Thread: Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

Smoking gun: caller explains Stimulus as Obama plan to fund permanent Democratic patronage system.

"I really feel that what I'm gonna give you here is a smoking gun.

I'm a conservative Democrat and I'm from Chicago... and I, I feel that I was betrayed.

I was in a meeting after Obama got elected and I was told by the Democratic officials in that meeting that we were gonna give billions of dollars that was gonna come down the pike, our way, and what we were to do with it was we were supposed to do with it...

We are gonna build an army of Democratic patronage jobs.... gonna completely freeze up the Republicans forever and ever...

It's a job-capturing system, the same one they have in Chicago... everyone's asking 'why isn't that money being released until 2011 and 2012?'

Because it needs to be released at a time that's close to the election, so that they don't go blow the money and spend it. So they're gonna hold some back and that's where... the real bucks will be spent, right up close to the election.

...It's not a stimulus package, it's not pork! It's a job patronage system... there's gonna be more [people] working for the Democrats in a patronage system than the United States Army...

And the jobs are gonna be camouflaged in a million different ways, whether you're workin' for the city, or workin' for the state, but when the election comes around, you're gonna be obligated to go out and get that vote... ...like ACORN, except the jobs will be larger scale. I just wanted to say that, because I was really depressed when they told me, because I really thought they'd be different.

If I've done nothing else in my life, I've informed what that bill really is... it's a job patronage system."

Video at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGafMHsV4Ug&

We have got get rid of this team of socialist thugs as soon as possible. And yes, I am really getting pi$$ed off at the idiots that opened the door to Obama's cage. I don't care if these ignoramuses were duped - they were wrong and have caused us unbelievable harm.

The Senate has voted for cloture on the $827 billion economic recovery plan, setting the stage for a final vote Tuesday. Just three Republicans – Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania -- joined the Democrats in voting to move the bill forward.

For more information...http://www.politico.com

Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan

The Senate has voted for cloture on the $827 billion economic recovery plan, setting the stage for a final vote Tuesday. Just three Republicans – Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania -- joined the Democrats in voting to move the bill forward.

For more information...http://www.politico.com

One of those traitors belongs to you, right Highlander? I hope you are sending a well worded letter and making a few phone calls.

Originally Posted by cayla99

One of those traitors belongs to you, right Highlander? I hope you are sending a well worded letter and making a few phone calls.

Actually Cayla, two of the RINO senators (Snowe, Collins) belong to the People's Republic of Maine, and they don't return my calls anymore because I give them so much grief about their kowtowing to the Dems. For both, however, survival here in Maine means kowtowing to the 75% hippie Dems who live here.

What I can't figure out is how they got elected in the first place. Happened before I got here.

Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan

Originally Posted by cayla99

One of those traitors belongs to you, right Highlander? I hope you are sending a well worded letter and making a few phone calls.

Actually Cayla, two of the RINO senators (Snowe, Collins) belong to the People's Republic of Maine, and they don't return my calls anymore because I give them so much grief about their kowtowing to the Dems. For both, however, survival here in Maine means kowtowing to the 75% hippie Dems who live here.

What I can't figure out is how they got elected in the first place. Happened before I got here.

uh oh, this is all your fault :P I need to check how mine did, I am sure the dem one voted for it, and he is my GOOD senator, ok, not good, just not as bad as our RINO

Here is another case going up taking a slightly different angle.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.p...w&pageId=88566

Eligibility issue: McCain checked but not Obama
Lawsuit contends Congress failed to qualify Democrat for Oval Office
Posted: February 10, 2009
9:09 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

A lawsuit that accuses Congress of failing to investigate President Obama's birthplace before approving the Electoral College vote giving him the presidency has been amended to include additional claims of rights violations, including unequal treatment, because Congress did such an investigation into GOP candidate Sen. John McCain.

That word comes from Mario Apuzzo, the lawyer handling the case on which WND previously has reported.

The case raises many of the same arguments as dozens of other cases that have flooded into courtrooms around the nation since the November election.

The case was brought by Apuzzo on behalf of Charles F. Kerchner Jr., Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell James Lenormand and Donald H. Nelson Jr. It names as defendants Barack Hussein Obama II, the U.S., Congress, the Senate, House of Representatives and former Vice President Dick Cheney along with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Apuzzo told WND that Congress last year raised the issue of whether McCain was a "natural born" citizen, a requirement set out in the U.S. Constitution for the president, because of his birth to U.S. citizens in the Panama Canal Zone.

Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 235,000 others and sign up now!

According to a report in the Washington Post, the Senate unanimously declared McCain to be a "natural born" citizen, meeting the demand of Article 2 of the Constitution, which states, "no person except a natural born citizen … shall be eligible to the office of president."

The report, however, pointed out that such a statement was opinion only, and the constitutional question actually isn't so simple. It quoted Catholic University associate law professor Sarah Duggin saying the document is ambiguous.

"Ultimately there has never been any real resolution of this issue. Congress cannot legislatively change the meaning of the Constitution," she told the newspaper, saying a constitutional amendment or a U.S. Supreme Court ruling would be the way to reach a determination.

However, even though his clients wrote to Congress requesting a similar review of Obama's birthplace, they were refused.

"The question is: Why do you do it for McCain, but not Obama," Apuzzo told WND.

More specifically, those who doubted McCain's eligibility had an opportunity for a review but not those who doubt Obama.

That violates a liberty right for his clients, he said, because as members of a republic, they have a right to know that their president is legitimate.

"What I'm arguing is that Congress and President Obama have violated my clients' due process under Article 5 [of the U.S. Constitution]," Apuzzo said.

Already; Congress held a responsibility to make certain Obama is qualified for the post, he alleges. And the public outcry, evidenced by the dozens of lawsuits over the issue, should have prompted due diligence on the part of members of Congress, he said.

Obama, meanwhile, has refused to hand over "sufficient documents" to verify his "natural born" status, Apuzzo said.

"We're not a monarchy," Apuzzo said, "People have a right to know."

He said his case in U.S. District Court in New Jersey is at the point where the court notices about the case are being distributed.

He said the fact Obama already has been inaugurated changes nothing in his case.

"Before that, everything really was premature," he said. "He has a right to run for office. But when you down to the nitty gritty, he still has to qualify for the position."

He said the Constitution specifically raises the scenario of a president who has been chosen for office but has failed to qualify.

"Even though you ran, everybody loves you, you still have got to qualify under the Constitution," Apuzzo said.

Further, the lawsuit explains, not only are there legitimate questions about Obama's birth, and therefore eligibility, he might not even be a U.S. citizen at all.

"There exists a possibility that Obama could be an illegal alien," the lawsuit said. "Obama has yet to adequately prove that he was born in the United States. [Further], Obama has publicly conceded that his father was born in Kenya and a British subject/citizen at the time of Obama's birth which precluded Obama from gaining any U.S. citizenship from his father."

Originally Posted by armbruster512

Here is another case going up taking a slightly different angle.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.p...w&pageId=88566

"There exists a possibility that Obama could be an illegal alien," the lawsuit said. "Obama has yet to adequately prove that he was born in the United States. [Further], Obama has publicly conceded that his father was born in Kenya and a British subject/citizen at the time of Obama's birth which precluded Obama from gaining any U.S. citizenship from his father."

Now we're getting to the nub of it all. Good find.

If you have not donated yet, please do!

http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-145650.html

Originally Posted by armbruster512

Here is another case going up taking a slightly different angle.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.p...w&pageId=88566

Eligibility issue: McCain checked but not Obama
Lawsuit contends Congress failed to qualify Democrat for Oval Office
Posted: February 10, 2009
9:09 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

A lawsuit that accuses Congress of failing to investigate President Obama's birthplace before approving the Electoral College vote giving him the presidency has been amended to include additional claims of rights violations, including unequal treatment, because Congress did such an investigation into GOP candidate Sen. John McCain.

That word comes from Mario Apuzzo, the lawyer handling the case on which WND previously has reported.

The case raises many of the same arguments as dozens of other cases that have flooded into courtrooms around the nation since the November election.

The case was brought by Apuzzo on behalf of Charles F. Kerchner Jr., Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell James Lenormand and Donald H. Nelson Jr. It names as defendants Barack Hussein Obama II, the U.S., Congress, the Senate, House of Representatives and former Vice President Dick Cheney along with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Apuzzo told WND that Congress last year raised the issue of whether McCain was a "natural born" citizen, a requirement set out in the U.S. Constitution for the president, because of his birth to U.S. citizens in the Panama Canal Zone.

Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 235,000 others and sign up now!

According to a report in the Washington Post, the Senate unanimously declared McCain to be a "natural born" citizen, meeting the demand of Article 2 of the Constitution, which states, "no person except a natural born citizen … shall be eligible to the office of president."

The report, however, pointed out that such a statement was opinion only, and the constitutional question actually isn't so simple. It quoted Catholic University associate law professor Sarah Duggin saying the document is ambiguous.

"Ultimately there has never been any real resolution of this issue. Congress cannot legislatively change the meaning of the Constitution," she told the newspaper, saying a constitutional amendment or a U.S. Supreme Court ruling would be the way to reach a determination.

However, even though his clients wrote to Congress requesting a similar review of Obama's birthplace, they were refused.

"The question is: Why do you do it for McCain, but not Obama," Apuzzo told WND.

More specifically, those who doubted McCain's eligibility had an opportunity for a review but not those who doubt Obama.

That violates a liberty right for his clients, he said, because as members of a republic, they have a right to know that their president is legitimate.

"What I'm arguing is that Congress and President Obama have violated my clients' due process under Article 5 [of the U.S. Constitution]," Apuzzo said.

Already; Congress held a responsibility to make certain Obama is qualified for the post, he alleges. And the public outcry, evidenced by the dozens of lawsuits over the issue, should have prompted due diligence on the part of members of Congress, he said.

Obama, meanwhile, has refused to hand over "sufficient documents" to verify his "natural born" status, Apuzzo said.

"We're not a monarchy," Apuzzo said, "People have a right to know."

He said his case in U.S. District Court in New Jersey is at the point where the court notices about the case are being distributed.

He said the fact Obama already has been inaugurated changes nothing in his case.

"Before that, everything really was premature," he said. "He has a right to run for office. But when you down to the nitty gritty, he still has to qualify for the position."

He said the Constitution specifically raises the scenario of a president who has been chosen for office but has failed to qualify.

"Even though you ran, everybody loves you, you still have got to qualify under the Constitution," Apuzzo said.

Further, the lawsuit explains, not only are there legitimate questions about Obama's birth, and therefore eligibility, he might not even be a U.S. citizen at all.

"There exists a possibility that Obama could be an illegal alien," the lawsuit said. "Obama has yet to adequately prove that he was born in the United States. [Further], Obama has publicly conceded that his father was born in Kenya and a British subject/citizen at the time of Obama's birth which precluded Obama from gaining any U.S. citizenship from his father."

I thought this was a very interesting case. Let's see where we can take it!

I read somewhere else that he was suing every Member of Congress for failing to speak up with an objection/request for eligibility proofs when the Electoral Ballot vote was opened for Joint Session confirmation.

IF that's true, then service of process is likely to take awhile!!! Maybe he hired a process server to just go to every office on Capitol Hill.

His research seems to be on the "light side" about the Congressional vetting of McCain, since it leaves off with that Joint Resolution in April 2008 and more information came out AFTER that date. Like McCain's real certificate. Up until the original certificate surfaced in June 2008 (after the Resolution had passed), good old "Panama John" had been spreading the story that he was born ON the Coco Solo Naval Station in order to pimp his cause for being deemed to have been born "on soil" that was somehow under U.S. jurisdiction. A story in Washington Post even claimed that a reporter had been shown a birth certificate and could vouch for what John McCain said, even though the campaign "refused to release the certificate to the public" blah blah blah.

Even in the later stages of last fall, as the Fred Hollander lawsuit was going into New Hampshire's federal district court (where "standing" became its downfall) there was the utterly bizarre situation which found McCain's lawyers arguing that the court should accept as evidence the "web blog" of the (I assume) Washington Post's guy who writes their Fact Checker column while Fred Hollander was advancing a certified proof consisting of the original birth certificate which he had unearthed from Panama and from over the signature of the guy who retrieved that document. That man, Don Lamb, is currently the President of the Panama Railroad Company which maintained vital statistics back in the 1930's since it apparently "owned" the geography in question.

Don Lamb himself is not without a little bit of controversy, with various land claims that were causing problems, according to this old 2002 article in the Panama News:

http://www.thepanamanews.com/pn/v_08/is ... riefs.html

Colon property owners file criminal charges against Lamb

The Urban Property Chamber of Colon, a group of business and land owners in the Atlantic side province, has filed criminal charges against Donald Lamb and several of his associates. Lamb heads a group of individuals who claim to own stock in the old Panama Railroad Company, which was taken over by the US government in the early part of the 20th century as part of the construction of the Panama Canal, and which was transferred to Panama under the 1977 Carter-Torrijos Treaties. Lamb and his followers claim that the 1904 and 1977 transfers were illegal and that they thus own vast stretches of property in the former Canal Zone. They have asserted their claims to such real estate as the ports of Cristobal and Coco Solo Norte by filing numerous lawsuits and registering claims to many properties. While in a few cases Lamb and his followers have prevailed in lower courts, such favorable judgments have been overruled on appeal. Last year, in response to Lamb's activities, the Supreme Court ordered the Registro Civil to eliminate all deeds in the former Canal Zone that do not derive from ARI's master deed. One provision of the controversial concession for Colon's multi-modal transport center requires the Panamanian government to indemnify the Consorcio San Lorenzo for any legal problems that Lamb's claims cause for the development. Now attorney Alberto Navarro has begun a legal counter-offensive on behalf of the Urban Property Chamber, accusing Lamb and his associates of falsifying documents, usurping lands, fraud, extortion and illicit association in their attempts to get money or land titles from chamber members Attia & Attia, Colon 2000, Rada SA, Nirzvi SA, Oficina Quijano, Victor Lum Lee and the Panama Canal Railway Company.

Whatever the merits of his land claims, however, it appears that Lamb has fallen heir to the Railroad's archives of documents of all kinds. For document mavens, this link offers up a trove of them.

http://johnmccain.dominates.us/forum/vi ... f=12&t=145

McCain's behavior in concealing his original documents (including a short form that shows it was issued in 1980 and which might have been obtained by McCain as part of the authenticating documents he needed to submit to claim retirement benefits from the military) for as long as possible until he was "outed" by the documents Lamb produced is a mirror image of what Obama's current behavior is. Tsk, tsk on the both of them. They're not "opponents" in any meaningful sense, but "political blood brothers" with the common traits of reckless ambition (heedless of the imperfections of their Constitutional bona fides) and pathological liarhood.

It was common knowledge among many of his fellow POWs, it seems, that McCain was "broken" during interrogations and offered up information to the captors, but it was not until his ACCEPTANCE SPEECH at the convention that McCain made that admission and probably solely to diffuse the issue in the general campaign ahead. Interesting video from what might be a "liberal" or "progressive" point-of-view which should be watched at around the 3:00 minute mark that touches on his "I broke" comment in the speech.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUw4wvl_y4A

For years upon years prior to revelations coming out by investigative anti-McCain bloggers who were on to the truth about McCain possibly having become a "collaborator" in Vietnam who probably declined an offer to release him early from POW because he know that such early release from there might prompt a military tribunal in the US looking into his "recent history" prior to release, McCain had been the leading advocate to keep military records sealed.

This was to the endless anguish of families of dead POWs and MIAs seeking closure of their own loved ones' unresolved mysteries over in Vietnam, and who came to detest John McCain and be puzzled by his behavior. No big mystery there. The records McCain wanted to remain sealed most likely related to revelations about himself, and that he was not the "stoic hero" he had portrayed himself to be during his earliest campaigns as he entered politics. I don't think any rational person would hold it against someone for breaking under torture; but I think a lot of rational people would fault the character traits of someone who LIES about himself. Therein lies the difference.