Thread: Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan

And to this all, I ask - where is the FBI?
. . .
Is anyone in law enforcement taking notes? Is there a rule of law at any level left within the federal government?

HighlanderJuan, lest you think we are spinning our wheels and getting nowhere fast, consider where we were 21 months and 155,000 page views ago.

Originally Posted by [url=http://www.alipac.us/ftopic-137238-days0-orderasc-0.html

On the first page of this thread, several posters[/url]]"I believe that the issue of questioning his citizenship is a dog that won't hunt."

"I really think that the powers that be will let obama do whatever he wants, truth or not!"

"I think the general issue of Berg's appeal, that is, 'who has the standing to bring such questions before the court', is even more important from a constitutional viewpoint. Obama is one person in one race at one point in time. But I resent the general rule that no citizen has the right to bring a challenge to any future candidate's eligibility because we lack standing."

"We need the media talking about this issue. If they don't, then we need to do it ourselves."

"They won't do it, jp. The media didn't talk about illegal immigration, they sure the heck won't talk about the President-Elect's birth cert."

"'If it sounds too good to be true....then it must not be true!' In this case...I hope it's true. Has anyone considered or thought about the outcome of this 'if' it is proven to be true??? The whole world who is 'in love' with Obama will be in an uproar....and the Democrats will scream foul and demand the Constitution be changed to accommodate him (I can hear it now)!! Just think of the rantings and ravings that will follow!! The Democrats and Obama media are going to keep a lid on this as long as they can. As far as they're concerned....this problem does not exist!!"

And that doesn't mention the discouragements from Obots. So, are we moving in the right direction - toward ousting the usurper?

Originally Posted by On July 23, 2010, at forums.hannity.com, get er done

The whole world knows of Obama's ineligibility.

MinuteMan,

I have come to the belief that the federal government will never police its own, nor will it ever willingly reduce its power and control over the people and over the states. It simply has no motivation to obey our country's laws or to recognize state sovereignty. With few exceptions, there is no downside or punishment for criminal or unconstitutional actions performed by the feds.

Similarly, because of the convenient misinterpretation of the Constitution by the progressives (both parties), communists, and the liberals, they believe there is nothing in the Constitution that controls or limits the federal government's power and control over the states and over the people.

Our reliance on the federal courts to resolve federal questions in favor of the individual or the state at the expense of the federal government is unsound and a waste of our time and resources. The federal courts will never decide in our favor at the expense of the federal government. The Obama cases will never see the light of day until Obama is gone, if then.

Like all governments, our federal government understands and responds primarily to money, fear, and embarrassment.

It is also my perception and belief that we need to retake America, one state at a time. Nothing else will work.

From observation, the federal government has openly and stupidly declared war on its own states. As I mentioned in an earlier post, it now seems clear that the states must forget all of the PC nonsense and professional courtesy extended to Obama and to the federal government, and definitively re-assert state sovereignty over the federal government. State power and individual power may be an anathema to the federal government wonks in WDC, but that's exactly what we need to regain and assert before we will see any positive actions out of Washington.

In many ways that helps focus the patriot's energies, because now all we have to do is clean up our own back yard, rather than the whole neighborhood. If we make the individual states strong again, they will naturally retake power from the federal government.

Our frustration in the past has been that we have, as individuals, tried to affect change, and what we learned from the Tea Party movement is that there are a TON of us individuals out there. But we have wasted a lot of energy marching on the tyrannical and non-responsive commissars in Washington because they don't work for us anymore - we should have marched on our own state capitals and caused change there.

We are citizens of our own sovereign state before we are citizens of the United States. I am a Mainer before I am an American. As an aside, the Maine GOP has adopted the Tea Party platform - something that bloody well amazes me, but it was the right thing to do.

As a sovereign state power, we can ignore and nullify whatever part of the federal tyranny we choose, and too bad if the feds don't like it. We will honor and respect the feds when they abide by the Constitutional limitations imposed on them… when they do the job assigned to them, and only that job.

Question: what happens to usurper Obama if he holds a dinner party to which we are all invited and nobody shows up? He is only successful because people honor and respect him. Deny Obama that attention and blind compliance, and he loses power immediately.

That which is not supported, dies. The same rule holds true for unlawful federal agencies and statutes, as for example, witness that federal marijuana laws are being ignored on a wide scale in many states.

Another question: if our senators and congressmen are state representatives, very much like ambassadors, why does the federal government pay their salary? Who do they work for - us or the federal government? This mixed loyalty problem is probably the biggest challenge to the representatives of the people we send to Washington - they change allegiances from their home state to the cushy federal government where they have all the perks they can gather. What's that all about? When are the states going to change that?

And what would happen if we, the states, paid our ambassador’s salaries and denied them any federal compensation whatever? What if we recalled our ambassadors to the federal government? What if our ambassadors worked for the people once again?

I think the states need to act like sovereign nations as they were intended from the start.

It's been a hot, humid summer in Colorado and tempers are fraying.

Buck: Tea Partiers questioning Obama's citizenship 'dumbasses'

KUSA - U.S. Senate candidate Ken Buck refers to members of the Tea Party who question the President's citizenship as "dumbasses" in an audio recording obtained by 9NEWS and The Denver Post.

The Colorado Republican candidate's voice was captured on a pocket tape recorder without his knowledge by a Colorado Democratic Party worker in a parking lot before a June event in Crowley County.

He had just come from an event in Pueblo where there was a reference to whether President Obama was an American citizen. The comment apparently comes without provocation from the Democratic Party worker, who has been following and videotaping Buck all over the state of Colorado for months.

"Will you tell those dumbasses at the Tea Party to stop asking questions about birth certificates while I'm on the camera," Buck said to the worker while laughing. "God, what am I supposed to do?"

Asked about the comments on Sunday at a political rally in Adams County, Buck said he wishes he had used different language and that he had not lumped all Tea Party members into one statement, but that he remains frustrated that some people are focusing on birth certificates rather than the country's $13 trillion debt and its $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities.

"The language is inappropriate," he told 9NEWS and The Post. "After 16 months on the campaign trail, I was tired and frustrated that I can't get that message through that we are going to go off a cliff if we don't start dealing with this debt.

"It is not the Tea Party movement on the whole. The Tea Party movement gets it. It's the Constitution, it's the debt, it's the other issues, but there are a couple people that are frankly frustrating for all candidates. I mean if you talked to other candidates and they're being honest with you, they'll say I know that. Now, they may not have used my choice words, but they have the same feelings."

Buck, who rose to the top of recent polls against his Republican primary opponent Jane Norton, campaigns as a "grassroots candidate" and openly embraces the Tea Party support he's received. For example, at the Independence Institute's Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms party last weekend, he asked the crowd, "Anybody here in any Tea Parties? Is that a great deal or what?"

He went on to call the Tea Parties a "great thing that (President) Obama has given us."

One of the leading members of the 9/12 and Tea Party movements in Colorado reaffirmed her support for Buck after hearing the news, although she says she wishes he had used better language in the process.

"He could have not called us a name," said Lu Busse, who runs the 9/12 Project Colorado Coalition. "It would have been better to say, 'Why do these people' and he shouldn't have used a bad name, but I don't see it as he meant anything personal to me or to the other people in the Tea Party movement. It was just an unguarded moment and he was frustrated."

Busse expressed sadness that issues like this were being covered in lieu of larger government-philosophy questions that she feels should be asked of all candidates. She did not believe he would lose support among Tea Party members who have endorsed his campaign.

"Occasionally a candidate's going to slip up and do something, but these are not the type of issues we're concerned about," she said.

The audio taping of Buck happened on Friday, June 11, about an hour and a half after Buck finished up an event for a small group, including Tea Party activists, in Pueblo. The Democratic Party worker videotaped that session, including a question and answer session regarding the 14th Amendment which has been interpreted to give those individuals born in this country automatic citizenship. After Buck told the group he thought the Supreme Court needed to address the issue, one of those in attendance said, "It is really a (Supreme) Court question whether somebody born in the United States automatically becomes a U.S. citizen. I mean President Obama is an example of that."

Buck did not respond to that statement, taking another question from the audience instead.

When he encountered the Democratic Party worker in the parking lot outside the Heritage Center Pavilion in Crowley later that afternoon, their conversation went as follows.

"Buck: Hey Buddy
Democratic Worker: Is this going to be held inside?
Buck: You said you can't talk when you're on camera? What do you mean?
Democratic Worker: I just don't answer your questions.
Buck: Ok
Democratic Worker: Is this going to be going on inside?
Buck: Will you tell those dumbasses at the Tea Party to stop asking questions about birth certificates while I'm on the camera? God, what am I supposed to do?"

The topic of Obama's citizenship has remained top of mind for many Tea Party activists. When asked on YOUR SHOW last Thursday whether he would pursue a vote to require the President to provide a birth certificate and not a certificate of birth, both Buck and Norton said no.

"I know now how much scrutiny is involved in running for office at the Senate level," he said. "I can't imagine what a Presidential candidate goes through. Barack Obama ran against Hillary Clinton. There must have been a ton of scrutiny and if this was an issue, it would have been brought up at that time."

After questions came up, Obama posted a copy of his official Hawaiian certificate of birth on his website. Hawaiian officials have authenticated the documents as being legal and have consistently said there's no information to declare the president is not a United States citizen.

Buck said on Sunday there have been people taping everything he said for the last 16 months and that he wants people to judge him through that context.

"You know there are times of frustration where I vent and in this case, I vented to the wrong person under the wrong circumstances," he said.

This comes as Colorado voters have begun receiving their ballots for the Aug. 10 primary. Political analysts say it's a tough time for a story like this to air.

"Whether or not it will hurt his campaign depends on how many people have already mailed in their ballots," said Katy Atkinson, a Denver-based Republican consultant. "It would have been more painful, had it happened a week ago, but it will hurt."

To listen to the entire audio recording, including the 25-second interaction between Buck and the Democratic Party worker, click on the attached video link.

http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx? ... &catid=339

Our frustration in the past has been that we have, as individuals, tried to affect change, and what we learned from the Tea Party movement is that there are a TON of us individuals out there. But we have wasted a lot of energy marching on the tyrannical and non-responsive commissars in Washington because they don't work for us anymore - we should have marched on our own state capitals and caused change there.

Highlander, you are spot on. Re-energize state sovereignty, nullify unconstitutional requirements to the states and neuter the federal government. The fed doesn't exist without the explicit support of the states and their citizens. However, we cannot simply wait for all 50 states to assert this sovereign power. The approach must be two pronged. IMO we may well have to resort to some distasteful actions to remove individuals from our federal government, by military force if it comes to that. There must be an UNMISTAKABLE signal sent throughout this country. The constitutional requirements of our federal government will NOT BE USURPED. THE RULE OF LAW MATTERS.

Ken Buck has some explaining to do, but frankly, he may have irreversibly damaged his candidacy. Clearly, he is the dumbass.

Originally Posted by BetsyRoss

It's been a hot, humid summer in Colorado and tempers are fraying.

Buck: Tea Partiers questioning Obama's citizenship 'dumbasses'

KUSA - U.S. Senate candidate Ken Buck refers to members of the Tea Party who question the President's citizenship as "dumbasses" in an audio recording obtained by 9NEWS and The Denver Post.

The Colorado Republican candidate's voice was captured on a pocket tape recorder without his knowledge by a Colorado Democratic Party worker in a parking lot before a June event in Crowley County.

He had just come from an event in Pueblo where there was a reference to whether President Obama was an American citizen. The comment apparently comes without provocation from the Democratic Party worker, who has been following and videotaping Buck all over the state of Colorado for months.

"Will you tell those dumbasses at the Tea Party to stop asking questions about birth certificates while I'm on the camera," Buck said to the worker while laughing. "God, what am I supposed to do?"

Asked about the comments on Sunday at a political rally in Adams County, Buck said he wishes he had used different language and that he had not lumped all Tea Party members into one statement, but that he remains frustrated that some people are focusing on birth certificates rather than the country's $13 trillion debt and its $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities.

"The language is inappropriate," he told 9NEWS and The Post. "After 16 months on the campaign trail, I was tired and frustrated that I can't get that message through that we are going to go off a cliff if we don't start dealing with this debt.

"It is not the Tea Party movement on the whole. The Tea Party movement gets it. It's the Constitution, it's the debt, it's the other issues, but there are a couple people that are frankly frustrating for all candidates. I mean if you talked to other candidates and they're being honest with you, they'll say I know that. Now, they may not have used my choice words, but they have the same feelings."

Buck, who rose to the top of recent polls against his Republican primary opponent Jane Norton, campaigns as a "grassroots candidate" and openly embraces the Tea Party support he's received. For example, at the Independence Institute's Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms party last weekend, he asked the crowd, "Anybody here in any Tea Parties? Is that a great deal or what?"

He went on to call the Tea Parties a "great thing that (President) Obama has given us."

One of the leading members of the 9/12 and Tea Party movements in Colorado reaffirmed her support for Buck after hearing the news, although she says she wishes he had used better language in the process.

"He could have not called us a name," said Lu Busse, who runs the 9/12 Project Colorado Coalition. "It would have been better to say, 'Why do these people' and he shouldn't have used a bad name, but I don't see it as he meant anything personal to me or to the other people in the Tea Party movement. It was just an unguarded moment and he was frustrated."

Busse expressed sadness that issues like this were being covered in lieu of larger government-philosophy questions that she feels should be asked of all candidates. She did not believe he would lose support among Tea Party members who have endorsed his campaign.

"Occasionally a candidate's going to slip up and do something, but these are not the type of issues we're concerned about," she said.

The audio taping of Buck happened on Friday, June 11, about an hour and a half after Buck finished up an event for a small group, including Tea Party activists, in Pueblo. The Democratic Party worker videotaped that session, including a question and answer session regarding the 14th Amendment which has been interpreted to give those individuals born in this country automatic citizenship. After Buck told the group he thought the Supreme Court needed to address the issue, one of those in attendance said, "It is really a (Supreme) Court question whether somebody born in the United States automatically becomes a U.S. citizen. I mean President Obama is an example of that."

Buck did not respond to that statement, taking another question from the audience instead.

When he encountered the Democratic Party worker in the parking lot outside the Heritage Center Pavilion in Crowley later that afternoon, their conversation went as follows.

"Buck: Hey Buddy
Democratic Worker: Is this going to be held inside?
Buck: You said you can't talk when you're on camera? What do you mean?
Democratic Worker: I just don't answer your questions.
Buck: Ok
Democratic Worker: Is this going to be going on inside?
Buck: Will you tell those dumbasses at the Tea Party to stop asking questions about birth certificates while I'm on the camera? God, what am I supposed to do?"

The topic of Obama's citizenship has remained top of mind for many Tea Party activists. When asked on YOUR SHOW last Thursday whether he would pursue a vote to require the President to provide a birth certificate and not a certificate of birth, both Buck and Norton said no.

"I know now how much scrutiny is involved in running for office at the Senate level," he said. "I can't imagine what a Presidential candidate goes through. Barack Obama ran against Hillary Clinton. There must have been a ton of scrutiny and if this was an issue, it would have been brought up at that time."

After questions came up, Obama posted a copy of his official Hawaiian certificate of birth on his website. Hawaiian officials have authenticated the documents as being legal and have consistently said there's no information to declare the president is not a United States citizen.

Buck said on Sunday there have been people taping everything he said for the last 16 months and that he wants people to judge him through that context.

"You know there are times of frustration where I vent and in this case, I vented to the wrong person under the wrong circumstances," he said.

This comes as Colorado voters have begun receiving their ballots for the Aug. 10 primary. Political analysts say it's a tough time for a story like this to air.

"Whether or not it will hurt his campaign depends on how many people have already mailed in their ballots," said Katy Atkinson, a Denver-based Republican consultant. "It would have been more painful, had it happened a week ago, but it will hurt."

To listen to the entire audio recording, including the 25-second interaction between Buck and the Democratic Party worker, click on the attached video link.

http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx? ... &catid=339

Originally Posted by TexasBorn

Our frustration in the past has been that we have, as individuals, tried to affect change, and what we learned from the Tea Party movement is that there are a TON of us individuals out there. But we have wasted a lot of energy marching on the tyrannical and non-responsive commissars in Washington because they don't work for us anymore - we should have marched on our own state capitals and caused change there.

Highlander, you are spot on. Re-energize state sovereignty, nullify unconstitutional requirements to the states and neuter the federal government. The fed doesn't exist without the explicit support of the states and their citizens. However, we cannot simply wait for all 50 states to assert this sovereign power. The approach must be two pronged. IMO we may well have to resort to some distasteful actions to remove individuals from our federal government, by military force if it comes to that. There must be an UNMISTAKABLE signal sent throughout this country. The constitutional requirements of our federal government will NOT BE USURPED. THE RULE OF LAW MATTERS.

So, which state will be first?

Any volunteers?

Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan

Originally Posted by TexasBorn

Our frustration in the past has been that we have, as individuals, tried to affect change, and what we learned from the Tea Party movement is that there are a TON of us individuals out there. But we have wasted a lot of energy marching on the tyrannical and non-responsive commissars in Washington because they don't work for us anymore - we should have marched on our own state capitals and caused change there.

Highlander, you are spot on. Re-energize state sovereignty, nullify unconstitutional requirements to the states and neuter the federal government. The fed doesn't exist without the explicit support of the states and their citizens. However, we cannot simply wait for all 50 states to assert this sovereign power. The approach must be two pronged. IMO we may well have to resort to some distasteful actions to remove individuals from our federal government, by military force if it comes to that. There must be an UNMISTAKABLE signal sent throughout this country. The constitutional requirements of our federal government will NOT BE USURPED. THE RULE OF LAW MATTERS.

So, which state will be first?

Any volunteers?

Hopefully getting rid of Harry Reid and John McCain will be a start as I said before all politics is local it all starts at the State level...by KICKINGTHEMALLOUT every State can be first....





Kathyet

BORN IN THE USA?
Judges evade Obama birth-certificate query
Abandon plans to penalize attorney whose clients challenged eligibility
Posted: July 25, 2010
7:51 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

U.S. President Barack Obama signs emergency unemployment benefits legislation in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington on July 22, 2010. UPI/Brendan Hoffman/Pool Photo via Newscom

Judges on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals suddenly have abandoned plans to assess damages against an attorney whose clients are challenging Barack Obama's eligibility to be president after he argued that if there was to be punishment, he would have the right to know whether the defendants could have mitigated their injury by publicly releasing Obama's birth documentation.

The decision came from Judge Dolores Sloviter in the Kerchner vs. Obama case handled by attorney Mario Apuzzo. The court had ordered Apuzzo to explain why defense costs shouldn't be assessed against him for the "frivolous" appeal.

However, her newest order denied Apuzzo's request to reconsider the case and stated "based on Mr. Apuzzo's explanation of his efforts to research the applicable law on standing, we hereby discharge the Order to Show Cause."

The case was filed against Obama, Congress and others just before Obama was sworn into office, arguing that Obama was a British subject and not a U.S. citizen.



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

"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 lawsuit claims.

Apuzzo represents Charles F. Kerchner Jr., Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell James Lenormand and Donald H. Nelson Jr.

(Story continues below)



Named as defendants are Barack Hussein Obama II, the U.S., Congress, the Senate, the 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 district court rejected the case based on issues of "standing" and never addressed the core issues presented. The appellate court did the same.

But Apuzzo had explained to the court that under standard rules of judicial procedure, while they allow for damages to be assessed in "frivolous" cases – even though the district never made that ruling – there also is a responsibility on the part of the defendants to mitigate their damages.

In this case, he asked the court to "enforce my right to discover whether defendants had a copy of the [certificate of live birth, Obama's] 1961 long-form birth certificate, and related documents showing that Obama was born in Hawaii which they could have simply shared [with] … the Kerchner plaintiffs."

He said had those actions taken place and the documents been provided, the plaintiffs "would not have come into existence."

That disclosure, he argued, "would have mitigated the damages and costs they now claim they suffered from having to defend plaintiffs' appeal."

"To confirm the veracity of the defendants' representations, I also have a right under (Federal Rules of Civil Procedure) 26(a)(1) and 26(b)(1) to receive a copy of those documents," he argued. "Should the court be inclined to find that I am liable for defendants' damages and costs, I also request that the court defer entering judgment on damages and costs until I have had an opportunity to address the amount of damages claimed by defendants, the issue of proximate cause, and whether defendants satisfied their burden to mitigate those damages.

"So that I may have a meaningful opportunity to present defenses to defendants' claim of damages and costs, including showing that defendants have failed to mitigate their claimed damages, I am requesting limited discovery of Obama's (certificate of live birth), his 1961 long-form birth certificate, and any documents that may be relevant in showing where Obama was born, along with a hearing on the record at which I will have a fair opportunity to present witnesses, evidence and defenses to the defendants' claim of damages and costs," he wrote.

The court's response was to drop the "Order to Show Cause" almost immediately, referencing only Apuzzo's "research."

Apuzzo told WND the case, which now is being prepared for the U.S. Supreme Court, probably was impacted by his explanation of his rights and his suggestion a simple disclosure of Obama's birth documentation could have resolved the issue and "mitigated" the defendants' claimed damages.

He also said it's essential to obtain a decision from the highest court in the land, because, of the multitude of cases that have been brought over the eligibility issue, virtually none has addressed the question itself. All have been decided on "standing" or other side issues.

"Only the Supreme Court can decide the issue in the context of Article 2 standing," he said.

He explained Obama can claim no special privacy rights to his birth documentation since his campaign already has posted online an image of a "Certification of Live Birth," a document critics say was available to children not born in Hawaii at the time. Documents supporting the birth certificate also should be public, Apuzzo argued.

At the online Post & Email, a forum-page participant said the results of the situation are perfectly clear.

"I think the court was really afraid of this – 'Should the court be inclined to find that I am liable under Rule 38 for defendants' damages and costs, I respectfully request that the court recognize and enforce my right to discover whether defendants had a copy of the (certificate of live birth), his 1961 long-form birth certificate, and related documents.'"

"They really didn't want to risk Mr. Apuzzo having a legal reason to get BO's BC," he wrote.

In fact, Apuzzo told WND that, had the option of getting Obama's document come up, he "would have paid for that out of my own pocket" to resolve the conflict and preclude the need for his case and others to be pursued.

"That's a big factor, and a legitimate point in the mitigation of damages and discovery. If he didn't have the BC, that's it. We're done. No lawsuit. No Congress. No Justice Department."

The earlier decision – and show-cause order – came from Judges Sloviter, Maryanne Trump Barry and Thomas Hardiman of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The judges' opinion dismissed as "frivolous" the appeal in the Kerchner case of the lower court's decision to throw it out.

No "standing," the district court had ruled, for asking about the issue of Obama's citizenship being governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 since, at his birth, his father was a subject of the British Crown – a circumstance even Obama has admitted.

Apuzzo has explained that the case maintains that while the term "natural born citizen" is not defined in the Constitution, "under the law of nations, Obama is not eligible to be president and commander in chief of the military because, being born with conflicting allegiance to Great Britain, which he inherited from his non-United-States-citizen father, and possibly to the United States if he was born in Hawaii as he claims but has not shown, he cannot meet the Founders and Framers' constitutional definition of an Article II 'natural born Citizen,' which requires the president and commander in chief of the military to have unity of citizenship and allegiance from birth only to the United States, which status is acquired at birth only if the child is born in the United States (or its equivalent) to a citizen mother and father."

The issue of sanctions against attorneys for bringing challenges to Obama's presidency has been raised in previous cases. The 3rd Circuit cited Hollister v. Soetoro and Rhodes v. MacDonald.

In the Hollister case, attorney John Hemenway was threatened by a federal judge with financial penalties for bringing a court challenge to Obama's presidency.

The Hollister case ultimately was dismissed by Judge James Robertson, who notably ruled during the 2008 election campaign that the federal legal dispute had been "twittered" and, therefore, resolved.

Robertson sarcastically wrote: "The plaintiff says that he is a retired Air Force colonel who continues to owe fealty to his commander in chief (because he might possibly be recalled to duty) and who is tortured by uncertainty as to whether he would have to obey orders from Barack Obama because it has not been proven – to the colonel's satisfaction – that Mr. Obama is a native-born American citizen, qualified under the Constitution to be president.

"The issue of the president's citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered and otherwise massaged by America's vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama's two-year campaign for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a court," Robertson wrote.

Then the judge suggested financial penalties against Hemenway for bringing the case. Hemenway responded that the process then would provide him with a right to a discovery hearing to see documentation regarding the judge's statements – not supported by any evidence introduced into the case – that Obama was properly "vetted."

Hemenway warned at the time, "If the court persists in pressing Rule 11 procedures against Hemenway, then Hemenway should be allowed all of the discovery pertinent to the procedures as court precedents have permitted in the past.

"The court has referred to a number of facts outside of the record of this particular case and, therefore, the undersigned is particularly entitled to a hearing to get the truth of those matters into the record. This may require the court to authorize some discovery," Hemenway said.

The court ultimately backed off its threat of financial penalties and instead issued a statement critical of the attorney.

In the Rhodes case, attorney Orly Taitz was ordered penalized with a $20,000 fine for bringing the challenge. However, the circumstances of that penalty linked it to issues other than the subject of the court documents.

Apuzzo said the issue of standing should have been more than clear to the judges: "How can you deny he's affecting me?" Apuzzo told WND during a previous 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."

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.

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 plaintiffs having standing, for it is that very statute which is the basis of their injury in fact."

"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 earlier.

"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," he wrote.

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.



http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=182881



Kathyet

Originally Posted by At the Post & Email forum, a poster

"I think the court was really afraid of this – 'Should the court be inclined to find that I am liable under Rule 38 for defendants' damages and costs, I respectfully request that the court recognize and enforce my right to discover whether defendants had a copy of the (certificate of live birth), his 1961 long-form birth certificate, and related documents.'"

"They really didn't want to risk Mr. Apuzzo having a legal reason to get BO's BC," he wrote.

Such judges, who have run roughshod over the rule of law re Mr. Obama's Constitutional ineligibility for office, amaze me. They still scurry for the exits under the law when they feel the heat of possible judicial review and accountability for their own obstruction of justice. They still respect and fear the rules even as they are treading them underfoot.

Originally Posted by kathyet

Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan

Originally Posted by TexasBorn

Our frustration in the past has been that we have, as individuals, tried to affect change, and what we learned from the Tea Party movement is that there are a TON of us individuals out there. But we have wasted a lot of energy marching on the tyrannical and non-responsive commissars in Washington because they don't work for us anymore - we should have marched on our own state capitals and caused change there.

Highlander, you are spot on. Re-energize state sovereignty, nullify unconstitutional requirements to the states and neuter the federal government. The fed doesn't exist without the explicit support of the states and their citizens. However, we cannot simply wait for all 50 states to assert this sovereign power. The approach must be two pronged. IMO we may well have to resort to some distasteful actions to remove individuals from our federal government, by military force if it comes to that. There must be an UNMISTAKABLE signal sent throughout this country. The constitutional requirements of our federal government will NOT BE USURPED. THE RULE OF LAW MATTERS.

So, which state will be first?

Any volunteers?

Kathyet

HCR 6 – AS INTRODUCED
2009 SESSION
09-0274
09/01
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 6

A RESOLUTION affirming States’ rights based on Jeffersonian principles.

SPONSORS: Rep. Itse, Rock 9; Rep. Ingbretson, Graf 5; Rep. Comerford, Rock 9; Sen. Denley, Dist 3

COMMITTEE: State-Federal Relations and Veterans Affairs

ANALYSIS

This house concurrent resolution affirms States’ rights based on Jeffersonian principles.

09-0274

09/01

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Nine

A RESOLUTION affirming States’ rights based on Jeffersonian principles.

Whereas the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire, Part 1, Article 7 declares that the people of this State have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent State; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, pertaining thereto, which is not, or may not hereafter be, by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in congress assembled; and

Whereas the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire, Part 2, Article 1 declares that the people inhabiting the territory formerly called the province of New Hampshire, do hereby solemnly and mutually agree with each other, to form themselves into a free, sovereign and independent body-politic, or State, by the name of The State of New Hampshire; and

Whereas the State of New Hampshire when ratifying the Constitution for the United States of America recommended as a change, “First That it be Explicitly declared that all Powers not expressly & particularly Delegated by the aforesaid are reserved to the several States to be, by them Exercised;â€