Matt Patterson and Newsweek speaks out about Obama. This is timely and tough. As many of you know, Newsweek has a reputation for being extremely liberal. The fact that their editor saw fit to print the following article about Obama and the one that appears in the latest Newsweek, makes this a truly amazing event, and a news story in and of itself. At last, the truth about our President and his agenda are starting to trickle through the protective wall built around him by the liberal media.
I Too Have Become Disillusioned.
By Matt Patterson (Newsweek columnist opinion writer)
Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, the result of a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world's largest economy, direct the world's most powerful military, execute the world's most consequential job?
Imagine a future historian examining Obama's pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League, despite unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a "community organizer;" a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did he vote "present"); and finally an unaccomplished single term in the United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions.
He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as a legislator. And then there is the matter of his troubling associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher who for decades served as Obama's "spiritual mentor"; a real-life, actual terrorist who served as Obama's colleague and political sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president?
Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal: To be sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers, would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberal Dom to have hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass. Let that sink in: Obama was given a pass - held to a lower standard - because of the color of his skin.
Podhoretz continues: And in any case, what did such ancient history matter when he was also so articulate and elegant and (as he himself had said) "non-threatening," all of which gave him a fighting chance to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest?
Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the Obama phenomenon - affirmative action. Not in the legal sense, of course. But certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed primarily to make white people, and especially white liberals, feel good about themselves.
Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat themselves on the back. Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools for which they are not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the inevitable poor performance and high drop-out rates which follow. Liberals don't care if these minority students fail; liberals aren't around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated self-esteem resulting from the racist policy that is affirmative action. Yes, racist. Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the color of his skin - that's affirmative action in a nutshell, and if that isn't racism, then nothing is.
And that is what America did to Obama. True, Obama himself was never troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be? As many have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia despite undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good enough for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois ; he was told he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the Senate. All his life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary.
What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display every time Obama speaks? In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked executive qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama's oratory skills, intellect, and cool character. Those people conservatives included - ought now to be deeply embarrassed.
The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of clichés, and that's when he has his Teleprompters in front of him; when the prompter is absent he can barely think or speak at all. Not one original idea has ever issued from his mouth - it's all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that has failed over and over again for 100 years. (An example is his 2012 campaign speeches which are almost word for word his 2008 speeches)
And what about his character? Obama is constantly blaming anything and everything else for his troubles. Bush did it; it was bad luck; I inherited this mess. Remember, he wanted the job, campaigned for the task. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own incompetence. (The other day he actually came out and said no one could have done anything to get our economy and country back on track.) But really, what were we to expect? The man has never been responsible for anything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly?
In short: our president is a small-minded man, with neither the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job. When you understand that, and only when you understand that, will the current erosion of liberty and prosperity make sense. It could not have gone otherwise with such a man in the Oval Office.
Showing posts with label Obama Eligibility. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama Eligibility. Show all posts
Monday, October 22, 2012
Friday, January 27, 2012
Obama, Attorney, No-Show in Georgia
OBAMA ELIGIBILITY COURT CASE
By Craig Andresen on January 26, 2012 at 9:25 am
Given the testimony from today’s court case in Georgia, Obama has a lot of explaining to do. His attorney, Jablonski, was a NO SHOW as of course, was Obama.
The following is a nutshell account of the proceedings.
Promptly at 9am EST, all attorneys involved in the Obama Georgia eligibility case were called to the Judge’s chambers. This was indeed a very interesting beginning to this long awaited and important case.
The case revolved around the Natural Born clause of the Constitution and whether or not Obama qualifies under it to serve. More to the point, if found ineligible, Obama’s name would not appear on the 2012 ballot in Georgia.
With the small courtroom crowded, several in attendance could be seen fanning themselves with pamphlets as they waited for the return of the attorneys and the appearance of the judge.
Obama himself, who had been subpoenaed to appear, of course was nowhere near Georgia. Instead, Obama was on a campaign swing appearing in Las Vegas and in Colorado ignoring the court in Georgia.
Over the last several weeks, Obama’s attorney, Michael Jablonski, had attempted several tactics to keep this case from moving forward. He first tried to have it dismissed, then argued that it was irrelevant to Obama. After that, Jablonski argued that a state could not, under the law, determine who would or would not be on a ballot and later, that Obama was simply too busy with the duties of office to appear.
After all these arguments were dispatched by the Georgia Court, Jablonski, in desperation, wrote to the Georgia Secretary of State attempting to place Obama above the law and declared that the case was not to he heard and neither he nor his client would participate.
Secretary of State, Brian Kemp, fired back a letter hours later telling Jablonski he was free to abandon the case and not participate but that he would do so at his and his clients peril.
Game on.
5 minutes.
10 minutes.
15 minutes with the attorneys in the judge’s chambers.
20 minutes.
It appears Jablonski is not in attendance as the attorneys return, all go to the plaintiff table 24 minutes after meeting in the judge’s chambers.
Has Obama’s attorney made good on his stated threat not to participate? Is he directly ignoring the court’s subpoena? Is he placing Obama above the law? It seems so. Were you or I subpoenaed to appear in court, would we or our attorney be allowed such action or, non action?
Certainly not.
Court is called to order.
Obama’s birth certificate is entered into evidence.
Obama’s father’s place of birth, Kenya East Africa is entered into evidence.
Pages 214 and 215 from Obama’s book, “Dreams from My Father” entered into evidence. Highlighted. This is where Obama indicates that, in 1966 or 1967 that his father’s history is mentioned. It states that his father’s passport had been revoked and he was unable to leave Kenya.
Immigration Services documents entered into evidence regarding Obama Sr.
June 27th, 1962, is the date on those documents. Obama’s father’s status shown as a non citizen of the United States. Documents were gotten through the Freedom of Information Act.
Testimony regarding the definition of Natural Born Citizen is given citing Minor vs Happersett opinion from a Supreme Court written opinion from 1875. The attorney points out the difference between “citizen” and “Natural Born Citizen” using charts and copies of the Minor vs Happersett opinion.
It is also pointed out that the 14th Amendment does not alter the definition or supersede the meaning of Natural Born. It is pointed out that lower court rulings do not conflict with the Supreme Court opinion nor do they over rule the Supreme Court Minor vs Happersett opinion.
The point is, to be a natural born citizen, one must have 2 parents who, at the time of the birth in question, be citizens of the United States. As Obama’s father was not a citizen, the argument is that Obama, constitutionally, is ineligible to serve as President.
Judge notes that as Obama nor his attorney is present, action will be taken accordingly.
Carl Swinson takes the stand.
Testimony is presented that the SOS has agreed to hear this case, laws applicable, and that the DNC of Georgia will be on the ballot and the challenge to it by Swinson.
2nd witness, a Mr. Powell, takes the stand and presents testimony regarding documents of challenge to Obama’s appearance on the Georgia ballot and his candidacy.
Court records of Obama’s mother and father entered into evidence.
Official certificate of nomination of Obama entered into evidence.
RNC certificate of nomination entered into evidence.
DNC language does NOT include language stating Obama is Qualified while the RNC document DOES. This shows a direct difference trying to establish that the DNC MAY possibly have known that Obama was not qualified.
Jablonski letter to Kemp yesterday entered into evidence showing their desire that these proceedings not take place and that they would not participate.
Dreams From My Father entered.
Mr. Allen from Tuscon AZ sworn in.
Disc received from Immigration and Naturalization Service entered into evidence. This disc contains information regarding the status of Obama’s father received through the Freedom of Information Act.
This information states clearly that Obama’s father was NEVER a U.S. Citizen.
At this point, the judge takes a recess.
The judge returns.
David Farrar takes the stand.
Evidence showing Obama’s book of records listing his nationality as Indoneasan. Deemed not relevant by the judge.
Orly Taitz calls 2nd witness. Mr. Strump.
Enters into evidence a portion of letter received from attorney showing a renewal form from Obama’s mother for her passport listing Obama’s last name something other than Obama.
State Licensed PI takes the stand.
She was hired to look into Obama’s background and found a Social Security number for him from 1979. Professional opinion given that this number was fraudulent. The number used or attached to Obama in 1979, shows that Obama was born in the 1890. This shows that the number was originally assigned to someone else who was indeed born in 1890 and should never have been used by Obama.
Same SS number came up with addresses in IL, D.C. and MA.
Next witness takes the stand.
This witness is an expert in information technology and photo shop. He testifies that the birth certificate Obama provided to the public is layered, multiple layered. This, he testifies, indicates that different parts of the certificate have been lifted from more than one original document.
Linda Jordan takes the stand.
Document entered regarding SS number assigned to Obama. SS number is not verified under E Verify. It comes back as suspected fraudulent. This is the system by which the Government verifies ones citizenship.
Next witness.
Mr. Gogt.
Expert in document imaging and scanners for 18 years.
Mr. Gogt testifies that the birth certificate, posted online by Obama, is suspicious. States white lines around all the type face is caused by “unsharp mask” in Photoshop. Testifies that any document showing this, is considered to be a fraud.
States this is a product of layering.
Mr. Gogt testifies that a straight scan of an original document would not show such layering.
Also testifies that the date stamps shown on Obama documents should not be in exact same place on various documents as they are hand stamped. Obama’s documents are all even, straight and exactly the same indicating they were NOT hand stamped by layered into the document by computer.
Next witness, Mr. Sampson a former police officer and former immigration officer specializing in immigration fraud.
Ran Obama’s SS number through database and found that the number was issued to Obama in 1977 in the state of MA. Obama never resided in MA. At the time of issue, Obama was living in Hawaii.
Serial number on birth certificate is out of sequence with others issued at that hospital. Also certification is different than others and different than twins born 24 hours ahead of Obama.
Mr. Sampson also states that portion of documents regarding Mr. Sotoroe, who adopted Obama have been redacted which is highly unusual with regards to immigration records.
Suggests all records from Social Security, Immigration, Hawaii birth records be made available to see if there are criminal charges to be filed or not. Without them, nothing can be ruled out.
Mr. Sampson indicates if Obama is shown not to be a citizen, he should be arrested and deported and until all records are released nobody can know for sure if he is or is not a U.S. Citizen.
Taitz shows records for Barry Sotoro aka Barack Obama, showing he resides in Hawaii and in Indonesia at the same time.
Taitz takes the stand herself.
Testifies that records indicate Obama records have been altered and he is hiding his identity and citizenship.
Taitz leave the stand to make her closing arguments.
Taitz states that Obama should be found, because of the evidence presented, ineligible to serve as President.
And with that, the judge closes the hearing.
What can we take away from this?
It’s interesting.
Now, all of this has finally been entered OFFICIALLY into court records.
One huge question is now more than ever before, unanswered.
WHO THE HELL IS THIS GUY?
Without his attorney present, Obama’s identity, his Social Security number, his citizenship status, and his past are all OFFICIALLY in question.
One thing to which there seems no doubt. He does NOT qualify, under the definition of Natural Born Citizen” provided by SCOTUS opinions, to be eligible to serve as President.
What will the judge decide? That is yet to be known, but it seems nearly impossible to believe, without counter testimony or evidence, because Obama and his attorney chose not to participate, that Obama will be allowed on the Georgia ballot.
It also opens the door for such cases pending or to be brought in other states as well.
Obama is in it deep and the DNC has some…a LOT…of explaining to do unless they start looking for a new candidate for 2012.
By Craig Andresen on January 26, 2012 at 9:25 am
Given the testimony from today’s court case in Georgia, Obama has a lot of explaining to do. His attorney, Jablonski, was a NO SHOW as of course, was Obama.
The following is a nutshell account of the proceedings.
Promptly at 9am EST, all attorneys involved in the Obama Georgia eligibility case were called to the Judge’s chambers. This was indeed a very interesting beginning to this long awaited and important case.
The case revolved around the Natural Born clause of the Constitution and whether or not Obama qualifies under it to serve. More to the point, if found ineligible, Obama’s name would not appear on the 2012 ballot in Georgia.
With the small courtroom crowded, several in attendance could be seen fanning themselves with pamphlets as they waited for the return of the attorneys and the appearance of the judge.
Obama himself, who had been subpoenaed to appear, of course was nowhere near Georgia. Instead, Obama was on a campaign swing appearing in Las Vegas and in Colorado ignoring the court in Georgia.
Over the last several weeks, Obama’s attorney, Michael Jablonski, had attempted several tactics to keep this case from moving forward. He first tried to have it dismissed, then argued that it was irrelevant to Obama. After that, Jablonski argued that a state could not, under the law, determine who would or would not be on a ballot and later, that Obama was simply too busy with the duties of office to appear.
After all these arguments were dispatched by the Georgia Court, Jablonski, in desperation, wrote to the Georgia Secretary of State attempting to place Obama above the law and declared that the case was not to he heard and neither he nor his client would participate.
Secretary of State, Brian Kemp, fired back a letter hours later telling Jablonski he was free to abandon the case and not participate but that he would do so at his and his clients peril.
Game on.
5 minutes.
10 minutes.
15 minutes with the attorneys in the judge’s chambers.
20 minutes.
It appears Jablonski is not in attendance as the attorneys return, all go to the plaintiff table 24 minutes after meeting in the judge’s chambers.
Has Obama’s attorney made good on his stated threat not to participate? Is he directly ignoring the court’s subpoena? Is he placing Obama above the law? It seems so. Were you or I subpoenaed to appear in court, would we or our attorney be allowed such action or, non action?
Certainly not.
Court is called to order.
Obama’s birth certificate is entered into evidence.
Obama’s father’s place of birth, Kenya East Africa is entered into evidence.
Pages 214 and 215 from Obama’s book, “Dreams from My Father” entered into evidence. Highlighted. This is where Obama indicates that, in 1966 or 1967 that his father’s history is mentioned. It states that his father’s passport had been revoked and he was unable to leave Kenya.
Immigration Services documents entered into evidence regarding Obama Sr.
June 27th, 1962, is the date on those documents. Obama’s father’s status shown as a non citizen of the United States. Documents were gotten through the Freedom of Information Act.
Testimony regarding the definition of Natural Born Citizen is given citing Minor vs Happersett opinion from a Supreme Court written opinion from 1875. The attorney points out the difference between “citizen” and “Natural Born Citizen” using charts and copies of the Minor vs Happersett opinion.
It is also pointed out that the 14th Amendment does not alter the definition or supersede the meaning of Natural Born. It is pointed out that lower court rulings do not conflict with the Supreme Court opinion nor do they over rule the Supreme Court Minor vs Happersett opinion.
The point is, to be a natural born citizen, one must have 2 parents who, at the time of the birth in question, be citizens of the United States. As Obama’s father was not a citizen, the argument is that Obama, constitutionally, is ineligible to serve as President.
Judge notes that as Obama nor his attorney is present, action will be taken accordingly.
Carl Swinson takes the stand.
Testimony is presented that the SOS has agreed to hear this case, laws applicable, and that the DNC of Georgia will be on the ballot and the challenge to it by Swinson.
2nd witness, a Mr. Powell, takes the stand and presents testimony regarding documents of challenge to Obama’s appearance on the Georgia ballot and his candidacy.
Court records of Obama’s mother and father entered into evidence.
Official certificate of nomination of Obama entered into evidence.
RNC certificate of nomination entered into evidence.
DNC language does NOT include language stating Obama is Qualified while the RNC document DOES. This shows a direct difference trying to establish that the DNC MAY possibly have known that Obama was not qualified.
Jablonski letter to Kemp yesterday entered into evidence showing their desire that these proceedings not take place and that they would not participate.
Dreams From My Father entered.
Mr. Allen from Tuscon AZ sworn in.
Disc received from Immigration and Naturalization Service entered into evidence. This disc contains information regarding the status of Obama’s father received through the Freedom of Information Act.
This information states clearly that Obama’s father was NEVER a U.S. Citizen.
At this point, the judge takes a recess.
The judge returns.
David Farrar takes the stand.
Evidence showing Obama’s book of records listing his nationality as Indoneasan. Deemed not relevant by the judge.
Orly Taitz calls 2nd witness. Mr. Strump.
Enters into evidence a portion of letter received from attorney showing a renewal form from Obama’s mother for her passport listing Obama’s last name something other than Obama.
State Licensed PI takes the stand.
She was hired to look into Obama’s background and found a Social Security number for him from 1979. Professional opinion given that this number was fraudulent. The number used or attached to Obama in 1979, shows that Obama was born in the 1890. This shows that the number was originally assigned to someone else who was indeed born in 1890 and should never have been used by Obama.
Same SS number came up with addresses in IL, D.C. and MA.
Next witness takes the stand.
This witness is an expert in information technology and photo shop. He testifies that the birth certificate Obama provided to the public is layered, multiple layered. This, he testifies, indicates that different parts of the certificate have been lifted from more than one original document.
Linda Jordan takes the stand.
Document entered regarding SS number assigned to Obama. SS number is not verified under E Verify. It comes back as suspected fraudulent. This is the system by which the Government verifies ones citizenship.
Next witness.
Mr. Gogt.
Expert in document imaging and scanners for 18 years.
Mr. Gogt testifies that the birth certificate, posted online by Obama, is suspicious. States white lines around all the type face is caused by “unsharp mask” in Photoshop. Testifies that any document showing this, is considered to be a fraud.
States this is a product of layering.
Mr. Gogt testifies that a straight scan of an original document would not show such layering.
Also testifies that the date stamps shown on Obama documents should not be in exact same place on various documents as they are hand stamped. Obama’s documents are all even, straight and exactly the same indicating they were NOT hand stamped by layered into the document by computer.
Next witness, Mr. Sampson a former police officer and former immigration officer specializing in immigration fraud.
Ran Obama’s SS number through database and found that the number was issued to Obama in 1977 in the state of MA. Obama never resided in MA. At the time of issue, Obama was living in Hawaii.
Serial number on birth certificate is out of sequence with others issued at that hospital. Also certification is different than others and different than twins born 24 hours ahead of Obama.
Mr. Sampson also states that portion of documents regarding Mr. Sotoroe, who adopted Obama have been redacted which is highly unusual with regards to immigration records.
Suggests all records from Social Security, Immigration, Hawaii birth records be made available to see if there are criminal charges to be filed or not. Without them, nothing can be ruled out.
Mr. Sampson indicates if Obama is shown not to be a citizen, he should be arrested and deported and until all records are released nobody can know for sure if he is or is not a U.S. Citizen.
Taitz shows records for Barry Sotoro aka Barack Obama, showing he resides in Hawaii and in Indonesia at the same time.
Taitz takes the stand herself.
Testifies that records indicate Obama records have been altered and he is hiding his identity and citizenship.
Taitz leave the stand to make her closing arguments.
Taitz states that Obama should be found, because of the evidence presented, ineligible to serve as President.
And with that, the judge closes the hearing.
What can we take away from this?
It’s interesting.
Now, all of this has finally been entered OFFICIALLY into court records.
One huge question is now more than ever before, unanswered.
WHO THE HELL IS THIS GUY?
Without his attorney present, Obama’s identity, his Social Security number, his citizenship status, and his past are all OFFICIALLY in question.
One thing to which there seems no doubt. He does NOT qualify, under the definition of Natural Born Citizen” provided by SCOTUS opinions, to be eligible to serve as President.
What will the judge decide? That is yet to be known, but it seems nearly impossible to believe, without counter testimony or evidence, because Obama and his attorney chose not to participate, that Obama will be allowed on the Georgia ballot.
It also opens the door for such cases pending or to be brought in other states as well.
Obama is in it deep and the DNC has some…a LOT…of explaining to do unless they start looking for a new candidate for 2012.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Another Look At Obama's SS Number
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=275861
Another look at Obama's Social Security number
Posted: March 17, 2011
1:00 am Eastern
© 2011
While out promoting my new book, "Deconstructing Obama," I have been asked a few times about Obama's mysterious Social Security number.
Not knowing enough to speak authoritatively, I chose to swim upstream through the data flood and head for the source.
Here I found a no-nonsense licensed investigator from Ohio named Susan Daniels. Widowed at 30 with seven children, Daniels went back to school and eventually emerged as a certified paralegal.
After several years working for others, Daniels got her own license as an investigator in 1995. Since then, she has specialized in litigation support for law firms. Her particular strength has been in researching assets.
By her own admission, Daniels is "good with public records." She knows her way around databases and has access to many that the public does not.
Jack Cashill's literary investigation uncovers revelations galore about Obama's alleged life narrative. Order the new book "Deconstructing Obama: The Life, Love and Letters of America's First Post-Modern President"
"I did not like the way things were going," Daniels says of the country's drift circa 2009. And so in the best spirit of citizen journalism, she began to investigate Obama on her own.
What she and fellow investigator Neil Sankey unearthed was a nugget that could have ended the career of a George Bush or a Sarah Plain: Barack Obama had been using a Social Security number issued in Connecticut between 1977 and 1979, a state in which he never lived or even visited at that time in his life.
This will not come as news to the readers of WorldNetDaily, whose thorough investigation climaxed last June when WND's veteran White House correspondent Les Kinsolving confronted Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs on the subject.
Predictably, Gibbs laughed Kinsolving off and switched the subject to the birth certificate. Kinsolving had seen this kind of laugh and switch before. In 1982, for instance, he introduced the subject of AIDS to then-press secretary Larry Speakes.
"Over a third of [the victims] have died," said Kinsolving. "It's known as 'gay plague.'"
"I don't have it. Do you?" joked Speakes to a general round of laughter. But unlike Gibbs, Speakes simply did not know any better.
As much as Daniels appreciates the work of WND and other serious investigators who have helped clarify the picture, she is distressed by the few who have clouded it.
"There have been many playing junior investigator from the start," she jokes. "I don't know if they even have their decoder rings yet."
This being the case, I asked Daniels to guide me through the data mine field and help me ascertain what we know for sure about the world's best-known Social Security number – 042-68-4425.
"All I can say," says Daniels of 042-68-4425, "is that it's phony and [Obama] has been using it, with it first appearing on his Selective Service document in 1980."
Daniels sent me a copy of the hand-written application of the individual who held the number immediately before Obama's, 042-68-4424. The applicant, Thomas Wood, died at age 19, which is why his information is available.
Wood's Social Security number was issued sometime between March and May of 1977. Obama would turn 16 in August of that year. Wood lived on Glenview Drive in Newington, Conn., the state from which all "042s" applied. Obama lived in Hawaii.
True to form, the left-leaning media set out to undermine the Social Security controversy and ridicule the investigators. Revealing, however, is the weakness of the response.
"Numbers are assigned based on the return address on the request envelope, not residency," crowed Jason Linkins in the Huffington Post as though he had said something meaningful. Linkins suggested two possible explanations, both preposterous.
One is that Obama applied for his SSN as a little boy in Indonesia for no known reason, and the application just happened to be processed in Connecticut for no known reason either.
For the second, Linkins cited the argument of Carole Glibert, in the Yahoo-related "Associated Content." Said Gilbert, presumably with a straight face, "In fact, Barack Obama's dad attended college in Connecticut and in 1977, Obama was college aged; is it beyond reason to consider that he might have checked out his father's alma mater?"
Last time I checked, Harvard was in Massachusetts. The closest town to Harvard in Connecticut is about 90 minutes away, and there is no record that Obama Sr. lived there, let alone that Obama visited his imaginary alma mater and just happened to apply for a Social Security card while visiting.
Daniels also sent me a copy of Obama's Selective Service data. Obama appears to have registered on Sept. 4, 1980, a month after his 19th birthday. The form lists the telling last four digits of his "042" number, "4425."
This is the first use of the "042" number that Daniels could find. She is just not sure it is legitimate. Some have credibly argued that the Selective Service information was forged and backdated once Obama became a presidential candidate.
"They were stupid to use the CT number on the [Selective Service] card," Daniels adds, "because now there is no way for [Obama] to back out of that number."
Other than the 1980 Selective Service registration, the first time Daniels could find Obama using the "042" number was in 1986 in Chicago.
As to how Obama may have secured that number, it is possible that he turned to his radical friends for advice.
"We invented all kinds of ways to obtain false identity papers, and got busy building multiple sets of ID for each of us and for every contingency," writes Bill Ayers of his years in the Weather Underground. "We soon figured out that the deepest and most foolproof ID had a government-issued Social Security card at its heart."
For the record, Ayers appears to have commuted between his wife and children in Chicago and Columbia University in New York from 1984 to 1987. Obama left New York, where he, too, had attended Columbia University, and arrived in Chicago in 1985.
Daniels and Sankey have tracked Obama's many uses of the "042" number in Chicago, in Massachusetts and in Washington. Others numbers appear with the "Obama" name, but Daniels cautions against attributing these numbers – with the exception of those from Obama's college days at Occidental – to the president.
From Daniels' perspective, one felonious use of a fraudulent number is enough. She believes this to be a more tangible scandal than the birth certificate and wonders when someone beyond WND will start paying attention.
Another look at Obama's Social Security number
Posted: March 17, 2011
1:00 am Eastern
© 2011
While out promoting my new book, "Deconstructing Obama," I have been asked a few times about Obama's mysterious Social Security number.
Not knowing enough to speak authoritatively, I chose to swim upstream through the data flood and head for the source.
Here I found a no-nonsense licensed investigator from Ohio named Susan Daniels. Widowed at 30 with seven children, Daniels went back to school and eventually emerged as a certified paralegal.
After several years working for others, Daniels got her own license as an investigator in 1995. Since then, she has specialized in litigation support for law firms. Her particular strength has been in researching assets.
By her own admission, Daniels is "good with public records." She knows her way around databases and has access to many that the public does not.
Jack Cashill's literary investigation uncovers revelations galore about Obama's alleged life narrative. Order the new book "Deconstructing Obama: The Life, Love and Letters of America's First Post-Modern President"
"I did not like the way things were going," Daniels says of the country's drift circa 2009. And so in the best spirit of citizen journalism, she began to investigate Obama on her own.
What she and fellow investigator Neil Sankey unearthed was a nugget that could have ended the career of a George Bush or a Sarah Plain: Barack Obama had been using a Social Security number issued in Connecticut between 1977 and 1979, a state in which he never lived or even visited at that time in his life.
This will not come as news to the readers of WorldNetDaily, whose thorough investigation climaxed last June when WND's veteran White House correspondent Les Kinsolving confronted Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs on the subject.
Predictably, Gibbs laughed Kinsolving off and switched the subject to the birth certificate. Kinsolving had seen this kind of laugh and switch before. In 1982, for instance, he introduced the subject of AIDS to then-press secretary Larry Speakes.
"Over a third of [the victims] have died," said Kinsolving. "It's known as 'gay plague.'"
"I don't have it. Do you?" joked Speakes to a general round of laughter. But unlike Gibbs, Speakes simply did not know any better.
As much as Daniels appreciates the work of WND and other serious investigators who have helped clarify the picture, she is distressed by the few who have clouded it.
"There have been many playing junior investigator from the start," she jokes. "I don't know if they even have their decoder rings yet."
This being the case, I asked Daniels to guide me through the data mine field and help me ascertain what we know for sure about the world's best-known Social Security number – 042-68-4425.
"All I can say," says Daniels of 042-68-4425, "is that it's phony and [Obama] has been using it, with it first appearing on his Selective Service document in 1980."
Daniels sent me a copy of the hand-written application of the individual who held the number immediately before Obama's, 042-68-4424. The applicant, Thomas Wood, died at age 19, which is why his information is available.
Wood's Social Security number was issued sometime between March and May of 1977. Obama would turn 16 in August of that year. Wood lived on Glenview Drive in Newington, Conn., the state from which all "042s" applied. Obama lived in Hawaii.
True to form, the left-leaning media set out to undermine the Social Security controversy and ridicule the investigators. Revealing, however, is the weakness of the response.
"Numbers are assigned based on the return address on the request envelope, not residency," crowed Jason Linkins in the Huffington Post as though he had said something meaningful. Linkins suggested two possible explanations, both preposterous.
One is that Obama applied for his SSN as a little boy in Indonesia for no known reason, and the application just happened to be processed in Connecticut for no known reason either.
For the second, Linkins cited the argument of Carole Glibert, in the Yahoo-related "Associated Content." Said Gilbert, presumably with a straight face, "In fact, Barack Obama's dad attended college in Connecticut and in 1977, Obama was college aged; is it beyond reason to consider that he might have checked out his father's alma mater?"
Last time I checked, Harvard was in Massachusetts. The closest town to Harvard in Connecticut is about 90 minutes away, and there is no record that Obama Sr. lived there, let alone that Obama visited his imaginary alma mater and just happened to apply for a Social Security card while visiting.
Daniels also sent me a copy of Obama's Selective Service data. Obama appears to have registered on Sept. 4, 1980, a month after his 19th birthday. The form lists the telling last four digits of his "042" number, "4425."
This is the first use of the "042" number that Daniels could find. She is just not sure it is legitimate. Some have credibly argued that the Selective Service information was forged and backdated once Obama became a presidential candidate.
"They were stupid to use the CT number on the [Selective Service] card," Daniels adds, "because now there is no way for [Obama] to back out of that number."
Other than the 1980 Selective Service registration, the first time Daniels could find Obama using the "042" number was in 1986 in Chicago.
As to how Obama may have secured that number, it is possible that he turned to his radical friends for advice.
"We invented all kinds of ways to obtain false identity papers, and got busy building multiple sets of ID for each of us and for every contingency," writes Bill Ayers of his years in the Weather Underground. "We soon figured out that the deepest and most foolproof ID had a government-issued Social Security card at its heart."
For the record, Ayers appears to have commuted between his wife and children in Chicago and Columbia University in New York from 1984 to 1987. Obama left New York, where he, too, had attended Columbia University, and arrived in Chicago in 1985.
Daniels and Sankey have tracked Obama's many uses of the "042" number in Chicago, in Massachusetts and in Washington. Others numbers appear with the "Obama" name, but Daniels cautions against attributing these numbers – with the exception of those from Obama's college days at Occidental – to the president.
From Daniels' perspective, one felonious use of a fraudulent number is enough. She believes this to be a more tangible scandal than the birth certificate and wonders when someone beyond WND will start paying attention.
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
The Manchurian President
Investigation: Obama likely not eligible
Authors dissected 'natural born' qualification
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: November 24, 2010
9:47 am Eastern
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
As the Supreme Court discusses arguments related to President Obama's eligibility, it may be instructive to note a recent best-seller investigated the issue in question, finding Obama may not fit the constitutional requirement that stipulates only "natural born" citizens can serve as U.S. president.
The Supreme Court conferred yesterday on whether arguments should be heard on the merits of a case entitled Kerchner v. Obama, which debates whether the writers of the Constitution believed the term "natural-born citizen" meant a person born in the United States to two parents who were both American citizens.
With nearly 900 endnotes, the book, "The Manchurian President: Barack Obama's Ties to Communists, Socialists and Other Anti-American Extremists," investigated the issue. The tome was written by WND senior reporter Aaron Klein and researcher Brenda J. Elliott.
An investigation by the authors found that according to correspondence from the original framers of the Constitution as well as multiple Supreme Court rulings and the legal writings that helped establish the principles of the Constitution, Obama is not eligible to serve as president since his father was not a U.S. citizen.
The authors concluded Obama may not be eligible regardless of his place of birth. The book recommends further legislative and judicial debate.
"It is undisputed that Obama's father was not a U.S. citizen," wrote Klein, "a fact that should have led to congressional debate about whether Obama is eligible under the United States Constitution to serve as president."
Obama was born Aug. 4, 1961, to Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Obama Sr. Dunham was an American of predominantly English descent from Wichita, Kan., and was 18 years old at the time of Obama's birth. Obama Sr. was a member of the Luo tribe from Nyang'oma Kogelo, Nyanza Province, Kenya, which at the time was still a British colony.
Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution stipulates presidential eligibility, requiring the nation's elected chief to be a "natural born citizen."
The clause states: "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."
The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution specifically defines "citizen" but not "natural born citizen".
A "citizen" is defined as: "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."
However, no definition of "natural born citizen" – which is only used in the presidential requirement clause – was provided anywhere in the Constitution, and to this day the precise meaning of the term is still being debated.
There are no records of any definitive discussion on the matter during the Constitutional Convention. That – coupled with the absence of definitive Supreme Court rulings and a wide array of opinions throughout the centuries – has only further confused the question of what "natural born" actually means.
Still, the authors found that according to the framers of the Constitution as well as Supreme Court rulings, Obama does not fit the eligibility requirements.
'Natural born' defined
The first U.S. Congress passed a law that began to define "natural born." The Naturalization Act of 1790 rejected the condition of being born on U.S. soil and referred only to parentage: "The children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States," the Act states, "shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States."
Five years later, however, Congress repealed the act.
"Still, it was clear that the intention of the Constitution's 'natural born citizen' qualification was to ensure the country would not be led by an individual with dual loyalties," wrote Klein in "The Manchurian President."
On July 25, 1787, John Jay, one of the three authors of the Federalist Papers, wrote to George Washington, who was at the time presiding over the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia.
Jay discussed the dual-loyalty concern, writing: "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and reasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen."
Jay, however, also did not define "natural born."
Representative John Bingham of Ohio, a principal framer of the Fourteenth Amendment, offered some definition for presidential qualifications in a discussion in the House on March 9, 1866: "[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S. 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that 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."
"So according to Bingham, as well, Obama would not be eligible to serve as president," wrote Klein.
To try to understand what the Founding Fathers meant by "natural born," the authors wrote in "The Manchurian President" that some have turned to prominent legal tomes of the day.
The Law of Nations, a 1758 work by Swiss legal philosopher Emmerich de Vattel, was read by many of the American Founders and informed their understanding of the principles of law, which became established in the Constitution of 1787.
De Vattel writes in Book 1, Chapter 19, of his treatise, "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. … In order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."
"So by de Vattel's standards, Obama arguably would not be eligible to serve as president," wrote Klein.
Supreme Court casts doubt
Numerous Supreme Court decisions have yielded conflicting views of citizenship and what it means to be a "natural born citizen." In Dred Scott v. Sandford, in 1857, for example, the court ruled that citizenship is acquired by place of birth, not through blood or lineage.
But much of that decision – which had notoriously excluded slaves, and their descendants, from possessing constitutional rights – was overturned in 1868.
Another case, Minor v. Happersett, in 1874, mentions the "natural born" issue.
"At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar," the decision states, "it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents [plural] who were its citizens [plural], 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. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens."
Writes Klein: "According to this definition, and scores of other Supreme Court rulings, Obama may not be eligible to serve as president."
The authors conclude that a "reading of readily available legal resources regarding the definition of 'natural born citizen' clearly indicates a series of legitimate questions about Barack Obama's eligibility for the presidency, given that Obama's father was not an American citizen."
"The resources warrant further debate," wrote Klein.
"The Manchurian President" points out despite these glaring eligibility issues, the legislative and judicial bodies of the U.S. government have held no formal discussions, nor did they conduct a single formal investigation into whether Obama is eligible to serve under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Congress did, however, question the "natural born" qualifications of Obama's 2008 presidential opponent, Republican Sen. John McCain.
The scion of distinguished U.S. naval officers, McCain was born to two American parents in the Panama Canal Zone. On April 30, 2008, the U.S. Senate sought to answer the question by passing a nonbinding resolution, which states, "Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it resolved, that John Sidney McCain, III, is a 'natural born citizen' under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States."
Obama called 'Manchurian President'
Meanwhile, "The Manchurian President" bills itself as the most exhaustive investigation ever performed into Obama and his radical background and ties.
Among the many finds of "The Manchurian President":
Read The Book
Authors dissected 'natural born' qualification
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: November 24, 2010
9:47 am Eastern
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
As the Supreme Court discusses arguments related to President Obama's eligibility, it may be instructive to note a recent best-seller investigated the issue in question, finding Obama may not fit the constitutional requirement that stipulates only "natural born" citizens can serve as U.S. president.
The Supreme Court conferred yesterday on whether arguments should be heard on the merits of a case entitled Kerchner v. Obama, which debates whether the writers of the Constitution believed the term "natural-born citizen" meant a person born in the United States to two parents who were both American citizens.
With nearly 900 endnotes, the book, "The Manchurian President: Barack Obama's Ties to Communists, Socialists and Other Anti-American Extremists," investigated the issue. The tome was written by WND senior reporter Aaron Klein and researcher Brenda J. Elliott.
An investigation by the authors found that according to correspondence from the original framers of the Constitution as well as multiple Supreme Court rulings and the legal writings that helped establish the principles of the Constitution, Obama is not eligible to serve as president since his father was not a U.S. citizen.
The authors concluded Obama may not be eligible regardless of his place of birth. The book recommends further legislative and judicial debate.
"It is undisputed that Obama's father was not a U.S. citizen," wrote Klein, "a fact that should have led to congressional debate about whether Obama is eligible under the United States Constitution to serve as president."
Obama was born Aug. 4, 1961, to Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Obama Sr. Dunham was an American of predominantly English descent from Wichita, Kan., and was 18 years old at the time of Obama's birth. Obama Sr. was a member of the Luo tribe from Nyang'oma Kogelo, Nyanza Province, Kenya, which at the time was still a British colony.
Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution stipulates presidential eligibility, requiring the nation's elected chief to be a "natural born citizen."
The clause states: "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."
The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution specifically defines "citizen" but not "natural born citizen".
A "citizen" is defined as: "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."
However, no definition of "natural born citizen" – which is only used in the presidential requirement clause – was provided anywhere in the Constitution, and to this day the precise meaning of the term is still being debated.
There are no records of any definitive discussion on the matter during the Constitutional Convention. That – coupled with the absence of definitive Supreme Court rulings and a wide array of opinions throughout the centuries – has only further confused the question of what "natural born" actually means.
Still, the authors found that according to the framers of the Constitution as well as Supreme Court rulings, Obama does not fit the eligibility requirements.
'Natural born' defined
The first U.S. Congress passed a law that began to define "natural born." The Naturalization Act of 1790 rejected the condition of being born on U.S. soil and referred only to parentage: "The children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States," the Act states, "shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States."
Five years later, however, Congress repealed the act.
"Still, it was clear that the intention of the Constitution's 'natural born citizen' qualification was to ensure the country would not be led by an individual with dual loyalties," wrote Klein in "The Manchurian President."
On July 25, 1787, John Jay, one of the three authors of the Federalist Papers, wrote to George Washington, who was at the time presiding over the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia.
Jay discussed the dual-loyalty concern, writing: "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and reasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen."
Jay, however, also did not define "natural born."
Representative John Bingham of Ohio, a principal framer of the Fourteenth Amendment, offered some definition for presidential qualifications in a discussion in the House on March 9, 1866: "[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S. 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that 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."
"So according to Bingham, as well, Obama would not be eligible to serve as president," wrote Klein.
To try to understand what the Founding Fathers meant by "natural born," the authors wrote in "The Manchurian President" that some have turned to prominent legal tomes of the day.
The Law of Nations, a 1758 work by Swiss legal philosopher Emmerich de Vattel, was read by many of the American Founders and informed their understanding of the principles of law, which became established in the Constitution of 1787.
De Vattel writes in Book 1, Chapter 19, of his treatise, "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. … In order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."
"So by de Vattel's standards, Obama arguably would not be eligible to serve as president," wrote Klein.
Supreme Court casts doubt
Numerous Supreme Court decisions have yielded conflicting views of citizenship and what it means to be a "natural born citizen." In Dred Scott v. Sandford, in 1857, for example, the court ruled that citizenship is acquired by place of birth, not through blood or lineage.
But much of that decision – which had notoriously excluded slaves, and their descendants, from possessing constitutional rights – was overturned in 1868.
Another case, Minor v. Happersett, in 1874, mentions the "natural born" issue.
"At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar," the decision states, "it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents [plural] who were its citizens [plural], 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. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens."
Writes Klein: "According to this definition, and scores of other Supreme Court rulings, Obama may not be eligible to serve as president."
The authors conclude that a "reading of readily available legal resources regarding the definition of 'natural born citizen' clearly indicates a series of legitimate questions about Barack Obama's eligibility for the presidency, given that Obama's father was not an American citizen."
"The resources warrant further debate," wrote Klein.
"The Manchurian President" points out despite these glaring eligibility issues, the legislative and judicial bodies of the U.S. government have held no formal discussions, nor did they conduct a single formal investigation into whether Obama is eligible to serve under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Congress did, however, question the "natural born" qualifications of Obama's 2008 presidential opponent, Republican Sen. John McCain.
The scion of distinguished U.S. naval officers, McCain was born to two American parents in the Panama Canal Zone. On April 30, 2008, the U.S. Senate sought to answer the question by passing a nonbinding resolution, which states, "Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it resolved, that John Sidney McCain, III, is a 'natural born citizen' under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States."
Obama called 'Manchurian President'
Meanwhile, "The Manchurian President" bills itself as the most exhaustive investigation ever performed into Obama and his radical background and ties.
Among the many finds of "The Manchurian President":
- A coalition of extremists, including a founder of William Ayers' Weather Underground domestic-terrorist organization, helped craft Obama's "stimulus" bill;
- Obama's health-care policy, masked by moderate populist rhetoric, was pushed along and partially crafted by extremists, some of whom reveal in their own words that their principal aim is to achieve corporate socialist goals and a vast increase in government powers;
- Extremists are among Obama's "czars" and other top advisers. New information links top advisers Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett to communist activists. The book uncovers correspondence in which a communist confesses to mentoring and educating Axelrod and helping the top Obama aide to secure his first job. Obama then later worked with the same communist, the book finds;
- Copious research reveals more about Obama's deep ties to Ayers, uncovering for the first time where and how Obama first met Ayers – and it is much earlier than previously believed;
- Important aspects of Obama's carefully covered-up college years, with new details of his student career at Occidental College and later at Columbia University, are revealed;
- Obama's early years, including his previously overlooked early childhood ties to a radical, far-left church, are documented;
- Obama's associations with the Nation of Islam, Black Liberation Theology and black political extremists are also revealed, with extensive new information on the subjects;
- Obama's deep ties to ACORN, which are much more extensive than previously documented elsewhere, are covered. The book also crucially describes how a socialist-led, ACORN-affiliated union helped facilitate Obama's political career and now exerts major influence in the White House.
Read The Book
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
Officers Demand Proof
OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL
More military officers demand eligibility proof
Plaintiff: 'In the worst case … it's going to be revolution in the streets'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: March 02, 2009
8:18 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
Military officers from the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines are working with California attorney Orly Taitz and her Defend Our Freedoms Foundation, citing a legal right established in British common law nearly 800 years ago and recognized by the U.S. Founding Fathers to demand documentation that may prove – or disprove – Barack Obama's eligibility to be president.
Taitz told WND today she has mailed to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder a request that he "relate Quo Warranto on Barack Hussein Obama II to test his title to president before the Supreme Court."
The lengthy legal phrase essentially means an explanation is being demanded for what authority Obama is using to act as president. An online constitutional resource says Quo Warranto "affords the only judicial remedy for violations of the Constitution by public officials and agents."
Requesting the action are Maj. Gen. Carroll Childers; Lt. Col. Dr. David Earl-Graef; police officer Clinton Grimes, formerly of the U.S. Navy; Lt. Scott Easterling, now serving on active duty in Iraq; New Hampshire state Rep. Timothy Comerford; Tennessee state Rep. Frank Nicely and others.
"As president-elect, Respondent Obama failed to submit prima facie evidence of his qualifications before January 20, 2009. Election officers failed to challenge, validate or evaluate his qualifications. Relators submit that as president elect, Respondent Obama failed [tO] qualify per U.S. CONST. Amend. XX [paragraph] 3," the document said.
John Eidsmoe, an expert on the U.S. Constitution now working with the Foundation on Moral Law, an organization founded by former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore after he was removed from office for formally recognizing the Ten Commandments' influence in the U.S., said the demand is a legitimate course of action.
"She basically is asking, 'By what authority' is Obama president," he told WND. "In other words, 'I want you to tell me by what authority. I don't really think you should hold the office.'
"She probably has some very good arguments to make," Eidsmoe said.
The letter, dispatched to Holder today, is the latest development in the quest by a multitude of lawyers and plaintiffs nationwide for documentation that Obama qualifies to be president under the requirements of the U.S. Constitution.
WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "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."
Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.
Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.
Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 300,000 others and sign up now!
Several of the cases have involved emergency appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court in which justices have declined even to hear arguments. Among the cases turned down without a hearing at the high court have been petitions by Philip Berg, Cort Wrotnowski, Leo Donofrio and Taitz.
Taitz' plaintiffs, some of whom potentially face life-or-death situations in defense of the U.S. Constitution on a daily basis, note that information on Quo Warranto against a federal officer normally is related to the attorney general. But since Holder is an Obama friend and appointee, they are asking for the appointment of a special prosecutor to help in presenting documentation to the Supreme Court.
"This information on Quo Warranto includes action between the United States ex rel. and the State of Hawaii over original birth records of Barack H. Obama II being withheld per Hawaii's privacy laws. Hawaii's action obstructs the constitutional duties of election officers to validate or evaluate President Elect Obama qualifications to become President under U.S. CONST. art. II § 1, and amend. XX § 3," the document said.
Eidsmoe said it's clear that Obama has something in the documentation of his history, including his birth certificate, college records and other documents, "he does not want the public to know."
What else could be the reason for his hiring law firms across the nation to fight any request for information as basic as his Occidental College records from the early 1980s, he asked. A separate lawsuit has sought the documents to find out whether they indicate Obama, possibly under the name Barry Soetero, attended the college on aid for foreign students.
Obama's critics warn of the impending constitutional crisis should it be discovered Obama is ineligible and the resulting chaos of trying to figure out what, if any, of his executive branch orders, should be valid.
According to the online Constitution.org resource: "The common law writ of quo warranto has been suppressed at the federal level in the United States, and deprecated at the state level, but remains a right under the Ninth Amendment which was understood and presumed by the Founders, and which affords the only judicial remedy for violations of the Constitution by public officials and agents."
Taitz told WND the "relators" include members of the Army, Air Force, Marines and Army and feature recipients of some of the highest honors the nation awards, including the Purple Heart.
One is Harry Riley, a veteran military officer who spent part of his career in the Pentagon. Riley said the issue is basically over whether Americans will allow "the trashing" of their Constitution.
"Myself, along with hundreds of thousands of other warriors, have fought for the U.S. Constitution. The whole issue is one of constitutional crisis, in my judgment. How can an individual become the commander-in-chief, or the president of the U.S., with questions regarding his constitutional qualifications?" he asked.
"The whole idea is that America cannot allow an individual to serve as president who isn't qualified. It destroys our Constitution. It's the bedrock of our nation," he said.
"In the worst case, in the long run, if he continues [to fight revealing his documentation,] it's going to be revolution in the streets," he warned.
"It's simply a matter of producing a $12 birth certificate," Riley said.
"It's just mindboggling to think an individual who's been sworn in as the president of the United States would be so small and be such a hypocrite who would be unwilling to simply show a birth certificate," Riley said.
Taitz told WND she has assembled a list of about 100 names of people – so far – who are willing to be plaintiffs in such a demand.
Childers told WND he'd be perfectly happy if Obama is legitimate, but the truth still matters.
"I personally admire many things about him," he said. "But if he's not legitimate, if he's allowed to violate the Constitution, what else are they going to violate? Take my guns, and my television, telephone? What's the limit?"
Taitz told WND she's asking for the appointment of a special prosecutor, such as the role Archibald Cox played in investigating Watergate.
According to author Chester Antieau in his "The Practice of Extraordinary Remedies," Quo Warranto is one of the oldest rights in common law.
"The earliest case on record appears in the 9th year of Richard I, 1198," he wrote. "The statute of 9 Anne c. 20 in 1710 authorized a proper officer of a court, with leave of the court, to exhibit an information in the nature of quo warranto, at the 'relation' of any person desiring to prosecute the same – to be called the relator. Early American statutes were modeled after the Statute of Anne and, indeed, the statute has often been ruled to be part of the common law we inherited from England."
Antieau noted the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled, "Quo warranto is addressed to preventing a continued exercise of authority unlawfully asserted, rather than to correct what has already been done. ..."
Its first recognize purpose, he said, is "to determine the title of persons claiming possession of public offices and to oust them if they are found to be usurpers."
Among those who are subject to its demands, under court precedent, are chief executives in other U.S. governmental positions, including governors and sheriffs.
As WND has reported on several occasions, none of the so-called "evidence" of Obama's constitutional eligibility produced thus far is beyond reasonable doubt nor as iron-clad as simply producing an authentic birth certificate, something Americans are required to do regularly but the president still refuses to do.
As Jerome Corsi, WND senior staff writer, explained, "The main reason doubts persist regarding Obama's birth certificate is this question: If an original Hawaii-doctor-generated and Hawaii-hospital-released Obama birth certificate exists, why wouldn't the senator and his campaign simply order the document released and end the controversy?
"That Obama has not ordered Hawaii officials to release the document," Corsi writes, "leaves doubts as to whether an authentic Hawaii birth certificate exists for Obama."
Although Obama officials have told WND all such allegations are "garbage," here is a partial listing and status update for some of the cases over Obama's eligibility:
In addition, other cases cited on the RightSideofLife blog as raising questions about Obama's eligibility include:
Corsi had gone to both Kenya and Hawaii prior to the election to investigate issues surrounding Obama's birth. But his research and discoveries only raised more questions, the biggest being why, if there exists documentation of Obama's eligibility, hasn't it been released to quell the rumors.
Instead, a series of law firms have been hired on Obama's behalf around the nation to prevent any public access to his birth certificate, passport records, college records and other documents.
More military officers demand eligibility proof
Plaintiff: 'In the worst case … it's going to be revolution in the streets'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: March 02, 2009
8:18 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
Military officers from the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines are working with California attorney Orly Taitz and her Defend Our Freedoms Foundation, citing a legal right established in British common law nearly 800 years ago and recognized by the U.S. Founding Fathers to demand documentation that may prove – or disprove – Barack Obama's eligibility to be president.
Taitz told WND today she has mailed to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder a request that he "relate Quo Warranto on Barack Hussein Obama II to test his title to president before the Supreme Court."
The lengthy legal phrase essentially means an explanation is being demanded for what authority Obama is using to act as president. An online constitutional resource says Quo Warranto "affords the only judicial remedy for violations of the Constitution by public officials and agents."
Requesting the action are Maj. Gen. Carroll Childers; Lt. Col. Dr. David Earl-Graef; police officer Clinton Grimes, formerly of the U.S. Navy; Lt. Scott Easterling, now serving on active duty in Iraq; New Hampshire state Rep. Timothy Comerford; Tennessee state Rep. Frank Nicely and others.
"As president-elect, Respondent Obama failed to submit prima facie evidence of his qualifications before January 20, 2009. Election officers failed to challenge, validate or evaluate his qualifications. Relators submit that as president elect, Respondent Obama failed [tO] qualify per U.S. CONST. Amend. XX [paragraph] 3," the document said.
John Eidsmoe, an expert on the U.S. Constitution now working with the Foundation on Moral Law, an organization founded by former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore after he was removed from office for formally recognizing the Ten Commandments' influence in the U.S., said the demand is a legitimate course of action.
"She basically is asking, 'By what authority' is Obama president," he told WND. "In other words, 'I want you to tell me by what authority. I don't really think you should hold the office.'
"She probably has some very good arguments to make," Eidsmoe said.
The letter, dispatched to Holder today, is the latest development in the quest by a multitude of lawyers and plaintiffs nationwide for documentation that Obama qualifies to be president under the requirements of the U.S. Constitution.
WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "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."
Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.
Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.
Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 300,000 others and sign up now!
Several of the cases have involved emergency appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court in which justices have declined even to hear arguments. Among the cases turned down without a hearing at the high court have been petitions by Philip Berg, Cort Wrotnowski, Leo Donofrio and Taitz.
Taitz' plaintiffs, some of whom potentially face life-or-death situations in defense of the U.S. Constitution on a daily basis, note that information on Quo Warranto against a federal officer normally is related to the attorney general. But since Holder is an Obama friend and appointee, they are asking for the appointment of a special prosecutor to help in presenting documentation to the Supreme Court.
"This information on Quo Warranto includes action between the United States ex rel. and the State of Hawaii over original birth records of Barack H. Obama II being withheld per Hawaii's privacy laws. Hawaii's action obstructs the constitutional duties of election officers to validate or evaluate President Elect Obama qualifications to become President under U.S. CONST. art. II § 1, and amend. XX § 3," the document said.
Eidsmoe said it's clear that Obama has something in the documentation of his history, including his birth certificate, college records and other documents, "he does not want the public to know."
What else could be the reason for his hiring law firms across the nation to fight any request for information as basic as his Occidental College records from the early 1980s, he asked. A separate lawsuit has sought the documents to find out whether they indicate Obama, possibly under the name Barry Soetero, attended the college on aid for foreign students.
Obama's critics warn of the impending constitutional crisis should it be discovered Obama is ineligible and the resulting chaos of trying to figure out what, if any, of his executive branch orders, should be valid.
According to the online Constitution.org resource: "The common law writ of quo warranto has been suppressed at the federal level in the United States, and deprecated at the state level, but remains a right under the Ninth Amendment which was understood and presumed by the Founders, and which affords the only judicial remedy for violations of the Constitution by public officials and agents."
Taitz told WND the "relators" include members of the Army, Air Force, Marines and Army and feature recipients of some of the highest honors the nation awards, including the Purple Heart.
One is Harry Riley, a veteran military officer who spent part of his career in the Pentagon. Riley said the issue is basically over whether Americans will allow "the trashing" of their Constitution.
"Myself, along with hundreds of thousands of other warriors, have fought for the U.S. Constitution. The whole issue is one of constitutional crisis, in my judgment. How can an individual become the commander-in-chief, or the president of the U.S., with questions regarding his constitutional qualifications?" he asked.
"The whole idea is that America cannot allow an individual to serve as president who isn't qualified. It destroys our Constitution. It's the bedrock of our nation," he said.
"In the worst case, in the long run, if he continues [to fight revealing his documentation,] it's going to be revolution in the streets," he warned.
"It's simply a matter of producing a $12 birth certificate," Riley said.
"It's just mindboggling to think an individual who's been sworn in as the president of the United States would be so small and be such a hypocrite who would be unwilling to simply show a birth certificate," Riley said.
Taitz told WND she has assembled a list of about 100 names of people – so far – who are willing to be plaintiffs in such a demand.
Childers told WND he'd be perfectly happy if Obama is legitimate, but the truth still matters.
"I personally admire many things about him," he said. "But if he's not legitimate, if he's allowed to violate the Constitution, what else are they going to violate? Take my guns, and my television, telephone? What's the limit?"
Taitz told WND she's asking for the appointment of a special prosecutor, such as the role Archibald Cox played in investigating Watergate.
According to author Chester Antieau in his "The Practice of Extraordinary Remedies," Quo Warranto is one of the oldest rights in common law.
"The earliest case on record appears in the 9th year of Richard I, 1198," he wrote. "The statute of 9 Anne c. 20 in 1710 authorized a proper officer of a court, with leave of the court, to exhibit an information in the nature of quo warranto, at the 'relation' of any person desiring to prosecute the same – to be called the relator. Early American statutes were modeled after the Statute of Anne and, indeed, the statute has often been ruled to be part of the common law we inherited from England."
Antieau noted the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled, "Quo warranto is addressed to preventing a continued exercise of authority unlawfully asserted, rather than to correct what has already been done. ..."
Its first recognize purpose, he said, is "to determine the title of persons claiming possession of public offices and to oust them if they are found to be usurpers."
Among those who are subject to its demands, under court precedent, are chief executives in other U.S. governmental positions, including governors and sheriffs.
As WND has reported on several occasions, none of the so-called "evidence" of Obama's constitutional eligibility produced thus far is beyond reasonable doubt nor as iron-clad as simply producing an authentic birth certificate, something Americans are required to do regularly but the president still refuses to do.
As Jerome Corsi, WND senior staff writer, explained, "The main reason doubts persist regarding Obama's birth certificate is this question: If an original Hawaii-doctor-generated and Hawaii-hospital-released Obama birth certificate exists, why wouldn't the senator and his campaign simply order the document released and end the controversy?
"That Obama has not ordered Hawaii officials to release the document," Corsi writes, "leaves doubts as to whether an authentic Hawaii birth certificate exists for Obama."
Although Obama officials have told WND all such allegations are "garbage," here is a partial listing and status update for some of the cases over Obama's eligibility:
New Jersey attorney Mario Apuzzo has filed a case on behalf of Charles Kerchner and others alleging Congress didn't properly ascertain that Obama is qualified to hold the office of president.
Pennsylvania Democrat Philip Berg has three cases pending, including Berg vs. Obama in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a separate Berg vs. Obama which is under seal at the U.S. District Court level and Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama, brought on behalf of a retired military member who could be facing recall to active duty by Obama.
Leo Donofrio of New Jersey filed a lawsuit claiming Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court but denied a full hearing.
Cort Wrotnowski filed suit against Connecticut's secretary of state, making a similar argument to Donofrio. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court, but was denied a full hearing.
Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes headlines a list of people filing a suit in California, in a case handled by the United States Justice Foundation, that asks the secretary of state to refuse to allow the state's 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office. The case is pending, and lawyers are seeking the public's support.
Chicago attorney Andy Martin sought legal action requiring Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle to release Obama's vital statistics record. The case was dismissed by Hawaii Circuit Court Judge Bert Ayabe.
Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan sought a temporary restraining order to stop the Electoral College vote in North Carolina until Barack Obama's eligibility could be confirmed, alleging doubt about Obama's citizenship. His case was denied.
In Ohio, David M. Neal sued to force the secretary of state to request documents from the Federal Elections Commission, the Democratic National Committee, the Ohio Democratic Party and Obama to show the presidential candidate was born in Hawaii. The case was denied.
Also in Ohio, there was the Greenberg v. Brunner case which ended when the judge threatened to assess all case costs against the plaintiff.
In Washington state, Steven Marquis sued the secretary of state seeking a determination on Obama's citizenship. The case was denied.
In Georgia, Rev. Tom Terry asked the state Supreme Court to authenticate Obama's birth certificate. His request for an injunction against Georgia's secretary of state was denied by Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter.
California attorney Orly Taitz has brought a case, Lightfoot vs. Bowen, on behalf of Gail Lightfoot, the vice presidential candidate on the ballot with Ron Paul, four electors and two registered voters.
In addition, other cases cited on the RightSideofLife blog as raising questions about Obama's eligibility include:
In Texas, Darrel Hunter vs. Obama later was dismissed.
In Ohio, Gordon Stamper vs. U.S. later was dismissed.
In Texas, Brockhausen vs. Andrade.
In Washington, L. Charles Cohen vs. Obama.
In Hawaii, Keyes vs. Lingle, dismissed.
Corsi had gone to both Kenya and Hawaii prior to the election to investigate issues surrounding Obama's birth. But his research and discoveries only raised more questions, the biggest being why, if there exists documentation of Obama's eligibility, hasn't it been released to quell the rumors.
Instead, a series of law firms have been hired on Obama's behalf around the nation to prevent any public access to his birth certificate, passport records, college records and other documents.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)