obama presidential eligibility

no one cares about this issue eh..

http://www.newswithviews.com/NWV-News/news124.htm

people must be blind if they cannot see this is the beginning of 1776 all over again - us revolution.

I've looked at this hard, Don, and I'm seeing a bunch of kooks, cranks and hucksters.

i hear ya - tbh though i think it's difficult to tell if that is the case or not.

incidentally, do you think this guy is a kook?

http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin491.htm

i know hes a pastor/priest or whatever you want to call him. but i dont think that necessarily makes him a kook.

i honestly believe he will end up president. he was the consitutional party candidate that ran against obama. i think all these people will garner a lot more support than you realise - and the pace seems to be picking up, not dying down.

also some interesting stuff on this site:

http://www.therightsideoflife.com/

Incidentally, do you think this guy is a kook?

Well, he misrepresents Bush's position on the bailout and uses a conflated, **ised and postdated Woodrow Wilson quote. Yes, I'll go with kook.

how do u know he is misrepresenting and it has not been the mainstream news that has misrepresented it?

This

In other words, when the Fed says, "Jump!" the President asks, "How high?"

in no way represents what Bush said. Now, how about that Wilson quote?

had dropped right to the bottom :0

ttt for future updates

:)

sry , been a bit busy.

masher - i believe baldwin is intereting what was said through his perception. i agree he has a different perception to many, but that doesnt make him wrong. i think labeling the guy as a kook is incorrect though.

there are numerous cases outstanding - some targetting the birth certificate issue, some the natural born citizen argument (regarding is dual citizenship prevented nbc), others looking at his indonesian status and whether he is even a citizen.

phil berg is leading 3 cases still (i now think he will be the one to beat obama on this eventually):

Berg vs. Obama, Third Circuit Court of Appeals No. 08 4340
Berg filed Brief on 1/20/09
Waiting for Response Briefs from Obama, DNC and the other Defendants (Appellees)

Berg vs. Obama, U.S. District Court
Case filed under seal on 11/07/08 cannot be discussed

Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama,
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, No. 08-cv-02254
Berg filed 1st Amended Complaint for Hollister on 2/09/09
after Soetoro/Obama and Biden filed Motion to Dismiss

orly taitz also has some running. a new one on particular where the plaintiffs are state legistlators (republicans i believe):

Tennessee Rep. Eric Swafford
Glen Cassada, Stacey Campfield and Frank Niceley
Dr. Mike Ritze
Tim Comerford, Tennessee, and Dr. Ritze, Oklahoma

alan keyes case is still going too i believe, although obama's legal team are trying to quash the case and prevent disclosure of obama's college records, and even dish out fines to plaintiffs. why should they be fined? why shouldnt his documents be disclosed ??

the issue of his eligibility appeared on bbc news earlier this week too... just only in russia. link to audio below if anyone can translate? apparent translations say the russian bbc interviewer was calling the issue the case of the century and was amazed the us/uk press were not covering it. [i cannot confirm whether this translation is accurate though - can anyone?]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/avdb/world_service/russian/audio/249000/nb/249664_au_nb.asx

also , pidgeon, the attorney who filed the broe v reed case re obamas eligibility, has now submitted an application for a national grand jury, which would include someone representing each of the 50 states

The National Grand Jury is empowered to:

Inquire into the condition and management of branches of the federal government and its agencies.
Investigate and report on the operations, accounts and records of federal officers, departments, and functions.
Inquire into the willful or corrupt misconduct in office of public officers.
Submit a final report of its findings and recommendations, no later than the end of its term, to the Presiding Juror of the National Grand Jury.

this is basically lawful rebellion. whether it works is another matter. personally i cannot see the whole thing going peacefully.

the best site to keep up to date on the eligibility lawsuits i think is www.therightsideoflife.com - also has an article on the national grnad jury that is worth a read.

also, for a bit more background, here's a story from the us commenting on obama's "transparency" some more. this time on torture policy, and how he as adopted the exact same stance as bush. dont say i didnt warn you.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/us/10torture.html?_r=2&hp

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/02/obama-birth-cer.html

Alan Keyes stokes Obama birth certificate controversy -

The controversy over the validity of Barack Obama's birth certificate is back on a burner with firebrand conservative Alan Keyes making serious new charges...

LAWYERS RUNNING A COUNTRY!!
DONT BEAR THINKING ABOUT.
IMAGING SOMEONE LIKE CHERIE BLAIR LIVING IN NO.10

Soldier questions eligibility, doubts president's authority.

http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=89837

Hollister v. Soetoro: Motion for Berg, Joyce to be Admitted to USDC granted.

Basically Berg has been granted authorisation to act on behlaf of the plaintiff in a court hearing

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/4929005/Barack-Obama-fights-presidential-eligibility-claims.html

Barack Obama fights presidential eligibility claims

Barack Obama is being forced to repel a series of writs challenging his presidential eligibility, as conspiracy theories claiming he is not an American citizen refuse to go away.


By Alex Spillius in Washington
Last Updated: 9:17PM GMT 02 Mar 2009

The most common allegation lawyers are having to refute is that a certificate of Mr Obama's birth in Hawaii is false, leading accusers to conclude that he was born outside the country and is therefore disqualified to fill the highest office in the land.

Other challengers have contended that his Kenyan father was British, even though that would not exclude him from occupying the White House.

Both claims are untrue. Officials in Hawaii said they had viewed Mr Obama's original certificate and confirmed it stated he was born in Honolulu on Aug 4, 1961. A certified version of the certificate released by his campaign last summer when the theory began circulating showed the same. Birth notices in Hawaii papers record a birth to his mother and father on the same day.

But that has not stopped the theorists, who have been dubbed "the Birthers" and who see Mr Obama as a fifth columnist. Their accusations are often tinged with racism and antipathy to Islam, the religion of his father. During his campaigns Mr Obama faced an online rumour mill that he was a Muslim, though he has worshipped at a Christian church for 20 years.

The conservative website WorldNet Daily claims to have received 300,000 signatures for an online petition challenging Mr Obama's legitimacy.

Orly Taitz, a California dentist and lawyer, who was herself born overseas, is representing soldiers challenging Mr Obama's right to be president, including retired Maj Gen Carroll Childers, who compared the Democrat to "Hitler, Stalin, Saddam, Mao, and Kim Jong Il".

"He is an interloper, a usurper, a fake, a scam artist, a Chicago crook, a recipient of bribes and gratuitous income for which he paid no tax, a socialist (perhaps only a communist or Marxist), and a grave danger to the future of the America that I love and have protected since I was 17 years old," Maj Gen Childers wrote in a statement on the website for Ms Taitz's Defend Our Freedoms Foundation. The rumour got closest to the mainstream when Richard Shelby, an Alabama senator, gave it credibility during a recent meeting with constituents.

Asked for his views on the notion, the Cullman Times, an Alabama paper, quoted Mr Shelby as saying: "Well his father was Kenyan and they said he was born in Hawaii, but I haven't seen any birth certificate. You have to be born in America to be president."

The White House regards the claims as an irritant and is not responding to questions about them, but lawyers for the Democratic National Committee and Mr Obama himself have spent considerable time and money combating a steady supply of lawsuits at every court level up to the Supreme Court. The exact cost to Mr Obama himself is not known.

The hubbub over the president's place of birth, which is aided and abetted by the internet, seems likely to last for some time, if not his entire presidency.

Other presidents have been victims of wild conspiracy theories.

Bill and Hillary Clinton were submitted to accusations that they were involved in the "murder" of White House counsel and old friend Vince Foster. Three investigations by different arms of authority ruled he had committed suicide.

President George W Bush still faces conspiracy theorists who claim that he and Dick Cheney were responsible for the September 11 attacks, as a way of drumming support for future wars. His botched response to Hurricane Katrina was supposedly designed to take the city out of the control of the poor and the black community, some theorists allege.

In the recent past there have been theories that Bill Clinton was the anti-Christ and Al Gore was a vampire.

Evan Harrington, a professor of social psychology who has studied conspiracy theories at the University of Chicago, Mr Obama's home town, said that they were essentially rumours writ large by people with a thirst for publicity.

"Thinking that you are on to information that no one else has got really makes you feel important," said Prof Harrington, who has himself been accused by conspiracy theorists of being part of a campaign to hide information about mind control of the public.

"For a conspiracy theory to exist you have to have a willingness to suspend belief or ignore evidence that doesn't fit. It's a rare individual who believes them but they are the ones who get the attention."

please provide the exact quote where the hawaiian's confirmed his brith place. if you find the quote the author is referring to, all that is announced is that a birth certificate is on file, it does not state what is written on the certificate.

similarly, the "certificate" posted on the web, is not a birth certificate. we've only gone thru this a few hundred times altready lol

Other challengers have contended that his Kenyan father was British, even though that would not exclude him from occupying the White House

not necessarily true either.

answer me this, why was is one of berg's cases still under court seal, and has been since july??? transparent as fk huh. hes great obama.

"Thinking that you are on to information that no one else has got really makes you feel important," said Prof Harrington, who has himself been accused by conspiracy theorists of being part of a campaign to hide information about mind control of the public.

"For a conspiracy theory to exist you have to have a willingness to suspend belief or ignore evidence that doesn't fit

well what else is he going to say? hes being interviewed to back up the story.

its all just analysis, but if you call it a conspiracy theory it is immediately discredited. media has spent many years ensuring that.

WHY WONT HE SHOW THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE? im waiting..

almost forgot. im feeling verrry important right now. what an arrogant c0(k piece this prof is.

................................,-~*`¯lllllll`*~,............................. .......... .....
...........................,-~*`lllllllllllllllllllllllllll¯`*-,..........................................
......................,-~*llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll*-,......................................
..................,-*lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll lllll.\... ..................................
................;*`lllllllllllllllllllllllllll,-~*~-,llllllllllllllllllll\............................ ........
................\lllllllllllllllllllllllllll/...........\;;;;llllllllllll,-`~-,................................
.................\lllllllllllllllllllll,-*.............`~-~-,...(.(¯`*,`,...............................
...................\llllllllllll,-~*........................)_-\..*`*;..)..............................
.....................\,-*`¯,*`)............,-~*`~................../...............................
.....................|/.../.../~,......-~*,-~*`;.................../.\..............................
.................../.../..../..../..,-,..*~,.`*~*..................*...\................ .......... ...
...................|.../.../..../.*`...\................................)....)¯`~,. .......... .........
...................|./..../..../........).........)`*~-,............../.....|..)...`~-,..............
.................././.../....,*`-,.....`-,....*`....,---......\...../...../..|..........¯```*~-,,,,
.................(............)`*~-,.....`*`.,-~*.,-*.......|.../..../..../...............\..........
..................*-,.......`*-,...`~,..``.,,,-*.............|.,*...,*....|.................\.... .....
......................*,.........`-,....)-,..................,-*`...,-*.....(`-,..............\........
........................f`-,........`-,/...*-,___,,-~*.....,-*......|....`-,...............\.......

tinged with racism and antipathy to Islam

evidence please. nice attempt at discreditation. of course there will be a few that fit into that category, but the vast majority make it quite clear this is not their motive, only that they love their country and want to protect their consitutition. (obviously having looked into it further ive realised the constitution is just a piece of paper like bush said it was, because it doesnt apply to the people because they havent claimed their rights - see thread on do we need a uk consitution).

all those black folks accusing him of being ineligible - including former us ambassadaor under reagan alan keyes. racists??

The White House regards the claims as an irritant and is not responding to questions about them, but lawyers for the Democratic National Committee and Mr Obama himself have spent considerable time and money combating a steady supply of lawsuits at every court level up to the Supreme Court. The exact cost to Mr Obama himself is not known.

what they've been defending in many cases, is the release of sight of his actual full form birth certificate. why bother? why not just show it if no problem?

You better ask that well known communist/socialist/Marxist sympathising newspaper,The Telegraph. Quite frankly I have no interest where he was born and only concern myself with what he does. However, I am sure it is a big talking point for the Hank's with a modem from Hicksville in some god forsaken part of the Mid-West.

every state in america actually. they are livid because they see the consitution blatantly being disguarded.

alan keyes was on the ballot for prez himslef in california so you're right, hicksville it is....

philip berg, who is leading several cases, is FORMER DISTRICT ATTORNEY. what a kook he must have been to get that position eh.

so walter, unless you would care to ever offer any evidence of any sort, or provide a meaningful update other than what has been covered several times across a number of threads, i suggest you leave the thread.

it does amuse me that you claerly continue to read the updates tho.

im calling the telegraph nothing, although im sure can provide evidence of previous inaccurate reporting. i am saying, that they have done zero research themselves, as is obvious. so in short the reporter in question is a complete waste of space and not fit to write his name on a piece of bog roll.

its strange his gran ( on the father's side ) remembers being at his birth in kenya

Would this research of yours consist of visiting websites ? Any chance of research papers that originated from a credible academic establishment or cites credible academics ?

Don

Forgetting where Obama was born for a second, it's been your assertion that he is part of the Illuminati, pre-selected for President, etc etc.

Given that he has declared War on the Corporatocracy, where does that leave your theory?

his gran's words came from her mouth in a taped interview

walter your definition of credible academics is different to my own i have no doubt. websites are included yes, as is other media, and literature

chippie - sensible question so ty.

it is my understanding that moving into the end game plan, no one is safe, not even most of them whom you refer to as illuminati. not sure i ever used that word though tbh

that is why obama is in - he is in to do a job, including taking the wealth off many of these people and giving it for the state. (the state being owned of course, as a corporation, by the crown (city of london, agent to the vatican). the whole thing is a consolidation of wealth exercise, whereby lower members have been used to bend/use rules etc and gain wealth, so it can then be taken from them later.

he may or may not know what he is doing, but is subject to the will of his handlers ... you know them as advisors. you know, the same people who have advised the last 40 years worth of goverment over there. in taking wealth from upper classes, he is serving the elite's purpose - to make 2 distinct classes - them (the elite), and the rest of us (the lower class).

this is why i know he will be out before you know it, because it has been set up that way. they can get rid of him as quickly and easily as they got him in using the ineligiblity thing, as and when it suits. i think you know already the supreme court doesnt in every case play fair... because they have the same handlers. it is not obama - like it was not bush - it is the advisors.

:)

secret organisations operate in a pyramid fashion. each man knows only what they are told from the above him, and what they have told the man below them. they likely believe they are doing things for all manner of reasons.

dont worry im likely done posting for the day, so you can all get back to arguing about the left and right as usual.

No problem Don I admire your tenacity even although I believe it to be misguided.

:) we are all entitled to our own opinions and perceptions of course :)

any updates?

plenty going on. i dont have time to put much detail but his a glimpse:

-there are still several cases challenging eligibliity etc that remain open, one having been sealed since june. more appear regularly too so i have lost count nhow many!
-approx 20 states are forming common law grand juries to investigate - in georgia they have already formed it and have given the governemtn 40 days to rectify the issue via the district attorney (or else ... i dont know)
-the other avenue, the constitutional process "quo warranto" is also being followed. this essentially is a process by which the people can request details of what makes someone eligible for a position in public office, specifically in obama's case how he meets the criteria of natural born citizen. it is believed however that this will only work in the district of colombia (and im not sure it has been launched there yet) because they have special laws there that expressly allow for quo warranto with regard to the president. effectively if quo warranto finds him ineligible and he is removed, legally he will have never won the 2008 election and never will have been president. also in a recent qa session with supreme court judges a judge confirmed they would hear the quo warranto case if the plaintiff could get 4 of the 9 judges to put it forward.

personally i think quo warranto is a pretty interesting concept and may stand a chance.

have a gd day

ttt

Barack or Barry?

"In a move certain to fuel the debate over Obama's qualifications for the presidency, the group "Americans for Freedom of Information" has released copies of President Obama's college transcripts from Occidental College. Released today, the transcript indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate at the school. The transcript was released by Occidental College in compliance with a court order in a suit brought by the group in the Superior Court of California. The transcript shows that Obama (Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship for foreign students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program. To qualify for the scholarship, a student must claim foreign citizenship."

http://www.rense.com/general86/dwnto.htm

lol.

one of berg's cases was scheduled for oral argument in june. the court has now postponed it until october-time :(

he still has 3 live cases tho which have been going on for ages - one under seal. taitz is still going too.

"wheres the birth certificate" billboard campagin by worldnetdaily is also picking up.

also posey's bill to ensure pres candidates provide proof of natural born citizenship status gained further support amongst legislators.

http://www./brense/b.com/general86/dwnto.htm

Lol indeed.

also schneller v cortes is scheduled for scotus conference on june 18th, so we prob know the outcome of that one by june 22nd. writ of certiorari will be granted if 4 out of 9 justices agree

The lads haven't come clean about the source for Erndoch's copy and paste above. Perhaps they don't know. I'll give them a clue:

OBAMA - SMOKING GUN FINALLY FOUND?

April 1, 2009

AP- WASHINGTON D.C. - In a move certain to fuel the debate over Obamas qualifications for the presidency, the group

Is the argument now that he was born in Indonesia?

No, not as far as I am aware.

one of the arguments is that he was a citizen of indonesia and never regained american citizenship. not proven tho. another is that legally he is barry soetoro and has committed fraud by not declaring aliases - in fact he may have done this anyway as im pretty sure he has to sign a declaration stating that he has never used a different name if it is not declared therein

anyone see it?? obama's KENYAN birth certificate was appaarently listed on ebay lol.
cant confirm if its real surprisingly. but listing was removed 3/4 times however the seller continues to re post it.

one of world net dailys stories on it
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=102493

Why post it on Ebay when FoxNews et al would pay a kings ransom for it?

they wont though wlil they. that is why its not even discussed on tv barely other than a couple of brief ridiculing mentions.

the news outlets are not allowed to cover this story. shows you the power the man has. fox likely will be the ones to eventally break the ineiligbility story, but only when they're given the go ahead.

keep loving the msm though. they're not brainwashing you at all, honest.

Don if you don't stop this nonsense we will have to make sure that you will not continue in this pathetic attempt of destroying our man.

Cease and desist your campaign or we will have to report you to the Illumination Council forthwith.

cease and desist? a lawful offer by yourself. i conditionally accept to cease and desist presenting the truth in a format easily comprehendable by the masses, provided you pay me a suitable consideration (fee) and guarantee safety or myself and family. thanks in advance, i look forward to completing this contract ;)

they wont though wlil they. that is why its not even discussed on tv barely other than a couple of brief ridiculing mentions.

"Man attempts to swindle loons on Ebay" is not really a big enough story, Don. Now if the loons got together, raised the $1 million and got themselves swindled that might make the news. It only costs $1 million to get this 'evidence' that will bring Obama down, but it's 1.000000001 that the loons will do it..

Following the court case in california yesterday - it seems the case is now booked in to be heard and argued on itss merits, at last.

Orly Taitz, the attorney in Keyes v. Obama.
At the hearing yesterday at the Federal Court building in Santa Ana, Judge Carter said the following:
1. There will be a trial.
2. It will be heard on the merits.
3. Nothing will be dismissed on proceedural issues.
4. The trial will be expeditious, and the judge pledged to give case priority.
5. Being a former Marine he realizes the importance of having a Constitutionally qualified POTUS/CINC.
6. Judge stated that if Obama isnt Constitutionally qualifed he needs to leave the White House.
The DOJ will be involved with the case also

Following the court case in california yesterday - it seems the case is now booked in to be heard and argued on itss merits, at last.

Orly Taitz, the attorney in Keyes v. Obama.
At the hearing yesterday at the Federal Court building in Santa Ana, Judge Carter said the following:
1. There will be a trial.
2. It will be heard on the merits.
3. Nothing will be dismissed on proceedural issues.
4. The trial will be expeditious, and the judge pledged to give case priority.
5. Being a former Marine he realizes the importance of having a Constitutionally qualified POTUS/CINC.
6. Judge stated that if Obama isnt Constitutionally qualifed he needs to leave the White House.
The DOJ will be involved with the case also

fox news have tonight reported on a soldier who has refused his call up on the basis obama is ineligible. he will argue his case on thursday.

think orly taitz will be going. she has filed notices against obama, included a default judgement notice which he has not rebutted i dont think - so will wait and see what happens.

next update thursday i guess.

BORN IN THE USA?
Bombshell: Orders revoked for soldier challenging prez
Major victory for Army warrior questioning Obama's birthplace

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104009

PTB trying to keep the eligibility issue on the down-low?

BORN IN THE USA?
Pentagon orders soldier fired for challenging prez
Army warrior terminated from job after questioning Obama eligibility
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104044

More coverup.

Federal judge dismisses lawsuit questioning Obama's natural born citizen status
http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/story/779860.html

Thanks to the alertness of our great friend and loyal supporter Erica, who gave us the heads-up on this. it appears that the issue of Obama being forced to produce a copy of his birth certificate may prove to be extremely difficult, if not impossible.
On January 21st, 2009, his very first day in office, Barack Obama implemented and signed into law Executive Order 13489.
For those of you who cant take the time to read it. here is the section that applies:

More coverup.

Federal judge dismisses lawsuit questioning Obama's natural born citizen status

Perfect conspiracy theorist logic. "there are law suits out there, it proves its real". Nut case law suit determined as such, "cover up".

and a year on......

learnt a lot since this thread. birth certificate doesnt matter. nor does where he was born, although obviously that could rule him ineligible. he is ineligible due to his british father who was never a us citizen and thus conferred his british citizenship onto obama as per the natural law with which the constitution was written. "natural born citizen" means someone with sole allegiance to the usa. it holds no more rights than "citizen", other than being a national security measure with regard to holding the office of president. as per the intention of the framers.

a case will be heard january 26th if not before, on merits.

it seems to me though through my research that the constitution , being a contract between the federal gov and the states (not the people directly), means that no one will get standing, unless usa plc gives the go ahead - they have the final say. apart from that the only legitimate route is a quo warranto case in dc - quo warranto meaning "by what authority" , and in dc because that is where obama holds office, and by an interested person (whatever that maybe - military etc, or another presidentia candidate)l.

m not convinced any of the existing lawsuits will actually work, but i may be wrong, as the plan may well be to blame obama for all this spending etc in due course and for ruining america and usa plc will remove him when they see fit. the power here is with the state reps. that said, they cannot let it run for ever, because sooner or later a common law grand jury might rule and have to be enforced, and the ptb dont want that because it would make it clear to you all how the common law still applies and they certainly dont want u claiming common law rights. so the company via states may decide to grant standing and get rid of him via one of these cases before the common law challengers do. they need to maintain the illusion.

quo warranto like i say would prob work. but no quo warranto case is currently underway in dc. donofrio says he's looking for a plaintiff that is suitable. other's like attorney mario apuzzo say the state doenst matter, and im beginnning to be more inclined towards agreeing with him on that point, so maybe it will happen sooner rather than later.

or maybe it will take another year or so, following the civil revolt which is bubbling under the surface and the usa is on the cusp of. obama certainly wont be getting a 2nd term, because he wont fool them twice. questions will be asked next time round if it gets that far, and he wont be able to avoid them.

havent opened one if 15 years.

i would say some truth some fiction. much the same everywhere. agendas and vested interest are hidden all over.

wrong thread oops lol

for the record:

DonWarro 23 Nov 01:14


and there are bigger things at stake than the money here.

re this:

This birther controversy was in the public domain at the time of the election and the American people still voted for Obama.

the facts of the matter were hidden. the media was heavily skewed towards obama - surely that was obvious to anyone, even if they supported him. there was in fact little objective reporting on him or this issue - the media immediately labelled it conspiracy theory, hence immediately applying a name "birther", so as to easily group together any dissenters or people that question and brush them off as fringe loonies. the trouble is, there are some loonies, but there are a lot of highly educated people out there too.

As for Obama's policies, can say what he has done that is the opposite of what he said he would do during the election campaign?

many would argue he's done a lot that he siad he would, which in the main the yanks didnt pick up on that he said he would do. there's also a lot of things where he's not followed through. transparency for one. cost savings secondly. containing unemployment (although that is nothing to do with his idealogue, just his uselessness, or maybe its planned..). guantamo bay. the war machine. the currency. spending. people are not happy with him regardless of what he said he would do.




amik 23 Nov 01:18


Which birther facts were hidden?
What new birther facts have come to light since election day?
Please be specific.




DonWarro 23 Nov 01:18


mccain was not born on a us military base like the press keep saying - was born in colon hospital. foreign soil. means dual alleigiance at birth despite his parents being american, and therefore this doesnt meet the constitutional requirement of "natural born citizen" needed in order to hold the office of president. besides that it is a myth held by the public that military base is american soil - the department of defence confirms this if you check the manual. i posted a link up on one of these threads last year. mccain is actually a citizen by statute i think, again meaning not foreign born - there's some act they triied to apply retrospectively to classify him as natural born but it doesnt hold water.




DonWarro 23 Nov 01:19


amik - i will be a few minutes.




traveller43 23 Nov 01:19


be more specific as to the fringe loonies,please ;-]




pussycat 23 Nov 01:22


salmon spray 23 Nov 01:13
I am lost on this. Why wasn`t McCain eligible iyo ?

basically McCain was born on a US Panama army base and Obama was born in Kenya/Australia/Indonesia so his bet was a null and void Presidential race...




salmon spray 23 Nov 01:31


I really don`t know about Obama, but,whilst no expert on The American Constitution, I do have a degree in Politics and my understanding was that childern born abroad to American servicemen, diplomats etc were definitely eligible.




amik 23 Nov 01:31


'Natural born citizen' has no constitutional defintion.The American people knew of and accepted McCain background. I am not aware of any person of note who alleged that McCain was not a natural born citizen of the USA.

The American people accepted Obama and McCain as suitable candidates and that should be good enough for everyone else.




DonWarro 23 Nov 01:32


http://www.scribd.com/doc/11737124/Citizenship-Terms-Used-in-the-US-Constitution-The-5-Terms-Defined-Some-Legal-Reference-to-Same

and this will take you some time. and there's more to follow. you asked so i will provide the o.

When interpreting the Constitution, we must decide whether we will look to the document as an original and static one whose meaning has already been established at a given time by the People and its Framers or one that is living and which can be changed over any given time by a court of law. See the address of Justice Antonin Scalia to the 2008 Annual National Lawyers Convention on November 22, 2008, at the Mayflower Hotel, in Washington, D.C. http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubid.1193/pub_detail.asp. (advocates originalism rather than living constitutionalism). I submit that Article IIs

any chance of a quick recap?

in addition, an indiana court just tried to rule on what "natural born citizen" is. this will come back to bit them.

ruling is here:

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf

they've done a pretty poor job with the conclusions, which are easily torn apart and a clear effort to somehow diffuse the situation. attorney leo donofrio has provided an excellent commentary on his blog. commentary:

[i]edit (donofrio): Also, the Chester Arthur analysis in Footnote 16 reeks. This Indiana decision is pure evil. They have rewritten history to make it appear as if the whole world knew Chester Arthur was a British citizen at birth while history records this blog discovered that fact and first published it to the world in December 2008. Before that time, it was not known. The propaganda has spread from the press to the courts.]


The Indiana Court of Appeals in the Arkeny and Kruse case has just issued a lame judicial attempt at defining the

doing a quick recap now for winning thought. realise there's masses in what ive posted on this page of the thread.

..tomorrow now lol. need sleep, crashed out of tournies :(

How is this going Don ?

this has to be one of the most insane threads i've ever seen on a politics forum, care in the community ISN'T working!

any news?

I was thinking about this thread whilst listening to the radio this morning.

wibble wibble

Don, why do you keep banging on about this? Are you American? What does it matter anyway? Personally I would be happier were an American NOT president.

he hasn't banged on about it for 13 months apparently.

thx charlatan, just noticed.

where is my panties?

How's all this going, Don? The boot must be imminent now...

ttt

PMSL, poor old DonWarro.

Ha ... why has it taken Obama so long to produce his birth certificate ... obviously because it was so difficult to forge and then infiltrate it into the Hawaii State Department of Health archives

dont worry DonWarro will be along soon with sources revealing who forged it.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/gavon/top-20-conspiracy-theories-that-have-already-sprun

Resurrected because Obama accepted the Democrat nomination and so now is officially running again. I thought the lads might like to comment, but I fear they may have legged it.

Hello.  Hope you're all well.  I'm back for one post only for the time being - feel free to throw insults, i won't be replying, but before doing so perhaps consider the many other things i said on this forum that have since come to fruition (and yes i've no doubt that idea will be rejected too but i care not :) i cannot help if people do not pay attention, i can only try )

For info, this is still going on. All cases to date have still been rejected on standing; merits of issue remain undiscussed.

Long form birth certificate was released by Obama April last year.  Strange how when the certificate of live birth was issued earlier everyone claimed that is all there is, yet this seems to have been forgotten by all when a new one appeared, and stranger still is that the most recently issued document is full of holes and glitches and is likely a forgery (opinion).  Regardsless though, as has been maintained throughout, a natural born citizen requires to citizen parents at the time of the childs birth. I know most disagree with this, but:

A natural born citizen is one whom naturally is born a citizen, via location of birth and citizenship of parents, i.e. there is no question with regard to citizenship status and no foreign country may lay claim to the person and similarly there is no choice to be made by the person or their parents.  If one or more parents are not a citizen, their offspring are entitled to inherit their political rights, i.e. a choice is required, or split allegiance, and an act of law (statute) is required to affirm citizenship status. 
Alternatively one can be a citizen at birth via statute (i.e. naturalised and therefore not naturally in the language of the law), for example the 14th amendment, effectively giving one naturalised status at birth.  This is the case where there may be split allegiance or a choice to be made, but more importantly a manmade law is required to grant citizenship, hence people in this camp are not considered natural born citizens under the law. "Citizen at birth" does not equal "natural born citizen".

So all natural born citizens are citizens at birth, but not all citizens at birth are natural born citizens.  The word naturally in this instance means automatically and as a result of the nature of nations themselves whereby all citizens pass on their political rights to their offspring, hence citizenship of the parents at the time of birth is relevant when establishing who is natural born and who is not.  If citizenship relies on a statute, one is not natural born.

1862 Representative John Bingham, author of the 14th Amendment (Cong. Globe, 37th Congress, 2nd Session, pg 1639):

“All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.”
http://memory.loc.gov/ll/llcg/059/0600/06811639.gif
The Civil Rights Act of 1866 failed to pass in the Senate until Lyman Trumbull proposed an amendment to the bill adding the words “That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States;”
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/reconstruction/section4/section4_civrightsact1.html
The bill then went to the House where Representative John Bingham (author of the “future” 14th amendment), confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866, in regards to Trumbull’s amendment to the bill:
“I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of PARENTS NOT OWING ALLEGIANCE TO ANY FOREIGN SOVEREIGNTY is,
in the language of your Constitution itself, a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN”
MIDDLE COLUMN 3RD PARAGRAPH:
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=071/llcg071.db&recNum=332

The 14th amendment was introduced to render the Civil Rights act constitutional and amend it to the Constitution. It passed in the House, but failed in the Senate until Senator Jacob Howard’s amendment to the bill (the citizenship clause) was introduced. In 1866 while while introducing bill H.R. 127 (14th Amendment) Jacob M. Howard (Author of the Citizenship clause) states:
“This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States.”
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11

MEANING that they changed NOTHING with the 14th Amendment, only that they were declaring what was already the law. The LAW he was referring to, was the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which had just recently passed and again states:
“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States;”
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/reconstruction/section4/section4_civrightsact1.html
Everyone seems to forget the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, which is why the law/amendment went astray. If you look at the congressional records, while they were debating the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment, you will find the truth and see the 14th Amendment has been 100% perverted!
What exactly did “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” mean to the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment? Luckily we have Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment, and the one who inserted the citizenship clause amendment to the bill, so I think he knew what HE meant::
“The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ NOT OWING ALLEGIANCE TO ANYBODY ELSE. That is what it means.”
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=14

So this proves that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means the same exact thing as “not subject to any foreign power”.  in common language it would read "subject only to the jurisdiction thereof" however it is not common language that is being discussed, it is the language of the law, legalese, which remains static in meaning.  hence people throw the argument of the 14th amendment into the works, yet it does not mention the term natural born citizen at all, and it is often misread because people do not understand the above.

Senator Howard concurs with Trumbull’s construction:
“I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word “jurisdiction,” as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.”
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=16

1814 Supreme Court Case, The Venus, Chief Justice Marshall cites Vattel in saying:
“The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject rests on the law of nations as its base. It is therefore of some importance to inquire how far the writerson that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside. Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says:”
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”
http://supreme.justia.com/us/12/253/case.html

Supreme Court Minor V. Happerset:
“At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=88&invol=162
_____________________________

NBC in the Constitutional drafts:

June 18th, 1787 - Alexander Hamilton suggests that the requirement be added, as: “No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.”
Works of Alexander Hamilton (page 407).
http://books.google.com/books?id=Dm0FAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA407&lpg=PA407&dq;=“hereafter+be+born+a+Citizen+of+the+United+States”++Hamilton&source=bl&ots=s6a4fGDolB&sig=K063NZIEWeaqsInb-bnTgoE6orQ&hl=en&ei=q610SsWEIY7mMdiJnLEM&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2#v=onepage&q&f;=false
July 25, 1787 (~5 weeks later) - John Jay writes a letter to General Washington (president of the Constitutional Convention): “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.” [the word born is underlined in Jay’s letter which signifies the importance of allegiance from birth.]
http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(fr00379)):
September 2nd, 1787 George Washington pens a letter to John Jay. The last line reads: “I thank you for the hints contained in your letter”
http://www.consource.org/index.asp?bid=582&fid=600&documentid=71483
September 4th, 1787 (~6 weeks after Jay’s letter and just 2 days after Washington wrote back to Jay) - The “Natural Born Citizen” requirement is now found in their drafts.
Madison’s notes of the Convention.
http://www.nhccs.org/dfc-0904.txt

So the natural born citizen clause was added in order to ensure unquestioned allegiance.  any child born of a foreigner is of questionable allegiance in the eyes of many, particularly given the us' history with the british.  and let's not forget obama himself said the british nationality act of 1948 also goverened him at birth... ie he admits it!

You see, words mean something.  If natural born citizen just means citizen, then the words "natural born" would never have been added at all.  Here’s what Chief Justice Marshall said about this issue in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803):

“It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it.” Id. 174. (Emphasis added.)

And here’s what the U.S. Supreme Court held as to statutory construction in the seminal case on this issue, Morton v. Mancari:

“Where there is no clear intention otherwise, a specific statute will not be controlled or nullified by a general one, regardless of the priority of enactment. See, e. g., Bulova Watch Co. v. United States, 365 U.S. 753, 758 (1961); Rodgers v. United States, 185 U.S. 83, 87 -89 (1902).

The courts are not at liberty to pick and choose among congressional enactments, and when two statutes are capable of co-existence, it is the duty of the courts, absent a clearly expressed congressional intention to the contrary, to regard each as effective. “When there are two acts upon the same subject, the rule is to give effect to both if possible . . . The intention of the legislature to repeal `must be clear and manifest.’ ” United States v. Borden Co., 308 U.S. 188, 198 (1939).” Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 550-551 (1974).

i could add a load more stuff but can't be bothered.  since the democrats made 8 or more attempts over the decade before obama was elected to change the term nbc, perhaps people should consider why they were doing that.  each attempt failed btw. and don't take my word for it, look it up.

also look up hr 511 where congress in a non-binding resolution (ie not law and can be overturned) declared mccain an nbc, and obama signed this, yet the words state mccain was an nbc due to his citizen parents.  fyi, i disagree that mccain is an nbc, the americans were fed two ineligible candidates.

the question is whether the constitution is in force at all.  and people can site english common law as being the basis of the constitution all they like, but this is not the same as common law itself which is based on natural law and self-revelatory and it is common law that was used.  america did not respect the laws of the king of england, so is it likely they would use his language?  unlikely imo.

there are more cases in court later this month, and kansas state is currently investigating whether to remove obama from the ballot now he has formally accepted the democratic nomination.  kansas will prob reject the idea but there is hope later in september in the courts.

some of you may remember i stated that the left/right paradigm is an illusion.  it does not matter which party wins the election as the strings of both are pulled from above those institutions in the global power structure.  same in this country, except it's even more obvious given there is now a "Coaltion".   this all remains true now; differences are superficial and it is clear from recent interviews that both romney and obama share the same views when it comes to policy on many fronts.. so during this year's election it is even clearer that the choice presented is a false choice and an illusion.  will anyone notice? :)   obama could still lose the 2008 election lol,in which case chuck baldiwin would retroactively be declared president and pitched as a saviour, however he has a lot of stuff right but ultimately he will not last as it has been established that tptb planned all this- for obama to be found ineligible etc to divide and conquer, and in order to give baldwin control, and since it is a plot, this will eventually be revealed, as all things eventually are.

have a good day.  ill pop back when i win this thing :) lol

i had to come back and post this because i forgot. altho as above, place of birth is not the only issue:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100158834/obama-used-to-be-a-kenyan/

so this booklet, which obama had to have approved the text of, said he was born in kenya.  perhaps he wasnt and he lied at the time to serve his interests at the time, or perhaps not.  funny how this wasnt raised in 2008 eh.  dont buy the "clinton would have raised the issue if there were one"; they are in on it all.

so he's either ineligible due to place of birth regardless of parentage or a liar?  perhaps this is why college records etc are sealed.. maybe he applied for foreign student aid. why would a president seal college records anyway?

at the very least there appear to be many coincidences with regard to this issue.  this suggests something is not quite as it seems imo.  i do love how the majority of the media covered this up though and shut down any debate on the issue by framing any who questioned it as a loony.  the power of marginalisation eh (see "rules for radicals"; those techniques have clearly been used).  and then to limit the debate too by not mentioning the parentage issue and incorrectly focussing solely on the birth certificate. wake up please, it's time now.

have a fun weekend.

Don Worro

everything you have said about this issue has been proven to be complete b0llox.

it is quite clear that your problem is that you just cannot bear the thought that the yanks have elected a black president; so you and a few other right wing jerkoffs are whining on about the president's eligibility.

Hitler lost - get over it.

Hmmm.. "see dreams from my REAL father" it's a doozy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOmzTLdr_m4

http://www.obamasrealfather.com/

cry of truth;  is that all you have?  put your race card away please.  my godchildren are black as are many of my friends.  my best friends are of mixed heritage; half chinese, half italian, half spanish. none of them think it's racist to question obama's eligibilty given the facts, and of course i realise that you do not know me but casting aspersions of racism like you have done would be found offensive by some.  fortunately i don't care what you think :)

what has been proven exactly?  the american public do not have standing to question whether their president is eligible, that is all that has been proven to date.

and besides, obama is more white than black if you would like to check his family history(assuming it is as he says it is), and in fact he is more arabic than black too.  1/8 black.

regardless though, he is a pawn in this play. being "black" was a useful tool for his handlers who can throw the race card at anyone who disagrees or questions in the same manner that you have just done.  this is simply more marginalisation... nice try.

perhaps try a constructive argument of facts rather than resulting to insults, which are usually the resort of someone on the losing side of a debate.  this is a matter of law not prejudice.  people like you are part of the current problem.  you swallow and tout the "it must be racism" line; think what you are doing.  you are buying into the standard "divide and conquer" methodology, and if he is found ineligible and his supports kick off, you may even end up with blood on your hands.  so perhaps try being a little more objective next time you comment.

"condemnation without investigation is the peak of ignorance" - albert einstein.

and as for the "hitler lost" comment; i could list dozens of documented similarities between obama, his views, his policies, and his rise to power, and hitler.  right now the racism is coming from the whitehouse, not being directed towards it, but then again i wouldnt expected you to know of accept any of that becuase you likely only read what one or two newspapers tell you rather than listening to all sides. wake up ffs. obama behaves like a dictator; several attempted whistleblowers are now dead and there are few that are not scared of taking him on - why do you think so many of his staff have left?  his foreign policy is clearly disastrous, and his management of the economy pathetic.. yes the market is up, which means what exactly for the little guy? sweet fa, but it does get him more donations from big pharma etc. like the health bill, which big pharma themselves wrote lol. did he close guantanamo btw?  i told you all he would not and was belittled, but dont worry, i dont expect an apology. and his economic team - the same people as were involved in the melt down lol. i did highlight this in 2009 and it was ignored.  done a good job has he? and you still think he supports the little people when clearly he supports the elite. 

the wealth gap continues to get larger.  "increase taxes" you all say - makes no difference because the real wealth will never be taxed by anyone... this is not the answe.  yes it will make some wealthier people less wealthy, but the elite will remain above.  he is aiming for two classes:  the elite and everyone else.  perhaps consider raising people up ot the same level of others is more beneficial than battering everyone else down in the name of your skewed vision of equality.  equally wealthy is better than equally poor.  and "bush caued the economy trouble" - obama played his part in this two, voted for all the spending, even represented 90 african americans as a lawyer and sued citibank to get them all mortgages that they could not afford lol.. fact and a massive clue has to his political perspective!  figure it out - they are in it together.. obama, bush, clinton, romney - not much difference between them, they all want bigger governement, more control over everyone's lives so they and their buddies can mop up all the wealth.

i tried to warn you years ago this economic shtstorm was coming.  i was laughed at.  i told you it was a consolidation of wealth exercise by the elite who OWN governments and central banks, again i was laughed at.  what do you think quantitative easing is ffs? they say they have no choice, but steered themselves here intentionally lol.  central banks are purchasing assets to prop up markets.  this means they are printing money, exchanging it for real property, and then eventually when the currency becomes worthless, they own everything of worth.  textbook stuff, outlined by myself on here 4 years ago and not a word of acknowledgement by any one lol.  jeez some people have their heads in the sand..

anyway, the jig is up.  they can't win and im about to save the world :) lol.

you want "the economy" fixed?  i want to change human nature and to do so i will fix the economy first.  the economy will be fixed very shortly, it will be badged as a fluke by the media.  they have several options right now: carry on present course and make things worse which will result in the call for the gold standard from people who see their money depreciating in value - this is stupid, as that will result in scarcity for the little people and hinder trade.  fiat currencies are necessary even if they are illusions :)  certain countries are presently undervalued and when this changes many debts will be cleared.. this is an option.  another is to do away with taxes completely but continue to pay benefits using the promissory note system (that is already used, your taxes go to your owners, not on your services like you think).  i think temporarily with basel 3 coming in, the world economy will move to asset backed currencies - this will cause turmoil but it will crush certain parties and remove control from them, and after a short period we will return to fiat currencies again, but with a more level playing field as briics and other countries become more industrialised, commercialised, and therefore have a higher valued currency.  with the main players' debts wiped by the increase in value of their holding in present lower-worth countries, and taxes then removed as above but services and benefits still provided, we will have our period of abundance, and only then, like children, will mankind return to a state of "not knowing the value of money" and finally share naturally with the fear of scarcity gone.  when everyone has the basics, but can earn untaxed money on their labour, then there will be an incentive to work and do things.  who will clean the toilets etc when everyone is rich people say?  well that is the beauty of true capitalism (which we have never seen ever!  the system is being used incorrectly) - someone will do it if u pay them enough.  the true system works as a constant elevator, the people at the top pull the people at the bottom up the chain for their mutual benefit.  it only fails when interest is being charged on created money, taxes are being charged unnecessarily and being stolen without people knowing, and the people at the top of the chain have a selfish or misguided nature.  well, change is afoot (and its not obama's version).  there will soon be some new players taking over the top with a more beneficial attitude to mankind.

either way, a period of abundance is what is required for mankind to change its nature, and that is what will occur.. likely just when it seems the world is about to collapse (prob about now! lol).  obama et al are going about changing the world in the complete wrong way, and are instead pushing us towards the end and war (or havent u noticed). "the road to hell is paved with good intentions"...   this will not happen dont worry.  i've already won and he knows it.


tyia.


paradox;  he could be a natural born citizen if his father is not who he says he is, and since i have identified numerous lies that he has told, that is more than possible.

Give it up Don - it's a load of bollox.

thank you wurzel for highlighting the "division" part of the divide and conquer strategy.  the left/right illusion is about to be shattered, it is time to unite... we are one, only divided due to lack of understanding as to true facts, misdirection and manipulation.. and of course propaganda. 

and thank you for your wise and full of reason comment too :)

No Don, its not a cleverly thoguht out stratagem of Wurzel's.  What you are saying is just b*llox.

100% correct sib

The main thing is, only rednecks and trailer trash fall for George w, and Big Mitt, Supposedly intelligent and reasoned thinkers have fallen for the Obama deception.

"Hope" "Change we can believe in" "yes we can"....

PMSL what a bunch of mugs you are. Same old bollox,

Racist! reported! 

You ****g mugs.

any news?

Funny times, just remembered this time when...