Thread: Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

Originally Posted by cayla99

Sorry Highlander, I don't think giving them 90 days or 190 days will improve their literacy. I also am not quite certain about the 35 year age requirement. I think it needs to be raised to at least 21 maybe even 25 or proof you are not living with a parent unless you are the parents caretaker. I would also make an exception for the military having the right to vote when they pass basic, no matter what their age. If they are old enough to die for their country, they are old enough to vote. (I feel the same way about drinking too, although I hate alcohol personally, I think if you are mature enough to die for your country, you are mature enough to drink. that is just MHO.

The age thing seems to be a sticking point with several people, as though I am encouraging someone's 'right' to vote. Voting, especially in the federal elections is an earned privilege - not a right - and other than implementing draconian measures of additional or periodic qualifications testing to assure voter competence, I suggested age.

All of this is fodder for discussion.

Thanks for your thoughts.

BORN IN THE USA?

Court told 'citizen' Obama actually may be alien

'Under British Nationality Act … he was a British subject'

Posted: March 25, 2010
12:00 am Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Forget the dispute over the "natural born citizen" requirement of the U.S. Constitution for presidents, Barack Obama may not even be a "citizen," according to a new filing in a long-running legal challenge to his eligibility to occupy the Oval Office.

"Under the British Nationality Act of 1948 his father was a British subject/citizen and not a United States citizen and Obama himself was a British subject/citizen at the time Obama was born," says a new filing in the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in the case Kerchner v. Obama.

"We further contend that Obama has failed to even conclusively prove that he is at least a 'citizen of the United States' under the Fourteenth Amendment as he claims by conclusively proving that he was born in Hawaii."

The submission comes from attorney Mario Apuzzo, who is handling the case. His brief argues against the earlier document from Obama's attorneys demanding that the case be dismissed.

WND reported when the lawyer argued that the most common reason judges have used to dismiss cases against Obama – a lack of "standing" – is just wrong.

Obama's argument for dismissal relies almost exclusively on standing.

See the movie Obama does not want you to see: Own the DVD that probes this unprecedented presidential eligibility mystery!

"How can you deny he's affecting me?" Apuzzo said recently during an interview with WND. "He wants to have terror trials in New York. He published the CIA interrogation techniques. On and on. He goes around bowing and doing all these different things. His statements we're not a Christian nation; we're one of the largest Muslim nations. It's all there."

The case was brought by Apuzzo in January 2009 on behalf of Charles F. Kerchner Jr., Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell James Lenormand and Donald H. Nelson Jr.

Named as defendants are Barack Hussein Obama II, the U.S., Congress, the Senate, House of Representatives, former Vice President Dick Cheney and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

The case alleges Congress failed to follow the Constitution, which "provides that Congress must fully qualify the candidate 'elected' by the Electoral College Electors."

The complaint also asserts "when Obama was born his father was a British subject/citizen and Obama himself was the same." The case contends the framers of the U.S. Constitution, when they adopted the requirement that a president be a "natural born citizen," excluded dual citizens.

In a statement on his blog, Apuzzo said the next step in his case is a decision from the court.

"We will now wait and see if the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals grants my request for oral argument and if so when the oral argument will be," he said.

His latest filing also has been posted online.

It argues that the district court decision as well as Obama's arguments "are nothing more than presentations of general statements on the law of standing which do not address the specific factual and legal content of plaintiffs' claims. … The defendants in much of their brief basically tell the court that the Kerchner case should be dismissed because all other Obama cases have been dismissed."

He said it is "self-evident" under the Constitution that "anyone aspiring to be president has to conclusively prove that he or she is eligible to hold that office. Part of that burden is conclusively showing that one is a 'natural born citizen.' Hence, the citizenship status of Obama is critical to the question of whether plaintiffs having standing, for it is that very statute which is the basis of their injury in fact."

He noted the case was filed before Obama became president.

"At this time he was still a private individual who had the burden of proving that he satisified each and every element of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. That plaintiffs filed their action at this time is important for it not only sets the time by which we are to judge when their standing attached to their action against Obama, Congress and the other defendants … but also to show that Obama has the burden of proof to show that he is a 'natural born citizen' and satisfied the other requirements of Article II," Apuzzo wrote.

"At no time in these proceedings or in any other of the many cases that have been filed against him throughout the country has Obama produced a 1961 contemporaneous birth certificate from the state of Hawaii showing that he was born there … We must conclude for purposes of defendants' motion that since Obama is not a 14th Amendment 'Citizen of the United States' let alone an Article II 'natural born citizen,' he is not eligible to be president and commander in chief. Not being eligible to be president and commander in chief he is currently acting as such without constitutional authority. It is Obama's exercising the singular and great powers of the president and commander in chief without constitutional authority which is causing plaintiffs' injury in fact."

The argument cites warnings from both George Washington and John Jay about the "insidious wiles of foreign influence" in the White House.

WND reported earlier when the appeals court indicated it was listening to arguments in the case and granted special permission for an extra-long document to be filed.

The judges approved Apuzzo's request to submit arguments totaling 20,477 words, when the normal limit is 14,000 words.

He said the arguments are not complicated.

"We maintain that Obama is not an Article II 'natural born citizen' because he lacks unity of citizenship and allegiance from birth which is obtained when a child is born in the United States to a mother and father who are both United States citizens at the time of birth," he said.

WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "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."

Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Demand the truth by joining the petition campaign to make President Obama reveal his long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate!

Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born. And still others contend he holds Indonesian citizenship from his childhood living there.

Adding fuel to the fire is Obama's persistent refusal to release documents that could provide answers and the appointment – at a cost confirmed to be at least $1.7 million – of myriad lawyers to defend against all requests for his documentation. While his supporters cite an online version of a "Certification of Live Birth" from Hawaii as his birth verification, critics point out such documents actually were issued for children not born in the state.

WND also has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes his kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and his adoption records.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=131589

Originally Posted by The Spectator

http://spectator.org/blog/2010/03/20/ob ... strapped-a

Obama Restores Cash-Strapped ACORN's Funding As Reward For HealthCare Support

By Matthew Vadum on 3.20.10 @ 9:17PM

President Obama has quietly moved behind the scenes to restore full funding to the radical group ACORN, which was his former employer and legal client.

In a move ignored by the media, OMB director Peter Orszag circulated a directive to federal agencies ordering them to begin funding ACORN again. ACORN is the hyperpartisan lead group in the Health Care for America Now (HCAN) coalition and has long supported a government takeover of the U.S. health care system.

The fiscal floodgates will soon re-open for ACORN despite a congressional ban on funding the activist group that has long been a practitioner of election fraud.

In a March 16 memo Office of Management and Budget (OMB) director Peter Orszag ordered federal agencies to resume funding the group whose employees were caught on hidden camera videos last year condoning and encouraging a variety of crimes including child prostitution and tax evasion.

The memo came a week after renegade federal judge Nina Gershon of the Eastern District of New York made permanent her temporary injunction prohibiting Congress from cutting off funding for ACORN. The memo also came despite the fact that the Department of Justice is planning to appeal Gershon's ruling and seek a stay pending appeal.

ACORN is under indictment in Nevada for election fraud. Jury selection in set to begin in the summer in Las Vegas.

ACORN is also teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. The New York Times noticed this fact only today and got around to reporting it four months after I reported it right here at TAS.

"...renegade federal judge Nina Gershon of the Eastern District of New York made permanent her temporary injunction prohibiting Congress from cutting off funding for ACORN."

Since when can one judge tell Congress what they cannot eliminate from the budget?

Many conservatives are counting on the 2010 and 2012 elections to right the left's wrongs of the past 15 months.
But $4.3 Billion of taxpayer money is enough to pay ACORN to stuff the voter registration rolls in every red state.

The court telling Congress? Sounds like the tail wagging the dog to me. If anything one of those spineless *******s in Congress should be telling the court to back off where it has no authority.

[quote=At hannity.com/forums Roberts_the_man][quote="MinutemanCDC_SC":21639vpv][size=7]Maelstrom, Is|am permits polygamous marriages with up to 4 wives, which makes the nomenclature of family relationships a problem.

Barack Hussein Obama II's presumed father was Barrack Hussain Obama Snr., son of Onyango Obama, of the Luo tribe (Mus|im).

Onyango Obama had at least three wives:
Helima,
Habiba Akumu Nyanjango of Karabondi, Kenya, and
Sarah Ogwel of Kogelo, near Kisumu in western Kenya.
Akumu gave birth to Barrack Hussain Obama Snr. in 1936.

In Mombasa, Kenya, in 1961, Mama Sarah witnessed the birth of Barack Hussein Obama II, Sarah's step-grandson, Akumu's grandson, and Stanley Ann's son. Mama Sarah has stated on tape that she was present at this delivery. Some claim that her statement meant she was present at the birth of Barrack Snr. in 1936.

Not knowing Swahili, I cannot settle this argument.[/size][/quote][size=7]
Unless the Barack Obama Jr. camp wants to change the bio of Barack Obama Sr. .......

You don't need to speak and/or understand Swahili ! :

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama,_Sr"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama,_Sr[/url].

"Barack Hussein Obama [Snr.] was born in Kanyadhiang village, Rachuonyo District[1] on the shores of Lake Victoria just outside Kendu Bay, Kenya Colony, at the time a colony of the British Empire. He was raised in the village of Nyang’oma Kogelo, Siaya District, Nyanza Province.[11] His family are members of the Luo ethnic group. "

As anyone can see from the map below ....

Lake Victoria is in the interior of Kenya AND is several hundred miles away from Mombasa, Kenya which is on the COASTLINE .....

http://www.bing.com/maps/default.aspx?e ... FORM=MIRE2

So no go on the the idea that she was referring to Barack Obama, Sr. as the birth she attended in Mombasa, Kenya for someone named Barack Obama.[/size][/quote:21639vpv]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/28745277/HOLL ... sport-Room

Case: 09-5080 Document: 1235943 Filed: 03/22/2010 Page: 1
____________
No. 09-5080 September Term 2009
08-cv-02254

Filed On: March 22, 2010
Gregory S. Hollister,

Appellant

v.

Barry Soetoro, in his capacity as a natural
person; de facto President in posse; and as de
jure President in posse, also known as Barack
Obama, et al.,

Appellees
------------------------------

Consolidated with 09-5161

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
BEFORE: Henderson, Tatel, and Garland, Circuit Judges

J U D G M E N T
These consolidated appeals were considered on the record from the United
States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties.
See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s orders filed March 5, 2009,
and March 24, 2009, be affirmed. The district court correctly dismissed the complaint
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which
relief could be granted. Hollister v. Soetoro, 601 F. Supp. 2d 179 (D.D.C. 2009).
Moreover, the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that counsel had
violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b)(2) and in imposing a reprimand as the
sanction for his part in preparing, filing, and prosecuting a legally frivolous complaint.
Hollister v. Soetoro, 258 F.R.D. 1 (D.D.C. 2009). Appellants have provided no
reasonable basis for questioning the impartiality of the district court judge. See Liteky v.
United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk
is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution
of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App.
P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

Per Curiam

__________________________________________________ __________


Henderson, Tatel, and Garland, Circuit Judges, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Taking names. One day the U.S. Constitution will be restored to full effect, including Art. II § 1 ¶ 5..

Born in the USA? Someone doesn't think so

A fringe movement that questions Barack Obama's nationality is gathering pace – and now the woman behind the campaign is running for office. Guy Adams reports

Tuesday, 30 March 2010

She's been called a heroine, a patriot, and a tireless defender of liberty, justice, and the American way. She's also been dubbed a racist crank who exemplifies the worst excesses of the blowhard right.

But the one thing Dr Orly Taitz really can't stand is the way she's usually described in print: queen bee of the so-called "birther" movement. "When you say 'birther' you're using a pejorative term," she says, with lawyerly aggression. "I'm in fact a constitutional attorney, who believes that Barack Hussein Obama could be guilty of a major fraud, and should therefore be investigated." We are at a branch of TGI Friday's about five minutes' drive from the building in Orange County where Dr Taitz runs a dental surgery, a dormant estate agency, a solicitor's practice and a high-profile international campaign to expose the President of the United States as a fraud.

Dr Taitz is therefore a busy woman. When we meet, she's just finished filing a lawsuit which aims to prevent the new US healthcare bill taking effect. A few days earlier, she made headlines by entering the race for the Republican nomination in November's election for the position of Secretary of State of California. She is also pursuing 18 legal cases on behalf of around 200 US soldiers who are contesting their deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. Her clients are arguing that Mr Obama is unqualified to act as their Commander in Chief because he was born overseas; possibly, they say, in Kenya or Indonesia.

"We are fighting a global war against radical Islam," she says. "We know about acts of terrorism in Indonesia and Kenya. Let's say those incidents repeat themselves, and we need to send troops to those countries. Don't you think it's important for my clients, to know where the loyalties of Barack Hussein Obama lie?" With this sort of rhetoric, it would be easy to dismiss Dr Taitz and her followers as a shouty fringe group on the far right-wing of US politics. But that is not necessarily so: a poll out this week showed 57 per cent of Republican voters believe Mr Obama to be a Muslim. A quarter believe him to be the Antichrist.

"AOL has also published a study saying 80 per cent of Americans believe there's an issue with Obama's birth," adds Dr Taitz. "A Pew poll said 85 per cent would like to see his birth certificate. So there is a vast majority who think there's a problem and say that we cannot have an unknown sitting in the White House."

Though once considered taboo, the issue of where the President was born has entered the mainstream. CNN's Lou Dobbs actively encourages debate of it. Republican politicians call for his birth certificate to be published. "Tea Party" activists carry placards that depict the first black President as an Arab, or a Kenyan tribesman. Dr Taitz's blog boasts 8 million readers a month. She gets hundreds of supportive emails a day, and has achieved celebrity status. Dr Taitz subscribes to the view that President Obama's birth was retroactively registered in Hawaii, perhaps to help him gain US citizenship. She talks of myriad anomalies related to his life story – allegedly faked birth announcements, fabricated social security numbers – which are detailed endlessly on her and other websites. Most of all, though, she complains about the White House's refusal to authorise the release of the original birth certificate which would conclusively prove that Barack Obama was born on 4 August 1961 at Kapi'olani hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii.

"All they have released is a certificate of live birth," she says. "That's a document given to people who don't have an original. And it does not show the name of the hospital. It should be OK to get a driving licence and to go get a job. However, for someone who wants to be President, it's not good enough."

Judges don't see things that way. A federal appeals court ruled last Monday that Dr Taitz must pay $20,000 (£13,000) in fines for wasting court time by repeatedly bringing spurious cases referring to Mr Obama's place of birth. The fines are "a deterrent to prevent future misconduct and to protect the integrity of the court".

She is refusing to pay, though. "The judge called me 'frivolous'. What is frivolous? You tell me: what can be more important for the nation than having a legitimate President? This is despicable. The judge was clearly pandering to the President."

One of the many ironies in Dr Taitz's story is that she is herself an immigrant. Born into a Jewish family in Communist-era Moldova, she moved to Israel in her early 20s. Her husband Yosef, a computer whiz from California, met her during a holiday to the Holy Land in the 1980s. They married a few months later. A fiercely intelligent woman who speaks five languages, she built a career as a dentist before waltzing through exams which also allow her to practise as an attorney and estate agent. In her free time, she looks after three children, trains in taekwondo and maintains a fearsome set of fake eyelashes.

Dr Taitz began taking an interest in President Obama shortly before the 2008 election. Helped by a photographic memory, which allows her to quote obscure laws on cue, she threw her energies into trying to have his election declared illegal. Her blog was launched that summer, and her first lawsuits – seeking to get California's Secretary of State to demand to see a copy of the then-Democratic candidate's birth certificate – was filed a few weeks later.

But there is the issue of race. If President Obama had white skin, the "birther" question wouldn't exist. Protesters at recent Tea Party events, including Dr Taitz, are almost all white. Are the noisy right inserting themselves into the foreground of US politics motivated by a degree of racism?

"That's an interesting question," she replies. "I would answer: in 2008, whites voted for Barack Obama in large numbers, close to 50-50. But nearly 90 per cent of blacks voted for Obama. So what does that tell you? I would say that the blacks of this country showed themselves to be more racist than whites."

This is very far from a denial. And it serves as a reminder of the deep-seated nature of the divides that currently underpin America's fractious political landscape, and are fuelling the small but noisy minority whom Dr Taitz has come to represent.

"The White House is trying to harass and intimidate anyone who speaks up by labelling them a racist, or a right-wing conspiracist. You know why? Because they talk about the issues. They refuse to show the birth certificate that will prove he is not a fraud. But whatever they try, we are not going away."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 30680.html

Department of Justice embraces Obama’s Politics of Tyranny

ARGUES IN KERCHNER VS. OBAMA APPELLEE BRIEF THAT U.S. CONSTITUTION IS NOT THE LAW OF THE LAND[size=117]

Legal Analysis by John Charlton

From the American Revolution to today, there has been an intimate bond between our armed forces and the very political notion of liberty upon which our independence and Republic are founded.

(March 9, 2010) — Many U.S. Citizens have not awakened to the fact that the U.S.A. is no longer a Constitutional Republic, but a tyrannical state, overthrown from the very day Chief Justice Roberts administered the oath of office to the ineligible candidate, Barack Hussein Obama II.

Those in denial of this bitter political reality need look no further for the evidence of the paradigm shift in the minds of lawyers for the U.S. Department of Justice than the opposition brief filed by Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Paul J. Fishman, U.S. Attorney, and Mark B. Stern and Eric Fleisig-Green, of the Appellate Staff Division of the DoJ, before the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Kerchner et al. vs. Obama & Congress.

The core of the Department of Justice’s argument manifests in the clearest terms that they no longer hold the U.S. Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land, but rather consider it merely as a theoretical construct, the violation of which harms no one in particular, on pp. 9-10 (Bold Face added):
[list]Plaintiffs suggest that their injuries are analogous to those of states affected by global warming or individuals injured by government displays of religion. See Pl. Br. 39 (citing cases). But none of plaintiffs’ cited cases suggests that a mere interest in the proper application of the law, unaccompanied by more concrete consequences particular to a plaintiff, can serve as the basis of Article III standing. See, e.g., Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 517 (2007) (reinforcing that under Article III “a litigant must demonstrate that it has suffered a concrete and particularized injury that is either actual or imminentâ€

The 60 plus cases can be viewed here:

http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_ ... 20LIST.pdf

No case has been tried on its merits yet (that I know of). The courts dismissals and unconstitutional reasoning will find its way into court someday.

Some good legal stuff here on the birth issues...
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/ ... rn-quotes/