Thread: Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

Originally Posted by FreedomFirst

It's OK, but I disagree with his (Leo Donofrio) latest argument that Quo Warranto is the only right way to proceed to remove a sitting POTUS when there's no impeachment in the offing.

Interesting comment. I thought he was first interested in the quo warranto in an effort to help the military. As you may have noticed, I probed a bit on the standing argument and he didn't want to look at it.

Maybe he is too narrowly focused. I am just glad he is there and appears to have great staying power. Everything counts, and he's one more person in the army of justice.

And I can't envision an army of Illinois state legislators storming Washington looking for Obama's hide.

Originally Posted by FreedomFirst

Some Senator is running around being quoted by WND to the effect that if the voters elected Obama then that settles the eligibility questions, and that the voters must have "vetted" him for eligibility ... I think it might be Mel Martinez of Florida. Well, sorry, no, Mel ... you're wrong. The voters of Pennsylvania might have elected Gallatin by an overwhelming majority back in the day but even if 99% of them had voted for him, they could not "trump" the Constitution. He was about a year short of the citizenship period he needed. Buh-bye.

If you like that one, how about the senator from Arizona advocating that Snopes has the right answer regarding Obama's legitimacy.

"Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., has referred constituents raising concerns over President Obama's eligibility to occupy the Oval Office to an online "fact" organization that relies for its answer partly on information from the Obama campaign."

http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=90843

During the campaign, I had roaring disagreements with Snopes about their accuracy, and no longer consider them a factual resource.

Snopes really was/is in the bag for Obama, and is probably the next to last place to look for factual information on Obama's birthplace.

Posted by Dr. Orly Taitz at 3/7/2009 1:09 AM

Judge James Robertson should be removed from the bench

Please read some background on the judge that decided Hollister v Soetoro. This judge should be removed from the bench. Additionally you will be able to understand why I am skeptical of our judiciary and why I believe, that it ultimately will be up to our military to arrest and prosecute the Usurper in Chief for massive fraud of American citizens and treason.

Judge James Robertson was a member of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. If you look at the questionnaire part 1, you will see where Obama lists that he was (also) a member of this committee. The judge was the co-chair of the committee.

No conspiracy there. Yah, right.

http://defendourfreedoms.us/

BTW, fraud is a criminal offense, isn't it?

Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan

If you like that one, how about the senator from Arizona advocating that Snopes has the right answer regarding Obama's legitimacy.

"Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., has referred constituents raising concerns over President Obama's eligibility to occupy the Oval Office to an online "fact" organization that relies for its answer partly on information from the Obama campaign."

http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=90843

During the campaign, I had roaring disagreements with Snopes about their accuracy, and no longer consider them a factual resource.

Snopes really was/is in the bag for Obama, and is probably the next to last place to look for factual information on Obama's birthplace.

They're a Mom and Pop outfit, operated by David and Barbara Mikkelson out of their home in Sherman Oaks, California, or someplace around the San Fernando valley. He's a computer programmer apparently and she handles the day-to-day. They make the claim that they have never donated to a candidate or political party, and I don't know if they have a party registration. When interviewed awhile back, and asked if they had kids or pets etc., they said they kept cats and pet rats and didn't know how anyone would have time for kids with three cats. (That comment kind of evoked a mental image of what they might be like.)

Neither one has a background in criminal investigation or investigation of any kind and there's one instance where it looks like they were provided with phone numbers to verify the truth, when they had written something non-factual, and didn't bother to follow up with calls to phone numbers dropped in their laps.

http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive ... 02218.html

I often see references to www.Snopes in the Wreck.
I was under the impression that it was kind of investigative legal
outfit.

Not so:

----------------

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2008
SNOPES.com With Caution

For the past few years http://www.snopes.com/ has positioned itself, or
others have labeled it, as the 'tell all final word' on any comment,
claim and email.

But for several years people tried to find out who exactly was behind
snopes.com. It is run by a husband and wife team - that's right, no big
office of investigators and researchers, no team of lawyers. It's just a
mom-and-pop operation that began as a hobby.

To the best of my knowledge that was not a secret. I've known that for a
long time. Apparently, for many people it was a secret.

David and Barbara Mikkelson in the San Fernando Valley of California
started the website about 13 years ago - and they have no formal
background or experience in investigative research. After a few years it gained popularity as people believed it to be unbiased and neutral, but
over the past couple of years people started asking questions; who was
behind it and did they have a selfish motivation?

The reason for the questions - or skepticisms - is a result of
snopes.com claiming to have the bottom line facts to certain questions
or issue when in fact they have been proven wrong. Also, there were criticisms the Mikkelsons were not really investigating and getting to the 'true' bottom of various issues.

A few months ago, State Farm agent Bud Gregg in Mandeville hoisted a political sign referencing Barack Obama and made a big splash across the internet, 'supposedly' the Mikkelson's claim to have researched this issue before posting their findings on snopes.com. In their statement they claimed the corporate office of State Farm pressured Gregg into taking down the sign, when in fact nothing of the sort ever' took place.

Lt Colonel Ed Cathcart USMC (Ret), a customer and friend of Bud Gregg's
contacted David Mikkelson (and Mikkelson replied back) thinking he would
want to get to the bottom of this and gave him Bud Gregg's contact phone
numbers - and Bud was going to give him phone numbers to the big exec's at State Farm in Illinois who would have been willing to speak with him about it. He never called Bud. In fact, LTC Cathcart learned from Bud
Gregg that no one from snopes.com ever contacted anyone with State Farm.

Yet, snopes.com issued a statement as the 'final factual word' on the
issue as if they did all their research and got to the bottom of things!

As I said, the mom and pop operation was not a secret to me. Here's what was the secret to me;

It has been learned the Mikkelson's are Jewish - very Democratic (party)
and extremely liberal. As we all now know from this presidential
election, liberals have a purpose agenda to discredit anything that
appears to be conservative. There has been much criticism lately over
the internet with people pointing out the Mikkelson's liberalism
revealing itself in their website findings.

So, everyone who goes to http://www.snopes.com/ to get what they think
to be the bottom line facts...'proceed with caution.' Take what it says
at face value and nothing more. Use it only to lead you to their
references where you can link to and read the sources for yourself.
Plus, you can always google a subject and do the research yourself.

It is apparent that that's all the Mikkelson's do.

A computer programmer is not a lawyer nor legal expert; and whatever Barbara may have by way of professional training, she's probably not a lawyer either. If it has taken trained lawyers and historians and some ace researchers some effort to track down all the historical information about who was reading what when the Constitution was being written, in order to understand where a definition of "natural born citizen" might arise, and then track all the notable cases invoking that term from the beginnings of the nation, then I'd say that their pronouncements are worthwhile reading.

And Barbara and David Mikkelson can continue lavishing time and attention on their cats and pet rats. Because serious investigation takes time and possibly skills, intelligence, training and impartiality that they simply don't have.

FreedomFirst -

Thanks. Good to know my gut was right on target about Snopes.

Juan

Another question is how much kickback money are these supposed sources and colleges that are so vigilantly protecting Obama getting from the dems pork stimulus and spending projects? And are they just partying it up in the white house every night laughing!! Their all above us and the law of the land, and Im just crazy though!

Originally Posted by 93camaro

Another question is how much kickback money are these supposed sources and colleges that are so vigilantly protecting Obama getting from the dems pork stimulus and spending projects? And are they just partying it up in the white house every night laughing!! Their all above us and the law of the land, and Im just crazy though!

When I asked Donofrio about money, fear, and embarrassment motivating public servants, his answer was it is only about the money.

As I recall, that's what Deep Throat said - follow the money.

All ALIPAC Supporters,

Please review and cast your confidential vote at this link...

http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-148727.html

Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan

When I asked Donofrio about money, fear, and embarrassment motivating public servants, his answer was it is only about the money.

As I recall, that's what Deep Throat said - follow the money.

1. I don't believe there is enough money between Timbuktu and Mandalay to bribe every judge, in every eligibility case, to sell out the United States for personal gain.

There was only one Judas Iscariot. Traitors of the grandest nation on earth don't turn coats very often.

2. HOWEVER, O-bots have spread misinformation and propaganda in almost every major news outlet (except WorldNetDaily, Michael Savage, Plains Radio, and a very few others). This deception makes it difficult to move any mover or shaker to seriously consider our complaints, which suffer from complexity and often require focused attention to understand.

3. Cynicism, that the fix is in and nothing will be accomplished, makes many government officials apathetic, and it causes others to consider opposition to be a waste of time, and sticking one's neck out to be asking for trouble.

4. The threat of litigation from the three law firms retained by Campaign Obama has intimidated nearly everyone who has considered getting involved. This especially applies to brick and mortar news media organizations with assets which might be frozen, attacked, or taken for bond or as collateral.

5. For any person with the courage to overcome those four obstacles, the implied threat of kidnapping, extortion, or violence by the Chicago goons or communist groups may present too great a risk. Others may fear Is|amist terrorism, considering Barack Obama's Mus|im support group:
Nation of Is|am leader Louis Farrakan;
New Black Panther Party leader Malik Zulu Shabazz;
Rashid Khalidi, a director of the official PLO press agency WAFA in Beirut, 1976-1982, and an adviser to the Palestinian delegation to the Madrid Conference in 1991;
Mona Khalidi, chief English-language editor of WAFA, 1976-1982, and president of the Chicago-based Arab American Action Network (AAAN);
Ali Abunimah, vice-president of AAAN and co-founder of the Electronic Intifada website;
convicted mobster Tony Rezko, a Syrian;
Raila Odinga, Marxist militant, Kenyan prime minister, and Mus|im opposition leader;
Col. Mohammar Qadaffi of Libya;
the Saudi royal family, 19% shareholders of FOX, who blocked Sean Hannity's coverage of Barack Obama's Constitutional ineligibility;
Nadhmi Auchi, an accomplice of Saddam Hussein;
Sen. Joe Biden supporter Sadegh Namazi-khah, founder of the Iranian Mus|im Association of North America (IMAN); and
Dr. Trita Parsi, National Iranian American Council (NIAC) leader.
www.alipac.us/f31/barack-obamas-citizenship-questioned-129743/index78.html#post806488
has documenting links.

San Diego News from sources across California

Obama’s birth issue isn’t going away

Al Ritter

Baltimore Conservative Examiner

March 6, 10:18 AM · 60 comments



The newest plaintiffs on the scene for lawsuits about Obama’s birth certificate are a group of military personnel, some active, some reservists, and some retired. They all share the same concern, they don’t think that our sitting President has the requirements set forth in the Constitution to be our President.

Many cases have already been submitted concerning the same issues, but all so far have either been dismissed without comment, or dismissed on the grounds of “no standing.â€