The Obama Hustle

The Rediscovered Truth About Barack H Obama

Posts Tagged ‘United States Constitution

Will Alabama Supreme Court Rule Obama Ineligible?

with 2 comments


Alabama Dares

Will Alabama Supreme Court Rule Obama Ineligible?

 

Over the past year, both before and since the elections, there have been a  number of court cases challenging Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility.  Most  of the cases have been dismissed by judges for reasons that are not truly  legitimate, but many feel they were dismissed to avoid the political  ramifications.

 

Just last week I wrote  about a case that was filed in Florida, that not only challenged Obama’s  eligibility, but stated that he was a direct threat to the safety and security  of the United States.  That case has yet to be heard.

 

Yet another case filed in Alabama may present one of the best chances of  producing a ruling against Obama.  In this case, Hugh McInnish and others  have filed suit against Alabama Secretary of State Beth Chapman for failure to  properly verify the eligibility of Barack Obama.  The case points out that  the state constitution requires the Secretary of State to verify a candidate’s  eligibility and that Chapman failed to accurately verify Obama’s  eligibility.

 

The attorney handling this case is the same attorney handling the case in  Florida. Larry Klayman, founder of Judicial Watch and the Klayman Law Firm in  Washington, will hopefully be arguing this case before the Alabama State Supreme  Court. The reason the case is going to the state Supreme Court is that a  previous judge dismissed the case. In that case the state  argued:

 

“[An attorney general’s opinion] is not case precedent binding on this court… Nevertheless, it constitutes an admission by Alabama’s chief law enforcement  officer on behalf of the state that if the Secretary of State has knowledge  gained from an official source about a candidate’s eligibility then she ‘should  not’ certify the candidate.”

 

Klayman argues that this admission of the state justifies the actions taken  by his clients. They believe that there is sufficient evidence presented by the  Maricopa County Sheriff’s Department Cold Case Posse to indicate that the long  form birth certificate presented by the White House on behalf of Obama is in  fact a forgery and that its presentation to the people of the United States  constitutes fraud. Klayman  argues:

 

“Plaintiffs have shown, backed by sworn affidavits from an ‘official source,’ Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio and his investigator, Mike Zullo, that Barack H. Obama  is not a natural born citizen eligible to be president. … There is credible  evidence that Mr. Obama was not born within the United States and that his birth  certificate or other identifying documents are fraudulent.”

“The secretary of state, having the power to certify candidates, can surely  de-certify – in effect disqualify – them if they are found to be ineligible. Mr.  Obama proceeded at his own risk. He defrauded the people of the state of Alabama  as well as the other voters in this country, and incredibly has served an entire  presidential term without once having to prove that he was indeed a natural born  citizen, despite all the evidence to the contrary.”

 

What raises hopes for the success of this case lies with the members of the  Alabama state Supreme Court. In an earlier hearing on the same argument the high  court denied the petition by McInnish to require that Obama produce an original  copy of his birth certificate. When Alabama’s High Court denied that earlier  petition Justice Tom Parker filed an unpublished concurrence in the case stating  that the charges of forgery were a legitimate concern.

 

In addition to Justice Parker, Klayman is counting on newly elected Chief  Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, Roy Moore. Chief Justice Moore is a strong  advocate of constitutional law rather than ruling on the prevailing politics of  the time. When Moore won re-election to the state Supreme Court he vowed that he  will do his utmost to uphold the Constitution of the United States as well as  the Constitution of the state of Alabama.

 

In speaking on constitutional law, Moore  said that humans will misbehave when they are not constrained by law and  that the Constitution was set up with the goal to restraining human excesses. He  went on to describe his view of constitutional law as:

 

“The whole basis of the Constitution is the restraint strength of human  power. The only way you can do that is acknowledged that morality and law does  come from God. No president has the power to violate constitutional restraints  of power. The members of the legislature don’t and neither does the Supreme  Court. The Constitution is the rule of law and my job is to uphold the rule of  law.”

 

Klayman is hoping that the skepticism of Justice Parker and the staunch stand  for constitutional law by Chief Justice Moore will be enough to prove their case  that Barack Hussein Obama has not provided the proper legal documentation to  prove that he meets the eligibility requirements for president of the United  States as set by the Constitution. This case above all others that I have seen  in the past year stands the best chance of winning.

 

Read more: http://godfatherpolitics.com/8491/will-alabama-supreme-court-rule-obama-ineligible/#ixzz2Ladaf75t

 

Written by The Obama Hustle

February 21, 2013 at 9:16 pm

Judge Roy Moore “No convincing evidence that Obama is a natural born citizen””

with 8 comments


English: Great Seal of The State of Alabama

Judge Roy Moore sworn in,January 11, 2013, Ten Commandment judge returns, God and scripture references, No convincing evidence that Obama is a natural born citizen

Judge Roy Moore sworn in,January 11, 2013, Ten Commandment judge returns, God and scripture references, No convincing evidence that Obama is a natural born citizen

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Lakin “not only has a right to follow his personal convictions under the Constitution, he has a duty,” Moore said. “And if the authority running the efforts of the war is not a citizen in violation of the Constitution, the order is unlawful.”

Moore said he’s seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” and a lot of evidence that suggests he is not.

“This is the strangest thing indeed. The president has never produced [evidence] in the face of substantial evidence he was not born in our country. People are accepting it blindly based on their feelings, not on the law,” he said.

“They can’t fool all of the people all of the time, and that’s what they’re trying to do,” he said.”…Judge Roy Moore interview by WND

“Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him, and cannot be inspected by him?”… Marbury versus Madison

From AL.com January 11, 2013.

“Ten Commandment judge returns: Roy Moore sworn in as Alabama’s chief justice”

“In a ceremony heavy on references to God and scripture, Roy Moore took the oath of office today as chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court.

Moore was joined by many relatives and a number of classmates from the U.S. Military Academy in West Point, where he graduated in 1969.

An overflow crowd attended the investiture ceremony at the state judicial building to see Moore return to the office roughly nine years after he was removed for his refusal to follow a federal judge’s order to remove a Ten Commandments monument that Moore had placed in the state judicial building. Moore has said that order was wrong.

He did not mention the controversy during today’s speech. He did quote George Washington from an inaugural address on the subject of acknowledging God.

“It was right then to acknowledge God. And it will continue to be so,” Moore said. He also said the foundation of the judicial system was laid in Deuteronomy 1:16-17. “We’ve got to remember that most of what we do in court comes from some scripture or is backed by scripture,” Moore said. More than 100 people watched the ceremony from an overflow area on closed-circuit television.

Tommy Bryan, a member of the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals since 2005, was sworn in as an associate Supreme Court justice.

Bryan was elected to fill the seat vacated by Justice Thomas Woodall, who retired.

Moore was sworn in Circuit Judge John Bentley from the state’s 25th Judicial Circuit, which includes Marion and Winston counties. Bentley attended West Point with Moore. Bentley introduced a number of other West Point graduates who came to Montgomery for Moore’s swearing in.

Justice Michael Bolin swore in Bryan, whom he called one of his best friends. C.O. Grinstead, pastor of Trinity Baptist Church in Oxford, drove to Montgomery to see Moore sworn in. He said Moore was a long-time friend.

“I’m thankful he ran and that is not a derogatory statement against the previous chief justice,” Grinstead said. “I just think the name Roy Moore is a statement in itself against crime and something for great morality.””

http://blog.al.com/montgomery/2013/01/ten_commandment_judge_returns.html

From WND September 20, 2010.

“Battle-scarred judge says Lakin decision ignores Constitution”

” The military judge who curiously noted without explanation that uncovering evidence about President Obama’s birth records could prove “embarrassing” and denied an officer the right to obtain potentially exculpatory evidence in a court-martial simply has forgotten the Constitution, the supreme rule of the United States.

So says Judge Roy Moore, who battled the politically correct climate as chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court a decade ago and ultimately was removed from office by a state panel that refused to review the constitutionality of a federal court order.

His comments came today in an interview with WND about Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, who yesterday was denied permission by Army Col. Denise R. Lind to obtain evidence that could document Obama is not eligible to occupy the Oval Office.

Lakin refused to follow his latest deployment orders to go to Afghanistan, because he was unable through Army channels to document Obama’s eligibility, and the president himself has declined opportunities to do so.

Judge Moore, who now operates through the Foundation for Moral Law, has personal experience with challenging the powers that be to follow the Constitution. His dispute centered on a Ten Commandments display he put in a state building to recognize the God who inspired the Founders of America.

A federal judge opined that the monument shouldn’t be there and ordered its removal. Moore refused and ultimately was removed from office by a state commission that he says “blindly” followed the order without evaluating its legitimacy.

See the movie Obama does not want you to see: Own the DVD that probes this unprecedented presidential-eligibility mystery!

With her decision, Lind mirrored a number of federal judges who have ruled on civil lawsuits over Obama’s eligibility. They have without exception denied the plaintiffs’ access to any requested documentation regarding the president’s eligibility.

Lind ruled that it was “not relevant” for the military to be considering such claims, that the laws allegedly violated by Lakin were legitimate on their face and that the chain of command led up to the Pentagon, and that should have been sufficient for Lakin.

Moore said the ruling is a symptom of a judiciary across the nation that now believes in following “blindly.”

“The highest law in this country is not the order of the Supreme Court of the U.S., not the order of the commander in chief, or any subordinate officer,” he said.

Instead, it is the Constitution, which in this particular case demands that the president be a “natural born citizen,” a requirement not imposed on other officers.

There have been dozens of lawsuits and challenges over the fact that Obama’s eligibility never has been documented. The “Certification of Live Birth” his campaign posted online is a document that Hawaii has made available to those not born in the state.

“Lt. Col. Lakin has every right to question the lawfulness of the orders of the commander in chief. He’s not only the commander in chief, he dictates the whole war effort, as shown by the recent firing of [Gen. Stanley McChrystal],” Moore said.

It doesn’t matter, he said, that orders come from a colonel, or a general or even the Pentagon.

“The same thing applies in the military as in the judicial system,” he explained. “The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, it’s not the order of a higher officer, not the order of a judge.”

Lind found that since Congress allocates money for the war effort and the Pentagon was created, an order tracing back to the military hierarchy should have been sufficient for Lakin.

“That’s wrong,” Moore said. “They’re not the commander in chief.

“No order in the military can be issued without the authority that backs the order. The president didn’t give the order, but he is the authority that backs the order,” he said.

With the current protocol to simply follow orders, Moore warned, the U.S. will develop more incidents like that involving Lt. William Calley in Vietnam. The atrocities of My Lai were carried out under the guise of “following orders,” Moore noted.

Lakin “not only has a right to follow his personal convictions under the Constitution, he has a duty,” Moore said. “And if the authority running the efforts of the war is not a citizen in violation of the Constitution, the order is unlawful.”

Moore said he’s seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” and a lot of evidence that suggests he is not.

“This is the strangest thing indeed. The president has never produced [evidence] in the face of substantial evidence he was not born in our country. People are accepting it blindly based on their feelings, not on the law,” he said.

“They can’t fool all of the people all of the time, and that’s what they’re trying to do,” he said.”

DNC Adds Constitutional Qualification Language Into Obama’s 2012 Certification of Nomination – Was Not There in 2008 in Most States.

leave a comment »


Official photographic portrait of US President...

DNC Adds Constitutional Qualification Language Into Obama’s 2012 Certification of Nomination – Was Not There in 2008 in Most States.

They have obviously felt the heat from we constitutionalists about that missing language from the 2008 certificates.  In my opinion, now that they have done so, they have opened themselves up for eventual possible charges of perjury and misprision of a felony this time around, when the truth about Obama’s true legal identity is revealed. And the truth will come out in time.  It always does.

Click to learn more about Obama’s very deep, extensive, and long-term connections to Communists and Red-Diaper babies some of whom work with him within the White House to this day and those involved with running his campaign.

IMO, it looks like the Obama’s enablers and backers in the Marxist far left controlled DNC, and elsewhere, are going all-in with Obama and are willing to go down with the ship in order to get Obama re-elected and finish their Marxist/CPUSA/DSA long-term plans to totally undermine the U.S. Constitution and takeover from within the United States of America.  See a copy of the 2012 DNC Certificate of Nomination for Obama and Biden submitted to NY at this link:  http://www.scribd.com/doc/105272740/2012-DNC-Certification-of-Nomination-of-Obama-Biden-from-Atty-Bauer-to-NYS-BOE

See DNC Certification of Nomination for Obama examples from 2008 at this link:  http://www.scribd.com/collections/3813126

See the Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al lawsuit filed by Attorney Mario Apuzzo of NJ very early in the a.m. of 20 Jan 2009 where on page 19 we pointed out the lack of proper legal vetting of Obama by the DNC in 2008 and the DNC issuing two different versions of their 2008 Certificate of Nomination for Obama — only one known CoN (to Hawaii) saying Obama was constitutionally qualified for the office he seeks and for the other states the DNC omittted it: http://www.scribd.com/doc/19914488/Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-DOC-00-Table-of-Contents-2nd-Amended-Complaint The 2008 absence of the constitutional language was a legal risk reduction tactic back then, imo.  But it now appears, as I said, the DNC is going all-in with Obama, and will go down with the ship with Obama. They are in too deep with Obama and he has the goods on all of them if they tried to bail on him now and leave him alone on the sinking ship.  The truth about Obama’s decades of criminal ID fraud and the DNC’s complicity in not properly vetting Obama in the face of numerous allegations and evidence of document fraud re. Obama’s ID docs and DNC’s willingness to abrogate Article II Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution will come out some day.  It always does.  Then there will be hell to pay for what they have done.

# # # #

Also, read more about Obama’s Crimes and his Constitutional Ineligibility here:  http://www.scribd.com/protectourliberty/collections/

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) Lehigh Valley PA USA http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/ http://www.protectourliberty.org/ http://www.scribd.com/protectourliberty/collections/

“The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the veil of indifference to their necessity to continually be “on watch” and at times to stand up and protect our U.S. Constitution from usurpation by progressive/marxist/radical politicians operating in relative secrecy protected by an enabling press and major media … thinking and saying it’s the job of someone else … and living their lives in general apathy about what the national government is up to, they will allow the adoption of every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened.” CDR Kerchner (Ret)’s alert and paraphrasing earlier warnings about the socialist/progressives’ long-term stealth agenda to transform the USA from a constitutional republic into a top-down, central controlled, fascist-socialist form of government.

Justice Scalia flummoxed about natural born citizenship!

with 3 comments


CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)

My comment and open letter to Justice Scalia — Dear Justice Scalia: If you don’t know enough about the history and original intent of the “natural born Citizen” legal term of art in our Constitution, click on your picture for a refresher course! Or were you just feigning ignorance when put on the spot by answering Attorney Larry Klayman’s question with a question? I suggest you re-read the preeminent legal treatise on natural law of the founding era, used by the founders and framers, The Law of Nations or Principle of Natural Law, Vol.1 Chapter 19, Section 212. Also the Federalist Papers and refresh your memory about the framers great concerns about foreign influence on a future president and their original intent to protect that office as much as possible from foreign influence and their assuring the public that they have taken precautions in the new Constitution to prevent that.
You may remember that back in November of 2008 I sent you and all the other members of the court a copy of the Federalist Papers and suggested you all re-read it over the Thanksgiving break. You may wish to re-read John Jay’s letter to George Washington, the President of the Constitutional Convention, with Jay’s specific hint/suggestion to Washington that only a “natural born Citizen” be allowed to be President since he would be in command of our armies. John Jay wanted a strong check against foreign influence. Being simply born a Citizen as Hamilton suggested was not enough. They wanted a “natural born Citizen”. The adjective natural in that legal term means that this legal term of art comes from natural law. A citizen at birth created by the laws of nature, not the laws of men. A person born in the country to parents who are both citizens of that country. A person with unity of citizenship and sole allegiance to only one country at birth. The convention adopted Jay’s suggestion. John Jay was an ardent user of Vattel’s Law of Nations and as you probably know became the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Think hard.
I’m sure you remember reading that letter from Jay to Washington. Or if you wish, Attorney Apuzzo and I can come visit you and give you a short brief in private on the Who, What, When, Where, WHY, and How the “natural born Citizen” clause was put into Article II Section 1 Clause 5, the presidential eligibility clause, of the U.S. Constitution . But really, somehow I think you already know all this but are quite nervous and afraid to face the question and answer with what you know the true answer is due to your fear of Obama and media criticism and Chicago style Saul Alinsky tactics and threats of dire consequences to silence the opposition. We the People know you and the rest of the court have been ducking the question. Justice Thomas, the only brave soul on the court, told us as much. You ducked the question and abrogated your responsibility to support and defend the U.S. Constitution. The truth will come out some day. It always does. You sir will be judged by God, We the People, and history. And the record you and the rest of the Roberts court have shown on this subject and matter will not be held in high esteem. Of that you can be certain.

Mitt Romney is a Natural Born Citizen – Ancestry-Ahnentafel Genealogy Chart for Mitt Romney – by CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)

with 4 comments


Mitt Romney is a Natural Born Citizen

See and download Mitt’s genealogy chart and citizenship status analysis for him and his parents at this link:  http://www.scribd.com/doc/77518311/Ancestry-Ahnentafel-Genealogy-Chart-for-Mitt-Romney-by-CDR-Charles-Kerchner-Ret

The 1940 Census of the United States lists George Romney, the father of Mitt Romney, as an “American Citizen Born Abroad”. Lenore Romney, the mother of Mitt Romney, was born in UT and thus was a citizen too.  See this report from Ancestry.com: http://www.scribd.com/doc/104590149/1940-Census-George-Romney-father-of-Mitt-George-Romney-American-Citizen-Born-Abroad

Mitt Romney was born in the USA in 1947 in Detroit MI to a U.S. citizen father and mother and thus is a “natural born Citizen of the United States” and is constitutionally eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of our military. He was born in the USA to two U.S. Citizen parents.

Barack Hussein Obama is NOT a “natural born Citizen of the United States” and is NOT constitutionally eligible to be the President and Commander in Chief of our military.   Obama’s father was a foreign national who was never a U.S. Citizen, not even an immigrant to the USA, not even a permanent resident of the USA.  The major media refuses to talk about this and many other buried topics and history regarding Obama.  Barack Obama’s father was a total foreign national and thus Obama was born with foreign citizenship via his father, i.e., Barack Hussein Obama II was born a British Subject via his British Subject, foreign national father.  Despite claims by Obama’s supporter and enablers otherwise, Obama to this day is still a British Subject and/or British Protected Person covered by the British Nationality Act of 1948 which covered his birth status under a treaty between the U.S. and England regarding citizenship status of children born of their respective citizens in the others country.  Born a Brit, always a Brit.  Barack Obama II was “born a Brit” and “thus not legit” to be the President. Barack Hussein Obama II is NOT a “natural born Citizen of the United States” to constitutional standards since his father was not a U.S. Citizen.  For more on natural born Citizenship see:  http://www.art2superpac.com

# # # #

Barack Obama is NOT a “natural born Citizen of the United States” and is thus constitutionally ineligible to be the President and Commander in Chief of our military. Obama was born to a FOREIGN NATIONAL FATHER who was NEVER a U.S. Citizen nor was Obama’s father even an immigrant to the USA or even a permanent resident in the USA.  For no other U.S. President in the history of the nation since the founding generation (who were exempt from the natural born Citizen clause in the U.S.  Constitution via a grandfather clause in Article II Section 1) was that the case, i.e., having a foreign national father who was never a U.S. Citizen or even an immigrant to this country. Obama being seated as the putative president is an outrageous violation of Article II Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, the presidential eligibility clause.  Obama was not born with sole allegiance to the USA. Sole allegiance and unity of Citizenship at birth was the goal and purpose for putting the natural born Citizen clause into Article II Section 1 of the Constitution as to who could serve as president once the founding generation has passed away.  Obama (II) was born a British Subject via his foreign national father Obama (Sr.) who was a British Subject.   Obama is not a “natural born Citizen of the United States” to constitutional standards since he was born with dual allegiance and citizenship.  The founders and framers did not want anyone with foreign allegiance to ever get command of our military, i.e., be the president. Obama is constitutionally not eligible to be president and commander in chief of our military.

Adjectives mean something.  A “Citizen at Birth” is not logically identically equal to a “natural born Citizen at Birth”. Barack Obama may be a ‘Citizen of the United States’  but he is not a ‘natural born Citizen of the United States’ and does not meet the constitutional standards as to who can be the President and Commander in Chief of our military: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/03/obama-maybe-citizen-of-united-states.html

The natural born Citizen clause in our Constitution is a national security clause inserted into our Constitution by John Jay and George Washington.  Read why the natural born Citizen clause is still important and worth protecting.

Five Citizenship Terms Mentioned in the U.S. Constitution: http://www.scribd.com/doc/11737124/Citizenship-Terms-Used-in-the-US-Constitution-The-5-Terms-Defined-Some-Legal-Reference-to-Same

Of Trees and Plants and Basic Logic and Citizenship Types: http://www.scribd.com/doc/44814496/Of-Trees-and-Plants-and-Basic-Logic-Citizen-at-Birth-NOT-Identical-to-Natural-Born-Citizen

See evidence Obama forged the birth certificate posted on White House servers 27 Apr 2011: http://www.scribd.com/collections/3166684

See evidence Obama is using a SSN 042-68-4425 not legally issued to him: http://www.scribd.com/collections/3260742

See evidence of Obama’s forged and back dated draft registration here: http://www.debbieschlussel.com/4428/exclusive-did-next-commander-in-chief-falsify-selective-service-registration-never-actually-register-obamas-draft-registration-raises-serious-questions/

This is not a fringe issue!  South Carolina Poll Results – A poll done by Public Policy Polling (PPP) shows that almost 2/3 of GOP voters want Obama’s constitutional eligibility and true legal identity investigated. This is not a fringe issue: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=340805

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) Lehigh Valley PA USA http://www.protectourliberty.org/ http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/

“The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened.” Ronald Reagan alerting us to Norman Thomas’ and the socialist/progressive’s long-term stealth agenda to transform the USA from a constitutional republic into a top-down, central controlled, socialist form of government

P.S.  16 Jan 2012 update by WorldNetDaily.com: http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/mitt-romney-not-a-natural-born-citizen/

The Mysterious Case of Obama’s Identity

with 3 comments


Barack Obama

Barack Obama (Photo credit: jamesomalley)

Thursday, 30 August 2012 10:00 Diana West

On one level, the answer is easy given the absence of verifiable bona fides attesting to Obama’s life story, from every college record to every travel document, from every medical record to every legal writing to every law practice billing record to every record of his tenure as an Illinois state senator – and more. But the story has had to penetrate the American psyche in spite of a deep freeze on the topic in conventional channels. The Obama identity story, burning at the grass-roots-level for more than four years now, is consistently snuffed out and ignored by American journalists and the political class, from elected leaders to party officials. This silence is strictly non-partisan, and spans the political spectrum.

An investigation, undertaken by a so-called cold case posse working for Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Maricopa County, Arizona, has now concluded that not one but two Obama basic identity documents are, without a doubt, forgeries: 1) the computer file (pdf) of the 1961 birth certificate that appears on the White House website; and 2) the president’s 1980 military draft registration card released by the U.S. Selective Service Administration shortly before the 2008 election. These investigators maintain they can prove this in court.

The story of how they might do so is verboten, too. But somehow the saga doesn’t end up in George Orwell’s “memory hole”. This is due mainly to the irrepressible nature of the Internet.

It is here, for example, and not in the mainstream media, where, following the White House online release of Obama’s 1961 ”long-form” birth certificate on April 27, 2011, a small army of private individuals with varying degrees of technology expertise downloaded the document file and delved into the unexpectedly “unflattened” graphic composition “layers”. They submitted a series of computer forensics analyses to this online public square, arguing that the White House pdf had been fraudulently manipulated. Since that time, similar evidence has been methodically amassed and repeatedly tested under the auspices of Sheriff Arpaio’s cold case team.

Sheriff Arpaio formed this cold case posse after 250 local citizens asked him to determine whether Obama was eligible to appear on the Arizona presidential ballot in 2012.

On two occasions in 2012, the posse presented findings to the public. They concluded that the birth certificate on the White House website didn’t originate on a piece of paper but rather was created, or, more precisely, forged as an electronic file on a computer. As one Adobe expert and posse consultant put it: “The only time Obama’s long-form birth certificate image exists as a paper document is when a computer user selects Print from the File menu.”

At this point, the posse would like to turn over all of its evidence to Congress for a formal investigation. Like a hand grenade that could go off at any moment, however, such an investigation has no takers. And so the fuse burns on not one, but two potential constitutional crises.

One involves the biggest unsolved mystery in American history: If Arpaio’s findings are correct, who did it? The other potential crisis, while linked to the first, is much more transparent. The U.S. Constitution lays out three criteria for president and vice president. Article II, Section 1, requires that the president be at least 35 years of age, have lived 14 years in the United States, and be a “natural-born” citizen.

Natural born” citizens are distinct from citizens who are native-born (born in the country) or naturalized. While native-born or naturalized citizen may hold any other office, only “natural born” citizens are eligible for the presidency, the idea being that America’s founders wanted to ensure that the chief executive had allegiance only to the American republic.

The Constitution doesn’t define “natural born”, but according to common law at the time and, later, the 1875 U.S. Supreme Court case “Minor v. Happersett”, a “natural born” citizen is understood to be someone born in the U.S. to citizen parents (plural). “Minor” spelled out this definition and is thus the signal case. It is remarkable that in mid-2008, as Barack Obama was clinching the presidential nomination, references to the “Minor” case inexplicably disappeared from 25 related U.S. Supreme Court decisions archived at Justia.com, a leading legal search engine popular with journalists and legal bloggers. Coincidence? When attorney and blogger Leo Donofrio, whose Obama eligibility challenge went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court in December 2008 (dismissed), discovered this apparent tampering in 2011, Justia called it a “programming error”. The blogosphere called it “Justiagate”. The media, of course, said nothing at all.

So where does this leave the president, the son of a white American teen mother and a black British subject from Kenya? (Kenya became independent in 1963.)

According to his own story, Baby Obama came into the world with dual American-British citizenship. At the same time, however, there is, to date, zero verifiable evidence to be found of his Hawaiian birth; meanwhile there is circumstantial evidence of alternative nativities. For example, the personal biography Obama’s former literary agent used to promote Obama described him as “born in Kenya”. This biography, written in 1991, remained on the agency website until April 2007 – two months after then-Senator Obama announced his presidential run.

Other oddities include a missing week of immigration cards tracking American arrivals into Hawaii from abroad that should be in the national archives. Obama’s birthday in August 1961 falls in this missing week. In light of unexplained facts such as these, in light of the Obama documents that remain sealed, it’s really not so hard to see where a foreign nativity story comes from – or at least why a number of Americans are confused.

Many have heard about the two 1961 newspapers that published announcements of Obama’s birth. Posse investigators discovered that foreign-born children were similarly announced as Hawaiian births in these same papers, while they also found a set of adopted twins who were several years old before their “birth” announcements appeared.

Further complicating Obama’s citizenship story is an undisputed school record from Jakarta which identifies young Obama as a citizen of Indonesia. With all of this in mind, it’s hard to stamp Obama “natural-born”. Still, no challenger to date has managed to convince an American court of this. Of course, almost every single case has been dismissed before trial.

Also worth noting is that almost every single case sought the same thing: the release of the Obama birth “long-form” birth certificate. This is the very document the White House website put on display in April 2011. Obama spent an estimated one to three million dollars to fight previous attempts to compel him to release this same document. What happened to make the president change his mind?

Two senior White House officials presided over the birth certificate’s unveiling at a pen-and-paper, off-camera, no audio-recording, press conference. One journalist in the pack pointed out, “some people are going to remain unconvinced”. He continued: “They’re going to say that this is just a photocopy of a piece of paper. You could have typed anything in there. Will the actual birth certificate be on display or viewable at any …”

The White House transcript breaks off with the word: “(laughter)”.

Who will get the last laugh? Barack Obama? Sheriff Arpaio? The politicians who keep their heads down, or the citizens who take their Constitution seriously? Whoever laughs last, it seems safe to say that the Obama birth certificate is a very funny document.

Diana West is the author of The Death of the Grown-Up: How America’s Arrested Development Is Bringing Down Western Civilization. Her arttcle archive and blog are here.

OBAMA LAWYER ADMITS FORGERY BUT DISREGARDS “IMAGE” AS INDICATION OF OBAMA’S INELIGIBILITY

with 13 comments


OBAMA LAWYER ADMITS FORGERY BUT DISREGARDS “IMAGE” AS INDICATION OF OBAMA’S INELIGIBILITY

This is the long form birth certificate showin...

This is the forged long form birth certificate showing that the supposed 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born at 7:24 pm, on August 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Hawaii, United States.

DAMAGE CONTROL: A recent ballot challenge hearing in New Jersey exposes a desperate strategy by Obama to distance himself from his forged certificate and induce the contrived value of his transient political popularity as the only “legitimate qualification” needed to hold the office of the presidency. By Dan Crosby of THE DAILY PEN

NEW YORK, NY – After a Maricopa County law enforcement agency conducted a six-month forensic examination which determined that the image of Obama’s alleged 1961 Certificate of Live Birth posted to a government website in April, 2011 is a digital fabrication and that it did not originate from a genuine paper document, arguments from an Obama eligibility lawyer during a recent New Jersey ballot challenge hearing reveals the image was not only a fabrication, but that it was likely part of a contrived plot by counterfeiters to endow Obama with mere political support while simultaneously making the image intentionally appear absurd and, therefore, invalid as evidence toward proving Obama’s ineligibility in a court of law.
Taking an audacious and shocking angle against the constitutional eligibility mandate, Obama’s lawyer, Alexandra Hill, admitted that the image of Obama’s birth certificate was a forgery and made the absurd claim that, therefore, it cannot be used as evidence to confirm his lack of natural born citizenship status. Therefore, she argued, it is “irrelevant to his placement on the ballot”.
Hill went on to contort reasoning by implying that Obama needs only invoke his political popularity, not legal qualifications, in order to be a candidate.  At the hearing, attorney for the plaintiffs, Mario Apuzzo, correctly argued that Obama, under the Constitution, has to be a “natural born Citizen” and that he has not met his burden of showing that he is eligible to be on the New Jersey primary ballot by showing that he is indeed a “natural born Citizen.”
He argued that Obama has shown no authenticate evidence to the New Jersey Secretary of State demonstrating who he is and that he was born in the United States. Apuzzo also argued that as a matter of law, Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” because he was born to a father who was not a U.S. citizen.
As Obama’s legal argument becomes more contorted, he is being forced to avoid an ever shrinking legal space, and an increasing weight, of his failure to meet constitutional eligibility requirements.  Hill, of Genova, Burn & Giantomasi Attorneys in Newark, made a desperate motion to dismiss the ballot objection arguing that Obama’s lack of natural-born citizenship status was not relevant to being placed on the New Jersey presidential ballot because no law exists in New Jersey which says that a candidate’s appearance on the ballot must be supported by evidence of natural born citizenship status. Only the U.S. constitution restricts eligibility to hold the office of president to natural born citizens.
Judge Masin denied the motion to dismiss and the case proceeded to trial.
“Sadly, regardless of her moral deficiency, Hill is legally justified,” says TDP Editor, Penbrook Johannson, “Obama’s eligibility is a separate matter than the charges of forgery and fraud. Of course, we have evidence that he is not eligible. But, evidence of forgery by as yet unidentified counterfeiters working on behalf of Obama is not what legally excludes Obama from appearing on a ballot, by itself, until some authority is willing to consider this as evidence of forgery on its merit as an indication of actual ineligibility in a court of legal authority. Until some court of competent jurisdiction is willing to hear evidence of forgery and fraud, you can’t legally punish a political candidate for that crime which has not been proven that they committed. However, since Obama is not eligible because of a lack of authenticated evidence to the contrary, he could be held off the ballot for that reason.”
According to Johannson, there is an overwhelming level of moral certainty that Obama is a usurper, but until a court with jurisdiction considers this case, Obama’s status as a legitimate president is in limbo.
“He does not exist as a president except in the imagination of those who blindly support him. Whereas he is politically desired by a transient consensus, his legality is unresolved until a responsible court makes a determination. This is the essence of our crisis. Our nation exists in a state of non-authorized identity. Obama is just some guy calling himself a president and living in the White House without the confirmative authority to do so.”
Obama’s document forgery and fraudulent presidency have now forced him to flee to a “strange twilight zone” between political popularity and legal legitimacy where poorly counterfeited records are apparently allowed to be published by Obama using government media resources for political purposes, yet those same records are held by the courts as irrelevant for determining Obama’s legal eligibility status because they are, according to judges, “so poorly forged” they are obviously meant to be satirical and not to be taken seriously as evidence.
Shockingly, parting from widespread public ignorance, Hill actually acknowledged two of the three necessary components of determining natural born citizenship as being place of birth and citizenship status of both parents. However, she argued that, “No law in New Jersey obligated him (Obama) to produce any such evidence in order to get on the primary ballot.”
The third component of natural born eligibility is maintenance of natural born citizenship status from birth to election without interruption, involuntarily or voluntarily, due to expatriation, extradition, renouncement or foreign adoption.
“Obama is mocking our constitution,” says Johannson, “His position is that he never claimed the image was an indication of his natural born status, just that it was information about his birth. Whether it is forged or authentic is irrelevant to Obama because plausible deniability affords him the security in knowing that no legal authority is willing to hang him with it.”
Of course, Johannson adds that it makes Obama look like a willing accomplice and a liar, but, he says, “…show me a politician who cares about being seen as a liar by the public. If people who support him want to vote for a person like that, it reveals more about the reprobate character of Obama supporters than competency of any legal determination about his lack of constitutional eligibility. Degenerates will vote for a degenerate while patriots will exhaust all civil means to remove him…until those civil means are exhausted. Then things get ugly for government.”
“However, Hill is also essentially admitting that Obama is not a legitimate president and that Obama believes that his illegitimacy does not matter to his legal ability to hold the office. Obama holds to a political tenet, not a legal one with respect to his views on his eligibility. That’s what corrupt, criminal politicians do. When the law convicts them, they run to public favorability for shelter with the hope that their supporters will apply pressure to disregard law in their case.”
Obama is now arguing that because he is politically popular, as he points to as being indicated by his so-called ‘election’, despite accusations of eligibility fraud and election fraud, the constitutional eligibility mandate is not relevant, in his view. Until a courageous authority is willing to disagree and hold Obama to an equally weighted legal standard, civil remedies for the Obama problem are limited.
Johannson adds that Obama is making the same argument on behalf of Obamacare.  “If he had the gall to actually tell the Supreme Court that they have no authority to determine the unconstitutionality of his illegitimate policies, what makes anyone think he believes they have the authority to disqualify him due to his lack of constitutional eligibility? Obama believes he holds preeminent power over all branches of government because of his delusions of political grandeur.”
He correctly points to a lifetime pattern of behavior and testimony by Obama which indicates a complete lack of regard for the U.S. Constitution when it restricts Obama’s political agenda and lust for power.
“This is a guy who illegally defaced public property when he scribed his aspirations to be ‘king’ in a concrete sidewalk at the age of ten, for God’s sake. Now, his ‘majesty’ wants to put his illegal ‘graffiti’ into American law books. However, his problem is that he has to face the fact that he is an abject failure in his capacity to meet any standard required by the 250-year-old U.S. Constitution, in everything he tries to do. The Constitution owns him and he can’t stand it. He hates it. Therefore, instead of admitting his lack of constitutionality, he simply breaks the rules and proceeds to illegally scribe his fake authority on everything until someone is willing to physically stop him. Obama is not just an illegitimate politician, he is a rogue outlaw without regard for the divine providence of American law.”
Apuzzo submitted that New Jersey law requires Obama to show evidence that he is qualified for the office he wishes to occupy and that includes showing that he is a “natural born Citizen,” which includes presenting evidence of who he is, where he was born, and that he was born to two U.S. citizen parents. Apuzzo added that the Secretary of State has a constitutional obligation not to place any ineligible candidates on the election ballot.
The account of the trial can be read at:

http://www.teapartytribune.com/2012/04/11/nj-ballot-access-challenge-hearing-update/

Cry and Howl

Let not him that girdeth on his harness boast himself as he that putteth it off. 1 Kings 20:11

YouViewed/Editorial

News , Blues and Guns ... Not Necessarily In That Order

For What It's Worth

Greenwich, Connecticut real estate, politics, etc.

Today's News 4 You

Just another WordPress.com site

Mississippi Coal

Kemper Lignite Coal Plant Connections to the United Nations' Projects

The Piratearian

Aye, It's good to be a Pirate!

Texas Tudors's Blog

We are the Texas Tudors, and this is OUR Family

The Ohio Conservative

Conservative thought and opinion from the Midwest

The Surf Report

Triangulating Trouble In Paradise

theconservativehillbilly

Confronting stupid people with the cold hard conservative fist of truth

Hump Day Report

It's America...We Can Get Over The Hump!

My Very Own Point of View

bits and pieces of what runs through my mind

The Daley Gator

If you are LEFT, you just ain't RIGHT

Socialism is not the Answer

Limited Government Is

2012: What's the 'real' truth?

To find out, I hold a finger in the breeze.

Sparkleplenty27's Campaign Coverage

Political News About the Campaign FACT BASED and Commentary

Old1wordpress's Blog

Just another WordPress.com weblog

Real News World Wide

News World Wide, Real News Worldwide, News World Wide, Verified News, Infowars.com, realnewsworldwide.com, world news, headline news, best news

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,986 other followers

%d bloggers like this: