Thread: Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

Originally Posted by TexasBorn

Nobody more than me believes that just being removed or fired is much to easy a punishment. I had much harsher measures in mind but I'll just leave it at that to avoid further scrutiny.

I agree with your avoiding the "T" word. Perhaps you could just refer to John A. Stormer's best-selling book, published in 1964 and updated in 1990. Most Americans think that the collapse of the U.S.S.R. in 1991 and the end of the cold war, at least overtly, marked the end of communism as a global threat.

Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan

Hey, Law abiding folks, we are now terrorists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbGyhPubb3M

How's that make you feel about the government you have created to help and support you?

from the documentary, "One Nation Under Siege"
Dr. Rima Laibow, MD
psychiatrist, Albert Einstein Medical College graduate

As a psychiatrist, I remember very well the condemnation by the American Psychiatric association of Soviet psychiatrists and the Soviet Union for their use of psychiatric techniques and psychiatric medications to control political dissidents. Sadly, shockingly, we in the United States have become those same oppressors.

We now have a policy, as exemplified by the FBI brochure from the Phoenix Office on Counterterrorism, which says,
"People who are defenders of the U.S. Constitution against federal government and the UN, and make numerous references to the U.S. Constiitution, should be monitored as potentially murderous and fanatical terrorists, by extension, should be considered, 'mentally unstable.'"

Under the New Freedom Commission, "mentally unstable" people must be medicated on a compulsory basis with lethal and untested, but very profitable, psychiatric medications.

I'd like corroborating testimony and more information before giving credence to this video clip.

The FBI or the federal government has stated that this Phoenix FBI document was not policy. They did not call it a hoax, but they said it is not in effect.

So we are not on the FBI watch list, or AFAIK any other government agency watch list...

except personal watch lists belonging to Mr. Obama, AG Eric Holder, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, U.S. District Judges Clay D. Land and Jerome B. Simandle, U.S. Supreme Court Assoc. Justice Elena Kagan, Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle, Dr. Chiyome Fukino and Janice Okubo of the Hawaii DoH, etc., etc..

I'm having trouble viewing Scribd, so here is a copy of the J.B. Williams article.
[quote="[url=http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/22221]J.B. Williams[/url]"] http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/22221

The certification of constitutional qualification for the office of president
DC Knows that Obama is Ineligible for Office
By JB Williams Saturday, April 24, 2010


[size=117]Members from all three branches of the Federal government already know that Barack Hussein Obama is ineligible for the office of President. National leaders, to include members of the US Supreme Court, already know that Barack Hussein Obama is not a “natural born citizenâ€

Was in a local grocery store today and sat down to read an article in Globe that really blows the case wide open on Obama's eligibility...in their words. Not a fan of rags like the Globe but was was pleased to see it front and center at the checkout counter. Hopefully in this case more exposure is good exposure.

Originally Posted by TexasBorn

Was in a local grocery store today and sat down to read an article in Globe that really blows the case wide open on Obama's eligibility...in their words. Not of fan of rags like the Globe but was was please to see it front and center at the checkout counter. Hopefully in this case more exposure is good exposure.

Wow, this is like the third time Globe Magazine has raised the eligibility issue!

http://www.globemagazine.com/



In a bombshell world exclusive, GLOBE reveals that President Barack Obama has a phony Social Security number and is embroiled in an elaborate scheme to conceal that he is NOT a natural born U.S. citizen! Sources say the shocking new evidence will prove for once and for all that Obama's presidency is illegal. It's must reading for every American!

The third Globe issue in a row, Florgal, and the Globe published at least one more front-page article about "Obama Presidency illegal" several months ago.
__________________________________________________ ___

Clarifying the meaning of sedition and treason...

Originally Posted by [url=http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/118078

At Daniel.Pipes.org, onesimus[/url]]Jan 13, 2008 at 11:46

Sedition is incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority. Communists pledged allegiance to the head of the Soviet communist party. That was one thing if you lived in the Soviet Union. But if you lived in any other country it was sedition.

• [The same example holds true for Is|am. A Mus|im's first loyalty is to Is|am, above any people, power, potentate, or patriot's dream.
  
  I pray that Attorney General Eric Holder and the Dept. of Justice never designate "loyalty to the U.S. Constitution over and above the President of the U.S." as rebellion or insurrection against lawful authority. Not that Mr. Obama has any "lawful authority" whatsoever... - M]

Well, not exactly. As they say, it takes two. Perhaps one communist sitting in his house thinking communist thoughts does not satisfy the definition for sedition. But what happens when he attends a party meeting (above ground) or a secret meeting (underground)? He is guilty of sedition. He is inciting others. (We do not incite ourselves, we incite others.)

Communists in America pledged to work to overthrow the American government. Their ostensible reason was "it was capitalist." But pledging to work to overthrow the government is sedition, and the actual "work meetings" of these communists satisfied the definition for treason in that treason is sedition in action. It is immaterial whether said action is violent or non-violent. Of course the non-violent would presage the violent.

I am not speaking of communist "sympathizers." Many liberals were communist "sympathizers" (aka "fellow travelers") and not communists themselves. Though it is contemptible, it is neither treasonous nor seditious to be a communist "sympathizer."

Of course the first order of business for Americans and American politicians was to decide whether or not it mattered that communists might live in America. We couldn't decide. Nationally we were "conflicted." It wasn't so much deciding whether someone was a communist or not, it was deciding whether we wanted to decide. The communists and those charged with communist allegiance were quick to cry their First Amendment rights had been violated. This resonated with many liberals.

What this country could not do was agree on definitions for sedition and treason. Conservative judges and politicians called sedition and treason, sedition and treason. Liberal judges and politicians did not. Liberal thinking and jurisprudence on the subject ran along the lines of "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me." One judge distinguished between communists advocating revolution and "teaching it as theory." Not in a classroom, but in a party meeting. I guess liberals think words are meaningless or at least have no consequences. Except when they speak.

The communists had (and may still have for all I know) a two-pronged strategy for undermining and over- throwing governments. There was the visible communist party to put the best face on communism. And there was the underground operation. At the very least this underground operation qualifies as a conspiracy. Some of these underground operatives worked in American government. As Yogi Berra said, you can look it up.

Liberals look back on American history of the forties and fifties and sneer it was much ado about nothing. But the main reason we aren't red today is there weren't enough disenchanted workers to foment revolution. In other countries the commies were famously successful. It does not look like a victory for the people to me.

I find it interesting that ernie posted an FBI evaluation of the John Birch Society [from 1964?] as if it seals the deal on communism in America. J. Edgar Hoover was virulently anti-communist. The FBI made a substantial investigation of communism in America and American government at the behest of, not a Republican president, but FDR. This continued at least through the Truman administration. And they indeed found substantial evidence.

It was treason alright.

Originally Posted by [url=http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/120922

At Daniel.Pipes.org, Truth.Teller[/url]]Feb 23, 2008 at 22:32

Treason is defined by the Constitution:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court."

This is a very strict definition. It does not apply to ordinary political differences, though the charge of "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" is frequently raised. It further requires an overt act and two witnesses. Treason is any easy charge to make, but a difficult one to prove.

Few people have ever been convicted of treason. Aaron Burr was acquitted in 1807, despite the strong efforts of Thomas Jefferson, owing to the lack of two witnesses. No supporter of the Confederate States of America was convicted of treason after the war. Spies such as Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were charged with espionage rather than treason. John Walker Lindh, the "American Taliban," was convicted of conspiracy to commit murder, but not treason. The last person convicted of treason in the U.S. was Tomoya Kawakita, an American-born man who had moved to Japan and aided the Japanese war effort. He was convicted in 1952.

As for accusing someone of treason because of his position on inflation, I would call that un-American. Americans tolerate a diversity of political views, which is what distinguishes a democratic society from a tyranny, such as Communism.

BORN IN THE USA?
CNN retracts blast against officer challenging Obama
Says 'bigots,' 'racists,' 'freaks' intended to criticize 'birthers' generally
Posted: August 16, 2010
9:07 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily



CNN, which became one of the first mainstream networks to put the absence of publicly available documentation for Barack Obama's presidential eligibility in prime time, has issued a retraction for publicly calling an officer challenging Obama's eligibility "racist."

The original accusation and the retraction both came from one of the "experts" CNN offered on the case of Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, who faces a court-martial in a few weeks for refusing to deploy because the president refused to document his eligibility to be commander-in-chief.

An initial combative interview with Lakin was done by CNN's Anderson Cooper, who portrayed Lakin negatively. It was a followup shortly later by CNN's Jeffrey Toobin in which the problems arose.

Cooper mentioned Lakin had served "honorably" in his 18-year career.

Toobin then launched a rant.

"You know, these people are bigots, they're racists, they're freaks, they're lunatics, these are not rational players in American politics," he said on air.

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

According to the American Patriot Foundation, which is supporting Lakin, the officer's civilian attorney, Paul Rolf Jensen, contacted CNN President Jonathan Klein as well as Toobin.

"Mr. Toobin's statement is patently false," Jensen's letter said. "LTC Lakin is neither irrational, a racist, a bigot, a freak, or a lunatic. Nor is there any rational basis to conclude he is any of these things, which of course was Mr. Cooper's point. Mr. Toobin, unlike Mr. Cooper, made this statement without ever speaking with LTC Lakin (or likely anyone that knows him.) Mr. Toobin's statement was understood to pertain to LTC Lakin and appears to have been made with actual malice, and particularly in the context given, which is Mr. Toobin contradicting Mr. Cooper saying LTC Lakin's professional service was honorable, attacks my client's professional character and standing."

The attorney continued, "For these reasons, Mr. Toobin's statement constitutes per se defamation, and is unconscionable, and LTC Lakin demands it be immediately retracted, on air during the 'Anderson Cooper 360' program. Your failuire to make such a retraction will leave us no choice but to sue for defamation."

The American Patriot Foundation said CNN "completely caved in to Jensen's demand and soon thereafter, CNN required Toobin to broadcast a complete retraction on the same show."

A legal-defense fund has been set up for Lt. Col. Terry Lakin.

Toobin then, on a subsequent program, said, "A couple of weeks ago, we did a story about Lieutenant Colonel Terrence Lakin. He is the officer who has tried to get out of military service because he believes that President Obama was not born in the United States. He's one of the so-called birthers. In the course of that report, I made the statement that a lot of the birthers are bigots and racists and there was a picture of Lakin behind me. I didn't mean to suggest that he was a bigot and a racist. I was just talking more generally. And I also should correct myself. He wasn't trying to get out of military service. He is the subject of a court martial, that's why we were doing the story. But I didn't mean to imply that about him."

The foundation reported that while Cooper's original interview with Lakin was "needlessly rude, hostile and domineering," it did end up being "one of CNN's most watched programs of the year."

The foundation said Lakin "put his very freedom on the line by inviting his own court martial in order to expose the corruption in our political system which has allowed our Constitution to be ignored, debased and disrespected."

Lakin, who has almost 18 years of unblemished service to the Army, including six tours of Bosnia, Afghanistan and other overseas locations, has earned the Bronze Star.

The foundation says the Army's opinion of Lakin was made clear in an evaluation just before Lakin raised the issue of eligibility.

From Col. Dale Block, "Dr. Lakin is an extremely talented, highly knowledgeable senior Army clinician ... he can always be counted on to provide me with expert advice. ... LTC Lakin is clearly one of the top clinicians in the Northern Regional Medical Command. He has superb clinical skills, rapport with patients and staff. ... Terry is the best choice for tough assignments. ... Already on the promotion list to colonel, he should be groomed for positions of greater responsibility."

But Lakin, the foundation says, has been compelled to act because Obama swore an oath to support and defend the U.S. Constitution. Obama's eligibility to be president has been questioned, he argues, and he has refused all efforts to obtain documents that could determine his eligibility.

The controversy stems from the Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, which 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."

A number of challenges and lawsuits have been based on the constitutional requirement, some alleging Obama does not qualify because he was not born in Hawaii in 1961 as he claims. Others say he fails to qualify because he was a dual citizen of the U.S. and the United Kingdom when he was born, and the framers of the Constitution specifically excluded dual citizens from eligibility.

Complicating the issue is the fact that besides Obama's actual birth documentation, he has concealed documentation including 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, Illinois State Bar Association records, baptism records and his adoption records.

Lakin declined to follow deployment orders after he tried through military channels to affirm the validity of orders under Obama's command and was rebuffed. He had been scheduled to deploy to Afghanistan again.

Lakin is not the first officer to raise questions. Others have included Army doctor Capt. Connie Rhodes and Army reservist Maj. Stefan Cook.

In at least one of the earlier disputes, the Army simply canceled the orders rather than allow the argument to come to a head.

Lakin's attorneys have said they now are demanding "discovery" of Obama's records, and that in such a dispute that information is critical. The multitude of civil cases that have been brought over the Obama eligibility dispute all have failed to reach that process because of federal judges who have ruled on issues generally involving "standing." The judges have concluded that damages from an ineligible president suffered by the plaintiffs would not be more for them than any other member of the public, so there is not a specific damage or danger.

Jensen has explained that the Lakin case is different, since his client is being processed on criminal charges over the issue – a status that puts him in imminent danger of specific and personal "damages."

The courts already have shown a weakness on the subject of Obama's records. The discovery-of-evidence issue previously was raised in court by attorney John Hemenway, who was threatened by a federal judge with sanctions for bringing a court challenge to Obama's presidency.

Hemenway is serving in emeritus status with the SafeguardOurConstitution website, which is generating support for Lakin. Hemenway brought a previous court challenge, now on appeal, on behalf of a retired military officer, Gregory S. Hollister, who questioned Obama's eligibility.

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 sanctions 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 sanctions.

In a separate case, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals threatened sanctions against attorney Mario Apuzzo. The court quickly backed off, however, when Apuzzo noted that under the rules of court procedure, being subjected to sanctions and penalties would give him the right to discovery in the case, possibly including Obama's birth certificate.

The Constitution requires a president to be a "natural born citizen," and, while the term is not defined in the Constitution, many legal analysts believe at the time it was written it meant a person born in the U.S. of two U.S. citizen parents. Critics say Obama clearly does not qualify under that definition, since he has admitted in his book his father never was a U.S. citizen. Some legal challenges have argued he wasn't even born in Hawaii.

Tim Adams, a former senior elections clerk for Honolulu, has said there "definitely" are problems with Obama's Hawaii birth story.

"As of the time I was in Hawaii working in the elections office we had many people who were asking about the eligibility of Senator Obama to be president. I was told at the time there is no long-form birth record, which would have been the case if President Obama was born in [a] hospital in Honolulu. There is no such form in Hawaii," he said.

Lakin had posted a YouTube video challenging the Army to charge him over the issue.

As WND reported, Lakin posted the video of his challenge to Obama to document his eligibility March 30.

In his latest video, Lakin said the issue of evidence is important:

Note: A legal-defense fund has been set up for Lt. Col. Terry Lakin.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=192169

I was so impressed with CNN's retraction..NOT..I don't watch CNN and I still won't watch CNN...


Kathyet

Originally Posted by kathyet

I was so impressed with CNN's retraction..NOT..I don't watch CNN and I still won't watch CNN...


Kathyet

That makes two of us!

This is from the post and mail...


Does this befit a commanding officer of the U.S. military?
Print This Post
BAD BEHAVIOR ON ANY LEVEL DESERVES DISCIPLINE

August 15, 2010

Dear Editor,





Maj. Gen. Carla Hawley-Bowland was Fox News's "Power Player of the Week" in December 2009. How much of a "power player" is she now?



The following letter was sent to Maj. Gen. Hawley-Bowland, the commanding officer over Lt. Col. Lakin’s “superiorsâ€