Thread: Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

OR.... don't feed the trolls...

Originally Posted by hardlineconstitutionalist

OR.... don't feed the trolls...

Now your getting the idea...


Kathyet

Originally Posted by kathyet

Originally Posted by hardlineconstitutionalist

OR.... don't feed the trolls...

Now your getting the idea...


Kathyet

I do notice that we are not getting "trolled" as much. Maybe even the far left is figuring it out?

Originally Posted by hardlineconstitutionalist

I do notice that we are not getting "trolled" as much. Maybe even the far left is figuring it out?

Constitutionalist, the DU, DailyKos, moveon.org, the Obama Campaign, and other similar groups have internet task forces which spread disinformation and stir up arguments, especially in the more influential blogs such as Free Republic and Hannity Forums, and to a lesser extent, ALIPAC. The trolls here are not of the highest caliber, even though they do create interference.

Trolls are sent (perhaps paid?) to work on certain days, specifically, when there is news of a failure or a vulnerability within the usurpation. At such times, the Obots are given marching orders to disperse and throw dust in the air to keep people from reading the bad news. They keep enough chaff flying in the blogosphere to obscure public focus on events and issues that hurt their cause. The time that we spend debunking their bunkum is time that we lose in not making hay from their mistakes.

So we don't respond to trolling by setting the troll straight, which won't happen anyway. (Trolls are basically incorrigible.) Instead, we let the troll embarrass himself, while we check the news and spotlight whatever may be embarrassing the troll's sending organization.

Appeals panel considers whether Obama is even American
Case challenges eligibility for failure to provide proof of citizenship

Posted: June 29, 2010
9:02 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Three judges on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals are beginning to review a case that alleges Barack Obama is not eligible to be president – in fact, he may not even be American.

The federal court case was brought by attorney Mario Apuzzo on behalf of plaintiffs Charles Kerchner and others, and had been dismissed at the district court level.

Arguments earlier had been scheduled for June 29 in the dispute, but a court order recently cancelled the hearing and instead announced the case would be decided based on the merits of the legal briefs submitted by attorneys.

A document from court clerk Marcia Waldron said the case will be decided by Judge Dolores Sloviter, who was appointed by Jimmy Carter; Maryanne Trump Barry, who was appointed by Bill Clinton; and Thomas Hardiman, who was appointed by George W. Bush.

Sign the petition that asks state officials to validate Barack Obama's constitutional eligibility.

The filings were due on the day the hearing would have been held, but there's no published timetable for a decision to be released.

The case argues Obama probably is not even a U.S. citizen, much less a "natural born citizen" as required by the U.S. Constitution of the chief executive officer,

On a blog dealing with the case, lead plaintiff Kerchner has delivered updates.


The case filed was against Obama, Congress and others, just before Obama was sworn into office.

The case has argued, "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.

"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 arguments have claimed.

The claims from Apuzzo came in opposition to government demands that the case be dismissed for lack of "standing" on the part of the plaintiffs.

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

Apuzzo has argued that standing should be a simple decision.

"How can you deny he's affecting me?" Apuzzo told WND during an interview. "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.

Apuzzo's latest filing argues 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."



Apuzzo 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 satisfied 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."

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 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.

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=172889

[quote="[url=http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/06/27/the-domestic-enemy/]For the Post and Email, Arnie Rosner[/url]"]The Domestic Enemy
ARE WE AT THE BRINK?[size=117]

by Arnie Rosner


Admiral Michael Mullen became Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff on October 1, 2007, after
serving as Chief of Naval Operations and Navy
Commander in several areas of the world

June 27, 2010

Dear Admiral Mullen:

Many of us share the concern about the position in which Mr. Obama has placed you. We recognize the tenuous and critically explosive nature of the processes in which you are engaged to determine a correct course of action. We recognize that a man of less honor and proven long-term duty to country would not be faced with such a heavy task.

At exactly what point is the precarious balance tipped, the point at which a dedicated, courageous, fiercely loyal, conscientious military leader, a distinguished leader with an insatiable love for this country, a respected leader with a highly-developed sense of loyalty, respect and appreciation for the balance required to maintain the equilibrium of justice and reason between the forces of good and evil, the forces of public and political opinion and the rights of freedom guaranteed by the founding documents by which previous generations of our military guardians have successfully guided our way for over 200 years?

We are speaking of not only a military leader but a leader of men and one who is also unique in the sense that you possess the unusual blend of executive and administrative expertise and experience rarely even understood by most people in our society, regardless of their political orientation.

But besides all of the technical reasons you bring to the table, Admiral, you also being your tempered judgment, one more quality which also qualifies your sense of balance to sort out the differences among the elements I have mentioned, with their biased orientation from the point of a concerned citizen, with your intimate perspective, a view only possible to attain from your vantage point within the government.

History has placed you in a position where you appear to be faced with assuming the role of a modern-day Solomon. However, the decision you face is even more critical than can be resolved by suggesting the baby be cut in half. Only a skilled executive with years of administrative and military experience, together with the special qualities of balance, described above, can possibly make an accurate determination as to whether the current civil administrator with a questionable level of authority, an authority to which you report through the established chain of command, has exceeded the limits of appropriate legal, ethical and moral conduct by a government based on the Constitution as empowered by the people of the United States.

In my view, Admiral Mullen, the Obama regime and Congress have consistently rejected and ignored the will of the people on many occasions. I base this conclusion on the execution of a constant unrelenting stream of events, oppressive legislation and abusive executive orders, where the will of the people has been repeatedly expressed, in good faith, and flatly ignored by those who have seized power. Many of the disenfranchised people of this country, me included, have classified the current administration and the Congress as our “domestic enemy, a term in the Constitution of the United States which describes this specific state of affairs.

Certainly many factors must be taken into consideration when weighing the gravity of this situation which has been developing over the last 18 months, a situation which has exhibited a pattern of repeated administrative abuse headed in a direction where even you must have some questions and concerns about the legitimacy of those in charge.

Stepping back for a moment, let’s examine just a few of the issues in question. For starters, there is the issue of the eligibility of Mr. Obama. Does it make sense that a man who promised the people of the United States the most transparent and open government ever then refuses to produce a simple document such as his birth certificate? Further, does it seem logical that Mr. Obama would spend over $1.2 million [$2 million +] to ensure the people to whom he made this promise of transparency would be denied all access to his basic information?

Many concessions can be made to excuse the behavior of a person who, like Mr. Obama, was placed in a position of trust, if indeed the actions of this person would seem to be consistent with acting in the best interest of those who elected him. However, upon closer examination, is taking over several segments of the private sector in the best interest of the American Republic?

For more proof of his intent, just look at the extent of the conspiracy which planned and executed the deception surrounding his attempt to legitimize his fraudulent birth certificate:







Further examination must be given to the manner in which health care was dealt by Mr. Obama’s administration. Putting aside the political portion of the argument, again, is the manner in which this legislation illegally bypassed the normal legislative process consistent with the will of the American people?

There are many other issues in which the Obama administration seems to be questionably involved, too many for my taste. However, this may simply be reflected by my attitude. I am confident that you also must share some concern about the way our missile program has been compromised, how our allies have been alienated and our strongest ally in the Middle East, Israel, has been marginalized.

Of course, the fact that Mr. Obama now openly embraces what appears to be the Islamization of our nation, when before the election he presented himself as a Christian, should begin to wave a caution flag.

But even more importantly, I would think the lack of his commitment to win the war in Afghanistan would weigh the heaviest on your mind. Admiral, I am not a military expert, and what I am about to say would most probably be considered politically incorrect.

The way Mr. Obama has handled decisions regarding the war effort has left me with the distinct impression that he is attempting to carefully orchestrate a balancing act designed to cover his real position. In some cases he acts to demonstrate to many Americans his leadership abilities to direct the war and at the same time do as little as possible to risk offending his friends, our enemies, in the Middle East.

On the one hand, he dare not leave the impression that he is against the war, although clearly I expect this is his true position. On the other hand, he must leave an impression that as purported commander-in-chief, he is indeed in charge and competent to make such leadership decisions.

However, I must question the intent of a commander-in-chief who asks of his field commanders, whom he himself had appointed, what is needed to win the war, and then proceeds to delay making a basic decision on this information for months, thereby providing our enemies with valuable time to rebuild defenses. What was even more telling, in my opinion, was when Obama was apprised of the likelihood of only partial success if fewer than the requested number of troops were provided, he authorized only a portion of the total number of troops requested. I am not sure of your take on this, Admiral, but to me this was a clear sign he did not intend to win this war.

In my view, Admiral, it was a sure-fire way to insure defeat, a decision that was definitely biased in favor of our enemy. As I see it, Admiral, this act of treason was as deliberate as was possible for someone acting as our domestic enemy. Could it be any more clear?

This lack of commitment indicates to me that Mr. Obama is not genuinely committed to winning the war in Afghanistan. In my view, Mr. Obama is not genuinely committed to those in the Armed Forces who are risking their lives, to the military leadership, or to the people of the United States.

Obama is treating Afghanistan in the same manner as the Gulf oil spill. In this crisis he appears to be attempting to manipulate the outcome for his own political maneuvering.

I see his reluctance to totally identify himself as committed to a plan of action to assure complete victory in Afghanistan as a preliminary plan for defeat. When the war effort is lost, as is his typical modus operandi, he will blame the failure on you and the rest of the military and throw the entire military leadership and our courageous men and women in uniform under the bus as a political expediency. He will do this when he believes it will be convenient to assure his reelection in 2012. At that time I predict he will represent himself as having been against the war from the beginning. He will attempt to present himself as the emerging hero of the republic.

This dangerous and treasonous set of circumstances demonstrates the very reason the Commander-in-Chief of the United States military must be a natural born Citizen, a special kind of citizen who cannot be placed in a position of divided loyalties such as in the case of Mr. Obama, who had a foreign parent and might even be foreign-born himself.

I am not sure if it occurred to you, but it did to me: when Obama is in a position to determine military options, is he thinking of the American people or his benefactors in the Middle East?

Admiral Mullen, will you honor your oath and, along with Lt. Col. Terry Lakin, take the necessary steps to insure that any and all orders from your “Commander-in-Chiefâ€

[quote="[url=http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/06/26/mr-dasey-our-very-survival-is-at-stake/]To Chuck Dasey, Information Officer at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Tom Arnold[/url]"][size=117]...persons in the military are sworn to uphold the Constitution. Am I not right? If the available evidence indicated that your commanding officer or your Commander-in-Chief was not qualified to hold the position and was possibly committing treason, what would you do? Frankly, sir, I hope the Army court-martials Lt. Col. Terry Lakin, because then we may have a chance to get access to Obama’s records. It’s a shame.

You know what, though, I really don’t think the military will risk court-martialing Lt. Col. Lakin for the very reason I’ve stated: it could expose Obama in the process. Anyway, Mr. Dasey, let me tell you about an interesting but extremely relevant “side issue,â€

Great letter Minuteman. Who can argue with any of the points?? Nobody of reasonable intellect would dismiss these concerns unless they are themselves potentially involved with the fraud.

[quote="MinutemanCDC_SC"][quote="[url=http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/06/26/mr-dasey-our-very-survival-is-at-stake/]To Chuck Dasey, Information Officer at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Tom Arnold[/url]"][size=117]...persons in the military are sworn to uphold the Constitution. Am I not right? If the available evidence indicated that your commanding officer or your Commander-in-Chief was not qualified to hold the position and was possibly committing treason, what would you do? Frankly, sir, I hope the Army court-martials Lt. Col. Terry Lakin, because then we may have a chance to get access to Obama’s records. It’s a shame.

You know what, though, I really don’t think the military will risk court-martialing Lt. Col. Lakin for the very reason I’ve stated: it could expose Obama in the process. Anyway, Mr. Dasey, let me tell you about an interesting but extremely relevant “side issue,â€

The self interests of the entitlement groups coupled with a "denial" complex bordering on refusal insanity to view the truths involved...add in a covert cover up that would expose collusion of nearly every high official in government...then factor the very real life and death fears involving physical and social/financial life... You have a very complex problem that those here simply cannot stomach or understand?

We simply want the Constitution followed. In that I guess I am a very simple man.

The argument of standing or no merit is ridiculous at best.

Originally Posted by TexasBorn

Who can argue with any of the points??
Nobody of reasonable intellect would dismiss these concerns unless
they are themselves potentially involved with the fraud.

Originally Posted by hardlineconstitutionalist

The self interests of the entitlement groups coupled with
a "denial" complex bordering on insanity...
refusal to view the truths involved... add in
a covert cover up that would expose collusion of nearly every high official in government... then factor [in]
the very real life and death fears involving physical and social/financial life...
You have a very complex problem that those here simply cannot stomach or understand?

We simply want the Constitution followed. In that I guess I am a very simple man.

The argument of standing or no merit is ridiculous at best.

Since I cannot read anyone's mind or motives, I'll accept your discernments for the purpose of discussion.

"Who can argue with any of the points??"
They don't. They dismiss, disallow, and ignore; disbar those who bring suit; disapprove; disbelieve; disclose their own "challengedness"; discolor; cognitively disconnect; discount; show discourtesy; racially discriminate; disdain; disestablish the Constitution or discard parts of it; disfranchise; disgrace; dishonor; disingenuously speak and act; disinherit us of our American, Constitutional, and Christian heritage; disinter overturned inferior court rulings; dismantle the construct of legal precedents; disobey the law; threaten widespread disorder; disorganize the judicial process; disorient the casual observer; disparage truth; disperse those who assemble to seek redress of grievances; discourage, dispirit, and distress the spirit of America; displace the patriot's dream; dispose without justice, dispossess without compensation, and disprove without truth; disqualify as ineligible those who protest Mr. Obama's ineligibility; dispute plain facts and established Constitutional interpretations; disrespect and disregard; disturb and disrupt meetings, blogs, and forums; dissect sound legal arguments to rob them of their force; dissemble to hide treacherous acts and even treasonous motives; dissent from adjudicated and settled dicta and opinions; dissociate from the company of federal jurists; dissolve unity under the Constitution; inject dissonance into harmonious agreement; dissuade and disaffect those who are learning about the usurpation; distance themselves from honesty and truth; distend and distort the body of legal precedent; distract attention from indisputable proofs; distrust the motives of patriots; and surrender the Constitution to disuse.

Just counting the ways we're being dissed.

"Nobody of reasonable intellect" - plainly we are speaking of Obots -
who may be intellectuals, but understanding and diplomatic persons can hardly reason with them -
or useful idiots, who are duped, in spite of all their good intentions.

"... unless they are themselves potentially involved with the fraud."
I do want to see election fraud brought to justice - after the appropriate governing authority establishes the facts.

But there are many reasons for complicity with the usurpation:

• self-interest,
  fear of reprisal or injury,
  avoiding being fired or court-martialed,
  protecting one's family from loss of income,
  going with the flow and not rocking the boat,
  mentioning Mr. Obama's ineligibility is politically incorrect,
  wanting to live and not being suicidal (people who stand up to these evildoers
  occasionally commit suicide by shooting themselves in the back of the head).

"The self interests of the entitlement groups..."
Many (if not most) people are willing to ignore truth and justice in order to have food, shelter, and free health care.

"... a 'denial' complex bordering on insanity..."
I hesitate to call the majority insane, but the self-interest of the majority is certainly unenlightened and shortsighted.

"... refusal to view the truths involved... "
"That would take hours, and all that thinking would make my brain sore!"
"My mind's made up; don't bother me with the facts."

"... collusion of nearly every high official in government..."
That's a self-fulfiling redundancy. Anyone who refuses to keep quiet about the Emperor's no clothes (no Constitutional eligibility)
finds himself out of office or off the TV network faster than Gen. McChrystal can say, "I resign my commission."

"... the very real life and death fears involving physical and social/financial life..."
In all of Washington, D.C., is there not one Capt. Nathan Hale with the conviction,

"I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country."