is shredding the Constitution
|Items on this page are archived in
the order of discovery.
The issue that the court must settle is whether a person governed
by the laws of Great Britain at the time of their birth could be
considered a "natural born" citizen of the United States as required by
Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of our Constitution.
question remains unanswered in any United States court.
the cases that worked their way through various state and federal courts
concerned whether Obama was actually born in Hawaii.
At his web
site, Obama posted a photocopy of a Certification of Live Birth from
Hawaii and had it verified by a private website called "FactCheck.org."
This was his response to all parties requesting proof he was
actually born in Hawaii. The audacity of this stunt generated a rush of
litigation to have Obama’s credentials verified. Of course, while there
is no Constitutional requirement for a birth certificate to be tendered,
ordinary people could not understand why Obama was fighting so hard to
prevent anyone from seeing his genuine documents apparently on file in
It was this attitude of defiance which stimulated
citizens across the nation -- who are required to present an original
birth certificate to any number of Government agencies -- to institute
litigation challenging Obama’s eligibility.
Obama is the first
President in our national history who -- at the time of his birth -- was
openly subject to and governed by the laws of another nation. The
issue which needs to be heard in court is whether such a person’s
citizenship will be considered "natural born" for the rest of our
Allowing this issue to avoid judicial
interpretation will forever raise questions about Obama’s claim to office, and it will set a precedent that two generations of
citizenship (and loyalty) are no longer required before one can become
President and Commander in Chief.
|Daddynoz Files Quo Warranto
|One of our members, a military man who uses the
screen name "daddynoz,"
has decided to commit to a
Quo Warranto in
DC. He is asking the court to determine what constitutes a
"natural born" citizen, and is currently awaiting a response from
Attorney General Eric Holder and the Attorney General of DC.
Questions placed before the court:
1. Is mere jus soli required
for "natural born" citizenship?
2. Is consideration of the
citizenship of the parents a requirement for "natural born" status?
3. Is there, in fact, an unambiguous "natural" (i.e. immutable)
state of citizenship that only results from birth within the United
States to parents who are Americans (naturalized or born)?
the question of children born within the United States to illegal
immigrants having greater claim to the presidency than do children born
to American parents, serving at the direction of the Armed Forces,
abroad be reconciled?
5. Is President Obama, whose citizenship is
solely the product of a latter 19th century court decision, a "natural
born Citizen" and thus eligible for his current office per the
|U.S. Attorney: Nothing Americans Can
Do About Eligibility
|Bob Unruh says a team of U.S. attorneys based
in California has argued to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that
there essentially is nothing the American public can do to determine if
Barack Obama is qualified under the U.S. Constitution's demand for a
"natural born citizen" in the Oval Office, and if they are injured, at
least they are all injured alike.
The arguments were presented
in a brief submitted by U.S. Attorney Andre Birotte Jr. and his
assistants Roger West and David DeJute in defense of a lawsuit that was
brought by a long list of plaintiffs, including a presidential
candidate, members of the military, members of the state legislature and
others against Obama.
The plaintiffs had asked the appeals court
to reopen the arguments because the district court's ruling, left
standing, would strip minorities in the United States of "all political
power" and leave laws to be based "upon the whims of the majority."
That earlier brief was filed by Gary Kreep of the United States
Justice Foundation, who is representing Wiley S. Drake, a vice
presidential candidate on the 2008 ballot in California, and Markham
Robinson, an elector from the state.
The case involves several
dozen additional plaintiffs, including ambassador Alan Keyes, who are
being represented by California attorney Orly Taitz and are filing their
pleadings separately from those on behalf of Drake and Robinson.
The case challenges Obama's eligibility to be president, citing a
lack of documentation, and was the subject of hearings at the lower
court level, where Judge David Carter heard arguments.
Carter dismissed the case, ruling that the plaintiffs suffered no injury
-- they didn't have "standing" -- and that the law left it to Congress
to sort out eligibility issues instead of a court.
government brief said that the lower court was correct because
"appellants cannot demonstrate a particularized injury-in-fact traceable
to defendants' conduct as would be necessary to establish standing."
The attorneys brushed off concerns that a violation of the
Constitution was a serious matter and caused any injury to the
plaintiffs, saying, "To put it another way, the relief sought by
appellants, consisting of a determination by the court of the
eligibility of the president to hold office, and, possibly, his removal
from office, would have 'no more directly and tangibly benefitted [them]
than … the public at large."
Further, the U.S. attorneys argued
that a possible violation of the Constitution is a political issue, not
. . .
|It Just Won't Go Away
|Bob Unruh says it just doesn't appear to be
The idea that Barack Obama's eligibility to occupy
the Oval Office, and do chores such as appointing Supreme Court
justices, needs to be explored and documented is headed back to the
highest court in the land.
According to the Supreme Court's own
website, there is scheduled to be a conference Jan. 7, 2011, on a case
submitted by Orly Taitz.
This particular case has had a long
proceeding; it began as a challenge to the legality of the military
orders under Obama, whose eligibility to hold the office of president
never has been documented to date. While that officer, Capt.
Connie Rhodes, ultimately followed her orders, the attorney was fined
$20,000 in the case, and it continued its path through the 11th Circuit
Court of Appeals and now is pending in Washington.
Whether it will fall by the wayside as have other cases on the
same issue that have been submitted to the court remains to be seen.
But even if this case falls, it doesn't appear the issue itself will
. . .
|Why The Supreme Court Is Compelled To Hear
Obama Eligibility Case
|HillBuzz notes the odd decision by the Supreme
Court to hold a new "conference" in the case brought by attorney John
on behalf of retired Col. Gregory Hollister, on Obama’s eligibility
to hold the presidency, and researches WHY the court could be compelled
to do this.
It MUST have something to do with the fact that Obama
has no birth certificate on file in the Hawaiian Hall of Records with
the name "Barack Hussein Obama" on it -- since his original Hawaiian
birth certificate with that name was sealed in the 1960s when he was
adopted in Indonesia by Lolo Soetoro, his stepfather. At the time
of adoption, a child’s original birth certificate is sealed away and
replaced in the Hall of Records by a new birth certificate that bears
the adopted parents’ names and the child’s new name, if a new name is
This is what happened to Obama, when he was renamed "Soetobakh"
by his mother and stepfather at the time of adoption.
Indonesia, there are no last names. The man who adopted Obama is
routinely called "Lolo Soetoro," but in reality his name in Indonesia is
just Soetoro. "Lolo" is a nickname -- but on documents in the
West, Soetoro seems to have used the name "Lolo Soetoro" because he
needed to complete a first and last name line on documentation.
There are a couple names that could appear on the birth certificate
Hawaii has on file for the current occupant of the Oval Office because
of the odd circumstances involved in Indonesian names. Here are a
The reason Obama has spent so much time and money
hiding his original birth certificate is because his adoption in the
late 1960s, and the bizarre, Klingon-sounding name "Soetobakh" are just
so strange and difficult to explain to Americans.
here . . .
Copyright Beckwith 2010 - 2011
All right reserved