Everybody in Congress knows OBAMA is a usurper, and not a natural borne citizen. Even his replacement, Burris knows it. That is why early last week when rejected by that moron that leads the Senate HARRY REID (who BTW does not understand the Constitution, doesn't not even know the laws of the Senate which he leads, and doesn't even KNOW STATE'S RIGHTS laws on appointing replacement senators, he doesn't know squat,etc.) that is WHY BURRIS's veiled THREAT in his lawsuit and affadavit, to secure his rightful, Senate seat stated "I am qualified and furthermore I am a natural borne citizen". Note Senators only need be US citizens, not natural borne. When OBAMA heard of this he convened a back room meeting to shut up Burris and make him a deal, deal.
The reason I have been silent until this week is that nothing new has come about. Lawsuits and stays have been filed, but the Supreme Court -- the third branch of the government - could not grant them without violating the Constitution. In the next two weeks there are no fewer than a half dozen suits before the Supreme Court. They are taking the shotgun approach. They deal with freedom of information , kenyan brith, obama father not being a US citizen, standing, military wondering what to do (after all obama , the usurper, would be the head of the army, etc.). All of these suits are going to be resolved one way or another. This week is critical.
The SC will either decide that Constitution has bearing in it's wording of natural borne citizen. Or will re define 200 years of case history. OR will not hear the cases because of legal mumbo jumbo that misses the mark (i.e. no damage done, no standing, etc.) The court only needs FOUR of NINE judges to HEAR the full case. So far NONE of the cases have been officially DISMISSED.
ON Jan 20th Chief Justice Roberts must swear in the new president. He must do his due diligence or we will have a usurper for president and a usurper Congress. Nothing that they pass will have any merit. Anybody who defies the usurper's signed orders could ignore them, and if arrested or charged. Damages will be against that person. And furthermore, that person has the right to defend himself, even requesting records and documentations based in order to secure his/her point of view.
For example, "i am not paying taxes under tresury dept. because OBAMA has no authority." that is your baseline. Prove he has authority, if he has authority the courts need to prove it.
An interesting week is before us. Either the hertitage and those who died for the Constitution will be upheld OR their deaths will be in vein and our Consitution will die.
On Friday Dick Cheney did not follow the Constitution. When ratifying the electoral votes, the constitution states he must ask if there are any objections. He did not ask. He did not follow the constituion. He did not give the people a chance to voice their opinion.
WE have a corrupt CONGRESS and usurper for president elect.
Will the Supreme Court be complicit in this grand fraud, or will the stand up for the Constitution?
Will US president possibly be an illegal alien? IF so, we will be the laughing stock of world.
And you know what? Pravda and Putin know this.
OBama is a compromised candidate, the Burris incident proves it. How will our enemies compromise him?
OBama must go under these circumstances, the Supreme Court was severaly compromised in the 2000 Al Gore fiasco.
It is time for a new government a new Congress to fill the vacuum that is going to be created when this illegal government takes over on jan 20th
be prepared for long series of legal battles over this issue and new government being formed over the next six months consisting of
brave new Conservatives and liberals who refuse to have the wool pulled over our eyes due to the corrupt political hacks and corrupt ole "boys netword' elite in power now.
will be done with uou. finally. And Most Thankfully.
You want to replace it with a new crop of capitalist's lackey stooges. What makes you think that that would be an improvement over what we have now?
who said anything about lackey stooges?
we have plenty of honorable people who could
do a much better job than these elitist crooks
who are out of touch with not only the constitution but with the common man.
first thing is they stole our tax money with bail out after bailout with NO ACCOUNTABILITY !
both reps and dems. get a clue, with obama
it is worse. He can't even be Impeached !! For wrongdoing because he's not president.
get used to it, we have a usurper and tryant for president. who fooled the people and he's drastically compromised.
who said anything about lackey stooges?
we have plenty of honorable people who could
do a much better job than these elitist crooks
who are out of touch with not only the constitution but with the common man.
first thing is they stole our tax money with bail out after bailout with NO ACCOUNTABILITY !
both reps and dems. get a clue, with obama
it is worse. He can't even be Impeached !! For wrongdoing because he's not president.
get used to it, we have a usurper and tryant for president. who fooled the people and he's drastically compromised.
You miss the point. The us government is owned by capitalists. All elected official are capitalist lackeys.
obama is NOT a capitalist by a long shot
he's a socialist, as is most of the Democratic party.
Crooks all of them, closely followed by the Republican.
BTW someone here posted that ponzi scheme guy arrested recently for stacking billions, mad dog or madof, was a republican? No, he's a democratic, a big fat cat democratic, and he has all the judges in his back pocket like Don Corleone.
You're wrong on just about everything in that post. Cheney did not violate the Constitution because it doesn't say anything about the President of Senate asking for objections or ratifying the votes. His only requirement is to count the electoral votes submitted by each state. There is good news for you though -- you are now part of group that has been diagnosed with "Obama Derangement Syndrome." It's a disease that makes people unable to recognize that someone born in Hawaii is in fact a natural born citizen and qualifies to serve as President.
But, while I agree though not full heartedly about being born in Hawaii qualifies an individual to be president. I see it being when you were born in Hawaii. Keep in mind when Hawaii became a state.
ezeedude123
I got the rope 4 you to get hog tied
she gets powertools
http://www.shoelace.org/pics/unsorted/hogtied.jpg
-- Modified on 1/11/2009 11:18:22 PM
-- Modified on 1/11/2009 11:19:09 PM
doesn't matter what state he's allegedly borne in, both parents must be us citizens
obama's father was NOT a us citizen
therefore he was not natural borne
"natural born citizen." There is no express requirement that both parents must be U.S. citizens.
While the phrase "natural born citizen" is not defined in the Constitution and has not yet been definitively construed by the Supreme Court, the plain meaning of the words used is simply that the President must be a native born citizen and one S. Ct. justice has so read the clause in a dissenting opinion.
The 14th Amendment vests citizenship on anyone born within the United States. While that amendment does not govern presidential eligibility, there is no constitutional legislative history indicating that the framers intended that both parents of a president must be US citizens as a condition for his eligilbility to be president.
-- Modified on 1/12/2009 11:41:10 AM
sorry dude, wrong
there is plenty of case law that says that
natural borne means both citizens must be US borne citizens. Both Leahy, and OBama by reference, stated as much in discussions last year when they were passing a resolution to agree that McCain was a natural borne citizen.
Obama tried to change the wording to "US citizen" knowing fully well, that at the time, if he won, OBAMA was not natural borne.
Even Burris knows OBAMA is NOT natural borne, that is why he made a veiled threat in his affadavit, and was immediately shut up by the democratic party and granted his seat. See how easy it it to blackmail this president when he knows you have the goods on him? His presidency has even started, i mean his usurption of the presidency, and he's already compromised and weakened.
This clarifies it
http://theobamafile.com/NaturalBornCitizenLaw.htm
to make a judgement on obama the SC would have to undo over 200 years of case law , definitions, and clarifications.
by a faulty article on the Internet
Start with the Constitution. Art II Sec. 1 clause 4 (miscited in your article as Clause 5) provides “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 eligibility clause thus contains no requirement that both parents must be citizens but only that the president be a “natural born citizen.”
Second, contrary to what your article implies, the Supreme Court has never held that the eligibility clause requires that both parents must be citizens before a president can be a “natural born citizen.” The two cases cited by your article did not even present this question –they addressed citizenship issues pertaining as to citizens generally. PERKINS v. ELG, 307 U.S. 325 (1939)(“ The question is whether the plaintiff, Marie Elizabeth Elg, who was born in the United States of Swedish parents then naturalized here, has lost her citizenship and is subject to deportation because of her removal during minority to Sweden, it appearing that her parents resumed their citizenship in that country but that she returned here on attaining majority with intention to remain and to maintain her citizenship in the United States”); UNITED STATES v. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)(“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, "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").
So immediately we know that these cases are not and could not be binding precedent on this issue since no president or candidate was a party to the case. If the court in either case happened to say that the phase “natural born citizen” as used in Art II, Sec, I clause 4 means both parents must be US citizens, this would not be binding. This would simply be what is known in the law as “dicta,” a nonbinding statement in a case.
Just to be sure, however, I skimmed both cases to see if there is any express dicta that the phase “natural born citizen” as used in Art II, Sec, I clause 4 means both parents must be US citizens. There was not. And if you read the explanations given by the author of your article as to why the cases stand for the proposition he cites, I think you will quickly see he has engaged in some tortured reasoning.
If there was binding Supreme Court precedent on this issue, Mr. Obama would have been declared ineligible long ago. But if “there is plenty of case law that says that” could you give me just one S.Ct. case? Just quote it for me.
I will treat you to a date with your ATF, Ms. Chloe Banks, if you can do so.
no sir you have been misled, the constitution clearly states that eligibility requirement is that that president must be a natural borne citizen.
the natural borne definition was clearly defined at the time of the constitution, it is only the present day idiot far left wing whack jobs, who like on counterfeit marriage, are oxymoronically try to re - define things known for ages.
as the weblink points out:
esp. when the original authors of the constitution provide clarification in letters that explicitly state their intent. (comments to George Washington from the then to be future chief justice of the supreme court and authors of futher constitutional ammendments.
esp. when the "law of nations" defines the natural borne definition.
esp. when patrick leahy, a senator from Vermont, even states that a natural borne citizen is one that has two US citizens.
There is no doubt that the definition of natural borne requires two US citizens. Not one borne in Kenya and an underage US citizen, which applies to obama jr.
Mr. OBAMA hasn't been declared ineligible because the DNC never vetted him. Pelosi and DNC certified him as eligible, but when pressed in lawsuits for the back up documentation. They have refused to provide it. They are using legal mumbo jumbo (no standing, right to privacy, etc.) to deny the courts the information. So far NO DISCOVERY whatsoever has been made in any of the THIRTY PLUS cases. If he provides the documentation, and the court rules in his favor, so be it. So far he is hiding behind technicalities. And one case will spring open the truth.
in addition, Dr. Taitz, today applied for emergency stay for the justices to recuse (sp?) themselves from the swearing in ceremony because her case is in the Court and the judges would not be impartial in hearing her case and showing up at the swearing in ceremony. We shall see if they grant her the stay. If not, then it will take the other lawsuit approach to get obama to reveal his true identity.
So far millions of Americans are aware that he is a fake and fraud, they will NOT stand for this charade. Esp. when he is releasing terrorists from Gitmo to possibly come back and attack us. The usurper proves he is not for Americans, but against them.
Either way more cases are coming and the SC must make a decision one day to add legitimacy to his presidency, otherwise, he will be seen by a fake, fraud , and usurper under the current circumstances.
"there is plenty of case law that says that"
Still waiting for you to produce one S.Ct. case that says this.
All that other stuff does not matter. The Law of Nations, by the way, is simply a French book that posited the 2 parents requirement as a requirement for citizenship, not presidential eligibility. The 14th Amendment of course rejects this requirement for citizenship -being born in the US alone is enough.
You have to be careful with these wacko websites. There are websites that prove we never landed on the moon either.
You've got to read the original sources - i.e., the cases themselves to be sure you have accurate information.
under the constitution, there is the following us code , per the constitution
USC 15 - Sec. 15. Counting electoral votes in Congress
"Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received."
Cheney did NOT CALL FOR OBJECTIONS! get a clue
as the stupidest poster of 2009. Just when I thought Xfean was going to "cruise" in unchallenged. lol
It is indeed a stiff competition between them. And I should know about things that are stiff 
I would not characterize his post as "stupid." I understand the points he is making.
There are some legitimate legal challenges to Mr. Obama's qualification to be President, although not quite the one that the Dude referenced. And he is also a little confused as to what the Constitution says as opposed to statutes in the United States Code governing the counting of electoral college votes. But the statute does impose an objection requirement as he says.
But I think where he is most off is the notion that, if Mr. Obama is legally unqualified to be president, this means that various federal statutory laws - including the tax laws - need not be obeyed once he is sworn into office. Statutory laws would not be affected by this so Dude make sure you pay your taxes/
While the effect of the swearing in of an unqualified president on the law would be a novel question of constitutional law, I would guess that the only laws that would really be unenforceable would be executive orders signed by the President.
-- Modified on 1/12/2009 7:40:14 PM
kicks it back to the lower court for remedy. But accepts a friend of court as future case. So the case is not dead, yet. It gives BERG a chance to appeal it back up if he loses. But knowing fully well that both parties would appeal the decision, depending upon outcome, the SC is just playing games and telling BERG his standing issue doesn't look too good at this point in time.
I stand by my original assumptions. OBAMA would be head of the executive branch, as such, he would be head of the treasury dept. In order to clear up OBAMA's status, and get charged with something, one way to do it is to not pay your taxes. Then when charged you could claim as I stated, statuary or not. You would have to have access to OBAMA's records to prove your point which is OBAMA is illegal. Whether or not paying your taxes is illegal, however, is another matter as you point out. Probably not a good route, as poster above points out.
However, that is not going to happen, or unlikely UNLESSS millions of people protest in that manner. Which I would encourage them to do wholeheartedly, just like tens of thousands of far left liberals did when Bush was elected fairly and left the country (to Canada, and didn't pay their taxes!). But that is another matter.
The Berg case was kicked back, it is unlikely that BERG HAS STANDING due to fact that he could not justify, or is having a hard time justifying damages done at this point in time. Although, looking at the economy and how the market tanked when obama took the lead in polls should not be very hard to prove.
Berg and Taitz and others have stronger cases. Including the military case. The ALAN KEYES case (KEyes has standing and Californina law on his side, as any candidates can challenge the election per CA law) and the Lightfoot case (Lightfoot has standing as being Ron Paul's VP).
I am just pointing out the facts in these cases. There is case law and verifiable facts that OBAMA is NOT A NATURAL BORNE CITIZEN. AS posted in link
http://theobamafile.com/NaturalBornCitizenLaw.htm
There are many cases that point this out. OBAMA was likely not even borne in HAwaii, just like his younger sister wasn't borne in HAwaii yet she was also registered by same mother for her birth in Hawaii. BTW OBAMA's never lived at the addresses posted in the Hawaii ad or BC. A private investigator verified that from a neighbor who lived on the street for nearly 50 years. The mother registered OBAMA the same way she later registered his sister. OBAMA and his sister both stated they were "citizens of the world". OBAMA is a brittish subject, not a US citizen do to his under age mother and his father being a brittish subject. And likely not even a US citizen IF proven he was borne in KENYA which his grandmother signed an affavadit saying she witnessed his birth there. This guy is looking more and more like a fraud and phoney every day.
So far Ginsberg has pulled out all stops on the SC trying hard not to get these cases heard. She even has the SC clerk in her back pocket. She's a bully, a liberal bully, she needs to go.
Kenendy is the swing vote and something substantial has to happen. Alito, Scalia and Thomas are for these cases. Suter-breyer-ginsberg-kenedy-stevens are not. The chief justice is also for these cases, and he's the one that has to swear in obama.
Another case conference is this friday, so more decisions and more updates are forthcoming. Stay tuned and stick your insults up your a$$ you worthless putzes.
If Mr. Obama was not born in Hawaii but was born in Kenya then of course he is ineligible. That is in fact what Berg alleged as far as the reported case shows. As far as the judge's opinion shows, he not contend that both parents had to be US citizens.
But the birth certificate which is posted on line says Hawaii. Now you can claim its fraudulent just like you can claim the Kennedy assassination was a conspiracy but there is no evidence of this.
And do not be so cranky. I'm not insulting you I'm just saying you are wrong.
I'm not insulting you I'm just saying you are wrong.
???prove it, so far no documentation proves obama is a natural borne citizen. His own grandmother says he was borne in Kenya. And if not, even if borne in Hawaii he still is not natural borne. He is not eligible either way.
Furthermore, if you are arrested by a federal judge for not paying your taxes under obama. You can argue that the judge, appointed by obama is not legit . because obama is usurper. Obama appoints federal judges, and they must sign a warrent for your arrest. There are other ways to get to the bottom of this.
The problem here is that the SOS's "used to" vet their ballot candidates, now almost to a one, they say it's responsibility of the political party. Kinda like the wolf watching the hen house. When the DNC was contacted, they said it is the SOS responsibility!! So OBAMA will NOT get elected again, because many states are closing the loop hole--- assuming he gets in now, which is like 99% like he's going too.
we shall see
1. No documentation that he was born in Hawaii? His Hawaii birth certificate is posted on line.
2. You can stop paying taxes and defend by saying the judge appointed by Obama is not legit? First, he will only appoint new judges when vacancies occur. The odds of having one of these judges as the one who signs your arrest warrant are quite small.
Arrest warrants are usually signed by a fed magistrate anyway who is not appointed by the president.
And whether your arrest is lawful that would be no defense to an underlying crime anyway. You would just be re-arrested by someone with authority.
Give it up Dude and join in the inauguration.
1. No documentation that he was born in Hawaii? His Hawaii birth certificate is posted on line.
>>>>that was no birth certificate, that was a PHOTOSHOP HAND JOB. Where was the doctor's sig? Where was the seal from 1961? Where were the baby foot prints? BTW not a single Hawaiian hospitol has owned up to the birth, nary a nurse, midwife, or doctor. The address given was bogus, the neighbors contacted, no obama's ever lived there. Forensic scientists rebuked it over and over and over again. SHOW ME THE VAULT VERSION NOT SOME BLOW JOB VERSION..
2. You can stop paying taxes and defend by saying the judge appointed by Obama is not legit? First, he will only appoint new judges when vacancies occur. The odds of having one of these judges as the one who signs your arrest warrant are quite small.
Arrest warrants are usually signed by a fed magistrate anyway who is not appointed by the president.
>>>>>>>>OBAMA has already said he is canning all of BUSH's Judges. Magistrates have no power, a good attorney will force a judge to make a ruling. An OBAMA appointed judge, not a magistrate. BTW you can't fix STUPID !!
And whether your arrest is lawful that would be no defense to an underlying crime anyway. You would just be re-arrested by someone with authority.
>>>>Who would have authority in Federal system under OBAMA? No one....none. You can make a good case of getting to the bottom of OBAMA credentials, but you may lose your case in process and end up paying penalties...maybe. Depends on judge and supreme court , etc.
Give it up Dude and join in the inauguration.
???NEVER
obama met with Chief Justice today, along with BIDEN. Yep, cbs news reported it. No reporters allowed. Roberts asked him for his credentials. OBama did NOT look too happy on his way out.
insiders say EXPECT SOMETHING BIG soon !!!
can't wait.
say good bye to HOLLYWOOD
say good by
my babieeeeeeee...