Thread: Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

If a court is going to decide this volatile issue, it's going to want a case that has been procedurally perfect in all respects.

Every lawsuit brought so far has had a procedural defect which could be exploited by a judge to wriggle off the hook. It's not just this Obama natural born citizenship case that judges try to avoid, but any case where a procedural glitch exists. It reduces the caseload and forces lawyers to pay attention to doing things the right way. It avoids the problem of a judge accepting a case and then getting overruled.

Eventually, one of the cases will click and all the i's will have been dotted.

Leo Donofrio wrote:

Hopefully, such a petition will not be necessary if [U.S. Attorney General Eric] Holder and/or US Attorney [for the District of Columbia Jeffrey] Taylor will step in and take the lead as is warranted by the following statute:

§ 16-3501. Persons against whom issued; civil action.

A quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military. The proceedings shall be deemed a civil action.

§ 16-3502. Parties who may institute; ex rel. proceedings.

The Attorney General of the United States or the United States attorney may institute a proceeding pursuant to this subchapter on his own motion or on the relation of a third person. The writ may not be issued on the relation of a third person except by leave of the court, to be applied for by the relator, by a petition duly verified setting forth the grounds of the application, or until the relator files a bond with sufficient surety, to be approved by the clerk of the court, in such penalty as the court prescribes, conditioned on the payment by him of all costs incurred in the prosecution of the writ if costs are not recovered from and paid by the defendant.

§ 16-3503. Refusal of Attorney General or United States attorney to act; procedure.

If the Attorney General or United States attorney refuses to institute a quo warranto proceeding on the request of a person interested, the interested person may apply to the court by certified petition for leave to have the writ issued. When, in the opinion of the court, the reasons set forth in the petition are sufficient in law, the writ shall be allowed to be issued by any attorney, in the name of the United States, on the relation of the interested person on his compliance with the condition prescribed by section 16-3502 as to security for costs.

naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/03/03/quoa-warranto-a-new-hope-military-can-now-retreat-in-peace/#comments

[ED.: I don't know what could motivate U.S. Attorney General Holder or U.S. Attorney Taylor to institute a quo warranto proceeding. But the Lord of the whole earth changes the hearts of men as He wills, and nothing is impossible with Him. It remains to be seen which judge[s] will break ranks and where the Obama Administration monolith will crack.]

Fstede wrote.. www.alipac.us/ftopict-149036.html

OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL
Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility
Mention of citizenship issues deleted in minutes, 'offending' users banned

Posted: March 08, 2009
6:54 pm Eastern

By Aaron Klein
© 2009 WorldNetDaily



From Wikipedia's Barack Obama page

Wikipedia, the online "free encyclopedia" mega-site written and edited entirely by its users, has been deleting within minutes any mention of eligibility issues surrounding Barack Obama's presidency, with administrators kicking off anyone who writes about the subject, WND has learned.

A perusal through Obama's current Wikipedia entry finds a heavily guarded, mostly glowing biography about the U.S. president. Some of Obama's most controversial past affiliations, including with Rev. Jeremiah Wright and former Weathermen terrorist Bill Ayers, are not once mentioned, even though those associations received much news media attention and served as dominant themes during the presidential elections last year.

Also completely lacking is any mention of the well-publicized concerns surrounding Obama's eligibility to serve as commander-in-chief.

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 300,000 others and sign up now!

Indeed, multiple times, Wikipedia users who wrote about the eligibility issues had their entries deleted almost immediately and were banned from re-posting any material on the website for three days.

In one example, Wikipedia user "Jerusalem21" added the following to Obama's page:

"There have been some doubts about whether Obama was born in the U.S. after the politician refused to release to the public a carbon copy of his birth certificate and amid claims from his relatives he may have been born in Kenya. Numerous lawsuits have been filed petitioning Obama to release his birth certificate, but most suits have been thrown out by the courts."

As is required on the online encyclopedia, that entry was backed up by third-party media articles, citing the Chicago Tribune and WorldNetDaily.com

The entry was posted on Feb. 24, at 6:16 p.m. EST. Just three minutes later, the entry was removed by a Wikipedia administrator, claiming the posting violated the websites rules against "fringe" material.

According to Wikipedia rules, however, a "fringe theory can be considered notable if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory."

The Obama eligibility issue has indeed been reported extensively by multiple news media outlets. WorldNetDaily has led the coverage. Other news outlets, such as Britain's Daily Mail and the Chicago Tribune have released articles critical of claims Obama may not be eligible. The Los Angeles Times quoted statements by former presidential candidate Alan Keys doubting Obama is eligible to serve as president. Just last week, the Internet giant America Online featured a top news article about the eligibility subject, referencing WND's coverage.

When the user "Jerusalem21" tried to repost the entry about Obama's eligibility a second time, another administrator removed the material within two minutes and then banned the Wikipedia user from posting anything on the website for three days.

Wikipedia administrators have the ability to kick off users if the administrator believes the user violated the website's rules.

Over the last month, WND has monitored several other attempts to add eligibility issues to Obama's Wikipedia page. In every attempt monitored, the information was deleted within minutes and the user who posted the material was barred from the website for three days.

Angela Beesley Starling, a spokeswoman for Wikipedia, explained to WND that all the website's encyclopedia content is monitored by users. She said the administrators who deleted the entries are volunteers.

"Administrators," Starling said, "are simply people who are trusted by the other community members to have access to some extra tools that allow them to delete pages and perform other tasks that help the encyclopedia."

According to Alexa.com, Wikipedia is the seventh most trafficked website on the Internet. A Google search for the words "Barack Obama" brings up the president's Wikipedia page in the top four choices, following two links to Obama's official websites.

Ayers, Wright also missing in Obama's bio

The entire Wikipedia entry on Obama seems to be heavily promotional toward the U.S. president. It contains nearly no criticism or controversy, including appropriate mention of important issues where relevant.

For example, the current paragraph on Obama's religion contains no mention of Wright, even though Obama's association with the controversial pastor was one of the most talked about issues during the presidential campaign.

That paragraph states: "Obama explained how, through working with black churches as a community organizer while in his twenties, he came to understand 'the power of the African-American religious tradition to spur social change.' He was baptized at the Trinity United Church of Christ in 1988 and was an active member there for two decades."

Ayers is also not mentioned, even where relevant.

WND monitored as a Wikipedia user attempted to add Ayers' name to an appropriate paragraph. One of those additions, backed up with news articles, read as follows:

"He served alongside former Weathermen leader William Ayers from 1994 to 2002 on the board of directors of the Woods Fund of Chicago, which in 1985 had been the first foundation to fund the Developing Communities Project, and also from 1994 to 2002 on the board of directors of the Joyce Foundation. Obama served on the board of directors of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge from 1995 to 2002, as founding president and chairman of the board of directors from 1995 to 1991. Ayers was the founder and director of the Challenge."

Within two minutes that Wikipedia entry was deleted and the user banned from posting on the website for three days, purportedly for adding "Point of View junk edits," even though the addition was well-established fact.

The Wikipedia entry about former President George W. Bush, by contrast, is highly critical. One typical entry reads, "Prior to his marriage, Bush had multiple accounts of alcohol abuse. ... After his re-election, Bush received increasingly heated criticism. In 2005, the Bush administration dealt with widespread criticism over its handling of Hurricane Katrina. In December 2007, the United States entered the second-longest post-World War II recession."

The entry on Bush also cites claims that he was "favorably treated due to his father's political standing" during his National Guard service." It says Bush served on the board of directors for Harken and that questions of possible insider trading involving Harken arose even though a Securities and Exchange Commission investigation concluded the information Bush had at the time of his stock sale was not sufficient to constitute insider trading.






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

If you'd like to sound off on this issue, please take part in the WorldNetDaily poll.
http://forums.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=354



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

Related offers:

Sign the petition..!!

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81550

Get "The Audacity of Deceit," and learn about the looming hostile attack on Judeo-Christian values and freedoms Americans hold dear

Will Obama bring the end of prosperity? How higher taxes will doom the economy – if we let it happen

Look who's seething over anti-Nazi warning! Comparisons between Nazi leader, Obama draws strong reaction

Whistleblower magazine's "THE SECRET LIFE OF BARACK OBAMA"



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

Previous stories:

Judge: Eligibility issue thoroughly 'twittered'

Republican senator says Snopes settled 'eligibility'

Senator: Eligibility is up to the voters

U.S. soldier gagged on prez's eligibility

More military officers demand eligibility proof

Obama eligibility tops AOL News

California used to check prez candidates' eligibility

Major General says president's eligibility needs proof

Eligibility lawyer argues for president's deportation

2nd U.S. soldier in Iraq challenges eligibility

Soldier questions eligibility, doubts president's authority

Senator questions Obama eligibility Alan Keyes: Stop Obama or U.S. will cease to exist

Keyes: President 'has something to hide' about eligibility

'Sanctions' sought in eligibility case

State lawmakers: Prove you're president, Mr. Obama

Congress sued to remove prez from White House

More challenges fail in Supreme Court

Supreme Court refuses 2nd challenge to eligibility

Status report: The eligibility issue

Supremes turn down request to stop Electoral vote

Join exploding demand for citizenship documentation

Electors challenged to investigate birth dispute

Last few hours to FedEx Electoral College voters

Supremes turn down request to stop Electoral vote

Eligibility question? FedEx Electoral College members

Not even Supreme Court can kill citizenship dispute

Supreme Court denies citizenship challenge

More than 60,000 letters sent to U.S. Supreme Court

Petition to see the birth certificate

Will Supremes review citizenship arguments?

Imaging guru: 'Certification' of birth time, location is fake

Chasm dividing Americans over birth certificate widens

WND launches new forum on Obama's eligibility

Supremes to review citizenship arguments

'Constitutional crisis' looming over Obama's birth location

Obama camp: Lawsuits by citizens are 'garbage'

Will Supreme Court have say in presidency?



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


Aaron Klein, WorldNetDaily's Jerusalem bureau chief, is known for his regular interviews with Mideast terror leaders and his popular segments on America's top radio programs. His newly released book is "Schmoozing with Terrorists: From Hollywood to the Holy Land, Jihadists Reveal their Global Plans – to a Jew!"

http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91114
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


I'll not only ‘mention’ it..

I'll encourage EVERYONE to investigate the sociopathic usurper and his Mafia gang..!!

There's SO much info just in THIS thread against Hussein..

..it's pathetic..!!

Get this news out ASAP..!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Obama ... s_and_bans

Nothing like Political Correctness!

It's like that backpage discussion I mentioned in an earlier post, where some Wiki person kept deleting the information about Ann Dunham and infant Barack showing up in Seattle in 1961, and not 1962 like they wanted the storyline to say.

Originally Posted by FreedomFirst

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Obama/Article_probation#Log_of_blocks_and_bans

Nothing like Political Correctness!

It's like that backpage discussion I mentioned in an earlier post, where some Wiki person kept deleting the information about Ann Dunham and infant Barack showing up in Seattle in 1961, and not 1962 like they wanted the storyline to say.

I think I remember you discussing this earlier, but I just reviewed the Wiki link and find it pretty gruesome.

We are in the midst of an information war, and are at a disadvantage when it comes to Obama because we don't have access to his bank account (source of funds), and he can very easily buy and pay for the 'correct' information about himself.

Kind of like having a 'Get out of Jail Free' card.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.p...w&pageId=91345

Scalia: You need 4 votes for Obama eligibility case
Lawyer confronts justice about prez's qualifications
Posted: March 10, 2009
9:19 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

A lawyer lobbying the U.S. Justice Department and the U.S. Supreme Court for a review of Barack Obama's qualifications to be president says a key conservative justice has hinted that another conservative justice has been voting against hearing the dispute.

According to Orly Taitz, a California attorney working through her Defend Our Freedoms Foundation on several cases challenging Obama, said she was presented with an opportunity to ask a question of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia yesterday.

The issue of Obama's eligibility has been raised before the Supreme Court at least four times already but has yet to be given a single hearing. Cases have been brought by Taitz, Philip Berg, Cort Wrotnowski and Leo Donofrio.


While the requests have been heard "in conference" by the justices, no hearings have resulted on the evidence. WND previously has reported that cases brought to individual justices on an emergency basis can be discussed in such conferences, but they need the affirmative vote from four justices before a hearing on the merits can be scheduled.

The Supreme Court today is considered to have mainly a 4-4 conservative-liberal split, with one swing vote on most issues. On the conservative side generally are Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Samuel Alito, Scalia and Justice Clarence Thomas. Justice Anthony Kennedy often is the swing vote. The liberal side frequently includes Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens.

No explanations on the court's response to the Obama citizenship issue have been offered until now.

Taitz reported she attended a reception for Scalia and stood "right by the mic, just to make sure I have an opportunity to ask a question. Only four lawyers out of about 300 in the audience got to ask their questions and I was lucky to be one of them."

She said, "I told Scalia that I was an attorney that filed Lightfoot v. Bowen that Chief Justice Roberts distributed for conference on Jan. 23 and now I represent nine state reps and 120 military officers, many of them high ranked, and I want to know if they will hear Quo Warranto and if they would hear it on original jurisdiction, if I bring Hawaii as an additional defendant to unseal the records and ascertain Obama's legitimacy for presidency."

Taitz said she had some worries asking the question.

"I have to say that I prepared myself to a lot of boo-ing, knowing that Los Angeles trial lawyers and entertainment elite are Obama's stronghold, however there was no boo-ing, no negative remarks," she said. "I actually could see a lot of approving nods, smiles, many gasped and listened intensely. I could tell, that even Obama's strongest supporters wanted to know the answer.

"Scalia stated that it would be heard if I can get four people to hear it. He repeated, you need four for the argument. I got a feeling that he was saying that one of these four that call themselves constitutionalists went to the other side," Taitz said.

"He did not say that it is a political question, he did not say that it is for the legislature to decide. For example, right after me another attorney has asked him about his case of taxing some Internet commerce and right away Scalia told him that he should address it with the legislature. He did not say it to me. He did not say that Quo Warranto is antiquated or not appropriate. No, just get four," she said.

She then bought Scalia's book and waited in line to get it autographed.

"I gave him the books to sign and asked, 'Tell me what to do, what can I do, those soldiers [her plaintiffs] can be court-martialed for asking a legitimate question, who is the president, is he legitimate.' He said, 'Bring the case, I'll hear it, I don't know about others.'"

Taitz' latest effort is a case of Quo Warranto submitted to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder.

The legal phrase essentially means an explanation is being demanded for what authority Obama is using to act as president. An online constitutional resource says Quo Warranto "affords the only judicial remedy for violations of the Constitution by public officials and agents."

The plaintiffs allege Obama failed to submit prima facie evidence of his qualifications before Jan. 20, 2009.

"Election officers failed to challenge, validate or evaluate his qualifications. Relators submit that as president elect, Respondent Obama failed [tO] qualify per U.S. CONST. Amend. XX [paragraph] 3," the document said.

John Eidsmoe, an expert on the U.S. Constitution working with the Foundation on Moral Law, said the demand is a legitimate course of action.

"She basically is asking, 'By what authority' is Obama president," he told WND. "In other words, 'I want you to tell me by what authority. I don't really think you should hold the office.'"

Taitz said Americans should flood Holder's office with calls, e-mails and faxes, urging him to take action on the case.

http://www.newswithviews.com/Stuter/stuter146.htm


[quote]DEBUNKING THE OBAMATOIDS



By Lynn Stuter

March 10, 2009
NewsWithViews.com

The squall of the obamatoids is getting louder and louder as we learn more and more about Also Known As (AKA) Obama; as though they can, by sheer volume, drown out the facts.

With this in mind, let’s look at the claims of the obamatoids.

1) AKA has presented, for all to see, his birth certificate.

Not so. What AKA has presented, through his campaign and pro-Obama websites, is a Certification of Live Birth (COLB). That is so stated dead center of the top of the document. This is not a birth certificate or a certificate of birth.

This Certification of Live Birth (COLB), as presented, was presented by FactCheck.com, FighttheSmears.org, DailyKos.com and Snopes.com, all parroting the same claims, all obamatoid websites. While the claim has been made that the varying versions appearing on the internet all emanate from the same document, inconsistencies from one reproduction to the next tend to counter this claim. One of the more obvious inconsistencies is the folds that appear on some copies while not on others.

No one, outside a select group of obamatoids, has actually seen the original document from which the copies that appear on the internet were made. By the same token, not one of the copies of this COLB that have appeared on the internet is accompanied by a notarized affidavit that it is authentic copy of the original. In the day and age of photoshop; the credibility of this document is obviously questionable.

Now let’s look at the document itself. Since when did African become a race? On your birth certificate is your father’s ethnicity listed as American? Of course not; American is not a race. Neither is African. This document would be far more credible had it listed the father’s race as negro or Negroid just as white or Caucasian were also used in 1961.

Forensic specialists have signed sworn affidavits stating that the copies of the COLB, appearing on the internet, are forgeries; these sworn affidavits being inclusive of the qualifications of the forensic specialists to make that determination.

2) The Department of Health, Hawaii, has stated they have AKA’s Hawaii birth certificate.

Not so. What the State of Hawaii stated was,

“Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.â€

Originally Posted by armbruster512

http://www.newswithviews.com/Stuter/stuter146.htm

DEBUNKING THE OBAMATOIDS

By Lynn Stuter

March 10, 2009
NewsWithViews.com

The squall of the obamatoids is getting louder and louder as we learn more and more about Also Known As (AKA) Obama; as though they can, by sheer volume, drown out the facts.

With this in mind, let's look at the claims of the obamatoids.

1) AKA has presented, for all to see, his birth certificate.

Not so. What AKA has presented, through his campaign and pro-Obama websites, is a Certification of Live Birth (COLB). That is so stated dead center of the top of the document. This is not a birth certificate or a certificate of birth.

[The State of Hawai'i considers a Certification of Live Birth as a secondary source of identification for the purpose of establishing Hawaiian ancestry; a Certificate of Live Birth is considered a primary source. The U.S. Passport Office states, "A certified birth certificate has a registrar's raised, embossed, impressed or multicolored seal, registrar's signature, and the date the certificate was filed with the registrar's office, which must be within 1 year of your birth. Please note, some short (abstract) versions of birth certificates may not be acceptable for passport purposes."]

This Certification of Live Birth (COLB), as presented, was presented by FactCheck.com, FighttheSmears.org, DailyKos.com and Snopes.com, all parroting the same claims, all obamatoid websites. While the claim has been made that the varying versions appearing on the internet all emanate from the same document, inconsistencies from one reproduction to the next tend to counter this claim. One of the more obvious inconsistencies is the folds [or the illegible embossed seal] that appear on some copies while not on others.

No one, outside a select group of obamatoids, has actually seen the original document from which the copies that appear on the internet were made. By the same token, not one of the copies of this COLB that have appeared on the internet is accompanied by a notarized affidavit that it is authentic copy of the original. In the day and age of photoshop; the credibility of this document is obviously questionable.

Now let's look at the document itself. Since when did African become a race? On your birth certificate is your father's ethnicity listed as American? Of course not; American is not a race. Neither is African. This document would be far more credible had it listed the father's race as negro or Negroid just as white or Caucasian were also used in 1961.

Forensic specialists have signed sworn affidavits stating that the copies of the COLB, appearing on the internet, are forgeries; these sworn affidavits being inclusive of the qualifications of the forensic specialists to make that determination.

2) The Department of Health, Hawaii, has stated they have AKA's Hawaii birth certificate.

Not so. What the State of Hawaii stated was,

"Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai'i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai'i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures."

hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/index.html

To my knowledge, there remains no mention of "Certification of Live Birth" on the State of Hawai'i Dept. of Health website. I haven't searched the Google cache or other web archives.

The Hawaii DOH offers no explanation of such a Certification, how to get one, what it certifies, whether it requires Hawaiian citizenship at birth, or anything else.

Most of the remaining mentions of the word "certification" have to do with wastewater.

CCUSA posted:

Scalia: You need 4 votes for Obama eligibility case
Lawyer confronts justice about prez's qualifications


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: March 10, 2009
9:19 pm Eastern


By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily



Antonin Scalia

A lawyer lobbying the U.S. Justice Department and the U.S. Supreme Court for a review of Barack Obama's qualifications to be president says a key conservative justice has hinted that another conservative justice has been voting against hearing the dispute.

According to Orly Taitz, a California attorney working through her Defend Our Freedoms Foundation on several cases challenging Obama, said she was presented with an opportunity to ask a question of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia yesterday.

The issue of Obama's eligibility has been raised before the Supreme Court at least four times already but has yet to be given a single hearing. Cases have been brought by Taitz, Philip Berg, Cort Wrotnowski and Leo Donofrio.

Read entire article on thread below.

http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-149238.html