Thread: Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

Originally Posted by Atty. Orly Taitz

Great news, we can pinpoint the date when SS-5 was filled out out for Obama's CT SSN 042-[nn-nnnn] (one number after Thomas Wood's below). Date is March-April 1977, when Obama was in HI, nowhere near CT.

www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=19708

For WorldNetDaily.com,
Brian Fitzpatrick
Posted: January 10, 2011, 8:54 pm Eastern



The American Patriot Foundation has received dozens of threatening phone message, e-mails and letters during "birther" Army officer Terrence Lakin's legal proceedings the past few months, including two letters that view the words "GOP" and "Birthers" through a sniper scope.

An APF official claims the threats are inspired by media attacks on people who question President Barack Obama's eligibility to serve in the White House, even as many media figures are attempting to blame the Tucson massacre on harsh rhetoric from Republicans and conservatives.

"I've been called a subversive and an enemy of the state, not to mention moron, insufferable little ——— and a lot of other similar nasty comments," APF's Margaret Hemenway told WND. "I write a lot of them back to tell them that e-mail rage, like road rage, is neither healthy nor adult behavior and remind them it is the fundamental obligation of citizenship to support the U.S. Constitution."

Lakin is the officer who refused to obey orders to compel the Army to put him on trial, in an effort to force President Obama to prove he is constitutionally eligible to serve as commander in chief of the U.S. military. APF was established to support Lakin's legal defense during his Army court martial.

Hemenway sent the following letter, postmarked in Columbus, Ohio, to the U.S. Post Office authorities to be investigated because it contained a direct threat:

“This is to inform you that LTC Larkin (sic) is a ——— COWARD who should be put in front of a firing squad and shot. If I see his —— on the streets of Washington I will save the government the expense of a trial, I’ll dip a bullet in —— and shoot him in the head. This ———— deserves to die on the streets of America.â€

www.wnd.com/2011/01/249673/

I think the name of this thread needs to be changed to "Obama is not constitutionally eligible for POTUS". The facts are there for anyone who takes the time to see them.

Donald Trump's appearance on The View 3/23/11 stating his views on Obama's birth certificate. I wish he would have included all the other records we haven't seen, too.

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

At least somebody has some cahones to tell the truth!


Trump Refuses to Back Down Over Obama's 'Very Strange' Birth


Donald Trump is not backing down from his demand that President Barack Obama produce his birth certificate and stepped up his criticism by questioning why he has not released other personal records, including college transcripts and legislative papers.

The billionaire real estate tycoon and star of “The Apprenticeâ€

While Trump may have the cahones to ask about the "birth certificate" I wonder why so many, including Trump neglect the "natural born citizen" clause?

While the "birth certificate" issue should be pursued as well, as Americans deserve to see the paper trail; the past history and eligibilty (or lack thereof) of their POTUS, the "natural born citizen" clause seems to be neglected by most of the media and many others that even venture anywhere near this whole controversy.

Am I wrong to think that the issue of "natural born citizen" is a slam dunk, and is being placed out of sight, out of mind, in order to create an arguement for a "birth certificate" controversy, a controversy that affords more wiggle room for legal scholars, pundits, and henchmen to twist and distort in a legalise fashion?

Money and legal tactics may be able to hide the "birth certificate" issue, buy time, create trails of opposition based upon ignorance of law and whatever other tactics that legal minds are capable of performing, but how does one defend the eligibilty issue concerning something as simple as "natural born citizen?"

Perhaps Trump will step up a bit, and ask Wonderboy, whosyerdaddy?

One way or another, eventually both of these issues will have to be looked at in the light of day. I wonder how long it will take?

Originally Posted by roundabout

While Trump may have the cahones to ask about the "birth certificate" I wonder why so many, including Trump neglect the "natural born citizen" clause?

While the "birth certificate" issue should be pursued as well, as Americans deserve to see the paper trail; the past history and eligibilty (or lack thereof) of their POTUS, the "natural born citizen" clause seems to be neglected by most of the media and many others that even venture anywhere near this whole controversy.

Am I wrong to think that the issue of "natural born citizen" is a slam dunk, and is being placed out of sight, out of mind, in order to create an arguement for a "birth certificate" controversy, a controversy that affords more wiggle room for legal scholars, pundits, and henchmen to twist and distort in a legalise fashion?

Money and legal tactics may be able to hide the "birth certificate" issue, buy time, create trails of opposition based upon ignorance of law and whatever other tactics that legal minds are capable of performing, but how does one defend the eligibilty issue concerning something as simple as "natural born citizen?"

Perhaps Trump will step up a bit, and ask Wonderboy, whosyerdaddy?

One way or another, eventually both of these issues will have to be looked at in the light of day. I wonder how long it will take?

Roundabout, Trump is basically asking to verify the eligibility of the POTUS via the path of the COLB. Of course, the absence of a legitimate COLB should be a slamdunk, ie; Obama isn't a NBC. I've come to the conclusion that the reason that even very conservative members of the congress won't pursue this is that they are also culpable, in some form or fashion, for allowing Obama to go unvetted, slip through the eligibility cracks and become POTUS. Anyway you slice it, Obama's ascendency to POTUS is a major FUBAR NOBODY in the government wants to go near. As far as the media is concerned...well, the media are a bunch of clueless and spineless buffoons being led by the nose. There is no more independent journalism as you well know. How sad.

Originally Posted by TexasBorn

Roundabout, Trump is basically asking to verify the eligibility of the POTUS via the path of the COLB. Of course, the absence of a legitimate COLB should be a slamdunk, ie; Obama isn't a NBC. I've come to the conclusion that the reason that even very conservative members of the congress won't pursue this is that they are also culpable, in some form or fashion, for allowing Obama to go unvetted, slip through the eligibility cracks and become POTUS. Anyway you slice it, Obama's ascendency to POTUS is a major FUBAR NOBODY in the government wants to go near. As far as the media is concerned...well, the media are a bunch of clueless and spineless buffoons being led by the nose. There is no more independent journalism as you well know. How sad.

I think your right and its a bit more then that.

First off some major Republican and Rino names could get caught in the blast. Having Obama found ineligible would basically destroy the Democrat Party as it is now and allow charges of treason against many Democrat leaders across the country. However would also go after some Republicans.

Second is it would set back the Minority movement 100 years because the first minority President we had was ineligible and basically stole the POTUS. Just another reason to see the minorities as a criminal element we need to do away with in some eyes.

Third and more importantly Republicans attacking and even dethroning Obama on an ineligibility issue would be seen by many minorities as the "white man" holding back the "black man". It would be seen as a massive racial attack even with rock solid proof. Keep in mind the education level of many of the minority black and hispanics who would buy into the racial crap. This could severely hurt the Republican Parties attempts to reach out to minority Americans as they have been trying to say that the Republican Party is NOT the white mans party as they have been lead to believe.

Forth is the risk if the Supreme Court decided to say that Obama was eligible. That opens the door wide open for children of illegal aliens running for presidency, Americans who were born and raised overseas with foreign ideals but were born to one American parent, and so forth. It could even be twisted quite easily then to say a NBC is an old term and now its only a Citizen opening the door eventually to Naturalized Citizens. Basically that could be done as all meaning to NBC would be removed meaning it would be ignored by a potential specific liberal SC ruling.

Republicans instead chose the safer approach was simply defeating him in 2012 which the majority think will be a hands down defeat. But more and more are breaking off as his treasonous crimes add up. But NONE want their name seen as for impeachment unless they are sure to have enough support to least pass the house and even likely the Senate.

Originally Posted by ReformUSA2012

Originally Posted by TexasBorn

Roundabout, Trump is basically asking to verify the eligibility of the POTUS via the path of the COLB. Of course, the absence of a legitimate COLB should be a slamdunk, ie; Obama isn't a NBC. I've come to the conclusion that the reason that even very conservative members of the congress won't pursue this is that they are also culpable, in some form or fashion, for allowing Obama to go unvetted, slip through the eligibility cracks and become POTUS. Anyway you slice it, Obama's ascendency to POTUS is a major FUBAR NOBODY in the government wants to go near. As far as the media is concerned...well, the media are a bunch of clueless and spineless buffoons being led by the nose. There is no more independent journalism as you well know. How sad.

I think your right and its a bit more then that.

First off some major Republican and Rino names could get caught in the blast. Having Obama found ineligible would basically destroy the Democrat Party as it is now and allow charges of treason against many Democrat leaders across the country. However would also go after some Republicans.

Second is it would set back the Minority movement 100 years because the first minority President we had was ineligible and basically stole the POTUS. Just another reason to see the minorities as a criminal element we need to do away with in some eyes.

Third and more importantly Republicans attacking and even dethroning Obama on an ineligibility issue would be seen by many minorities as the "white man" holding back the "black man". It would be seen as a massive racial attack even with rock solid proof. Keep in mind the education level of many of the minority black and hispanics who would buy into the racial crap. This could severely hurt the Republican Parties attempts to reach out to minority Americans as they have been trying to say that the Republican Party is NOT the white mans party as they have been lead to believe.

Forth is the risk if the Supreme Court decided to say that Obama was eligible. That opens the door wide open for children of illegal aliens running for presidency, Americans who were born and raised overseas with foreign ideals but were born to one American parent, and so forth. It could even be twisted quite easily then to say a NBC is an old term and now its only a Citizen opening the door eventually to Naturalized Citizens. Basically that could be done as all meaning to NBC would be removed meaning it would be ignored by a potential specific liberal SC ruling.

Republicans instead chose the safer approach was simply defeating him in 2012 which the majority think will be a hands down defeat. But more and more are breaking off as his treasonous crimes add up. But NONE want their name seen as for impeachment unless they are sure to have enough support to least pass the house and even likely the Senate.

Excellent analysis by you both.
.

WAS THE CASE OF WONG KIM ARK DECIDED IN ERROR?

by Jim Delaney, blogging at Opinerlog
http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/03/26/ ... ompetence/

(Mar. 26, 2011) — Mindful of the litany of revisionist case law since the Constitution’s ratification, it is clear that stare decisis is a judicial principle fraught with constitutional perils. Why? One corrupted court ruling inevitably leads to another, compounding the corruption of original intent merely for the shortsighted and self-serving purpose of sanctifying precedent—a surefire judicial recipe for eventually ruling the Constitution out of existence. In this regard, Thomas Jefferson was right when he viewed with horror the growing menace of a runaway Supreme Court which increasingly valued “judicial supremacyâ€