Obama’s Georgia Attorney Files Motion to Quash Subpoenas in Ballot Challenge - CASE TO BE HEARD ON JANUARY 26 IN ATLANTA by Sharon Rondeau (Jan. 18, 2012) — Atty. Orly Taitz, who represents a registered voter and four presidential candidates...
This case is different from the birth certificate cases because it is asking for Obama to show his original papers to prove that he is eligible to appear on the Georgia ballot for the election of 2012.
Excerpt:
Taitz reported:
Obama’s attorney filed a Motion to Quash the subpoenas, and it’s interesting because he wants to quash all of the subpoenas. He doesn’t have any reason to quash the others. He’s not presenting anything that would show that any of the other subpoenas are in any way invalid or irrelevant.
I was really maligned and attacked by some of the Obama operatives who have claimed to be on our side who wrote horrible articles that I was lying. In reality, the subpoenas are valid. In reality, if the subpoenas were not valid, then Barack Obama, the presumed president of the United States, would not be filing a Motion to Quash
.
It places him in a very bad light, because he released what he claims to be a valid birth certificate which he has put on mugs and T-shirts. So why is he quashing the subpoena to get the original? If there’s nothing to hide and it’s not a forgery, then why not show the original document? Clearly, he is nervous; he’s worried. he knows that what he showed is just a cheap forgery and that he and many others will end up in prison.
I expected his attorney to file a Motion to Quash, but not for all of the subpoenas I filed.
It’s interesting because in his motion, he’s attacking me personally, saying “It’s a political vendetta.” It’s 7 or 8 pages. On the subpoena, he is attacking me, bringing up unrelated cases. And the point is, when you file a Motion to Quash the subpoena, there are specific guidelines: whether or not the subpoena is relevant, oppressive or redundant. He was supposed to provide specific reasons: what is improper or oppressive or redundant, but he didn’t. He just attacked me personally.
Hat Tip:
Post & Email
*******
Update: From WorldNetDaily:
An extensive analysis of the issue was conducted by Titus, who has taught constitutional law, common law and other subjects for 30 years at five different American Bar Association-approved law schools. He also was the founding dean of the College of Law at Regent University, a trial attorney and special assistant U.S. attorney in the Department of Justice.
“‘Natural born citizen’ in relation to the office of president, and whether someone is eligible, was in the Constitution from the very beginning,” he said. “Another way of putting it; there is a law of the nature of citizenship. If you are a natural born citizen, you are a citizen according to the law of nature, not according to any positive statement in a Constitution or in a statute, but because of the very nature of your birth and the very nature of nations.”
If you “go back and look at what the law of nature would be or would require … that’s precisely what a natural born citizen is …. is one who is born to a father and mother each of whom is a citizen of the U.S. or whatever other country,” he said.
“Now what we’ve learned from the Hawaii birth certificate is that Mr. Obama’s father was not a citizen of the United States. His mother was, but he doesn’t qualify as a natural born citizen for the office of president.”
*******
Update 1/23/12 - Copy of post at this website: Art II SuperPac.com
Article II Facts
1. Constitutional Convention -- Alexander Hamilton – “Citizen”
- John Jay – “Natural Born Citizen”
3. Rep. John Bingham, Principal Framer of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution -
4. Supreme Court Cases that Cite “Natural Born Citizen” as One Born on U.S. Soil to Citizen Parents -
- The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
- Shanks v DuPont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
- Dred Scott v Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
- Minor v Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
- United States v Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
6. Citizenship Status of the Presidents of the United States and Their Eligibility Under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 -
7.Thirteen Presidential/Vice Presidential “Eligibility” Bills Introduced in State General Assembly’s between 2009 & 2011 -
1. Constitutional Convention – “Citizen” v “Natural Born Citizen":
When developing a new U.S. Constitution for the United States of America, Alexander Hamilton submitted a suggested draft on June 18, 1787. In addition, he also submitted to the framers a proposal for the qualification requirements in Article II as to the necessary Citizenship status for the office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military.
Alexander Hamilton’s suggested presidential eligibility clause:
No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.Many of the founders and framers expressed fear of foreign influence on the person who would in the future serve as President of the United States since this particular office was singularly and uniquely powerful under the proposed new Constitution. This question of foreign influence was elevated when John Jay considered the additional power granted to the Presidency during times of war, that is when he serves as Commander in Chief of the military. Jay felt strongly that whoever served as President and Commander In Chief during times of war must owe their sole allegiance to and only to the United States.
Because this fear of foreign influence on a future President and Commander in Chief was strongly felt, Jay took it upon himself to draft a letter to General George Washington, the presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention, recommending/hinting that the framers should strengthen the Citizenship requirements for the office of the President.
John Jay was an avid reader and proponent of natural law and particularly Vattel’s codification of natural law and the Law of Nations. In his letter to Washington he said that the Citizenship requirement for the office of the commander of our armies should contain a “strong check” against foreign influence and he recommended to Washington that the command of the military be open only to a “natural born Citizen”. Thus Jay did not agree that simply being a “born Citizen” was sufficient enough protection from foreign influence in the singular most powerful office in the new form of government. Rather, Jay wanted to make sure the President and Commander In Chief owed his allegiance solely to the United States of America. He wanted another adjective added to the eligibility clause, i.e., ‘natural’. And that word ‘natural’ goes to the Citizenship status of one’s parents via natural law.
Below is the relevant change to Hamilton’s proposed language detailed in Jay’s letter written to George Washington dated 25 July 1787:
Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.See a transcription of Jay’s letter to Washington at this link.
Upon receiving Jay’s letter, General Washington passed on the recommendation to the convention where it was adopted in the final draft. Thus Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, the fundamental law of our nation reads:
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of U.S. Constitution as adopted 17 September 1787:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.There you have the crux of the issue now before the nation and the answer.
Hamilton’s suggested presidential citizenship eligibility requirement was that a Citizen simply had to be ‘born a Citizen’ of the USA, i.e., a Citizen by Birth. But that citizenship status was overwhelmingly rejected by the framers as insufficient. Instead of allowing any person “born a citizen” to be President and Commander of the military, the framers chose to adopt the more stringent requirement recommended by John Jay, i.e., requiring the Citizen to be a “natural born Citizen“, to block any chance of future Presidents owing allegiance to other foreign nations or claims on their allegiance at birth from becoming President and Commander of the Military.. Therefore, the President of the United States must be a “natural born citizen” with unity of citizenship and sole allegiance to the United States at birth. [SOURCE CREDIT]
So why do we keep hearing about the President only needing to be “born a citizen”? Well, let’s start with the fallacy of the 14th amendment trumping Article II -
2. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted 9 July 1868:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The intent and purpose of the (14th) amendment was to provide equal citizenship to all Americans either born on U.S. soil or naturalized therein and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. It does not grant “natural born Citizen” status. It only confers “citizen” status, as that is the exact word used by the Amendment itself and that is the same word that appears in Article I, II, III, and IV of the Constitution. It just conveys the status of “citizen,” and as we learned from how the Framers handled the Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795, being a “citizen” does not necessarily mean that one is a “natural born Citizen.”
The Fourteenth Amendment only tells us who may become members of the community called the United States, i.e., those born on U.S. soil or naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are U.S. citizens. The amendment was needed because under Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856), slaves and their descendents, whether free or not, were not considered as being members of that community even though born on U.S. soil and unlike the American Indians subject to the jurisdiction thereof. But the amendment only allowed these slaves and their descendents to become a member of the U.S. community by making them U.S. citizens. Once those persons or anybody else (e.g. Wong Kim Ark) so became a member of the U.S. community (became a U.S. citizen by birth on U.S. soil or through naturalization), then that person could join with another U.S. citizen and procreate a child on U.S. soil who would then be an Article II "natural born Citizen."
Hence, during the Founding, the original citizens created the new Constitutional Republic. Through Article II’s grandfather clause, they were allowed to be President. Their posterity would be the "natural born Citizens" who would perpetuate the new nation and its values. These “natural born Citizens,” born after the adoption of the Constitution, would be the future Presidents.
Subsequently, a “natural born Citizen” was created by someone first becoming a member of the United States (a U.S. citizen) by birth on its soil to a mother and father who were U.S. citizens or if not so born then through naturalization, and then joining with another similarly created U.S. citizen to procreate a child on U.S. soil. The product of that union would be an Article II “natural born Citizen.”
After the Fourteenth Amendment, it became sufficient to be a citizen if one were merely born on U.S. soil or naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. That U.S. citizen would then procreate with another similarly created U.S citizen and produce a “natural born Citizen.”
As we can see, becoming a U.S. citizen is only the first step in the process of creating a “natural born Citizen.” The second step is the two U.S citizens procreating a child on U.S. soil. It is these “natural born Citizens” who can someday be President or Vice President of the United States. Stated differently, a President must be a second generation American citizen by both U.S. citizen parents. A Senator or Representative can be a first generation American citizen by naturalization or birth. It is the extra generation carried by a President which assures the American people that he/she is born with attachment and allegiance only to the United States. [SOURCE CREDIT]
Now, let’s take a look at the Godfather of the 14th amendment and see what he had to say about “born a citizen” vs “natural born citizen” –
3. Rep. John Bingham, Principal Framer of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
During a debate (see pg. 2791) regarding a certain Dr. Houard, who had been incarcerated in Spain, the issue was raised on the floor of the House of Representatives as to whether the man was a US citizen. Representative Bingham (of Ohio), stated on the floor:
As to the question of citizenship I am willing to resolve all doubts in favor of a citizen of the United States. That Dr. Houard is a natural-born citizen of the United States there is not room for the shadow of a doubt. He was born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, and by the express words of the Constitution, as amended to-day, he is declared to all the world to be a citizen of the United States by birth. (The term “to-day”, as used by Bingham, means “to date”. Obviously, the Constitution had not been amended on April 25, 1872.)
Notice that Bingham declares Houard to be a “natural-born citizen” by citing two factors – born of citizen parents in the US.
John Bingham, aka “father of the 14th Amendment”, was an abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln’s assassins. Ten years earlier, he stated on the House floor:
All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians. - (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862))
Then in 1866, Bingham also stated on the House floor:
Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.... - (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))
According to Justice Black, Bingham’s words uttered on the floor of the House are the most reliable source. Bingham made three statements, none of them challenged on the Floor, which indicate that a natural born citizen is a person born on US soil to parents who were US citizens. [SOURCE CREDIT]
And of course we’ve all heard the Supreme Court has never ruled on or defined what a “natural born citizen” is, but that is a folly –
4. Supreme Court cases that cite “natural born Citizen” as one born on U.S. soil to citizen parents:
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”. [SOURCE CREDIT]
Let’s take a look at the numerous attempts congress has made over the years to change the definition of Article II even though any educated American knows that to change the constitution in any shape or form a constitutional amendment is required. -
5. Attempts to redefine or amend Article II “natural born Citizen” Clause of the U.S. Constitution:
The effort to remove the natural-born citizen requirement from the U.S. Constitution actually began in 1975 – when Democrat House Rep. Jonathon B. Bingham, [NY-22] introduced a constitutional amendment under H.J.R. 33: which called for the outright removal of the natural-born requirement for president found in Article II of the U.S. Constitution – “Provides that a citizen of the United States otherwise eligible to hold the Office of President shall not be ineligible because such citizen is not a natural born citizen.”
Bingham’s first attempt failed and he resurrected H.J.R. 33: in 1977 under H.J.R. 38:, again failing to gain support from members of congress. Bingham was a Yale Law grad and member of the secret society Skull and Bones, later a lecturer at Columbia Law and thick as thieves with the United Nations via his membership in the Council on Foreign Relations.
Bingham’s work lay dormant for twenty-six years when it was resurrected again in 2003 as Democrat members of Congress made no less than eight (8) attempts in twenty-two (22) months, to either eliminate the natural-born requirement, or redefine natural-born to accommodate Barack Hussein Obama II in advance of his rise to power. The evidence is right in the congressional record…
1. On June 11, 2003 Democrat House member Vic Snyder [AR-2] introduced H.J.R 59: in the 108th Congress – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 35 years and who has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years eligible to hold the office of President or Vice President.” – Co-Sponsors: Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14]; Rep Delahunt, William D. [MA-10]; Rep Frank, Barney [MA-4]; Rep Issa, Darrell E. [CA-49]; Rep LaHood, Ray [IL-18]; Rep Shays, Christopher [CT-4].
2. On September 3, 2003, Rep. John Conyers [MI] introduced H.J.R. 67: – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years eligible to hold the office of President.” – Co-Sponsor Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27]
3. On February 25, 2004, Republican Senator Don Nickles [OK] attempted to counter the growing Democrat onslaught aimed at removing the natural-born citizen requirement for president in S.2128: – “Natural Born Citizen Act – Defines the constitutional term “natural born citizen,” to establish eligibility for the Office of President” – also getting the definition of natural born citizen wrong. – Co-sponsors Sen Inhofe, James M. [OK]; Sen Landrieu, Mary L. [LA]
4. On September 15, 2004 – as Barack Obama was about to be introduced as the new messiah of the Democrat Party at the DNC convention, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher [CA-46] introduced H.J.R. 104: – “Constitutional Amendment – “Makes eligible for the Office of the President non-native born persons who have held U.S. citizenship for at least 20 years and who are otherwise eligible to hold such Office.” – No co-sponsors.
5. Again on January 4, 2005, Rep John Conyers [MI] introduced H.J.R. 2: to the 109th Congress – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years eligible to hold the Office of President.” – Co-Sponsor Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27]
6. Rep Dana Rohrabacher [CA-46] tries again on February 1, 2005 in H.J.R. 15: – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes eligible for the Office of the President non-native born persons who have held U.S. citizenship for at least 20 years and who are otherwise eligible to hold such Office.” – No Co-Sponsor
7. On April 14, 2005, Rep Vic Snyder [AR-2] tries yet again with H.J.R. 42: – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 35 years and who has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years eligible to hold the office of President or Vice President.” – Co-Sponsor Rep Shays, Christopher [CT-4]
8. All of these efforts failing in committee and the 2008 presidential election looming with an unconstitutional candidate leading the DNC ticket, Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill, [MO] tries to attach the alteration to a military bill in S.2678: on February 28, 2008 – “Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act – Declares that the term “natural born Citizen” in article II, section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution, dealing with the criteria for election to President of the United States, includes any person born to any U.S. citizen while serving in the active or reserve components of the U.S. armed forces.” – Co-Sponsors DNC Presidential candidate Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY]; DNC Presidential candidate Sen Obama, Barack [IL]; Sen Menendez, Robert [NJ]; Sen Coburn, Tom [OK] – (This was the first effort to also assure that GOP Presidential candidate Sen. John McCain [AZ] would be cleared to run against the DNC primary victor.)
From June 11, 2003 to February 28, 2008, there had been eight (8) different congressional attempts to alter Article II – Section I – Clause V – natural born citizen requirements for president in the U.S. Constitution, all of them failing in committee — All of it taking placing during Barack Obama’s rise to political power and preceding the November 2008 presidential election.
In politics, there are no coincidences… not of this magnitude.
Finally on April 10, 2008, unable to alter or remove the natural born citizen requirement to clear the way for Barack Obama, the U.S. Senate acts to shift focus before the election, introducing and passing S.R.511: – declaring Sen. John McCain a “natural born citizen” eligible to run for and hold the office of president. There was never any honest doubt about McCain, the son of a U.S. Navy Commander. The Sponsor of the resolution is Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill, [MO]
S.R.511 States that John Sidney McCain, III, is a “natural born Citizen” under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States. S.R511 passed by a 99-0 unanimous consent of the Senate, with only John McCain not voting. The basis was – “Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens;” – a condition not met by Barack Hussein Obama II. – Co-Sponsors DNC Presidential candidate Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY]; DNC Presidential candidate Sen Obama, Barack [IL]; Sen Leahy, Patrick J. [VT]; Sen Webb, Jim [VA]; Sen Coburn, Tom [OK] (They had made certain that John McCain would run against Barack Obama)
However, in the McCain resolution is also this language – “Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen’ of the United States; – Whereas the term `natural born Citizen’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;”
The U.S. Constitution is not a dictionary. The definition of “is” is not in the constitution either. Yet this is the text that would later be issued in Congressional Research Service talking points memos distributed to members of congress, to protect an individual that all members of congress know and understand to be an “unconstitutional” resident of the people’s White House – Barack Hussein Obama II.
Once again, as the political left was unable to alter the U.S. Constitution by way of legitimate constitutional process, they resorted to altering the constitution via precedent setting, in short, knowingly electing and getting away with seating an unconstitutional president in order to alter Article II requirements for the office via breaking those constitutional requirements.
The press would not ask any questions and the American people were already too ill-informed of their constitution to know or too distracted by daily life to care. The press would provide the cover, swearing to the lies of an unconstitutional administration put in power by criminal actors focused only on their lofty political agenda of forever altering the American form of government.
The people would be caught up in a steady diet of daily assaults on their individual freedom and liberty and overlook the most obvious constitutional crisis in American history, the seating of an unconstitutional and anti-American president. [SOURCE CREDIT]
6. Citizenship Status of the Presidents of the United States and Their Eligibility Under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 -
As you can see our past presidents eligible after the grandfather clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 were all born on U.S. soil to Citizen parents.
7. Thirteen Presidential/Vice Presidential “Eligibility” Bills Introduced in State General Assembly’s between 2009 & 2011
Then we have the 13 eligibility bills introduced between 2009 and 2011 by Republican’s in their respective state general assemblies. Two made it to a Governor’s desk for signature – New Hampshire’s Governor signed HB1245 into law and Arizona's Governor, who was the Secretary of the State Board of Elections in 2008, vetoed HB295/529 – with the rest dying in committee,
So there you have the facts of this roaring debate in a nutshell. The people are dismissed as clueless while the congress, the media, the current crop of presidential contenders, the Republican and Democrat Parties and the legal system are all living in a fantasy land. The people are 100 percent correct, and the people have every intention of showing those who continue to obfuscate this extremely serious constitutional crisis the door.
SOURCE CREDITS:
1. Constitutional Convention - Navy CDR Charles Kerchner(Ret) http://protectourliberty.org/
2. The Fourteenth Amendment - Attorney Mario Apuzzo http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
3. Rep. John Bingham - Attorney Leo Donofrio http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
4. Supreme Court Cases - John Charlton http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/10/18/4-supreme-court-cases-define-natural-born-citizen/
5. Attempts to Amend Article II - J.B. Williams http://www.newswithviews.com/JBWilliams/williams150.htm
6. Citizenship Under Article II - Navy CDR Charles Kerchner(Ret) http://www.protectourliberty.org/
7. Thirteen Eligibility” Bills - Art2SuperPAC http://www.art2superpac.com/
.
Article II Super PAC does not make contributions to candidates. Art2SuperPAC may accept unlimited corporate contributions and unlimited individual contributions. Funds raised by Art2SuperPAC will only be used for independent expenditures. Contributions to Art2SuperPAC are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes. Contributions from foreign nationals and federal-government contractors are prohibited.
www.Art2SuperPAC.com
In addition, this page will have complete coverage of the hearing in a Georgia court room on January 26, 2012:
Art II SuperPac.com
****ARTICLE II SUPER PAC WILL PROVIDE GAVEL TO GAVEL LIVE VIDEO COVERAGE FROM THE 3 BALLOT CHALLENGE HEARINGS ON JANUARY 26TH IN ATLANTA GEORGIA STARTING AT 9 AM ET****
Press release link:
Art II SuperPac.com: Press Release January 21, 2012
*******
Update 1/23/12:
YouTube Video Link: BREAKING! Obama BC Is Forged! 100% Certainty! 50 Year Typography Expert Claims.
Posts
35 comments:
CJW: ”THE Pertinent Question: If There's Nothing to Hide and it’s Not a Forgery, Then Why Not Show the Original Document?”
Oh, this is too easy...
Go back to Joisey and demand to see your 'original document'.
Since it's in your name, I'm certain you could...but I'm also certain it's been digitized by now, and the original document is either deep in an airtight room with hundreds of thousands of similar documents, or it has been destroyed through age, mishandling, or a governmental “upgrade” (i.e. digitized).
If it's in a vault somewhere, tell us how long it takes for you to be allowed to examine it. Then give someone else the pertinent data, and see how long it takes for them to be allowed to examine it. Unless they're related to you, I doubt they'd be allowed to.
In either case, I'm absolutely certain that you (or they) will not be allowed to leave the building with that 'original document' in hand.
Despite what some people (and most birfers) believe, even the President cannot circumvent the law. Even he cannot release his birth certificate without the consent of state authorities, and the Hawaii government had to make a special ruling allowing him to show his certificate.
But that's not what birfers want. What they want is a magic reset button, turning the calendar back to 2008 and expunging everything Obama-related since then from the historical record. Ain't gonna happen, lady.
I have a notorized birth certificate paper in my possession.
In order to put that digitized forgery errr..."document" online, there must have been a paper copy...no? Why can't he show that?
Perhaps this case will be dismissed like all the others. But one day the truth WILL come out. If his father was indeed Obama Sr. then Obama Jr. could not possibly be a NBC of the United States of America [and you need to see the video HERE - stop the video at certain points and read the documents presented] simply because his father was never a U.S. citizen. If his father was someone else, then the public outcry about his dishonesty will be great and his legacy will suffer because of it. We will just have to wait and see.
Obama may have fooled much of the voting public in 2008 - but that ain't gonna happen again - mister - in this election.
CJW: ”I have a notorized birth certificate paper in my possession.”
So do I, hostess. The relevant word is “notarized”. If a notarized BC is good enough for yours, why isn't it good enough for his?
”If his father was indeed Obama Sr. then Obama Jr. could not possibly be a NBC of the United States of America simply because his father was never a U.S. citizen.”
Now pay attention, because there'll be a quiz later. There are two ways a person is considered a NBC:
1. The person is born on US territory or a US possession.
2. The person has at least one parent who is him/herself a US citizen.
Obama was born in Hawaii. At the time of his birth, Hawaii had been US territory for almost 2 years. Thus, he is a NBC. His mother was a citizen. Thus, he is a NBC. Great Britain has no claim whatever on him...just as we could have had no claim on Winston Churchill (whose mother was a US citizen).
It doesn't matter where he lived as a youth; under our laws, a minor cannot renounce their citizenship, nor can any adult do so for them. The person has to do that by him/herself, when reaching legal age. AFAIK, Obama has always considered himself American. (In fact, considering his father, he is more African-American than most!)
”Obama may have fooled much of the voting public in 2008 - but that ain't gonna happen again - mister - in this election.”
I wouldn't be too sure about that: GWBush got two terms, didn't he?
There is no magic reset button, ma'am.
A Natural Born Citizen is one who is born on U.S. soil and has two U.S. Citizen parents. A U.S. Citizen (not natural born) is described as you have listed them. There is a difference and for the office of POTUS, the difference is necessary.
You can keep arguing the way you do GM, but it doesn't change the facts. At best, Obama Jr. is a dual citizen - not natural born citizen.
Update: From WorldNetDaily:
An extensive analysis of the issue was conducted by Titus, who has taught constitutional law, common law and other subjects for 30 years at five different American Bar Association-approved law schools. He also was the founding dean of the College of Law at Regent University, a trial attorney and special assistant U.S. attorney in the Department of Justice.
“‘Natural born citizen’ in relation to the office of president, and whether someone is eligible, was in the Constitution from the very beginning,” he said. “Another way of putting it; there is a law of the nature of citizenship. If you are a natural born citizen, you are a citizen according to the law of nature, not according to any positive statement in a Constitution or in a statute, but because of the very nature of your birth and the very nature of nations.”
If you “go back and look at what the law of nature would be or would require … that’s precisely what a natural born citizen is …. is one who is born to a father and mother each of whom is a citizen of the U.S. or whatever other country,” he said.
“Now what we’ve learned from the Hawaii birth certificate is that Mr. Obama’s father was not a citizen of the United States. His mother was, but he doesn’t qualify as a natural born citizen for the office of president.”
There is nothing in the Constitution, nor in any subsequent Supreme Court rulings, that states that both parents have to be citizens. That Titus nonsense about "natural law" is just that--nonsense.
The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps. The Constitution authorizes the Congress to do create clarifying legislation in Section 5 of the 14th Amendment; the Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, also allows the Congress to create law regarding naturalization, which includes citizenship.
Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"
Anyone born inside the United States *
Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
*There is an exception in the law — the person must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.
Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html
It goes without saying, Christine, that I continue to argue the point. There are only two kinds of citizens: natural-born and naturalized. Since he was born on US soil, Obama did not need to be naturalized. Therefore...well, you get the idea.
Still no magic reset button.
Oh, I almost forgot:
(boom boom boom)
And another one bites
And another one bites
And another one bites the dust, yeah
Well, at least Perry can still say he never lost an election.
GM and Anonymous,
MANY in the legal profession would wholeheartedly disagree with both of you!
For the position of POTUS, it is written in the Constitution that there must be an increased likelihood that a candidate would not hold any allegiance to another country. That is why Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 specifically states:
Clause 5: Qualifications for office:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Rationale: The natural-born-citizen clause was an attempt to allay concerns that foreign aristocrats would immigrate to the new nation and use their wealth and influence to impose a monarchy on the new nation.[5] In furtherance of this goal, the Framers also imposed a 14 year residency requirement of anyone who would seek to become President of the United States.
The provision of "Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution" is no longer significant, as it applied to people living in the United States at the time that the country was formed.
If the grandfather clause wasn't needed, then why did the Framers put in in? The reason was because they knew that the first few presidents would be British subjects - therefore, they put that clause in there. Once that expired (because that generation died and there were natural born citizens born of two U.S. citizen parents on U.S. soil) then that portion of the clause was no longer relevant. However, the Natural Born Citizen clause was never revoked or changed for the office of the presidency.
On July 25, 1787, John Jay wrote to George Washington, presiding officer of the Convention:
Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.[9]
Alexander Porter Morse, the lawyer who represented Louisiana in Plessy v. Ferguson,[19] wrote in the Albany Law Journal:
If it was intended that anybody who was a citizen by birth should be eligible, it would only have been necessary to say, “no person, except a native-born citizen”; but the framers thought it wise, in view of the probable influx of European immigration, to provide that the president should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance to the United States at the time of his birth
Notice the plural "citizens" in the above quote.
References:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_5:_Qualifications_for_office
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen
con't
P.S. The reference to Vattel's Law of Nations in the documents found in the video link (in my first comment above) also gives no doubt about what the Framers meant by natural born citizen for the position of POTUS!
The second site contains arguments regarding this clause - including arguments about Obama. But Snopes.com is a leftist leaning site that would, of course, side with Obama's lawyers. If you read about McCain's case regarding whether or not he qualified as a "natural born citizen," you will see at the end it says:
Similarly, legal scholar Lawrence Solum concluded in an article on the natural born citizen clause that the question of McCain's eligibility could not be answered with certainty, and that it would depend on the particular approach of "constitutional construction".[75] The urban legend fact checking website Snopes.com has examined the matter and cites numerous experts. It considers the matter "undetermined".[76]
Why was his eligibility argued in Congress and not Obama's? Was some sort of "deal" done? Notice:
It also states in general that "it has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural-born citizen […]".[72
So, the Congress had to make a declaration so McCain would be deemed eligible:
In April 2008, the U.S. Senate approved a non-binding resolution recognizing McCain's status as a natural-born citizen.[68] In September 2008, U.S. District Judge William Alsup stated obiter in his ruling that it is "highly probable" that McCain is a natural-born citizen from birth by virtue of 8 U.S.C. § 1401, although he acknowledged the alternative possibility that McCain became a natural-born citizen retroactively, by way of 8 U.S.C. § 1403.[69]
How does one become a natural born citizen "retroactively?"
Many questions have not been answered about the 2008 election!
Still, in the case of Obama - there has NOT been evidence of an original paper document! Why is it being hidden? How could the online one have been "scanned" and put online if there wasn't an original paper document from which it was copied?
Answer: There are many experts who state that it is a FORGERY!
CJW: ”MANY in the legal profession would wholeheartedly disagree with both of you!”
Let them. MOST in the legal profession do not disagree with me.
Your 'citizens' quote from AP Morse can be applied to the singular as well as the plural, and you know that. I'm not going to waste electrons by parsing words with you.
”Why was [McCain's] eligibility argued in Congress and not Obama's? Was some sort of "deal" done?”
If you have to ask, then that means you have no evidence whatever of any 'deal'. If you got 'em, show 'em.
”In April 2008, the U.S. Senate approved a non-binding resolution recognizing McCain's status as a natural-born citizen. … How does one become a natural born citizen 'retroactively'?"
I quote from my previous post:
Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"
Footnote: Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example. (emphasis mine)
McCain was a military child, born in the Panama Canal Zone to American parents. Full stop.
”How does one become a natural born citizen 'retroactively'?"
Glad you asked.
Separate sections handle territories that the United States has acquired over time, such as Puerto Rico (8 USC 1402), Alaska (8 USC 1404), Hawaii (8 USC 1405), the U.S. Virgin Islands (8 USC 1406), and Guam (8 USC 1407). Each of these sections confer citizenship on persons living in these territories as of a certain date, and usually confer natural-born status on persons born in those territories after that date. For example, for Puerto Rico, all persons born in Puerto Rico between April 11, 1899, and January 12, 1941, are automatically conferred citizenship as of the date the law was signed by the President (June 27, 1952). Additionally, all persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, are natural-born citizens of the United States. Note that because of when the law was passed, for some, the natural-born status was retroactive. (emphasis mine)
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html
Any other lies you'd like to spread? I've heard them all, but birfers do manage to surprise me with their ingenuity.
CJW: ”There are many experts who state that [Obama's BC] is a FORGERY!”
Who are these alleged experts?
Paul Irey is a former Air force clerk (What? Not cryptanalysis?) and is famous for his comment on Obama's certificate: "I knew it was a forgery before I even looked at it."
http://rcradioshow.blogspot.com/2011/06/paul-ireys-biased-analysis-i-knew-it.html
But he went on to do an analysis anyway. Mr. John Woodman examined Irey's claims and ripped them apart; later Irey himself admitted that his work was flawed. In fact, although he never printed a retraction anywhere (AFAIK), he sent an email to Orly Taitz, Jerome Corsi, Doug Vogt, and others advising them of the problems with his analysis and asking them not to use it. (Orly did anyway.)
Irey is of course hard at work on an updated version.
http://rcradioshow.blogspot.com/2011/12/conversation-with-paul-irey.html
Would any real expert allow work that he had disavowed to be filed as evidence in a court? I doubt it!
If he is an example of the 'experts' the birfers can muster, Obama can continue to sleep at night. The magic reset button remains elusive.
Why are you accusing me of lying? There are people who will side with Obama no matter what dishonesty he has been involved in and that's the truth!
The experts who did the research on the online fraud of a BC (and their explanations) can be found if you just do a search. The fact that none of the cases got into court so far is why they can't present their evidence.
Tonight, Huckabee brought up a good point about why Obama refuses to release his college transcripts - and even Huckabee stated something like this: "it will show whether or not he attended school with a foreign aid scholarship!" There is some speculation that perhaps this is the very reason why he is hiding his transcripts - or maybe it's because he got terrible grades?
Aren't you concerned that the social security number that Obama is using was not issued to him? It didn't pass muster with the site (forget it's name) where illegal aliens can be caught using fraudulent SS numbers in order to get jobs.
So many questions....
The truth will come out someday.
E-Verify is what I was trying to recall re: the social security number.
Here are a bunch of links about this story:
WND.com
Click on the link that reads:
E-Verify ‘flags’ Obama’s Social Security Number
at the link above.
Oh look! Gateway Pundit has the video up where Huckabee questions Obama's transcripts on O'Reilly:
Gateway Pundit: Huckabee on O’Reilly: Obama Needs to Prove He Didn’t Get “Foreign Student Loans” in College (Video)
A good comment there:
angela commented:
President Obama doesn’t have to have been BORN in another country to have lost his citizenship via adoption by his mother’s husband in Indonesia. Indonesia did not allow for dual citizenship at the time (if it does even now). There are steps for such individuals to take to recover their US citizenship, but they must be taken before a certain age.
It is quite irrelevent, assuming he lost his citizenship through his mother’s action as a minor, so long as he MIGHT have taken action on his own to recover it when he reached the age of majority, and DID NOT do so. What passport did he use to travel to Pakistan? Not a US passport. They weren’t permitting Americans to travel in Pakistan at the time.
This is not a “birther” issue. The birth certificate has been shown. It’s the only thing that has been.
Ha! There is also a link to the "Obama 52"
Obama 52 Playing Cards - FEATURING: Czars, Tax Cheats, Socialists, Marxists, Communists, Radicals and more!
CJW: ”Why are you accusing me of lying? There are people who will side with Obama no matter what dishonesty he has been involved in and that's the truth!”
Well, the usual reason to accuse someone of lying is because they are. There are people who will side against Obama no matter what dishonesty he hasn't been involved in, and that's also the truth!
Now, about that other stuff:
Angela's simply wrong.
”President Obama doesn’t have to have been BORN in another country to have lost his citizenship via adoption by his mother’s husband in Indonesia. Indonesia did not allow for dual citizenship at the time (if it does even now). There are steps for such individuals to take to recover their US citizenship, but they must be taken before a certain age.”
Since Obama was BORN in the US, he could not have 'lost his citizenship' by ANY means that the US government is obliged to acknowledge. I haven't bothered to see if Indonesia allows for dual citizenship, but in Obama's case it is irrelevant. He did not need to 'recover' his citizenship, because he never lost it in the first place.
”What passport did he use to travel to Pakistan? Not a US passport. They weren’t permitting Americans to travel in Pakistan at the time.”
If by 'at that time' she is referring to the early 1980s, she is wrong again:
The truth is that it was neither impossible nor difficult for Americans to visit Pakistan in 1981 according to a contemporary New York Times article and a followup article written by an American, Barbara Crossette, who visited there:
… It is possible to cross from India to Pakistan by train from Amritsar and Delhi, but border procedures can be long and complicated. A road crossing at Wagah is also open for a few daylight hours. Check schedules, and allow several extra hours for border formalities.
Tourists can obtain a free, 30-day visa (necessary for Americans) at border crossings and airports. Transportation within Lahore is plentiful, with taxis, scooter rickshaws and horse-drawn tongas (especially in the old city) readily available.
http://www.nytimes.com/1981/06/14/travel/lahore-a-survivor-with-a-bittersweet-history.html
Please note the date of the article: June 1981. Crossette most certainly traveled to Pakistan on her US passport; the State Department 'ban' did not exist (and it would have been an 'advisory' if it had—very few countries are on the 'banned' list).
CJW: ”Aren't you concerned that the social security number that Obama is using was not issued to him? It didn't pass muster with the site (forget it's name) where illegal aliens can be caught using fraudulent SS numbers in order to get jobs.'
Oh, that old thing:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/03/more-social-security-troubles-for-the-president/
Read it and weep. Or don't; it'll still be true, either way.
Older question revisited: ”How does one become a natural born citizen 'retroactively'?"
SEC. 305. [8 U.S.C. 1405] A person born in Hawaii on or after August 12, 1898, and before April 30, 1900, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900. A person born in Hawaii on or after April 30, 1900, is a citizen of the United States at birth. A person who was a citizen of the Republic of Hawaii on August 12, 1898, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900.
For someone who claims to love the Constitution, you really don't know much about it, do you?
There is another problem with Obama. The issue of Obama refusing to release his college records was revisted this week by Fox’s White House reporter Ed Henry who asked Obama spokesman Jay Carney about it at a daily briefing. Carney brushed off the question. Henry did not ask whether Obama went to college as a foreign student.
If it turns out Obama did go to college as a foreign student, it would lend credence to the argument that he does not meet the Constitutional mandate for natural born citizenship to be president.
See Free Republic.com
As posted previously, Gov. Huckabee brought this up during an interview on O'Reilly.
Huckabee on O’Reilly: Did Obama Get ‘Foreign Student’ Loans in College?
Friday, January, 20, 2012 Kristinn
Appearing on the Fox News Channel’s top-rated O’Reilly Factor this evening, former Arkansas Governer Mike Huckabee (R) suggested that President Barack Obama be challenged to prove whether he was treated as a “foreign student” in college.
Huckabee made the remark in the context of a discussion with host Bill O’Reilly on Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, dithering over releasing his tax returns.
Huckabee, who ran for president in 2008, urged Romney to say that he would release his tax returns when Obama released his college transcripts–and his college admissions records to show whether Obama received loans as a “foreign student.”
While some will accuse Huckabee of going ‘birther’, others will understand that Huckabee is referring to Obama being adopted and raised for a time in Indonesia by his mother’s second husband, Lolo Soetoro, and whether Obama went to college as an Indonesian citizen to get advantageous treatment.
P.S. GM - I don't claim to be an expert on the topic of the Constitution, but I CAN READ and individuals more scholarly than me (including the Framers) have written extensively on the meaning of natural born citizen status concerning the position of POTUS.
Here is a link with a comprehensive analysis about the meaning of natural born citizen which might be advantageous concerning the debate that is going on here at this blog and around the nation via the Internet:
Article II Facts
Excerpt:
Because this fear of foreign influence on a future President and Commander in Chief was strongly felt, Jay took it upon himself to draft a letter to General George Washington, the presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention, recommending/hinting that the framers should strengthen the Citizenship requirements for the office of the President.
John Jay was an avid reader and proponent of natural law and particularly Vattel’s codification of natural law and the Law of Nations. In his letter to Washington he said that the Citizenship requirement for the office of the commander of our armies should contain a “strong check” against foreign influence and he recommended to Washington that the command of the military be open only to a “natural born Citizen”. Thus Jay did not agree that simply being a “born Citizen” was sufficient enough protection from foreign influence in the singular most powerful office in the new form of government. Rather, Jay wanted to make sure the President and Commander In Chief owed his allegiance solely to the United States of America. He wanted another adjective added to the eligibility clause, i.e., ‘natural’. And that word ‘natural’ goes to the Citizenship status of one’s parents via natural law.
Below is the relevant change to Hamilton’s proposed language detailed in Jay’s letter written to George Washington dated 25 July 1787:
Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.
See a transcription of Jay’s letter to Washington at this link.
MUCH more and many more links to explore at the Article II facts links at the beginning of this comment.
As you have seen, Christine, for every document there is an equal and opposite document regarding this topic. The only reason this has been a debate at all is because certain people wish to overturn the 2008 election. Some other people feel that Obama's predecessor didn't win the 2000 election—he was selected, not elected, by the Supreme Court. All that faded away fast after 9/11/01 but there are people who nurse doubts to this day about that.
You may quote Vattel's Law of Nations or even founder John Jay as much as you like, but what I quoted to you earlier is the actual law of the land, the United States Code. You asked how someone could be made a citizen retroactively, and I showed you. You repeated a long-debunked claim that Obama traveled to Pakistan on a non-US passport because US citizens were not allowed to go there at the time, and I showed you that that was false.
You are certainly entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.
First the birfers claimed Obama wasn't even an American, demanding he show his BC. Now that he's done it, they want to see his “REAL birth certificate” (whatever that is). Nothing will ever convince them, except for the impossible ability to travel back in time and witness his birth, and nothing will ever satisfy them except to see him gone, and his name obliterated from memory.
You claim that this is not a birfer issue, but it must be. Otherwise, this circus has played all these months just because the subject happens to have dark skin, and that wouldn't look nice, would it?
”I don't claim to be an expert on the topic of the Constitution, but I CAN READ and individuals more scholarly than me (including the Framers) have written extensively on the meaning of natural born citizen status concerning the position of POTUS.”
It's not a question of whether you CAN READ, hostess. It's what you DO READ. Who do you think has a more comprehensive grasp of this subject—World Net Daily, or the US Code?
I was unable to access the “Article II Facts” page because their bandwidth had been exceeded. But I find it noteworthy that their URL has the word 'superpac' as part of their domain name. Somebody's got a dog in that hunt.
BTW, the only person I know who isn't a 'natural-born' US citizen is one of my nieces. Her birth was a Caesarian one.
I just clicked on the link and it works fine. Try the copy and pasting method:
http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html
Even if it is provided by a super-pac, does that mean that the information is false or unreliable? Of course not.
When you state that a person can become a citizen retroactively, I can understand that. But IMHO (and according to much of the documents I have read), one cannot become a natural born citizen retroactively. You either are one at birth, or you are not! Plus, a person can lose their U.S. citizenship!
The current case in the Georgia court is an argument about whether or not Obama is eligible to be placed on the ballot in Georgia for the 2012 election. It isn't about the 2008 election. As was stated in one of the comments I shared from another site, there is the possibility that Obama LOST his U.S. citizenship when his mother married Soetoro, moved to Indonesia, enrolled him in school there (which required, at the time, a renouncement of allegiance to any other country)and then brought Obama Jr. back to the states as an immigrant.
Look, as I stated before, I'm no expert on any of this. However, I think that it is highly suspicious that Obama REFUSES to release his school transcripts. Why? What is he hiding? Isn't it possible, or even plausible, that they might reveal that he was given money as a foreign student to attend U.S. colleges and universities?
Perhaps you have been correct all along. It doesn't have anything to do with the birth certificate. It has more to do with loss of U.S. citizenship when his parents brought him to Indonesia, plus foreign aid for him to attend college in later years in the U.S.
Obama refuses to disclose the truth about much of his past. He should heed his own words:
Youtube: Obama - The only people who don't want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide.
Read about the attempts made to eliminate the "natural born citizen" requirement from qualifications for POTUS - BY THE DEMOCRAT PARTY!
Attempts to Redefine or Amend Article II.
Why would they have done that if the qualification would have not held back Obama (or anyone else) from running for president?
Partial copy: (go to link to access the links to the bills)
5. Attempts to redefine or amend Article II “natural born Citizen” Clause of the U.S. Constitution:
The effort to remove the natural-born citizen requirement from the U.S. Constitution actually began in 1975 – when Democrat House Rep. Jonathon B. Bingham, [NY-22] introduced a constitutional amendment under H.J.R. 33: which called for the outright removal of the natural-born requirement for president found in Article II of the U.S. Constitution – “Provides that a citizen of the United States otherwise eligible to hold the Office of President shall not be ineligible because such citizen is not a natural born citizen.”
Bingham’s first attempt failed and he resurrected H.J.R. 33: in 1977 under H.J.R. 38:, again failing to gain support from members of congress. Bingham was a Yale Law grad and member of the secret society Skull and Bones, later a lecturer at Columbia Law and thick as thieves with the United Nations via his membership in the Council on Foreign Relations.
Bingham’s work lay dormant for twenty-six years when it was resurrected again in 2003 as Democrat members of Congress made no less than eight (8) attempts in twenty-two (22) months, to either eliminate the natural-born requirement, or redefine natural-born to accommodate Barack Hussein Obama II in advance of his rise to power. The evidence is right in the congressional record…
1. On June 11, 2003 Democrat House member Vic Snyder [AR-2] introduced H.J.R 59: in the 108th Congress – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 35 years and who has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years eligible to hold the office of President or Vice President.” – Co-Sponsors: Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14]; Rep Delahunt, William D. [MA-10]; Rep Frank, Barney [MA-4]; Rep Issa, Darrell E. [CA-49]; Rep LaHood, Ray [IL-18]; Rep Shays, Christopher [CT-4].
con't
2. On September 3, 2003, Rep. John Conyers [MI] introduced H.J.R. 67: – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years eligible to hold the office of President.” – Co-Sponsor Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27]
3. On February 25, 2004, Republican Senator Don Nickles [OK] attempted to counter the growing Democrat onslaught aimed at removing the natural-born citizen requirement for president in S.2128: – “Natural Born Citizen Act – Defines the constitutional term “natural born citizen,” to establish eligibility for the Office of President” – also getting the definition of natural born citizen wrong. – Co-sponsors Sen Inhofe, James M. [OK]; Sen Landrieu, Mary L. [LA]
4. On September 15, 2004 – as Barack Obama was about to be introduced as the new messiah of the Democrat Party at the DNC convention, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher [CA-46] introduced H.J.R. 104: – “Constitutional Amendment – “Makes eligible for the Office of the President non-native born persons who have held U.S. citizenship for at least 20 years and who are otherwise eligible to hold such Office.” – No co-sponsors.
5. Again on January 4, 2005, Rep John Conyers [MI] introduced H.J.R. 2: to the 109th Congress – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years eligible to hold the Office of President.” – Co-Sponsor Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27]
6. Rep Dana Rohrabacher [CA-46] tries again on February 1, 2005 in H.J.R. 15: – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes eligible for the Office of the President non-native born persons who have held U.S. citizenship for at least 20 years and who are otherwise eligible to hold such Office.” – No Co-Sponsor
7. On April 14, 2005, Rep Vic Snyder [AR-2] tries yet again with H.J.R. 42: – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 35 years and who has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years eligible to hold the office of President or Vice President.” – Co-Sponsor Rep Shays, Christopher [CT-4]
con't
8. All of these efforts failing in committee and the 2008 presidential election looming with an unconstitutional candidate leading the DNC ticket, Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill, [MO] tries to attach the alteration to a military bill in S.2678: on February 28, 2008 – “Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act – Declares that the term “natural born Citizen” in article II, section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution, dealing with the criteria for election to President of the United States, includes any person born to any U.S. citizen while serving in the active or reserve components of the U.S. armed forces.” – Co-Sponsors DNC Presidential candidate Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY]; DNC Presidential candidate Sen Obama, Barack [IL]; Sen Menendez, Robert [NJ]; Sen Coburn, Tom [OK] – (This was the first effort to also assure that GOP Presidential candidate Sen. John McCain [AZ] would be cleared to run against the DNC primary victor.)
From June 11, 2003 to February 28, 2008, there had been eight (8) different congressional attempts to alter Article II – Section I – Clause V – natural born citizen requirements for president in the U.S. Constitution, all of them failing in committee — All of it taking placing during Barack Obama’s rise to political power and preceding the November 2008 presidential election.
In politics, there are no coincidences… not of this magnitude.
Finally on April 10, 2008, unable to alter or remove the natural born citizen requirement to clear the way for Barack Obama, the U.S. Senate acts to shift focus before the election, introducing and passing S.R.511: – declaring Sen. John McCain a “natural born citizen” eligible to run for and hold the office of president. There was never any honest doubt about McCain, the son of a U.S. Navy Commander. The Sponsor of the resolution is Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill, [MO]
S.R.511 States that John Sidney McCain, III, is a “natural born Citizen” under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States. S.R511 passed by a 99-0 unanimous consent of the Senate, with only John McCain not voting. The basis was – “Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens;” – a condition not met by Barack Hussein Obama II. – Co-Sponsors DNC Presidential candidate Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY]; DNC Presidential candidate Sen Obama, Barack [IL]; Sen Leahy, Patrick J. [VT]; Sen Webb, Jim [VA]; Sen Coburn, Tom [OK] (They had made certain that John McCain would run against Barack Obama)
However, in the McCain resolution is also this language – “Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen’ of the United States; – Whereas the term `natural born Citizen’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;”
The U.S. Constitution is not a dictionary. The definition of “is” is not in the constitution either. Yet this is the text that would later be issued in Congressional Research Service talking points memos distributed to members of congress, to protect an individual that all members of congress know and understand to be an “unconstitutional” resident of the people’s White House – Barack Hussein Obama II.
con't
The U.S. Constitution is not a dictionary. The definition of “is” is not in the constitution either. Yet this is the text that would later be issued in Congressional Research Service talking points memos distributed to members of congress, to protect an individual that all members of congress know and understand to be an “unconstitutional” resident of the people’s White House – Barack Hussein Obama II.
Once again, as the political left was unable to alter the U.S. Constitution by way of legitimate constitutional process, they resorted to altering the constitution via precedent setting, in short, knowingly electing and getting away with seating an unconstitutional president in order to alter Article II requirements for the office via breaking those constitutional requirements.
The press would not ask any questions and the American people were already too ill-informed of their constitution to know or too distracted by daily life to care. The press would provide the cover, swearing to the lies of an unconstitutional administration put in power by criminal actors focused only on their lofty political agenda of forever altering the American form of government.
The people would be caught up in a steady diet of daily assaults on their individual freedom and liberty and overlook the most obvious constitutional crisis in American history, the seating of an unconstitutional and anti-American president. [SOURCE CREDIT]
Also see:
CITIZENSHIP STATUS of the PRESIDENTS OF USA [Note: PDF]
I repeat: I could not access the 'Article II Facts” site because their bandwidth had been exceeded. I did try to copy-and-paste, and that didn't work either. I'll be fair, and try again today, but if I can't get through, I can't get through.
CJW: ”When you state that a person can become a citizen retroactively, I can understand that. But IMHO (and according to much of the documents I have read), one cannot become a natural born citizen retroactively. You either are one at birth, or you are not! Plus, a person can lose their U.S. citizenship!”
The United States Code said otherwise:
...Each of these sections confer citizenship on persons living in these territories as of a certain date, and usually confer natural-born status on persons born in those territories after that date. For example, for Puerto Rico, all persons born in Puerto Rico between April 11, 1899, and January 12, 1941, are automatically conferred citizenship as of the date the law was signed by the President (June 27, 1952). Additionally, all persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, are natural-born citizens of the United States. Note that because of when the law was passed, for some, the natural-born status was retroactive. (emphases mine)
The same law, as you were told, applied to Hawaii. Hawaii was a US State at the time of Obama's birth.
Hawaii is where Obama was born (and no one has ever proven otherwise). Therefore, Obama is a NBC.
Whatever your humble opinion, those are the facts.
8 USC 1841 also lists the ways one can lose US citizenship:
-Becoming naturalized in another country
-Swearing an oath of allegiance to another country
-Serving in the armed forces of a nation at war with the U.S., or if you are an officer in that force
-Working for the government of another nation if doing so requires that you become naturalized or that you swear an oath of allegiance
-Formally renouncing citizenship at a U.S. consular office
-Formally renouncing citizenship to the U.S. Attorney General
-By being convicted of committing treason
If, as you suggest, Obama was enrolled in an Indonesian school and the law required him to renounce his US citizenship, the US government is not required to acknowledge that. They could claim prior rights to him because he was US-born, and by US law, a minor may not renounce citizenship.
All this seems to hang on the belief that schools in Indonesia require a student to be a national citizen. Do they? That shouldn't be too difficult for your sources to find out. I'll be waiting.
Congratulations! Gingrich won in South Carolina! The GOP may finally have its non-Romney candidate. Interest is growing: will it be the non-Muslim versus the real Mormon, or the non-Muslim versus the non-principled?
It's still way too early to say: in 1988 Pat Robertson took the primaries in Washington, Nevada, Alaska and Hawaii; states far, far away from Virginia, where the people couldn't get a good look at him. He got nowhere in New Hampshire, and faded quickly after that. More recently, we've all witnessed Rick Perry's meteoric rise and fall.
Well, Newt's your new champion. I almost hope he wins the nomination.
BTW, it's not “Democrat Party”--that's just lazy language. It's “Democratic Party”.
Since you appear to be unable to access the site, I have copied and pasted most of what is there one the front page in the original blogpost. This way, you can access the links within the post.
Okay, their bandwidth opened up today. After I read it, I learned that you had reformatted to provide links.
Thank you anyway.
I also found out that www.usconstitution.net has suddenly been designated an attack site if one tries to link there through the words “natural born citizen”. Hmmm. As the Article II website declares, ”In politics, there are no coincidences…not of this magnitude.”
Article II cites some good examples, but they give away the game at the very end. The last five paragraphs start with ”The U.S. Constitution is not a dictionary,” and then descends into an orgy of conspiracy-spinning, accusing 'the political left' of ”knowingly electing and getting away with seating an unconstitutional president in order to alter Article II requirements”.
But they can't provide any more evidence for that than they can for Obama's non-qualification for the office he holds.
”The press would not ask any questions and the American people were already too ill-informed of their constitution to know or too distracted by daily life to care. The press would provide the cover, swearing to the lies of an unconstitutional administration put in power by criminal actors focused only on their lofty political agenda of forever altering the American form of government.”
From this statement alone, it's plain that the people at Article II PAC have even more contempt for the American public than they claim the press does. Using emotional arguments in what is supposed to be a discussion of legal documents won't work in an actual court of law, and it shouldn't apply here either. It's an admission that their case can't stand on its own merits. It also doesn't change the facts.
BTW, does Indonesian law require citizenship of the country for a child to attend its schools?
Just a reminder...
I read about the Indonesian law that requires citizenship in the country for a child to attend its public schools at The Obama File.
I first read about it years ago, but had forgotten that little Barry attended a Catholic School there. However, information in the divorce papers indicates that Barry was adopted by Lolo Soetoro, and therefore Indonesian citizenship was transfered to him in that way.
Two paragraphs to share from that link:
Indonesian Law
"The Indonesian Citizenship Law states that children's citizenship is derived solely from the citizenship of the father. Children of citizen mothers and foreign fathers are considered foreigners and require visas to remain in the country until the age of 18, at which time they may apply for citizenship. They are prohibited from attending public schools and must attend private, international schools, which usually are more expensive."
U. S. State Department
Apparently, that statement is taken from the U.S. State Department.
Next:
Was There An Adoption
Obama arrived in Indonesia at about the age of five according to most accounts, although it was possible he arrived at the age of six, according to a few sources. At some time, Lolo Soetoro adopted Barry, and Barry would have automatically become an Indonesian citizen according to the country’s laws in the 1960’s, which stipulated any child is immediately granted Indonesian citizenship upon completion of the adoption process.
As evidence that an adoption occurred, there are the following artifacts:
1. The registration document from the Roman Catholic, Franciscus Assisi Primary School, in Jakarta, Indonesia. Barry Soetoro is registered as a "citizen" of Indonesia.
2. According to Indonesian legal experts, only Indonesian citizens could attend state-operated public schools.
3. In the divorce documents (page1 and page2 [see them at link]), Lolo Soetoro is described as "father" -- "husband has not contributed to support of wife and children" -- "oldest child in university" -- and this curious note, "both mother and child are U. S. citizens while father an Indonesian citizen"
There is accumulating evidence that Anna was something of an expert at taking advantage living abroad, while carefully keeping one foot in the US of A for herself and her children.
*******
At this point, voters deserve to know the absolute and final truth about Obama's eligibility for the 2012 election. That is what is most important. The upcoming court case is related to that issue. IMO, Obama should release his school transcripts and put the matter to rest - one way or the other.
Update 1/23/12:
YouTube Video Link: BREAKING! Obama BC Is Forged! 100% Certainty! 50 Year Typography Expert Claims.
CJW:”The Indonesian Citizenship Law states that children's citizenship is derived solely from the citizenship of the father. Children of citizen mothers and foreign fathers are considered foreigners and require visas to remain in the country until the age of 18, at which time they may apply for citizenship.”
Article 3 of Indonesia's constitution says that a child cannot acquire Indonesian citizenship if it would create dual citizenship unless the child is able to renounce said citizenship (which an American child is unable to do). Obama was, I believe, six years old when he entered Indonesia, and his nationality had already been established as American. He could not have changed it, by either Indonesian OR US law. School records notwithstanding, Obama attended school in Indonesia as a foreigner, not as a citizen. Since Indonesia's constitution does not prohibit anyone within its borders from getting an education, the argument collapses.
Indonesian citizenship is given to:
1. A child born of the marriage of an Indonesian couple;
2. A child born of the marriage of an Indonesian man and foreign woman -- the status of which does not cause dual citizenship;
3. A child born of the marriage of a foreign man and Indonesian woman, both of whom request Indonesian citizenship for their child -- the status of which does not cause dual citizenship;
4. A child born to an unmarried Indonesian woman, the status of which does not cause dual citizenship;
5. A child born in Indonesian territory that is not provided with citizenship by his or her parents;
6. A child born in Indonesian territory whose parents are unknown;
7. A child born in Indonesian territory whose parents have no citizenship.
http://www.expat.or.id/info/revisiontocitizenshiplaw.html
Emphasis mine. Note that in all cases, the operative phrase is “a child born of/in/to”--which Obama was not.
Keep it up, hostess--I can do this as long as you can. Longer.
I'll take a look at this breaking 'story' on YouTube. But I tell you now: when such a case has to go to the court of public opinion before it goes to a court of law, it's already as good as lost.
Ah, I see now. Paul Irey has finished his new, updated evidence as to why the Obama BC is a forgery.
I won't ask who this '50-year typography expert' is. If it's Irey himself, he should subject it to a second opinion; if it's someone else, that someone should identify himself so we'll know that Irey already has that second opinion. I'm sure Mr. Woodman is preparing to tear this one apart as well.
You're right, it really isn't about the birth certificate, is it?
Post a Comment