Skip to comments.Congress: Arrest Mr. Obama
Posted on 07/07/2010 3:17:29 PM PDT by ATLAHWorldwide
Congress: Arrest Mr. Obama
Dr. James David Manning calls for Congress to arrest Mr. Obama. Recorded on 21 June 2010. http://atlah.org/atlahworldwide/?p=8723
Good ole Rev. Manning. I can always count on him to cheer me up if I am having a bad day. Obama won’t be impeached, let alone arrested, but it is always reassuring knowing men like Manning are spreading not only the Word but the truth about Obambi.
Congress doesn’t have the jurisdiction or authority to arrest anyone (heck, they really stretch their subpoena powers as it is). Their authorization under the law regarding this case would be impeachment.
I understand that “Dr.” Manning knows a great deal about being arrested and sent to prison.
not going to happen
Still fighting for your boss, Obama, I see.
I happen to agree. There is absolutely no reason Mr. Obama should not be tried for treason.
Just because you believe Manning to be a charlatan does not mean that you’re on Obama’s side...
I would like to see Obama tried for treason.
yep, tried for treason, and deported to his native Africa.
Yep, the first time I heard of him was through FR I clicked on a link to a youtube vid and heard this man’s rant about how white people are gonna riot and he’s joining em! Lol, he can be funny, but I know he’s dead serious about how he feels about Obama and the various dangers to the country and I’m glad to have his voice out there.
This guy always cheers me up.He will never quit putting a boot up zeros rear.
“Their authorization under the law regarding this case would be impeachment.”
Nobody, at the whitehouse or in congress, is following the law. If you follow “the law,” while your enemy obeys no law, you will lose. The only time you can possibly follow “the law,” is if you have enough firepower to enforce “the law.”
It does if you're on your fifth pair of Obama kneepads in only 18 months.....
I’d love to see barry perp walked out live prime time.
If a person isn’t a natural born citizen they can’t be, and aren’t, president. How is it possible to impeach someone who isn’t president? They would be instead a usurper,a traitor, or foreign enemy.
This is the stupidest statement I have ever seen on FR and I’ve seen quite a few. Bozo is President, unfortunately, whether some people recognize that fact or not. Since he is considered the President he can be impeached. Your statement is ludicrous in the extreme.
It’s right there in the Constitution. To be a president one must be a natural born citizen. If the person isn’t a natural born citizen, he may be a fraud but he isn’t president.
Hey Dr. Manning, havent you been keeping up. You cant arrest illegal aliens (except in Arizona.) and Barry Soetoro is avoiding AZ like the plague.
And they can’t cry “Racism!” when he challenges the idiocy of this administration.
“Bozo is President”
Ain’t my pres__ent. Never was, never will.
I would find it hard to believe that if Ozero shot and killed Michelle that he WOULDN’T be arrested and jailed and tried and convicted and sentenced and serve the sentence. When asswipes like Ozero purposely DESTROY the United States he stands GUILTY in my eyes of a felony and should be arrested! Stat!
It doesn’t matter how you, or any birther, sees Bozo(BTW, I think he is ineligible also)the fact is the majority of the country believes him to be President, therefore he can, and should be, impeached. It will be easier to impeach him than to get him thrown out for being ineligible.
You, and the other guy,(he knows who he is)need to take reading comprehension lessons BTW, I never said I support Bozo. I never even use his name when I comment about him, BUT he is considered to be the President by the majority of the people, and in absence of his long form BC to prove where he is born, any court cases will be thrown out. He is impeachable, period, and that was my point, something you and the other guy seemed to miss.
While obama is the worst “president” in history , being a bozo is not a impeachable crime. What would you impeach him on? We are a Constitutional Republic ,a nation of laws,not mob rule. It does not matter if 99.99% of the people voted for obama , according to our Constitution he is not the legal President.
We need 5 million people all armed with the proper paperwork and all individually demanding a citizens arrest to Obama.
I know that is a conservative figure but its a goal, encircle Washington like Apaches upon a western fort in the old west.
On July 6th, 2010, an ‘unopposed motion for extension to file opening brief’ was filed in the Keyes/Barnett v Obama lawsuit now in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in California. Appellants’ seek an extension until August 12th, 2010 to file the opening brief in the Keyes/Barnett v Obama appeal. The original schedule to file was June 28th, 2010. Previously, the Court granted Appellants’ an extension until July 12th, 2010, but due to serious complications from back surgery Attorney Gary Kreep is unable to meet that date. The motion was filed by Attorney Christopher P. Tucker. Below is an excerpt, regarding Attorney Kreep, from the motion filed yesterday, July 6th, 2010. The full motion embedded below excerpt.
Not enforcing the immigration laws is an impeachable offense, it is illegal for him to not up hold them, taking over private companies and the student loans are also illegal and impeachable, dismissing a case on racial grounds is also impeachable.
The problem is we have a legislature that won't impeach him no matter what he does, not from lack of offenses from which to choose.
I don’t disagree with you on much of what you say , but My primary point is that I think it would be easier to prove obama is in violation of Article 2 then it would be to prove any impeachable offence. A person is either a natural born citizen or he is not . THE problem is that the A.G.(holder) is the one that has to issue the Quo Waranto(demand to show proof). All cases against obama have ben dismissed on standing.( they didn’t have a right to question obama’s egibility ). obama court cases has cost almost 2 million dollars so far just to make sure no one gets a Certified Copy of his birth certificate. He know that this is his weak link, anyone who gets a copy of his birth record has proof that he is not a Natural Born citizen. Of course all the proof in the world means nothing if congress will not enforce the law.
To OUST Obama from power will take a more RUTHLESS man.
It is speculated, not proven or ruled on, that Obama doesn't qualify for the office of president.
How is it possible to impeach someone who isnt president?
Impeach means to make an accusation against. To prove Obama illegally occupies the oval office he must first be impeached, the charges against him investigated, and if there is sufficient evidence to support the charge, tried in the Senate.
They would be instead a usurper,a traitor, or foreign enemy.
If you honor the Constitution and the rule of law, then you must uphold the Constitution by following the process it provides. We are not yet a banana republic.
In short, Obama is president until it is proven he doesn't qualify. This is pretty basic stuff; if you didn't get it in school, then you should have been informed during the Clinton impeachment when it was reported on and discussed ad nauseum.
If Obama senior was already married in Kenya then was his marriage to Obama's mother valid? If Obama's parents we're not legally married, then does Obama's father's citizenship have any bearing on his own citizenship?
Why the insult?
I have read the opinions of the lawyers here on Free Republic from both sides ( both the afterbirters and the defenders of the Constitution). Given the heated discussion and long posts sprinkled with links, I conclude that this isn't “basic” stuff. Anyone with minimal reading comprehension skills would understand this. ( My turn for an insult.)
So...During WWII, during the Battle of the Bulge, when Hitler dressed up his soldiers as military officers and sent them behind our lines, did that make these men American officers? **If** Obama is found through discovery, not to be a natural born citizen, ( or even a citizen at all) then he can dress himself up in the “uniform” of the White House, but that doesn't make him a president. There are those who disagree with you. Impeachment is reserved for valid presidents.
At this point, we must now agree to disagree.
Gee! Isn't this was "basic" stuff? Why all the questions? Didn't you get the answers to all this "basic" stuff in school? ( Just wondering.)
The definition of "natural born citizen" within the meaning of the Constitution may not be basic stuff in that there is some room for debate, but the process for removing a sitting president is clearly outlined in the Constitution.
Anyone with minimal reading comprehension skills would understand this. ( My turn for an insult.)
Apparently you don't.
So...During WWII, during the Battle of the Bulge, when Hitler dressed up his soldiers as military officers and sent them behind our lines, did that make these men American officers?
That isn't even remotely analogous.
**If** Obama is found through discovery, not to be a natural born citizen, ( or even a citizen at all) then he can dress himself up in the uniform of the White House, but that doesn't make him a president. There are those who disagree with you. Impeachment is reserved for valid presidents.
Obama was elected by a comfortable margin. The electoral vote was duly cast and accepted by none other than Cheney without a peep, and Chief Justice Roberts administered the oath. That's what makes him president and worthy of impeachment.
How are you going to get "discovery"?
but the process for removing a sitting president is clearly outlined in the Constitution.
If he isn’t a natural born citizen he isn’t a president. He is a criminal fraud. And...There has been plenty of discussion about that on both sides. Claiming that there hasn’t is pure denial.
Highly unlikely that this is going anywhere.
But we are still waiting to hear about Kenneth Allen’s FOIA request.
If he isnt a natural born citizen he isnt a president. He is a criminal fraud. And...There has been plenty of discussion about that on both sides. Claiming that there hasnt is pure denial.
There have now been seventy adjudications in Obama eligibility lawsuits including eight at the Supreme Court of the United States (Berg v Obama Beverly v FEC, Craig v US, Donofrio v Wells, Beverly v FEC, Herbert v Obama, Lightfoot v Bowen, Schneller v Cortes, and Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz).
No Court has found Obama to be ineligible and two state courts in have found him to be eligible: “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by [the Supreme Court of the United States in their 1898 decision in the case of U.S. v.] Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are natural born Citizens for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those born in the allegiance of the United States natural-born citizens.Indiana Court of Appeals, Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels, Nov. 12, 2009
If Obama is a CRIMINAL fraud, it is astonishing to me that there has been no attempt made to remove him via the criminal justice system. All the attempts have been via civil lawsuits.
Any prosecuting attorney could initiate a Grand Jury investigation of Obama for election fraud and then that prosecutor could issue subpoenas and compel witnesses to testify under oath. There are no issues of legal standing to sue to prevent a criminal investigation from going forward in the criminal justice system.
Both the Nixon resignation and the Clinton impeachment were initiated through Grand Juries.
Whether or not obama’s mother was legally married or not is of no importance . Natural Born citizenship requires that both Parents be U.S. citizens , not whether they are legally married. For what’s it’s worth in 1790 , citizenship was carried by the man, women did not acquire the right to pass on citizenship until the 1920’s. obama could be a native born citizens , but there is no way he could be a Natural born citizen.
Hopefully congress will listen to this man and arrest him.
Whether or not obamas mother was legally married or not is of no importance . Natural Born citizenship requires that both Parents be U.S. citizens , not whether they are legally married. For whats its worth in 1790 , citizenship was carried by the man, women did not acquire the right to pass on citizenship until the 1920s. obama could be a native born citizens , but there is no way he could be a Natural born citizen.
That is why the US Supreme Court has rejected all eight Obama eligibility appeals that have reached them.
Here’s the law:
Since the Wong KIm Ark case (1890’s) native born(naturalized ) has been recognized. Where as Ark was born to parents that had allegiance to the U.S. by immigration(legal) they were not yet citizens and did not have FULL AND COMPLETE ALLEGIANCE as was required for a Natural Born citizen. All the cases in the Supreme Court has been rejected on Standing. A citizen does not have the right(standing ) to file a case against obama for lack of egibility. No case has been heard based on the merits of the case. If one was obama would not be sitting in the White House.
Since the Wong KIm Ark case (1890s) native born(naturalized ) has been recognized. Where as Ark was born to parents that had allegiance to the U.S. by immigration(legal) they were not yet citizens and did not have FULL AND COMPLETE ALLEGIANCE as was required for a Natural Born citizen. All the cases in the Supreme Court has been rejected on Standing. A citizen does not have the right(standing ) to file a case against obama for lack of egibility. No case has been heard based on the merits of the case. If one was obama would not be sitting in the White House.
Also, from the actual US v Wong Kim Ark decision:
The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that 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, contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.US v Wong Kim Ark (1898)
The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.U.S. v Wong Kim Ark (1898)
finally, the US Supreme Court ruled that:
“We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the natural born citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1.
Distinctions between native-born and naturalized citizens in connection with foreign residence are drawn in the Constitution itself. Only a native-born may become President, Art. II, § 1. “Schneider v. Rusk,” 377 US 163 Supreme Court 1964
You are correct that those who oppose Obama as ineligible have failed to present a plaintiff who would be granted legal standing to sue Obama and have a lawsuit decided on the merits. The person most likely to have legal standing is John McCain, the only other person to receive Electoral Votes. One federal judge did contemplate granting standing to Allen Keyes in “Keyes v Obama” but the judge decided against it since Keyes was only on the ballot in three states and therefore had no serious chance of winning.
There are no issues of standing in the CRIMINAL courts and I’ve been surprised that no one has tried convening a grand jury investigation of Obama for election fraud on the criminal side of the judicial equation. A grand jury could subpoena Obama’s birth documents and compel witnesses to testify under oath. If everything is on the up and up after the investigation, the Grand Jury is disbanded. If there is evidence of a crime having been committed, an indictment could be handed down by a prosecutor or special counsel.
For example, I know that Obama signed a document to get on the ballot in Arizona (and possibly other states) saying that he was a natural born citizen. A grand jury could investigate that.
Both Nixon’s resignation and Clinton’s impeachment stemmed from grand jury investigations
Article 1, Section 9, of the Constitution prohibits bills of attainder.
For Saul Alinsky reasons Obama's eligibility will be a nearly bottomless pit of laughs as the election approach.
"Senate-seeker wants Obama birth-certificate treatment"
"A Mexican-born candidate for U.S. Senate said he is considering a lawsuit against the Missouri secretary of state for discrimination because her office forced him to produce a birth certificate but "didn't make Obama show proof of citizenship" to appear on the ballot."
"It said, 'Hey, you have to prove you're a citizen.' I ignored it," he said. "You know, Obama ignored it, so I figured I could get away with it, too."
The audience began laughing, applauding and cheering during his statement.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.