America. It is Time for “We The People” to Stand up!
This mornings news is not good , but expected by many. Unemployment rose to 8.2%, not forgetting, that the real number is in the mid twenties. Only 69,000 private sector jobs were created in May. The major banks are losing money by the billions, Jeffries, Deutsche Bank, JP Morgan Chase, Barkleys , Morgan Stanley , Citi Bank, Bank of America, Hewlett-Packard (they announced a major lay off just last week), even McDonalds was down this morning . Is this trend going to continue? No question , it certainly will.
It is only fitting that the bush’s are in Washington , getting their picture hung on the wall. The day before the results of the bush/paulson/obama,geithner,bernanke bailout results are reported. As gravity is speeding up the decline of the nation’s economy.
The question is. Are their plans for a One World Order, the destruction of the dollar, leading to a one world currency, globalization and control over markets, failing? The fact is they are succeeding. Just last week , a Wall Street talking head, made the statement , that “it’s no longer whether or not we are going to go over a cliff, we have now gone over the cliff”.
My guess is that during the private conversations yesterday between bush and obama, the glass’ were being tipped , congratulating each other on successfully destroying the nation’s economy and net worth. But can we lay all this on bush and obama, no way. To any observer , paying even the least bit of attention, you know that this has been coming for a long , long time. When big Ben prints this next round of paper. That will be the signal, that , we are staring at the bottom of the canyon. If the dollar is worth between 2. 5 and 4 cents now,what will it be worth after the next round of printing.
If you think the dollar is worthless now, just wait. If you think the value of your home couldn’t get any cheaper, guess again. If you think the cost of commodities couldn’t get any higher, guess again. Many of you will ask yourself, is this the reason we’ve shed so much blood and treasure? A clue: see what Eisenhower said, http://youtube.be/VNzUqLaHKiO. The fact is these people that we’ve elected recognize that the world, even Americans are fed up with these wars. And the truth is they’ve known it was coming for a long time. So something had to be done to continue the corporations/government control over the citizenry. We will just rotate parties in power to give the impression that we are really working in the best interest of the country? We’ll the jig is up. Americans and even populations in allied countries are tired of it.
However, the media , and the power brokers bankers and politicians will do anything,and say anything to continue the charade of self-importance.
Millions of Americans are joining forces, arms if you will , to fight back. The argument in Wisconsin over collective bargaining rights. Will be over on Tuesday,and that will spread across the land. States will either straighten up and become right to work states, or they will see their state coffers and revenues dry up and wither on the vine. Will that slow down the globalist, not on your life.
Americans of all walks of life are demanding the restoration of the Constitution, the Rule of Law, and yes even Common Law. Americans , like Orly Taitz, Phillip Berg,Jerome Corsie, Andrew Breitbart, Ron Paul, Larry Clayman, Richard Mack, County Sheriffs all over the country are standing up like Glenn Palmer, Gilbertson,and now Sheriff Christopher in Delaware. At the end of the day , this issue between this Delaware AG and the County Sheriff will be a good thing. Every time these idiots try to restrict the constitutional authority of a County Sheriff they lose. However it demonstrates the goal of State and federal governments to control the public from the top down. America if you allow these Communist to destroy your constitution, you’d better start packing because you will have lost your elected line of defense against a runaway federal and state government . Your final line of defense will be whats leaning against the wall in your closet.
Sell gold , invest in lead.
At our count there are 3000 counties in the United States. Less than 200 , again at our count have stepped up and defined the lines of jurisdiction between them and these federal agencies. So folks you’ve got a lot of work to do. A good start would be to get on board the “We The People” effort, more on that later.
On June 18th in Leon County Florida. Judge Terry Lewis has set a hearing to decide the eligibility of one barack obama to be a candidate for the White House. A hearty thanks to Larry Clayman and all those that worked to bring him into the fray. We can not allow a Constitutional ineligible person to be on the ballot for the White House in November. America will never recover if we allow this to happen.
So if you are as fed up as I am. And you are ready to do something about it? You can and here’s how. Join the “We The People Demand” effort and tell these folks in DC, State houses and federal law enforcement, that they either shape up or ship out. Go to : http://theconstitutionalresourcecenter.com/the-final-decision-of-we-the-people-of-these-united-states-of-the-republic/ :: we can win this fight to restore our Constitution our Bill of Rights indeed our Republic. If we all work towards a common goal. Remove him from office , and see to it that it never happens again.
All it will cost you is your time , or your country.
Dont ignore this lady:: She’ll have you for lunch!
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you,
then you win. — Mahatma Gandhi
Arguments in a lawsuit on Barack Obama’s eligibility that has been percolating through the federal court system in California since the 2008 election will be heard at the appellate level in just a few weeks.
Officials with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals today notified attorneys representing several dozen individuals – members of the military, members of state government and even a candidate for president – that oral arguments will be held May 2.
“I can’t believe it, but after two years of Obama litigation, for the first time the court of appeals scheduled oral argument in [the] Obama case,” wrote Orly Taitz, a California attorney who has litigated a number of challenges to Obama.
“This is [the] Judge Carter case, where I represent Ambassador Alan Keyes, 10 state representatives and 30 members of [the] U.S. military,” she wrote in her blog confirmation of the plans.
Attorney Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation represents other clients in his case, which was joined with the Taitz case, and he said he’s “pleased we’re going to have a chance to argue this issue before the 9th Circuit. We hope they see the merit in the constitutional arguments.”
The case 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 Obama.
The plaintiffs had warned that allowing the district court’s ruling to stand 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 Kreep, 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 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.
However, 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 attorneys defending Obama’s position said those who brought the case 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 judicial.
“Even assuming arguendo, that some of the purported ‘injuries’ alleged by appellants satisfied the Article III requirement of ‘injury-in-fact,’ the district court correctly held that no appellant could demonstrate that any injury complained of could be redressed by a court,” they continued. “The political question doctrine precludes redress to any appellant, because such redress would improperly arrogate to this court jurisdiction over political questions as to the eligibility of the president which the Constitution entrusts exclusively to the House and Senate.
“The political question doctrine serves to ‘restrain the judiciary from inappropriate interference in the business of the other branches of government’ by prohibiting the courts from deciding issues that properly rest within the province of the political branches,” they said.
The documentation from the government in the case was unresponsive to the issue raised by the plaintiffs that courts have authority to remove an elected chief executive officer should he be documented as ineligible.
The plaintiffs’ brief had cited the removal of Thomas H. Moodie from the office of governor in North Dakota in the 1930s as proof that a government’s chief officer can be removed from office by the courts – even after an election and inauguration. Moodie had failed to meet a state residency requirement to be governor. But he was elected anyway and installed, and ultimately removed from office by the court over that failure.
The plaintiffs also cite an earlier California case in which a candidate for president was removed from the ballot by state officials because he failed to qualify for the office under the Constitution’s age requirements.
But the tax-paid U.S. attorneys said in defense of Obama that “disputes involving political questions lie outside of the Article III jurisdiction of federal courts.”
“The issues sought to be raised by appellants herein, regarding both whether President Obama is a ‘natural born citizen of the United States’ and therefore eligible to be president as well as any purported claims raised by any criminal statutes … are to be judged, according to the text of the Constitution, by the legislative branch of the government, and not the judicial,” they said.
They argued it is “preposterous” for the plaintiffs to seek a ruling that Obama is not eligible and therefore “should be removed from office.”
The plaintiffs had argued that the Constitution was too important to ignore.
“A provision of the Constitution may not be disregarded by means of a popular vote of the people,” the plaintiffs’ earlier brief said, “as there are specific guidelines for amending the Constitution of the United States … Even if the people of the United States voted to elect as president a candidate who did not qualify for the position, that vote would not be sufficient to overcome the constitutional requirements for office and make that candidate eligible.
“Here, the underlying issue is one arising under the Art. 2, Paragraph 1 of the United States Constitution, whether Obama meets the eligibility requirements … As established above, plaintiffs have standing to bring this action as they have suffered a concrete injury in fact, caused by Obama’s ineligibility for the office of United States president, for which the court has a remedy.”
The issue stems from the constitutional demand that the president – unlike others in the federal government – must be a “natural born citizen.” WND has covered numerous challenges and lawsuits over Obama’s eligibility. Some have alleged that he was not born in Hawaii in 1961 as he has written, or that the framers of the Constitution specifically excluded dual citizens – Obama’s father was a subject of the British crown at Obama’s birth – from being eligible for the office.
Besides Obama’s actual birth documentation, still-withheld documentation for him includes kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and his adoption records.
Taitz told WND that more than 100 legal cases have been filed challenging Obama’s presidency, and most have been summarily dismissed without any arguments regarding the merits of their concerns.
Several other cases have worked their way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, which consistently has refused to hear evidence. In fact, that the justices are “avoiding” the Obama issue already apparently has been confirmed by one member of the court. Last year, Justice Clarence Thomas appeared before a U.S. House subcommittee when the issue arose. Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y., raised the question amid a discussion on racial diversity in the judiciary.
“I’m still waiting for the [court decision] on whether or not a Puerto Rican can run for president of the United States,” said Serrano, who was born in the island territory. “That’s another issue.”
Yet after Serrano questioned him on whether or not the land’s highest court would be well-served by a justice who had never been a judge, Thomas not only answered in the affirmative but also hinted that Serrano would be better off seeking a seat in the Supreme Court than a chair in the Oval Office.
“I’m glad to hear that you don’t think there has to be a judge on the court,” said Serrano, “because I’m not a judge; I’ve never been a judge.”
“And you don’t have to be born in the United States,” said Thomas, referring to the Constitution, which requires the president to be a natural-born citizen but has no such requirement for a Supreme Court justice, “so you never have to answer that question.”
“Oh really?” asked Serrano. “So you haven’t answered the one about whether I can serve as president, but you answer this one?”
“We’re evading that one,” answered Thomas, referring to questions of presidential eligibility and prompting laughter in the chamber. “We’re giving you another option.”
When the justices refused to listen to the concerns, Laurence Elgin, one of the experts working with the Constitutional Rule of Law Fund and website and monitoring the case, said, “Their defiance of the court cases, their attitude they don’t really need to adhere to the law, is really unparalleled.
“The public is going to grow increasingly concerned about Obama and the failure of the courts to deal with these concerns,” he told WND.
When the appeal first was denied without comment in January, the attorneys submitted a petition for rehearing, because the two court members who owe their lifetime appointments and significant income to Obama’s appointments – Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan – apparently participated.
The two justices apparently took part even though there was a pending motion for them to recuse themselves from the case. The Supreme Court then granted the request for a rehearing on the issue. But this month’s notice turning away the case again not only did not address the motion to recuse, it also did not include a notation – present in other cases when court members did not participate – on whether Sotomayor and Kagan sounded off on the eligibility of their benefactor.
Sponsored Link: ‘Black Market Income’ Video reveals how to get an extra $34,000/year… Without touching regular Wall Street investments. Click here to learn more.
Challenge to President Obama’s Eligibility to be Heard by 9th Circuit Court 0 Arguments in one of the lawsuits challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility to be President of the United States has finally worked its way through the California court system and will be heard by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on May 2. “I can’t believe it, but after two years of Obama litigation, for the first time the court of appeals scheduled oral argument in [the] Obama case,” said Orly Taitz, a California attorney who has litigated a number of challenges to Obama.
In this complaint, Taitz represents co-plaintiffs, who include former Ambassador and presidential candidate Alan Keyes, 10 state Representatives, and 30 members of the military. An attorney representing another group of plaintiffs in a case that was joined to the Taitz case expressed joy at the circuit court’s announcement, saying he was “pleased we’re going to have a chance to argue this issue before the 9th Circuit. We hope they see the merit in the constitutional arguments.”
Attorneys for the defense aver that the plaintiffs lack standing: If anyone has suffered damages from President Obama’s alleged ineligibility due to his not being a “natural born citizen” per Article II of the Constitution, it is the nation at large and not the named plaintiffs. They argue that the plaintiffs failed to “demonstrate a particularized injury-in-fact traceable to defendants’ conduct as would be necessary to establish standing.”
Later in their brief, defense counsel addresses the critical constitutional issue at the heart of the case soon to be heard by the judges of the 9th Circuit Court: Even assuming arguendo, that some of the purported “injuries” alleged by appellants satisfied the Article III requirement of “injury-in-fact,” the district court correctly held that no appellant could demonstrate that any injury complained of could be redressed by a court. The political question doctrine precludes redress to any appellant, because such redress would improperly arrogate to this court jurisdiction over political questions as to the eligibility of the president which the Constitution entrusts exclusively to the House and Senate. The political question doctrine serves to “restrain the judiciary from inappropriate interference in the business of the other branches of government” by prohibiting the courts from deciding issues that properly rest within the province of the political branches. They continue: The issues sought to be raised by appellants herein, regarding both whether President Obama is a “natural born citizen of the United States” and therefore eligible to be president as well as any purported claims raised by USany criminal statutes … are to be judged, according to the text of the Constitution, by the legislative branch of the government, and not the judicial.
The brief of the defense’s case was submitted by U.S. Attorney André Birotte, Jr. and his assistants Roger West and David DeJute. The principal allegations made in the case question Barack Obama’s eligibility to be President, citing an inexplicable lack of appropriate documentation that would prove the President’s eligibility. In support of their position, the plaintiffs claim to have evidence of the following challenges to President Obama’s ineligibility for the office he now occupies:
1. Mr. Obama has been using a stolen Social Security number since 1980-81 according to Dr. Taitz; moreover, Obama never resided in Connecticut where his Social Security number 042-68-4425 had already been issued to a Connecticut resident in March, 1977.
2. Taitz verified Obama’s continued usage of the allegedly stolen number via public Selective Service website information, Lexis Nexis, Choice Point and also E-Verify documentation. Taitz has brought suit against the U.S. Social Security Administration for Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) violations.
3. Obama is not a NATURAL BORN citizen, that is, one who is born in the United States to parents who are BOTH U.S. citizens. [Emphasis in original.]
4. Obama has failed to produce a LONG FORM birth certificate with hospital, attending physician’s name and official signatures, etc. Instead, Obama has produced a SHORT FORM certificate widely circulated on the internet and cable news shows. [Emphasis in original.]
6. Associated Press reports from Indonesia show Obama’s elementary school record with usage of his adopted father’s name Soetoro, Indonesian citizenship, religion Islam. Obama denies all three facts.
7. Dr. Taitz has served President Obama with a complaint five times, but she said the President has defaulted and failed to answer the complaint thus far. Taitz asserted that Judge Carter has “defrauded us” [her clients and the American people, in initial District Court filings]. “It was a clear case of an error by the judge, abuse of judicial discretion and possibly judicial misconduct. Not only did Judge Carter dismiss the case; he also used his final order (undoubtedly written by some Obama supporter) to viciously attack me and my clients.”
8. Taitz has presented evidence and court documents to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX-21), House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA-49), Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA-46), and Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA-4), among others who have thus far failed to hold hearings, subpoena Obama’s long-form birth certificate, subpoena documents regarding his links to 39 social security numbers, subpoena his college records which Taitz has asserted contain fraudulent information, and subpoena documents related to whether he is a natural born citizen. The congressional cover-up and failure to investigate Dr. Taitz’s meritorious evidence raises serious questions as to whether members of congress may have been threatened or even blackmailed by the White House.
9. Multiple cable television hosts are deriding undeclared presidential candidate Donald Trump for questioning Mr. Obama’s presidential eligibility, raising additional serious questions as to why cable hosts are attempting to silence Mr. Trump while not reporting Taitz’s evidence — especially if Mr. Obama is ever found to be ineligible, and whether his executive orders and Supreme Court appointments would also be nullified. Every one of the legal challenges to President Obama’s Article II qualifications calls into question the lack of convincing documentation regarding the place of nativity.
As this author has written on a couple of occasions in The New American, the history of the “natural born citizen” clause and the appropriate application of that concept obviate the need to inquire into whether or not Barack Obama was born in the United States. The larger and more relevant (and easily proven) issue is the allegiance owed by Barack Obama’s Kenyan father at the time of the President’s birth — regardless of whether that event occurred in Hawaii, Kenya, or elsewhere. Essentially, a baby, even one born in the United States, cannot be considered a “natural born citizen” of our Republic if one or more of his parents were subjects to a foreign power. In this case, there is no dispute that President Obama’s father was neither a citizen nor a permanent resident of the United States, and in fact as a Kenyan he was a subject of the British Crown. This inarguable fact alone is sufficient to void President Obama’s eligibility for the presidency. Arguments in this case are scheduled to begin at 9 a.m. on May 2 in the Federal Courthouse in Pasadena, California. Donald Trump’s plan to attend the hearing is still unconfirmed. FRANK P.
Shove a scared ANIMAL into the corner one too many times and it will unleash on the oppressor with the rage of all it’s ancestors. Well at least they are going to get into court. With the court being liberal however, I doubt it gets any farther until election time. FRANK P. “A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.” –Sigmund Freud
From: Arizonasentinel@aol.com [mailto:Arizonasentinel@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2011 7:54 PM
To: centraliowa912project@mchsi.com Subject:
Re: Challenge to President Obama’s Eligibility to be Heard by 9th Circuit Court
Frank , do you think this is for real this time??
Bruce In a message dated 4/25/2011 4:08:28 P.M. US Mountain Standard Time, central
iowa912project@mchsi.com writes:
Challenge to President Obama’s Eligibility to be Heard by 9th Circuit Court 0 Arguments in one of the lawsuits challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility to be President of the United States has finally worked its way through the California court system and will be heard by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on May 2. “I can’t believe it, but after two years of Obama litigation, for the first time the court of appeals scheduled oral argument in [the] Obama case,” said Orly Taitz, a California attorney who has litigated a number of challenges to Obama. In this complaint, Taitz represents co-plaintiffs, who include former Ambassador and presidential candidate Alan Keyes, 10 state Representatives, and 30 members of the military. An attorney representing another group of plaintiffs in a case that was joined to the Taitz case expressed joy at the circuit court’s announcement, saying he was “pleased we’re going to have a chance to argue this issue before the 9th Circuit. We hope they see the merit in the constitutional arguments.” Attorneys for the defense aver that the plaintiffs lack standing: If anyone has suffered damages from President Obama’s alleged ineligibility due to his not being a “natural born citizen” per Article II of the Constitution, it is the nation at large and not the named plaintiffs. They argue that the plaintiffs failed to “demonstrate a particularized injury-in-fact traceable to defendants’ conduct as would be necessary to establish standing.” Later in their brief, defense counsel addresses the critical constitutional issue at the heart of the case soon to be heard by the judges of the 9th Circuit Court: Even assuming arguendo, that some of the purported “injuries” alleged by appellants satisfied the Article III requirement of “injury-in-fact,” the district court correctly held that no appellant could demonstrate that any injury complained of could be redressed by a court. The political question doctrine precludes redress to any appellant, because such redress would improperly arrogate to this court jurisdiction over political questions as to the eligibility of the president which the Constitution entrusts exclusively to the House and Senate. The political question doctrine serves to “restrain the judiciary from inappropriate interference in the business of the other branches of government” by prohibiting the courts from deciding issues that properly rest within the province of the political branches. They continue: The issues sought to be raised by appellants herein, regarding both whether President Obama is a “natural born citizen of the United States” and therefore eligible to be president as well as any purported claims raised by any criminal statutes … are to be judged, according to the text of the Constitution, by the legislative branch of the government, and not the judicial. The brief of the defense’s case was submitted by U.S. Attorney André Birotte, Jr. and his assistants Roger West and David DeJute. The principal allegations made in the case question Barack Obama’s eligibility to be President, citing an inexplicable lack of appropriate documentation that would prove the President’s eligibility. In support of their position, the plaintiffs claim to have evidence of the following challenges to President Obama’s ineligibility for the office he now occupies: 1. Mr. Obama has been using a stolen Social Security number since 1980-81 according to Dr. Taitz; moreover, Obama never resided in Connecticut where his Social Security number 042-68-4425 had already been issued to a Connecticut resident in March, 1977. 2. Taitz verified Obama’s continued usage of the allegedly stolen number via public Selective Service website information, Lexis Nexis, Choice Point and also E-Verify documentation. Taitz has brought suit against the U.S. Social Security Administration for Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) violations. 3. Obama is not a NATURAL BORN citizen, that is, one who is born in the United States to parents who are BOTH U.S. citizens. [Emphasis in original.] 4. Obama has failed to produce a LONG FORM birth certificate with hospital, attending physician’s name and official signatures, etc. Instead, Obama has produced a SHORT FORM certificate widely circulated on the internet and cable news shows. [Emphasis in original.] 5. According to stamped, certified court documents and a licensed investigator, President Obama is linked to 39 DIFFERENT SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS AND MULTIPLE ADDRESSES IN NATIONAL DATABASES. (http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Taitz-v-Astrue-filed-Complaint.pdf). [Emphasis in original.] 6. Associated Press reports from Indonesia show Obama’s elementary school record with usage of his adopted father’s name Soetoro, Indonesian citizenship, religion Islam. Obama denies all three facts. 7. Dr. Taitz has served President Obama with a complaint five times, but she said the President has defaulted and failed to answer the complaint thus far. Taitz asserted that Judge Carter has “defrauded us” [her clients and the American people, in initial District Court filings]. “It was a clear case of an error by the judge, abuse of judicial discretion and possibly judicial misconduct. Not only did Judge Carter dismiss the case; he also used his final order (undoubtedly written by some Obama supporter) to viciously attack me and my clients.” 8. Taitz has presented evidence and court documents to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX-21), House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA-49), Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA-46), and Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA-4), among others who have thus far failed to hold hearings, subpoena Obama’s long-form birth certificate, subpoena documents regarding his links to 39 social security numbers, subpoena his college records which Taitz has asserted contain fraudulent information, and subpoena documents related to whether he is a natural born citizen. The congressional cover-up and failure to investigate Dr. Taitz’s meritorious evidence raises serious questions as to whether members of congress may have been threatened or even blackmailed by the White House. 9. Multiple cable television hosts are deriding undeclared presidential candidate Donald Trump for questioning Mr. Obama’s presidential eligibility, raising additional serious questions as to why cable hosts are attempting to silence Mr. Trump while not reporting Taitz’s evidence — especially if Mr. Obama is ever found to be ineligible, and whether his executive orders and Supreme Court appointments would also be nullified. Every one of the legal challenges to President Obama’s Article II qualifications calls into question the lack of convincing documentation regarding the place of nativity. As this author has written on a couple of occasions in The New American, the history of the “natural born citizen” clause and the appropriate application of that concept obviate the need to inquire into whether or not Barack Obama was born in the United States. The larger and more relevant (and easily proven) issue is the allegiance owed by Barack Obama’s Kenyan father at the time of the President’s birth — regardless of whether that event occurred in Hawaii, Kenya, or elsewhere. Essentially, a baby, even one born in the United States, cannot be considered a “natural born citizen” of our Republic if one or more of his parents were subjects to a foreign power. In this case, there is no dispute that President Obama’s father was neither a citizen nor a permanent resident of the United States, and in fact as a Kenyan he was a subject of the British Crown. This inarguable fact alone is sufficient to void President Obama’s eligibility for the presidency. Arguments in this case are scheduled to begin at 9 a.m. on May 2 in the Federal Courthouse in Pasadena, California. Donald Trump’s plan to attend the hearing is still unconfirmed.
FRANK P.
Shove a scared ANIMAL into the corner one too many times and it will unleash on the oppressor with the rage of all it’s ancestors.
