Category Archives: John McCain

John McCain

Obama Natural Born Citizen?, Leo Donofrio explains, Donofrio lawsuit, US Supreme Court Appeal, Obama not eligible, Obama’s father Kenyan, Donofrio interprets Constitution

Posted on November 23, 2008 | 24 comments

There has been much confusion regarding Barack Obama’s eligibility and the aspect of Leo Donofrio’s lawsuit that sets it apart is his claim that Obama does not meet the constitutional definition of Natural Born Citizen. Here is an explanation from Leo Donofrio:

“Don’t be distracted by the birth certificate and Indonesia issues. They are irrelevant to Senator Obama’s ineligibility to be President. Since Barack Obama’s father was a Citizen of Kenya and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of Senator Obama’s birth, then Senator Obama was a British Citizen “at birth”, just like the Framers of the Constitution, and therefore, even if he were to produce an original birth certificate proving he were born on US soil, he still wouldn’t be eligible to be President.

The Framers of the Constitution, at the time of their birth, were also British Citizens and that’s why the Framers declared that, while they were Citizens of the United States, they themselves were not “natural born Citizens”.

Hence their inclusion of the grandfather clause in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution: 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; That’s it right there. (Emphasis added.)

The Framers wanted to make themselves eligible to be President, but they didn’t want future generations to be Governed by a Commander In Chief who had split loyalty to another Country. The Framers were comfortable making an exception for themselves. They did, after all, create the Constitution. But they were not comfortable with the possibility of future generations of Presidents being born under the jurisdiction of Foreign Powers, especially Great Britain and its monarchy, who the Framers and Colonists fought so hard in the American Revolution to be free of.

The Framers declared themselves not eligible to be President as “natural born Citizens”, so they wrote the grandfather clause in for the limited exception of allowing themselves to be eligible to the Presidency in the early formative years of our infant nation.

But nobody alive today can claim eligibility to be President under the grandfather clause since nobody alive today was a citizen of the US at the time the Constitution was adopted.

The Framers distinguished between “natural born Citizens” and all other “Citizens”. And that’s why it’s important to note the 14th Amendment only confers the title of “Citizen”, not “natural born Citizen”. The Framers were Citizens, but they weren’t natural born Citizens. They put the stigma of not being natural born Citizens on themselves in the Constitution and they are the ones who wrote the Document. Since the the Framers didn’t consider themselves to have been “natural born Citizens” due to their having been subject to British jurisdiction at their birth, then Senator Obama, having also been subject to British jurisdiction at the time of his birth, also cannot be considered a “natural born Citizen” of the United States.
Brack Obama’s official web site, Fight The Smears, admits he was a British Citizen at birth. At the very bottom of the section of his web site that shows an alleged official Certification Of Live Birth, the web site lists the following information and link thereto: FactCheck.org Clarifies Barack’s Citizenship

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”

That is a direct admission Barack Obama was a British citizen “at birth”.

My law suit argues that since Obama had dual citizenship “at birth” and therefore split loyalties “at birth”, he is not a “natural born citizen” of the United States. A “natural born citizen” would have no other jurisdiction over him “at birth” other than that of the United States. The Framers chose the words “natural born” and those words cannot be ignored. The status referred to in Article 2, Section 1, “natural born citizen”, pertains to the status of the person’s citizenship “at birth”.

The other numerous law suits circling Obama to question his eligibility fail to hit the mark on this issue. Since Obama was, “at birth”, a British citizen, it is completely irrelevant, as to the issue of Constitutional “natural born citizen” status, whether Obama was born in Hawaii or abroad. Either way, he is not eligible to be President.

Should Obama produce an original birth certificate showing he was born in Hawaii, it will not change the fact that Obama was a British citizen “at birth”. Obama has admitted to being a British subject “at birth”. And as will be made perfectly clear below, his being subject to British jurisdiction “at birth” bars him from being eligible to be President of the United States.

As I have argued before the United States Supreme Court, the 14th Amendment does not confer “natural born citizen” status anywhere in its text. It simply states that a person born in the United States is a “Citizen”, and only if he is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States:

“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.”

The most overlooked words in that section are: “…or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution…” You must recall that most, if not all, of the framers of the Constitution were, at birth, born as British subjects.

Stop and think about that.

The chosen wording of the Framers here makes it clear that they had drawn a distinction between themselves – persons born subject to British jurisdiction – and “natural born citizens” who would not be born subject to British jurisdiction or any other jurisdiction other than the United States. And so the Framers grandfathered themselves into the Constitution as being eligible to be President. But the grandfather clause only pertains to any person who was a Citizen… at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution. Obama was definitely not a Citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution and so he is not grandfathered in.

And so, for Obama or anybody else to be eligible to be President, they must be a “natural born citizen” of the United States “at birth”. It should be obvious that the Framers intended to deny the Presidency to anybody who was a British subject “at birth”. If this had not been their intention, then they would not have needed to include a grandfather clause which allowed the Framers themselves to be President.”

Follow Leo Donofrio’s lawsuit here:

http://thenaturalborncitizen.blogspot.com/

24 Comments

Posted in Announcements, Barack Obama, Barry Soetoro, Berg, Birth Certificate, Board of Elections, Chief Justice, Citizens for the truth about Obama, Civil Complaint, COLB, Congress, Democrats, DNC, Election, Election 2008, Election Boards, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, FEC, Federal Court, Government, Hawaii, indictment, Indonesia, John McCain, Justice, Kenya, Leo Donofrio, McCain Obama, Natural born citizen, News, Obama indictment, Obama Nation, Obama records, PHILIP J. BERG, Politics, Secretary of State, Senator McCain, Senator Obama, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice, The Case Against Barack Obama, U.S. Supreme Court, United States, US Constitution, Voter fraud, voters

Tagged , , , , , ,

Leo C. Donofrio NJ lawsuit, US Supreme Court Appeal, Justice Clarence Thomas, NJ Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Judge Jack M. Sabatino, Donofrio filed Judicial Misconduct

Posted on November 22, 2008 | 20 comments

** See Update below **

I have tried to access the Leo C. Donofrio website since late last night. Lurker, a great commenter on
the Citizen Wells blog, has provided the text from Mr. donofrio’s latest post.

“Posted: Nov.21.2008 @ 6:53 pm | Lasted edited: Nov.21.2008 @ 8:25 pm
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT ALLEGED BY LEO DONOFRIO IN NJ SUPERIOR COURT APPELLATE DIVISION – OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE ALLEGED AGAINST JUDGE JACK M. SABATINO IN ACTION CHALLENGING ELIGIBILITY OF PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES FOR 2008 ELECTION.

[MEDIA UPDATE:]  Today, Leo Donofrio learned that New Jersey Appellate Division Judge Jack M. Sabatino has failed to correct the public record of the initial lower court case.  Leo Donofrio feels it is imperative that he bring this battle public.  Therefore, he will appear on the Plains Radio Network with Ed Hale tonight at 9:00 PM EST.  Leo Donofrio will also appear on Overnight AM with Lan Lamphere at 11:00 PM EST as well.
Today, Leo C. Donofrio filed, with the NJ Supreme Court’s Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct, an official allegation of Judicial Misconduct against Appellate Division Judge Jack M. Sabatino with regard to the initial stage of this litigation which was originally filed in the NJ Superior Court, Appellate Division.  The case, having come directly from an appeal to the New Jersey Supreme Court is now before the the United States Supreme Court, “DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 5, 2008″ before all nine Supreme Court Justices. 

I am very concerned that if the United States Supreme Court requests the official records of the case from the NJ Appellate Division, a fraudulent case file – not including all relevant documents – will be forwarded to the SCOTUS and thereby the case now pending might be jeopardized.

A copy of the official complaint – by way of a New Jersey Supreme Court generated form – will be uploaded to this blog shortly. ”

** UPDATE **

From Leo Donofrio:

“Yesterday, Nov. 21 2008, my previous blog – blogtext.org/naturalborncitizen – was taken down as was the entire blogtext.org network.

I have relocated here to Blogger.com. Mirror sites containing the exact content have been (or will be shortly) set up. Everybody is hereby authorized to mirror the contents of this blog. The following sites are trusted by me to have exact content”

http://thenaturalborncitizen.blogspot.com/

20 Comments

Posted in Announcements, Barack Obama, Barry Soetoro, Berg, Birth Certificate, Board of Elections, Citizens for the truth about Obama, Civil Complaint, Congress, Criminal Complaint, Democrats, DNC, Election, Election 2008, Election Boards, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, FEC, Federal Court, Government, Hawaii, Impeach Senator Obama, impeachment, indictment, Indonesia, John McCain, Justice, Kenya, Leo Donofrio, McCain Obama, Natural born citizen, News, Obama impeachment, Obama indictment, Obama Nation, Obama records, PHILIP J. BERG, Politics, Secretary of State, Senator McCain, Senator Obama, Supreme Court, The Case Against Barack Obama, U.S. Supreme Court, United States, US Constitution

Tagged , , , , , ,

Obama not eligible, US Constitution, Tenth Amendment, Bill of Rights, US Supreme Court, Federal Judges, State Judges, State Election Officials, Electoral College Electors, Philip J Berg lawsuit, Leo C Donofrio lawsuit, Citizen Wells facts and arguments

Posted on November 12, 2008 | 34 comments

To:

Justice Souter
Justice Thomas
US Supreme Court
Federal Judges
State judges
State election officials
Electoral College Electors      
US Citizens

The US Constitution must be upheld

US citizens have the right, the power and the duty to require proof of
eligibilty of presidential candidates

What I am about to write is so inherently simple and self evident,
that it may appear on the surface to be implausible. However, the
following facts and arguments flow from the founding fathers’ wisdom
and desire to protect the American citizens from tyrrany. I have read
the US Constitution, Federal election law and numerous state election
laws. I have had dialogue with offices of a number of Secretaries of State
and Election Boards. The US Constitution gives the states power over
the general election. The states control which candidates are placed
on ballots and regardless of the methodology used for doing so, I
believe the states have the power and obligation to verify eligibility
of presidential candidates. I find no federal or state law prohibiting
states from doing so and instead a constitutional duty to ensure that
a qualified candidate becomes a ballot choice for the Electoral College
Electors. Failure to do so effectively may lead to voter disenfranchisement.
I have believed and stated for weeks that the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution gives US citizens the power to demand that a presidential
candidate prove eligbility and certainly standing in a lawsuit. A lawsuit
should not be necessary. We already have the power, directly from the
US Constitution Bill of Rights.
Argument:

  • The US Constitution clearly defines the eligibiity requirement for president.
  • The US Constitution rules.
  • The US Constitution gives states the power to choose electors. With this power comes the obligation to uphold the Constitution and protect voter rights.
  • State laws vary but are consistent in their approach to placing
    presidential candidates on the ballot.
  • Presidential Balloting evolved from tradition.
  • The two party system evolved from tradition.
  • States place presidential candidates on ballots from instructions of
    the major political parties.
  • States should have enacted laws to require proof of eligibility.
  • States are not exercising their duty to the Constitution.
  • States have the power and obligation to ensure that only eligible candidates remain on ballots. Despite compelling evidence that Barack Obama is not eligible, and notification, the states left him on the ballot.
  • States claim no power to remove a candidate when in fact they do have power over the general election process.
  • The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution gives the people power, including Phil J Berg, Leo C. Donofrio and others that have had their lawsuits dismissed in state courts.

By virtue of the powers given to the people in the Tenth Amendment in The BIll of Rights of the US Constitution, we do not have to file lawsuits to demand proof of eligibility or require state election officials to do so.

A US citizen filing a lawsuit demanding that a presidential candidate provide proof of eligibility has standing.

Facts and References

US Constitution

Bill of Rights

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution;

viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The US Constitution defines presidential eligibility

US Constitution

Article. II.

Section. 1.

“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.”

The US Constitution gives powers to the states for the general election.
US Constitution

Article. II.

Section. 1.

“The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.”

Federal Election Law: 

“The following provisions of law governing Presidential Elections are contained in Chapter 1 of Title 3, United States Code (62 Stat. 672, as amended):

§ 8.   The electors shall vote for President and Vice President, respectively, in the manner directed by the Constitution.”

State Electoral College example: Pennsylvania Law

Ҥ 3192. Meeting of electors; duties.
The electors chosen, as aforesaid, shall assemble at the seat of government of this Commonwealth, at 12 o’clock noon of the day which is, or may be, directed by the Congress of the United States, and shall then and there perform the duties enjoined upon them by the Constitution and laws of the United States.”

Philip J Berg lawsuit
Judge Surrick ruling exerpts:

“If, through the political process, Congress determines that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution’s eligibility requirements for the Presidency, then it is free to pass laws conferring standing on individuals like Plaintiff. Until that time, voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring in the Amended Complaint.”

“…regardless of questions of causation, the grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact. To reiterate: a candidate’s ineligibility under the Natural Born Citizen Clause does not result in an injury in fact to voters. By extension, the theoretical constitutional harm experienced by voters does not change as the candidacy of an allegedly ineligible candidate progresses from the primaries to the general election.”

Philip J Berg response to ruling:

“an American citizen is asking questions of a presidential candidate’s eligibility to even hold that office in the first place, and the candidate is ducking and dodging questions through legal procedure.”
“This is a question of who has standing to stand up for our Constitution,”  “If I don’t have standing, if you don’t have standing, if your neighbor doesn’t have standing to ask whether or not the likely next president of the United States–the most powerful man in the entire world–is eligible to be in that office in the first place, then who does?”

Mark J. Fitzgibbons is President of Corporate and Legal Affairs at American Target Advertising:

“October 29, 2008
Who Enforces the Constitution’s Natural Born Citizen Clause?”

“So if the Framers established that courts “shall” hear cases arising under the Constitution, and failed to authorize Congress to otherwise establish who may sue to enforce the document, then where might we find conclusively that Berg has standing to sue?

The 10th Amendment to the Constitution states that the powers not delegated to the federal government, nor prohibited to the states, remain with the states or the people.  Therefore it seems that any state or any person has standing to sue to enforce not just the Natural Born Citizen Clause, but other constitutional requirements and rights, absent some expressly written bar within the Constitution itself.”

“Chief Justice John Marshall, writing in Marbury v. Madison, said that judges have a duty to decide cases under our paramount law, the Constitution. I have lamented previously about how some judges tend to evade their duty to decide constitutional matters by resorting to court-made doctrines.  Judge Surrick’s reliance on case law to dismiss Berg’s suit for lack of standing is reasoned from a lawyer’s perspective, but not heroic and perhaps evasive of his larger duty. 
His decision to “punt” the matter to Congress creates, I suggest, a dangerous, longer and perhaps more painful constitutional quagmire than had he heard the evidence in the case.  Even had the case lacked merit, the Constitution would not have been harmed.”

Read more here:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/who_enforces_the_constitutions.html

Ellis Washington, currently a professor of law and political science at Savannah State University, former editor at the Michigan Law Review and law clerk at The Rutherford Institute, is a graduate of John Marshall Law School and a lecturer and freelance writer on constitutional law, legal history, political philosophy and critical race theory. He has written over a dozen law review articles and several books, including “The Inseparability of Law and Morality: The Constitution, Natural Law and the Rule of Law” (2002). See his law review article “Reply to Judge Richard Posner.” Washington’s latest book is “The Nuremberg Trials: Last Tragedy of the Holocaust.”

Mr. Washington wrote the following response to the Philip J Berg lawsuit and Judge Surrick ruling in a World Net Daily article dated November 8, 2008 :

“Unfortunately, just 10 days before the election, a court of appeals judge threw out Berg’s lawsuit challenging the veracity of Obama’s U.S. citizenship status on technical grounds. Judge R. Barclay Surrick, a Jimmy Carter-appointed judge, amazingly (and with a tinge of irony), stated his opinion in part:

In a 34-page memorandum that accompanied the court order, the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick concludes that ordinary citizens can’t sue to ensure that a presidential candidate actually meets the constitutional requirements of the office.
Surrick defers to Congress, saying that the legislature could determine “that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution’s eligibility requirements for the Presidency,” but that it would take new laws to grant individual citizens that ability.

“Until that time,” Surrick says, “voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring.”

Judge Surrick, quoting from Hollander, concludes, “The alleged harm to voters stemming from a presidential candidate’s failure to satisfy the eligibility requirements of the Natural Born Citizen Clause is not concrete or particularized enough to constitute an injury.”

Surrick also quotes Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, which stated, in part, “The Supreme Court has consistently held that a plaintiff raising only a generally available grievance about government – claiming only harm to his and every citizen’s interest in proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large – does not state an Article III case or controversy.”

Constitutionally speaking, Judge Surrick’s reasoning is completely illogical and a total dereliction of his duty as a judge to substantively address this most vital constitutional controversy. Instead, in a gutless manner, Surrick dismissed Berg’s complaint 10 days before the elections on a technicality of standing, which to any rational person begs the question: If Philip J. Berg as an American citizen, a respected Democratic operative and former attorney general of Pennsylvania doesn’t have the “standing” to bring this type of lawsuit against Obama, then who in America does have standing? The good judge in all 34 pages of legal mumbo jumbo didn’t bother to answer this pivotal question.

That Berg’s complaint is not “concrete or particularized enough to constitute an injury” is an amazing admission by any person that went to law school and even more so given the fact that Surrick is a respected appellate judge!

I am somewhat hopeful that Berg will successfully appeal Surrick’s outrageous decision to 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals and then to the United States Supreme Court if necessary, even if technically he doesn’t have standing to hold Obama accountable to the Constitution. Why? Because this is America, and out of 300 million people, someone should give a damn enough about this republic to make sure the person who holds the highest elected office in the land holds it legitimately based on the black letter text of Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.”

Read the complete article here:

http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80435

Leo C. Donofrio has a New Jersey lawsuit before the US Supreme Court

“On October 27, 2008, plaintiff-appellant, Leo Donofrio, a retired attorney acting Pro Se, sued Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, demanding the Secretary execute her statutory and Constitutional duties to police the security of ballots in New Jersey from fraudulent candidates ineligible to hold the office of President of the United States due to their not being “natural born citizens” as enumerated in Article 1, Section 2, of the US Constitution.”

“The cause of action first accrued on September 22, 2008, when Secretary Wells certified to county clerks, for ballot preparation, a written “statement”, prepared under her seal of office, that was required by statute to contain names of only those candidates who were “by law entitled” to be listed on ballots in New Jersey.  The statement is demanded by N.J.S.A. 19:13-22.

The law suit raises a novel contention that the statutory code undergoes legal fusion with the Secretary’s oath of office to uphold the US Constitution thereby creating a minimum standard of review based upon the “natural born citizen” requirement of Article 2, Section 1, and that the Supremacy clause of the Constitution would demand those requirements be resolved prior to the election.

The key fact, not challenged below, surrounds two conversations between the plaintiff-appellant and a key Secretary of State Election Division official wherein the official admitted, twice, that the defendant-Secretary just assumed the candidates were eligible taking no further action to actually verify that they were, in fact, eligible to the office of President.  These conversations took place on October 22nd and 23rd.” 

“Now, post-election, plaintiff is seeking review by the United States Supreme Court to finally determine the “natural born citizen” issue. Plaintiff alleged the Secretary has a legal duty to make certain the candidates pass the “natural born citizen” test.  The pre-election suit requested that New Jersey ballots be stayed as they were defective requiring replacements to feature only the names of candidates who were truly eligible to the office of President.”

Read more here:

http://www.blogtext.org/naturalborncitizen/

Summary

The states have power and control over the general elections. With this
power comes a duty to uphold the Constitution. The states, rather than
enact laws to uphold the constitution and protect the voting rights
of their citizens, have acted more on tradition. This traditional
approach has worked up until the 2008 election. We now have a candidate,
Barack Obama, who has refused to provide legal proof of eligibility in
the face of compelling evidence he is not qualified. When presented
with this evidence, the states had an obligation to require proof from
Obama.

The states had an obligation to enact legislation and did not. The states
have not exercised their inherent power and duty to require proof of
and eligibility. Therefore, by virtue of the powers reserved for the
people of the US in the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution, US citizens have the power and obligation to demand proof of eligibility from Obama.

Citizen Wells is asking that US citizens contact state election officials
and Electoral College Electors and demand that they request proof of
eligibility from Obama. If they do not do so, initiate lawsuits and
make sure that your rights are protected and that the Constitution is
upheld. 

Citizen Wells is also issuing a caution to the US Supreme Court, Supreme
Court Justices, Federal Judges, State Judges, State Election Officials
and Electoral College Officials. You all have an overriding obligation
to uphold and defend the US Constitution. You are all accountable and
the American public is watching.

34 Comments

Posted in amended complaint, Announcements, Barack Obama, Barry Soetoro, Berg, Birth Certificate, Board of Elections, Citizen, Citizens for the truth about Obama, Civil Complaint, Congress, Criminal Complaint, Democrats, DNC, Election, Election 2008, Election Boards, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, FEC, Federal Court, Government, Hawaii, Impeach Senator Obama, impeachment, indictment, Indonesia, John McCain, Justice, Kenya, Leo Donofrio, McCain Obama, Natural born citizen, NC voters, New Jersey, News, Obama impeachment, Obama indictment, Obama Nation, Obama records, PHILIP J. BERG, Politics, Secretary of State, Senator McCain, Senator Obama, Supreme Court, The Case Against Barack Obama, U.S. Supreme Court, Uncategorized, United States, US Constitution, Voter fraud, voters

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leo C. Donofrio, Obama not eligible, US Supreme Court, New Jersey lawsuit, Secretary of State, Nina Mitchell Wells, Constitutional duty, Justice Souter, Justice Thomas

Posted on November 12, 2008 | 53 comments

Leo C. Donofrio, a retired attorney in New Jersey, has an appeal before the US Supreme Court. The appeal is the result of a lawsuit filed against the New Jersey Secretary of State, Nina Mitchell Wells. The lawsuit states that Ms. Wells did not adequately perform her statutory duty to ensure the integrity of ballots and the electoral process for the November 4th, 2008 election. Mr. Donofrio presented the facts regarding the case on Tuesday, November 12, 2008. Below is an exerpt that reveals the experience Mr. Donofrio had with the US Supreme Court:

“On Sunday evening, I left New Jersey in order to be in DC to file the application before the court closed at 4:30 PM. This would assure that the Supreme Court had a chance to stay the popular vote in the National Election before election day polls opened.

26. The Application For Emergency Stay was filed by me on Monday November 3rd, 2008, at 3:33 PM. A few minutes later, while still in the Supreme Court, I phoned the Stay Clerk, Mr. Danny Bickell, and we spoke for 7:00 minutes (according to my phone log). I told Mr. Bickell the whole story insisting that the Court Rule required the Application to be delivered promptly to Justice Souter. Mr. Bickell assured me that Justice Souter would have the case on his desk that evening if my papers were in order, which they were.

It was very important that the Court Rules be followed since I didn’t expect Justice Souter to grant the application, but I was ready to resubmit it to Justice Clarence Thomas with along with a letter to His Honor and ten copies of the original application shoulld he pass it on to the entire Court.

27. I arrived at the SCOTUS on Monday Nov 3rd, got the case filed and stamped at 3:30PM, then went back inside and pleaded with the stay clerk for 7 minutes (as shown by my phone log) to please follow the rules and get this on Justice Souter’s desk as was required by Rule 22(1):

“1. An application addressed to an individual Justice shall be filed with the Clerk, who will transmit it promptly to the Justice concerned if an individual Justice has authority to grant the sought relief.” (Emphasis added.)

Mr. Bickell agreed that if my papers were in order, Justice Souter would receive the case that night, sometime after 4:30 pm.

“Rule 22(6). The Clerk will advise all parties concerned, by appropriately speedy means, of the disposition made of an application.”

It’s important that the disposition be delivered by “speedy means” because the denial of a stay sets the trigger for resubmission to a Justice of your choice under Rule 22(4).

28. The next day, election day, I received no message from the Court. I went back to the SCOTUS on Election Day with my sister who is also retired from the practice of law (she was an Assistant DA in Detroit for many years), and was told Mr. Bickell wasn’t available to speak with me. And he was not picking up his phone.

29. On Thursday, I finally got through to Mr. Bickell and was informed by him that the case was never passed on to Justice Souter because Mr. Bickell didn’t think it was an appropriate Application. I was absolutely astounded. He made a substantive law judgment thereby effectively impersonating a Supreme Court Justice.  Mr. Bickell told me that I should have made a full Petition for Writ of Certiorari and since I didn’t then my stay application was defective.  And that’s not only illegal for him to make such a decision, but this decision itself is not grounded in law or precedent, but rather the exact opposite.  And I told him he was flat out wrong, because :

– I followed the Court Rules perfectly

– he and I spoke all about this on Monday in a seven minute phone conversation wherein he agreed to forward the Application

– the case was properly before the court from the Supreme Court of NJ

– the precedent was Bush v. Gore where no Petition was necessary since the court decided to treat the Stay application as a full Petition for Writ of Certiorari.

It’s not the Clerk’s job job to play Supreme Court Justice. The stay clerk’s job is to collect the papers and pass them onto the Justices, but as to this action Mr. Bickell basically made a substantive judgment of law and denied my application on his own. That must be criminal in some way, perhaps impersonating a US Supreme Court Justice, or subordination of Judicial intent? It’s just wrong and Mr. Bickell needs to be called on it.Either he did this on his own volition or somebody pressured him to do it. After explaining the precedent in Bush v. Gore, where the Supreme Court treated the Stay application as a Petition for Cert. and then granted that virtual Petition, he blinked and agreed to Docket the case.[See Bush v. Gore, page 1, http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html ]

Mr. Bickell also stated that, “Justice Souter will deny it and so will Justice Thomas”, but I wouldn’t let it go and finally he agreed to Docket the case.

30. The next day, I checked the Supreme Court Docket and the case had finally been docketed but in a completely incorrect manner. Mr. Bickell docketed the case incorrectly as follows (this is from my recording of the original Docket):

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nov 6 2008 Application (08A407) for injunction pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter.

Three glaring errors:

– The case was actually filed and stamped received on November 3rd, not November 6th as Mr. Bickell had listed above.

– My application was for a “Stay” not an “injunction”. Filing for an injunction does not bring expedited review, while a Stay is entitled to the most expedited review the SCOTUS has to offer. The distinction is very important.

– I never submitted a full Petition nor did I submit a letter stating any such intention to do so. The Stay Clerk just took this out of thin air. He made it up out of the blue. Nothing in my Application indicates I intended to file a full Petition for Write of Certiorari. There was no time for that. The proper procedural tool was a Stay application as per the precedent set in Bush v. Gore.

31. I then called Mr. Bickell and left three loud and direct messages to the effect of, “Fix my docket or I’m going to suggest criminal charges against you as well as a civil suit against the Clerk’s office.” I also told Mr. Bickell that I suspected he was being pressured from within, and that he should inform whoever was pressuring him that I’d kept solid phone records and that my pleadings were stamped, “Nov. 3rd.”

32. Later than morning, I checked the US Supreme Court docket search engine again, and saw that Mr. Bickell had corrected the Docket to reflect that the case had been filed on November 3rd and he also now had it listed as a “Stay” application.

However, this second Docket listing was equally bizarre. Whereas the first Docket listing discussed a pending application for injunction, the new Docket reflected that Justice Souter had already denied the Stay application a day earlier on Nov. 6th, which is very confusing since this was now Friday November 7th and the first Docket listed no such disposition. 

Here is the Docket as it appeared one hour after the first Docket listing. And this is also how it appears today, Nov. 11th:

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nov 3 2008 Application (08A407) for stay pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter.

Nov 6 2008 Application (08A407) denied by Justice Souter.
————————————————————————————————————

None of this makes any sense. Calling this activity “unorthodox” is to be very kind.  It’s Judicial misconduct and perhaps it’s even worse. 
The reference to a “pending” Petition is incorrect and should be removed because it effects the favor-ability of review available to the case as resubmissions for Stay applications are not looked on favorably if the Stay denial is “without prejudice”.  If I were actually in the process of submitting a full Petition for Cert., which I’m not, then the denial might be considered “without prejudice”, and in that case, Mr. Bickell might , once again, decide not to pass on the Stay Application to Justice Clarence Thomas.

Seeing as how the Electoral College is just one month away, this is still an emergency, and Bush v. Gore is still precedent. I have made no submission of a full Petition, so the Docket is still incorrect as I intend to resubmit the “Stay Application” this week and the case will live or die on the resubmission.

These Court Rules are no joke. They have a purpose. On Monday November 3rd, Mr. Bickell disposed of my Application acting as if he were a United States Supreme Court Justice. That’s certainly bad enough, if not criminal, but then he did nothing between then and Thursday November 6th to notify me, certainly not by “speedy means”, of the disposition of my Stay Application. This is Judicial misconduct.

Mr. Bickell took my cell number on Monday Nov. 3rd, and had I been notified properly, by a phone call, that my Stay Application was not going to be forwarded to Justice Souter, then I could have corrected Mr. Bickell as I did on Thursday Nov. 6th.

This case was stopped in its tracks starting in the Appellate Division and leading right to the US Supreme Court.  The shame of the delay lies in the fact that the case was bi-partisan and should have been decided before the election when nobody knew what the outcome would be.  Now, once Obama is disqualified, which I believe will be the final disposition of this case, it’s going to cause so much more pain to the country.  

The law and the facts of this case have the ability to strip Obama of the Presidency just as the law and the facts of this case would have had the power to also strip McCain of the Presidency if he had won. I argued the same law as to McCain and Roger Colera as well as Obama.

This is NOT the way the US Supreme Court usually does business. And the citizens of this country should be angry that this institution has slipped to this level.

“I hereby certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true.  I am aware that if any of the foregoing statements made by me are willfully false, I am subject to punishment.”

______________________________________
Leo C. Donofrio, Pro Se”

Read more here:

http://www.blogtext.org/naturalborncitizen/

Help Philip J Berg uphold the Constitution:

http://obamacrimes.com

53 Comments

Posted in amended complaint, Announcements, Barack Obama, Barry Soetoro, Berg, Birth Certificate, Board of Elections, Citizens for the truth about Obama, Civil Complaint, Criminal Complaint, Democrats, DNC, Election, Election 2008, Election Boards, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, FEC, Federal Court, Government, Hawaii, Impeach Senator Obama, impeachment, indictment, Indonesia, John McCain, Justice, Kenya, Leo Donofrio, McCain Obama, Natural born citizen, NC voters, New Jersey, News, Obama impeachment, Obama indictment, Obama Nation, Obama records, PHILIP J. BERG, Politics, Secretary of State, Senator McCain, Senator Obama, Supreme Court, The Case Against Barack Obama, U.S. Supreme Court, United States, US Constitution, Voter fraud, voters

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Electoral College votes, 2008 Election, Obama not eligible, Obama Indonesian, Obama birth certificate, Kenya, Hawaii, US Constitution, Congress, Philip J Berg, Obama facts on eligibility, November 10, 2008

Posted on November 10, 2008 | 17 comments

The US Constitution must be upheld

         Part 3

“Our Constitution is in actual operation; everything appears to promise
that it will last; but nothing in this world is certain but death and
taxes.”

Benjamin Franklin

Barack Obama was born in Kenya. All of the evidence we have confirms
that and unlike John McCain, who when questioned about his eligibility,
presented a vault copy of his birth certificate to Congress, Obama has
refused to prove his eligibility. Despite this fact, Philip J Berg
states in his lawsuit, which is now before the US Supreme Court, that
Obama became an Indonesian citizen and still remains one and thus is
not eligible to be president. The following well crafted statements of
fact and of the law were taken from Mr. Berg’s lawsuit:

“FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS“

“26. Since the beginning of the U.S. Constitution, in order to run for Office of the President, you must be a “natural born citizen” U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1.”

“36. Obama is a representative of the Democratic People. However, Obama must meet the Qualifications specified for the United States Office of the President, which he must be a “natural born” citizen. Additionally, Obama must be at least a “naturalized” citizen to hold his Office of U.S. Senator for Illinois. Unfortunately, Obama is not a “natural born” citizen, nor is he a “naturalized” citizen. Just to name one of the problems, Obama lost his U.S. citizenship when his mother married an Indonesian citizen, Lolo Soetoro who legally “acknowledged” Obama as his son in Indonesia and/or “adopted” Obama, which caused Obama to become a “natural” Indonesian citizen. Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro relocated herself and Obama to Indonesia wherein Obama’s mother naturalized in Indonesia. This is proven by Obama’s school record with the student’s name as “Barry Soetoro”, Father’s name: Lolo Soetoro, M.A., and Citizenship: Indonesia.

37. There appears to be no question that Defendant Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, was a U.S. citizen. It is also undisputed, however, that his father, Barack Obama, Sr., was a citizen of Kenya. Obama’s parents, according to divorce records, were married on or about February 2, 1961.

38. Defendant Obama claims he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961 and it is uncertain in which hospital he claims to have been born. Obama’s grandmother on his father’s side, his half-brother and half-sister all claim Obama was born not in Hawaii but in Kenya. Reports reflect that Obama’s mother traveled to Kenya during her pregnancy; however, she was prevented from boarding a flight from Kenya to Hawaii at her late stage of pregnancy (which, apparently, was a normal restriction, to avoid births during a flight). By these reports, Stanley Ann Dunham Obama gave birth to Obama in Kenya, after which she flew home and registered Obama’s birth. There are records of a “registry of birth” for Obama, on or about August 8, 1961 in the public records office in Hawaii.

39. Upon investigation into the alleged birth of Obama in Honolulu, Hawaii, Obama’s birth is reported as occurring at two (2) separate hospitals, Kapiolani Hospital and Queens Hospital. The Rainbow Edition News Letter, November 2004 Edition, published by the Education Laboratory School did a several page article of an interview with Obama and his half-sister, Maya. The Rainbow Edition News Letter reports Obama was born August 4, 1961 at Queens Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii. More interesting in February 2008, Obama’s half-sister, Maya, was again interviewed in the Star Bulletin, and this time, Maya states Obama was born August 4, 1961 in Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women & Children.

40. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges a research team went to Mombassa, Kenya, and located a Certificate Registering the birth of Barack Obama, Jr. to his father, a Kenyan citizen and his mother, a U.S. citizen.

41. Even if Obama was, in fact, born in Hawaii, he lost his U.S. citizenship when his mother re-married and moved to Indonesia with her Indonesian husband. In or about 1965, when Obama was approximately four (4) years old, his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, married Lolo Soetoro, a citizen of Indonesia, whom she had met at the Hawaii University, and moved to Indonesia with Obama. Obama lost his U.S. citizenship, when his mother married Lolo Soetoro, and took up citizenship of and residency in Indonesia. Loss of citizenship, in these circumstances, under U.S. law (as in effect in 1965) required that foreign citizenship be achieved through “application.” Such type of naturalization occurred, for example, when a person acquired a foreign nationality by marriage to a national of that country. Nationality Act of 1940, Section 317(b). A minor child follows the naturalization and citizenship status of their custodial parent. A further issue is presented that Obama’s Indonesian stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, either signed an acknowledgement acknowledging Obama as his son or Lolo Soetoro adopted Obama, giving Obama natural Indonesia citizenship which explains the name Barry Soetoro and his citizenship listed as Indonesian.

42. Obama admits in his book, “Dreams from my father” Obama’s memoir
(autobiography), that after his mother and Lolo Soetoro were married, Lolo Soetoro left Hawaii rather suddenly and Obama and his mother spent months in preparation for their move to Indonesia. Obama admits when he arrived in Indonesia he had already been enrolled in an Indonesia school and his relatives were waiting to meet him and his mother. Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian State citizen, could not have enrolled Obama in school unless Lolo Soetoro signed an acknowledgement acknowledging Obama as his son, which had to be filed with the Government. Under Indonesian law, when a male acknowledges a child as his son, it deems the son, in this case Obama, as an Indonesian State citizen. Constitution of Republic of Indonesia, Law No. 62 of 1958 Law No. 12 of 2006 dated 1 Aug. 2006 concerning Citizenship of Republic of Indonesia, Law No. 9 of 1992 dated 31 Mar. 1992 concerning Immigration Affairs and Indonesian Civil Code (Kitab Undang-undang Hukum Perdata) (KUHPer) (Burgerlijk Wetboek voor Indonesie) states in pertinent part, State citizens of Indonesia include: (viii) children who are born outside of legal marriage from foreign State citizen mother who are acknowledged by father who is Indonesian State citizen as his children and that acknowledgment is made prior to children reaching 18 years of age or prior to marriage; Republic of Indonesia Constitution 1945, As amended by the First Amendment of 1999, the Second Amendment of 2000, the Third Amendment of 2001 and the Fourth Amendment of 2002, Chapter X, Citizens and Residents, Article 26 states, “(1) Citizens shall consist of indigenous Indonesian peoples and persons of foreign origin who have been legalized [sic] as citizens in accordance with law. (2) Residents shall consist of Indonesian citizens and foreign nationals living in Indonesia.”

43. Furthermore, under the Indonesian adoption law, once adopted by an Indonesian citizen, the adoption severs the child’s relationship to the birth parents, and the adopted child is given the same status as a natural child, Indonesian Constitution, Article 2. Thus, where Obama was actually born and what his mother’s citizenship status at the time of this birth is irrelevant.

44. The laws in Indonesia at the time of Obama’s arrival did not allow dual citizenship. If an Indonesian citizen married a foreigner, as in this case, Obama’s mother was required to renounce her U.S. citizenship and was sponsored by her Indonesian spouse. During this time, Indonesia was a Police State. The public schools did not allow foreign students, only citizens were allowed to attend as Indonesia was under strict rule and decreed a number of restrictions; therefore, in order for Obama to have attended school in Jakarta, which he did, he had to be a citizen of Indonesia, as the
citizenship status of enrolled students was verified with Government records.

45. Obama was enrolled by his parents in a public school, Fransiskus Assisi School, a public school, in Jakarta, Indonesia. Plaintiff has received copies of the school registration in which it clearly states Obama’s name as “Barry Soetoro,” and lists his citizenship as Indonesian. Obama’s father is listed as Lolo Soetoro, Obama’s date of birth and place of birth are listed as August 4, 1961 in Hawaii, and Obama’s Religion is listed as Islam. This document was verified by Inside Edition, whose reporter, Matt Meagher, took the actual footage of the school record. At the time Obama was registered the public schools obtained and verified the citizenship status and name of the student through the Indonesian Government. All Indonesian students were required to carry government identity cards, or Karty Tanda Pendudaks, as well as family card identification called a Kartu Keluarga. The Kartu Keluarga is a family card which bears the legal names and citizenship status of all family members.

46. Since Obama’s birth was legally acknowledged by Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian citizen, and/or Obama was adopted by Lolo Soetoro, which the evidence supports, Obama became an Indonesian citizen and bears the status as an Indonesia natural child (natural-born). For this reason, Obama would have been required to file applications with the U. S. State Department and follow the legal procedures to become a naturalized citizen in the United States, when he returned from Indonesia. If Obama and/or his family failed to follow these procedures, then Obama is an illegal alien.

47. Regardless of whether Obama was officially adopted, (which required a Court process), by his Indonesian stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, or his birth was acknowledged (which only required the signing of a governmental birth acknowledgement form), by Lolo Soetoro, one of which had to occur in order for Obama to have the name Barry Soetoro and his citizenship status listed as “Indonesian”, in either and/or both cases Obama’s name was required to be changed to the Indonesian father’s name, and Obama became a natural citizen of Indonesia. This is proven by the school records in Jakarta, Indonesia showing Obama’s name as Barry Soetoro and his citizenship as Indonesian. Again, the registration of a child in the public schools in Jakarta, Indonesia was verified with the Government Records on file with the Governmental Agencies.

48. The Indonesian citizenship law was designed to prevent apatride (stateless) or bipatride (dual citizenship). Indonesian regulations recognize neither apatride nor bipatride citizenship.

49. In addition, since Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship neither did the United States, Hague Convention of 1930.

50. In or about 1971, Obama’s mother sent Obama back to Hawaii. Obama was ten (10) years of age upon his return to Hawaii.

51. As a result of Obama’s Indonesia “natural” citizenship status, there is absolutely no way Obama could have ever regained U.S. “natural born” status, if he in fact ever held such. Obama could have only become naturalized if the proper paperwork was filed with the U.S. State Department, in which case, Obama would have received a Certification of Citizenship.

52. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges Obama was never naturalized in the United States after his return. Obama was ten (10) years old when he returned to Hawaii to live with his grandparents. Obama’s mother did not return with him, and therefore, unable to apply for citizenship of Obama in the United States. If citizenship of Obama had ever been applied for, Obama would have a Certification of Citizenship.

53. Furthermore, Obama traveled to Indonesia, Pakistan and Southern India in 1981. The relations between Pakistan and India were extremely tense and Pakistan was in turmoil and under martial law. The country was filled with Afghan refugees; and Pakistan’s Islamist-leaning Interservices Intelligence Agency (ISI) had begun to provide arms to the Afghan mujahideen and to assist the process of recruiting radicalized Muslim men–jihadists–from around the world to fight against the Soviet Union. Pakistan was so dangerous that it was on the State Department’s travel ban list for US Citizens. Non-Muslim visitors were not welcome unless sponsored by their embassy for official business. A Muslim citizen of Indonesia traveling on an Indonesian passport would have success entering Indonesia, Pakistan and India. Therefore, it is believed Obama traveled on his Indonesian passport entering the Countries. Indonesian passports require renewal every five (5) years. At the time of Obama’s travels to Indonesia, Pakistan and India, Obama was twenty (20) years old. If Obama would have been a U.S. citizen, which he was not, 8 USC §1481(a)(2) provides loss of nationality by native born citizens upon “taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state…after having
attained the age of eighteen years”, in violation of 8 U.S.C. §1401(a)(1). Since Lolo Soetoro legally acknowledged Obama as his son and/or adopted Obama, Obama was a “natural” citizen of Indonesia, as proven by Obama’s school record.

54. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges Obama stated his citizenship as a “Kenya Citizen” when he applied for and was accepted at Columbia University. Obama has refused to release any records from Occidental College, Columbia University, Harvard Law School and any of his medical records.

55. Plaintiffs as well as many other democratic American citizens have requested proof of Obama’s citizenship status, however to no avail. Obama has promised to be an open and honest candidate, however, refuses to remove any doubts from Plaintiff’s and all the other democratic minds and prove his eligibility to serve as President of the United States.”

“62. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) does not perform background checks and/or verify their eligibility on our Candidates to hold Office. According to the FBI, once a candidate is voted into Office of Congress, they are members of Congress and therefore they are given a Secret Clearance, again, without any type of background check and/or verification processes performed.”

“66. Plaintiff has attempted to obtain the verification and proof requested herein by way of requests, filing this action, Admissions and Request for Production of Documents served upon Defendants September 15, 2008 and by Subpoenas served upon agencies who could supply the documentation to prove Obama’s citizenship status. To date, Plaintiff has not received anything. Plaintiff has received five (5) letters from agencies that were served with subpoenas claiming they need Obama’s signatures to comply and/or the confidentiality of the documents were protected from disclosure to third parties under 5 U.S. C. § 552. The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552(a) allows for the disclosure of documents. If the documents contain confidential information, the Agency is required to redact the confidential part, e.g. social security number.”

“72. Plaintiff is requesting through this lawsuit an Order for Obama, the DNC, the FEC, the U.S. Senate, Commission on Rules and Administration and the Pennsylvania Department of State, Bureau of Commissions, Elections and Legislation to immediately turn over to Plaintiff the following documents:

  • (a) A certified copy of Obama’s “vault” (original long version) birth
    certificate;
  • (b) All reissued and sealed birth certificates of Obama;
  • (c) A certified copy of Obama’s Certification of Citizenship;
  • (d) A certified copy of Obama’s Oath of Allegiance taken upon age of
    majority; and
  • (e) Certified copies of Obama’s Admission forms for Occidental College,
    Columbia University and Harvard Law School.”

“75. Obama does not and has not been eligible to be constituted a United States “natural born” citizen and has failed to obtain and/or maintain “naturalized” citizenship status.

76. Obama, if born in Kenya would have made him a citizen of Kenya. Furthermore, because of the 1940 Naturalization Act, June 1952, Obama’s mother would have had to be nineteen (19) in order for Obama to be a “natural born” United States citizen. Obama’s mother was only eighteen (18) when she had Obama and therefore was not old enough to meet the residency requirements under our laws at the time of Obama’s birth and be able to register her son’s birth as a “natural born” citizen.
 
77. Even if Obama would have been able to be registered as a U.S. “natural born” citizen in Hawaii, which was not legally permissible, he lost his citizenship in the United States when his mother married Lolo Soetoro, a citizen of Indonesia, and became a naturalized citizen in Indonesia and set up residency in Indonesia with her new husband. Minor’s follow their custodial parent’s citizenship status.

78. Moreover, Obama’s Indonesian step father, Lolo Soetoro, signed a Government acknowledgement form acknowledging Obama as his son and/or legally adopted Obama, either of which changed Obama’s citizenship status to a “natural” citizen of Indonesia. Thus, Obama could have only obtained Naturalized citizenship status in the United States, if in fact he and/or his family filed the proper immigration paperwork after his return to the United States from Indonesia.

79. Obama’s Indonesian citizenship status is proven on his school record with a public school in Jakarta Indonesia, which he attended. Obama’s school record clearly states his name Barry Soetoro, his citizenship, Indonesian, his religion Islam. This information was verified by the public schools in Jakarta upon registration of the student with the Indonesian Government. Indonesia did not allow foreign students to attend their schools and Indonesia Immigration Officials and the Police frequently visited the schools to ensure the students attending were all Indonesian citizens pursuant to the laws.

80. Students attending the public school system in Jakarta Indonesia at the time Obama attended had to wear and/or carry with them identification cards, again which were verified with the Governments records in Indonesia. The student’s identification cards displayed their citizenship number, their legal name, their parents names, etc. The identification cards had to match the student’s school enrollment information.

81. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges Obama stated his citizenship as Kenyan on his College Admission forms to Occidental College, Columbia University and Harvard Law School.”

“102. Obama was born in Mombosa, Kenya, and his mother was not old enough to pass on U.S. “natural born” citizenship status to Obama, United States of America v. Cervantes-Nava, 281 F.3d 501 (2002), Drozd v. I.N.S., 155 F.3d 81, 85-88 (2d Cir.1998).

103. Additionally, Obama lost any “naturalized” citizenship status when he b e c a m e a “natural” citizen of Indonesia. Obama’s mother married Lolo Soetoro an Indonesian Citizen in or about 1964/1965. Lolo Soetoro acknowledged Obama as his son and/or adopted Obama thus changing his citizenship status to a “natural” citizen of Indonesia. Under Indonesian law, when a male acknowledges a child as his son, it deems the son, in this case Obama, as an Indonesian State citizen. Constitution of Republic of Indonesia, Law No. 62 of 1958 Law No. 12 of 2006 dated 1 Aug. 2006
concerning Citizenship of Republic of Indonesia, Law No. 9 of 1992 dated 31 Mar. 1992 concerning Immigration Affairs and Indonesian Civil Code (Kitab Undangundang Hukum Perdata) (KUHPer) (Burgerlijk Wetboek voor Indonesie). Republic of Indonesia Constitution 1945, as amended by the First Amendment of 1999, the Second Amendment of 2000, the Third Amendment of 2001 and the Fourth Amendment of 2002, Chapter X, Citizens and Residents, Article 26 states “(1) Citizens shall consist of indigenous Indonesian peoples and persons of foreign origin who have been legalized as citizens in accordance with law. (2) Residents shall consist of Indonesian citizens and foreign nationals living in Indonesia.” Obama was a “natural” citizen of Indonesia and not a foreign national, as proven by his Indonesian school registration.”

“134. Obama further committed Fraud upon Plaintiff and the American people by falsifying information on his Illinois State Bar Registration and Public Disciplinary Record. Obama stated on his Application to the State Bar of Illinois, as proven by the Illinois State Bar Registration and Disciplinary Record, stating he never used any other names. Obama signed his application/registration for the Illinois State Bar under the penalty of perjury knowing the information to be false. The fact of the matter is
Obama used the name Barry Soetoro in Indonesia and was registered as a citizen of Indonesia on his school records. Obama further used the name Barry Obama and it is further believed Obama used the name Barack and/or Barry Dunham.

135. Obama attempted to defraud Plaintiff and the American people by allowing an altered and forged Hawaii Certification of Live Birth (COLB) to be placed on his campaign website. Obama was well aware the Government issued COLB was altered and forged as the original document was in the name of Maya Kasandra Soetoro born in 1970. Maya Kassandra Soetoro’s Obama’s half sister who was born in Indonesia and her birth was later registered in Hawaii. The altered and forged COLB is still on
O b a m a ’ s c a m p a i g n w e b s i t e l o c a t e d a t
http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/birthcert

136. Furthermore, Obama traveled to Indonesia, Pakistan and Southern India in 1981. The relations between Pakistan and India were extremely tense and Pakistan was in turmoil and under martial law. The country was filled with Afghan refugees; and Pakistan’s Islamist-leaning Interservices Intelligence Agency (ISI) had begun to provide arms to the Afghan mujahideen and to assist the process of recruiting radicalized Muslim men–jihadists–from around the world to fight against the Soviet Union. Pakistan was so dangerous that it was on the State Department’s travel ban list for US Citizens. Non-Muslim visitors were not welcome unless sponsored by their embassy for official business. A Muslim citizen of Indonesia traveling on an
Indonesian passport would have success entering Indonesia, Pakistan and India. Therefore, it is believed Obama traveled on his Indonesian passport entering the Countries. Indonesian passports require renewal every five (5) years. At the time of Obama’s travels to Indonesia, Pakistan and India, Obama was twenty (20) years old. If Obama would have been a U.S. citizen, which he was not, 8 USC §1481(a)(2) provides loss of nationality by native born citizens upon “taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state…after having attained the age of eighteen years”, in violation of 8 U.S.C. §1401(a)(1). More importantly, in order to obtain an Indonesian Passport, you had to be an Indonesian citizen. Since Lolo Soetoro legally acknowledged Obama as his son and/or adopted Obama, Obama was a “natural” citizen of Indonesia, as proven by Obama’s school record.”

“168. Obama promises on his website to End Deceptive Voting Practices. “Obama states he will sign into law his legislation that establishes harsh penalties for those who have engaged in voter fraud and provide voters who have been misinformed with accurate and full information so they can vote.” Obama has made the promises however, has been dishonest regarding his citizenship status and has refused to prove his citizenship status so Plaintiff and other voter’s can be well educated into our Presidential candidate.

169. Obama states on his webpage at http://factcheck.barackobama.com “I want to campaign the same way I govern, which is to respond directly and forcefully w i t h the truth” ~ Barack Obama, 11/08/07. Unfortunately, this is not true, Obama has not been honest about his citizenship and he has refused to provide proof of his citizenship status. Instead, Obama and his campaign placed an image on Obama’s website purporting to be an original Certification of Live Birth (COLB) of Obama’s from Hawaii. It was later determined the COLB on www.fightthesmears.com turned out to be an altered and forged COLB.”

Help Philip J Berg uphold the Constitution:

http://obamacrimes.com

This is the third part of a series of articles that are intended to inform
the American public of the election process and the applicable laws and
responsibilities of those involved. There are built in safeguards in the
election process from the Electoral College votes to the meeting of
Congress to validate the votes. It is hoped that the information provided
will allow you to better understand the process and arm you as you
help keep the Electoral College Electors, state officials and Congress
accountable to uphold the US Constitution.

The next article in the series will present evidence of Obama being an
Indonesian citizen. Remember, according to Mr. Berg, this is the primary
reason Obama is not eligible to be president.

 

17 Comments

Posted in Acorn voter fraud, amended complaint, Announcements, Barack Obama, Barry Soetoro, Berg, Birth Certificate, Board of Elections, Citizens for the truth about Obama, Civil Complaint, Congress, Criminal Complaint, Democrats, DNC, Election, Election 2008, Election Boards, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, FEC, Federal Court, Government, Hawaii, Illinois bar, Impeach Senator Obama, impeachment, indictment, Indonesia, John McCain, Justice, Kenya, Natural born citizen, NC voters, News, Obama impeachment, Obama indictment, Obama Nation, Obama records, PHILIP J. BERG, Politics, republicans, Secretary of State, Senator McCain, Senator Obama, Smear campaigns, Supreme Court, The Case Against Barack Obama, U.S. Supreme Court, United States, US Constitution, Voter fraud, voters

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,

2008 Presidential Election, Obama Indonesian, Obama stole Nomination, Obama attempts to steal election, US Constitution, Electoral College Electors, Chaos, Anarchy, Electors must uphold Constitution

Posted on November 4, 2008 | 52 comments

US Constitution

Tenth Amendment

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
or to the people.”

2008 Presidential Election

Phase II

An Indonesian citizen, an illegal alien, with strong ties to corruption
in Chicago, Illinois and the Middle East, has apparently won the US
general election. Barack Obama, who stole the nomination for the Democrat
Party using tactics of diversions, lies, illegal campaign donations,
voter fraud and help from idiots like Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean, is
trying to steal the election. State officials, lacking in integrity
and knowledge of the US Constitution, and federal and state laws, allowed
Obama to remain on the ballot despite warnings and compelling evidence
that Obama is an Indonesian citizen, and no legal evidence that Obama is
a US citizen. These state officials will have a day of reckoning and will
be subject to removal from office and/or prosecution.

Now we come to the safeguards put in place by our wise founding fathers.
In the forefront is the Electoral College. The general election does not
elect a president. It echoes the will of the general population and serves
as a guideline for the Electoral College Electors to vote. State laws vary
on how the Electors must vote. However, two things are certain:

  • The Electoral College was set up to protect the American public from
    unwise choices and in the words of Delegate Gerry on July 19, 1787:

“The people are uninformed, and would be misled by a few designing men.”

  • Electoral College Electors swear an oath to uphold the US Constitution. Voting for a presidential candidate, faced with compelling evidence that the candidate is not eligible to be president, would be a severe violation of constitutional law. The US Constitution rules. 24 potential Electors have stated that they were filing suit demanding evidence of Obama’s eligibility.

What happens next.

Philip J Berg still has his appeal before the US Supreme Court. Mr. Berg
has the burden of proof and standing. This is a safeguard built into
lawsuits. Philip J Berg has done an outstanding job of trying to prevent
a constitutional crisis. The Democrat party, the states and federal judges
have put aside his plea to uphold the Constitution. The Judges, restrained
by lawsuit protocol, have some excuse. This does not relieve anyone
charged with upholding the Constitution of their responsibility.

More lawsuits and voting challenges will occur, more Electoral College
Electors will become involved and I strongly believe this country will
be thrust into chaos, if not anarchy, for several months. Some combination
of the Supreme Court, Federal court, state courts and Electors demanding
proof of citizenship will come into play.

What can you do?

Read up on the election process, starting on this blog, and demand that your State Electoral College Electors uphold the Constitution. Follow the efforts of Philip J Berg and others to demand that the US Constitution be upheld. Regardless of any concession speeches by John McCain, we cannot allow Obama, an illegal alien, to be elected and innaugurated.

 Election Law explained and Electoral College Electors

I will leave you with a quote by Alexander Hamilton who, like many of the founding fathers, was “afraid a tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come to power.” Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers:

“It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief.”

 

power

52 Comments

Posted in Acorn, Acorn voter fraud, Announcements, Barack Obama, Barry Soetoro, Berg, Birth Certificate, Board of Elections, Citizens for the truth about Obama, Civil Complaint, Criminal Complaint, democratic convention, Democrats, DNC, Election, Election 2008, Election Boards, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, FEC, Federal Court, Government, Hawaii, Illinois bar, Impeach Senator Obama, impeachment, indictment, Indonesia, John McCain, Justice, Kenya, Natural born citizen, NC voters, News, Obama impeachment, Obama indictment, Obama Nation, Obama records, Ohio voters, Pennsylvania voters, PHILIP J. BERG, Politics, Secretary of State, Senator McCain, Senator Obama, Supreme Court, The Case Against Barack Obama, U.S. Supreme Court, United States, US Constitution, Voter fraud, voters

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Voter fraud, November 4, 2008, Election, Fox News, Government officials, Voting rights, Acorn voter fraud, PA, FL, VA, NM, NC, CO, MO, OH, Justice Department, Fair Elections Legal Network, Government Officials, Watchdog Groups on Alert

Posted on November 4, 2008 | 4 comments

Fox News is covering election fraud and election problems. Here are some exerpts from a new article:

“Expected High Voter Turnout Has Government Officials, Watchdog Groups on Alert
The Justice Department and voting rights watchdog groups expect record voter turnout to lead to potential problems at the polls. 

FOXNews.com

Monday, November 03, 2008
Government officials and voting rights watchdog groups will be keeping close watch of the polls around the country Tuesday, trying to keep lines of voters moving and to make sure that everyone can cast a ballot in what’s anticipated to be a record election turnout.

Groups like the nonpartisan Fair Elections Legal Network are keeping a particularly watchful eye on battleground states like Ohio and Virginia.

“The main thing that we all know is that there’s going to be a huge turnout. There are going to be long lines, and any problems that occur will exacerbate because of those lines,” said Robert M. Brandon, president of the Fair Elections Legal Network.

“We always worry about whether there are an adequate number of resources, particularly voting machines,” Brandon said.

On Monday, a federal judge rejected a motion filed by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People to extend voting hours and to get more voting machines sent to minority polling stations in Virginia, where 13 electoral votes are up for grabs. Fair Elections has been trying to have paper ballots sent to Virginia polling places where they fear voting machines could break down.

“There’s a notion that if the machines all break down, they’ll call up and try to get some ballots delivered,” Brandon said. But that leads to voters walking away from long lines that aren’t moving, he said.

The group is also concerned about high turnout and the availability of paper ballots in Ohio and Pennsylvania.

“In general we’re looking at the states that have a lot of activity close to the elections: New Mexico, Colorado, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Florida,” Brandon said. “Those are the ones that we’re particularly focused on. There are other states like Nevada that will be close, but I haven’t heard of any potential problems there.””

Read more here:

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/11/03/expected-high-voter-turnout-government-officials-watchdog-groups-alert/

Help Philip J Berg uphold the Constitution:

http://obamacrimes.com

Read the Petition to Impeach, expel Senator Obama:

http://obamaimpeachment.org

4 Comments

Posted in Acorn, Acorn voter fraud, Announcements, Attorney General, Barack Obama, Board of Elections, Citizens for the truth about Obama, Community Organizer, corruption, Crime, Criminal Complaint, Democrats, DNC, Election, Election 2008, Election Boards, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, FBI, FEC, Federal Court, Fox news, Government, John McCain, Justice, NC, NC voters, News, Obama records, Ohio voters, PA primary, Pennsylvania voters, Politics, republicans, Secretary of State, Senator McCain, Senator Obama, Supreme Court, Television, TV, U.S. Supreme Court, United States, US Constitution, Voter fraud, voters, West Virginia voters

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Joe the plumber tax lien, Acorn tax lien, Obama attacks, Obama tax plan, Obama thugs personal attacks, Obama lied about Acorn

Posted on October 18, 2008 | 21 comments

From a blog that has letters that must stand for
Daily Kind Of Stupid

This blog that is pro Obama, and known for publishing lies, has
attacked Joe The Plumber and pointed out a possible tax lien in his
name. Of course, you would have to be more than kind of stupid to promote Obama. Here is the lien they published:

LUCAS COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
J. BERNIE QUILTER, CLERK
700 ADAMS STREET
TOLEDO, OHIO

MONETARY AMOUNT: $1,182.98

DEPT OF TAXATION STATE OF OHIO

Defendant 1:
WURZELBACHER SAMUEL J
30 DERBYSHIRE RD
TOLEDO, OH  43615

One of the better blogs, NoQuarter USA, a blog devoted to presenting
facts and exposing the real Obama, presented the following tax lien
associated with Obama’s buddies, Acorn:
“When it comes to TAX Liens ACORN is King
By Larry Johnson on October 18, 2008

Why is Barack Obama giving ACORN $832,000 when it is a tax dead beat? (Hat tip to an intrepid NoQuarter reader.) Before Obama and Biden cast any more stones at poor Joe the Plumber for a $1200 tax lien, they might want to insist that their buddies at ACORN pony up the HALF-MILLION DOLLARS they owe the Federal Government. That’s right boys and girls, according to Louisiana State financial records, ACORN is a mega deadbeat:

INITIAL AMOUNT: $547,312
INITIAL DOCKET #: 424212708
AMOUNT: $547,312
FILING DATE: 03/10/2008
INITIAL DATE: 03/10/2008
UPDATE DATE: 05/07/2008
Name SSN/EIN Address
IRS
PLAINTIFF
ASSOCIATION OF COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS FOR REFORM NOW
DEBTOR
1024 ELYSIAN FIELDS AVE
NEW ORLEANS, LA 70117

Of course, this raises some even more interesting questions.

Did Barrack’s $832,000 payment to Citizen Services, Inc., a subsidiary of ACORN, earlier this year have anything to do with helping ACORN pay off its debt?”

When it comes to tax liens Acorn is king

In case you are confused about Obama’s involvement with Acorn or you
believe the lies he has told, Citizen Wells recently revealed the extent
of Obama’s involvement with Acorn:

Obama lied about Acorn

So once again, Obama and the Obama camp reveal their true nature:

  • Anyone questioning Obama, the messiah, is attacked.
  • Obama lied about his connections to Acorn.
  • Obama and his thugs criticize others for what they are guilty of.
    Tax Liens, causing the mortgage crisis, negative campaigns, etc.

Impeach, expel Senator Obama

21 Comments

Posted in Acorn, Acorn voter fraud, Announcements, Barack Obama, Chicago machine, Citizens for the truth about Obama, Community Organizer, corruption, Democrats, DNC, doublespeak, Election, Election 2008, Election update, Fox news, Hannity and Colmes, Joe the Plumber, John McCain, Journalism, Justice, McCain Obama, McCain speech, News, Obama impeachment, Obama indictment, Obama Nation, Obama records, Obama taxes, Palin, Politics, republicans, Sarah Palin, Senator McCain, Senator Obama, Tax Liens, Television, The Case Against Barack Obama, United States, Voter fraud, voters

Tagged , , , , ,

Obama and McCain debate, October 15, 2008, Obama lies, Obama and Acorn, Truth about Acorn, Obama socialist, Acorn ties to socialist parties, Community organizers use poor for political agenda

Posted on October 16, 2008 | 20 comments

John McCain is an honorable man who has a long history of serving his
country and fighting for what is right.
As John McCain stated last night, Obama is eloquent and has a dubious
record. A large part of Obama’s record is tied to Acorn, the corrupt
organization that is deeply involved in voter fraud.

Do you want an eloquent speaker that panders to groups wanting government handouts and constantly lies?

Once again last night, Obama lied about his involvement with Acorn.
John McCain, the decent man and statesmam, brought up several Acorn
connections to Obama, but did not go for the jugular. I would have gone
for the jugular. Revealing the truth about Obama is not being negative.  It is Obama’s life that is so negative.

Compare what Obama said during the debate last night, Wednesday, October 15, 2008, to the following:

Report to Catholic Bishops reveals the true nature of Acorn.
Acorn uses poor for political Agenda. Obama and Acorn ties to
socialist parties.

The truth about Acorn, Obama socialism and community organizers

Obama lied about his connections to Acorn

Obama ties to Acorn

“ACORN’s alliance with the Democratic Party is at the root of the current financial meltdown. And Barack Obama has stayed true to ACORN’s ways.”

Mortgage crisis, Acorn, Democrats, Obama

FEC investigates campaign contributions, FBI investigates Acorn

FEC and FBI investigations

Recent Obama campaign payment to Acorn and voter fraud

Obama campaign paid $832,598 to Acorn

 

Petition to Impeach, expel Senator Obama

20 Comments

Posted in Acorn, Acorn voter fraud, Alinsky, Annenberg Challenge, Announcements, Barack Obama, Chicago machine, Citizens for the truth about Obama, Community Organizer, Corporate accountability, corruption, Crime, Democratic Socialists of America, Democrats, DNC, Election, Election 2008, Election update, Fannie Mae, FBI, FEC, Federal Court, Freddie Mac, Government, Grants, Illinois bar, Impeach Senator Obama, impeachment, indictment, John McCain, Justice, Leftist, Lobbyist, Marilyn Katz, Marxist, McCain Obama, Michelle Malkin, Money, News, Obama impeachment, Obama indictment, Obama Nation, Obama records, Patrick Fitzgerald, Politics, Presidential debate, Reform, Richard Daley, Senator McCain, Senator Obama, Stanley Kurtz, Television, The Case Against Barack Obama, TV, United States, Voter fraud, voters

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

John McCain, Wilmington NC, Town Hall Meeting, Monday, October 13, 2008, Larry Sinclair attends Town Hall Meeting, Sinclair Information sheets, Cape Fear Community College, Schwartz Center, Republican Party, No Sinclair signs allowed

Posted on October 13, 2008 | 10 comments

Larry Sinclair made a last minute decision to go to Wilmington NC
for the John McCain Town Hall meeting at Cape Fear Community College.
I just spoke to Larry and he has a ticket to attend the Town Hall
Meeting. Sinclair has been busy this morning passing out info sheets
and talking to people near the Schwartz Center.

To those unaware of who Larry Sinclair is, Sinclair alleges that he
and Barack Obama had several drug and sex encounters on November 6, 7,
1999. The first encounter was in a limousine. Larry Sinclair came out
with a YouTube video in January 2008 after multiple unsuccessful attempts
in 2007 to contact the Obama Camp. Larry Sinclair has received incessant
personal attacks, death threats and incarceration in Delaware,
orchestrated by Joe Biden’s son, the Attorney General of Delaware.

Larry Sinclair also alleges that he was contacted by Donald Young, the
gay choir director at TUCC, Obama’s former church, shortly before
Young was murdered in December 2007. Larry Sinclair provided information
to the Chicago Police.

The Citizen Wells blog has covered the Larry Sinclair story more than
any other source. I met with Sinclair yesterday. We can corroborate
much of Larry Sinclair’s story. After covering the Larry Sinclair
story all year, I can say without hesitation that Larry Sinclair has
much credibiliy. Barack Obama has no credibility.

For the first time publicly, Citizen Wells can make this statement:

Larry Sinclair could not have made up his story of the encounter with
Obama in November 1999. Why? Sinclair could not have had the details
of Obama’s whereabouts when he first mentioned his story. Obama’s
speaking engagement at NW Law School was not widely know until a few
months ago. I checked the internet archives and the law school
appearance did not show up. Barack Obama was at least in Chicago by
at least the morning of November 8, 1999.

Another point I would like to make is this. When I first began
investigating Sinclair’s allegations in January 2008, they appeared
preposterous. I first checked the official Ilinois Senate records.
Obama was not present for the November 4, 1999 session. One thing led
to another, with all the attempts to silence Sinclair making his case
stronger. Now with all the knowledge of Obama, his past and his associations, Larry Sinclair’s drug encounter fits nicely in the
puzzle picture that reveals the real Obama.

I just spoke to Sinclair. A young person took Sinclair’s sign as he
was walking in, even though others held signs that said “NoBama”.
Larry Sinclair is inside the Town Hall Meeting and will attempt to
ask a question.

Stay tuned.

Read more from Larry Sinclair here:

http://larrysinclair-0926.blogspot.com

10 Comments

Posted in Announcements, Barack Obama, Board of Elections, Cape Fear Community College, Chicago machine, Citizens for the truth about Obama, corruption, Democrats, DNC, Donald Young, down low, drugs, Election, Election 2008, Election update, FEC, Federal Court, Government, Illinois bar, Impeach Senator Obama, impeachment, indictment, John McCain, Journalism, Justice, Larry Sinclair, Larry Sinclair blog, larrysinclair-0926.blogspot.com, McCain Obama, McCain speech, NC, NC voters, News, Obama impeachment, Obama indictment, Obama Nation, Obama records, Obama taxes, Politics, republicans, Senator McCain, Senator Obama, Television, The Case Against Barack Obama, Town Hall, TV, United States, video, voters, Wilmington NC, Wilmington Victory Office, YouTube

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,