Thread: Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

Originally Posted by [url=http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media

The Univ. of Chicago Law School[/url]]Statement Regarding Barack Obama

The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer."

From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.

94 year-old WW II battleship master chief (E-niner) tells Obama to shape up or ship out!



This venerable and much honored WW II vet is well known in Hawaii for his seventy-plus years of service to patriotic organizations and causes all over the country. A humble man without a political bone in his body, he has never spoken out before about a government official, until now. He dictated this letter to a friend, signed it and mailed it to the president.

[quote="Harold Estes"][size=117]Dear President Obama,

My name is Harold Estes, approaching 95 on December 13 of this year. People meeting me for the first time don’t believe my age, because I remain wrinkle free and pretty much mentally alert.

I enlisted in the U.S. Navy in 1934 and served proudly before, during and after WW II, retiring as a Master Chief Bos’n Mate. Now I live in a “rest homeâ€

[quote="MinutemanCDC_SC"]94 year-old WW II battleship master chief (E-niner) tells Obama to shape up or ship out!



This venerable and much honored WW II vet is well known in Hawaii for his seventy-plus years of service to patriotic organizations and causes all over the country. A humble man without a political bone in his body, he has never spoken out before about a government official, until now. He dictated this letter to a friend, signed it and mailed it to the president.

[quote="Harold Estes"][size=117]Dear President Obama,

My name is Harold Estes, approaching 95 on December 13 of this year. People meeting me for the first time don’t believe my age, because I remain wrinkle free and pretty much mentally alert.

I enlisted in the U.S. Navy in 1934 and served proudly before, during and after WW II, retiring as a Master Chief Bos’n Mate. Now I live in a “rest homeâ€

Devvy Kidd says, "IMPEACH OBAMA! STOP WASTING YOUR TIME."

An impeachment conviction would require a two-thirds majority in the Senate, so that is futile.

However, if just a motion for discovery would end the usurpation, then a conviction would be unnecessary.

Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC

Devvy Kidd says, "IMPEACH OBAMA! STOP WASTING YOUR TIME."

An impeachment conviction would require a two-thirds majority in the Senate, so that is futile.

However, if just a motion for discovery would end the usurpation, then a conviction would be unnecessary.

I suspect that Obama will be forced to resign soon. Why? There are those in the government who enabled this crime that will throw anyone under the bus to save their own skin. Pelosi should be one of the first investigated.

Originally Posted by TexasBorn

Pelosi should be one of the first investigated.

DNC Chairwoman Nancy Pelosi and DNC Secretary Alice Travis Germond must face charges of treason for knowingly facilitating the surrender of the government to a Constitutionally ineligible presidential candidate, a domestic enemy of the United States and a foreign-born operative of Communism and Is|am, with loyalties and obligations to one or more of the following: Marxism, the CP-USA, the USSR, Dar al Is|am, Pakistan, Kenya, Great Britain, Indonesia, and the anti-American state government of Hawaii.

Originally Posted by Norton R. Nowlin

Federal Judge David O. Carter and the Dismissal of Keyes v. Obama

A dark ominous cloud of judicial impropriety looms over the U.S. federal court system. The darkest of this precipitous cloud formation is that which hangs over the Central District of California, in the wake of U.S. District Judge David O. Carter's provocative decision to dismiss the case of Keyes v. Obama, which a firm majority of the informed and concerned American electorate considered vital to a determination of whether Barack H. Obama, alias Barry Soetoro, is constitutionally eligible to continue as President of the United States.

I wonder what actually went on in the mind of the 64 year old federal judge, appointed by Bill Clinton in 1998, after he had firmly stated, in early November of this year, that pursuing the case was vitally important to a constitutional determination of Obama's basic eligibility as a natural born citizen of the United States, that is, whether he was actually born in the State of Hawaii or in Mombasa, Kenya, Africa. As a former U.S. Marine Corps combat officer in Vietnam, Carter has a history of being a stand-up jurist, and his statement, that "soldiers, marines, airmen, and sailors sent into harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan need to be assured that the President ordering them into combat is eligible to hold that office and issue those orders," conveyed a poignant need to adjudicate the issues of Keyes v. Obama in a speedy and judicially responsible manner.

Then came the U.S. Department of Justice intervening improperly, in a totally non-governmental capacity, for Obama, using U.S. tax dollars to petition Judge Carter to dismiss the lawsuit, in the same fashion that eight of Carter's judicial colleagues had done since shortly after Obama's nomination in 2008, just after the first federal lawsuit was filed against the man. I wonder what Judge Carter was thinking as he was being intimidated by U.S. DOJ attorneys, who challenged the judge's authority and jurisdiction to decide whether Obama was culpable of duplicity and fraud, and whether the dubious President should step down as the U.S. chief executive if found culpable. This was, of course, only after Carter had ruled that a trial on the merits of the case would commence in January 2010; but even then, Carter had refused to dismiss the lawsuit, and many Americans believed that he would proceed with the trial. Yet, Carter declared a dismissal, and after extensive research into the subsequent course of events, I have found it reasonable to suspect that Judge Carter was very probably the unfortunate recipient of some threatening, well-worded telephone calls, and e-mails from deceitful politicians who desperately wanted to see the case dismissed. What is that you say, that this is pure speculation?

[Reprinting the next paragraph does not endorse accusations of Bush administration complicity in 9/11.]

Well, let's get down to basic reality, sad history repeats itself frequently; for such politically contrived corruption has been quite common in the course of 20th Century American government; and bad things have frequently happened to good people, by artifice, who have attempted at their own risk to ensure that justice prevailed. Just within the past five years, Stanley R. Hilton, a preeminent scholar and noted attorney in San Francisco, represented over a hundred 9/11 victims' families in a lawsuit he filed against George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and others of the Bush administration, for complicity and direct involvement in the 9/11 bombings of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Shortly after the lawsuit was filed, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston, of San Francisco, ordered Hilton to drop the lawsuit, which he refused to do. Subsequently, thereafter, began a number of stealthy burglaries into Hilton's San Francisco law offices resulting in the theft and destruction of vital material evidence linking Bush, Cheney, and others to the 9/11 attacks. Finally, when Illston couldn't get Hilton to drop the lawsuit, she curtly dismissed the case on grounds of "sovereign immunity," essentially declaring that a President can do anything during his time in office, even commit mass murder, and do it with civil and criminal impunity.

More distantly, the lengths that corrupt politicians will go to ensure that their wily stratagems are implemented have been well documented. When a U.S. Navy commander with a heavy conscience came forward, in February [of] 1968, to testify before a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was not what it was originally reported by the Pentagon, in order to warrant the massive escalation of ground troops in Vietnam in 1965, Senator J. William Fulbright discovered that the honest naval officer was "picked up by heavy-handed CIA intelligence operatives under White House order and committed involuntarily to a psychiatric ward for several weeks."

Perhaps Judge David O. Carter, with his brilliant Rhodes Scholar-level mind, seriously considered Susan Illston's horrendous precedental ruling, and, perhaps, the perceived intimidations from the DOJ and regarded them as potentially ominous.

As a matter of historical record, there were, also, quite a few German judges, mentioned in my earlier Ezine essay, who, during the years leading up to the disastrous dictatorship of Adolf Hitler, either stepped down from their judicial positions or abandoned their judicial ethics and joined the Nazi Party, when they were told by the SS and the Gestapo that the formerly adored Weimar Constitution was no longer law, and that Nazi law reigned supreme. Actually, there were more than a few of the German judges who chose to side with the Nazis, at the threat of death.

Yet, there is another salient matter to consider in this quasi-legal fray. All American trial judges, federal and state, worry about their rulings being eventually overturned, on a basis of law, by appellate courts. When mistakes based entirely upon law are, supposedly, made by trial judges, the appellate courts are there to rightfully remand the cases back to the trial court for a correction of the errors. Nonetheless, Judge Carter probably realized the contrived political machinations surrounding Keyes v. Obama, and that a ruling by him ordering Barack Obama to produce his original Hawaiian birth certificate, and the other undisclosed records sought by the plaintiff's attorney, even if correct, would be automatically reversed on a totally political basis by a federal appeals court. [If discovery alone would have forced Mr. Obama to resign, a conviction would have been immaterial, and reversal on appeal would not have mattered.] Though the facts and merits of the plaintiff's case might have clearly shown that Barack H. Obama fraudulently acted in a deliberate fashion to conceal the truth about his birth, by spending approximately 1.5 million dollars [over $2 million] in legal expenses to keep from producing a 12 dollar [$10] certified copy of his original long-form birth certificate, the case would never have been allowed to proceed to trial. [Lt. Col. Lakin disagrees with any such surrender.]

Whatever the actual cause for the unfortunate dismissal, whether Judge David O. Carter was concerned about the perceived threats, or merely realized the absolute futility of proceeding to trial on the merits of the case, another example of a President (this time dubiously elected) being above the law has emerged. When I think of the great John Adams, lawyer, patriot, and the second American President, saying before the Massachusetts Assembly that the United States is a nation of laws, and not of men, I am utterly indignant at the appalling Machiavellian politicization of basic justice now prevalent in the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches of the federal government. It would seem that the American republic is no longer, in form and substance, what it was a decade-or-more before the turn of the 20th Century; and that this nation, which was once a great constitutional republic, might sadly be at a point of no return from a mutated form of government destructive to the ends espoused in the Constitution of the United States.

Norton R. Nowlin took M.A. and B.A. degrees in the social and behavioral sciences from the University of Texas at Tyler, studied law for one full year at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, in San Diego, California, and earned an ABA-approved advanced paralegal certification from Edmonds Community College, in Lynnwood, Washington. Mr. Nowlin has attended LaJolla, California's National University and Malibu's Pepperdine University to attain graduate credits in business management and economics. Mr. Nowlin also attained a Texas State Teaching Certification, in social studies and psychology, from the University of Texas at Tyler. A paralegal, published essayist, poet, and free-lance fiction writer, Mr. Nowlin resides in Northern Virginia with his wife, the renown math tutor, Diane C. Nowlin, and their two very intelligent cats.

"[Citizenship by inheritance] is confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens."

This principle governed until Amendment XIV was ratified in 1868, which expanded citizenship by inheritance, that is,
citizenship without naturalization, to include those born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

A Dissertation on the Manner of Acquiring the Character
and Privileges of a Citizen of the United States

by David Ramsay of South Carolina (1789)
Acting President of the Unted States in Congress Assembled, 1785-1786

Page 6

4th. None can claim citizenship as a birth-right, but such
as have been born since the declaration of independence,
for this obvious reason: no man can be born a citizen of a
state or government, which did not exist at the time of his birth.
Citizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who
have taken a part in the late revolution; but this is confined
exclusively to the children of those who were themselves
citizens. Those who died before the revolution, could
leave no political character to their children, but that of
subjects, which they themselves possessed. If they had lived,
no one could be certain whether they would have adhered
to the king or to congress. Their children, therefore, may
claim by inheritance the rights of British subjects, but not
of American citizens.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/29342214/Rams ... tizen-1789

Originally Posted by [url=http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=15114#comments

Atty. Dr. Orly Taitz[/url]]Supreme Court docketed my Petition for a writ of Certiorari. Response from the Dept. of Justice, Obama and Pentagon is due November 24. (Thomas MacDonald is the commander in Fort Benning).

No. 10-541
Title:
Orly Taitz, Petitioner
v.
Thomas D. MacDonald, et al.
Docketed:
October 25, 2010
Lower Ct:
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Case Nos.:
(09-1541
Decision Date: March 15, 2010
Rehearing
Denied:
May 14, 2010
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Aug 12 2010 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 24, 2010)
~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Petitioner:
Orly Taitz
29839 Santa Margarita Pkwy
(949) 683-5411
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
Party name: Orly Taitz

This is probably related to the railroading of Maj. Stefan Cook on July 16, 2009.

[quote=MinutemanCDC_SC]

Originally Posted by "Norton R. Nowlin":20zs692i

Whatever the actual cause for the unfortunate dismissal, whether Judge David O. Carter was concerned about the perceived threats, or merely realized the absolute futility of proceeding to trial on the merits of the case, another example of a President (this time dubiously elected) being above the law has emerged. When I think of the great John Adams, lawyer, patriot, and the second American President, saying before the Massachusetts Assembly that the United States is a nation of laws, and not of men, I am utterly indignant at the appalling Machiavellian politicization of basic justice now prevalent in the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches of the federal government. It would seem that the American republic is no longer, in form and substance, what it was a decade-or-more before the turn of the 20th Century; and that this nation, which was once a great constitutional republic, might sadly be at a point of no return from a mutated form of government destructive to the ends espoused in the Constitution of the United States.

[/quote:20zs692i]

I am of the opinion that the people no longer have any power in Washington, and that the sovereign states must rein in the errant central government. The federal government was created by the states with the Constitution for the United States, and they must 1) nullify the illegal and unconstitutional actions being performed on the federal level, 2) disband the federal government, or 3) secede from the union.

What's there (in Washington) is no longer working for the people, but rather, is working to enslave the people.

The basic problem is that half of the state governments are as corrupt as Washington, and even the states will not stop the madness unless their citizens force them into compliance.

Let's see what happens during the election this next week. Obama will be leaving town for India (Russia's old ally, and our new friend) where he has rented all 570 rooms in the Taj Mahal Hotel.

Maybe we can get him to stay out of the country and merely send back the football and Air Force 1-10 that he's taking with him on this boondoggle. He can keep everyone he takes with him on this trip.
.