Skip to comments.New Hampshire Wakes Up to Obama's Social Security Fraud
Posted on 11/16/2011 6:31:19 PM PST by circumbendibus
A hearing is scheduled in front of the New Hampshire Ballot Law Commission on Friday to hear a complaint filed by Orly Taitz, with the apparent support of two state lawmakers, that raises allegations of fraudulent documents and fraudulent Social Security Number use on the part of Barack Obama.
The hearing is scheduled Friday at 2 p.m. in Room 307 of the New Hampshire Legislative Office Building and Taitz is encouraging the public to be present.
The state holds the first primary for presidential elections, and that is scheduled for Jan. 10, 2012.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Quite interesting development. It may be the start of a wonderful downfall for the Kenyan usurper.
How about Bari Shabazz being the son of Jo Ann Newman?
Is Bari Shabazz the son of Jo Ann Newman?
Back to the thread, please check out link at # 22.
Thanks, Satin Doll.
Let’s hope New Hampshire isn’t sleeping on this one.
From the Link:
Regardless of whether 0bamas biological father is Malcolm X (a citizen of the United States), 0bamas legal father is Barack 0bama Sr. and it will stay that way regardless of what 0bama might attempt to do to change that. 0bama is therefore not a natural born Citizen and not eligible to be President.
Obama's citizenship was governed by the version of the Immigration and Nationality Act that was in effect at the time he was born. It was dated something like 1952 or 1954. I cannot remember exactly what the requirements were at the time.
HOWEVER, that DOES NOT settle the "natural-born citizen" [NBC] question since it HAS NEVER been EXACTLY defined in the Constitution [or its amendments], nor by SCOTUS ruling. Supporters of Obama point to United States v. Wong Kim Ark as proof that Obama is NBC. Ark was born in the United States to legal Chinese immigrants and claimed that he was NBC. China also claimed him as NBC of China.
In actuality, the Court ONLY ruled that Ark was a citizen by virtue of the 14th Amendment. Although, the Court [incorrectly] noted that children of aliens born in England were natural-born subjects [NBS] under English Common Law [from which our law is partially derived].
Those who are AGAINST Obama state that NBC should be defined as to what the Founders knew at the time that the Constitution was written.
In English Common Law [from which US law is partially derived], a NBS can have ONLY ONE allegiance to a specific sovreign. HOWEVER, at the time that the Constitution was written, English subjects born in foreign territories were considered by England to be NBS - even if they were born in the US. Thus, DUAL CITIZENSHIP, which VIOLATES the basic premise of NBC [and NBS].
At the time that Obama was born [assuming he WAS born in Hawaii], he was a citizen under the 14th Amendment - BUT, the British Nationality Act of 1948 ALSO governed him.
The Act states that [since his father was NBS of England], Obama IS ALSO NBS of England.
MEANING, he is a DUAL CITIZEN ...
THEREFORE, those AGAINST Obama consider him to be a citizen under the 14th Amendment - but CANNOT be a natural-born citizen.
Where is she now, is she still alive? She would be an old woman by now, why no images if she was supposedly at all his speeches etc...a little light on evidence, methinks.
WOW! You are SO wrong.
Wong Kim Ark has zip-zero-nada to do with natural born citizen.
Multiple Instances Of Historical Scholarship Conclusively Establish The Supreme Courts Holding In Minor v. Happersett As Standing Precedent On Citizenship Obama Not Eligible.
JUSTIA.COM SURGICALLY REMOVED MINOR v HAPPERSETT FROM 25 SUPREME COURT OPINIONS IN RUN UP TO 08 ELECTION.
Posted in Uncategorized on October 20, 2011 by naturalborncitizen
[UPDATE #3 8:54 AM Oct. 24, 200 - Justia.com has suddenly placed robots over their entire cite. So much for Justia’s mission, “To advance the availability of legal resources for the benefit of society.” Here is a link to the Wayback Machine’s URL search of Roe v Wade, a case which has nothing to do with POTUS eligibility. Here is a link to the Wayback Machine’s URL search for Minor v. Happersett. Both searches return the following statment at the Wayback Machine: “We were unable to get the robots.txt document to display this page.” This activity operates as an admission by Justia. A criminal investigation is required.]
How much you wanna bet she died in 1970?
I stated that Ark ONLY declared him to be a citizen under the 14th Amendment - BUT that the dicta contained within it noted [NOT STATED] that English Common Law ALWAYS considered children born in England to aliens were natural-born. If you want me to quote the dicta, I can - but trust me, the reference is there.
Dicta DOESN'T mean squat in a legal ruling [although supporters of Obama would like to think so in Ark].
My point was that supporters of Obama INCORRECTLY state that NBC is settled law [from the Ark ruling] ...
I was just pointing that misconception out ...
BTW: I KNOW about the Justia thing ...
You know squat!
It’s a holding, you fool, not dicta!
The US Supreme Court in Ex Parte Lockwood, 154 U.S. 116 (1894) held:
In Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, this court held that the word citizen is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation, and, in that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution as since
Justice Horace Gray who wrote the opinion in Wong Kim Ark was on the Court for Lockwood. Minor continues to be cited as good law for 100 years on both the definition of federal citizenship under A2 S1, and voting rights, and it is beyond question controlling law. Minor was not decided under the 14th Amendments citizenship clause.
When the SCOTUS in Lockwood said
In Minor v. Happersett this court held
it was a direct recognition of stare decisis on the federal citizenship issue.
The Court construed A2 S1 and determined that Minor, having been born of citizen parents within the US, was a citizen BEFORE the adoption of the 14th Amendment and further held that she did NOT derive her citizenship from that amendment.
Leo Donofrio - naturalborncitizen: 1, November 14, 2011 at 10:42 pm. See:
It's a long way from New York to Hawaii - how might he have ended up with Stanley Armour Dunham when he was two or three years old, if his mother died in 1970?
IMO Madelyn told Virginia Goeldner that convenient lie - (IN 1982!) because she didn't want to divulge where he really came from, and who his parents were. All she achieved by that lie was to make it clear her own daughter wasn't the mother.
And by 1963-64 her hair was quite long, there was no need to tamper with the image, here she is sitting on her own, taken on the same day as the image at the zoo:
I just can't make the Bari Shabazz story fit, and now it's a mother from out of no-where...there are too many gaps.
What is your FRIGGIN' problem ???
A holding is the legal principle to be drawn from the opinion of the court.
The opinion of the Court, in Ark was:
"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 parent 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."
The Court RESTRICTED itself to the determination of the SINGLE question, as noted at the beginning of the opinion:
"The question presented by the record is 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 by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution ..."
THEREFORE, THAT is the holding.
Dicta are opinions of a judge which do not embody the resolution or determination of the specific case before the court. They are expressions of the court's opinion which go beyond the facts before the court and [therefore] are individual views of the author of the opinion and not binding in subsequent cases as legal precedent.
The following is [partial] dicta from the Ark decision:
"The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King."
From the holding [above] - was the dicta [above] necessary to the decision ???
ABSOLUTELY NOT ...
The holding was SOLELY on the basis of the 14th Amendment and the dicta was ENTIRELY UNNECESSARY in reaching the decision.
What you cite doesn’t support your assumptions. WKA affirmed and upheld the Minor definition of NBC. It was prevented from declaring Wong Kim Ark to be a natural-born citizen and had to use different legal justification to call him a citizen under the 14th amendment. This was predicated upon the parents having permanent residence and domicl (something NEITHER of Obama’s parents had).
As far as the dicta is concerned, you’re ignoring in the last paragraph that it says “For the reasons above stated” ... the WKA gave dozens of pages of REASONS for calling WKA a citizen, but it purposely did not and could not call WKA a natural-born citizen. The only way this court could arrive at its conclusion was by showing that children of aliens could be considered citizens through a common-law definition, but it also had to satisfy the subject clause of the 14th amendment which this court said EXCLUDED natural-born citizens. That exclusion was based on upholding the finding in Minor.
BTTT (for later read).
I repeat - Wong Kin Ark decision has nothing to do with natural born citizen.
We need people at this hearing to ensure that Orly doesn’t screw this up. Forget about the social security number. Stay on target. This country’s highest legal authority, the Supreme Court, exclusively defined natural-born citizen as “born in the country to parents who were its citizens” (defined in BOTH Minor v. Happersett and U.S. v Wong Kim Ark). The court also specifed in Wong Kim Ark that children born in the country of citizen parents were EXCLUDED from the citizen clause of the 14th amendment, meaning that Obama is not and cannot be a natural-born citizen, even under a claim of 14th amendment citizenship. NBCs were distinguished from foreigners and aliens who had to rely on OTHER means of becoming citizens at birth, but of means for which there was doubt. Further, under the common-law precedent cited in Wong Kim Ark, Obama would exclusively be born a British subject. The Supreme Court’s definition of NBC excludes any possibility of dual citizenship, and the Constitution does NOT allow natural-born British subjects to be eligible for the office of president.
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.