# Potential heads up



## Guest (Dec 3, 2008)

Frankly I don't know whether to take this seriously or not. The whole thing may be less than a flash in the pan.

Nevertheless, on the face of it I see the potential for some serious trouble in the United States in the near term if the Supreme Court openly involves themselves in this issue, most especially if they find it to have genuine merit.

http://homesteadingtoday.com/showthread.php?t=282409

This is a General Chat thread and issue which I don't want to bring into here, but if the court really does involve itself openly it then becomes a prep scenario so it's something we ought to maintain an awareness of. If it turns out to be nothing then all we've lost is a few minutes of our time.

.....Alan.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

I geared up my preps and rescheduled a business trip for this upcoming week to see what comes of this. I can't really work through some of the legalese that all the lawyers are using and SCOTUS isn't updating their website frequently enough. 

I wish there was some real legal analysis on this so we knew whether it was a real issue or not. I haven't seen squat yet in the "traditional" media.


----------



## Guest (Dec 3, 2008)

Ernie said:


> I wish there was some real legal analysis on this so we knew whether it was a real issue or not. I haven't seen squat yet in the "traditional" media.


 I agree. The Supreme Court is another world so it's hard for me to determine if this may be for real or not.

.....Alan.


----------



## jlxian (Feb 14, 2005)

Alan, I can't access the info in the link you provide for some reason. I am logged in but maybe I don't have the "privilege" of seeing this post. Anyway, can you summarize the gist of the information?

ETA -- never mind --- I finally got into the link. 

No comment re the OP.


----------



## Guest (Dec 3, 2008)

jlxian said:


> Alan, I can't access the info in the link you provide for some reason. I am logged in but maybe I don't have the "privilege" of seeing this post. Anyway, can you summarize the gist of the information?





> *Supreme Court *May* Stay Electoral College Vote*
> Update on birth certificate lawsuits before the Supreme Court:
> 
> Quote:
> ...


.....Alan.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

A.T. Hagan said:


> the following excerpt from Bob Vernon of Honest American News (Plains Radio Network):


Consider the source.

then go to the official website and see there is nothing about it.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/

Evryone needs to stop believing everything they hear on talk radio or see on the internet.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

mnn2501 said:


> Consider the source.
> 
> then go to the official website and see there is nothing about it.
> 
> ...


http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-570.htm

From the official website. It's on the docket. It's real. Yes, the more "out there" sites are the only ones talking about this ... but that doesn't change the fact that it's really going on.

Maybe we should be asking why this isn't on the front page of CNN, considering the possibilities.


----------



## wvstuck (Sep 19, 2008)

Bob's back in truck (Check)
Weapons Cleaned (Check)
Firewood Neatly Stacked (Check)
Standby for radio comm...

I'll take the cautious wait and see approach for now, but being prepared never hurt anyone


----------



## FUNKY PIONEER (Sep 20, 2005)

Geeze we're traveling out of town tomorrow for a wedding. Hopefully things won't get too crazy. I have heard about this on mainstream radio in AZ too.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

Things are moving a lot slower than I had anticipated, so we've probably got another week to go. Certainly by the 15th when the electoral college meets.


----------



## pickapeppa (Jan 1, 2005)

Ernie said:


> http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-570.htm
> 
> From the official website. It's on the docket. It's real. Yes, the more "out there" sites are the only ones talking about this ... but that doesn't change the fact that it's really going on.
> 
> Maybe we should be asking why this isn't on the front page of CNN, considering the possibilities.


Is there any question why it's not on the front page?

I would think the implications of the sheer possibility of the nation's majority vote of not just any president for CHANGE in these difficult times would be reason enough for anyone involved in these shenanigans to want to HIDE it from said public.

Is there still any question the media is librul? The power mongers are once again ready to come up with any desperate scheme to subvert the will of the majority to continue their treasonous destruction of our country.

self edited. No need for someone to come knocking on my door and hauling me away indefinitely due to my disagreement on this move.

Anyone pursuing this course of subverting the will of the majority is an utter fool, right out of their minds.


----------



## Guest (Dec 4, 2008)

pickapeppa said:


> Is there any question why it's not on the front page?
> 
> I would think the implications of the sheer possibility of the nation's majority vote of not just any president for CHANGE in these difficult times would be reason enough for anyone involved in these shenanigans to want to HIDE it from said public.
> 
> ...


Pick,

This is the Survival & Emergency Preparedness forum. We are discussing a potential survival scenario, NOT politics. If you want to discuss the politics of this then take it to General Chat.

.....Alan.


----------



## critterluv (Jan 17, 2008)

funny how this is not in the media but they were talking all about a nucler or bio attack with in the next 5 yrs, wounder what up with that


----------



## pickapeppa (Jan 1, 2005)

A.T. Hagan said:


> Pick,
> 
> This is the Survival & Emergency Preparedness forum. We are discussing a potential survival scenario, NOT politics. If you want to discuss the politics of this then take it to General Chat.
> 
> .....Alan.


Sorry, Alan. You are correct, and I've been spanked appropriately.  Now back to your regularly scheduled prep like there's no tomorrow, cause there may not be one if this continues to gain momentum.


----------



## uyk7 (Dec 1, 2002)

> funny how this is not in the media but they were talking all about a nucler or bio attack with in the next 5 yrs, wounder what up with that


And the 20,000 troops stationed in the US to help us out. 

.


----------



## 7.62mmFMJ (Nov 19, 2008)

SCOTUS can not act alone. Some person must show damage which is the current case before the court. It has not been denied which is interesting. 

I would call this an unwelcome precedent but SCOTUS did rapidly involve itself in Floriduh 2000. 

Does this thing have legs? All along all BHO would have had done was to produce the proof of birth in the US or some such other documentation. He did not. 

So it is a viable concern from a prep standpoint.

If you live in a city or suburbs you should be freshening up your action plans so they are ready to activate. BHO devotees will not take his disqualification lightly.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

pickapeppa said:


> Sorry, Alan. You are correct, and I've been spanked appropriately.  Now back to your regularly scheduled prep like there's no tomorrow, cause there may not be one if this continues to gain momentum.


Because this is an important topic and it's been shut down several times already, I guess we're trying to hold to a tighter line than normal at keeping politics out of the issue.

I would suppose that speculation on what might happen, as well as what needs would have to be met by individuals, is considered safe ground. Anything else veers dangerously close to the edge and invites certain elements from GC into our living room. 

You'll notice that in other threads we veer all over the place.  As I consider well and appropriate. Survivalism for many of us IS a byproduct of our politics, or perhaps vice versa. It's very difficult for me to separate the issues of personal responsibility and individual freedom with the concepts of self-sufficiency and survivalism.


----------



## pickapeppa (Jan 1, 2005)

Ernie said:


> Because this is an important topic and it's been shut down several times already, I guess we're trying to hold to a tighter line than normal at keeping politics out of the issue.
> 
> I would suppose that speculation on what might happen, as well as what needs would have to be met by individuals, is considered safe ground. Anything else veers dangerously close to the edge and invites certain elements from GC into our living room.
> 
> You'll notice that in other threads we veer all over the place.  As I consider well and appropriate. Survivalism for many of us IS a byproduct of our politics, or perhaps vice versa. It's very difficult for me to separate the issues of personal responsibility and individual freedom with the concepts of self-sufficiency and survivalism.


In either case, after doing more thorough reading on the topic, with the help of some others who know more about court proceedings than myself, I'm not too concerned about this getting consideration by the SC.

So, my initial response here was a big knee jerk reaction to this news, as this country does need a change in direction, and falling back on the party we've been ruled by for the last 8 years isn't it.

I could only imagine the responses of individuals with less self control and more passion on the subject than myself, and it's not a pretty picture by any stretch of the imagination.

I'm glad to see the people handling this are brushing it off as the non-issue it appears to be.

I know we differ in that regard, but the potential well of individuals disenfranchised by any serious consideration of these claims is far more motivated and far larger than the tiny little pool of people with the pocket change to push the issue.

Sorry if that crosses the lines between survival and politics, but yes, sometimes they are intimately intertwined, and this instance is one of those cases.


----------



## Guest (Dec 4, 2008)

pickapeppa said:


> I'm not too concerned about this getting consideration by the SC.


Me neither. But I like staying prepared for anything anyhow. You never know when one of these seemingly ridiculous TFH theories might turn out to be the real thing.


----------



## cowboy joe (Sep 14, 2003)

http://www.michnews.com/Guest_Commentary/Process_for_Ineligible_Elected_Candidate.shtml

Interesting read...apparently, since the President elect is not technically in office yet, the Vice President Elect would not step in. The author descibes a process in which the House of Representatives (ref: 12th ammendment) would then elect / appoint a President & Vice President. One state, one vote. Not certain how much truth there is to the author's statements without researching this more (which isn't possible during a 30 minute lunch).

Food for thought while double checking the BOB.


----------



## 7.62mmFMJ (Nov 19, 2008)

The need for change does not justify the need for ignoring the Rule of Law. 

Either BHO is qualified or he is not. 

I am set for any contingency however I am never as far along as I want to be. Preparation requires cash and any major disruption in the economy would leave me short of that.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Thank you for keeping this in Survival type mode.

Angie


----------



## pickapeppa (Jan 1, 2005)

7.62mmFMJ said:


> The need for change does not justify the need for ignoring the Rule of Law.
> 
> Either BHO is qualified or he is not.
> 
> I am set for any contingency however I am never as far along as I want to be. Preparation requires cash and any major disruption in the economy would leave me short of that.


There is the possibility that whatever *could be lurking* in those sealed records of Obama's past doesn't conform to any law currently on the books, in which case, given the current crisis unfolding before our yes, it's a matter to address at another time. 

Letting this take hold and gain legs would be like an EMT running two miles away from the scene of a fatal car accident to read a piece of paper thrown out by the driver during his travels in case it *might* contain some incriminating evidence, disregarding the people needing rescued in their vehicles.


----------



## 7.62mmFMJ (Nov 19, 2008)

If we fail to adhere to the Constitution then nothing matters anymore. Anything goes. 
The Constitution says natural born. Not a burdensome threshold to prove.

If we do not follow thje Rule of Law then we become Venezuela or Zimbabwe. That is a whole nuther ballgame for survival.


----------



## pickapeppa (Jan 1, 2005)

7.62mmFMJ said:


> If we fail to adhere to the Constitution then nothing matters anymore. Anything goes.
> The Constitution says natural born. Not a burdensome threshold to prove.
> 
> If we do not follow thje Rule of Law then we become Venezuela or Zimbabwe. That is a whole nuther ballgame for survival.



What's happened over the last 8 years, imo, has not followed the rule of law or the constitution. But that's a subject for another forum, and on that, I will say no more here.

;-)


----------



## uyk7 (Dec 1, 2002)

> I'm glad to see the people handling this are brushing it off as the non-issue it appears to be.


I read this today:



> Because the Kenyan government announced, right after Obama's cousin was named Prime Minister, that Obama's birth records are sealed. This, of course, tells you Obama was born there since if there were no birth records to conceal, there would have been no order to conceal them.


Seems if BO was born in Hawaii then Kenya would have no reason to seal BO's birth records.

As far as the Constitution is concerned, Pick is right. The birth certificate issue along with the nomination of Clinton as SOS are, IMO, the last breath of the Constitution. The Patriot Act, domestic spying, etc... from the last 40-50 years were the nails to the coffin.

Stand by because it looks like it is going to turn bad real quick. Don't forget you long-term prep items such as trees and bushes.

.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

Then there's no better time to turn it around and start following the rule of law and the Constitution again.

According to the following news article, SCOTUS is going to make a decision regarding whether to hear this case on Friday, December 5th (tomorrow).

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-obama-birth-certificatedec04,0,664988.story


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

Yeesh. I typed up about 2 pages worth until I realized we were supposed to be being nice.

Just judging from the responses here and in GC on this topic, I can tell right away that should the Supreme Court give Obama the boot then this culture war is going to become a shooting war real quick.

People can't even stay on topic to discuss the what-if. We've managed to seriously discuss everything from fires, to floods, to hordes of zombies in this forum but yet a real issue that is before us renders us incapable of logic and planning.


----------



## Guest (Dec 4, 2008)

Ernie said:


> should the Supreme Court give Obama the boot then this culture war is going to become a shooting war real quick.


I could be wrong, but I really don't think that's going to happen.

Assuming he was born in Kenya, either a fake bc will be produced, and/or they will decide he's a citizen because his mother was a citizen at the time of his birth.

I think all of this arguing and speculation is based on a false alarm.


----------



## pickapeppa (Jan 1, 2005)

Ernie said:


> Yeesh. I typed up about 2 pages worth until I realized we were supposed to be being nice.
> 
> Just judging from the responses here and in GC on this topic, I can tell right away that should the Supreme Court give Obama the boot then this culture war is going to become a shooting war real quick.
> 
> People can't even stay on topic to discuss the what-if. We've managed to seriously discuss everything from fires, to floods, to hordes of zombies in this forum but yet a real issue that is before us renders us incapable of logic and planning.


The truth has been told. This is why I say that of all the constitutional brush offs that have been allowed to occur under disguise of shelter from terrorism . . . what's a little questionable document that's already been certified legitimate?

And I may be off in my perception, but judging by sentiments gathered in this forum, the outcome of this going forward will bring the downfall none of us wants to see happen, whether or not we're prepared.

The SCOTUS needs to deal with and dispose of this as quickly as possible, as professionally as possible. I do hope they're up to the job before AHBL. There are times when the most reasonable course of action is to write a new course. The people fighting to bring this forward don't understand the power of the fire with which they're playing.


----------



## Stormy_NY (Dec 8, 2007)

Can you imagine .... I mean really can you imagine he get s the boot. Holy smokes ..... :icecream:


----------



## uyk7 (Dec 1, 2002)

> I think all of this arguing and speculation is based on a false alarm.


It is most definately NOT a false alarm. I do agree though that the SCOTUS will probably ignore the Constitution or reinterpret Hawaiian law (or something) to make this issue go away. When they do, the Constitution is dead.

.


----------



## Guest (Dec 4, 2008)

pickapeppa said:


> The SCOTUS needs to deal with and dispose of this as quickly as possible, as professionally as possible. I do hope they're up to the job before AHBL. There are times when the most reasonable course of action is to write a new course. The people fighting to bring this forward don't understand the power of the fire with which they're playing.


 The SCOTUS needs to deal with this case on its actual _legal merits_ as the constitution clearly states they should. Failure to do that would be a greater problem than ignoring the case because of fear of rioting.

It's the ramifications of a possible decision to not only hear the case, but to act favorably on it that is what is under discussion in this thread. NOT whether they should or not. Politics can and must be separated from survival planning.

IF the Supreme Court hears the case and IF they rule favorably on it then what should we as members of the Survival & Emergency Preparedness forum to to prepare against the social upheaval this is highly likely to bring about?

This is the question that we need to focus on HERE. Whether or not they should accept the case and whether or not they should rule favorably on it belongs in General Chat or in Politics.

I am in a wait and see mode myself. If it looks like things are going to get rough I and my family will likely stay home until it settles down. One of the benefits of living in a rural area.

.....Alan.


----------



## pickapeppa (Jan 1, 2005)

Stormy_NY said:


> Can you imagine .... I mean really can you imagine he get s the boot. Holy smokes ..... :icecream:


Yes, this surely looks like it involves discussion material.


----------



## danoon (Dec 20, 2006)

I can't believe the SCOTUS would pull BO after all this time. They have waited for him to get elected and pick his cabinet before considering this... for a reason. 

However, if they were to find a problem with the legality of his citizenship.. I would think it would turn out to be a real SHTF, at least around here anyway. I have heard more than one ethnic person saying that things are going to change in Jan. then they give you that look like you're the next one on the menu. 
There would be a lot of ticked off people if BO isn't the next supreme commander.


----------



## wvstuck (Sep 19, 2008)

The more the Government veers from adherence to the Constitution as a whole, the more the prep community needs to start battening down. A government that would overlook something as important and *basic* as the eligibility of a/any presidential candidate, is a government that will stomp your rights into the ground in the name of "Anything".


----------



## pickapeppa (Jan 1, 2005)

In case anyone is interested in delving further, there is a good presentation of the different sides of this on Wiki.

The list of current and past serving elected officials who could have been denied their offices due to this issue is pretty extensive.

One has to question the motive and timing of this, when viewed through the scope of historical precedents.

I wouldn't get overly concerned about this. It's not likely to amount to anything.


----------



## Ann-NWIowa (Sep 28, 2002)

The point of prepping is to be prepared for whatever SHTF event occurs. That could be as basic as loss of job/income or a disasters such as famine, war, plague. We have no way of knowing the what or the when so it behooves us to always be as prepped as we are able. 

I'm seriously troubled that this issue has been allowed to drag out so long. It is a very easy, simple matter to resolve. The fact it hasn't been resolved leads people to suspect the worst. I did not vote for Obama but I've accepted I have to suck it up and live with him as president. That's what we do when we lose. However, I do not want a president who is disqualified by the Constitution to be allowed to take office. As was said above, if one pillar of the Constitution is removed the rest will crumble and we'll definately have a SHTF come down on us.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

I doubt that anything will disappoint people as much as BO taking office. I have seen the looks as he picked his cabinet. And again when he changed his position on several things. I doubt that most of the people except in the inner cities would care if he didn't get to take the oath. It will only last a couple of weeks before they get enough and go home or to anywhere since the homes that they had were burned. If we had 20,000 soilders to put a ring around them then nothing else would be bothered. I would prep for at least a couple of weeks of not going to town or better for a month.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> If we had 20,000 soilders to put a ring around them then nothing else would be bothered


Theyve already deployed the first few thousand:
http://www.alternet.org/rights/1019...._streets_ready_to_carry_out_"crowd_control"/



> Background: the First Brigade of the Third Infantry Division, three to four thousand soldiers, has been deployed in the United States as of October 1. Their stated mission is the form of crowd control they practiced in Iraq, subduing "unruly individuals," and the management of a national emergency.


Time to lock and load


----------



## Narshalla (Sep 11, 2008)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Theyve already deployed the first few thousand:
> http://www.alternet.org/rights/1019...._streets_ready_to_carry_out_"crowd_control"/
> 
> Time to lock and load


Sorry, this is not a credible source. Do you have another?


----------



## wvstuck (Sep 19, 2008)

http://coloradoindependent.com/1651...ploy-20000-troops-in-us-for-domestic-security



> *Critics question plans to deploy 20,000 troops in U.S. for domestic security
> By Ernest Luning 12/2/08 1:31 PM*
> 
> Civil libertarians and plain old libertarians are sounding the alarm over Pentagon plans to station 20,000 uniformed troops stateside to respond to domestic âcatastrophes,âincluding nuclear, chemical or biological attacks, the Washington Post reports. The deployment, reported by The Colorado Independentâs Erin Rosa a month ago, includes a 4,700-troop combat brigade based at Fort Stewart, Ga., under the command of the U.S. Northern Commandâs Gen. Victor E. Renuart Jr., in Colorado Springs.
> ...


----------



## uyk7 (Dec 1, 2002)

> The list of current and past serving elected officials who could have been denied their offices due to this issue is pretty extensive.


I didn't know about this issue until recently. If I had known the Constitution was being "worked around" I would have complained long ago.


.


----------



## pickapeppa (Jan 1, 2005)

Narshalla said:


> Sorry, this is not a credible source. Do you have another?


The original news article on this came from the Military Times. I don't think you can get more credible than that on this one. Yes. It's true.


----------



## pickapeppa (Jan 1, 2005)

uyk7 said:


> I didn't know about this issue until recently. If I had known the Constitution was being "worked around" I would have complained long ago.
> 
> 
> .


While I disagree with the implications that private citizens don't have the right to question an office holder's legitimacy, I can't agree that this situation hasn't been addressed already repeated times throughout history.

By what information I've read on the topic, and on requirements for citizenship in general, it does look like a tempest in a teapot due to the fact that traditionally, a person who's born of an American citizen is legally an American citizen by birth, regardless of where that birth takes place.


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

pickapeppa said:


> While I disagree with the implications that private citizens don't have the right to question an office holder's legitimacy, I can't agree that this situation hasn't been addressed already repeated times throughout history.
> 
> By what information I've read on the topic, and on requirements for citizenship in general, it does look like a tempest in a teapot due to the fact that traditionally, a person who's born of an American citizen is legally an American citizen by birth, regardless of where that birth takes place.


The issue lies in the fact that he went to the school in Indonesia. He had to be a citizen of Indonesia to attend. Since his parents renounced his citizenship for the schooling he would have had to reaffirmed his citizenship some time after the age of majority. He didn't. With the way US law is it's almost impossible to become a Non-Citizen One must make a formal declaration to another country and renounce your US rights. But even then we will take you back..

So he is a citizen by birth right, being that his mother was American. But not a natural born one. A natural born citizen is a citizen of the US only.


----------



## insocal (May 15, 2005)

I have just ONE question: if Obama's citizenship is genuinely in question and he's not qualified to be President, why in God's name did neither McCain nor the Republican Party stand up and do something like file a lawsuit? THEY have standing. THEY did nothing.

Perhaps their lawyers have told them that Obama's HI Birth Certificate is exactly what it appears to be..........and they chose not to look like complete morons by challenging it.


----------



## Azrael (Jun 2, 2008)

People will probably still continue to argue this but he is a citizen whether he was born in Kenya or not, at most he could possibly be considered to have dual citizenship due to a Kenyan father and American mother. IF A PERSON IS BORN OF A PARENT WHO IS A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES THAN THEY ARE A UNITED STATES CITIZEN! NO EXCEPTIONS! 

Here is a quote from the wiki article pickapeppa linked above:
Congress first recognized the citizenship of children born to U.S. parents overseas on March 26, 1790, under the first naturalization law: "And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens." (See ref. for the Act of 1795)


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Narshalla said:


> Sorry, this is not a credible source. Do you have another?




[ame]http://www.google.com/search?complete=1&hl=en&safe=off&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=washington+post+20000+troops&aq=f&oq=[/ame]


----------



## Azrael (Jun 2, 2008)

As far as the 1st/3rd being stationed in the US, please see the two threads below that have discussed this before (along with many others) one of the quotes above, as well as a couple posts in the first linked thread below point out that a brigade is less than 5,000 soldiers. It will take a lot more than that to attempt to establish martial law in the US.

http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/showthread.php?t=277750&highlight=brigade
http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/showthread.php?t=271590&highlight=brigade

Also please read the following link, which is the actual article from the Army Times. Please read it in its ENTIRETY, the mission they are here for is to SUPPORT FEMA and other domestic agencies. Of course people will still believe what they want too.
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/army_homeland_090708w/

I am finding the amount of misinformation here lately from people both left & right leaning both astounding and disheartening. Please research & educate yourselves from MULTIPLE sources on these issues prior to just regurgitaing the talking points from questionably biased sources (especially non-news, opinion ONLY blogs).


----------



## Azrael (Jun 2, 2008)

Sorry to post yet again, but MSM is starting to pick it up. Just saw this on the front page of CNN while going to look about OJs sentence.
NOTE: This link is for a video.

[ame]http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/12/05/arena.obama.citizenship.cnn[/ame]


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Azrael said:


> People will probably still continue to argue this but he is a citizen whether he was born in Kenya or not, at most he could possibly be considered to have dual citizenship due to a Kenyan father and American mother. IF A PERSON IS BORN OF A PARENT WHO IS A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES THAN THEY ARE A UNITED STATES CITIZEN! NO EXCEPTIONS!
> 
> *Here is a quote from the wiki article pickapeppa linked above:*
> Congress first recognized the citizenship of children born to U.S. parents overseas on March 26, 1790, under the first naturalization law: "And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens." (See ref. for the Act of 1795)


And HERE is a quote from farther down the same source:



> However, in 1795 the Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1795 which removed the words "natural born" from this statement to state that such *children born to citizens beyond the seas are citizens of the U.S., but are not legally to be considered "natural born citizens" of the U.S*.


----------



## uyk7 (Dec 1, 2002)

> I have just ONE question: if Obama's citizenship is genuinely in question and he's not qualified to be President, why in God's name did neither McCain nor the Republican Party stand up and do something like file a lawsuit? THEY have standing. THEY did nothing.


Because they would have been charged with using "dirty politics".


.


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

mnn2501 said:


> Consider the source.
> 
> then go to the official website and see there is nothing about it.
> 
> ...


If you prep and have contingencies for such emergencies, and nothing happens, there is no loss.

Don't prep, and don't have contingencies for rioting and looting and a breakdown of the social order, and, well, one might just become another statistic, a footnote in history.

I'm trying to find my dream tool, or tools, and 6 to 8K rounds of 'nails'.

Prepping for this current SCOTUS eligibility scare, also can be a trial run in case of further discomforting things happening in the future.

Also, a general purpose prep run for a general SHTF, TEO, or Zombie Apocalypse scenario.

You ARE prepared for the Zombie Apocalypse, right? If you are, most other 'problems' are covered by your ZA prep insurance...


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

insocal said:


> I have just ONE question: if Obama's citizenship is genuinely in question and he's not qualified to be President, why in God's name did neither McCain nor the Republican Party stand up and do something like file a lawsuit? THEY have standing. THEY did nothing.


Unfortunately, McCain was a gentleman... and a bloody fool. You never carry a knife to a gunfight. His opponent, the prez elect, has a history of thuggery, removing candidates from the ballot, to ensure his own election. Also broke every precampaign promise... Only at the end of the campaign, did I see any [edited out... One of Reverend Wright's rants after 911, where he said, No, Don't God Bless America, But ..................... America) ads. 

Amazingly enough, in some places in this country, character still matters... but in certain sports and occupations, nice guys lose. One exception??? The Lady Byng (sp?) trophy for the most gentlemanly person, in Hockey!


----------



## Bonnie L (May 11, 2002)

I didn't understand the lawsuit until I read this in the Wall Street Journal Law Blog: 



> But Donofrioâs case takes a different tack. He concedes that Obama was born in Hawaii, as Obama claims. But Donofrio contends Obama is not a ânatural born citizen,â as required by Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution, according to the story, because he was not exclusively a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth. Obamaâs father was a citizen of Kenya, formerly British East Africa, so Obama was a British citizen as well.
> 
> He explains his legal theory on the Citizen Wells Web site: âMy law suit challenges his status as a ânatural born citizenâ based upon the fact that his Father was a British citizen/subject. Mr. Obama admits, at his own web site, that he was a British citizen/subject at birth. He was also a U.S. citizen âat birth.â He does not have dual nationality now, but the Constitution is concerned with the candidateâs status âat birth,â hence the word âbornâ in the requirement.


http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/12/05/obama-citizenship-case-gets-high-courts-attention/

No wonder the lawsuit is silly! Duel citizenship means nothing if the individual was born in the US or in US territory. Obama is a natural born US citizen.


----------



## uyk7 (Dec 1, 2002)

> Sorry, this is not a credible source. Do you have another?


What do you consider a credible source? MSM is not a credible source no matter who they are. Most of the MSM refuses to run these types of stories anyway.

.


----------



## wvstuck (Sep 19, 2008)

Azrael said:


> As far as the 1st/3rd being stationed in the US, please see the two threads below that have discussed this before (along with many others) one of the quotes above, as well as a couple posts in the first linked thread below point out that a brigade is less than 5,000 soldiers. It will take a lot more than that to attempt to establish martial law in the US.
> 
> http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/showthread.php?t=277750&highlight=brigade
> http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/showthread.php?t=271590&highlight=brigade
> ...


Great! You are now quoting old information, not new and updated... Kinda like misinformation isn't it. You need to do some research and then come back.. The number is no longer one brigade (I posted to the previous threads too) but since then the number has climbed to 20,000 troops (See post #42 in this thread, for starters) Now if it has climbed from 5k to 20k since the previous thread was posted, one might assume on an educated guess that the number could climb even higher if someone thought the American's were getting restless. Keep looking and keep researching from multiple sources and you might find the newer and updated version of the truth you are currently blinded from. Good luck!


----------



## insocal (May 15, 2005)

stanb999 said:


> The issue lies in the fact that he went to the school in Indonesia. He had to be a citizen of Indonesia to attend. Since his parents renounced his citizenship for the schooling he would have had to reaffirmed his citizenship some time after the age of majority. He didn't. With the way US law is it's almost impossible to become a Non-Citizen One must make a formal declaration to another country and renounce your US rights. But even then we will take you back..
> 
> So he is a citizen by birth right, being that his mother was American. But not a natural born one. A natural born citizen is a citizen of the US only.


Parents cannot renounce their minor child's citizenship for them. The child is a citizen with his/her own rights, and parents can't just deny those rights willy-nilly. Not that his mother ever did, anyway.

Does the man have a US passport? Is he the son of an American mother? Was he born on US soil?

What his mother and stepfather may have done when he was a small child in order to get him enrolled in some foreign school is irrelevant.


----------



## uyk7 (Dec 1, 2002)

> Was he born on US soil?


Well? Was he? This is only one of the questions some of us would like answers to.

.


----------



## booklover (Jan 22, 2007)

A.T. Hagan said:


> This is a General Chat thread and issue which I don't want to bring into here...


Well, you did anyway. Can we get away from this carp anywhere on HT? Simply avoiding GC doesn't seem to work anymore.


----------



## pickapeppa (Jan 1, 2005)

uyk7 said:


> Well? Was he? This is only one of the questions some of us would like answers to.
> 
> .


There were photo's of his Hawaiian birth certificate, with the photo's of the seal posted at factcheck.org and on his website clearly showing he was born in Hawaii. I'll see if I can dig them up.

Found it.


----------



## Bonnie L (May 11, 2002)

uyk7 said:


> Well? Was he? This is only one of the questions some of us would like answers to.
> 
> .


According to Donofrio, the man who is bringing the suit & whom I mentioned in my earlier post, Obama was born in the US. That was not the question. Donofino contended that a person born with duel citizenship (in Obama's case, his father was a British citizen) is not eligible to be President


----------



## pickapeppa (Jan 1, 2005)

Bonnie L said:


> According to Donofrio, the man who is bringing the suit & whom I mentioned in my earlier post, Obama was born in the US. That was not the question. Donofino contended that a person born with duel citizenship (in Obama's case, his father was a British citizen) is not eligible to be President


One could question the allegiance of an individual who would suggest British citizenship rights over rule those of American citizenship rights.

But the SC has decided not to decide, and Rome isn't burning yet, thank God.


----------



## Bonnie L (May 11, 2002)

pickapeppa said:


> One could question the allegiance of an individual who would suggest British citizenship rights over rule those of American citizenship rights.


Agreed. I know several people who were born in the US & have dual citizenship.


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

booklover said:


> Well, you did anyway. Can we get away from this carp anywhere on HT? Simply avoiding GC doesn't seem to work anymore.


Discussing in GC is just that, discussing. A debate society. Here, we're dealing with real goods, sand, wood, steel, and lead...

Alan, imho, had a valid point... if this went to court and he lost, there would be rioting, looting, and general mayhem. This is a survival and emergency prep concern... those who aren't ready/have no plans on what to do with ravaging hordes, will become statistics.

I'm prepping for many many things, one of which is if something happens to our new President, there'll be a firestorm. For the next four or eight years (if the country can survive) everyone, who cherishes his or her families safety, had best have a plan, or plans, on what to do if something happens to the President. If general widespread turmoil ensues, we're all on our own... 911 is a joke now, later, when we all need it, it'll be nonexistent, even for folks where it 'does work'...


----------



## Ann-NWIowa (Sep 28, 2002)

We're entering into a whole new era in this country. New questionable president i.e. who is he? Economy is in free fall and .gov bail (fail) outs running us deeper and deeper in the hole. Definitely Recession and likely headed for Depression. We have enough worries to keep us all awake at night!! All the more reason to prep, prep, prep and then prep some more.


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

booklover said:


> Well, you did anyway. Can we get away from this carp anywhere on HT? Simply avoiding GC doesn't seem to work anymore.


What exactly are you trying to get away from? People have been respectful in this post. Are you trying to get away from people posting things you don't like? Don't read this thread anymore, problem solved.

If S&EP isn't to your taste... there are plenty of other forums.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

Agreed, Seedspreader. You notice that there are a lot of folks who never post in S&EP who have decided to grace this thread with their presence. It's as if they can't stand the presence of a dissenting opinion out there. 

Moving along though, I haven't seen squat about this issue in the news. Where is it? We've passed the December 1st date and there's still nothing out there on it. What's happening with SCOTUS?

Because everything has been so slipshod on the dates, I'm having a real hard time pinpointing when the potential crisis might hit.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> What's happening with SCOTUS?


Although some keep saying its over, there have beenn NO announcements of any decisions that I've been able to find.
And there are more than one case pending


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

Who is saying it's over? The SCOTUS docket hasn't been updated yet. I don't think the fat lady has sung on this one, or if she did then she did it quietly.

I'm paranoid by nature, but there really does feel like there's almost a media blackout on this topic. We know it's there, but I can't turn up squat. You get tiny little snippets on NPR or CNN, but nothing definitive.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Who is saying it's over?

Pickapeppa keeps insisting here and on other threads that no announcement means its over



> *But the SC has decided not to decide*, and Rome isn't burning yet, thank God.


This report says he's mistaken:

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/06/obama-challenge-awaits-a-decision/



> The Supreme Court held off Friday on deciding whether to grant a hearing in a long-shot lawsuit that would decide whether Barack Obama can constitutionally become president as a "natural born" U.S. citizen.
> 
> The Friday list of court orders that denies or grants hearings did not mention the lawsuit, which says Mr. Obama should be disqualified from the presidency because he purportedly acquired the same British citizenship that his father had when he was born.
> 
> A spokesman for the court said the decision on whether to hear the suit brought by retired New Jersey lawyer Leo Donofrio is likely to be announced next week.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

I've always been a "pull the bandaid off quickly" kind of guy. I wish they'd get on with this.

It's starting to look to me like the Supreme Court isn't going to hear the case, which means that a) survivalists can stand down from the potential of mass riots and b) we are now in very strange territory with a possible usurper and foreign national in power.

Frankly I'm not sure why I'm not more concerned. Maybe I should be concerned that I'm _not_ concerned. All the presidential pulpit has been in my lifetime has been a weird piece of Kabuki theatre anyway. A puppet show with a dancing marionette. I don't think this next 4 years is really going to be all that different, except maybe this time it's someone else calling the tunes and holding the strings. 

Multinational conglomerates? Secret organizations of international financiers? The New World Order? I'm about ready to send the John Birch Society a lifetime membership fee. Life has just gotten too strange.


----------



## uyk7 (Dec 1, 2002)

> I haven't seen squat about this issue in the news


CNN has also covered this issue. Their guest (a lawyer) said that he didn't think the SCOTUS wouldn't look at this issue. I still think the SCOTUS will take the easy (& political) way out and not look into BO's eligibility issues. If they don't, then the final nail will have been hammered into the Constitution's coffin. It will be dead.

Someone on another thread said (paraphrasing) that this is a non-issue since Congress (et. al.) have been trampling the Constitution for years. IMO, that is no reason to continue allowing the trampling of the Constitution. 

.


----------



## Pouncer (Oct 28, 2006)

I don't post here a lot, but I do read pretty regularly. I learn a lot, see other view points, and gain understanding from others. 

As far as any potential SCOTUS decision, it will have little effect where I live. I am very fortunate in some ways to live here-far away from large cities. That's not to say we'd be immune from it of course. 

Outright, full blown depression is another matter altogether. There are some very very lean times ahead for this state, once the federal money dries up in about two years. Typically, Alaska's economy either weathers tough economic times with a hiccup, or it arrives about 18 months or so after the rest of the US is in trouble. 

This is not a typical scenario-our banks are pretty good but no one is spending because credit is still tied up. There are still jobs to be hand, but construction is one of the main pillars of our economy and that is coming to a halt. 

It's going to get ugly here if something doesn't shake loose.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Ernie said:


> Multinational conglomerates? Secret organizations of international financiers? The New World Order? *I'm about ready to send the John Birch Society a lifetime membership fee*. Life has just gotten too strange.


LOL, Ernie. My DH said something along those same lines just the other day. As I told him, I think the best thing to do is keep our mouths shut (locally) and our ears to the ground. 

I don't expect to see long term problems should things turn against Obama. He's admitted on his website that his father was a British subject and Obama, being a Constitutional law professor, darned well knows the truth and the law. If he has any integrity, he should announce it himself in order to stop any civil unrest because of consequences of his actions.

In the meantime, we're stocked, cocked and ready to rock. We really don't want to see our Constitution torn apart.


----------



## Bigkat80 (Jan 16, 2007)

Ernie said:


> Because this is an important topic and it's been shut down several times already, I guess we're trying to hold to a tighter line than normal at keeping politics out of the issue.
> 
> I would suppose that speculation on what might happen, as well as what needs would have to be met by individuals, is considered safe ground. Anything else veers dangerously close to the edge and invites certain elements from GC into our living room.
> 
> You'll notice that in other threads we veer all over the place.  As I consider well and appropriate. Survivalism for many of us IS a byproduct of our politics, or perhaps vice versa. It's very difficult for me to separate the issues of personal responsibility and individual freedom with the concepts of self-sufficiency and survivalism.


Good Points I agree they are usually one and the same...I think the geopolitcal situation is one of many needs for strong and advanced apreparations....we shall see if it has legs...but the issue is sure to cause massive tibulation to this country and lots of survival skills will become necessary in a quick and fast hurry....I am as ready as i can be and will just keep updating and refreshing as neexded till this or anything else blows up....Good Luck ato all...keep pressing on....


----------



## Bigkat80 (Jan 16, 2007)

pickapeppa said:


> There were photo's of his Hawaiian birth certificate, with the photo's of the seal posted at factcheck.org and on his website clearly showing he was born in Hawaii. I'll see if I can dig them up.
> 
> Found it.


unfortunately that is a certification of live birth and not a birth certificate...you can get a certification of live birth regardless of where you are born if your parents were ever domicillary in the state aof hawaii for the previous years...it is proof of nothing.....I dont think scotus has the courage to erupt this storm but that does not prove what needs proving....however if it does erupt we on this board at least need to be prepared......


----------



## adenblue (Apr 12, 2008)

Well, I guess that's that.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081208/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_obama

WASHINGTON â The Supreme Court has turned down an emergency appeal from a New Jersey man who says President-elect Barack Obama is ineligible to be president because he was a British subject at birth.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

This is not the Kenyon birth case per the linked article. Angie


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AngieM2 said:


> This is not the Kenyon birth case per the linked article. Angie


Tha's correct, and there are several other lawsuits about this matter still in lower courts.
Logic dictates that you have to ask WHY would BO and the Democratic Party spend MILLIONS of dollars to FIGHT showing a document that could settle all this, when releasing it would only cost about $10?


----------



## pickapeppa (Jan 1, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Tha's correct, and there are several other lawsuits about this matter still in lower courts.
> Logic dictates that you have to ask WHY would BO and the Democratic Party spend MILLIONS of dollars to FIGHT showing a document that could settle all this, when releasing it would only cost about $10?


Maybe it's cheaper than destabilizing the country over a quarrel that amounts to nothing more than technicalities over which birth certificate proves beyond a reasonable doubt he was born in the US.

People pay to defend themselves against lawsuits all the time, whether or not they've done anything wrong.


----------



## uyk7 (Dec 1, 2002)

> Maybe it's cheaper than destabilizing the country over a quarrel that amounts to nothing more than technicalities over which birth certificate proves beyond a reasonable doubt he was born in the US.


So let's just flush the entire Constitution down the toilet. If a majority of the people don't care about this particular part then what will be the next part to go? The current admin has already destroyed (with permission of Congress, both reps and dems) parts of it.

.


----------



## pickapeppa (Jan 1, 2005)

uyk7 said:


> _So let's just flush the entire Constitution down the toilet._
> .


I'm sorry uyk, I hope you don't mind me saying this but . . . this sounds like hyperbole.

How can one consider this 'flushing' the C down the T when IF he was born outside the US, it's never been thoroughly defined or considered in detail down to this level of determination? And that isn't even the issue in this case. This case was claiming since his father was British - he's not an American - ignoring the fact that his mother was American and he was born in America. One could question if the person filing the claim is a misogynist. 

So his mother's heritage - our own country's laws - should be pushed aside because his paternal side is not a citizen of the US? What's she? Chopped liver?

It sounds more like a grey area to me, if not absolute falsehood to begin with, and keeping the country waiting while pushing this through the SC (more likely Congress would make the determination anywho) for consideration and debate is pure and completely asinine - especially considering the economic and military issues we are up to our necks in at the current moment.

And I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but I'm just calling it like I sees it. ;-)

Taking this on, and suspending a president's inauguration at a time when we need strong leadership would be like a couple deciding to give birth to a new life before committing to each other in marriage. Not.too.bright.


----------



## Ann-NWIowa (Sep 28, 2002)

The whole issue should be a non-issue. Obama should open the doors to who he is. Get the birth certificate out for the world to see. Open his educational records. Open everything. If he's qualified, he's been elected and should serve. If he's not qualified, he should be prosecuted for election fraud. Simple. Open the doors on the truth and be done with it. As long as he refuses to fully disclose, this will be an issue. Actually, as long as he does not disclose it appears he has something to hide. Secrets in the public forum are never good. It would be much much better for the country to get the answers before he takes office. 

If Obama had been the Republican candidate, the media would have hounded him until this information was disclosed. Because he's liberal Democrat they did not look beyond his smiling face. I did not vote for Obama, I do not trust Obama, but I will support him as president WHEN HE PROVES HE IS LEGALLY QUALIFIED TO BE PRESIDENT. Its not rocket science. Even I managed to request and receive a certified copy of my birth certificate this year since it was required to sign up for Medicare. If I have to produce my certified birth certificate for Medicare (they would not accept the certificate of live birth), then surely the requirement to be qualified as president should be no less than a certified birth certificate. 

I'm really tired of this whole issue. Produce the darn certificate and be done with it. We have enough problems in this country right now with the economy and the bail (fail) out, stock market, mortgage crisis, businesses closing left and right, we need this resolved so we can get on to the important business of survival.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

I won't support Obama. In fact, if SCOTUS doesn't decide to hear the case I shall henceforth refer to him as "The Usurper". However I wouldn't have supported McCain either. I had a worse name I used to refer to that gun-grabber. 

Frankly I've been less concerned with the birth certificate than the thoughts associated with this issue. It disturbs me when a portion of the American public are willing to allow such a potential fraud to occur simply to "keep the peace". It disturbs me when people say, "He's better than what we've had so even if he isn't qualified we should still let him be president". And it bothers me greatly when the Obama camp simply ignores the branch of government that is going to be responsible for keeping them in check over the next 8 years.

We have entered the American Descent, our slow fall towards becoming a Third World country. It started before Obama and he is but a symptom of it, but he'll certainly help move it along.


----------



## insocal (May 15, 2005)

Ann-NWIowa said:


> The whole issue should be a non-issue. Obama should open the doors to who he is. Get the birth certificate out for the world to see. Open his educational records. Open everything. If he's qualified, he's been elected and should serve. If he's not qualified, he should be prosecuted for election fraud. Simple. Open the doors on the truth and be done with it. As long as he refuses to fully disclose, this will be an issue. Actually, as long as he does not disclose it appears he has something to hide. Secrets in the public forum are never good. It would be much much better for the country to get the answers before he takes office.
> 
> If Obama had been the Republican candidate, the media would have hounded him until this information was disclosed. Because he's liberal Democrat they did not look beyond his smiling face. I did not vote for Obama, I do not trust Obama, but I will support him as president WHEN HE PROVES HE IS LEGALLY QUALIFIED TO BE PRESIDENT. Its not rocket science. Even I managed to request and receive a certified copy of my birth certificate this year since it was required to sign up for Medicare. If I have to produce my certified birth certificate for Medicare (they would not accept the certificate of live birth), then surely the requirement to be qualified as president should be no less than a certified birth certificate.
> 
> I'm really tired of this whole issue. Produce the darn certificate and be done with it. We have enough problems in this country right now with the economy and the bail (fail) out, stock market, mortgage crisis, businesses closing left and right, we need this resolved so we can get on to the important business of survival.


Obama's CERTIFIED BIRTH CERTIFICATE is available all over the internet. I have seen it. It looks like the standard birth certificates I get when doing my genealogy research/documentation. Certified copies are valid in any court in the land, including the Supreme Court. Hawaiian officials have come right out and said in public statements that his certified copy is a true copy and that he was born in Hawaii. The local newspaper at the time has a birth announcement for him with other local babies.

I wish people would just get over this nonsense and start concerning themselves with the mess this country is in.

We need a hair-pulling smilie.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Obama's CERTIFIED BIRTH CERTIFICATE is available all over the internet


You just dont get it do you? That is NOT a true "birth certificate" 

Its not a "copy" of anything. 

And anyone anywhere can put an announcement in any newpaper. It doesnt say WHERE he was born



> I wish people would just get over this nonsense and start concerning themselves with the mess this country is in.


I dont see how it's "nonsense" to ask for PROOF that the man meets the quailfications set forth in the Constitution. He HAS NOT shown any proof as of yet, and his resistance makes any LOGICAL person think he's hiding something


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

I just read this morning SCOTUS won't hear it. Obama's the next prez, like it or not.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

I'm hearing that on the news too, but it's never an official spokesman for SCOTUS, and the official docket on the website doesn't show it either. They do have this new entry posted though:

Dec 1 2008 Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by respondent Bill Anderson. 

I don't know what that means. According to the website though, it has not been officially dismissed. There's also a couple of other cases besides Berg's case that are coming up, one of which has been brought by a US Serviceman. One analyst stated that a serviceman DOES actually have the authority to request this since otherwise he would be following unlawful orders from the commander-in-chief. I don't know what the validity of that is.

Obama has not, as some respondents have claimed, shown a legitimate birth certificate yet. What he has shown was not valid for me to get a loan to buy a home (I needed the long form BC to do that). He wouldn't be able to get a SSN with what he's shown. He has refused to release the certificate, his college records, and his medical records, all of which would show where he was from (though none except the certificate would actually be proof.)

If SCOTUS really has declined to hear this case (and I'm not convinced yet) then I'm really concerned. I don't believe that "natural born citizen" is a clearly defined term and it would be up to SCOTUS to determine what that actually means. They could go either way, I think. The more this issue is prolonged and the Obama camp fights having to disclose anything, the more it makes me suspect a rat. I keep wondering if Obama is going to let this thing proceed entirely through his next 4 years in office. It'll never be a closed deal until he comes up with a birth certificate.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

Oh, awesome. I found the link to the amicus brief filed by Bill Anderson (I don't know who he is exactly but he would seem to be someone who doesn't like Obama very much).

http://wthrockmorton.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/joyce_anderson-amicus-final.pdf

Some interesting points from within:

He states to support the standing of Berg for the case - 

âIn a sense â in a very important sense â
every citizen and every taxpayer is interested
in . . . having only qualified officers
execute the law.â 

That statement is basically saying that if we as citizens are expected to follow any rulings or proceedings for which Obama expects to provide, then he's got to show us proof. He points out legal precedent in this under United States Vs. Newman (1915).

Another statement:

"Following respondent Obamaâs inauguration, the
only way to attack his status as de facto President of
the United States would be through quo warranto or
by collateral attack."

In other words, if the Supreme Court lets Obama get into office and then some more valid proof is found on this matter, we've got a real fight on our hands to get him out of office. However, the quo warranto goes back to old English law that has been used in precedent here for a long time. That law states that a person claiming office who intends to seize a person's property or goods must show written proof of his authorization to hold said office. So either Obama shows proof of that authorization, or the Federal Government can no longer enforce foreclosures, confiscate property, or seize contraband. 

He goes on to point out that SCOTUS said in 1915 that:

â . . . is to be represented by the Attorney
General or the district attorney, who are
expected by themselves or those they authorize
to institute quo warranto proceedings
against usurpers in the same way that they
are expected to institute proceedings against
any other violator of the law.â

He's pointing out that the government, and particularly SCOTUS has an OBLIGATION to investigate and punish would-be usurpers. He's reminding them that SCOTUS has already stated before that they have the right, and also the obligation, to investigate this matter.

Here's where the amicus goes away from precedent and actually describes some of the problems with not investigating this:

"Respondent Obama could, for instance, be
blackmailed by anyone possessing prima facie evidence
that he is not a natural-born citizen of the
United States, just to give one example. And military
officers, sworn to defend the Constitution against all
enemies, both foreign and domestic, must not be
placed in a situation in which they cannot say with
absolute certainty whether the person claiming to be
the Commander-in-Chief legitimately holds office or
not, for another."

In other words, some Kenyan doctor could mail Obama a copy of a Kenyan birth certificate and Obama would be blackmailed into doing that man's will. Or the military could splinter and military personnel be _justified_ in not following any orders from their commander-in-chief until quo warranto (proof) has been satisfied. Remember, veterans, how upon entering active duty you swear to uphold and protect the Constitution against all enemies foreign or domestic? If a man claimed an office he could not legally hold, then that's a domestic enemy who must be defended against. The amicus then reminds the court that this man, who refuses to show a legitimate proof that he can hold this office, WILL have his finger on the nuclear button at all time. 

He then gives the court some leadway, pointing out that there were other legislative bodies that FAILED to act and properly secure proof that Obama had the authority to ever run for president, and that if SCOTUS kicks him out then the hate shouldn't be given to them by an outraged public, but rather to those bodies and legislators who FAILED to act when they should have (the DNC and the FEC mostly) and also on the actor (Obama) himself.

He then points out that the Constitution has predicted such an event and explains how it works:

"The Constitution provides
that if no person receives a majority of the votes
of the Electoral College, the President is to be elected
by the House of Representatives, and it also provides
as to who, by provision of congressional statute, shall
hold the office of President until someone qualifies for
that office even if the office of Vice-President is vacant
and no one qualifies to be President by the time
the outgoing President leaves office.3 (In the present
case, if the House cannot decide on a President even
by January 20, 2009, there would then be a vacancy
in the office of President, and that vacancy would be
filled by incoming Vice-President, presumably Joseph
Biden. Our constitutional form of government will
continue intact."

Not that I'm any happier with Biden at the helm, even for the short time it would be until a second election would be held.

He then goes on to say that the "proof" Obama put on his website doesn't meet the requirements anywhere for proof of citizenship and is so obviously flawed as to constitute fraud. I love this following line:

"Question, then: Does substantial evidence of an
attempted cover up ordinarily occur in the absence of
someone having something to hide?"

Heh. In other words, why would he go to the trouble to hide this if there wasn't some real reason to hide this? The amicus is prodding the court to investigate!

Oh, and the final point I'll add in this (long) summary is pointed out by the amicus in the brief.

Obama could have obtained a legal copy of his long form birth certificate from the state of Hawaii for $10.00 instead of spending almost a million dollars in legal fees trying to prevent that. He could have also had the legal copy posted on his website just as easily as the fake one was posted there, constituting a deliberate attempt at fraud.

Bill Anderson has really kicked Obama in the sack on this one. I don't think anyone can read that amicus brief and then still believe that a) SCOTUS doesn't have an obligation to hear the case, and b) Obama has been trying to pull a fast one for some unknown reason.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Ernie said:


> If SCOTUS really has declined to hear this case (and I'm not convinced yet) then I'm really concerned. I don't believe that "natural born citizen" is a clearly defined term and it would be up to SCOTUS to determine what that actually means. They could go either way, I think. The more this issue is prolonged and the Obama camp fights having to disclose anything, the more it makes me suspect a rat. I keep wondering if Obama is going to let this thing proceed entirely through his next 4 years in office. It'll never be a closed deal until he comes up with a birth certificate.


Don't worry, Ernie. This issue will not die easily. Although SCOTUS dismissed without comment, Donofrio wonders if it may have been due to jurisdictional issues rather than the merits of the case itself. He hopes that Wrotnowski's case, not having the excess legal baggage, might have a better chance. 

In the meantime, there are suits being filed all over the country. Another in Washington claims that their state Constitution does give citizens standing to file suit. The SoS denies any responsibility, claiming the Democratic Party is the responsible for qualifying eligibility. As my DH put it so succinctly, who the h--- *is* responsible?

Regardless, there are more people everyday who are beginning to understand the seriousness of this issue and wanting answers. I suspect (hope) we'll see lawsuits flying all over the place until this is resolved, one way or another. We simply cannot allow such a vital and potentially dangerous issue to swept aside.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

I find it amazing he made it this far in life without the birth certificate. I've had to have proof for every state and federal job I've held or even applied for. What gives?


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Ernie said:


> Oh, and the final point I'll add in this (long) summary is pointed out by the amicus in the brief.
> 
> Obama could have obtained a legal copy of his long form birth certificate from the state of Hawaii for $10.00 instead of spending almost a million dollars in legal fees trying to prevent that. He could have also had the legal copy posted on his website just as easily as the fake one was posted there, constituting a deliberate attempt at fraud.


Here's a point that many people are missing: in his book "Dreams Of My Father", Obama stated (unless he was lying ) that he found his birth certificate in a box years back. It's in his possession. He doesn't have to submit any money or make any requests. He has the bloody thing.......unless, of course, he was lying. :shrug:


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

I read all those books, being the big fan of fiction that I am. It's what put me off Obama in the first place. That, and the fact that I live in Chicago where Obama has already been working for years, and seen his slimy handiwork. If the rest of America knew Obama like most Illinois citizens knew Obama, then he'd have never gotten that 6% edge.


----------



## Rocktown Gal (Feb 19, 2008)

Question. I hope this makes sense.

If the SCOTUS will not hear this...lets say because the people have voted and the SCOTUS does not want to see riots, etc. because people will feel thier vote didn't count or because he is the first African American prez. 

Then why couldn't the SCOTUS look it be the other way around, that there would not be any riots etc because the people voted for a lie. I think that if people realize that O lied to them the whole time that there would not be any trouble.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

You're counting on human beings to be more reasonable than they've proven themselves to be. 

The rule of law is clear in this. Rioting or not, SCOTUS has an obligation to act on this. We've had rioting in our major cities before and we still exist as a country. There's also a clear path laid out so clearly by Bill Anderson in the amicus brief. The Constitution will stand some rioting. 

If a wolf came in sheep's clothing into my pasture and mingled amongst my flock, I would be forced to shoot him, though it might frighten the sheep, thinking as they would that the wolf in sheep's clothing was simply another sheep. I know the consequences of a wolf among my flock and have an obligation to act, even though the sheep may not.


----------



## Rocktown Gal (Feb 19, 2008)

I do want the case to be heard. I do not think that Obama has proved anything to the people and I do think that the Constitution should be upheld.

I'm on your side.


----------



## MELOC (Sep 26, 2005)

i think "wolf in sheep's clothing" is a bit much. you seem to assume ill intent no matter what. the worst case scenario i can see is that possibly due to dual citizenship and in an arena where the laws and precedents are a bit fuzzy, that he may have always assumed he was a viable candidate as he was born in hawaii. i think it is best to let the status quo remain and endure the next 4 years with obama at the helm. if the issue is ignored (no matter what the true situation) no further precedents will be set and this could be revisited by the scotus in the future when there is a REAL danger of having someone act as a wolf in sheep's clothing. this country doesn't need any further drama and possible SHTF problems all to satisfy disgruntled politicos from the opposing party. i strongly feel that as a nation, we have a lot to gain at home and abroad by having obama in power now.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

MELOC said:


> i think "wolf in sheep's clothing" is a bit much. you seem to assume ill intent no matter what. the worst case scenario i can see is that possibly due to dual citizenship and in an arena where the laws and precedents are a bit fuzzy, that he may have always assumed he was a viable candidate as he was born in hawaii. i think it is best to let the status quo remain and endure the next 4 years with obama at the helm. if the issue is ignored (no matter what the true situation) no further precedents will be set and this could be revisited by the scotus in the future when there is a REAL danger of having someone act as a wolf in sheep's clothing. this country doesn't need any further drama and possible SHTF problems all to satisfy disgruntled politicos from the opposing party. i strongly feel that as a nation, we have a lot to gain at home and abroad by having obama in power now.



A lot of folks think that the Constitution rules being followed are more important than BO becoming President with a shadow of doubt on his qualifications.

That is why many are watching this closely, and why this thread has not died out yet.

Angie


----------



## MELOC (Sep 26, 2005)

i don't hear the constant chatter about the patriot act, habeus corpus, income taxes, fiat currency and the usurping of state's rights...and on and on that one would have expected to result in this country falling apart at the seams. perhaps the perception of what is constitutional is subjective according to party affiliation. it's all potential SHTF stuff to me, and yet you have to weigh the impact of the actions the scotus will take on all of these issues. this issue should have been pushed a little harder way before the period of time right before the election. the timing of this in october was as much to disrupt the election with the media coverage as to actually disqualify obama. the media didn't bite. if obama had been disqualified before the primaries, you wouldn't have millions of people ready to riot if candidate they have elected...by a 7 million vote margin, gets tossed by the wayside. after two previous questionable elections, this country really needs some stability to ensure faith in the process. if not, i feel you will see some nasty SHTF scenarios.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

I have no party affiliation. 

And I can't rant against everything all of the time. However in this very forum I have complained previously about the patriot act, income taxes, fiat currency, and the erosion of both state and individual rights. 

You seem to be saying that someone dropped the ball and this should have been investigated long before now. I completely agree. However the parties who were supposed to did not, and now our system of checks and balances must intervene. They could not act before as the case had not been brought to them. They cannot go out and intervene in issues that they have not yet been given authority to deal with. 

I even wrote a long article complaining about the hanging of Saddam Hussein. The rule of law is the rule of law and if it isn't followed then you have mob rule and anarchy. I resent your implication that, were this issue falling on the head of a Republican, I wouldn't be complaining. 

If SCOTUS fails to act, the issue has not gone away but rather the responsibility falls to another branch of government.


----------



## MELOC (Sep 26, 2005)

if you are worried about survival and emaergency preparedness, take some lessons from nature. even animals know when not to poke their heads out of their hole when danger is around. if this is pushed and if riots do happen, what happens then? martial law? gun confiscation? situations could escalate or degrade to the point where food stashes are taken to feed hoards of people who have destroyed their cities. folks could actually be pushing this country over the edge...all for a few very questionable points of law. yes, i feel the president should be qualified, but the issues are very questionable and the timing of this is terrible. be like a deer that hides in the brush 10 yards away from a hunter. don't draw attention to yourself. pop your head back down in your den and weather the storm if you don't like the direction the wind is blowing. now is not the time to push people over the edge.


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

Meloc,

Most of us here aren't "survivalist" in the sense that we are just concerned with our own survival.

Most of us here have children and grand children and we have to weigh short term pain with long term viability for our children. 

A nation that continues to slip further and further away from the constitution all because of our fearful survival instinct. (ie., we CAN'T let the banks fail because of the hardship we would endure, we CAN'T let people not have national healthcare, we CAN'T let the Big 3 fail, etc.) is doomed for an ever increasing pain. We'll be in pain now and our children will be in worse pain, and their children will be slaves.

Sound dramatic? Those of us with children/grandchildren think in such terms.


----------



## MELOC (Sep 26, 2005)

i guess you have immediate danger and potential long term dangers. i will worry about jumping out of the way of the speeding truck before i worry about what is laying in the ditch when i jump into it.

i have family too.


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

MELOC said:


> i guess you have immediate danger and potential long term dangers. i will worry about jumping out of the way of the speeding truck before i worry about what is laying in the ditch when i jump into it.
> 
> i have family too.


And many more people survive getting hit by a truck than the 5000 foot fall over the edge of the canyon wall. Where you are standing when the truck is coming is the most important part of that decision.


----------



## MELOC (Sep 26, 2005)

well, i said ditch and not grand canyon. so you think the immediate danger of economic collapse worsened by widespread riots and potential martial law...resulting perhaps in guns and food being taken is less of a threat to you family than POTENTIAL constitutional inconsistencies?


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

I think that there are ALWAYS "dangers and worries" that we are surrounded by that have allowed us to keep slipping further and further away from our constitutional Republic.

I am actually surprised (well, a little bit, not completely I guess) that you, who has made mention of how the patriot act and resulting freedoms threatened were worse than the actual terrorist threat... is now the one using the same reasoning as those who support every usurping of Constitutional authority because of terrorism.

To me, it seems that it really is just whether the guy in the white house is "your guy" (your being generic here) as to whether we should overlook or accept the assault on our freedoms and the basic guarantee of those freedoms (our constitution).

By the way, why would there be riots if it were found out that he were not eligible to be president?

Oh, yeah, precisely because as I stated above... we care more about whether it's "our guy" than we really do the rule of law.

I just wish there was some consistency. The last 8 years I've heard (and agreed with some of the stuff) about the abuses of the current administration. I've supported the courts ruling about the indefinite holding by the current administration (and even though they've fought it, they've succumbed to it) of enemy combatants. I believe they should have a trial, it went to court and now they are going to.

Why the inconsistency here?

It's all fear mongering from one side or the other, and we merrily turn a blind eye as we slide into perilous abandon.

As I said, I think this country can survive some riots and bad finances a lot easier than legislating our children's lives to slavery.


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

I want to add, that I think this (and have always thought) is a no-go anyway. Seriously the most powerful man in the world (and those who pull his strings) can't come up with fake paperwork??? C'mon.


----------



## didaho (Jan 22, 2008)

I also want proof that BHO is a citizen. I did not vote for this man.

I have a question and it may sound stupid to you all.

From txsteader: In the meantime, there are suits being filed all over the country.

If all these law suits can be combined into a class action law suit(by these people), wouldn't, it speed up the process? I mean, wouldn't these supreme court judges have to hear the case like right now before they cause more harm?

It just amazes me that so many people are so blind to the possible out come if this man is not a citizen. There are so many out there that are willing to be lead to slaughter and put our children and grandchildren in such perils (Danger; risk; hazard; jeopardy). 
Such selfish people that care only for themselves and for today.

If you want change so much, just let this slide, look the other way as usual and then you can look back in a few years and see how your children and grandchildren are suffering under dictatorship. 


Debbie


----------



## MELOC (Sep 26, 2005)

i think the threat of dictatorship, or at least the rule of one who was not actually elected, is what we face if the president elect is not inagurated in a timely manner if the electoral college is suspended. that is my point i guess, this whole affair smacks of nothing but a political witch hunt. it is much the same as when clinton was elected after years of whitewater investigation failed to stop him. the witch hunt proceded until he was found to lie about private matters that somehow came to light and should have never been made a public concern. it took years and years to set the guy up to where he felt the need to lie about his private life, and it was no ones business anyhow. the point is that the witch hunt never stopped. what was the outcome...absolutely nothing of any consequence.

seedspreader, if you think this is such a no-go, what is the point of persuing it? it goes no where anyhow. he is an american. he was born in america. he spent most of his adult life here in america. the issues of revolt stem from black americans feeling like they have been shafted once again. what bigger a slap in the face could there be than to finally have a black person elected president, by a hefty margin of americans of many ethnic backgrounds, only to have politicos with a chip on their shoulder try to steal it away? i wept with pride to see the joy on the faces of many folks gathered in celebration when obama was elected. anyone who missed the sentiment wasn't watching tv. it was a great milestone in our history and one to be proud of. 

i didn't really get your patriot act/meloc is being a hypocrite argument. it is apples and oranges. it's fairly obvious that the patriot act isn't constitutional, but we are supposed to swallow that bitter pill for national security. no one else has been asked to prove they are a citizen, so it would seem the burden of those in the witch hunt would be to prove he is not. as one running for office, it would have been foolish to "feed the machine" with any ammo that would linger in the press and cast doubt on his credibility. why should he provide anything that no one else ever has? 

people in this country are teetering on the brink in so many ways right now. the tinder is dry and all it takes is a spark. i think this entire affair is foolish and dangerous.


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

MELOC said:


> i think the threat of dictatorship, or at least the rule of one who was not actually elected, is what we face if the president elect is not inagurated in a timely manner if the electoral college is suspended. that is my point i guess, this whole affair smacks of nothing but a political witch hunt. it is much the same as when clinton was elected after years of whitewater investigation failed to stop him. the witch hunt proceded until he was found to lie about private matters that somehow came to light and should have never been made a public concern. it took years and years to set the guy up to where he felt the need to lie about his private life, and it was no ones business anyhow. the point is that the witch hunt never stopped. what was the outcome...absolutely nothing of any consequence.
> 
> seedspreader, if you think this is such a no-go, what is the point of persuing it? it goes no where anyhow. he is an american. he was born in america. he spent most of his adult life here in america. the issues of revolt stem from black americans feeling like they have been shafted once again. what bigger a slap in the face could there be than to finally have a black person elected president, by a hefty margin of americans of many ethnic backgrounds, only to have politicos with a chip on their shoulder try to steal it away? i wept with pride to see the joy on the faces of many folks gathered in celebration when obama was elected. anyone who missed the sentiment wasn't watching tv. it was a great milestone in our history and one to be proud of.
> 
> ...



A couple quick points of fact:

No one else has been elected president, Barack Obama has. Had someone had questionable status (ie there was any real possibility that they are not a natural born citizen) then it WOULD have been brought up. It was thought enough of in the John McCain instance (with both parents being Natural Born Citizens) that they addressed it before hand. Wow, wouldn't it have been nice if the same scrutiny had been given to Barack Obama?

Politico's aren't chipping away at anything. They can't change whether B.O. is or isn't a NBC. So that's a straw man.

I think it's pretty evident that if he isn't a NBC then it's not constitutional for him to be President. Whether you wept, whether he's black, whether 6.whatever million people want him to be. The issue at that point would ALWAYS be questionable as to how many people would have voted for him if he WEREN'T a NBC.

After reading your answer I can surmise that the short answer is... "He's black, it makes me feel good, and who really cares about constitution." 

I find it AMAZING ironic that you are worried about this alleged dry tinder box of racism, so you would disregard the constitution over it. That dog don't hunt if you want to complain about other things that are unconstitutional, otherwise it just means that you're toeing the party line.

Again, no one else was born to a non-NBC and lived a good portion of their youth overseas that has been elected president so the "poor barack you don't like him because he's black" jingle don't cut it and, since I voted for neither of the "party offerings" the "It's all politico's hacking away at the poor black people" excuse don't cut it either.


I call bull on this one and suggest that if this were some conservative in the same situation you would be screaming just as loudly as those other "politico's" that you speak of.

The difference is... if this was a conservative... I would be saying the same thing... he needs to be a NBC, if there is any question of it... well show me the proof. Simple enough.

Simple and easy in fact.

In fact, if I were in that situation and everything was on the up and up I would publish and certify everything to shut people up. Why give your political enemies 4 years of ammunition and conspiracy theories to build on.

I don't expect it to go anywhere because the world is filled with people who cried with pride, and are afraid of riots, the constitution be ----ed.


----------



## MELOC (Sep 26, 2005)

it amazes me the liberty you take with another's posts when it suits your needs. you can surmise anything you wish, but i care as much for the constitution as anyone, probably more than most.

i see you are in front of your pc right now, so your family will suffer as slaves to the system and compromised constitution down the road. the fact is that there are what some would say are unconctitutional regulation on firearms right at this moment. why are you home and not in front of the white house with a protest sign? picking and choosing your battles? if so, what is your motivation? search and seizure has been set by precedent. do you lobby more true privacy? well, no because that usually affects druggies who have a dime of pot while driving to a concert. do you cry about wiretapping? probably not because you have nothing to hide i presume.

if it were a conservative i would have shut up after the election and accepted the outcome. if i had voted for a third party i would have very little to say about it. also, it is easy for you to say what you would do if it was a conservative...you can say what you wish. i can still doubt it. i guess neither of us knows the other or what they would do "if". perhaps that is best left alone.

obama's status as an "NBC" was brought into question early on and it went no where. you can question the sky being blue if you wish, but until i see proof otherwise, i will call it as i see it. anyone can say anything about anything. as i said before, were is the proof that obama is not an "NBC".

the way to change this is to legislate to require absolute proof before a person becomes a candidate. the time of a change of power is not the time to threaten the change of the administration. we need a smooth transition of power. we don't need last minute witch hunt by disgruntled politicos. it is not just about the blacks being disenfranchised (i could think of less politically correct terms), it is also about dems in general and americans as well. this is about an uncontested election for the first time this decade. this is about stability. this is about a vote actually having meaning. the last thing we need in this country is more fuel on the fire. 

i guess the constitution be ----ed if it serves my purpose...just like everyone else.


----------



## uyk7 (Dec 1, 2002)

> i think "wolf in sheep's clothing" is a bit much. you seem to assume ill intent no matter what.


You betcha! Otherwise he would release the documents.




> he may have always assumed he was a viable candidate as he was born in hawaii.


Then he should release the documents.




> this country doesn't need any further drama and possible SHTF problems all to satisfy disgruntled politicos from the opposing party. i strongly feel that as a nation, we have a lot to gain at home and abroad by having obama in power now.


If BO is not eligible to hold office then this country needs all the drama we can. I would much rather know the Constitution still means something than to have BO in office.




> i don't hear the constant chatter about the patriot act, habeus corpus, income taxes, fiat currency and the usurping of state's rights...and on and on that one would have expected to result in this country falling apart at the seams. perhaps the perception of what is constitutional is subjective according to party affiliation.


Well, I for one donât post on HT every time I contact my representatives about the issues you mentioned.




> this issue should have been pushed a little harder way before the period of time right before the election.


I only found out about this issue in October and immediately began looking for answers.




> if you are worried about survival and emaergency preparedness, take some lessons from nature. even animals know when not to poke their heads out of their hole when danger is around. if this is pushed and if riots do happen, what happens then? martial law? gun confiscation? situations could escalate or degrade to the point where food stashes are taken to feed hoards of people who have destroyed their cities. folks could actually be pushing this country over the edge...all for a few very questionable points of law. yes, i feel the president should be qualified, but the issues are very questionable and the timing of this is terrible. be like a deer that hides in the brush 10 yards away from a hunter. don't draw attention to yourself. pop your head back down in your den and weather the storm if you don't like the direction the wind is blowing. now is not the time to push people over the edge.


I have to ask, what other parts of the Constitution are you willing to ignore?




> he is an american. he was born in america.


Again, where is the proof?




> The difference is... if this was a conservative... I would be saying the same thing... he needs to be a NBC, if there is any question of it... well show me the proof.


Same here!


.


----------



## insocal (May 15, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You just dont get it do you? That is NOT a true "birth certificate"
> 
> Its not a "copy" of anything.
> 
> ...


Certified copies of birth certificates are certified to be a "true and correct copy" of the original. They are valid in any court of law. That is ALL that matters, and all that should matter. There is no requirement that any document meet the satisfaction of 100% of all tin foil hat-wearing political dissidents. Thank God.

Bush failed to provide his ORIGINAL birth certificate to me (or any other voter as far as I know). I guess that means he was illegally elected, too. Because nothing else constitutes any sort of proof.


----------



## insocal (May 15, 2005)

Txsteader said:


> Here's a point that many people are missing: in his book "Dreams Of My Father", Obama stated (unless he was lying ) that he found his birth certificate in a box years back. It's in his possession. He doesn't have to submit any money or make any requests. He has the bloody thing.......unless, of course, he was lying. :shrug:


What he HAS, no doubt, is another CERTIFIED COPY of the thing, just like I have a certified copy of mine.

A certified copy is a "true and legal copy" of a document, which everybody would know if they had ever actually seen one and seen the notary stamp and certification statement or whatever they call them. And they are valid in any court of law in the country. End of subject.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

didaho said:


> If all these law suits can be combined into a class action law suit(by these people), wouldn't, it speed up the process? I mean, wouldn't these supreme court judges have to hear the case like right now before they cause more harm?
> 
> It just amazes me that so many people are so blind to the possible out come if this man is not a citizen. There are so many out there that are willing to be lead to slaughter and put our children and grandchildren in such perils (Danger; risk; hazard; jeopardy).
> Such selfish people that care only for themselves and for today.
> ...


You know, Debbie, this was actually tried with a couple of the cases, but it turned out the paperwork on a second case was sent to an anthrax testing facility where it had to wait for awhile, conveniently missing the cutoff to be combined with the Donofrio case. It sounds to me like a Supreme Court clerk may have putten politics over responsibility.

This issue has made me absolutely disgusted, not with Obama, because I knew he was a crooked fraud early on. But with otherwise reasonable people who have been _so willing_, complicit even, to look the other way on this issue either out of fear of the outcome or because they have fallen sway to the obvious charisma of the demagogue. 

I cannot "pull my head back into my shell" as it has been stated. That is the worst form of cowardice. Being a survivalist doesn't not mean surviving at all cost. If, in the long dark watches of the night, we hear gunshots and a scream coming from our neighbor's house then we must arm ourselves and venture forth to see if we can render aid. We cannot huddle in our warm beds and be thankful it was not us, for tomorrow it may indeed be and who then will there be to come to _our_ aid?

We are entering a time where our devotion will be tested. On November 4th I changed my tagline. I'm serious about it. The resistance has begun, and it has started with court cases and a willingness to speak up against unConstitutional actions. 

We must dissent.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

insocal said:


> What he HAS, no doubt, is another CERTIFIED COPY of the thing, just like I have a certified copy of mine.
> 
> A certified copy is a "true and legal copy" of a document, which everybody would know if they had ever actually seen one and seen the notary stamp and certification statement or whatever they call them. And they are valid in any court of law in the country. End of subject.


Insocal, I issue a challenge to you. Go down tomorrow to your local social security office without your certified copy of your birth certificate and tell them you need a new SSN because you lost your card. When they ask for your birth certificate, tell them to trust you. Tell them that you have it, and it's valid in any court of law in the country, end of subject. If they resist this, make sure to point out any birth announcements that may have been issued when you were born. 

If you manage to walk out of there with a new social security card without presenting any proof then I'll kiss my cow.


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

MELOC said:


> it amazes me the liberty you take with another's posts when it suits your needs. you can surmise anything you wish, but i care as much for the constitution as anyone, probably more than most.
> 
> i see you are in front of your pc right now, so your family will suffer as slaves to the system and compromised constitution down the road. the fact is that there are what some would say are unconctitutional regulation on firearms right at this moment. why are you home and not in front of the white house with a protest sign? picking and choosing your battles? if so, what is your motivation? search and seizure has been set by precedent. do you lobby more true privacy? well, no because that usually affects druggies who have a dime of pot while driving to a concert. do you cry about wiretapping? probably not because you have nothing to hide i presume.
> 
> ...


The whole thing that escapes you in this disjointed rant is that people should not be "picketing the white house" (which Barack Obama is not in residence of, as of yet) but that they should use our court of law and expect the said courts of law to respect the law and constitution. 

Which is what the whole conversation is about. People ARE addressing this the legally acceptable way, through the courts. Others are wanting it addressed the same way.

And "timing" has nothing to do with justice. At least it shouldn't matter. It matters not one whit at to whether this is challenged now, last year or next year. The fact that it's challenged NOW means it should be addressed now.

Now, the Supreme Court can choose what they are going to hear and what they aren't. I don't know that the original intent of the SCOTUS was as it's operated today, but that's another thread. Since they have denied to hear the first case, it just will continue to fuel speculation.

As I stated above, if it were me... I would get it all certified and released... why not?

There's a lot more to THIS issue than what clothes the VP candidate has, whether they release their medical records or not, or whether they are at a turkey farm... and yet that ALL has had more media time to it.

The real irony is that the same people who were talking about the previous administrations lack of transparency are the same ones fighting this... the simplest and easiest of issues to solve.


----------



## pickapeppa (Jan 1, 2005)

Ernie said:


> Insocal, I issue a challenge to you. Go down tomorrow to your local social security office without your certified copy of your birth certificate and tell them you need a new SSN because you lost your card. When they ask for your birth certificate, tell them to trust you. Tell them that you have it, and it's valid in any court of law in the country, end of subject. If they resist this, make sure to point out any birth announcements that may have been issued when you were born.
> 
> If you manage to walk out of there with a new social security card without presenting any proof then I'll kiss my cow.


You'd kiss your cow regardless.


----------



## Ann-NWIowa (Sep 28, 2002)

I hope that those who predict riots should Obama be found a fraud are incorrect. Some will riot without reason and would undoubtedly use this as an excuse. However, I think "thinking and reasoning" people would be very angry at Obama for fraud rather than those that prove his fraud. I also think "thinking and reasoning" people will accept proof should proof be presented. I've lived under the rule of more presidents I did NOT vote for than those I did and I will live under Obama should he be "qualified". The issue is actually much larger than Obama. Its a matter of the *Constitution* which is the foundation we stand on. We must do whatever is necessary to protect and keep intact the foundation or we're sunk.


----------



## Bigkat80 (Jan 16, 2007)

MELOC said:


> i think "wolf in sheep's clothing" is a bit much. you seem to assume ill intent no matter what. the worst case scenario i can see is that possibly due to dual citizenship and in an arena where the laws and precedents are a bit fuzzy, that he may have always assumed he was a viable candidate as he was born in hawaii. i think it is best to let the status quo remain and endure the next 4 years with obama at the helm. if the issue is ignored (no matter what the true situation) no further precedents will be set and this could be revisited by the scotus in the future when there is a REAL danger of having someone act as a wolf in sheep's clothing. this country doesn't need any further drama and possible SHTF problems all to satisfy disgruntled politicos from the opposing party. i strongly feel that as a nation, we have a lot to gain at home and abroad by having obama in power now.


Regardless of his legitimacy to hold the office if it were true????? Just let it slide so to speak????is that what you are suggesting for the good of the country??? WOW


----------



## MELOC (Sep 26, 2005)

any vetting should have been done prior to an election, prior to the primaries even. draft some new law and hope for the best next time if you feel he isn't qualified or his qualifications don't impress you. persuing this now or just before the election is nothing but political. the timing for all of this right now during the transfer of power is detrimental to our image as a country and dangerous for it's population. this should at least wait until after the electoral college has cast their votes and biden can assume power if it comes to light that obama is not qualified. if this results in another election, i feel bad things are to come. 

i still feel that more is being asked of obama than anyone else in modern history. when was the last time anyone was taken to court after an election to prove he is truly a natural born citizen. why has no one else in the 21st or 20th century been asked to prove what is asked of obama...after an election. why didn't anyone question this more fully prior to the primaries? is it because his middle name is hussein? if someone had any proof early on, i would support it fully. this is a last ditch fishing expedition where folks hope to twist the law and not enforce it. 

i don't feel this way because i am a huge obama supporter. i didn't vote for him in the primaries. folks seem to dwell on the fact that i seem to be casting the constitution aside. i don't see any reason why the constitution will be affected because an entire government and it's laws failed to prove it's candidates for the highest office and now are allowing a power struggle to ensue, at not only a change of power in the administration, but at a time when the entire country is on edge from many pressures. let him serve his term. draft new legislation requiring specific things to be proven so this rediculous image of weakness is never cast again. the timing of what is happening now just smacks of political carp. the constitution will remain after the patriot act expires or is recinded, it will remain after obama has served his term.


----------



## Bigkat80 (Jan 16, 2007)

insocal said:


> Certified copies of birth certificates are certified to be a "true and correct copy" of the original. They are valid in any court of law. That is ALL that matters, and all that should matter. There is no requirement that any document meet the satisfaction of 100% of all tin foil hat-wearing political dissidents. Thank God.
> 
> Bush failed to provide his ORIGINAL birth certificate to me (or any other voter as far as I know). I guess that means he was illegally elected, too. Because nothing else constitutes any sort of proof.


Unless you arent paying attention.....You know that all that has been shown is a certifcation of live birth that is not a certified copy of his birth certificate that is a document issued after his birth does not state the place of birth and even under hawaii law requires further proof from DHHL....


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

We are the government, through lawsuits (first), peaceful protest, to violent revolution... we are the government. Why have new laws when we already know what the law is?

That said, I don't think that everything rests in the hands of whether Obama is in office or not, neither did I if McCain was in or not. I took flack for that too, but my stand was that neither were going to be good for the nation. Neither would either one plunge the dagger in the heart of the republic, but they both (IMO) would weaken it. Now the people have spoken, and assuming that there is no review, or there is a review and everything is in order, PEBO (Pres. Elect Barack Obama) will have an opportunity to either good or bad things. Probably both. 

I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt (as long as the constitution is followed). I believe he loves his family and is a good father. Those are two good things he has going for him. I believe he has a horrible economy looking him in the face. I hope he is wise enough to see it for what it is and not give away the bank (Well, I mean, more than the 7 Trillion or so dollars spoken for already). 

He will need our prayers, one way or the other, for wisdom. I think it would be wise to put an end to this discussion and just have his paperwork certified and be done with it.

Let's just say we will disagree on this (like most things, lol) Meloc. Have a good night, hope you are enjoying the melt.


----------



## MELOC (Sep 26, 2005)

i think the problem is that this should never have been allowed to progress this far if there was any doubt. that is where new legislation requiring proof of any issue that may come into question could be useful. it should happen long before the process progresses to this stage.

i'm off to try to burn wet firewood. nighty, night.


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

insocal said:


> .
> 
> Bush failed to provide his ORIGINAL birth certificate to me (or any other voter as far as I know). I guess that means he was illegally elected, too. Because nothing else constitutes any sort of proof.


Le difference is that Bush's momma and daddy were American born, Bush was American born, and many many many generations of Bush's going way back were native born Americans.

Baracks daddy was a foreigner. Baracks momma hated her country, and left it behind, to go off and marry men that, like her, hated this country. You have to admit, that BHO could be a foreigner (born on foreign soil... if you believe his blood relatives)... and therein lies the seeds for conspiracy... the only thing that might disprove his not being a foreign born agitator is a piece of paper. If BHO's mommy had married a god fearin Kansan, there'd been no question... Marry a goat herder from Kenya, get divorced, then marry an Indonesian? and yes, you have grounds for wondering if this could be true or not...

Bush... no doubt. Barack Hussein Obama... doubt. Can't escape the fact that it could be true... anytime your parents are questionable, and foreign born.


----------



## MELOC (Sep 26, 2005)

were bush's parents proven to be citizens, or did we just take their word for it? i would argue it is not proven, as in this case apparently, until it is proven by a court. that is one point i was trying to make.

obama's mother was a citizen and i think the present case we are discussing concedes the fact he was born in hawaii. the question is concerning dual citizenship.

that leads me to think about comments that others have made...that there are many more lawsuits pending if this one doesn't stick. now that certainly smacks of a witch hunt, and that is a bad idea this far along.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> now that certainly smacks of a witch hunt


It's not a "witch hunt". They are ALL asking to see ONE DOCUMENT that only BO can provide. It would cost him $10-15 dollars.

Please explain a LOGICAL reason why he would spend a MILLION DOLLARS to keep from showing that IF he doesnt have something to hide?


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

insocal said:


> Bush failed to provide his ORIGINAL birth certificate to me (or any other voter as far as I know). I guess that means he was illegally elected, too. Because nothing else constitutes any sort of proof.


Bush's Daddy wasn't from another country.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

didaho said:


> From txsteader: In the meantime, there are suits being filed all over the country.
> 
> If all these law suits can be combined into a class action law suit(by these people), wouldn't, it speed up the process? I mean, wouldn't these supreme court judges have to hear the case like right now before they cause more harm?
> 
> ...


I'm no lawyer, but the thought had crossed my mind, too. The suit just filed in Washington state is on behalf of 11 citizens and is argued that, under Washington state law, citizens *do* have standing to file such a suit. We'll see.

The problem seems to be pinning down _who_, specifically, is responsible for determining eligibility; the DNC, the Secretaries of State, Congress?


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

MELOC said:


> any vetting should have been done prior to an election, prior to the primaries even.


There's the kicker.....he wasn't! And when the question of his NBC status began to arise, folks, like Donofrio for example, asked their Secretaries of State if Obama's Constitutional requirements had been verified. The answers have been 'no'. Understand, the NBC status is not a requirement for holding a Senate seat.....it only applies to Presidents.

As to the timing....the questions were raised about he and McCain before the Democratic nomination, but apparently people were more concerned about McCain's eligibility back then, so Congress moved to approve his citizenship status-----but not Obama's. Why? But once he won the nomination, Berg and Donofrio both filed suits, which as we know, were dismissed. Now, people are wanting to know why he's not been verified, why the courts keep dismissing the cases, why he won't settle the issue, why he's letting it go so far as to the SCOTUS. It all simply draws more attention to the issue and the fact that Obama is fighting it in court.

So this hasn't just come about since the election. There has only been a 5 month time frame to get a case together and submitted in court. It's been on-going in the courts for awhile. In fact, Donofrio thinks his case might have been turned down because he didn't prepare as solid a case as he could have otherwise because he was rushing to get it submitted before the election. His case, presented to the NJ court, tried to have the election stayed until the issue could be resolved. Then he asked the SCOTUS to stay the electoral votes (since the election had already taken place) until the issue could be resolved.

I'll raise the questions again.....why hasn't Congress taken a stance on the issue? Why didn't they approve Obama's NBC status as they did McCain?


----------



## pickapeppa (Jan 1, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's not a "witch hunt". They are ALL asking to see ONE DOCUMENT that only BO can provide. It would cost him $10-15 dollars.
> 
> Please explain a LOGICAL reason why he would spend a MILLION DOLLARS to keep from showing that IF he doesnt have something to hide?


Perhaps he DID show the one document, and he's forced to pay millions because of the people who won't accept it as *real*.

Maybe someone could explain to me why this case didn't attack the birth certificate issue, but instead tries to circumvent that issue altogether claiming his father's citizenship status at birth precludes that of his mother's and his own?

I don't believe the constitution says anything about which parent's citizenship status over rules the other, only that the one who is a citizen must have lived in the country for at least five years, and the child is a citizen regardless of birth country.

But even that's not the issue in this case. Only that his father's citizenship as a Brit over rides his mother's as an American, and Obama's even having been born in this country.

It does sound like a witch hunt, loosely tied to some 'constitutional' requirement that's ambiguous at best.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

pickapeppa said:


> Perhaps he DID show the one document, and he's forced to pay millions because of the people who won't accept it as *real*.
> 
> Maybe someone could explain to me why this case didn't attack the birth certificate issue, but instead tries to circumvent that issue altogether claiming his father's citizenship status at birth precludes that of his mother's and his own?
> 
> ...


If you're asking about the Donofrio case, I guess it's because he sees a completely different issue. Frankly, I think he has the better arguments. Obama's mother had not lived in this country the required 5 years after her 16th birthday, so there's that. And it's not necessarily that his father's citizenship overrides his mother's, but that he had *dual-citizenship at birth*, which is contrary to the definition of 'natural born citizen'. The framers included that phrase, specifically, to prevent enemies (at that time, people with ties to Britain) from being able to hold the office of President. They even had to include a grandfather clause that allowed themselves to be eligible, because even they,, according to the requirements they set forth in the Constitution, would have been ineligible to hold the office of President.


----------



## ChristyACB (Apr 10, 2008)

As for Bush, he was an officer in the Military and had his citizenship verified prior to commissioning. That was further confirmed during his stint as Governor. Since it was already confirmed..he didn't need to do it again. Especially the NBC portion which was also done as Governor since he intended to run for president.

All other presidents elected have done the same. Either through military service, or via governorships or what not. In each case, NBC was fully vetted by the applicant before Nomination time.

BHO didn't do that for some reason. Not sure why since really only he knows. But it isn't a defacto right to be NBC when both parents are not citizens and one has willingly left the country. Under british law, he can have dual citizenship since she hadn't actually denounced her citizenship officially, until his majority. At that time, he must choose which one he will be a citizen of.

That establishes citizenship as an adult but is not clear for the issue of NBC. That will have to be addressed by SCOTUS. A court would likely rule that the location of birth will be the deciding factor in this case and the intent of the mother as to her citizenship could come as a weighting factor...for anyone else that is.

In this case, let's be honest, it will be politics that decides he is a NBC.


----------



## uyk7 (Dec 1, 2002)

> I'll raise the questions again.....why hasn't Congress taken a stance on the issue?


Both senators from SD stated that they are prevented, by law, from pursuing this issue. Puts the lie to the fed judge in the Berg case when he stated that congress had responsibility to answer this issue.


.


----------



## Karen (Apr 17, 2002)

pickapeppa said:


> Perhaps he DID show the one document, and he's forced to pay millions because of the people who won't accept it as *real*.


That's the problem; he has absolutely NOT produced it. He has refused to produce the only type of legally valid birth certificate that any court in the nation would accept. 

The only thing he has produced is the "short form" which does not have the official raised seal; it only had a "copy" of a seal and is unsigned. 

The "long form", which is a copy of the original birth certificate (signed by the attending physician) contains a raised seal (showing the Clerk of Courts has validated it as a true and correct copy) and is the *ONLY LEGALLY *acceptable proof. Obama refuses to produce it.

I'm with the poster above, why would he refuse to produce something that you or I would have to produce if our citizenship was called into question. No court accepts the short form and, being an attorney, he knows that. What's the problem in just producing the documentation you are required under law to produce; and further, why aren't people taking to the streets on this issue if necessary since the Supreme Court is refusing to hear the issue. We may have a President that isn't even legally entitled to be President. This is no small potatoes; it's a HUGE deal, and it's being treated like it's nothing!

Besides, why wouldn't the President of the United States want to show his patriotism, acknowledgment and respect for the Constitution by doing whatever he needs to do to clear up such an issue?


----------



## MELOC (Sep 26, 2005)

i think when you have his mother who is a citizen and when one of the folks filing suits concedes obama was born in hawaii, it's a real stretch, and politically motivated, to try to get an interpretation that he is not a citizen. if he had been an immigrant with no american parents, it would be obvious. this is just rediculous.

as to what he does with his money...maybe he is like the fellow in NYC who spent $7500 fighting a $115 parking ticket he had "nothing better to do".


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Karen said:


> Besides, why wouldn't the President of the United States want to show his patriotism, acknowledgment and respect for the Constitution by doing whatever he needs to do to clear up such an issue?


Now _that_ is really the bottom line....respect for the Constitution, the courts, the people whom he wants to lead. Doesn't set a very good example or give one much confidence in him as a leader, does it?


----------



## Azrael (Jun 2, 2008)

wvstuck said:


> Great! You are now quoting old information, not new and updated... Kinda like misinformation isn't it. You need to do some research and then come back.. The number is no longer one brigade (I posted to the previous threads too) but since then the number has climbed to 20,000 troops (See post #42 in this thread, for starters) Now if it has climbed from 5k to 20k since the previous thread was posted, one might assume on an educated guess that the number could climb even higher if someone thought the American's were getting restless. Keep looking and keep researching from multiple sources and you might find the newer and updated version of the truth you are currently blinded from. Good luck!


I was doubting myself after I read this so I went to further research the issue. When I go to the link in post #42 the 20,000 troops statement is a link to an article HERE. According to that Washington Post article the PLAN is to have 3 brigades in place by 2011 (that would mean approximately 15000 troops) that would SUPPLEMENT about 80 National Guard units that are already tasked with the same mission (responding to a domestic chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or high-yield explosive attack). 
So, yes, there would conceivably eventually be 15,000 regular army and 5,000 national guard (round numbers), the population of NYC according to wikipedia is 8.2 MILLION, 20,000 troops MIGHT be able to establish martial law in that city.
I'm sorry, I know a lot of people have differing views on this, but the martial law boogeyman is just that, even if the US brought home EVERY SINGLE soldier AND mobilized the police/FBI/reserves/national guard, with not a single member of these forces deserting instead of fighting against their fellow Americans and neglecting the fact that quite a few of these personnel are not trained combat units, there would BARELY be enough personnel to establish martial law in the United States.

This will be the last I post on this issue as I felt a challenge to me in the previous post that I wanted to answer, but this is off topic and more of a GC issue than an S&EP.


----------



## Ann-NWIowa (Sep 28, 2002)

First you have a people willing to obey laws and follow leaders. Then you have someone with a gun saying this is the law you must obey. The sheeple roll over and bow down. That only leaves the Constitutionist and the criminal so it won't take too many soldiers.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

MELOC said:


> i think when you have his mother who is a citizen and when one of the folks filing suits *concedes obama was born in hawaii*, it's a real stretch, and politically motivated, to try to get an interpretation that he is not a citizen. if he had been an immigrant with no american parents, it would be obvious. this is just rediculous.
> 
> as to what he does with his money...maybe he is like the fellow in NYC who spent $7500 fighting a $115 parking ticket he had "nothing better to do".


No one "conceded" anything. The point was made that IF he WAS born in Hawaii, it didnt matter in the context of that ONE lawsuit.

To imply he's spending a million dollars because he "has nothing better to do"
is a pretty lame excuse, dont you think?
If I were to "concede" that assumption is correct, what does it say about BO's judgement?


----------



## Bonnie L (May 11, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The point was made that IF he WAS born in Hawaii, it didnt matter in the context of that ONE lawsuit.


Because it was the state of Hawaii that produced the birth certificate which shows that our soon-to-be president was born in Hawaii, I wonder when someone will sue the state as being part of the "conspiracy?" :TFH:

There was also the newspaper that printed the birth notice. They would have been involved in the "conspiracy" practically from Day 1 - Obama's birth day! I wonder how they knew that he would need a back-up source to prove where he was born?


----------



## uyk7 (Dec 1, 2002)

> Because it was the state of Hawaii that produced the birth certificate which shows that our soon-to-be president was born in Hawaii,


Once again, BO's birth certificate has never been released/produced by BO, Hawaii, or anyone else. There is a Certification of Birth on the Internet.

.


----------



## Blu3duk (Jun 2, 2002)

The following came in an email today from a long time friend and fellow In Propia Persona litigator...... take it for what it is just an opinion, but from a fella who i have read before and who has done a whole lot of research that usually is considered impeccable....... I shall have to post it in 2 parts... and yes it will be over the heads of some people but not others..... and i have left most of his signature line intact too, though i did make the last smaller than the email itself and I am not a subscriber so i do not have the attachments that are averred too.

William
North Central Idaho

*PART ONE:*

_Authored by Ralph Kermit Winterrowd 2nd_

*Attachments only for special list.*

Attachment 1 â Excerpts of Congressional Record of Vol. 92 Pt. 2 and Vol. 92 Pt.. 5 of 1946.

Attachment 2 â Excerpt of 28 U.S.C. Â§ 1254 with commentary from Westlaw and some case cites. 

*CAUTION â READING THIS WILL SHOCK THE CONSCIENCE!

Does the Supreme Court of the United States Declare the Law Today?

The Truth about the Writ of Certiorari. 

Is Barack Hussein Obamaâs Natural Born Citizen Status Secret Safe?*​


If the Supreme Court of the United States does not declare the Law arising under the Federal Constitution on the mandatory issue of natural born citizen for a President of the United States in Article II Section 1 Clause 5 concerning Barack Hussein Obama, then who does? Shockingly the answer is no one! So the next question should be how can that happen?

âThe object of the constitution was to establish three great departments of government; the legislative, the executive, and the judicial department.. The first was to pass laws, the second to approve and execute them, and the third to expound and enforce the them.â *[1] * 

It is well settled law that only the judicial department declares the law as held and pronounced in adjudged decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in _Marbury v. Madison,_ 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803) _ât is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.â See also United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 607 (2000); Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc, 514 U.S. 211, 211 (1995); Harper v. Virginia Dept. of Taxation, 509 U.S. 86, 107 (1993).

The tripartite constitutional Republic established in the Federal Constitution, which consisted only of the legislative, executive and judicial departments is no longer used â[W]ith the advent and triumph of the administrative stateâ *[2]*. This knowledge is only posited in some Federal and State Agency personnel, the Congress, the President, federal judges, some state legislators and state judges precluding the people of these United States the their secured rights of a tripartite government. This âAdministrative Stateâ triumph and the demise of the tripartite government isnât being taught in the schools and colleges in America; or, disclosed in media; or, disclosed on talk shows or, disclosed by the people that understand the overthrow of the Republic.

So what happened to the tripartite constitutional Republic where the judicial Branch declares the Law?

From the Congressional Record of 1946 Senator McCarran who was the chairman of the judicial committee reporting to the Senate on the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 prior to it being passed in 1946 stated that Congress setup a *fourth branch* in the Congressional Record *[3]* to wit:

*âWe have set up a fourth order in the tripartite plan of Government which was initiated by the founding fathers of our democracy. They set up the executive, the legislative, and the judicial branches; but since that time we have set up a fourth dimension, if I may so term it, which is popularly known as administrative in nature. So we have the legislative, the executive, the judicial, and the administrativeâ*

The 1937 Presidentâs Committee on Administrative Management of Franklin Delano Roosevelt issued in its report with the excerpt evidenced in the Congressional Record of 1946 Volume 92 Pt. 2 Cong. Rec. Sen. page 2149 the âheadlessâ fourth branch *[3]* and this was also acknowledged by Franklin Delano Roosevelt, to wit:

The executive branch of the Government of the United States has * * * grown up without plan or design ** * * To look at it now, no one would ever recognize the structure which the founding fathers erected a century and a half ago. * * ** Commissions have been the result of legislative groping rather than the pursuit of consistent policy * * * *They are in reality miniature independent governments* set up to deal with the railroad problem, the banking problem, or the radio problem. They constitution a headless *âfourth branchâ of the Government*, a haphazard deposit of irresponsible agencies and uncoordinated powers. * * * There is a conflict of principle involved in their make-up and functions. * * * They are vested with duties of administration * * * and at the same time *they are given important judicial work*. * * * The *evils* resulting from this confusion of principles are *insidious and far reaching* * * * Pressures and influences properly enough directed toward officers responsible for formulating and administering policy constitute an unwholesome atmosphere *in which to adjudicate private rights.* *But the mixed duties of commissions render escape from these subversive influences impossible.* Furthermore, the same men are *obligated to serve both as prosecutors and as judges.* *This not only undermines judicial fairness;* it weakens public confidence in that fairness. *Commissioner **decisions affecting private rights* and conduct lie under the suspicion of being rationalizations of the preliminary findings which the Commission, in the *role of prosecutor, presented to itself*.​Mr. President, I have been quoting from the report of *the Presidentâs Committee on Administrative Management, issued in 1937.* In transmitting that report to Congress, *President Roosevelt* added a comment of his own from which I also wish to quote. He said: I have examined this report carefully and thoughtfully, and am convinced that it is a great document of permanent importance. ** * * The practice of creating independent regulatory commissions,* who perform administrative work *in addition to judicial work*, threatens to develop a âfourth branchâ of the Government for which there is no sanction in the Constitution. *[Emphasis added]*

Congress continued with what can only be termed Treason by usurping the executive Power of the United States by Senator McCarran explaining in Congressional Record of 1946 Volume 92 Pt. 2 Cong. Rec. Sen. page 2149 that Congress wanted to administer the laws âWe found that the legislative branch, although it might enact law, *could not very well administer it.â[/U] [3] 

Congressâs Administrative scheme circumvents Article VI of enacting Laws of the United States that have application directly upon the people. To fool the people into the idea of the tripartite Republic, Congress uses âagenciesâ mandating that they publish in the Federal Register and only then does Congressâs Code apply to the individual citizen as explained by Representative Gwynne of Iowa in the Congressional Record Volume 92 Pt. 5. Rec. Rep. page 5656 [3], to wit:

âAfter a law has been passed by the Congress, before it applies to the individual citizen there are about three steps that must be taken. First, the bureau having charge of enforcement must write rules and regulations to amplify, interpret, or expand the statute that we passed; rule making, we call it. * * * Then it requires that these rules or regulations which have the effect of law must be published in the Federal Register and go into effect at some future date.â​
This is easily verified that rules and regulations must be published in the Federal Register first to have any application to individual citizens and then have a comment period mandated under 5 U.S.C. Â§ 553 to have the force and effect of law being identified as âsubstantive regulations.â See holding in Chrysler v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281 (1979). Very few people are informed of Congressâs Administrative scheme and want to use the U.S.C. taught that the âlawâ resides therein, but is doesnât.*_


----------



## Blu3duk (Jun 2, 2002)

*PART TWO:*





With the triumph of the âfourth branchâ of government not sanctioned by the Federal Constitution there was no need for the constitutional Courts of the United States secured in Article III. The âDistrict Court of the United Statesâ was quietly posited in the closet in 1948 and a new court was established being the âUnited States District Courtâ (âUSDCâ) in 1948 in Title 28 U.S.C. Â§ 132. The USDC does not exercise âThe judicial Power [âof the United Statesâ â Article III Section 1 Clause 1] shall extend to all Cases, *in Law* and Equity, arising under the Constitution . . . â of Article III Section 2 Clause 2. Under the Administrative State in the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 *[4]* we find in the Congressional Record excerpt *[5]* of Senator McCarran disclosing the court system that will be used in the newly created fourth branch, i.e. Administrative State, to wit:

âSimilarly, conservative *common law judges* and lawyers have *fought the development of equity* and most every other judicial reform.
Subsection (g) provides that judgments of original courts of review shall be appealable in accordance *with equity law* and in the absence thereof, by the Supreme Court upon *writs of certiorari.*â​ 
In the current Administrative State there is no requirement for a Court of Law (constitutional court) as this is only required in a tripartite constitutional Republic and the current Equity court is sufficient today.

Having no access to the Law side of Court of the United States today, but only to the Equity side, the Supreme Court of the United States is no longer mandated to declare the law pronounced in _Marbury, supra._

In 1988 the only constitutional Courts left in the Republic was the Supreme Court of the United States and of the Court of International Trade (âCITâ). The CIT exercised a very small part of the judicial Power of the United States arising under Article III having nothing to do private rights of the people, which is constitutional as the judicial Power of the United States can be posited in several courts as required. The CIT still exists today.

The access to the Supreme Court of the United States had been closed by Public Law 100-352 by eliminating the mandatory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and eliminated the appeal process. This is found in the commentary in Westlaw by David D. Siegel excerpt of 28 U.S.C. Â§ 1254 *[6]*, to wit:

âThe section governs the routing of cases from the federal courts of appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court. *Its amendment was a key part of the 1988 bill, whose purpose* *and was to eliminate the mandatory jurisdiction of the U.S. Supreme Court let the Court decide for itself just what cases it will or won't hear.* The repealed subdivision (2), *authorizing "appeal"* to the Court in certain instances, mandated that the Court determine the case on its merits regardless of its importance in national context. The certiorari procedure under subdivision (1), on the other hand, *enables the Court to determine for itself whether it will hear a case, a lighter task than deciding the case on the merits.*

*In recognition of the burdens that the mandatory jurisdiction was imposing on the* *Court, and in fulfillment of the Court's long-standing request, Congress eliminated the appeal procedure.* Everything it would have embraced then shifted over to subdivision (1) and needs a grant of certiorari to get up.â​ 
The decision of the Supreme Court of the United States on the Writ of Certiorari is totally discretionary today and the denial of the Writ of Certiorari has *absolutely nothing to do with either the merits or the standing of the parties. So the denial by the Supreme Court of the United States of the Certiorari concerning Obama has absolutely no meaning as to whether he is or isnât a natural born native.*

And a denial of the Writ of Certiorari does not affirm or deny any veracity to the decision of the lower courts and *has no precedential value* but only affirms the Supreme Court of the United States chose not to grant the Writ of Certiorari. [*[6]* for cases cites..] 

A denial of the Writ of Certiorari by the Supreme Court of the United States is seldom disclosed but only means there *were not four members* of nine members that wished to hear the case, i.e. known as the *âFour Justice Rule.â* [*[6]* for cases cites.]

Few understand the closure of all appeal access to the Supreme Court of the United States to declare the law with the attorneys religiously citing cases with the âcertiorari deniedâ in their pleadings that is absolutely worthless unknown to American citizens that rely upon their expertise. 

The Writs of Error designed to declare the law were abolished in 1928 at 45 Stat. 54. So here find ourselves with no mandatory Judicial Branch by the Federal Constitution to declare the Law. The Writ of Habeas Corpus has been restricted by Congress mandating the filing of a 2255 Motion prior to the Habeas Corpus to the Federal Courts. To even entertain a real Habeas Corpus Congress has restricted the writ so narrowly rending it almost totally ineffective.

There are real solutions but they will not be easily attained.. 

Hosea Chap. 4 verse 6 - *My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge:* because thou hast refused knowledge, I will also refuse thee, that thou shalt be no Priest to me: and seeing thou hast forgotten the Law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.

By Ralph Kermit Winterrowd 2nd

Talk show on Republicbroading.org Sunday 2-4 PM Alaska time, 5-7 PM CST. _[email address deleted by blueduck] _ Three e-mail lists free and a special list with attachments for $120 per year.



*[1]* _Martin v. Hunterâs Lessee_, 14 U.S. 304, 329 (1816).

*[2]* _Bowsher v. Synar_, 478 U.S. 714, 761, 762 (1986) dissenting opinion of Justice White. 

In an earlier day, in which simpler notions of the role of government in society prevailed, it was perhaps plausible to insist that all "executive" officers be subject to an unqualified Presidential removal power, see _Myers v. United States_, 272 U.S. 52, 47 S.Ct. 21, 71 L.Ed. 160 (1926); *but with the advent and triumph of the administrative state and the accompanying multiplication of the tasks undertaken by the Federal Government*, the **762* Court has been virtually compelled to recognize that Congress may reasonably deem it "necessary and proper" to vest some among the broad new array of governmental functions in officers who are free from the partisanship that may be expected of agents wholly dependent upon the President. *[Emphasis added]*​
* [3]* Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Commission Senator McCarran of Nevada in the Congressional Record of 1946 in Volume 92 Pt. 2 Cong. Rec. Sen. Page 2149 and 2163 and Volume 92 Pt. 5 Con. Rec. Rep. Page 5656 with Rep. Gwyenne prior to the passing of the Administrative Procedure Act on June 11, 1946 at 60 Stat. 237.

*Attachment 1 excerpt.*

*[4]* The Administrative Procedure Act was codified in 1966 at 80 Stat. 378 and is found today in Title 5 of the United States Code Â§Â§Â§Â§Â§ 500, 600, 700, 800 and 900.

*[5] *Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Commission Senator McCarran of Nevada in the Congressional Record of 1946 in Volume 92 Pt. 2 Cong. Rec. Sen. Page 2163. *Attachment 1 excerpt*.

*[6]* 28 U.S.C. 1254 with commentary by David D. Siegel from Westlaw with assorted cases. *Attachment 2 excerpt*.

*Chief Justice Marshall, in the course of the debates of the Virginia State Convention of 1829--1830 (pp. 616, 619), used the following strong and frequently quoted language:*
*'The Judicial Department comes home in its effects to every man's fireside; it passes on his property, his reputation, his life, his all. Is it not, to the last degree important, that he should be rendered perfectly and completely independent, with nothing to influence or control him but God and his conscience? * * * I have always thought, from my earliest youth till now, that the greatest scourge an angry Heaven ever inflicted upon an ungrateful and a sinning people, was an ignorant, a corrupt, or a dependent Judiciary.'
In a very early period of our history, it was said, in words as true to-day as they were then, that 'if they (the people) value and wish to preserve their Constitution, they ought never to surrender the independence of their judges.' O'Donoghue v. United States, 289 U.S. 516, 532 (1933).*​
_Notice: I am not a counsellor-at-law or attorney. All research materials provided are for you to check out and use at your discretion, and is protected under the right of free speech in all forms. I neither suggest that people file an Individual Income Tax Return or not file - that is a personal choice for each man/woman.
There are three lists that may be joined by the home page of www.jusbelli.com. There is a special e-mail list for $120 per year donation that includes attachments - contact me via e-mail to join. Requires a minimum of 5 meg. of e-mail storage by your server.
New time slot at Republic - one hour earlier starting on November 9, 2008.
I have a talk show on Republic Broadcasting accessible by going to 
http://republicbroadcasting.org/ The show will be on Sundays (5PM - 7 PM CT) [NEW TIME SLOT].. Call in is 1-800-313-9443. 
Ralph_


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

Got a short cliff notes version of that? Something with bullet points? LOL.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Yeah - that is a lot... I may have to save that for Saturday to really read and try to digest.

Angie


----------



## MELOC (Sep 26, 2005)

what i got from it is that the supreme court is no longer required to hear anycase it doesn't wish to and we now have a 4th branch of government. if the supreme court chooses not to hear this case, who knows who is responsible for deciding obama's citizenship status? if the supreme court decides to hear the case, they decide. if they don't, no one does.


----------



## uyk7 (Dec 1, 2002)

> if the supreme court chooses not to hear this case, who knows who is responsible for deciding obama's citizenship status? if the supreme court decides to hear the case, they decide. if they don't, no one does.


In summary, according to the fed judge in the Berg case citizens don't have standing. According to the two senators from SD, they are prevented from looking into the matter by law. Who, then, has standing to find out?

.


----------



## Blu3duk (Jun 2, 2002)

I debated for awhile before posting that, and it took over an hour of editing it to look like the email that Ralph Kermit Winterrowd 2nd sent out that was forwarded to me by my former co-host when i was on international talk radio.

Basically it boils downs to the Supreme Court drags the dusty constitution out of the closet at the whim of those in the other branches of government to appease the masses of people on really hot issues like firearms when they feel it has merit in calming those masses down..... this issue though it is hot among many folks who are politically opposed the opposite party from their stance, which is according to this past election not a majority of the people..... [hey my choice did not even get honorable mention, and pretty much no mention at all, but i knew that going in, it was a statement to the local officials though] 

The short of it is, nope they do not have to rule as long as 4 of the 9 do not think it pertinent to bring it to the floor for hearing.... with no appeal from there....

and that my friends is thanks to those ancestors of ours who allegedly "fought to keep us free" then came home, voted and let the elected officials pass gas and stupid laws that never were brought out to the public..... so much for protecting the constitution from enemies "foreign and domestic". 

I have no answers, Ive tried the soap box, the ballot box and the jury box [though i never was able to get a jury for any of my issues at common law and i know why] the only box left it seems that has not been tried is the cartridge box and i really dont think that the people will get all riled up enough to use it, and i certainly aint gonna be the first person to fire a shot, as there would not be any support for me and as such the efforts would be used by the other side to disarm those who had not yet got the backbone to follow suit....... ergo the cartridge box is not the solution either....

Are we doomed? 
Will the preps we made be needed? 
Will the preps we have made be taken away? 
Will the people riot no matter what decision is made in the high court? 
These are answers i do not think anyone can give a full answer to, though I do not think we are doomed, and yes our preps will be needed, but not becuase of the election, more from what the economy was allowed to do from past stupidity of congress in favor of local pork barrel politics and it spawned an ugly side effect to keep them elected, I do not think that martial law will be placed into effect and that our preps will be taken away..... at least not until the firearms to defend those preps have been taken first, and i do not think the people will riot if the high court leaves Mr Obama in the presidential seat, however if they do rule and disqualify him there will be several jurisdictions that will probably have riots as such, for "repressing the black man" or some other sentiment. Should we continue to prep, of course, there are other disasters in which we all should prepare to face, and they wont come to pass either for the most of us, should we stick our heads back in the sand and ignore what has happened? I do not think so, i think as well as making preps we all aught to start seeking out qualified statesmen to fill the halls of congress and get rid of the all "politicians" from any position they are already in.... it will take several years effort and those put in place wil have to be strong to resist the temptations of crossing over to the other side.... but it could be done.... though i personally dont think the people have the will to make it happen yet, and maybe they never will.


> "There is no crueler tyranny than that which is exercised under cover of law, and with the colors of justice ..."
> - U.S. v. Jannotti, 673 F.2d 578, 614 (3d Cir. 1982)


William
North Central Idaho


----------



## pickapeppa (Jan 1, 2005)

Karen said:


> That's the problem; he has absolutely NOT produced it. He has refused to produce the only type of legally valid birth certificate that any court in the nation would accept.
> 
> The only thing he has produced is the "short form" which does not have the official raised seal; it only had a "copy" of a seal and is unsigned.
> 
> ...


These issues have been addressed by Factcheck.org and they've supplied photos of the birth certificate which nullifies most of these arguments. Additionally, they've fully investigated this issue, and have summarized the results of that investigation quite well.


----------



## pickapeppa (Jan 1, 2005)

Blu3duk, what you've posted there is just plain disturbing. But I suppose it has something to do with frivolous lawsuits making their way up to the SC, flooding them with cases they couldn't possibly have the time to decide on the merits.


----------



## uyk7 (Dec 1, 2002)

Pick, I just followed your link and it does NOT show BO's birth certificate. What it shows is a certification of live birth. As many have already pointed out, anyone was able to register a birth in Hawaii regardless of where the baby may have actually been born.

.


----------



## Guest (Dec 14, 2008)

uyk7 said:


> Pick, I just followed your link and it does NOT show BO's birth certificate. What it shows is a certification of live birth. As many have already pointed out, anyone was able to register a birth in Hawaii regardless of where the baby may have actually been born.
> 
> .


What about this?

http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/07/23/obama-was-likely-born-in-hawaii/


----------



## uyk7 (Dec 1, 2002)

> What about this?
> 
> http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/200...orn-in-hawaii/


Nope, not there either. A birth announcement in a newspaper doesn't prove he was born there, it only proves that someone paid to have his birth placed in the paper. Surely you don't consider a newspaper birth announcement to be proof of citizenship do you?

.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

Tomorrow is the day the electoral college votes to either ratify Obama's election, or overturn it and elect someone else. It's entirely in their power to do so.

Our founding fathers created the electoral college as a safeguard against an uneducated public voting in someone who was ineligible and bad for the country simply because he told them what they wanted to hear. They wanted to provide a safety valve against mob rule and "the tyranny of democracy". In previous years I've railed against the electoral college. It's interesting that now I'm finding out that our founding fathers were smarter than I am in foreseeing just such an election as 2008.

Whether the electoral college works as intended or not remains to be seen ... tomorrow.


----------



## Guest (Dec 14, 2008)

uyk7 said:


> Nope, not there either. A birth announcement in a newspaper doesn't prove he was born there, it only proves that someone paid to have his birth placed in the paper. Surely you don't consider a newspaper birth announcement to be proof of citizenship do you?
> 
> .


The birth announcement was placed in the paper by the Bureau of Vital Statistics, via info released by the hospital. If BO's parents were in Kenya, why on earth would it occur to them to contact a hospital in Hawaii and bribe someone to fake a birth announcement??


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

pickapeppa said:


> These issues have been addressed by Factcheck.org and they've supplied photos of the birth certificate which nullifies most of these arguments. Additionally, they've fully investigated this issue, and have summarized the results of that investigation quite well.


Isn't factcheck.org a liberal funded organization? Read an intriguing article a few months back, or maybe one of you folks posted it here, regarding Snopes.com, and how it would real easy to set up a site, and manipulate it to one's own ends. Make enough honest 'rulings', so your rep is nigh on unimpeachable, and then when it really matters, fudge it a little.

If it squishes like duck poo, smells like duck poo, and a duck just walked by, I'm inclined to believe it is Duck Poo. The PElect is covered with duck poo, the Daley/Chicago machine kind. He might wash it off regularly, but it appears he'll have to take many 'baths' before it's over. Last week it was Blago. This week it'll be Rahm. Next week Rezko.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

ladycat said:


> The birth announcement was placed in the paper by the Bureau of Vital Statistics, via info released by the hospital. If BO's parents were in Kenya, why on earth would it occur to them to contact a hospital in Hawaii and bribe someone to fake a birth announcement??


Got a source for that?

And no one has claimed the birth annoumcement was "fake". It simply doesnt PROVE anything about where he was born.


----------



## Blu3duk (Jun 2, 2002)

pickapeppa said:


> Blu3duk, what you've posted there is just plain disturbing. But I suppose it has something to do with frivolous lawsuits making their way up to the SC, flooding them with cases they couldn't possibly have the time to decide on the merits.


Disturbing is not the word i would use, treasonous is more like it.

The fact the Congress passed such an act 15 plus years before i was hatched, and when my mother was maybe in grammer school, and my father not quite out of middle school, the *theft* of the right to have a grievance redressed fully by the court could only be considered high treason by those who allowed it to be brought to the floor, and voted on and those who did pass such an act. Is it any wonder we have what seems to be "stoopid" rulings by the lower courts in some instances, and other valid claims just get denied and passed along to the next court knowing full well the high court probably wont ever take the action if indeed it gets that far..... so outward appearances is that of full access to Article one of the Bill of Rights [ok so in the mid 1960's the high court's ruling that those 14th amendment federal subjects who have a social security number and register to vote only are allowed limited access to the first 10 amendments in the Bill of rights, i already knew that] 

It is disheartening that certain elements are not taught in the public school system, and it appears for good cause as if people had known what Congress did after WW2, they probably would have hung each and every one of the elected officials and most of the appointed ones at the time for treason [ok so in *1868* in Thorington vs Smith the high court allowed how in a defacto government once it was discovered those who were committing treason were pardoned and could not be persecuted and as such could not be executed for the treason they committed]... yes they covered thier behinds back after the war of Northern aggression pretty good cause they knew what they were about to do in passing the 14th amendment..... and it has not been overturned to this day..... pretty nifty eh? 

Sometimes people wonder why I say that I feel repressed, perhaps I am not as repressed as I think I am, but the way that the acts of Congress and the rulings of the high court have went in the past 150 years, and the people's willingness to stick their heads in the sand while their future is being robbed, well if folks cant see that, i suppose their heads are stuck elsewhere too for awhile and my beating of the drum is the only thing I can do.

I doubt the electoral college will do anything but what the media has proposed, and Mr Obama will then be the president elect [he is not until after that meeting of the electoral college btw] and perhaps the high court will disqualify him after the fact, which thens opens up a whole new can of worms too..... a whole bunch of lawsuits from those who lost elections because they were riding on the coattails of a someone who was not qualified for the position in which he was running <--- conjecture, not fact at this time....

I suspect that soon after the inaugural, there will be a breakdown of the finance system totally and the newly elected president will be the fall guy, and people will riot over that, and call for his resignation [look to Iceland as to why I say that] which again leads to a reason to hold tight to your preps and keep diligent in preparing for the contingencies that we hope do not happen and be able to roll with those that do happen as they come, better than the neighbor next door.

I spect we would run out of short ropes and tall trees if we inserted a treasonous politician into each loop, but it might be worth giving it a try to clean up the mess they caused.... and yes we could give them a fair trial and then hang them.

William
North Central Idaho


----------



## Guest (Dec 14, 2008)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Got a source for that?
> 
> And no one has claimed the birth annoumcement was "fake". It simply doesnt PROVE anything about where he was born.


Ok, so he was born in Kenya, and the Vital Statistics Office in HAWAII put an announcement in the paper from info they received from a Hawaiian hospital..

Hey, I don't like Obama either, but I see no point in trying to create conspiracy theories that run contrary to the evidence.


----------



## uyk7 (Dec 1, 2002)

> why on earth would it occur to them to contact a hospital in Hawaii and bribe someone to fake a birth announcement??


Why would they have to bribe anyone? The paper was paid regardless of who had it placed in the paper. If, as you stated, the Vital Statistics Office had it placed in the paper then chances are they only listed it because BO's momma had his birth registered.

Once again I have to ask, surely you don't consider a newspaper birth announcement to be proof of citizenship do you?

.


----------



## Guest (Dec 14, 2008)

uyk7 said:


> Why would they have to bribe anyone? The paper was paid regardless of who had it placed in the paper. If, as you stated, the Vital Statistics Office had it placed in the paper then chances are they only listed it because BO's momma had his birth registered.
> 
> Once again I have to ask, surely you don't consider a newspaper birth announcement to be proof of citizenship do you?
> 
> .


Of course I don't consider it "proof". But it just makes NO sense why a couple in Kenya would think to place an announcement in a Hawaiian newspaper.


----------



## Blu3duk (Jun 2, 2002)

What if the lady gave birth in Kenya, and flew over to Hawaii, went to a hospital and had a live birth record issued.... back in 1960 no one suspected that anyone had any wrong doing intentions and well up into the 1980's and early 90's a person could go back and look at aold birth-death records and assume new identities, there were books written upon the subject back then about how to do such [different thread subject, but used to validate my interjection] Further in the early 1960's when racism rage rampant and if you were not white you probably were never gonna be president anyway, who would not have issued a live birth record and place an announcment in the paper for a lady who wanted not to live in Kenya.... <-----conjecture for a hypothetical situation, i have no way of knowing hpw people felt or what really happened if indeed Mr Obama was birthed in Kenya and registered in Hawaii. But such a scenario COULD well have happened and we today are subject to a ruination of the Constitution because of a well intentioned set of people......

Now if Barry Sotero was a resident of indonesia and enrolled in school there, and used a passport to go elsewhere in the world, and then changed his name to Barik Obama, then you have a problem of a different sort..... though i have not read his book I understand there is reason to believe such was done..... then that gives rise to wonder what else in the form of lies were told to the people during the campaign......

Keep on prepping.

William
Idaho


----------



## Ann-NWIowa (Sep 28, 2002)

Grandparents often place birth announcements for their grandchildren in their local paper regardless of where the child was born. The birth and adoption of my children was in my grandmother's hometown paper and they were not born there.

As I've said before, this has a simple solution. Get a certified copy of the birth and post it. Problem solved.


----------



## adenblue (Apr 12, 2008)

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iHUQU9Oy9bW8w5a5eevJkGvFNtmAD9538E480



> WASHINGTON (AP) â The Supreme Court has turned down another challenge to Barack Obama's eligibility to serve as president because of his citizenship.
> 
> The appeal by Cort Wrotnowski of Greenwich, Conn., was denied Monday without comment.


----------



## JGex (Dec 27, 2005)

adenblue said:


> http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iHUQU9Oy9bW8w5a5eevJkGvFNtmAD9538E480


Well, I know there are 2 other motions pending, but I'll just go ahead and say "I told ya so."

Business as usual on the Hill.


----------

