OBAMA NOT EVEN A UNITED STATES CITIZEN

http://www.scribd.com/doc/17559086/Obama-Not-Even-A-United-States-Citizen-The-Case-Against-Obama-The ^ | July 2, 2009 | Paul Dunk

[conservativegramma]

I handed this to my Congressman

What kind of response did you get?

[Freeper]

mommaobamma worked for little timmy (tax cheat) guitner (sp)

I believe she worked for Timmy "the tax cheat" Geitners FATHER. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[wintertime]

yeah!

I, too, would like to know what response you got.

I have written to my state and federal legislators, governor, state secretary of state, and state attorney general several times over the past 2 1/2 years.

Response: NOTHING! Except from **one** federal Senator and he avoids the issue by using every Democrat talking point out there.

[Mr Rogers]

Do you REALLY see any sign at all that Obama is loyal to England or Kenya? Any loyalty to anyone or anything but himself?

The Constitution has residency requirements for Representatives, and a longer one for Senators. It requires birth for the President. But there is a strong legal case that they did NOT require the President’s parents be citizens...

[jamese777]

Actually, no - its not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Kleindienst

“The initial arrests of the five Watergate burglars took place in the early hours of Saturday, June 17, 1972. Kleindienst was officially notified of the arrests later that morning. The same day, while at a private golf club in Bethesda, Maryland, Kleindienst was personally approached by Gordon Liddy, and informed that the break-in had originated within the Committee to Re-elect the President. Liddy declared further that he, Kleindienst, should now effect the release of the burglars in order to prevent their connection to the CRP from becoming widely known.”

If the AG of US clammed up for two years on this matter why would you think any lower level prosecutor would go after this.

The failure is with the media and their responsibility in a free society. They are failing. Katie, Brian, George S., O’Reily, Hannity and the other media figures are the failures here.

---

The above is a really bad attempt at an analogy. The Watergate break in occurred on June 17, 1972 and by September 15, 1972, a matter of 90 days, Grand Jury indictments for the five men who committed the break-in plus Nixon Administration operatives E. Howard Hunt and Gordon Liddy had already been handed down.
The first Watergate concictions were handed down by January of 1973.
In May 1973, nationally televised hearings before the Senate Watergate Committee had begun.

[edge919]

Do you REALLY see any sign at all that Obama is loyal to England or Kenya? Any loyalty to anyone or anything but himself?

You mean other than bowing to the Queen of England and involving himself in Kenya politics, such as trying to change its Constitution?? Was that a serious question or are you really this disconnected??

But there is a strong legal case that they did NOT require the President’s parents be citizens...

Well, not at all, considering our Constitution was established by the people OF the United States for "ourselves and our posterity." It wasn't established for the people who visited and happened to pop a kid while they were here.

[jamese777]

Thank you for the citation. Unfortunately we will never know what the Supreme Court would have said as the plaintiffs never appealed it to the Supreme Court. One would think all citizens would like to hear what the Supreme Court has to say on this matter with regards to presidential requirements.

Nevertheless we know where the courts stand with regards to this issue. The final battleground will be between one or more states and the federal government. Will we ever get a definitive decision on this, one that isn’t based on the faulty premise of the 14th Amendment rewriting Article II definitions?

---

You’re welcome for the citation.
The plaintiffs in Ankeny did appeal to the Supreme Court of Indiana. The state Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal.
American elections are conducted on a state by state basis with an accumulation of each state’s electoral college votes determining the winner. It is likely that the US Supreme Court will not get involved in a states’ rights issue while there is a conservative majority on the Court.
If Ankeny had won and the Governor of Indiana had been ordered to invalidate Obama’s electoral college votes, that would have initiated a cascade of other states doing the same thing and invalidating the 2008 election on grounds of ineligibility of Obama for not having two American citizen parents.

[Mr Rogers]

“You mean other than bowing to the Queen of England...”

I guess he also is a Japanese citizen, then? And Saudi?

“It wasn’t established for the people who visited and happened to pop a kid while they were here.”

That is what the DISSENT in WKA complained about...but Obama wasn’t raised as a Kenyan, was he? In fact, there is no sign his father ever did squat for him. I suspect Obama has more loyalty to Rev Wright than his father...Obama is a racist, not a Kenyan.

[DryFly]

The mothers of both Herbert Hoover and Woodrow Wilson, to name just two, were born in foreign countries. Does that make a difference in the analysis?

[edge919]

That is what the DISSENT in WKA complained about...but Obama wasn’t raised as a Kenyan, was he?

The dissent was responding to the plaintiff's argument which the majority punted in favor of its new concept "citizenship by birth" via the 14th amendment. The WKA decision otherwise affirmed that the nomenclature of the founders considered the natives or natural born citizens to be those born in the country of citizen parents. As far as Obama being raised Kenyan, the answer is no. He was raised as an Indonesian. I think I already mentioned he is a multinational with citizenships on four continents. With an actual natural born citizen, there's no natural inclination for ANY foreign allegiance, while Obama has several conflicts of nationality interests.

I suspect Obama has more loyalty to Rev Wright than his father...Obama is a racist, not a Kenyan.

Rev. Wright was a tool for Obama to get street credibility as an African American. Since Obama was raised as Indonesian and later by white grandparents, he didn't have much exposure to African American culture.

[edge919]

The mothers of both Herbert Hoover and Woodrow Wilson, to name just two, were born in foreign countries. Does that make a difference in the analysis?

Both mothers moved to the United States as children and lived in the United States for at least 10 years prior to birthing their children. It's pretty reasonable to assume these women naturalized, especially under the marriage/citizenship laws at the time, which made it automatic. These women were permanent U.S. residents and apparently lived here as citizens. By contrast, Obama's father did not stay in the United States. Obama's mama did not stay in the United States. Obama did not stay in the United States, although he did return later. At best, this would mean any allegiance Obama had to the United States had to skip a generation since he ended up being raised by his grandparents. It's not even close to being the same as Hoover or Wilson.

[DryFly]

OK, so to you, an NBC does not mean born in the US of NBC parents, correct?

[Mr Rogers]

“He was raised as an Indonesian.”

Not hardly. Please don’t make up historical facts the way you make up legal theory.

And the dissent was NOT responding to the plaintiff’s argument, unless you think the plaintiff was arguing to be allowed to run for President.

[edge919]

OK, so to you, an NBC does not mean born in the US of NBC parents, correct?

No, I didn't say that at all. Maybe you need to reread what I wrote.

[ebysan]

I did not get a response!!

I sent my comments to them again today.

I think they do not believe that we are serious!!

White House insider warns of dire consequences from eligibility issue
January 27th, 2011 12:54 pm ET

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-national/white-house-insider-warns-of-dire-consequences-from-eligibility-issue#ixzz1CM0UDjIA

Evidence is growing that the White House is so sensitive about stories in the media concerning the issue of Presidential eligibility that reporters have been warned of dire consequences if they merely ask questions about the subject.

A White House insider has reported that the subject is so highly sensitive that reporters must ‘tread softly’ and ‘be very careful’ if they dare delve into Obama’s background.

There is also information that suggests mainstream media sources now have all of the facts about the issue but intend to go on the offensive in protecting Obama at all costs. In the insider’s own words,

However, the bombshell evidence of the willingness of the Obama team to engage in threats and intimidation over the eligibility issue is encapsulated in a 2009 special report documenting outright media manipulation by the White House. According to the report,

...extremely sensitive investigative documents, including a stunning written admission by a nationally known talk show host stating that he was threatened with his career – or worse – should he talk about the issue of Barack Hussein Obama’s birth records to a national audience. This document was obtained on December 10, 2008, and provides explicit detail of a “gag order” imposed on this host before and immediately following the national election last November.

That, however, is only the tip of the iceberg. The report also contains this stunning admission by an administrative assistant within a major news network in New York:

From multiple interviews conducted within the last eight months, we have obtained information from other sources, independent of the above, who have also been instructed to avoid any discussion of the birth certificate issue at all costs, to wit:

The account of an administrative assistant employed in New York City by a cable network news station who provided significant, detailed information of a 2008 meeting between the top network executive and four-(4) well-known news anchors. This source confirmed that she drafted the memo to the various hosts to arrange notify them of the date, time and location of this high-level meeting at the request of the network’s top executive.

Present at this meeting, she verified that the network official issued “warnings” to the personalities “to avoid any on-air discussion of the birth place, eligibility, and news accounts of litigation compelling [Barack Hussein] Obama to produce a legitimate copy of his birth certificate.” She stated that the network executive had her arrange the conference immediately following a meeting “between [the network executive] and an attorney closely associated with candidate Obama who was acting on his behalf.”

The report goes further to indicate that not only were news reporters and talk show hosts pressured to withhold information under the threat of losing their jobs but that inherent in the threats was a subtle but distinct hint that any such dissemination of information could result in bodily harm or worse.

Fast-forward to January of 2011. A close friend of Hawaii Governor Neil Abercrombie, a veteran celebrity reporter by the name of Mike Evans, stated in a radio interview on January 19 that the Governor had initiated an extensive search of records that would prove Obama’s eligibility, and that no such records could be found. But once the story of the allegations hit the news wires yesterday, Evans retracted everything he said by the end of the day on January 26.

Was Mike Evans threatened by someone either close to or within the Obama team?
There are no answers to that question at this time, but given the history of this issue, such a thing would fit a pattern established by those who were schooled in what is known as ‘the Chicago way.’

[devattel]

Mr Rogers said:

You don’t want to go there, since the people, in a national election, put in office a man they knew had a foreign born father. In that sense, the PEOPLE spoke, and you are just whining about the results.

The United States does not live via Mob Rule. Laws have been enacted to protect the Republic. Ignorance to the law, or disregard of it as a matter of convenience or "Hope and Change", does not excuse the infractions of these laws.

The United States is not a democracy either. We the People never vote a president directly into office, so your interpretation is unfounded.

The way the process works is simple. We vote for electors to represent us. Those electors vote for the President and Vice President and these candidates become elects. Different states have different quantities of electors. Therefore, our votes never have the same influence on the office of the President. Smaller states have greater voting power than those in states such as California. Regardless as to what the "PEOPLE" have spoken, we never touch a ballot that winds up in the hands of Congress. It was the electors who have SPOKEN and put the man into office.

Our system of government is via indirect weighted representation. As such, we are a Republic.

As far as "whining about the results", some members on Free Republic may be doing just that. However, many of us are gravely concerned about the Constitutionality of the current administration. If anything Obama has done a fine job of destroying his own usurping administration. His authority has been challenged, his laws reversed, and his track record is on a faster pace to the bottom than Millard Fillmore, who to this date is considered to be to the worst president this nation ever elected.

[Mr Rogers]

In post 195 you wrote:

“Once that decision is made, We the People would then have the ability to decide for ourselves. After all, we are the ultimate arbiters. What we say goes, and there is nothing anyone can do to take this right away from us. If we say de Vattel is the correct interpretation, it is the correct interpretation.”

NOW, in 216 you write:

“The United States does not live via Mob Rule. Laws have been enacted to protect the Republic. Ignorance to the law, or disregard of it as a matter of convenience or “Hope and Change”, does not excuse the infractions of these laws.”

So - which is it? As a matter of law, I think the US Supreme Court refused to hear the case in Dec 2008 because they thought it frivolous. I wish they had instead taken it and ruled - I think they could have done the decision in about an hour.

As a matter of what the people want - Obama advertised the fact that his father was Kenyan, and that he was raised without him. The people knew, and they voted for him anyway. Why? I don’t know. I sometimes think Obama is God’s judgment on a nation that increasingly rejects Him.

[DryFly]

Ok, so then you are saying that to be an NBC one must be born in the US of two NBCs. Got it.

[devattel]

Mr Rogers said:

So - which is it? As a matter of law, I think the US Supreme Court refused to hear the case in Dec 2008 because they thought it frivolous. I wish they had instead taken it and ruled - I think they could have done the decision in about an hour.

It is clear based on your statements you do not understand what an arbiter is. An arbiter is a one who has the power to judge. One cannot be an arbiter unless judgement is requested. Arbiting is based on a formal judicial process.

Voting in elections does not rewrite the law nor is a judicial process. The 2008 electors knew full well they were sending a foreign born elect to the White House. There is simply no excuse for their actions. These electors and Congress must be judged for their actions in violation of the Constitution. This is the process for clarifying the law, not the election process.

There is a distinct difference between de-facto law and formal law. If We the People do not like the law, we demand it to be amended using the system that is there to serve us. We decide what is best, not the government. However, voting for an illegal president is NOT the solution to ratifying de-facto law nor is it a declaratory judgement in favor of one interpretation over another. It is akin to the Supreme Court declaring what is called "bench legislation". We do not change the law by simply ignoring it through Mob Rule.

Do you now see the distinction between Mob Rule and judicial arbiting?

[Mr Rogers]

Ah...so you want a Constitutional Amendment clarifying the NBC clause.

“The 2008 electors knew full well they were sending a foreign born elect to the White House. “

Bullshit! They had no reason to believe Obama didn’t meet the Constitutional requirement of NBC. Nor is there any evidence of it now. No evidence he’s foreign born, and none that the Founders wanted a requirement for the President to be “born of citizen parents” - 4 words they COULD have written, but did not.