BirtherReport.com Interviews British Attorney Claiming Knowledge That Obama was Born in Kenya

Birther Report + The Post & Email ^ | soon | Birther Report

[Steven Tyler]

So far, just a repeat of the 7 minute video. Wait and see, I imagine BR and Post & Email will get a few hits this weekend

Mar. 7, 2014) — BirtherReport.com and The Post & Email can report that an exclusive interview was conducted on Friday evening with Barrister Michael Shrimpton, who first appeared in a video released on February 26, 2014 stating unequivocally that Barack Hussein Obama "was born in Mombasa, Kenya."

Topics discussed during the two-hour interview include the meaning of the U.S. Constitution's Article II "natural born Citizen" clause;....; what is really driving the unrest in Ukraine; the death of novelist Tom Clancy; and the actions Shrimpton believes should be taken as a result of Obama's usurpation of the presidency.

"He's not a U.S. citizen," Shrimpton told BirtherReport and this writer in a riveting session conducted over Skype.

[Nero Germanicus]

And yet “Justice” is blind.
There is a difference between simply following the law and blind obedience.

[Ray76]

But they’re not following law, they are issuing decrees. For example, Masin declaring “Obama born in Hawaii” without any supporting evidence in the record.

If you chose to follow liars then that is blind obedience.

[Nero Germanicus]

Don’t kill the messenger. I don’t write the judicial decisions, I post the rulings. If there should come a time that a court rules favorably to those challenging Obama’s eligibility, I’ll post those rulings.
One of the most conservative state Supreme Courts in the nation, the Alabama Supreme Court (no Democrat Justices among the nine and two acknowledged arch-conservatives, Chief Justice Roy Moore and Justice Tom Parker) have had an Obama eligibility appeal under advisement for about a year now (since 3/26/13) and we await their ruling.
I see no reason for a conservative state Supreme Court composed of ELECTED judges in a state that Mitt Romney carried by 21 points to rule on anything other than the law.

[Huskerfan44]

Spin, spin, spin, spin, spin, ..........

[Huskerfan44]

Swift - what is stated as applicable to the state of Connecticut does not define or redefine the Constitution.

[Nero Germanicus]

The Tenth Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

There is no all encompassing federal election law, except dealing with campaign finance. Each state plus the District of Columbia determines who is eligible under the Constitution to run for office in that state.

If any state passed a law stating that two American citizen parents were required in order to be eligible as a natural born citizen, I’m certain that law would be challenged at the Supreme Court of the United States and we might finally get a definitive clarification. But no state has passed such a law and neither has Congress.

The current interpretation of Article 2, Section 1 is that a person born in the United States is a natural born citizen, as long as they do not hold diplomatic immunity or they are not a member of a foreign invading military.

[PA-RIVER]

The states shouldn’t need to pass law to require singular citizenship candidates. The constitution requires it.

When Obama was running in 2008, I told my daughter, a liberal Democrat, Truth be told, communist, that Obama will be disqualified. That he can’t be president because he has had multiple citizenships from birth.

Being the Obot that she is, she said that’s a good thing. She said that’s even more reason to vote for him. I think that attitude was common. It shocked me, so I never forgot.

So I understand the mentality.Breaking this clause has been a feather in the communist cap for anti Americans libs.

[PA-RIVER]

The states shouldn’t need to pass law to require singular citizenship candidates. The constitution requires it.

When Obama was running in 2008, I told my daughter, a liberal Democrat, Truth be told, communist, that Obama will be disqualified. That he can’t be president because he has had multiple citizenships from birth.

Being the Obot that she is, she said that’s a good thing. She said that’s even more reason to vote for him. I think that attitude was common. It shocked me, so I never forgot.

So I understand the mentality.Breaking this clause has been a feather in the communist cap for anti Americans libs.

[PA-RIVER]

Alabama, good point. Maybe that’s nut that’s about to crack.

Hopefully we get a bunch of good news.

Identity fraud, election fraud, conspiracy to corrupt state officials.

Let’s keep our fingers crossed Germanicus.

[PA-RIVER]

Violation of civil right would be nice too.

A Nobel prize winner using tax code to crush dissent, you go to love it, Nero.

[DoodleDawg]

I see no reason for a conservative state Supreme Court composed of ELECTED judges in a state that Mitt Romney carried by 21 points to rule on anything other than the law.

And the law they are ruling on is whether the Alabama Secretary of State was required to verify a presidential candidates eligibility prior to the election. If the Alabama Supreme Court sticks to ruling on the law, as you hope, then those who expect them to blow the lid off the Obama birth certificate issue will be sadly disappointed.

[MMaschin]

And the law they are ruling on is whether the Alabama Secretary of State was required to verify a presidential candidates eligibility prior to the election. If the Alabama Supreme Court sticks to ruling on the law, as you hope, then those who expect them to blow the lid off the Obama birth certificate issue will be sadly disappointed.

Will the Alabama Supreme court ruling result in an action directly towards Obama - no. Why? Because the election is over. But the case is not moot. In Roe v. Wade, Roe was no longer pregnant, and that case was not moot. Like Roe, the court will rule to establish precedent, and to give future guidance. In order to do so, the court must look at the facts of THIS case, the case involving Obama.

Their ruling very well could be that after looking at the evidence presented, it is sufficient to show proof that no, Obama was not Constitutionally qualified to run for the office of President. And in doing so, bring forth all of the evidence presented that led to it's decision. It could also state that while the court is not in a position to offer relief in this case (just as in Roe, the court could not offer her an abortion), it's decision was that yes, the SOS is required in all future Presidential elections to verify the NBC status of every candidate.

The court would most likely also give guidance as to what the term-of-art "natural born Citizen" legally meant. It could cite legal precedent of Minor v. Happersett, Wong v. Ark, and ex parte Lockwood, that NBC was the legal state of Citizenship established when no Positive law required for Citizenship.


So, while the court could offer no relief in the current case, it could use this case to 1) rule that Obama was not eligible to run for the office of President, 2) show the evidence as to why he was not eligible, 3) rule that in future election the SOS is required to verify that all Presidential candidates are "natural born Citizens", and 4) provide specific guidelines as to what constitutes a "natural born Citizen".


In my opinion, the "March press conference", that has been talked about for so long, will be after this Alabama court ruling. And will be provided to present the evidence, cited in the AL case, to the media. And to answer the media's questions.

If the above plays out as I've stated above, there is no chance that Congress, and SCOTUS will be able to avoid this issue any longer.

While I agree that the court can offer no relief in this case, I can assure you, I will not be "sadly disappointed"!

[Diego1618]

I see no reason for a conservative state Supreme Court composed of ELECTED judges in a state that Mitt Romney carried by 21 points to rule on anything other than the law.

Then....as I've said a couple of times earlier......I have a bridge you may be interested in looking at....CHEAP!

You are ignoring the realty of the situation and only looking at the fantasy. There are political reasons people do not want to call a spade.....a spade (no pun intended). Their "Political" decisions reflect that timidity.

[MMaschin]

I see no reason for a conservative state Supreme Court composed of ELECTED judges in a state that Mitt Romney carried by 21 points to rule on anything other than the law.

Why would a court rule on a case about abortion when the plaintiff is no longer pregnant? Answer - because the situation is repeatable, and the court recognizes that the legal system is not always swift enough to deal every situation, therefore it rules on the facts of the case, to create precedent for future cases of the same nature.

This is what happened in Roe v. Wade, the state said that issue was moot, because the plaintiff was no longer pregnant. The court ruled that since pregnancy was limited in time, and that that time might not allow for a case to always proceed, mootness is waived, and the case is to be heard, not to provide relief in this case, but to establish precedent for future cases of the same nature.

The case before the AL court is similar in nature, the time before an election is limited in the same way a pregnancy is limited, therefore the court could (and appears to be be doing so) decide the facts of the case before it, even though no relief is possible.


Below I'm am reposting my summation of what I believe is likely going on with the AL supreme court case.


Will the Alabama Supreme court ruling result in an action directly towards Obama - no. Why? Because the election is over. But the case is not moot. In Roe v. Wade, Roe was no longer pregnant, and that case was not moot. Like Roe, the court will rule to establish precedent, and to give future guidance. In order to do so, the court must look at the facts of THIS case, the case involving Obama.

Their ruling very well could be that after looking at the evidence presented, it is sufficient to show proof that no, Obama was not Constitutionally qualified to run for the office of President. And in doing so, bring forth all of the evidence presented that led to it's decision. It could also state that while the court is not in a position to offer relief in this case (just as in Roe, the court could not offer her an abortion), it's decision was that yes, the SOS is required in all future Presidential elections to verify the NBC status of every candidate.

The court would most likely also give guidance as to what the term-of-art "natural born Citizen" legally meant. It could cite legal precedent of Minor v. Happersett, Wong v. Ark, and ex parte Lockwood, that NBC was the legal state of Citizenship established when no Positive law required for Citizenship.

So, while the court could offer no relief in the current case, it could use this case to 1) rule that Obama was not eligible to run for the office of President, 2) show the evidence as to why he was not eligible, 3) rule that in future election the SOS is required to verify that all Presidential candidates are "natural born Citizens", and 4) provide specific guidelines as to what constitutes a "natural born Citizen".

In my opinion, the "March press conference", that has been talked about for so long, will be after this Alabama court ruling. And will be provided to present the evidence, cited in the AL case, to the media. And to answer the media's questions.

If the above plays out as I've stated above, there is no chance that Congress, and SCOTUS will be able to avoid this issue any longer.

[Political Junkie Too]

...the time before an election is limited in the same way a pregnancy is limited...

And the people are screwed the same way that the mother was... oh, never mind...

-PJ

[DoodleDawg]

Their ruling very well could be that after looking at the evidence presented, it is sufficient to show proof that no, Obama was not Constitutionally qualified to run for the office of President.

But they are not ruling on Obama's eligibility. They are ruling whether, under Alabama law, the Secretary of State is required to independently verify candidate eligibility prior to allowing the name on the ballot. If the court rules that the SoS should have, then she was remiss in not validating Obama, Romney, and every other candidate. If the court rules that under the law the SoS was not required to, then Obama's eligibility - or lack thereof - is irrelevant.

[Nero Germanicus]

SCOTUS justices aren’t elected and some of the Justices who ruled on Roe v Wade were among the most liberal Democrat Justices of the last century. In my humble opinion your attempt at an analogy with McInnish v. Chapman fails on those two key differences alone. Elected judges have to care about the will of the voters while lifetime appointed judges do not.

The issue before the Alabama Supreme Court is a narrow one: does Alabama election law require the Secretary of State to check and approve the qualifications of a presidential candidate and remove an ineligible candidate from the Alabama ballot.

[MMaschin]

Maybe, maybe not, we will know soon enough - after the “bell has been wrung”.

[Nero Germanicus]

The reason that the Courts and Congress haven’t intervened in Obama’s dual citizenship is because there is historical precedent for dual citizen presidents. Barack Obama is the third president to be born with automatic inherited dual citizenship.
The first was James Buchanan. Buchanan missed being eligible for the constitution’s Article II, Section 1 grandfather clause by four years. He was born in 1791 and the Constitution was ratified in 1787.
Buchanan’s father (also named James Buchanan) was a citizen of Ireland who had immigrated to the United States and became naturalized as an American citizen. Ireland at that time was part of the British Empire. By virtue of British law known as “nemo potest exuere patriam,” [”No one can cast off his country”] Buchanan was a British subject for life and he his son inherited British citizenship as well.

The second dual citizen to become president was Chester Alan Arthur. Arthur was the son of an Irish immigrant (William Arthur). President Arthur’s father also became a naturalized U.S. Citizen when Chester was 14 years old. Chester A. Arthur was also a British subject under British law. But unlike President Buchanan, Chester A. Arthur’s British nationality was rescinded with the passage of the British Naturalization Act of 1870 (When Chester A. Arthur was 41 years old).

Barack Obama lost his Kenyan citizenship at age 23 when he did not affirmatively act to retain it. Kenya, at that time, did not acknowledge dual-citizenship. Kenya required a person to make a choice.

Both Presidents George Washington and James Madison were granted honorary French citizenship by the French Assembly, just like the Marquis de Lafayette was granted honorary U.S. Citizenship.
Tom Paine, while never a president, was certainly a Founder and he accepted French citizenship and was elected to the French National Convention.

[Nero Germanicus]

Yep.