Category Archives: History

Obama natural born citizen?, Obama’s birth certificate, Obama born in Kenya, Is Obama eligible to be president?

** Major Update August 2, 2009 **

Update here

 

Obama has been asked repeatedly to present a copy of his birth
certificate. Obama has refused to supply a copy of his birth
certificate. Is Obama eligible to be president?

Was Obama born in Kenya? I have two powerful sources that indicate
that Obama was born on Kenya. One is a reporter working behind the
scenes. The other is from the following site. The headline is shown
below and states:

“Kenyan-born OBAMA makes history…wins presidential nomination.”

http://www.usafricaonline.com/chido.obama08houston.html
A poster on Larry Sinclair’s blog has provided the following
interpretation of whether Obama meets the citizenship status
to be president:

“MARK Says:
Tuesday, June 10, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Barack Obama is not legally a U.S. Natural-born citizen according to the law on the books at the time of his birth, which falls between “December 24, 1952 to November 13, 1986? . Presidential office requires a natural-born citizen if the child was not born to two U.S. Citizen parents, which of course is what exempts John McCain though he was born in the Panama Canal. US Law very clearly stipulates: “…If only one parent was a U.S. Citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16.” Barack Obama’s father was not a U.S. Citizen and Obama’s mother was only 18 when Obama was born, which means though she had been a U.S. Citizen for 10 years, (or citizen perhaps because of Hawai’i being a territory) the mother fails the test for being so for at least 5 years **prior to** Barack Obama’s birth, but *after* age 16. It doesn’t matter *after* . In essence, she was not old enough to qualify her son for automatic U.S. Citizenship. At most, there were only 2 years elapsed since his mother turned 16 at the time of Barack Obama’s birth when she was 18 in Hawai’i. His mother would have needed to have been 16+5= 21 years old, at the time of Barack Obama’s birth for him to have been a natural-born citizen. As aformentioned, she was a young college student at the time and was not. Barack Obama was already 3 years old at that time his mother would have needed to have waited to have him as the only U.S. Cizen parent. Obama instead should have been naturalized, but even then, that would still disqualify him from holding the office.

*** Naturalized citizens are ineligible to hold the office of President. *** Though Barack Obama was sent back to Hawaii at age 10, all the other info does not matter because his mother is the one who needed to have been a U.S. Citzen for 10 years prior to his birth on August 4, 1961, with 5 of those years being after age 16. Further, Obama may have had to have remained in the country for some time to protect any citizenship he would have had, rather than living in Indonesia. Now you can see why Obama’s aides stopped his speech about how we technically have more than 50 states, because it would have led to this discovery. This is very clear cut and a blaring violation of U.S. Election law. I think the Gov. Of California would be very insterested in knowing this if Obama were elected President without being a natural-born U.S. Citizen, and it would set precedence. Stay tuned to your TV sets because I suspect some of this information will be leaking through over the next several days…”
Click here for more on this story:

http://larrysinclair0926.wordpress.com/2008/06/10/obama-rep-jen-psaki-run-a-campaign-is-to-respond-immediately/

Below are US Constitution, Amendments and court cases that relate to the citizenship requirements for president from Wikipedia:

US constitutional definition
The United States Constitution does not define the term “natural born citizen”; however, it does confer on Congress the power: “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.”

Section 1 of Article II of the Constitution contains the clause:
“ No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

US case law

Although the U.S. Supreme Court has never specifically addressed the meaning of “natural born citizen,” there are several Supreme Court decisions that help define citizenship:

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857): In regard to the “natural born citizen” clause, the dissent states that it is acquired by place of birth (jus soli), not through blood or lineage (jus sanguinis): “The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, ‘a natural-born citizen.’ It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.” (Much of the majority opinion in this case was overturned by the 14th Amendment in 1868.)
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898): A person born within the jurisdiction of the U.S. to non-citizens who “are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity” is automatically a citizen.

Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U.S. 657 (1927): A child born outside the U.S. cannot claim U.S. citizenship by birth through a U.S. citizen parent who had never lived in the U.S. prior to the child’s birth. (This is still true today, although the specific statutes upon which the Supreme Court’s ruling was based have changed since 1927.)

Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S. 308 (1961): A person born in 1906, whose mother was a native-born citizen of the United States and whose father was a foreign citizen, who was born overseas and then moved to the United States, was not a citizen of the United States by birth. (Note that the relevant laws have changed considerably since 1906, so this decision does not necessarily apply to later cases.)

Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964): The Court voided a statute that provided that a naturalized citizen should lose his United States citizenship if, following naturalization, he resided continuously for three years in his former homeland. “We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native-born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the ‘natural born’ citizen is eligible to be President.”

Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420 (1998): A child born overseas to an American father and a foreign mother (not married) is not a U.S. citizen unless paternity is established before an established age (in this case 21). This case challenged the law on the grounds that U.S. law requires no explicit acknowledgment of parenthood in the case of a foreign-born child to an American mother and a foreign father (not married).

Nguyen v. INS, 533 U.S. 53 (2001): As in the Miller v. Albright case, the Court holds that a child born overseas to an American father and a foreign mother (not married) is not a U.S. citizen unless paternity is established before an established age (in this case 18). The child was brought to the U.S. before his sixth birthday and raised by his father; however, after a criminal conviction, deportation was ordered but the child claimed U.S. citizenship. His citizenship was denied because paternity had not been established prior to his 18th birthday. The Court upheld the law, once again affirming that Congress has the power to define citizenship outside the citizenship dictated by the 14th Amendment (citizenship by birth).
 

DNC hypocrisy, Florida votes bypassed, 2000 election, “count all votes”, Obama influence spreads, no inclusion

We`have another example of the hypocrisy of the Democrat Party. The DNC has voted to not include all votes from the Florida primary. In the 2000 election, which also involved Florida, the democrats rally cry was “count all votes.” The is the height of hypocrisy. What else could we expect from delegates that lean toward Obama, the poster child for hypocrisy.

DNC meeting, Washington DC, May 31, 2008, 2000 election, count every vote, DNC count Florida Michigan votes?

In the 2000 election, when George Bush won the electoral vote and Al Gore won the popular vote, the popular vote was important to the Democrats. When the outcome of the Florida votes was in question, the popular vote was very important to the Democrats. This became the battle cry of the Democratic Party:

“Count Every Vote”

Is the Democrat Party the party of hypocrisy?

Will the Democrat Party and the DNC Count every vote?

Christians, Jews, believers in God, good citizens,did you know who you supported ?, why did you support this man?

The economy in ruins, you believed this man was
your salvation.

Why did you not read his book?  There were many clues
to his personality and intent.

Why did you not question his mesmerizing speeches, often
aimed at the youth?

Why did you not question his organization
and indoctrination of the youth? You know their minds
are the most malleable.

You sought information or an article but could not
find it because it was removed.

This candidate surrounded himself with those blaming
the jews, spewing anti semitic remarks.

Anyone that questioned this man suffered personal
attacks and some received death threats.

If you had bothered to check you would have known about the
violent connections.

You wanted change, to finally be proud of your country.

Why did you ignore the warning signs? Why were you 
mesmerized by speeches with promises wihout substance?

Christians, Jews, believers in God, responsible citizens,
Why did you suppport this man? Why did you not read his book?
Why did you not ask questions? Why did you allow anti semitic
speeches?

Why did you think I was referring to Barack Obama and his
associates?

.

.

.

.

.

I just described Nazi Germany.

Obama, please resign, Reverend Manning, Offering false hope, Obama resign

The Reverend James Manning was interviewed by Jeff Rense on his internet radio show last night. Reverend Manning states that he has proof that Obama and Jeremiah Wright are closet homosexuals. Reverend Manning also states that he has proof of Obama’s drug use. When asked what he would do if speaking face to face to Obama, Reverend Manning said that he would ask Obama to quit the presidential race. Reverend Manning stated that he would remind Obama of the black women raising children on their own and that Obama is offering false hope.

The Reverend James Manning is asking Obama to quit the presidential race for the good of blacks and the country.

Mr. Obama, I am asking you to resign for the good of the country.

Lessig blog, Breaking news, Jesus video, Obama friend, advisor, supporter, Lessig blog closed until June, * breaking news *

Lawrence Lessig is a friend of Obama as well as technology advisor and Obama rally speaker. Obama and Lessig worked together at the University of Chicago several years ago. Lessig is openly gay and promotes a radical gay agenda. Lessig has a video depicting Jesus as gay and has presented the videos at multiple seminars.

Lessig has a website and a blog. On Lessig’s blog he writes about his friendship and support for Barack Obama. Well, guess what. Lessig has closed his blog today, May 2, 2008, until June,  just before the NC and IN primaries. Coincidence? Not likely.

Here are some excerpts from Lessig’s blog that you currently cannot access:
“”DON’T DO THIS!” a friend wrote, a friend who never uses allcaps, a friend who cares genuinely about what’s good for me, and who believes that what’s good for me depends in part upon how easily I can talk to the next administration. “He is NOT going to win. She has it sewed up. DON’T burn your bridges before they’re hatched — so to speak.”
 
So was my suggestion that I come clean publicly about what many here will have intuited long ago — tha I support Barack Obama for President — met by my friend. But I said as much in March, 2004, though I expected this year would be four years later. Barack was a colleague from way back. I’ve supported every campaign since the first. And from the very first moments I knew the guy, I thought that he was precisely the sort we should be able to elect as President.”

 http://www.lessig.org/blog/2007/11/4barack.html

“Superstitious about the 20% rule, I said nothing about my friend, Barack Obama, who has won (with a healthy 60% majority) the Democratic nomination for Senate in Illinois. Barack was an adjunct at the University of Chicago while I was teaching there, and then just as I left, became a regular professor. He is an astonishingly decent and bright forty-something star. Siva points to a great piece about the race. And keep your eyes on 2012: when he will no longer be known as the 5th whatever, but will become the 3d and 1st in one year. (Consider it the Lessig Sunday Puzzle).”

http://lessig.org/blog/2004/03/barack_breaks_the_20_rule.html

“If gay peoples’ “coming out” is ambiguating, so too might be heterosexual peoples’ “going in.” This “going in” for heterosexual people could include a variety of moves: permitting confusion about whether or not they are gay; foregoing opportunities to identify opposite sex partners as spouses; making affirmative statements that align them with gay, lesbian, and bisexual people, and not qualifying those statements with disclosure of their own heterosexuality. And just as Griffin promoted civil rights for African-Americans by even temporarily assuming a black identity, so too heterosexuals can promote gay rights by tolerating greater ambiguity about sexual orientation.”

http://lessig.org/blog/2005/06/gay_like_me.html

Here are some comments about Lawrence Lessig:

“Stanford Law Professor Lawrence Lessig likes to treat his audiences to a short video that doesn’t always go over so well. In it, Jesus Christ lip-syncs Gloria Gaynor’s late ’70s disco hit “I Will Survive,” during which he strips down to just a diaper, effeminately struts along a city street and finally gets run over by a speeding bus.
 
Lessig showed the film during his keynote address to the LinuxWorld Conference and Expo in San Francisco in 2006 (reportedly causing audience members to exit in disgust), as well as to an assembled group of Google employees recently.
 
The antics of a trendy left-wing law school teacher who doubles as cybergeek would normally be of little note. But a few years down the information superhighway we may be speaking of Justice Lawrence Lessig should Obama be elected president.”

Read more of this article here:

http://nathanjmorton.wordpress.com/2008/04/25/another-odd-guru/

More comments:

“”In addition to happily showing off blasphemous images of Christ, Lessig is also known as a digital communist,” Erickson said. “Lessig believes there should be no such thing as intellectual property rights – patents and copyrights should be tossed.”
 
Lessig has worked actively on behalf of Obama to explain to journalists the candidate’s technology plan, which calls for the appointment of a technology czar to serve in the White House under the title of chief technology officer.
 
Obama’s campaign website currently proclaims Lessig as one of the industry experts supporting his technology plan to create a chief technology officer.
 
Lessig, on his website, endorses Obama, describing the candidate as a friend and former colleague.
 
In August 2006, several people in the audience walked out when Lessig showed the “Jesus Will Survive” video in his keynote address to the LinuxWorld Conference and Expo in San Francisco.”

Read more here:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=62484

NC primary, Mike Easley, Obama, Governor easley endorses Hillary

Governor Mike Easley has endorsed Hillary Clinton.

I was born and raised in NC and still live in NC.

I have thoroughly researched Barack Obama.

I have never been a Hillary fan but compared to Obama she looks real good.

Obama scares the hell out of me. Obama is the devil I know and the devil I don’t know.

I spoke to people in small towns in the western and eastern part of NC recently. Their biggest concern was Jeremiah Wright and his remark, “God Damn America.” Folks, this is just the tip of the iceberg.

If you are considering voting for Obama, I urge you to do some research. Start with this blog, but also read as much as you can and ask questions. I will be glad to answer your questions.

This election is too important to take lightly. Too important to talk in terms of black, white, Republican or Democrat.

I am asking you as a fellow North Carolinian to make the right choice.

Thank you.

NC primary, PA primary, Obama, Clinton, Citizen Wells endorsement

NC primary voters, PA primary voters, primary voters in other states. I consider myself more of an independent these days. I will be honest with you, I have never been a Hillary Clinton supporter. However, she looks really good compared to Barack Obama. I have thoroughly researched Obama and what I already know scares the hell out of me. Then there is the devil I do not know.

Rather than try to summarize why I have this stance, read my blog. Do as much research as you can elsewhere, but for the sake of this country, for the sake of our children and our children’s children, do not vote for Obama.

I hereby give my endorsement to Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Nomination.

Ayers, William Ayers, Obama, McCain, ABC This Week, PA primary, NC primary

Pennsylvania primary voters. North Carolina primary voters. If you are considering voting for Obama in PA, NC or any other state, you should watch the YouTube video of John McCain talking about William Ayers and Obama. Obama has had a long term friendship with former undergound bomber Ayers and maintained that friendship with Ayers even after the comments Ayers made after 9/11. I found this video on a great blog, The Centrist Voice.

Watch the video of John McCain:

http://centristvoice.wordpress.com/2008/04/20/mccain-questions-obamas-ties-to-ayers-on-abcs-this-week/

Obama new allegations, Illinois FOIA violations, Citizen Wells charges, Illinois Attorney General, Bar Association, US Senate censure

Whereas:

Barack Obama has been a licensed attorney in the state of
Illinois since the early nineties and was a associate attorney
with Miner, Barnhill and Galland from 1993 to 2002.

Barack Obama also taught constitutional law part-time at the University of Chicago Law School from 1993 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004.

Barack Obama was a member of the Illinois Senate from 1997 to 2004.

The Illinois Freedom of Information Act
pro-disclosure statute was originally enacted on July 1, 1984.

The following is the position of the state of Illinois as stated
by the Illinois Attorney General:

“It is the public policy of this State that public bodies exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business and that the people have a right to be informed as to the conduct of their business.”

“Attorney General Lisa Madigan believes that an open, honest and accountable government, the cornerstone of a democracy, can only be achieved through the free and open exchange of information between government and its citizens. Both the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the Open Meetings Act (OMA) endeavor to open the workings of government to the public, shed light on government actions and, in the process, strengthen our democracy. Similarly, the newly enacted government ethics laws are intended to increase government accountability. The Office of the Attorney General is committed to ensuring compliance with these laws and increasing awareness by both the public and public officials of their rights and obligations under them.”

Barack Obama has violated the letter of the law
and spirit of the Illinois FOIA.

Obama refused to supply information on one occasion when he
stated:

In a Tribune interview Thursday, the Illinois Democrat said he had no intention of sharing any of the documents he might still have in his possession.”

“The problem is whatever remaining documents I have are inevitably incomplete. And then the questions going to be, where’s this or where’s that. Once I start heading down that road, then it puts me in a position that could end up being misleading. I don’t want to mislead people. I don’t know the extent of the records that I have as a state senator.”
 
Obama has also either ignored requests for his records or given
evasive answers:

The Chicago Tribune has reported that it “requested documents from his time in Springfield and never received a response.”

In an interview with Tim Russert:

“MR. RUSSERT:  You talked about Senator Clinton having records released from the Clinton Library regarding her experience as first lady, and yet when you were asked about, “What about eight years in the state senate of Illinois,” you said, “I don’t know.” Where, where are the—where are your records?

SEN. OBAMA:  Tim, we did not keep those records.  I…

MR. RUSSERT:  Is your schedule available anywhere?  Are—the records exist?

SEN. OBAMA:  I—Tim, I kept my own schedule.  I didn’t have a scheduler.

MR. RUSSERT:  Senator Durbin, your colleague, publishes his schedule each day.  Would you do that?

SEN. OBAMA:  Well, you know, these days I have a public presidential schedule that I think everybody has access to.”
It is obvious that Barack Obama has violated the Illinois
FOIA Law by his failure to produce records that he has and has
violated the spirit of the law and policies of the State of
Illinois by his cavalier, evasive and irresponsible conduct.

It is self evident that the following should occur and I hereby
formally request the following:

A) That an investigation into the record keeping and compliance
with Illinois State Law by Barack Obama be initiated by the
Attorney General of the State of Illinois.

B) That the activities of Barack Obama in regard to the above and
any other federal and state laws be reviewed by the Illinois
State Bar Association.

C) That the aforementioned activities of Barack Obama be
investigated and reviewed in the United States Senate for possible
censure proceedings.
ILLINOIS FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT
The following is taken from the A GUIDE TO THE ILLINOIS FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION ACT:

“The Freedom of Information Act is the principal Illinois law governing the inspection of public records. It is a pro-disclosure statute originally enacted on July 1, 1984. This important open-government law is grounded in the principle that the public should be able to access public records and information about the workings of their government.

Illinois courts have long recognized that “good policy requires liberality in the right to examine public records.” Weinstein v. Rosenbloom, 59 Ill. 2d 475, 482 (1974); see also Copley Press Inc. v. City of Springfield, 143 Ill. App. 3d 370 (4th Dist. 1986); Warden v. Byrne, 102 Ill. App. 3d 501, 505 (1st Dist. 1981); People ex. rel. Gibson v. Peller, 34 Ill. App. 2d 372, 374 (1st
Dist. 1962). The courts have also recognized a common law duty to disclose public records, qualified only by a balancing of the public’s right to know against individual privacy rights and governmental interests. Lopez v. Fitzgerald, 53 Ill. App. 3d 164, 167 (1st Dist. 1977), aff’d 76 Ill.
2d 107. According to the court in People ex rel. Gibson v. Peller, 34 Ill. App. 2d 372, 374 (1st Dist. 1962), the common law right to inspect records also carries with it a right to reproduce or copy public records:”
“Under the Freedom of Information Act, public records are presumed to be open and accessible. Illinois Education Association v. Illinois State Board of Education, 204 Ill. 2d 456 (2003). The principal mandate of the Act is found in subsection 3(a), which provides that “[e]ach public body shall make available to any person for inspection or copying all public
records.” The remainder of the Act implements this requirement.”
“The Act requires all “public bodies” to make their public records available for inspection. According to subsection 2(a) of the Act, the term “public body” includes any legislative, executive, administrative, or advisory bodies of the State, State universities and colleges, counties, townships, cities, villages, incorporated towns, school districts and all other
municipal corporations, boards, bureaus, committees, or commissions of this State, and any subsidiary bodies of those public bodies, including but not limited to committees and subcommittees which are supported in whole or in part by tax revenue, or which expend tax revenue, and also School Finance Authorities created under Article 1E of the School Code.”
“It is the policy of the State, as enunciated in the Act, that all persons are entitled to “full and complete information regarding the affairs of government and the official acts and policies of those who represent them.” The Illinois Supreme Court has repeatedly embraced the
philosophy that public records are presumed to be open and accessible.”
“Subsection 2(c) of the Act defines the term “public records” to include all records, reports, forms, writings, letters, memoranda, books, papers, maps, photographs, microfilms, cards, tapes, recordings, electronic data processing records, recorded information and all other
documentary information having been prepared, or having been or being used, received, possessed or under the control of any public body.”
“Section 3 requires public bodies to make public records available “to any person.” A “person” is defined in subsection 2(b) as “any individual, corporation, partnership, firm, organization or association, acting individually or as a group.””
“Are office telephone records of members of a public body public records?
Yes. Telephone records of a member of a public body would be considered a
public record for purposes of the Act. Certain exemptions may exist that permit a withholding of these records per section 7 of the Act.”
“Are e-mails of members of a public body public records?
Yes. E-mail records of a member of a public body would be considered a public record for purposes of the Act. Certain exemptions may exist that permit a withholding of these records per section 7 of the Act.”
The Illinois FOIA act and manual can be viewed here:

http://www.illinoisattorneygeneral.gov/government/FOIA_guide.pdf
The following exerpt is from “FOIA and technology–When will
they converge?” By David Silverman, Joliet.
“Illinois has enacted comparable state laws that include “electronic records” within the definition of state government records.” “For purposes of the Local Records Act, “officer” is broadly defined as “any elected or appointed official of a court, county, municipal corporation or political subdivision.”22 Arguably, even e-mails received or transmitted from an elected or appointed official’s home computer are governed by the Local Records Act depending upon their subject matter. While these “home e-mails” may not be subject to disclosure under FOIA because they are not in the possession or control of the public body, they may very well be subject to the Local Records Act.”
Additional Barack Obama remarks about his records:

“I have no idea. I mean [muffled on recording]. I really don’t. Again, I did not have at my disposal. I wasn’t preparing for the Obama state senatorial library.”
“We did not keep those records.”
“Nobody has requested specific documents.”
“I have no idea. I mean [muffled on recording]. I really don’t. Again, I did not have at my disposal. I wasn’t preparing for the Obama state senatorial library.”
“An Obama spokesman, Ben LaBolt, last week declined to say where  Obama’s records from his years in the Illinois State Senate are located. There is no law mandating the state to archive the records. The records from Obama’s office — if he kept them — would potentially show appointments with lobbyists, policy memos, meetings, etc.”
“Well, let’s be clear.  In the state senate, every single piece of information, every document related to state government was kept by the state of Illinois and has been disclosed and is available and has been gone through with a fine-toothed comb by news outlets in Illinois. The, the stuff that I did not keep has to do with, for example, my schedule.  I didn’t have a schedule.  I was a state senator.  I wasn’t intending to have the Barack Obama State Senate Library.  I didn’t have 50 or 500 people to, to help me archive these issues.  So…”