Thread: Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

In 2012, will birthers vote for the incumbent "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" Republicans who wimped out on supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States against the foreign and domestic enemy who has been usurping the Presidency for two and a half years already? I wouldn't count on it.

I would count on massive election fraud powered by:

• Executive Orders allocating billions in federal aid for all the little trees that from ACORN grow;
  George Soros and the elites promoting global government, e.g., the UN, the IMF/World Bank, the International Criminal Court and the various international regulatory agencies in The Hague, the World Health Organization, Bilderberg Conferences, Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, etc.);
  the fifth column embedded in the fourth estate, the leftist media concentrated in New York City, Los Angeles, and Washington, D.C.;
  the SEIU, communist-leaning unions, the Democratic Socialists of America, and "Progressive" groups promoting a "Democratic Society";
  the ACLU, People for the American Way (PFAW), the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), Planned Parenthood, and the many groups that seek to overthrow the United States, the American way of life, and the legitimate, Constitutional government apart from the usurpation;
  La Raza, LULAC, MEChA, MALDEF, and other organizations supporting, harboring, and defending illegal aliens;
  the Mus|im Brotherhood, the Council on American-Is|amic Relations (CAIR), the Is|amic Society of North America (ISNA), the Nation of Is|am, the New Black Panthers, Hezbollah, Hamas, Is|amic Jihad, and other agents for the propagation of Is|am and Shari'a law in the Western Hemisphere.

These groups and others like them carried Mr. Obama in 2008, without any Federal campaign funds. What might they and new fellow travelers do in 2012, empowered by funding from Congressional appropriations and Presidential Executive Orders?

In Pres. James Monroe's annual message to Congress in 1823, he warned European powers not to interfere in the affairs of the Western Hemisphere. Where is Pres. Monroe when we need him?

For those of us who are undergoing a kind of "combat fatigue" in our battle to support and defend the Constitution against a foreign and domestic enemy, here is a free 44 MB download that may help.

For those of us who are undergoing a kind of "combat fatigue" in our battle to support and defend the Constitution against a foreign and domestic enemy, here is a free 44 MB download that may help.



Allow me to say again that we are in a war that is much greater than just Mr. Obama. We are in a spiritual battle between good and evil, light and darkness, life and death. Our weapons include prayer and faith drawn from God's word. This battle requires the weapons provided; avail yourself of them.

Originally Posted by Paul the apostle

Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord and in the power of His might. Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
Stand therefore, having girded your waist with truth, having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace; above all, taking the shield of faith with which you will be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked one. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God; praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, being watchful to this end with all perseverance and supplication for all the saints— and for me, that utterance may be given to me, that I may open my mouth boldly to make known the mystery of the gospel, for which I am an ambassador in chains; that in it I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak. - Ephesians 6:10-20

In his review of Jerome Corsi's new book, Where's the [Real] Birth Certificate?, Greg Smith considers the possibility that Anna Dunham Obama either did not have a birth certificate for Barack, Jr., or that the birth certificate she had for Barack, Jr., did not establish or document who his father was.

Originally Posted by [url=http://pr.officialwire.com/main.php?action=posted_news&rid=66596

In Cardiff, Wales, Greg Smith[/url]]In Obama's best-selling autobiography, Dreams from My Father, published in 1995, Corsi points out that Obama wrote that he had a birth certificate "folded" away but that "unlike mum, Ruth [Nidesand, who married Obama Sr. in Kenya on Dec. 24, 1964,] has all the documents needed to prove who Mark's father was." This sentence (page 27 of Corsi's book) refers to his alleged half-brother by Ruth who had a child with the man Obama Jr. purports is his father after he, Obama Sr., had left Jr's mother.

Most birth certificates have the father's name on it. If Sr.'s name is not printed on the one Jr. has "folded" away, then, how could Sr.'s name be on the one Jr. showed the world in April?

Why would Obama Jr. draw the distinction of Ruth having proof for her son, with Obama Sr., when his birth certificate (shown to the world and published on the White House website) has his "father's" name printed on it?

Folks, let me throw an idea out into the vapor for discussion.

I believe that the Gunrunner Scandal is going to take Obama down with it, along with other high ranking Democrats, Holder included. The Democrats, knowing that Obama was ineligible at the time of his nomination may take this opportunity to force him out, thus they hope, avoiding critical scrutiny of their complicity in illegally grooming and greasing the skids for his nomination to potus. Why do I believe this? By all accounts, some very powerful Democrats are fed up with Obama's incompetence on the debt ceiling issue, among many, and appear to be quite "publicly and visibly" upset. Strong signals from Grassley and Issa, ramping up the push to an official inquirey are an indicator that they smell blood and are going in with teeth bared.

Shoot my theory full of holes and tell me where I'm wrong.

Originally Posted by TexasBorn

Folks, let me throw an idea out into the vapor for discussion.

I believe that the Gunrunner Scandal is going to take Obama down with it, along with other high ranking Democrats, Holder included. The Democrats, knowing that Obama was ineligible at the time of his nomination may take this opportunity to force him out, thus they hope, avoiding critical scrutiny of their complicity in illegally grooming and greasing the skids for his nomination to potus. Why do I believe this? By all accounts, some very powerful Democrats are fed up with Obama's incompetence on the debt ceiling issue, among many, and appear to be quite "publicly and visibly" upset. Strong signals from Grassley and Issa, ramping up the push to an official inquirey are an indicator that they smell blood and are going in with teeth bared.

Shoot my theory full of holes and tell me where I'm wrong.

Let us hope this does happen. I can not see Obama as being liked by many in DC after these 2 1/2 years of nothing but "blame everyone else" He is NOT A LEADER......

His term is almost up anyhow. He'll be a lame duck after November 2012, and really before that.

Obama could be removed by his own signature

By: Devvy
July 22, 2011

My recent column, Why Obama Can't be Impeached, http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=321969 brought an avalanche of email with many questions. In particular, someone wanted to know if hypothetically, Barry Soetoro aka Obama, committed treason by selling sensitive military secrets, could he be charged with treason? The putative president is a civilian and can be indicted by a federal grand jury. If enough evidence exists, he could be tried and convicted. But, as someone who has usurped the office of the president, he cannot be impeached for the same crime since he does not legally occupy the office.

He clearly is guilty of violating 18 U.S.C. §1343, the federal wire fraud statute, which typically carries a penalty of at least 20 years. As a civilian, he can be indicted and tried in federal court.

Question about the oath of office ceremony. As Barry clearly has known all along he was never eligible, when he took the oath of office, he committed perjury - twice. We can all remember, there was a second 'swearing in' due to Chief Justice John Robert's tripping over his tongue. But, was there more to it?

At the invitation of Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., the putative president paid a 'protocol' visit to the Supreme Court, January 14, 2009. The visit was private behind closed doors with no media. At that time, Roberts had cases on the docket where Obama was the defendant or was the subject of pending litigation.

On a Wednesday, Roberts meets with the man at the heart of that case in private. Two days later, he sits down to discuss the case with the other justices after having a closed door meeting with the defendant! Also pending at the time was the Lightfoot v Bowen case to be heard in conference, January 23, 2009. Chief Justice Roberts sat in that private meeting to discuss whether the case should go to oral arguments; it did not. Does anyone see major conflict of interest here?

Even if they just chatted up the weather, it is highly inappropriate. Roberts should have notified the "president elect" that under the circumstances, he would not be able to meet with him, period. There must be zero appearance of any bias or preference when it comes to judges and justices of the Supreme Court.

The number one goal in seeing the putative president removed from office is that his "presidency" not be legitimized. Impeaching him would do just that. Any investigation of Barry's crimes would have to go through the U.S. Department of Justice. A conundrum to be sure. If the usurper is removed because he is clearly ineligible, so goes Eric Holder, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayer, every other judicial appointment now confirmed and every bill he has signed into 'law'.

The Outlaw Congress accepted the electoral college vote instead of invoking House rules and initiating an investigation. Not one of the 535 members stood up for the U.S. Constitution that day. They (including Michelle Bachmann and Ron Paul) are responsible for this severe constitutional crisis that at some point will reach critical mass.

Is there any other way the putative president could be removed from office other than a quo warranto action? Mario Apuzzo, is an attorney who has been representing plaintiffs in cases involving the putative president's ineligibility. Mario has raised the issue of standing, a judicial hallucination, in a case, Bond v. United States, 564 U. S. http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2011/06/bond- ... ng-to.html decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, June 16, 2011 [emphasis mine]:

"Applying the Bond decision to a case challenging Obama's eligibility, one would have to be criminally charged or be compelled to pay money under a statute passed by Congress when Obama was President. One would argue that under Article I, Section 7, Clause 2, laws passed by Congress need the action or inaction of the President (the veto power) before they are allowed to become laws. This requirement satisfies separation of powers and checks and balances doctrine. One would argue that Congress passed the charging statute, with the President's action or inaction. One would argue that a legitimate President must satisfy the eligibility requirements of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, which contains the "natural born Citizen" clause. Then one would argue that the law is not valid because it never was presented to a legitimate President for consideration under Article I, Section 7, Clause 2, arguing that Obama is not a legitimate President because he does not meet the requirements of the "natural born Citizen" clause..."

Dr. Edwin Vieira raised this very remedy way back in Dec. 2008:

"For a extensive class of litigants who absolutely do have “standingâ€

AirborneSapper7, I consider it a "sign of the times" before Jesus returns that Time magazine, in its "100 Most Influential People in the World" issue, included Assoc. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, illegally lifted up to the Supreme Court by a usurper, but excluded Atty. Orly Taitz, the attorney most likely to take down from the Office of President that same usurper.

Mr. Obama may even yet claim that he legitimately held "the Office of the President-Elect."
__________________________________________________ ________

Originally Posted by At Hannity Forums, Dr BloodMoney

In [Atty. Orly Taitz's] FOIA case against the Social Security Agency, her reply to the Dept of Justice motion for summary judgement (i.e. throw out her case) has been stricken from the record. She was warned repeatedly about using SSN's and how to properly use SSN's in Federal Court filings yet continued to abuse the rule. So we have a DoJ motion for summary judgement pending, with no motions opposing it from The Dentist.

IT WASN'T AN SSN!

IT WAS A COMPLETELY BOGUS, NON-SOCIAL-SECURITY, NINE-DIGIT NUMBER!

That's like making it a crime to publish or print a picture of a $3 bill.

IT'S NOT REAL MONEY, SO IT'S NOT PROTECTED!

It's a shame that the District Court couldn't read the official U.S. Government documents submitted with the reply before deleting it.

Atty. Orly Taitz submitted, on Page 2 as Exhibit 1, a copy of the official document from the Social Security Administration that officially attests to the non-existence of the SSN beginning with "042" which Mr. Obama used to register for Selective Service.

Then she explained that this nine digit number is not a SSN. It has never been a SSN.

After this, it probably never will be a SSN.

It is beyond asinine and picayune that the court deleted her motion of opposition to summary dismissal for including in plain text a nine digit number that the Social Security Administration verified is NOT a SSN.

But it should guarantee her appeal to the Supreme Court, even if SCOTUS only remands the case to the District Court.

987-65-4321 blast off...

(Just seeing if that completely bogus, non-Social Security, nine-digit number will cause this post to be deleted.)

Reading about the incremental collapse of the dollar, the imminent implosion of the Social Security Ponzi scheme, the ever-increasing number of unemployed workers, and the U.S. State Dept. selling military grade Vietnam Era weapons to Los Zetas in New Mexico, I might be thinking that the status quo (the mess we're in) could hardly get any worse.

But, except for God's grace, we could all be Obamapologists, carrying ever more and more water for Barry. I used to thank God that I was not yet so desperate as to work as a telemarketer, being paid to pester people at the dinner table. Now I thank God that I am not yet so desperate as to work as an Obama water carrier, being paid to scatter tares among the wheat, posting lies among the posts written by birthers who know enough of the truth about Barry to be dangerous.