept the "organic" Constitution into the waste basket and replaced it with a "corporate" Constitution. This could all be bunk, but it helps explain the missing Thirteenth Ammendment.

I've put a transcribed copy of the Constitution for the United States up on Scribd, and it includes a brief history of the three 13th Amendments.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/23978769/Cons ... ted-States

Ah, you noticed the difference. Most people would n't blink at it, but Being the Constitution is a legal document, legal deffinitions have narrower meaning than everyday useage.

By the way, very nice transcription of the organic Constitution.

One thing that I think people miss is in the Preable of the Bill of Rights,

.........in order to prevent misconstruction and abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added.............

If one notes, the first 10 Ammendments are further restricting government power, or reafirming it, in the Constitution. But once you get to the era of the unCivil War, the Ammendments start to slowly empower the government and restrict the people in one form or another. Not all of them mind you, but a good many do just that.

[quote=Hylander_1314]

Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan

Originally Posted by Hylander_1314":3gr5jchq]Thanks for the missing Thirteenth Amendment. I had forgotten about that one. If you look here: [url="http://www.byronwine.com/files/1871.pdf

http://www.byronwine.com/files/1871.pdf[/url] it is the Congressional Act of 1871 that swept the "organic" Constitution into the waste basket and replaced it with a "corporate" Constitution. This could all be bunk, but it helps explain the missing Thirteenth Amendment.

I've put a transcribed copy of the Constitution for the United States up on Scribd, and it includes a brief history of the three 13th Amendments.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/23978769/Cons ... ted-States

Ah, you noticed the difference. Most people wouldn't blink at it, but Being the Constitution is a legal document, legal definitions have narrower meaning than everyday usage.

By the way, very nice transcription of the organic Constitution.

One thing that I think people miss is in the Preamble of the Bill of Rights,

.........in order to prevent misconstruction and abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added.............

If one notes, the first 10 Amendments are further restricting government power, or reaffirming it, in the Constitution. But once you get to the era of the unCivil War, the Amendments start to slowly empower the government and restrict the people in one form or another. Not all of them mind you, but a good many do just that.[/quote:3gr5jchq]

Thanks for your comments. The transcription came from the official archives, and so I can't take credit for the doc - I just re-formatted it to look pretty and added depth to the 13th Amendment comments (which I think are important).

I should note that I had great difficulty in getting the document posted on Scribd - the upload kept running afoul of Scribd's copyright filter, and I had to get them to manually bypass the filter and allow the upload. This is the second time I have run into this problem with uploading government documents I've obtained from a government web site. As an FYI, government docs can be classified secret and can be kept from the public domain, but they cannot be copyrighted. Having said that, the Scribd filter's trap of government docs must reflect the fact that someone has taken government docs and has included the information in a copyrighted doc.

Back to the 13th Amendment, I think it is important because it is a top-down prevention of a two class society which we see in the USA today. Our elected public servants and government employees think they have powers and rights over us that do not apply equally to them. It's an upper class dual standard attitude that is bogus, but as long as we don't complain, they can get away with it.

I should note that prevention of a two class society thing is the same goal of the double standard socialists (who do it from the bottom up and from a worker's mentality) who want everyone to be of the same lower class so that the ruling elite (who fake being part of the worker class) can rule a society. I think the socialists, who originally killed off the monarchies of the world, really want the same central authority the monarchies offered, only they then become the dreaded monarchy - well, actually oligarchy.

If you look at Obama and Congress today, their attitude is they are above us, and they don't bother to listen to our calls for action - they have become the ruling elite, our 'betters' (to use a term from colonial times), and so we must just shut up and let them rule over us. They will lie, ignore our laws, threaten and intimidate us, take our property, destroy our economy, and imprison us in order to maintain control over us and perpetuate the sham that this is still an active people's republic. They don't want us to ever see their duplicity and their true identity.

Which brings me back to Obama and his eligibility. His lies, his arrogant attitude, his support of and by the shadow outlaw government, and his determination to destroy the American way that has worked for over 200 years, is why we have to get rid of him. He is a fraud and a sham, and needs to be exposed. Fortunately for America, the people are starting to see the lies and understand the truth, and I believe that Obama will be only a one term president. I think he understands this, and that is why everything is a crises and has to be done immediately. He's the one in crises mode - not us or our problems.

Maybe, as Dickens says in the opening lines of A Tale of Two Cities: "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times…" maybe these are our best of times and our worst of times. Understanding that, I do believe that, unlike the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution, the American Revolution came away with increased liberties for its people, and it has only been through the passage of time and the slow erosion of these same liberties that we Americans have become the enslaved nation we are today.

Obama is an outlaw, and is the head of the snake - he needs to be removed from office as soon as possible - while we still have some semblance of our wonderful republic remaining. If we can't remove him in the courts or via the ballot box, we will have to do it the old fashioned way.

But Obama must be removed from a position of power. He and Congress are modern day outlaws.

HighlanderJuan,

Wow, that sounds like it was a pain in the a**. But at least you got it in the site. I for one do understand the significance of the original 13th Ammendment. If it were still in practice today, we most likely wouldn't have a legislature, judiciary, and executive that continually run roughshod over the Constitution.

As Napoleon said about money not having a motherland, neither do lawyers. Their sole purpose is self preservation by the manipulatin of statutes and their ability to bend then through extravagant use of the language in structures that can utterly boggle the mind. And it seems as time passes it inly gets worse as through this process, they've empowered themselves in public office at the expense of the people.

I think now it is obvious that there are issues with the president's citizenship. All one must do is look at the situation of his college records. They are sealed? Why? What's the reason for? What is there to hide? Maybe that he had his college paid for with "foreign student aid"? Also, I was reading an article about his having gone to Columbia University, and nobody remembers him there? Even people who were supposed to have graduated with him?

There's just too many things that don't add up. Ya' know, there's an old saying that goes along the lines, that if it is conceived in secrecy, it will always have a criminal appearance. And this could all be cleared up with a few changes of policy. But then maybe the American people would finally be outraged enough to get off their couches and actually do something. Like get out and protest? Or actually drag their butts to the ballot box? Who knows.

But that's about my personal extent of this specific issue. I spend much time in dealing with Constitutional banking and money issues, which are just as bad if not worse.

Not sure if you've seen this one, but if you have a few it's a good anchor to come back to when things get cloudy.

http://www.youtube.com/user/TheJohnBirc ... TQQJOEn9yI

Originally Posted by Hylander_1314

HighlanderJuan,

As Napoleon said about money not having a motherland, neither do lawyers. Their sole purpose is self preservation by the manipulatin of statutes and their ability to bend then through extravagant use of the language in structures that can utterly boggle the mind. And it seems as time passes it inly gets worse as through this process, they've empowered themselves in public office at the expense of the people.

Hylander, don't forget the 80/20 rule when thinking of lawyers. 80% are good, hard working, honest, and law abiding citizens, and we should honor and respect them for the excellent work they do.

Unfortunately, the 20% of the remainder (the bad, incompetent, and corrupt lawyers - the Obamas and the Clintons come to mind) give good lawyers a bad name, and that's a shame.

I think the more you get to understand the law and lawyers, the more you are able to separate the good guys from the bad guys. We actually have a few really good lawyers adding to our depth of knowledge here on Alipac. I don't want us to besmirch their good names and good efforts on our behalf and on our nation's behalf.

BTW, there are 81 Republican lawyers in the 110th Congress, and by comparison there are 123 Democrats. The original 13th Amendment would have a serious impact on Congress if enacted today.

Post script:

One lawyer's life story is found here. It's a fun read:

http://law.ua.edu/pubs/jlp/files/issues ... 0art01.pdf

HighlanderJuan,

I haven't had much luck with attorneys. 3 outta the last 4 I had to retain for estate issues and ID theft situation were the bad side. So from where I have had the fortune or misfortune of needing them, it is more the other way round on the 80 / 20 rule.

It wasn't my point to make it look like an attack on them, and for any out there, no offense meant.

My point was that like government they can be a useful friend when constrained from mischief, and at worst a fearful master by over complicating things and making it impossible or nearly impossible for the everyday "Joe" to take care of even the smallest of issues without having to spend huge ammounts of capital to work them out. As a for instance, when our Mom died, it was just my sister and myself. Mom's estate was very simple to cover since it was lass than 450k requirement for probate court. That was 1990. Simple, show the courts that it is smaller than the requirement, and you're done.

Fast forward to 2008, just 18 years later to within 4 days of my Mom's passing, and my Babysitter passes away. Her estate is less than 120k, yet you have to retain an attourney at cost of 1k to 2k as it is required now that every estate goes through probate. What a bunch of c**p. It has turned the legal system into a huge money maker for those who know how to step through the minefields of the legal system. When I could have had it done myself like we did when Mom passed away. No big issue, just file the proper papers with the IRS and pay any taxes owed on retirement money, and you're done. End of topic over.

But it follows that our legal system like our government has become an overbloated intrusive entity. Trying to get the system under some kind of control where it doesn't do that is a tough thing. Who wants to give up a cash cow? And that's what we the people have become to the government and the legal system. Since in the end, they are the ones who always win, whether we do or not.

Sorry to sound so sour on the topic, but experience shapes ideas. And again, no personal offense to any of those in the legal field that are here or happen to stop by. It's one of the reasons I haven't posted much on this thread, as I didn't want to 1 ruffle feathers, and 2 hijack the thread.

The way I see it mtself, is instead of clogging up the courts with frivilous suits, that only the legal professionals benefit from, should be an attitude of "should we even do this" not "can we do this". But that requires people of good character. And that's a commodity these days.

These are just personal observations that I have seen and experienced, and my exMrs. used to work for the DA's Office.

Hylander,

A couple of points (actually five).

1. You sound like the perfect candidate for law school. I'm 66 and am back in college for another degree, so don't tell me you are too old.

2. Remember that we are dealing with humans as lawyers. Everyone is different.

3. Many of the problems you are seeing may be more attributed to local laws and/or labor union controls (ABA), rather than individual lawyers, which are, after all, officers of the court and must follow the law as it is written.

4. Different states have different local laws, for instance, in California there is a Code of Civil Procedure that allows me to dismiss a judge from a criminal matter if I feel he is prejudiced against me, but no such law exists in Maine (unfortunately). If you get really pi$$ed off at your local laws, and can't get them changed, move.

5, It pays you to become as smart as you can in legal matters so that you can wend your way successfully through the 2 million or so laws we have in the U.S. It's part of survival in America these days.

BTW, the John McManus videos at JBS are very well done. I've seen portions in months past, but not the whole series.

Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan

Hylander,

A couple of points (actually five).

1. You sound like the perfect candidate for law school. I'm 66 and am back in college for another degree, so don't tell me you are too old.

2. Remember that we are dealing with humans as lawyers. Everyone is different.

3. Many of the problems you are seeing may be more attributed to local laws and/or labor union controls (ABA), rather than individual lawyers, which are, after all, officers of the court and must follow the law as it is written.

4. Different states have different local laws, for instance, in California there is a Code of Civil Procedure that allows me to dismiss a judge from a criminal matter if I feel he is prejudiced against me, but no such law exists in Maine (unfortunately). If you get really pi$$ed off at your local laws, and can't get them changed, move.

5, It pays you to become as smart as you can in legal matters so that you can wend your way successfully through the 2 million or so laws we have in the U.S. It's part of survival in America these days.

BTW, the John McManus videos at JBS are very well done. I've seen portions in months past, but not the whole series.

I may be a good candidate for law school, but I would probably end up in the can more than the people I would represent. I don't take well to corruption in any office or court. So I tend to get poiniant on issues to the point I really pi** people off, because to me when it gets that bad, "protocol and reason" are already out the window, and on their way to the pavement.

Thankyou though for the compliment! I have thought about it. I was thinking of Constitutional Law, but wasn't sure where to go, or worse, how to pay for it.

In the Washington Times ad, "OBAMA's Lack of Eligibility,"Atty. Mario Apuzzo stated,
"[Obama] is Currently also a British Protected Person and/or a British Citizen to this Day."
[quote="Explaining that assertion, Atty. Mario Apuzzo"][size=117]First, the issue is what citizenship was Obama born with, not what his current citizenship is. Tell the Obots to laugh about the citizenship with which Obama was born.

Second, on being a British protected person, in the British Nationality Act of 1948 (BNA 194, the drafters sought to ensure the widest application of British subjectship status. Under Article 1(1), all Citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies (CUKC) were given the status of British subjects. Article 1(2) provided that any person having such status was known either as a “British subjectâ€

Thanks, MinuteMan. Mario also had this to say:

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

Puzo1 on December 9, 2009 at “A Place to Ask Questions To Get the Right Answersâ€

$100,000 Reward for Proof of Obama's "natural born citizen" status.

(Born in USA still might not qualify)
Silver Stock Report
by Jason Hommel, July 28th, 2009
http://silverstockreport.com/2009/obama-reward.html

Copies or links to the previously released, Hawaiian "Certification of Live Birth", which is NOT a valid Birth Certificate, does not constitute valid proof to claim the reward.

I, Jason Hommel, promise that I will give $100,000 to the first person who can prove to my satisfaction that Barack Obama, acting as president of the United States, is a "natural born" citizen of the USA, which is a qualification to hold the office as indicated in the U.S. Constitution.

Please prove that Obama is a "natural born" US citizen, and put to rest the claims in lawsuits, as wnd.com reports, "that include contentions Obama was born in Kenya, wasn't a "natural born" citizen because of his father's Kenyan citizenship, was a dual citizen and that his mother wasn't old enough to transmit citizenship at birth. In addition, his citizenship is clouded by his move as a child to Indonesia and apparent adoption by an Indonesian citizen who married his mother."

"California attorney Orly Taitz says that according to Obama's own words, his father was a British subject at Obama's birth and later a citizen of Kenya. Taitz has argued that the admission that Obama's father was Kenyan disqualifies him automatically, since a "natural born" citizen must be, under one definition, born to two parents who are citizens."

This is not a partisan offer. If Obama is impeached, it will not put any Republican into the office of the presidency. Democrats have no valid nor logical reason to be upset over this. Joe Biden, Vice President, would be next in line to hold the office, and after him, it would be Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the house, both of whom I find to be highly objectionable to my own political preferences.

Please note, I oppose Joe Biden on every political position he is professed to have in the current wikipedia article . I'm opposed to teacher's unions and government monopoly on education, I support drilling for oil in ANWR, I believe global warming is a fraud, I believe restricting so-called "global warming" pollutants will greatly harm the economy, I generally oppose unions who have helped to bankrupt America's auto industry, and I favor the privatization of Social Security. Biden has the opposite view on all points. While my offer might be construed to be a support for Joe Biden who would be next in line to be the president, I wanted to be clear that it is not.

The reason I feel this issue is important to all Americans, and is a requirement of the Constitution, is that quite simply, a foreigner is not as likely to hold U.S. interests as important as foreign interests .

Given that I feel that Barack Obama's only "change" is acting like George Bush on steroids with even bigger bank bail outs for the rich, and rushing headlong to steal many important God-given rights from Americans, I feel, as an "ambassador of Christ" (2 Cor 5:20), an obligation to encourage the American people, the media, and Congress to investigate this issue, and impeach Obama as quickly as possible, if he is not a "natural born citizen" of the USA.

In case some people wish to start reading some of the excellent reporting on this issue:

WND's complete archive of news reports on the issue
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=98546
or
wnd.com

I'm terribly frightened that our current Federal government under Obama will pass legislation that will restrict the God-given right to bear arms, remove the right to medical care, remove the right to grow our own food, remove the right to preach from the Bible against sexual perversions as per the new Hate crimes bill, etc.

While Congress is investigating Obama's birth, they might also want to investigate the Federal Reserve, which might be a foreign owned corporation, one such foreign interest, that is taking away the rights and property of Americans through usury (interest) on fraudulently issued paper money.

Obama might argue, privately, that since the U.S. Constitution was suspended in a time of Emergency during the Civil War, at which time, the President began ruling by issuing executive orders, that the Constitution is no longer applicable. However, how can "the President" issue executive orders, if he is not qualified to be the president?

I really am not a negative person. I'm optimistic that this might be the most important use of $100,000 that I've ever offered. And I would like to end on a positive note.

The good things I can say about Mr. Obama is that he is clearly the "gun salesman of the decade" as well as the "gold and silver bullion salesman of the decade", and that I believe more Americans ought to own more of both.

And if it turns out that Obama was born in the USA, and my reward helps to keep Joe Biden out of office, and end the controversy, or even highlight the issues of freedom as listed in this email, then I will consider that my money will be well spent.

By the way, Happy 48th Birthday, Mr. Obama. I'm not really sure if you were born on August 4th, or sometime around there in 1961.