This is pathetic waste of an article. Really. Lame.
... you mean, a pathetic waste as opposed to the insightful content usually found on WorldNetDaily?Smile awhile, friend!
No, I mean this is pathetic waste of an article. Really, Really, Really Lame.Even for SLW
ROADMAP TO ADDRESS THE LOOMING CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS:Since the Supreme Court has now prevented itself from acknowledging the question of whether Barack H. Obama is or is not an Article II “natural born citizen” based on the Kenyan/British citizenship of Barack Obama’s father at the time of his birth (irrespective of whether Barack Obama is deemed a “citizen” born in Hawaii or otherwise) as a prerequisite to qualifying to serve as President of the United States under the Constitution -- the Court having done so at least three times and counting, first before the Nov 4 general election and twice before the Dec 15 vote of the College of Electors -- it would seem appropriate, if not necessary, for all Executive Branch departments and agencies to secure advance formal advice from the United States Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel as to how to respond to expected inquiries from federal employees who are pledged to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States” as to whether they are governed by laws, regulations, orders and directives issued under Mr. Obama during such periods that said employees, by the weight of existing legal authority and prior to a decision by the Supreme Court, believe in good faith that Mr. Obama is not an Article II “natural born citizen”.Moreover, each and every member of Congress should be notified that he or she is personally liable (can be sued) for his or her own failure, or the same in conspiracy with other members, to perform what is a ministerial and constitutional duty, that is, to require and/or insist that Presidential electoral votes only be counted for candidates who are “natural born citizens” under Article II of the United States Constitution, the failure of which creates a cause of action for deprivation of claimants’ constitutional rights (as allowed under the Bivens case) against employees of the Federal Government, in this case, to a lawful President and Commander in Chief, and therefore, for deprivation of adequate continuation of the United States as a Constitutional Republic. The constitutionally tortious conduct is not subject to congressional immunity and would be the jettison of Article II of the Constitution by failure to stop and/or object to the counting of electoral votes for Barack H. Obama who has admitted that at the time of his birth his father was a Kenyan/British citizen and not a citizen of the United States of America. Finally, if 1/20/09 comes and goes with a usurper in the Whitehouse (that is, Obama is definitely NOT an Article II “natural born citizen” -- dad Kenyan/British citizen at BHO’s birth -- albeit he MAY be a 14th Amendment “citizen”) with usurper enablers in Congress and the Supreme Court … God help us because many of the people will -- rightfully and under our Constitution and Declaration of Independence -- endeavor through other means to take back the Government from what is nothing less than a non-constitutional coup d’etat. (SCOTUS now does have the power to forestall that grim yet inevitable scenario, otherwise the blood and possible loss of our Constitutional Republic is SQUARELY ON THEIR HEADS.)
I want to start by saying I would personally have voted for Obama for President (long story but I can't vote). I have seen a few assumptions that IF (I personally feel nothing will come of these Supreme Court cases) Obama was to be found "not to be a natural citizen" that Biden would become the President...BUT, if Obama is found to NOT be a natural citizen then that would make him ineligible for the Presidency then would that not make his choice for VP(Biden) become void? At this point Bush will still be in the presidency well into June (my understanding is there has been a presidency that has run past the Jan. 20 inauguration and went well into March). Remember people there are lots of agendas out there and who is to say (conspiracy alert) that a 30 year plan wasn't started on September 11, 1991 when Bush Sr. gave his famous NWO speech about a one world government, followed by a attack on American soil on September 11, 2001 (a pattern is emerging) that gave the president a chance to pass laws taking away many of the rights established by our Bill of Rights (not going into it here but search for yourself the Executive Orders signed by Bush since 911 and lets not get into the Patriot attack ...I mean Act[submitted read and agreed upon hours before the vote resubmitted with huge differences giving no time for ANYONE to hae read it before signing it]) and when we are finally ready to be rid of Bush we start hearing about ineligibility of Obama which was declined by the Supreme Court months ago only to be resubmitted and to be heard on the 9th and 16th mere days before the official Inauguration. Remember 40 of our 43 Presidents have been Freemasons (more research ... aren't I a stinker) which simply CAN'T be a coincidence. Now realize Bush signed a proposal for 20,000 military troops to "police" our country in fear of riots from our "emerging depression" which will be in place in each state before the inauguration (which may not happen... I still think...aww neva mind) Obama not being "allowed" to be president will be turned on the government and "whites" who are of course ALL racist and against a African-"American" becoming President which will of course cause rioting by lets call them "Obamaites" fires rage across our country, people(whites) being murdered in the streets total civil unrest which will "force" (by choice) Bush to call upon Marshall Law to enforce the turmoil in each state. So remember the agendas of "others" are far more insidious than YOU may think and don't let it come to this...End conspiracy theory. Don't you find it a coincidence that both McCain and Obama both had this ineligibility claim so no matter who would have run there would be this doubt that would of course lead to Bush remaining in office longer than he deserves (well we can't take the last eight years back but we can stop Bush from retaining the Presidency)
Anonymous, you're incorrect. On Obama being found disqualified right before the inauguration, Biden would serve as Acting President under the 20th Amendment until a new President was determined (perhaps by new elections).
I was going to read the posts but then I realized Obama's presidency would be over anyway by the time I got to the end so I'll just take your word for it.....
To Anon 3:27 PMIt is now 8:30 PM nothings changed. Obama is still on for 1-20-09. The Supreme Court has thrown this malarke out the door.(but don't give up) My father told me I was hatched at the Hogle Zoo.....and he brought me home as a tadpole. I didn't believe him then.... I have one of those embossed numbered documents that states otherwise too..... Today, I blow the disillusioned off, based on the elite reptilian mentality in this here neck-a-tha-woods ;-)
To Jackass 8:31 PMI was referring to Obama's four year term being over.It was a joke about how long the preceding posts were.Of course if you have to explain it it sort of kills the fun.....dork
To 5:50 AM I can relate dude. As a mind reader, I can legitimately state anything over two sentences simply baffles me.
the rightwing nutjobs just can let it go. i'd ask them if knew how idiotic they sound but unfortunately the answer would be 'no'.oh, and it is spelled WorldNUTDaily.
oops...the nutjobs just CAN'T let it go ^^^^^^
Thanks Ted, it was a question and not a statement so wrong wouldn't be correct but thanks for the quick response and am glad to see you didn't rip me a new one.To Anon 8:31 PM "The Supreme Court has thrown this malarke out the door" ...http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-570.htm DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 16, 2009.http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a505.htm DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 16, 2009....so the "malarke" has NOT been thrown out the door ... YET.Everyone I see states that Obama HAS submitted the "proper form of certification to become the next President" however posting the documentation to a website does not constitute proper delivery of documentation. They say the document that was posted has been verified by the Hawaiian authorities but I've read the article many times and have never seen that they said he was born in Hawaii just that the form (certification and not certificate) they sent was authentic. The form was a certification (does not offer substantial proof of where he was born)and not a certificate (does offer the proof needed to establish he is a "natural born citizen)which are totally different forms. I've seen it stated that this form is adequate for identification for becoming the next President. The question then is if he didn't have this documentation and had to have it resent then how did he show proper forms for identification as proof that he was eligible for the Presidency to begin with. People have also stated that because he was Senator this "proves" he must have showed his documentation then but one does not need to prove being a "natural citizen" to become a Senator (being a natural citizen is not required to be a Senator but IS to be President)
I see factcheck has verified a Birth Certificate as authentic.I see court reviews with no changes in the outcome.I look at this situation as I would a medical claim process: Submit- denied resubmit-deniedresubmit-deniedresubuit-denied subject to appealappeal- denied appeal- denied appeal - deniedLike I said, you don't have to give up.
You seem to misunderstand ... I want Obama to be the President! So fastcheck is the proper place to deliver the documentation? You also state that the "birth certificate" has been found by fastcheck to be authentic which is a FALSE statement because no birth certificate has been turned into fastcheck OR the proper authority on the matter. I just wonder why you think a site run by a colleague of Obama is the proper place to deliver the documentation. My question is how do you see the proper forms of proof having been delivered if he had to send away for them to begin with? You seem to think because I'm for upholding the Constitution that I'm against Obama which simply is NOT the case. You seem to think this is all against Obama like no other President-elect has ever been asked to prove his citizenship which is simply a argument of the ignorant (numerous times in the past and even McCain had to prove his eligibility)
Challenge, can anyone prove this wrong?:– 1. Constitution Article II requires USA President to be “natural born citizen”. 2. BHO’s website admits his dad was Kenyan/British, not American, citizen when BHO was born.3. BHO is therefore not a “natural born citizen” (irrespective of Hawaiian birth or whether he may be a 14th Amendment “citizen” of USA) — as confirmed in the Senate’s own McCain qualification resolution agreed to by BHO.4. Supreme Court has already docketed two upcoming conferences, 1/9/09 and 1/16/09 — between dates Congress counts electoral votes (1/8/09) and Presidential inauguration (1/20/09) — to address Berg Case and fashion relief on BHO’s eligibility to be President.5. Since no facts are in dispute, Supreme Court rules on Summary Judgment to enjoin BHO’s inauguration as President.6. Therefore, BHO is not inaugurated as President.7. Vice President Elect Biden is inaugurated Acting President under the 20th Amendment to serve until new President is determined — the procedure for which determination to be set out by Congress and/or the Supreme Court so long as in conformance with the Constitution.
Ted: His mother meet the the criteria to override the fathers non citizenship. She qualifies as the citizen who, was living in Hawaii for the required time frame, to validate Obama as a natural born citizen. Anon: 12/31/08 10:35 Pm I can reply. I don't want to...
Below are two official emails that dispute the public version of Obama’s Birth and his mother’s marriage to BHO Sr.From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008 Subject: Re: Stanley "Ann" Dunham 1960 to 1970 class registrationMs. Stanley Ann Dunham (BHO II’s mom) was enrolled at the University of Washington for:Autumn 1961Winter 1962Spring 1962The records responsive to your request from the University of Washington are above as provided by the Public Disclosure Laws of Washington State. This concludes the University’s response to your Public Records request. Please feel free to contact our office if you have any questions or concerns.Madolyne LawsonOffice of Public Records206-543-9180From: Stuart Lau [mailto:email@example.com] Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 Subject: Re: InquiryThe University of Hawaii at Manoa is only able to provide the following information for Stanley Ann Dunham:Dates of attendance: Fall 1960 (First day of instruction 9/26/1960)Spring 1963 - Summer 1966 Fall 1972 - Fall 1974 Summer 1976 Spring 1978 Fall 1984 - Summer 1992 Degrees awarded: BA - Mathematics, Summer 1967 (August 6, 1967) MA - Anthropology, Fall 1983 (December 18, 1983) PhD - Anthropology, Summer 1992 (August 9, 1992) Sincerely, Stuart Lau**************************************** Stuart Lau University Registrar Office of Admissions and Records University of Hawaii at Manoa Ph: (808) 956-8010 **************************************** Commentary on University Emails:For the BHO II Hawaiian Aug 4 1961 COLB to be accurate the following improbable events needed to occur:1 month after starting classes, Stanley Ann Dunham, Barack’s mom, at age 17, got pregnant by the only black African man on the entire chain of Hawaiian islands.2 months after getting pregnant, she drops out of college.3 months after getting pregnant, she marries BHO Sr.10 months after her first day at the U of HI, she delivers BHO II and immediately leaves her parents, her new husband, and her home, to fly alone with a newborn 2800 miles to Seattle to start college at the U of W.Stanley Ann Dunham does not return to Hawaii until AFTER BHO Sr left the islands for Harvard.This is an implausible series of events made even more nefarious because Obama II in his 2 bio books never mentions his mom left Hawaii when she was married to BHO Sr, nor does he mention she was in Washington State during this time.Barack’s sister was born in Indonesia, and has a COLB from Hawaii like Obama II. She is NOT a “Natural Born Citizen” of the USA as required by the Constitution to become president…and Obama probably isn’t either.
I think it is equally implausible that she flew to Africa with this man and had a child. But where-ever Obama was born, the current evidence (COLB) states he was born in Hawaii. But he is still not a "Natural Born Citizen". Hawaii is not a legal state of the United States! See the following website: http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/HAWAII/hawaii.html In 1999, the United Nations confirmed that the plebiscite vote that led to Hawaii’s statehood was in violation of article 73 of the United Nations’ charter. The Hawaii statehood vote, under treaty then in effect, was illegal and non-binding. On November 23, 1993, President Clinton signed United States Public Law 103-150, which not only acknowledged the illegal actions committed by the United States in the overthrow of the legitimate government of Hawaii, but also that the Hawaiian people never surrendered their sovereignty. The latter is the most important part of United States Public Law 103-150 for it makes it quite clear that the Hawaiian people never legally ceased to be a sovereign separate independent nation. There is no argument that can change that fact. United States Public Law 103-150, despite its polite language, is an official admission that the government of the United States illegally occupies the territory of the Hawaiian people. So even if Obama was born in Hawaii - he was not born in a legal U.S. State and is not a NBC.
The Hawaiian Birth Certificate issue may be a red herring. It wouldn't matter if Obama were born in the Lincoln Bedroom of the White House; he is not eligible to be President since he is not a Constitutional Article II "natural born citizen" as he himself delcares on his website that his dad was Kenyan/British, not American, citizen when he was born. He may (or may not) be a full American "citizen" as under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution; but "citizen" is NOT the same as the unique requirement set by the Constitution's framers, that being "natural born citizen", in order to be President of the US. Case closed. The US Supreme Court will not let him pass. No way!
Pretty insightful post. Never thought that it was this simple after all. I had spent a good deal of my time looking for someone to explain this subject clearly and you’re the only one that ever did that. Kudos to you! Keep it up...Birth Records
Wow... Offishal? Really?
Get over it!There are facts:1.) Barack Obama is a natural born citizen - he would not be President if he was not.2.) He is doing a better job than any republican could do. (Or at least he was until this country was betrayed and republicans took the House) If Democrats took the House in 2010, then we would not have the following problems:a) high gas prices (Republicans are part of the oil industry and would do anything to keep their bosses happy and enjoying surpluses)b) health care issues (Obamacare was one of the greatest moves ever taken by a national government, but the greedy rightwing cant bear losing even a penny)c) Governors (they are overturnign the things we voted on. What is the point in voting anymore if it can just be overturned. I'm just saying. Vote OBAMA 2012!-Brian
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.