Jueves, 31 de marzo de 2011

It?s Much More Than the Birth Certificate, Mr. Trump!

??
?

WHAT IS THE TRUE MEANING OF ?NATURAL BORN CITIZEN??

March 31, 2011

http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/03/31/its-much-more-than-the-birth-certificate-mr-trump/july4framed/

What did the Framers mean by the term "natural born Citizen?"

Mr. Donald Trump
Trump Organization
725 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY? 10022

Dear Mr. Trump,

Thank you for taking up the Barack Obama issue.? You are the only person who has questioned publicly, ?Why is the king wearing no clothes?!?? All the people who one would have presumed and expected to take the lead have apparently refused to do so for reasons of political expediency, fear of being called a racist, just going along with the Party line, or because of their own complicity.? They are all cowards and traitors to this country!

Let me explain.? You have the birth certificate issue correct, but there is so much more to this story, Mr. Trump.? Even if Obama had been born in this country (which has never been proved or even vetted), that would not in and of itself qualify him to meet the Constitution?s requirement of being a natural born Ccitizen, a child born of two American citizens and born in this country.? One must be of the blood and of the soil.? Obama had a father who was subject to the British Crown and so was Obama at his birth.? He has openly acknowledged being born a British citizen.? So, the birth certificate issue is important, but Obama?s dual-citizenship and divided allegiance are even more important.

As one who was born and raised in New York state, I want to be as blunt as maybe only we New Yorkers can be:? Barack Hussein Obama is a radical socialist who, with the aiding and abetting of the Democratic Party and most likely the Republican Party, and judges from the lower levels right up to the Supreme Court, and with the complicit mainstream media providing cover, is neither qualified nor eligible to serve as President of the United States.? He is a usurper!? How did he get there?? Who funded him?? Is George Soros behind it?? Has there been a conspiracy and fraud committed upon America the likes of which we have never before seen in this country?? To see all the evidence that has been gathered so far (Obama?s Kenyan father, his Connecticut SSAN, phony ?BC?, questionable Selective Service Registration, et al), and to be deprived at every legitimate quarter (Congress, the Courts, the media, etc.) for evidence substantiating who Obama really is, one would more than likely have to say, ?America has been deceived.?

We Americans have been punked, lied to, marginalized and put in prison (LTC Lakin, LCDR Fitzpatrick) to protect the usurper squatting in our White House.? Why has Obama been propped up and protected so vociferously?? Is the answer that our Constitution, our capitalist, free-market system was overthrown in the 2008 election so that radical socialists could effect their warped ideas of redistribution, statism, and godless philosophies on an America they hate?? I do not think one needs to look much further for the truth than that, only deeper.

There have been millions of us protesting and trying to get our Congressmen, the media, and the courts to vet Obama, all to no avail.? And now comes Donald Trump who obviously suffers no fools and starts asking questions.? And because you are a celebrity and have wealth and status, you are being listened to.? What us regular Americans have been unable to do for 2-1/2 years, you are starting to do by blowing the lid off the silence.? I say ?starting? because I realize you have just waded into the morass and there is so much more to this story, as you are probably already discovering.

In short, Mr. Trump, you have looked at the buck-naked king and asked the obvious question.? I have no doubt that you have the temerity to dig deeper, the strength of character and personality to take on Obama?s propaganda machine, and the resolve to see this issue blown wide open.? You will surely be one for the history books, Mr. Trump, because out of more than 300 million Americans, you are the ONLY person who has taken on Barack Hussein Obama, the Great Pretender, the Marxist who hates America.? Now let?s finish the job and save our Constitution, our American way of life and free-market system, and out the usurper and all those in the Obama conspiracy and clean house!? America is behind you!? Just ask for whatever information you want and I will?gladly help facilitate getting it to you.? My phone number is ????..and email is ????...

Gratefully yours and God Bless America!

Kathleen Gotto


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 21:09
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Domingo, 27 de marzo de 2011

http://citizenwells.wordpress.com

Donald Trump on Geraldo Rivera, Obama birth certificate,

There Is a Chance that He Wasn?t Born in this?Country


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 16:27
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Sunday, March 27, 2011

Donald Trump Trumps Fox News on Obama's Eligibility; Mike Huckabee Admits Candidates Don't Prove Natural Born Citizen Status

Video: Donald Trump trumps Fox News on Obama's eligibility. This is getting better by the day. The Fox News crew is in complete damage control mode. They have covered for Obama on his eligibility for...

Saturday, March 26, 2011

New court filing in Louisiana related to Obama's usurpation of the highest office including his bogus social security number(s)...

~ Usurper Salazar and Usurper Obama a.k.a. Soetoro ~New court filing related to Obama's usurpation of the highest office including his bogus social security number... Via atty Orly Taitz; This is...

Friday, March 25, 2011

Double Whammy: Fox's Sean Hannity Hammered Away at Obama's Birth Certificate; It's Not True That Obama Has Shown His Birth Certificate

Video: Boy have the tables turned at the Fox News Channel. Usually they gang up on Birthers and attack and ridicule them. Tonight's Hannity show on Fox News Sean Hannity brought up the issue in two different...

Sean Hannity on Fox News Again Passionately Defends Birthers: Just Release the Birth Certificate...

Video: Again, Sean Hannity on Fox News passionately defends Birthers AKA Constitutionalists. The short segment aired on 3/24/2011...?Note to Sean Hannity: It is hard to release something that...

New Interview: Donald Trump Goes Full Birther; A Lot of Missing Records; Bill O'Reilly Bows Down to Donald Trump on the Birther Issue

Videos: This is some funny stuff. I think the cat --or should I say Trump-- got O'Reilly's tongue!? Bill usually touts the Obama newspaper birth announcements and the short-form COLB as undeniable proof...

Thursday, March 24, 2011

Video: Sean Hannity, Joseph Farah, and Hamas Discuss Obama's Eligibility; Obama Cannot Run Away; The Vise is Closing on Obama...

Video: Sean Hannity of Fox News, Joe Farah of World Net Daily, and an attorney for Hamas discuss Obama's eligibility. Hannity's radio show segment aired on 3/24/2011...Notre Dame Professor Charles...

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 16:06
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Lunes, 21 de marzo de 2011

Share on Facebook

Obama, As Red as It?Gets

By Alan Caruba

Isn?t it about time that the mainstream media and all others begin to examine the record and conclude that a Communist holds the reins of power in the White House?

Since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, it is often believed that Communism died with it. Not so, Communism is alive and well in China, North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela.

From the days of Harry Truman who discovered that Franklin Roosevelt had given the Soviets Eastern Europe at the WWII Yalta Conference, American presidents have steadfastly done what they believed was required to keep Communism ?contained.?; some more successfully than others.

The Communist Manifesto is well worth reading. Among its planks is the abolition of private property and a government that owns or controls?much of the?U.S. landmass is antithetical to this keystone of capitalism.

The Manifesto calls for ?a heavy progressive or graduated income tax.? It calls for the centralization of credit in the hands of the state. We have a ?Federal Reserve? that is a national bank.

It calls for ?centralization of the means of communications and transportation.? We have a Federal Communications Commission. There?s more and you can read about it here.

America has never had a Communist President until now.

While others have written how obvious it is that Obama is a ?Socialist?, I think this is a matter of caution in a society that has not seriously used the word ?Communist? since the 1950s when entities like the House Un-American Activities Committee actively investigated and exposed how many existed in the government, the unions, and Hollywood.

It?s not like Barack Hussein Obama has come out and said, ?Yes, I?m a Communist?, but you don?t have to have a PhD in Political Science to connect the dots. The process is made murky by the way Obama has deliberately covered his tracks wherever he could, while dropping broad hints.

Obama is the classic ?red diaper? baby, the result of a union between his mother, Stanley Dunham and Barack Obama Sr., memorialized in ?Dreams of My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.? However, Jerome Corsi, the author of ?Obama Nation? notes that ?we are told by Obama outright?that much of the autobiography is not factually true, at least not as written.? Indeed, much of what Obama has had to write or say of his life is fiction of one sort or another.

His father abandoned his mother, returning to Africa ?to live the life of a chronic alcoholic.? He was also ?a man of the left.? Obama?s mother remarried and took him off to Indonesia, but other than developing a fondness of Islam, not much is known of that period. A second divorce put Obama in the care of his grandparents in Hawaii and it was there where his most formative development occurred.

In his excellent book, ?Dupes?, historian Dr. Paul Kengor traces the role of the former Soviet Union and the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) as it developed both spies and ?fellow travelers? devoted to turning the U.S. toward Communism.

Towards its end the book traces the most important influences in the life of President Obama. The conclusion that he is a Communist is unavoidable.

Obama?s grandparents were devoted to socialism, raising their daughter in schools known for it, even attending a church that reflected it. They were close friends with Frank Marshall Davis, a member of the CPUSA and an Afro-American. Dr. Kengor noted that, during the 1970s, the period of Obama?s adolescence, ?His impact is profound because he mentored a young man who made it all the way to the White House.?

Among the hints Obama drops in ?Dreams of My Father? was a reference to his college years ?hanging out with Marxist professors?, attending ?socialist conferences?, and discussing ?neocolonialism.? Dr. Kengor quotes Dr. John Drew, a contemporary of Obama at Occidental College for whom Obama was ?as a fellow Marxist? and said of the President, ?Obama was already an ardent Marxist when I met (him) in the fall of 1980.?

After graduating from Columbia University, long a hotbed of a Leftist faculty and students indoctrinated with a liberal political philosophy, and later Harvard Law School, Obama moved to Chicago where he became close friends with former far-Left Weatherman terrorists of the 1960s, Bill Ayers and his wife Benardine Dohrn. His first venture into politics took place in a fund-raiser in their home. Obama attended a Black Liberation church in Chicago led by Rev. Jeremiah Wright who rarely had a good word for America. Ayers calls himself ?a communist with a small ?c?.?

Among those chosen to be in his administration was Van Jones, ?an avowed communist? named as Obama?s ?green jobs czar.? When exposed, he resigned. Another figure of the far Left was Jeff Jones whose consulting firm, the Apollo Alliance, ?helped write President Obama?s budget-bursting $800 billion ?stimulus? bill passed by Congress shortly into the Obama presidency.?

For those still in denial, consider an article by Stanislav Mishin that appeared in Pravda, the Russian newspaper that was formerly one of the main organs of the Soviet Union. ?It must be said that like the breaking of a great dam, the American descent into Marxism is happening with breathtaking speed, against the backdrop of a passive, hapless sheep?, much of which he attributed to ?the election of Barack Obama.?

That was written before the spontaneous explosion of the quintessentially American Tea Party movement. Since then we have seen the dramatic reversal of power in Congress that occurred as the result of the November 2010 elections.

The harm and damage done by our first Communist President will take years to repair, but Americans have wakened to

? the socialist menace of the nation?s public sector unions,

? the centralization of education in the federal government,

? the threat of the Environmental Protection Agency?s assertion of control over America?s energy sector,

? the refusal of the Interior Department to grant drilling permits,

? the devaluation of the U.S. dollar by the Federal Reserve,

? and the incremental efforts of an anti-American government to undermine defense, national security, our economy, and our worldwide reputation as a defender of freedom.

Winston Churchill, the former British Prime Minister who led that nation through World War II and coined the term ?Iron Curtain?, said of Communism, ?it is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy. Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.?

? Alan Caruba, 2011


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 17:07
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Share on Facebook

We Are Not Birthers?

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT OBAMA?S BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP

by 1 Dragon, blogging at Socialism is not the Answer

?

The Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom

(Mar. 22, 2011) ? Despite what Bill O?Reilly, Chris Matthews and other uninformed media personnel think, it?s not about Obama?s Birth certificate, nor is it about where he was born. It is about the fact that Obama?s father was a Kenyan National and never a US citizen.? This fact alone makes Obama a British subject or at best gives him dual citizenship and because of this makes Obama unconstitutional to be President.

Now those who question this openly are labeled birthers, racist, bigots, right wingers or are thrown in jail for some bogus charge. Theresa Cao and? Lt. Col. Terry Lakin are just a just a couple of people who have questioned Obama and his eligibility. These people are no more guilty of commenting a crime than anyone of us, they have just questioned the Usurper in Chief.

Now where is Congress in all of this? Is Congress afraid of Obama? Are the Courts afraid of him? Have there been death threats made against members of Congress. Has Obama?s goons made them an offer they couldn?t refuse? Did they wake up one morning with the head of a horse next to them in bed? What is the going price these days for selling out your country?

When the truth comes out about Obama and how he usurped America, will Congress make all he has done null and void or will it be Business as Usual?

Obama had no experience before and the only experience he has now is seeing how many vacations he can take on the backs of taxpayers and doing so while he tells the American People they need to tighten their belts.

We are not Birthers?we are Patriots. We have fought in wars, that kids today know nothing about. We proudly display the American flag on our homes, our pick-up trucks and our construction sights. We aren?t afraid of work and we don?t want the government to take care of us. We do want the government to uphold their oath they swore to the Constitution. This includes every member of Congress. Just remember, you were voted into office and you can be voted out. You also need to remember that you work for Us and so far we are not pleased.

? 2011, The Post & Email. All rights reserved internationally, unless otherwise specified. To read more on our copyright restrictions, see our Copyright notice on the subheader of every page, along the left margin.


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 16:51
Comentarios (1)  | Enviar
Domingo, 20 de marzo de 2011

Share on Facebook

The Great Obama Red?Awakening

I cannot take any credit for the following observations although I share each and every one wholeheartedly. (Yes. I know. It?s preaching to the choir. Just pass it on. Please.)

Alan Caruba asks in ?Obama, As Red As It Gets?:

  • ?
      . the socialist menace of the nation?s public sector unions,
      . the centralization of education in the federal government,
      . the threat of the Environmental Protection Agency?s assertion of control over America?s energy sector,
      . the refusal of the Interior Department to grant drilling permits,
      . the devaluation of the U.S. dollar by the Federal Reserve,
      . and the incremental efforts of an anti-American government to undermine defense, national security, our economy, and our worldwide reputation as a defender of freedom.
  • Isn?t it about time that the mainstream media and all others begin to examine the record and conclude that a

    Communist holds the reins of power in the White House? ? America has never had a Communist President until now.

    While others have written how obvious it is that Obama is a ?Socialist?, I think this is a matter of caution in a society that has not seriously used the word ?Communist? since the 1950s when entities like the House Un-American Activities Committee actively investigated and exposed how many existed in the government, the unions, and Hollywood.

    It?s not like Barack Hussein Obama has come out and said, ?Yes, I?m a Communist?, but you don?t have to have a PhD in Political Science to connect the dots. The process is made murky by the way Obama has deliberately covered his tracks wherever he could, while dropping broad hints. ?

    The harm and damage done by our first Communist President will take years to repair, but Americans have wakened to:

Lawyer Kelly O?Connell writes in ?Why Did He Even Bother Running? Obama Leadership Vacuum Menaces Globe? at Canada Free Press:

    Has any modern political figure ever squandered political goodwill in the manner of Obama?trading near messianic devotion from a hundred million for not even a cup of proverbial porridge in return? His political pratfalls occur only as often as he makes decisions. But even the most hardened Obama backers had to shudder and roll their eyes this week when Barack fixated on college basketball ?brackets? instead of ongoing tragedy, chaos and the loss of tens of thousands. It became transparent?in a way in which only disasters bring clarity?that Obama is a boy amongst men, only haphazardly observing history?s progress the way a house cat mindlessly follows a fluttering object. ?

    Recent tragedies and conflicts utterly prove Obama?s wholesale lack of principle. The import is he is wholly unpredictable, and will only be directed by circumstance and self-advancement. If we account for his indifference to history, democracy, capitalism, and Christianity?then shoehorn-in issues of mental competency, it adds up to perhaps the worst presidency in US history. We might only be one more simple crisis away from a total leadership implosion, given how Barack seems to lead less and less with each mounting disaster. In midst of one of history?s strongest earthquakes, an associated nuclear disaster, and political meltdown in Libya and across the Middle East, Obama reveals childish instincts to run and hide. He has all the enthusiasm of a hemophiliac at a knife-throwers convention. So we need to hit the reset button with 2 years left. ?

    Barack is helping promote the biggest con job in socialist history. He sells the belief leftists access a body of wisdom unparalleled in human history, allowing stunningly correct decisions, light-years ahead of anyone else. We can call this the ?One Right Solution? approach to leadership; an antidote to any problem. This idea derives from the notion good government is based upon humanistic roots that then cast up a Great Socialist to lead the people towards enlightenment. Consider these human super-dynamos who appeared to lead a nation helpless of dolts: Lenin, Mao, Stalin, Castro, Pol Pot, etc. But the real track-record of socialism is almost as convincing as that of alchemy.

    From where does such an outlandish idea come, that leftism has answers to life?s problems? By virtue of the sudden triumph of radical humanism against slowly developed traditions?often with roots in revealed religion. We can briefly note socialism represents a qualitative simplification of every important institution in the Western constitutional canon. Republicanism becomes vulgar democracy before its pushed into tyranny. Capitalism is crushed into socialism. Military strength is downsized into appeasement. The Rule of Law is reduced to the notion government can do no wrong. Related, religion is outlawed or belittled into subservience, and State itself then becomes a god. Rights of Free Speech, and other civil liberties and criminal rights therefore become enfolded into the state.

Luke Matthews writes about Democratic tribalism at RedState.com:

    The only thing holding the Democratic coalition together is the shared moniker of ?Democrat.?

    The Obama administration can feel the rumblings and hear the faults begin to crack. As a result, the president and members of his administration are battening down the hatches, abandoning all pretense of governing, and doing what they think the do best; campaigning.

    Barack Obama?s campaign in 2008 was considered magnificent. He ousted Hillary Clinton from her dominance over the nomination fight, created a persona no one could match, and defeated the entire Republican brand in the form of John McCain and a huge swath of Republican lawmakers. Following his victory, it was Obama who bragged that Democrats need not worry about making unpopular votes in Congress. When questioned about the 1994 landslide against the Democrats giving the House and Senate to the GOP, Obama scoffed. Then Rep. Marion Berry D-Arkansas recalled; ??They just kept telling us how good it was going to be. The president himself, when that was brought up in one group, said, ?Well, the big difference here and in ?94 was you?ve got me.? We?re going to see how much difference that makes now.? Obama and his entourage believed The Won would have coattails that spread like FDR. He believed he was charmed and could dispense that popularity like confetti upon the endangered few. The Democratic Party-aligned mainstream media also promulgated this idea. Obama?s campaigning skills were so powerful, he could just fly into a district or state and the people would flock to his side.

    2010 proved just how wrong he really was. In fact, candidates fled before he arrived. Tim Kaine, Democratic National Committee chair pleaded with Democrats nationwide to embrace Obama, Obamanomics, Obamacare, and all things Obama-esque. This would be a winning combination, Kaine argued.

    The ones who were in deep navy blue districts or states survived. Those who were in districts that even tinged purple, lost. Or, managed to avoid appearing even slightly in favor of all things Obama. Joe Manchin in West Virginia is a good example. He only won by shooting a big example of Democratic legislative thuggishness in the form of a bill.

    Obama is now the brand. Many Democrats, those who still embrace the label and are reasonable, are scared to death. Obamanomics has failed miserably. The economy is sputtering. Job growth is anemic. Inflation is rearing its ugly head for the first time in decades. We are deeply addicted to spending, spending everyone realizes is poisonous. The deficits and debt weigh heavy on the general public and their attitudes toward their government. Overseas, we are viewed with suspicion, or jocularity, or outright contempt. For a president who promised peace, we are still embroiled in two occupations that look like wars and we are now saber-rattling in the Mediterranean Sea off the coast of Libya.

    This is a president watching as his empty promises and failed policies drain the vigor from his Party.


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 8:33
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Viernes, 18 de marzo de 2011

Share on Facebook

The Ramifications of an Illegitimate President

??
?

WHAT WILL BE THE FALLOUT?

by David LaRocque

?

Is every member of the U.S. House and Senate guilty of treason for failing to expose Obama's fraud?

(Mar. 18, 2011) ? The Hawaii Petition letter is a definitive and comprehensive statement of the constitutional concerns we all share with respect to the actions of the State of Hawaii and its officials in the matter of the apparently fraudulent 2008 U.S. presidential election.

Perhaps a similar letter should be directed to the President of the United States Senate and the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, including a copy of this letter, laying out the specific constitutional concerns of the people relating to the federal government in this matter.? This would include the apparent corruption of the federal judiciary which has repeatedly denied to the people their vested legal right under the provisions of the United States Constitution to have a constitutionally-eligible individual serving in the office of president.

According to Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison: ?The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men. It will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right.?

The people of this great nation have unarguably been denied a remedy in the laws to the denial of one of the most fundamental of our constitutionally-vested legal rights ? the right to have legally-admissible verification that the person elected to serve in the office of president is, in fact, eligible to serve in that office under the terms of the United States Constitution.

Among the related subsidiary concerns raised by this matter at the federal level are the following:

1. An increasingly persuasive body of evidence has been accumulated indicating that the putative President of the United States has a history of membership in, and association with, entities known to be front organizations for the Communist Party of the USA, as well long and frequent association with individuals known to be past or present members of radical terrorist organizations which are dedicated to the overthrow of the American constitutional republic form of government. Furthermore, a number of these individuals have been appointed by this putative president to high-level positions in the government of the United States; while certain passages in his autobiography Dreams from My Father, together with numerous public statements made by Mr. Obama, indicate clearly his strong affinity to a Marxist political philosophy which is incompatible with the American system of government.

2. The putative president of the United States has admitted to a history of the use of illegal drugs. Circumstantial evidence exists indicating that this drug use continued to a time much later than previously admitted.

3. Documented evidence of long-standing Social Security fraud by Barack Obama, involving the use of a false Social Security number, provides overwhelming indications of felonious illegal activities on the part of Barack Obama. These activities may, in the best case, represent attempts to cover up a lack of documentation of U.S. citizenship. In the worst case, they could represent the tip of an iceberg of massive and serious financial fraud, as well as participation in fraudulent political candidacies and fraudulent oaths in connection with service in the Senate of the State of Illinois as well as the United States Senate.

Any one of these concerns, if raised in connection with a background investigation for a standard security clearance for access to classified information, would be disqualifying. Taken in combination, it is inconceivable that a person with these issues in his background, and one who objects vigorously to any attempt to seek additional information or to gain access to original documentation about his origins and background, could be allowed to serve in the highest office in the United States government.

4. The status of military operations conducted without proper legal authority should be a matter of the most serious concern at the highest levels, and in all branches, of the United States Government.

5. The status of high level appointments, including appointments to the United States Supreme Court, by an ineligible president, are of the most serious and urgent concern.

6. The fact that a decorated U.S. military officer was denied his constitutional rights to a fair trial and subjected to a kangaroo court-martial in order to preserve the cover-up of the constitutional ineligibility of the putative president of the United States is an alarming testament to the apparent corruption which has infected the United States Armed Services, and represents an outrageous affront to every person who has ever served in the uniform of a U.S. military service. This cannot stand.

The national security issues raised by these concerns are monumental and of the most urgent character.

Further delay, or continued failure, by the United States Congress to address this matter constitutes nothing less than the crime of treason by the entire United States Congress.

? 2011, The Post & Email. All rights reserved internationally, unless otherwise specified. To read more on our copyright restrictions, see our Copyright notice on the subheader of every page, along the left margin.


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 9:43
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Jueves, 17 de marzo de 2011

Share on Facebook

There is no ?President Obama?

?

BUT THERE ARE TRAITORS IN CONGRESS, THE COURTS, AND THE WHITE HOUSE

August 17, 2010

Dear Editor,

?

If Obama is a usurper, will we ever see justice served and adequate punishment carried out?

The Obama ?Presidency? is nonexistent. The media refers to Barack Obama as ?President Obama.?? I have said it many times in the past and will reiterate it now:

Barack Obama has never?been the President of the United States of America.? Under the U.S. Constitution, one has to be a ?natural born Citizen,? which means born in the U.S., of parents, both of whom?are American?Citizens, in order to become President of the United States.

Given the facts and circumstances of Barack Obama?s birth, Obama had only one American citizen parent. Obama?s father, Barack Obama, Sr., was a British citizen. There is some talk that Obama may actually be the son of Malcolm X. Who really knows who Barack Obama is and if that is his real name?? His entire past has been purposely obfuscated.

Obama just fired his ?transparency Czar.? I suppose that he will be looking for an ?Obfuscation czar.? After all, Obama paid his lawyers to help him ?evade? the constitutional ?natural born Citizen? requirement. Indeed, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas laughingly told the U.S. Congress that the Supreme Court was also ?evading that issue.? John Paul Jones, American Revolutionary Naval Hero, once referred to England as a ?country of illegitimate corruption.? Has the United States arrived at that same juncture?

Obama is a criminal, a radical Islamist supremacist. Two hundred and thirty four years after declaring independence from Britain, a British-born citizen rules the U.S. This is the second Brit to do so. The other was Chester?A. Arthur. Arthur had his staff salute the British flag. Obama waved the Red Chinese flag over the South Lawn of the White House in 2009.

Obama has a very dark side.? He is a quisling, a traitor to the United States of America. I am of the opinion that he should be arrested and tried and if convicted, executed by firing squad (See 18 USC, Part 1, Chapter 115, Sec. 2381).

As reported by the BBC, Obama went to Kenya and while having owed allegiance to the United States, campaigned for Raila Odinga, a known enemy of the United States, giving Odinga aid and comfort. It was Odinga who wanted to be President of Kenya. He ran against President Mwai Kibaki, a Roman Catholic. Kibaki was/is an ally of the U.S. Obama campaigned against Kibaki and for Odinga. Obama has given a great deal of money to Odinga and has helped him lead Kenya down a billabong (Obama is ?leading? the U.S. down the same billabong). Currently, the U.S. State Department is downplaying Obama?s activities in Kenya and his having sent taxpayer money there. Odinga instituted Sharia law in Kenya and collaborated with the same Muslim groups which bombed two U.S. embassies. Obama interjected his support of these activities. By campaigning for Odinga, Obama became?a traitor to the U.S.

It is important to note that Hillary Clinton, an Obama cohort and accomplice?to fraud in the 2008 presidential?election here in the USA, is the current Secretary of State. The U.S. is having mid-term elections in November. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton is making plans to run as Obama?s Vice-President in 2012.

The adage ?O, what a tangled web we weave when we first practice to deceive? is appropos here. Obama, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and many others in the same cabal have failed to take said adage seriously. This writer is a co-charging party in an International Criminal Court investigation of the Kenyan Election violence. I have submitted numerous documents to the ICC regarding Obama?s activities.

Obama?s name will go down in infamy in the history books. The names ?Benedict Arnold? and ?Barack Obama? are synonymous.? The terms ?traitor? and ?quisling? will have, as an addition, the term ?obama.? ?You are an ?Obama?? will be heard to describe one who has betrayed his duty to America.

Robert C. Laity
Founding President
Society for the Preservation of Democracy
and Human Rights

????????

Editor?s Note: This letter was sent to [email protected] on Sunday, August 29, 2010, and received the following response:

Due to the high volume of messages received at this address, the White House is unable to process the email you just sent. To contact the White House, please visit:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact

Thank you.

???????-

The same letter was sent to Sheriff Joe Arpaio?s office on September 1, 2010, and received the following response:

We have received your e-mail.

Your message will be routed to the appropriate person.? Someone will get back to you as soon as possible.

All the best,

Sheriff Joe Arpaio & the staff of the Maricopa County Sheriff?s Office

? 2010, The Post & Email. All rights reserved internationally, unless otherwise specified. To read more on our copyright restrictions, see our Copyright notice on the subheader of every page, along the left margin.


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 20:33
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Share on Facebook

US Veteran Files Police Complaint ? Obama Accused of Electoral Crimes

?

AND WHAT ABOUT THOSE WHO ARE ALSO GUILTY?

by Robert Laity, as posted at Australia News

?

Why does the mainstream press insist on calling him "President Obama?"

(Mar. 17, 2011) ? Obama is a faux ?President.?? Only bona-fide Presidents are covered by the provisions of the Impeachment protocol.? I disagree that a ?sitting? POTUS must be impeached first.? Some who may appear to be a ?sitting President? are NOT (Example:? Chester Arthur).

ONLY? bona fides Presidents can be impeached.

Obama can be immediately arrested and face charges in the USDC District of DC, where the crime of usurpation occurred. There is Prima Facie evidence that Obama has never BEEN POTUS. His father was NOT an American. Obama has British Jus Sanguinis and American Jus Sanguinis. Even if Obama was born in the Lincoln Bedroom (US Jus Soli) Obama I NOT a Natural Born Citizen. A Natural-Born Citizen is ?one born in a Country of Citizen ParentS?

Secondly, Obama is a traitor and is precluded from holding ?Any office under the US?. It is the powers that be that are misprisioners of Treason and Felony. ?We the People? MUST act to correct this untenable situation lest our nation falls.

?`This, even if it means MASS Impeachments of responsible Court and Legislative officials as well.

?The President,Vice President and ALL civil officers of the United States SHALL BE REMOVED from office on Impeachment for, and conviction of Treason, Bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors? Article II, Sec.4 (US Const.)

Obama is, prima facie NOT a ?Sitting President.?? I believe that it is ?Repugnant to the Constitution? that a ?Sitting President? cannot be charged with crimes.

See Marbury v. Madison, USSCt,(1803)

I have filed formal charges against Obama. Many others have done so.? Obama formally STANDS ACCUSED. Indeed, if an imposter ?Sitting President? could NOT be charged with a Crime, how would he be brought to the Bar of Justice?? Impeachment is a process that is reserved for bona-fides Civil Officers and one that is controlled by the contemporaneous political milieu. It is such a Milieu that allowed Hitler to gain power in Germany.

Obama collaborators, such as Nancy Pelosi, who misrepresented Obama?s qualifications to BE POTUS are still in the Congress and Senate. There are two ways an Impeachment can go. One is a vote not to Impeach,the other TO Impeach. While a fair and constitutional process when a bona-fides POTUS is being Impeached, it is NOT constitutional when a faux POTUS is allowed to proceed under it?s umbrella. A vote NOT to Impeach would be a serious threat to National Security allowing a felonious fraud to continue to usurp the Presidency unabated.

IF and only IF Obama were undoubtedly the Bona-Fides POTUS should Impeachment be the proper forum to address Obama?s crimes. Insofar as Obama?s very authority to BE President is in grave question,THAT issue MUST be decided BEFORE Impeachment could or should even be considered.

Obama,in light of the prima facie evidence against him can be arrested pursuant to already formally registered Charges against him for election fraud and treason as well as using multiple SSNs, inter alia. He can be arrested by ANY law enforcement officer having Jurisdiction in DC and the USDC for the District of DC has Jurisdiction. Ronald Machen, US Attorney for the USDC District of DC, has known about the Charges against Obama for years now.

Robert C. Laity

Founding President,

Society for the Preservation of Democracy and Human Rights.
?????-
Reposted with the permission of Greg Rogers, Editor-in-Chief of
Australia News.

? 2011, The Post & Email. All rights reserved internationally, unless otherwise specified. To read more on our copyright restrictions, see our Copyright notice on the subheader of every page, along the left margin.


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 20:26
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Martes, 15 de marzo de 2011

Share on Facebook

Obama eligibility

Co-opting of The Presidential Eligibility Assurance Act

Share? | Bookmark and Share | Contact Us ?By Douglas Hagmann & Judi McLeod??Tuesday, March 15, 2011

Again, the corporate media is deliberately silent to the level of complicity on the threats, intimidation and even legislative blackmail that is currently taking place over the issue of states? rights and the U.S. Constitution. Specifically being referenced are the efforts of individual states to pass a Presidential Eligibility Assurance Act, or legislation that would allow each state to pass legislation verifying the eligibility of a presidential candidate under Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.

As most people know and despite demonstrably false assertions to the contrary, Obama has failed to provide proof of eligibility to occupy the White House. Furthermore, those responsible for vetting his credentials and filing the necessary documents to allow him to be included on the ballot have failed to be held accountable for their inaction.


Another common yet fallacious argument, one that appears to be boldly embraced by Republicans and the conservative right, is that the issue of constitutional eligibility is nothing more than a diversion from the more important issues of the day. To those who embrace that view, we will ask nothing more than ?since when is treason a diversion?? which is an excellent article authored by Neill Turner that can be read here.

As heard last Saturday live on CFP Radio, The Hagmann-McLeod Report (available for download here),? Attorney Mario Apuzzo and retired U.S. military commander Charles Kerchner detailed the reasons that Barack Hussein Obama failed to provide the necessary documents to confirm his eligibility under the U.S. Constitution. Equally important, they further detailed events that are currently taking place behind the scenes to derail efforts that would effectively delay or even halt the states? efforts to pass such legislation so it is not effective for the next presidential election in 2012.

Before interviewing Attorney Apuzzo and Commander Kerchner, it was our understanding that a number of U.S. states were at various levels of passing legislation that would put the issue of presidential eligibility to rest forever as of the 2012 election. On its face, that assertion appeared to be true, especially if one has listened to the media, high profile conservative talk show hosts and others even in the alternative media. Conservative divas such as Sarah Palin, conservative talking heads who appeared at CPAC, Republican lawmakers and others have made a public showing of openly endorsing such legislation. As such, it appeared that the eligibility matter would be cleared up by 2012, putting the U.S. back on track with the federal eligibility requirements defined in the U.S. Constitution.

Our investigation and the findings by Messrs. Apuzzo and Kerchner, however, have confirmed that the American people have been lied to again. The efforts at the state levels have been significantly co-opted, and those who have openly endorsed such legislation appear to be involved in a high-stakes shell game designed to fool the American public. Most troubling is that it is the very people who conservatives and constitutionalists have placed their faith are those who are the operators of the shell game.

Georgia: the current legislative battlefield

As detailed by Messrs. Apuzzo and Kerchner, the most obvious example of this travesty of law is illustrated in the state of Georgia, where we, as Americans, have less than 36 hours to put pressure on the legislators to do the right thing by the U.S. Constitution. As detailed by Messrs. Apuzzo and Kerchner,? Georgia HB 401, The Presidential Eligibility Assurance Act is deliberately and purposely being stalled in committee by the Georgia House of Representatives by lack of full backing by the Republican Speaker of the House David Ralston.

Co-Sponsor of the Georgia Proof-of-Eligibility Law, Representative Sean Jerguson has laid the unvarnished truth out to the American people in an interview last week about the media?s distortion of the bill. He slams the media for spinning the truth or only offering half-truths about the bill. The video of this March 7, 2011 interview can be accessed here and provides an excellent glimpse into what has been going on behind the scenes pertaining to this bill.

The Devil Went Down to Georgia

To paraphrase a 1979 song performed by the Charlie Daniels Band, it would appear that ?the Devil went down to Georgia? and is prepared to make a deal for souls out of desperation.? Investigation finds that the reference to the song is not too far off, if one considers team Obama and those who downplay or disregard the immediate importance of this constitutional issue as the Devil, while fiddle player Johnny represents those who understand and care about the rule of law.

Tomorrow, failing sufficient objection on the part of the American people, the bill will either die in the relevant house committee or be modified and moved out of committee with an effective date of 2013, after the 2012 election cycle. This will effectively permit Barack Hussein Obama and others to circumvent legal compliance with Article II, Section 1 of our U.S. Constitution and not require him or any other ballot member to prove eligibility as a ?natural born Citizen of the United States.?

If this does indeed happen, certain conservatives, Republicans, and those who claim to be on the side of the rule of law can claim that they have supported the efforts of those of us who want this matter resolved before the 2012 election.

We can expect such behavior by Progressives and others who are unconcerned about constitutional issues, but we must not be fooled by individuals and groups who claim to be for the rule of law but have acquiesced to the extent that they can claim they are on the side of right when, in fact, they are not. Unlike the 1979 song, however, that is much like Johnny impressively playing the fiddle, but only for show and not to win, deceiving his audience and losing the golden fiddle. We must not allow that to happen.

What is immediately needed

We ask that you immediately contact Georgia Speaker of the House David Ralston by telephone or facsimile, or even in person - not by e-mail or mail, and respectfully demand that HB 401 is passed to take effect for the 2012 election.? We also suggest contacting the governor of Georgia by telephone to request that he openly call for its adoption in committee and movement to the full Georgia House for passing and adoption for the 2012 election cycle.

We also ask one more thing. Please listen to the two-hour long show and give the show or links to your family, friends, and co-workers so they might understand the issue and what is at stake in this matter.

Please contact:

Georgia Speaker of the House of Representatives David Ralston, in person or by telephone or facsimile at 332 State Capitol, Atlanta, GA 30334 Telephone: 404.656.5020

Georgia Governor Nathan Deal via E-Mail)

America, please let?s show them we are watching, and act accordingly.


Author
Douglas Hagmann & Judi McLeod ?Bio

Douglas Hagmann & Judi McLeod Most recent columns

Copyright ? Canada Free Press
Douglas Hagmann, founder & director of the Northeast Intelligence Network, and a multi-state licensed private investigative agency. Doug began using his investigative skills and training to fight terrorism and increase public awareness through his website.

Older articles by Doug Hagmann

Judi McLeod is an award-winning journalist with 30 years experience in the print media. A former Toronto Sun columnist, she also worked for the Kingston Whig Standard. Her work has appeared on Rush Limbaugh, Newsmax.com, Drudge Report, Foxnews.com, and Glenn Beck.

Judi and Doug can be reached at: [email protected]

Older articles by Judi McLeod



Publicado por Corazon7 @ 16:07
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Share on Facebook

??

WEBCommentary Contributor
Author:? Sher Zieve
Bio:
Sher Zieve
Date:? March 14, 2011

?


Topic category:? Other/General

Another Obama Opponent Headed for Jail?

As did most of us, I first heard of Theresa Cao when she made her now famous (some say infamous) statement in the House of Representatives? chamber on 6 January 2011 during a formal reading of the US Constitution. As Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ) read the Constitutional requirements for a United States president, Theresa called out from the gallery ?except Obama, except Obama, help us, Jesus! My name is Theresa.? Unlike what had occurred previously with the Marxist-Leninist Left-wing group Code Pink and Cindy Sheehan merely being escorted out of the chamber when they severely disrupted sessions in the House of Representatives, Theresa Cao was arrested (for her one sentence statement--and no, she wasn?t ?chanting? as one of the leftist news services has written. In other words, leftists can protest in Congressional chamber all they want but, one conservative (and Christian?) person who dares to question the illegal president will be arrested.

Note: This IS one of the signs of a dictatorship, folks. And please bear in mind that decorated Medical Doctor and [now] former LTC Terry Lakin was placed into and still remains in prison for questioning Obama?s eligibility and, therefore, the legality of his commands.

Theresa has already been forced to appear in court for her transgression (aka ?Free Speech?) of questioning Obama?s eligibility and has, apparently, been told to accept a plea-bargain punishment?or else. She has already had her first appearance in court, has been charged with [disruption of Congress] ?unlawful conduct? (free speech is no longer allowed under the increasingly lawless Obama regime) and her next appearance is scheduled for 15 March 2011. Note: Maj. General Paul E. Vallely (Ret) recently called Theresa ?a brave woman. A true patriot.?

We are urging Americans to appear on the sidewalk, Tuesday 15 March, in front of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia Criminal Division, 500 Indiana Ave. N.W. in Washington, D.C. by at least 8:30-9:00 a.m. to support Theresa, enter the courtroom and to bear witness to what occurs. This a fight for us all and Theresa implores us to be there.

Through a series of events, Theresa contacted me and the following is a brief interview of this courageous lady.

The Interview

Sher: Theresa, it?s been good getting to know you over the past few days. What you are now fighting is a government regime that appears to become more dictatorial every day. Although multiple US Constitutional issues are in motion, this seems to predominantly be an issue of First Amendment Free Speech rights. I understand that after your first court appearance your court-appointed attorney April Downs told you to take a plea deal. Can you tell the readers how Ms. Downs presented it to you?

Theresa: On February 8, 2011, when Judge Marisa Demeo, appointed April L. Downs as my court appointed Public Defender, she suggested I pursue a "Stet" Docket. I, at that time, indicated to her that I would like to pursue my case based on my Constitutional rights. It turns out that a "Stet" Docket and the "FTO" (AKA First Time Offender) were new Plea Deals from the Prosecutor's Office--offered on March 7, 2011 at my 10:30am appointment with Attorney Downs.

In essence, Attorney Downs stated in both instances, that these Plea Deals would not implicate my case as "Guilty" but would be considered "Not Guilty"; but it would include 40 hours of community service, and 6-9-12 months of probation, with my promise of ?Good Behavior.? Last but, not least I would NOT be able to speak about my Constitutional rights; specifically, the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth Amendment rights, aka. the Bill of Rights.

Attorney Downs, wanted me to believe that the "FTO" was different from the "Stet" Docket. I had to connect the dots, so to speak, after the fact; after my appointment with her on March 7, 2011. Thus there is a question of fraud and collusion with the Prosecutor and the Judge, to threaten to "Shut [me] Up" and thereby not pursue my Constitutional rights--the Supreme Law of the Land--and not just in theory, but as the basis of our Republic form of Government.

This specific example of corruption and fraud, being one of a few other examples that implicates Attorney Downs, is an integral part of the corrupted judicial system. I shall offer other examples of Attorney Down's collusion with the anti-Constitutional system, below.

Sher: Considering the fact that Marxist Code Pink and Cindy Sheehan have disrupted the US House of Representatives on multiple occasions--with only escorts out of the building--how shocked were you that you seemed to be targeted and singled out for arrest?

Theresa: Here are the other examples of Attorney Down's collusion with the anti-Constitutional system. I asked Attorney Down's specifically to research what has taken place with Code Pink at our initial meeting on February 8, 2011, giving her over one month to find out information for me. But, she did not do her job. Her response to my following up with her on this detail was "ho humming" and beating around the bush--until she said something to the effect that she didn't recall that question. Then she later remembered that I did ask her and responded asking how can she find out any information, if there were no arrests made?! She did not do her job?period. So, to date, I still have to do some research on this specific issue.

I will be pursuing this matter of "Arrest", in both my "Motion to Dismiss" as well as preparing for my Court Trial--should that be the direction of my Criminal Misdemeanor case.

Sher: You said you plan to go to trial but, that the judicial system is warning you to take their plea deal--which strongly appears to be a direct infringement upon your free speech. How do you plan to proceed?

Theresa: Plan One: I plan to file a "Motion to Dismiss" based on my Constitutional rights, on Monday, March 14, 2011, the day before my court hearing date scheduled for the following day, March 15, 2011.

The reason for this late date for filing the "Motion to Dismiss" was due to the fact that Attorney April L. Downs, the Public Defender assigned to me by Obama's court appointed Judge Marisa Demeo, stated that I could not file the stated Motion, prior to my court hearing.

One of two of my advisers/sources, Margy and Jack Flynn, from the website americancitizensoftheconstitution.com, although not attorneys per se, but who are students of the Constitution of the United States, have advised me that I can file for the Motion prior to the court date. It should be noted that my advisors did bring to my attention [to the fact] that I could file the Motion prior to my court hearing, which was prior to my meeting with Attorney Downs earlier this week on March 7, 2011. The Flynn's have been key instruments in assisting me with learning about my inherent, God-given Constitutional rights.

My other sources/advisers, come from the website avoiceforchildren.com; Pamela & Will Gaston, who penned the book "Sui Juris: The Truth in Record, A Process For the People to Access the Court", is an essential resource, for all American Citizens who are currently involved in the corrupted U.S. Court system, to stand upon their unalienable, God-given, Constitutional rights.

Pamela & Will Gaston have paid a very high price (which Pamela paid with her life, while serving prison time), paving the way, to teach us, how to defend ourselves, without the corrupted attorneys, who supposedly are on our side; the entire judicial system is pursuing enacting Shariah law in place of the Constitution of the U.S., which is current news as of two weeks ago. And since December 2008, the Treasury Dept. of the U.S. has taught Shariah Law 101 and installed Shariah Laws into our Constitutional system.

Please tell your family and friends, and all American Citizens everywhere of these two noted above sources of mine, by which we can win, case by case, against this prevailing wicked and corrupt system. We must be brave and courageous! We can no longer be subservient to the New World Order system! We must stand and defend our own cases, without so-called attorneys, if they will not defend the Supreme Law of the Land!

"We the People" must actively defend our Constitutional rights and not back down to the corrupted system that utilizes the "Attorneys-Judge-Bar Association?s" corrupted, anti-Constitutional system to "terrorize" defendants into taking a "Plea Deal;" so that we do not pursue our cases based on the Supreme Law of the Land--the Constitution of the United States. "Plea Deals", forces the American people, to admit "Guilt", thus succumb to the pretentious, anti-Constitutional rights; when in fact the judicial system has infringed upon our unalienable, God-given Constitutional rights.

Plan Two: Dismiss Attorney April L. Downs, from my case because she has not done her homework for my case, has misled me concerning my options (given by the Prosecutors office) and is still indicating that I should take the FTO [First Time Offender] offer. Other details, also, lead me to believe that she does not want to defend me based on my Constitutional rights; even though she says I still have the final choice by Tuesday, March 15, 2011, to decide the direction of the case.

I may request that Judge Marisa Demeo assign me another court-appointed Public Defender due to the negligence of Attorney April L. Downs. I am not definite on this matter; I may just want to have a trial scheduled.

Plan Three: If Judge Marisa Demeo refuses to abide by the Constitution of the U.S. and the Bill of Rights, by not dismissing my Criminal Misdemeanor Charge/Case, then I will ask for a Trial by Jury based on Fourth, Fifth & Sixth Amendment.

Sher: Thanks so much, Theresa, and I?m hoping that as many people as possible show up at the courthouse to support you this tomorrow.

Again, the address is Superior Court of the District of Columbia Criminal Division, 500 Indiana Ave. N.W. in Washington, D.C. and we recommend showing up Tuesday 15 March no later than 8:30-9:00 a.m.

Code Pink Heckling in House of Representatives:

1. http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=6370

2. http://www.dohiyimir.org/2009/03/stunted-growth.html

3. http://warisacrime.org/node/13294

Cindy Sheehan Heckles in House of Representatives:

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/cindy-sheehan-kicked-out-of-state-of-the-union-address

Sher Zieve

Send email feedback to Sher Zieve


Biography - Sher Zieve

Sher Zieve is an author and political commentator. Zieve's op-ed columns are widely carried by multiple internet journals and sites, and she also writes hard news. Her columns have also appeared in The Oregon Herald, Dallas Times, Sacramento Sun, in international news publications, and on multiple university websites. Sher is also a guest on multiple national radio shows.


Read other commentaries by Sher Zieve.

?

Copyright ? 2011 by Sher Zieve
All Rights Reserved.


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 15:58
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Jueves, 10 de marzo de 2011

Share on Facebook

Obama?s Obvious Inconvenient?Truth

?2011 drkate

Usurper caught in a lie

The Constitutionalists have clearly proven through evidence, argument, and historical research the meaning of ?natural born citizen? as stated in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution.? We have also proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Barry Soetoro/Barack Obama has no birth certificate from Hawaii.? It is as plain as day, not a complicated thing. Barry Soetoro Obama may not even be an American citizen.

Further, the Constitutionalists have also proven that there has been coordinated activity to defraud the American public among government agencies, the media, universities across the United States, private citizens, the judiciary, banks and corporations.? They have aided and abetted the destruction of the United States through the installation of a foreign usurper who is implementing a foreign agenda.? It has been a long time in the making, but the ?mechanics? of the usurpation have names attached to them.

This fact will never go away, and neither will those of us who know and care about the United States of America.? Obama?s fundamental Constitutional ineligibility remains his inconvenient, untimely, and ugly truth.

If We Are Wrong?

?The flat earth eligibility deniers, ?conservatives? in traitors clothes?all communists by proxy?will have to answer to their maker, and will answer to the American people.

I laugh when I think of how young these idiots are?Dowd, Cooper, Rove, Brazille,? O?Reilly, so many others.? They have decades ahead where they will be the scorn of history, of their children and neighbors, of the world? for their role in this deception.

Game over for them.

Another Crossing

As expected, the corrupt Supreme Court dismissed Hollister without comment, and without the recusal of? Sotomayor and Kagan. Chief Justice John Roberts showed his spineless nature by failing to insist on the recusal, and Sotomayor and Kagan exhibited their typical lack of judicial integrity.

The Supreme Court must not?and will not? be allowed to stand in the shadows having ducked their constitutional responsibility to hear this, and the other eligibility cases.? Sotomayor and Kagan should be impeached.

Surround the Supreme Court also beginning March 19th!? Demand they uphold their oath to the Constitution or step down!

We now see what a monster of a government we have on our hands, and it is an interesting crossing point.? Here are some questions that I am pondering.

  • It is clear that this centralized government?and those who have hijacked it?cannot, and will not last. Our real form of government has been so perverted by illegal amendments wrought by scoundrels that only purge of these amendments and individuals, plus a long-term effort, will revive the Republic at the federal government level.
  • Do we enable its fall by withholding all federal tax payments, holding? strikes, becoming a 1099 employees, just standing down?? Do we push them over the edge on our terms?
  • Is it time to plan the underground railway to restoration of the Republic, or the creation of the Second American Republic?

No matter what the hype, the NWO will not be able to take this country without a big ass fight.? The obots can hide in the FEMA camps while the grown ups take out the NWO.

So?the Tree of Liberty is dying and needs water.? At the very least we can all start to say ?no? in our own way, beginning right now.


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 14:07
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Share on Facebook

?

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30812FC385F1A7493C7A9178BD95F418784F9

?

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.; WOMAN SUFFRAGE UNDER THE NEW AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION--OPINION OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE.

Virginia L. Minor and Francis Minor, her husband, plaintiffs in error, vs. Reese Happersett. In error to the Supreme Court of Missouri. Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.

view full article button pdf icon Note: This article will open in PDF format. Get Adobe Acrobat Reader or Learn More ?

?

CLICK ON IMAGE? TO VIEW.



?

Click on this image to read about natural born citizen.


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 11:34
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Mi?rcoles, 09 de marzo de 2011

Share on Facebook

?

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com


The House of Representatives Definition of ?Natural Born Citizen? = Born of citizen ?parents? in the?US.

bingham 1872

During a debate (see pg. 2791) regarding a certain Dr. Houard, who had been incarcerated in Spain, the issue was raised on the floor of the House of Representatives as to whether the man was a US citizen.? Representative Bingham (of Ohio), stated on the floor:

?As to the question of citizenship I am willing to resolve all doubts in favor of a citizen of the United States.? That Dr. Houard is a natural-born citizen of the United States there is not room for the shadow of a doubt.? He was born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, and by the express words of the Constitution, as amended to-day, he is declared to all the world to be a citizen of the United States by birth.? (The term ?to-day?, as used by Bingham, means ?to date?.? Obviously, the Constitution had not been amended on April 25, 1872.)

Notice that Bingham declares Houard to be a ?natural-born citizen? by citing two factors ? born of citizen parents in the US.

John Bingham, aka ?father of the 14th Amendment?, was an abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln?s assassins.? Ten years earlier, he stated on the House floor:

?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.? (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862))

Then in 1866, Bingham also stated on the House floor:

?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.? (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

No other Representative ever took issue with these words on the floor of the House.? If you read the Congressional Globe to study these debates, you will see that many of the underlying issues were hotly contested.? However, Bingham?s definition of ?natural born citizen? (born of citizen parents in the US) was never challenged on the floor of the House.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court?s holding in Wong Kim Ark did not address Presidential eligibility, nor did it define ?natural born citizen?.? It simply clarified who was a ?citizen?.? Had the framers of the 14th Amendment sought to define nbc, they would have used the words ?natural born? in the Amendment.? But they didn?t.

Do not allow the opposition to state this definition as ?Vattel?s definition?.? Challenge that tactic every time.? Vattel didn?t make it up.? His text on the law of nations compiled known existing law.? Vattel was not a legislator.

It is proper to say, with regard to US Constitutional law, that this was the House definition as stated on the floor by Representative Bingham.? And this definition was never opposed on the floor.? And that is exactly where it should have been opposed if it were not the truth.

Debate upon issues of Constitutional law such as this belong on the House floor.? And when an issue this important comes before the nation on the floor of? ?the people?s House?, and the issue is not challenged by any Representative of the people, then it?s certainly proper to infer that the House of Representatives, as a whole, agreed with that definition.? After all, our nation is governed by debate on the floor of the House.? But there never was debate on this issue because it was a proper statement of Constitutional law.

The definition of natural born citizen as stated on the House floor = born in the US to parents who are citizens.? It?s not like those cats were incapable of correcting each other?s mistakes.? Since no Supreme Court case ever stated a different definition of ?natural born citizen?, and no Represenative ever challenged Bingham on this point, the House definition stands and officially remains unchallenged as of today.? If the House wants to change this definition, let them bring the issue to the floor now and properly debate it.

Until then, call it the House of Representatives definition as offered by the father of the 14th Amendment who was never challenged upon it.

Don?t let history be rewritten by propagandists.? The evidence is mounting on a daily basis that the current Commander In Chief is not eligible to hold the office of President.? You have a voice.? You have freedom of speech.? You have access to your federal and state representatives.

The courts don?t want to hear from you.

So find someone who must to listen to you and be heard.? The Constitution cannot survive unless you breath life into it. We are responsible to future generations.? Do something with that responsibility.? Use the law.? Obey the law.? Respect the law.? Fight for the law.

by Leo Donofrio, Esq.? (hat tip to my main researcher who shall remain anonymous for now?)


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 15:11
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Martes, 08 de marzo de 2011

Share on Facebook

Monday, March 7, 2011

Margaret Calhoun Hemenway: Open Letter to Savannah Now; How the Media Lied about Obama?s Birth Records

?

Open Letter to Savannah Now
By Margaret Calhoun Hemenway

Larry Peterson
To: "larry peterson"
Sent: Sunday, March 6, 2011 12:15:15 PM
Subject: re: Pls do your homework- and strive for objectivity

Larry- an online Certification of Live Birth is NOT an original 1961 birth certificate- it is computer-generated & laser-printed- do you understand that there is an "underlying" document (see Congressman Ted Poe's CNN interview on Lou Dobbs' show- a former judge who understands standards of evidence). If you had read the WesternJournalismCenter's intelligence officer's report (www.safeguardourconstitution.com) about the types of HI birth certificates-- you might understand the deception to which you've fallen prey. Please read this as well for background: http://www.aim.org/guest-column/how-the-media-lied-about-obamas-birth-records

The Dept of Homelands in HI until June 2009, when its website was altered-- expressed a clear preference for an "original birth certificate"-- it deemed the COLB "insufficient" for its purposes-- notably, unlike standard hospital birth records, the Obama COLB lacks a hospital and attending physician's signature. Did you know there is not a single eyewitness for this birth? If you have children, you could probably easily name a dozen people who remembered your bringing your child home from the hospital- neighbors who came by or brought a casserole, close friends-- your ob/gyn who would have done pre-natal and post-natal certs, etc. BUT NOT A SINGLE EYEWITNESS to Ann Dunham being on Oahu in August 1961?!

Meanwhile, several Kenyans (inc. prominent ones like Cabinet Minister James Orengo and AMB Peter Ogego) declare Obama born in Kenya-- have you interviewed them or tried to make contact? Minister Orengo said this on the floor of the Kenyan Parliament last March. Do you think it's racist to ignore these prominent Kenyans? If a European Parliamentarian said Obama was born in Kenya, would you believe him/her?

There were many conservatives clinging to Richard Nixon as he was being pulled from office b/c of a sweeping cover-up-- of a crime he didn't commit. This cover-up extends directly to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue- as these are ALL Obama's records under lock and key. Reporters should avoid playing a complicit role in this cover-up. We have a "right to know" in our democratic society which is what lies behind statutes like FOIA, FACA & other "sunshine" laws (that journalists typically supported as it kept our government honest, accountable, and free from corruption)- Americans don't like politicians who believe they can keep secrets- and act as if they are above the law. We need to know if Obama conforms to the Constitution's Article II, Section 1, Clause 5-- or not. Didn't Obama PLEDGE transparency?

So that you aren't confused over the birth announcements in the papers- there WAS an original birth record filed in 1961-- but as the WJC investigator's report indicates, that record could be as flimsy or non-probative as a parental statement- mailed in-- it could even be Ann Dunham's signature signed by one of the grandparents (but that would automatically have prompted those newspaper announcements per agreement then between vital records & the two HI papers)- logically, if that record PROVED a birth in Hawaii- why wouldn't Obama release it? There must be a concern that it would not withstand forensics scrutiny.

The Obama COLB# is higher than that of the Nordyke twins' #s- even though they were born a day later, at Kapi'olani. Obama's camp gave out TWO different hospital names- first Queens Medical Center, then Kapi'olani-- yet the hospitals won't confirm his birth there. Sequencing of records is important in detecting fraud-- perhaps you have a ready answer for this out-of-sequence number? I'd like to hear any theories you might have- since there is NO EVIDENCE available (i.e. an original birth certificate) to make a conclusive determination that Obama is "natural born" or not- if born in Kenya as Sarah Obama claims, Obama was born a British subject b/c Ann Dunham would not have met age/residency requirements to convey U.S. citizenship to her son- born on foreign soil to a foreign father- he would have failed the "natural born" test. Maybe that explains why all his records are sealed? You also seemed to have ignored GOV Abercrombie's publicized December hunt for something to placate doubters like me (this of course was after we'd all been lied to about the COLB being an original birth certificate-- so what else did he plan to release?- was he admitting that the original record remains concealed?)-- and then he fired the Health Director who was reportedly a straight-up guy!- the word in Hawaii is that Abercrombie did this to permit his own staff access to Obama's file-- but again, nothing was released-- do you find this in the least bit odd?

Margaret Calhoun Hemenway -Source; http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/news/news20110307.html

Feel free to contact Peterson; The TRUTH MATTERS! Email: [email protected] Phone #: (912) 652-0367

Birth Certificate Numbers: Somethin' Ain't Right; http://www.theobamafile.com/_eligibility/CertificateNumbers.htm

Confirmed: - Democratic Party of Hawaii would not certify in 2008 that Obama was constitutionally and legally eligible for the Office of President - Source.

Visit the Birther Vault for the long list of evidence against Hawaii officials and all of the evidence that leads to KENYA; [http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/08/video-ltc-terry-lakins-attorney-on-cnn.html].
Kenyan Ministers Orengo & Khalwale: Obama "born in Kenya"-"not native American"-"should repatriate"
Obama's Lack of Constitutional Eligibility-The 3 Enablers-20091130 Issue Wash Times Natl Wkly-pg 9

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 12:33
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Lunes, 07 de marzo de 2011

Share on Facebook

?

Monday, March 7, 2011

Colonel Gregory Hollister v. Barry Soetoro (Obama), Petition for Writ of Certiorari Filed in the U.S. Supreme Court Denied Without Comment.

?


The Colonel Gregory Hollister v. Barry Soetoro aka Barack Obama, et al, Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed in the United States Supreme Court was denied without comment and again with no recusal from jUstice Sotomayor and jUstice Kagan. SCOTUS Order here and embedded below. Previous reports on Colonel Hollister can be viewed here, here, here, here, here, here and here. [image source]



Colonel Gregory Hollister v. Barry Soetoro - Supreme Court Order List Page 11 - Denied - 3/7/2011

Visit the Birther Vault for the long list of evidence against Hawaii officials and all of the people questioning Obama's eligibility; [http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/08/video-ltc-terry-lakins-attorney-on-cnn.html].

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 10:32
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Domingo, 06 de marzo de 2011

Share on Facebook

The Obama Administration Quietly Scrubbed The Foreign Affairs Manual in August 2009 To Expand The Holding of Wong Kim?Ark.

?

?

Usually, an alteration of the Foreign Affairs Manual would only be warranted if the law had been changed or clarified by the Supreme Court or by a statute.? But there was no official change in the law.? The manual was simply scrubbed? along with the Constitution.

Leo Donofrio

http://naturalborncitizen.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/fam-scrub-chart1.jpg?w=862&h=319

??

By now, readers of this blog should be more than familiar with the tainted holding of the US Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark.? In that case, the Supreme Court held:

?The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.?

This holding has been the subject of enormous dispute in the United States.? The ?holding?, which is controlling US law, contradicts much of the ?dicta?, which is not considered legal precedent.? While the dicta makes it appear as if Justice Gray believed all persons born on US soil (except children of foreign dignitaries or enemies of the US) were US citizens under the 14th Amendment, the actual holding of the court is limited to ?the single question? of whether the children of aliens who have a ?permanent domicil and residence in the United States? are 14th Amendment citizens.

The holding does not specifically grant 14th Amendment citizenship to persons born in the US of illegal aliens, or even of those here temporarily (tourists and students).? Numerous legislative attempts have been made on both sides of the Congressional aisle ? as well as in a multitude of? States ? to clarify this holding by statute as to the children of illegal immigrants (aka ?anchor babies?).

Up until August 20, 2009, the US State Department?s Foreign Affairs Manual stated ? with regard to the holding in Wong Kim Ark ? in 7 FAM 1116.2-1(c):

c. Pursuant to this ruling, it has been considered that:

(1) Acquisition of U.S. citizenship generally is not affected by the fact that the parents may be in the United States temporarily or illegally;

This was the language used by both the Clinton and Bush administrations from 1995 through August 20, 2009 in the Foreign Affairs Manual.? Please note that the words ?considered? and ?generally? are in italics placed by the State Department.? Such italics emphasize that the practice stated above has never been clarified as law, so it is simply ?considered? to be the law.

On this point, the Foreign Affairs Manual had been a rational document in that it reflected the true state of affairs.? It stated the common ?interpretation?, but it refrained from listing what was ?considered? as if it was actually ?the law?.? Such rationality was good enough for both the Clinton and Bush administrations? but not for the Obama administration.? This disrespect for prior administrations and law must be part of the CHANGE promised in his campaign.

The link provided above (attached to the Date of August 17, 2009), refers to a snapshot taken of this section of the manual by the Way Back Machine for 2009 (at the wonderful Internet Archive) on August 17, 2009.? If you look into the actual URL link, it shows the date it was taken which corresponds with the calendar of snapshots.? At the top of that page, you will see -? ?(TL:CON-64; 11-30-95)? ? which informs you that the page had read this way since 1995.

The next date listing a snapshot on the calendar of snapshots is August 30, 2009 .? And this is the first snapshot which contains the current ? scrubbed ? edition of the Foreign Affairs Manual, which ? with regard to the holding in Wong Kim Ark ? states:

d. ?Subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States?: All children born in and subject, at the time of birth, to the jurisdiction of the United States acquire U.S. citizenship at birth even if their parents were in the United States illegally at the time of birth.

That is a vastly different statement.? The rational discussion of the two prior administrations was replaced by the desperate (to protect) Obama administration on August 21, 2009.? While the prior edition of the manual went only so far as to state that persons born to illegal immigrant parents on US soil were ?considered? to be US citizens, Obama?s scrubbed edition has struck the limited holding of Wong Kim Ark and replaced it with his own opinion which unequivocally declares the children of illegal immigrants (as well as tourists and students) to be 14th Amendment citizens.

This scrubbing took place shortly after we discovered Justice Gray had been appointed to the Supreme Court by a British subject usurper named Chester Arthur.

This reeks of self-serving propaganda since Gray?s limited ?holding? only applied to those ?permanently domiciled? here (like President Arthur?s father, a British subject alien at the time of Arthur?s birth).? The holding in Wong Kim Ark did not cover children born in the US of persons who were only here temporarily such as Obama?s father.? Hence, the need for scrub a dub dub dub.

Usually, an alteration of the Foreign Affairs Manual would only be warranted if the law had been changed or clarified by the Supreme Court or by a statute.? But there was no official change in the law.? The manual was simply scrubbed? along with the Constitution.

by Leo Donofrio


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 20:16
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
S?bado, 05 de marzo de 2011

Share on Facebook

The State Department Has ?Always? Recognized And Abided By Foreign Laws Concerning US Citizens Born With Dual?Nationality.

Lansing intro2

?

Those who argue that the United States has no obligation to recognize and respect dual nationality ? as to American citizens ? have been unequivocally proved wrong by official correspondence between former Secretary of State Robert Lansing (who served from 1905-1920) and former Senator Henry Cabot Lodge.? ?

The opinion of the State department was published in The American Journal of International Law, Volume 9.? We shall begin with the factual background to this official inquiry:

?MY DEAR SENATOR LODGE:? I have received your letter of June 5, 1915, in reply to my letter of June 2, concerning the detention in Italy for military service of Ugo Da Prato, who was born in Boston, August 25, 1895, and went to Italy in 1912 to study architecture, and whose father, Antonio Da Prato, a native of Italy, obtained naturalization, as a citizen of this country in the District Court of the United States at Boston, March 19, 1892; that is, before the son?s birth?

As Ugo Da Prato was born in this country after his father had obtained naturalization as a citizen of the United States, it does not appear that he can be considered an Italian subject under Italian law, and I have no doubt he will be released.?

Please take notice of two crucial facts.? First, the State Department was particularly concerned that the father had naturalized before the son was born.? Second, the State Department also took official notice of the nationality laws of Italy as a determining factor.? Such recognition is necessary for many reasons, the least of which is the avoidance of diplomatic conflicts.

The correspondence between Lansing and Lodge provides a textbook example perfectly tailored to educate our nation on this issue.

In that correspondence (which I encourage you to read in full), Lansing refers to Article 11 of the Italian Civil Code.? Article 11 stated that Italian subjects who naturalize in a foreign nation forfeit Italian citizenship.

Lansing?s correspondence also considers Article 12 which demanded that all former Italian citizens ? who forfeited citizenship under Article 11 ? were still required to serve in the Italian military.

As to Article 12, Lansing informed Lodge it would not be applicable to the son, since the son had been born after the father had naturalized in America.? Therefore, according to Italian law, the son had never been an Italian citizen, so Italy could not claim him.

Lansing stressed that the son had been born after the father naturalized as a US citizen.? Had the son been born before the father was naturalized, Italian law would have required the son to serve in the military.? But since the son was born to a US Citizen in the US, Lansing assured Lodge of the son?s eventual release from custody.

Lansing?s confidence that the son would be released from custody is based upon his undeniable status as a natural born citizen of the US, whereas persons born to alien fathers in the US are susceptible to such custody by foreign nations.? In my opinion, which I believe to be the same as the framers, no person deemed by the US State Department to owe direct allegiance to another nation should ever be eligible to the office of President.

As Secretary Lansing?s letter clearly indicates, had the son been born before his father naturalized, Italy could require him to serve in the military (and bear arms against the US). ? And there would have been nothing the US could do about it.? This is a perfect example of why the US Commander In Chief should never have possessed dual allegiance.? Such a state of affairs is completely unnatural to allegiance and to the oath of office.

Chester Arthur?s father was naturalized fourteen years after Chester was born.? Therefore, Arthur would have been officially recognized as a British subject by the State Department had they known of this fact.

Obama?s father never became, or even applied for, US citizenship.? Furthermore, Obama has admitted that his birth status was ?governed by? the laws of the United Kingdom.? Therefore, both Obama and Arthur, at the time of their births, according to the State Department, owed dual allegiance to the US and to the British monarch.

THE DISEASE OF DUAL ALLEGIANCE

Both Obama and Arthur owed allegiance to the British monarchy at the time of their births.? Recognition and respect for that allegiance has always been the official policy of the US State Department.? But Senator Lodge was not aware of that policy.? He was in a misguided state of disbelief that any person could have dual nationality.? Here is what Lodge wrote to Secretary Lansing:

?I note what you say in regard to the Italian law which obviously does not apply to young Da Prato, but, speaking generally I can not assent for a moment to the proposition that such a thing as dual citizenship is possible.? As you well know, we constituted ourselves as champions against the doctrine of indefeasible allegiance and have succeeded in compelling the acceptance of our view by all the nations with the exception, I think, of Russia and Turkey.? The abandonment of indefeasible allegiance is in itself the establishment of the principle that there can be no such thing as dual citizenship, either in whole or in part, and to attempt to retain the right over a boy, born in this country of parents not naturalized? which is not the case with Da Prato? for military service in the country of origin of the parents is absurd on its face and is something to which we should never assent for a moment?

Italy *? *? *? has no possible claim on the children of Italian parents, not naturalized, born in this country, especially if they have exercised all the rights of citizenship as they are entitled to do under the 14th amendment to the Constitution.? Such a child has never been an Italian subject for one minute.? Italy has no more claim on him than she has on one of my children or one of yours??

Secretary Lansing then clearly and cogently explained that Senator Lodge?s thoughts were legally misguided:

?As this general subject has been the cause of considerable comment I venture to discuss the matter at some length.

Dual nationality is not a theory or doctrine promulgated by the Department, but is the unavoidable result of the conflicting laws of different countries? The status of a person who is born a citizen of one country under the jus soli and a citizen of another country under the jus sanguinis is commonly termed dual nationality.? Whether or not this term is considered apt, the fact remains that many persons are born citizens or subjects of two countries under their respective laws?

?Also, a person born in the United States of Italian parents is born a citizen of the United States under the law of this country, and a subject of Italy under the law of Italy.? The fact of dual nationality has been recognized by the Department for many years.? Secretary of State Fish in a report to the President dated August 25, 1875, said:

??Such children are born to a double character.? The citizenship of the father is that of the child so far as the laws of the country of which the father is a citizen are concerned and within the jurisdiction of that country; but the child, from the circumstances of his birth, may acquire rights and owes another fealty besides that which attaches to the father.? (Moore?s International Law Digest, Volume III, page 520.)?

?I desire further to call your attention to the following statement in the report of the citizenship board which was appointed during the administration of President Roosevelt? which report was forwarded to the Speaker of the House of Representatives by Secretary of State Elihu Root, with a letter of approval and commendation dated December 18 1906:

?Inasmuch as our Government declares that all persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States, and also recognizes, as well as adopts, on its own part, the rule that children of citizens resident abroad are citizens of the country to which the parents owe allegiance there arises as will be seen a conflict of citizenship spoken of usually as dual allegiance.? House Document No. 326, 59th Congress, 2d session, page 74.? ?

Lansing slams the point home ? which is agreed upon by the three former Secretaries of State ? that the true problem is dual allegiance (aka ?dual fealty?).

For such a condition to exist as to the Commander In Chief of the US Armed Forces is total blasphemy to the oath of office required of the President.? Such a condition is certainly not natural to the concept of allegiance.

But most important in quashing the favored argument of Obama ineligibility denialists is the statement by Secretary Root which confirms that ? not only does the US recognize dual nationality ? we have ?adopted? it as the law of our own country.

Furthermore, Lansing felt it necessary to stress again the crucial importance of whether the child was born after naturalization of the father:

?For the reasons mentioned above, it is obviously important for the Department in dealing with the case of a person who was born in this country and had a father of Italian birth, to ascertain whether his father had previously acquired naturalization as a citizen of the United States.? This is especially important when it is a case, such as that which you have presented, of a person who has not yet reached his majority.?

Because the United States has adopted the position that we shall abide by foreign nationality laws as to persons born with dual allegiance, such a person may be apprehended in a foreign country and forced to bear arms against the US.? And there is nothing the US can do, from a diplomatic stand point, to force that person?s release.

Furthermore, no such person should ever desire to be President, especially if that person is a Constitutional scholar.? It should be obvious to such a person that they would be submitting the nation to a Constitutional crisis.? A true statesman would spare the nation such a debacle and perhaps be happy to serve his country as a Senator.

In conclusion, I shall reiterate that the US State Department has ?always? recognized dual allegiance and has ?adopted? it under law.? Anyone who argues otherwise is either ignorant or lying.

??

by Leo Donofrio, Esq.? (?with a big hat tip to my research team on this one.)

Pidgeon & Donofrio GP

?

?
Be the first to like this post.

9 Responses to ?The State Department Has ?Always? Recognized And Abided By Foreign Laws Concerning US Citizens Born With Dual?Nationality.?

  1. borderraven Says:

    http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/74/74.US.496.html
    On the 10th of February, 1855, Congress passed an act,1 entitled ?An act to secure the right of citizenship to children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits thereof,? the second section of which provides, ?that any woman, who might lawfully be naturalized under the existing laws, married, or who shall be married to a citizen of the United States, shall be deemed and taken to be a citizen.? (Repealed in 1922)

    http://books.google.com/books?id=f2IUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA378&lpg=PA378&dq=act+of+congress+January+10+1855&source=bl&ots=x6ZFQ-Hrzr&sig=UogycAZu2oWalCm-ji9jcN8WTbc&hl=en&ei=zodxTfGFHIW6sQPw8Ki7Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&sqi=2&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=act%20of%20congress%20january%2010%201855&f=false

    Congressional Globe
    page 378
    Public XXII

    ?
  2. borderraven Says:

    I forgot to add the 1855 act benefited Marie Elg?s mother, so at birth Marie was NBC.

    ?
  3. Of course we all know that Perkins v. Elg also deals with this very subject.
    There is so much historical evidence that points to Obama?s ineligibility that it can only be hidden by a complicit media, and a disinterested citizenry.
    There is nothing that the Obama apologists can say to refute this analysis, although we know that they stop at nothing, and the hypnotized never lie.

    ?
  4. borderraven Says:

    Leo,

    There is plenty of discussion on dual-citizenship in Elg in the Fourth point.

    ?
  5. BillCutting Says:

    I am sure you have seen this article from 1915

    Problems of Dual Nationality in Time of War; Expert Replies to Colonel Roosevelt?s Criticism of State Department Letter Which Was Characterized, as ?Dangerously Close to Treason to the U.S.?

    By Richard W. Flournoy, Jr. ();
    September 12, 1915,

    http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F60611FD3E5F17738DDDAB0994D1405B858DF1D3

    ed. The link doesn't work for me. I dont recall the article. Please relink as it looks good from title. Thanks. -Leo

    ?
  6. Leo, if you hit it any harder, that ball would go into orbit.

    Brilliant work!

    ?
  7. Tony Stark Says:

    Maybe the reason why Obama refuses to release his school records is that he flunked the class on the Constitution but managed to graduate anyway.

    ?
  8. Of course we all know that the dicta of Perkins v. Elg also deals with this very subject.
    There is so much historical evidence that points to Obama?s ineligibility that it can only be hidden by a complicit media, and a disinterested citizenry.
    There is nothing that the Obama apologists can say to refute this analysis, although we know that they stop at nothing, and the hypnotized never lie.

    ?
  9. BTW, I happy you re-opened your blog.
    Just giving everyone a chance to review what others have discovered as well.
    http://obamasgarden.wordpress.com/
    Born with Dual Citizenship means NOT NBC. That has been established here.
    Being born on British Soil of a British father, and late registered (not accepted by the state) creates an entirely new concept of fraud. The question then becomes how did Obama get on the ballot in states that have laws to prevent it? Who is responsible to enforce said laws, and now that the people of the United States have suffered, whom can this be brought to for grievances? It seems that we the people no longer have rights under the Constitution, as SCOTUS doesn?t give the people standing. Many parties can claim harm by Obama?s policies, including the illegal ones (not enforcing or selectively enforcing laws) and preventing oil exploration and energy independence, or the Chrysler dealers for that matter. It seems as though SCOTUS is saying that it will no longer review what is Constitutional, and therefore has no point for continued existence!
    What a terrible price the DNC inflicted upon the people of the United States for the election of one POTUS.


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 11:48
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar

Share on Facebook

?

WND Exclusive
BORN IN THE USA?

Denver Post publisher:

Eligibility questions 'valid'

But Dean Singleton says it's not

something he wants to argue about


Posted: March 05, 2011
1:00 am Eastern

By Bob Unruh
??2011?WorldNetDaily

?


Dean Singleton (Minnesota Public Radio)

The mainstream media have started covering what questioning reporters have characterized as one of the biggest stories in America, Barack Obama's eligibility, with a running dialogue by Chris Mathews on "Hardball," CNN polls on the controversy and now an endorsement from the publisher of the Denver Post that the questions are "valid."

However, publisher and owner Dean Singleton told radio talk show host Peter Boyles on his KHOW AM 630 program this week that it's not something he wants to argue about.

Get the free, in-depth special report on eligibility that could bring an end to Obama's presidency

The dispute arose even before Obama was elected, when his status as a "natural born citizen" under the requirements of the U.S. Constitution was questioned. A multitude of lawsuits have sought unsuccessfully to clear the air, and there are several court cases that continue.

States have reacted by proposing legislation that would require a presidential candidate to provide documentation of his constitutional eligibility, and similar legislation even has been proposed in Congress.

Throughout, Obama has maintained a team of lawyers assigned to stamp out any case or challenge through which some of the documentation about his career might be revealed.

Boyles repeatedly has questioned Obama's eligibility based simply on the evidence available: the only document that Obama has released supporting his claim to a Hawaiian birth is a "Certification of Live Birth" that state law made available to those not born in the state.

Besides those who say he wasn't born in Hawaii and, therefore, is not eligible, a number of respected legal experts have argued that Obama admitted his ineligibility by confirming his father was a Kenyan national subject to the law of the U.K. at the time of his birth. They argue the Founders excluded dual citizens from being president.

??
Singleton's comments were posted on YouTube by an organization monitoring the criticism of Obama:

?


"Asking the question is certainly fine to do," Singleton said during the discussion with Boyles about Obama's records and eligibility. "To me it's not the big issue. I know to you it is."

He continued, "The American people elected Barack Obama president. He's got two more years to go on his term. Probably four more after that. He was elected by the people, says he's a citizen, produced a certificate of live birth (sic). There's no proof he's not a citizen."

Singleton said he can criticize Obama's policies and actions "all day long," but the eligibility controversy is "just not something I want to argue about."

"There are questions," he admitted. "Why hasn't the president released his college transcripts. ? Those are valid questions, and probably should be asked until he does [answer].

"There's nothing wrong with asking the question over and over."

But he suggested most Americans are "not bothered" by the issue.

The recent CNN poll, however, showed that 58 percent of the respondents lack confidence in Obama's Hawaiian birth narrative. And Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie recently promised to search the state's archives and produce the birth records but later said he could not do that.

Radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh at the time addressed Abercromie's failure to produce evidence.

"This is stunning to me," Limbaugh said. "(They) still can't prove it."

Related story:

Old media now curious: Where's birth certificate?


?

Publicado por Corazon7 @ 11:25
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Viernes, 04 de marzo de 2011

Share on Facebook

Supremes to Conference on Obama?Eligibility

?2011 drkate

The case of Hollister v. Soetoro will be distributed for conference on Friday, March 4, at the Supreme Court.? As you recall, the judge in this case deemed Hollister?s case frivolous as Obama?s eligibility? had been ?twittered? and thus resolved.? He dismissed the case and then threatened sanctions. What he forgot to do was dismiss the case based on standing, as all the other judges have.

John Hemenway, attorney for Hollister, directly challenged the Supreme Court to uphold its duty to their oath in protecting the Constitution.

A veteran attorney who has pursued a lawsuit challenging Barack Obama?s presidential eligibility since he was elected is telling the U.S. Supreme Court that if its members continue to ?avoid? the dispute they effectively will ?destroy the constitutional rule of law basis of our legal system.?

Hemenway had submitted a separate motion for the recusal of Justices Sotomayor and Kagan on the basis of their financial interest in Obama?s continuance.? Apparently the Supreme Court broke its own rules, called it a ?request?, and Sotomayor and Kagan were involved in the decision to deny Hollister?s petition for writ? without comment in December 2010.

?Based on their failure to follow their own procedures, Hollister?s case is now back before the Supremes in conference?this time we hope without Sotomayor and Kagan.? There is no guarantee whether they will indeed recuse themselves; if they do not, we have that much more information to eventually impeach both Sotomayor and Kagan.

From WND? s interview:

We have not exaggerated in presenting the question of the constitutional rule of law being at stake in this matter,? Hemenway wrote in a petition for rehearing before the high court. ?A man has successfully run for the office of president and has done so, it appears, with an awareness that he is not eligible under the constitutional requirement for a person to be president.

?Despite a vigorous campaign that he has conducted to make ?unthinkable? the very idea of raising the issue of his eligibility under the Constitution to ?be? president the issue has not gone away,? Hemenway said. (emphasis added)

In perhaps the most incisive and challenging statement of the petition, Hemenway states:

?To continue to avoid the issue will destroy the constitutional rule of law basis of our legal system when it is under vigorous assault as surely as if the conscious decision were made to cease preserving and protecting our founding charter.?

The Supremes have no ?standing? issue to hide behind in this case; if they choose to deny without comment they have indeed confirmed that they made a ?conscious decision? to cease preserving and protecting our founding charter?.

With eyes wide open, we will truly see if any of them have the integrity to live up to their oath of office.

And our plans just get that much clearer.

Sure is time to follow Red Pill?s advice.


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 14:10
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar