Tags
2008 Election, Barack Dunham, Barack Hussein Obama, Barack Obama, Barry Dunham, Barry Soetoro, capitalism, Chicago Tribune, Columbia University, Currency and Currencies, D.c. press club, Electoral College, Electors, Finance, fraud, Free Speech, gold, Harvard Law School, hawaii, id theft, Indonesia, Indonesian Citizenship, Investing, investments, Joe Biden, John McCain, Latest News, legal documents, Markets, name change, natural born citizen, Oath of Allegiance of the President of the United State, Occidental College, Phillip Berg, Politics, poser, Presidential Election, Sarah Palin, socialism, Stocks, Today, treason, u.s. constitution, U.S. Dollar, Uncategorized, voter fraud, we the people foundation
Well here we are, Obama’s 1st act was to flub his oath of office, there are still cases on Obama eligibility filtering up. One thing we should be aware of, when has it become legal for a person to consult with the judges who are going to hear and potentially try his case? Once again total dis-regard and disdain for the Constitution. Yes, I know it was a “courtesy” trip, however, timed conveniently before the judges are set to see if the latest eligibility case has merit? And was there a secret session? Watch the 1st Video First! ***Eye Opening-***jschulmansr
==================================================
Where Is Your Birth Certificate? Mr Open President?
==================================================
Religious Leader On Obama’s Birth Certificate
Dr. James David Manning, PhD (ATLAH Church) is angered by Barack Obama’s failure to present his Birth Certificate.
================================================
By: Joseph Farah World Net Daily
When Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and President-elect Barack Obama flubbed the oath of office on inauguration day, WND was pilloried for prominently noting the problem.
“Oh, come on,” wrote one emailer. “This is just being nitpicky. Your antipathy for Obama is showing in your willingness to jump on him for everything.”
Yet, one day later, Roberts and Obama agreed to repeat the oath of office – this time in a more private setting and following the specific requirements of the U.S. Constitution.
Maybe paying strict attention to the Constitution isn’t nitpicky after all?
Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution stipulates the exact 35 words of a proper oath of office: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Since some of those words were transposed and left out of the original oath on the day of inauguration, Roberts feared the matter could become a point of contention. Twice before in American history presidents Chester A. Arthur and Calvin Coolidge needed to repeat their oaths because of similar mistakes.
I’m glad someone still takes at least part of the Constitution seriously. Unfortunately, another part of Article II, Section 1 was completely trampled upon during the 2008 election process and right up through the swearing in ceremony. That is the issue of whether Obama is indeed, as the Constitution requires, a “natural born citizen.” Perhaps he is, perhaps he isn’t. Perhaps we’ll never know, because no controlling legal authority has ever required proof and publicly affirmed its validity.
Again, when such issues were raised, many have suggested it’s simply nitpicking.
But the Constitution either means precisely what it says or it doesn’t. If we’re going to fudge on such simple, straightforward matters as eligibility requirements for the president and oaths of office, where does the fudging end?
And, conversely, if it is so critically important to recite the specific and exact 35 words of the oath of office as delineated in the Constitution, why was it not important to establish Obama’s eligibility beyond any shadow of a doubt?
Should this matter now be dropped?
Or should it be relentlessly pursued?
What would happen now if it were determined that Obama was not, in fact, constitutionally eligible to become president? It’s certainly not a simple matter like restating the oath.
On the other hand, because of the enormous potential for raising a constitutional crisis, should the American people just sweep the matter under the rug
?
These are the tough questions we have been left with by Obama and all those in authority who allowed this question of eligibility to fester for so long.
Once again, they provide us with some practical arguments for taking the Constitution seriously and literally in all matters. The Constitution is the bedrock of our system
of governance. It is the tie that binds our nation together. It is the foundation for the rule of law in America.
There is nothing frivolous about its requirements.
There is nothing nitpicky about adhering to them.
So, I’ll ask the pointed question one more time: “Where’s the birth certificate?”
Maybe we need a national movement of people asking the same question in venue after venue – anywhere and everywhere the new president appears. Maybe we need rallies on the National Mall where ordinary Americans bring copies of their birth certificates and display them proudly with accompanying signs that say: “I’ll show you mine if you show me yours.”
Do we need a national uprising of the American people simply to get the Constitution observed and taken seriously and literally?
It seems like a lot to ask.
Yet, on the other hand, is there a more important national cause?
===============================================
Okay this part of the constitution is important but proving eligibility to be the President under the constitution is not? I am confused!
===============================================
President’s meeting with Judges questioned
Lawyer challenging eligibility raises issue of secret conference
Source: World Net Daily
A lawyer working on a case before the U.S. Supreme Court that challenges the
eligibility of President Obama is raising concerns over a meeting between the defendant in the case and the judges who are expected to review it.
The case is one of many brought before U.S. courts that allege Obama doesn’t meet the “natural born” requirement of the U.S. Constitution for the president. It’s one of about half a dozen that have reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which already has declined to grant hearings to several cases.
Orly Taitz, whose case is scheduled to be heard tomorrow in a conference among justices – a private meeting at which they review cases and decide whether they should hold a hearing – confirmed on her website today that a supplemental brief in her arguments had been distributed.
But the website also reported she “had to explain … many of us citizens are also concerned about the eight out of nine justices meeting privately with Mr. Obama (while the cases are pending).”
The blog continued, “No reporters were allowed. No attorneys were invited on behalf of the plaintiffs. This causes many of us citizens to question the rules of judicial ethics and causes us to question the impartiality on behalf of the justices.”
The report said “quite a number of people” have raised their questions with their U.S. representatives over the issues.
According to a CBS report, Obama visited the Supreme Court before his inauguration at the invitation of Chief Justice John Roberts. The report described it as a protocol visit.
According to a separate published report, Obama and then-Vice President-elect Joe Biden met in a court conference room with Roberts and seven other justices for about 45 minutes.
The report said the only absent justice was Samuel Alito.
The supplemental documents in the Taitz case cite an executive order concerning qualifications issued by President Bush Jan. 16.
“This action is seeking the mandate for the U.S. State Department, the FBI and the Director of the Personnel Department to seek the documents for verifying Obama’s legitimacy as president and also his citizenship of the United States,” the blog reported.
The Supreme Court document reveals that the Taitz case is scheduled for conference tomorrow, and her supplemental briefs have been distributed to the justices.
Taitz said her arguments rest on precedents from both the California Supreme Court, which years ago removed a candidate for president from the ballot because he was only 34, and the U.S. Supreme Court’s affirmation of the ruling. The Constitution requires a president to be 35. Her case raises the issue of Obama’s birthplace and citizenship status, which also are specified in the Constitution.
The lawsuits allege in various ways that Obama does not meet the “natural born citizen” clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, which reads, “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.”
Some allege his birth took place in Kenya, and his mother was a minor at the time of his birth – too young to confer American citizenship. They argue Obama’s father, Barack Obama Sr., was a Kenyan citizen subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time and would have handed down British citizenship.
There also are questions raised about Obama’s move to Indonesia when he was a child and his attendance at school there when only Indonesian citizens were allowed and his travel to Pakistan in the ’80s when such travel was forbidden to American citizens.
One case, handled by Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation, is seeking Obama’s school records from Occidental College, which could reveal if Obama attended class on aid intended for foreign students.
Another lawyer working on similar allegations, Philip J. Berg, has written to Congress seeking an investigation, while Taitz’s filings have been before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Berg, whose information is on his ObamaCrimes.com website, said the issue isn’t going to disappear.
Others agreed.
“Should Senator Obama be discovered, after he takes office, to be ineligible for the Office of President of the United States of America and, thereby, his election declared void,” argues a California case brought on behalf of Ambassador Alan Keyes, also a presidential candidate. “Americans will suffer irreparable harm in that (a) usurper will be sitting as the President of the United States, and none of the treaties, laws, or executive orders signed by him will be valid or legal.”
WND twice has organized opportunities for readers to send FedEx letters to the Supreme Court, asking for consideration of the issue on its merits.
The most recent campaign generated 12,096 messages, following the earlier effort that resulted in 60,128 letters.
Obama has claimed in his autobiography and elsewhere that he was born in Hawaii in 1961 to parents Barack Hussein Obama Sr., a Kenyan national, and Stanley Ann Dunham, a minor. But details about which hospital handled the birth and other details provided on the complete birth certificate have been withheld by Obama despite lawsuits and public demands for release.
Meanwhile, a separate report has emerged in the Buffalo, N.Y., News about a woman who said she recalled being told about Obama’s birth in Hawaii. Barbara Nelson reported she was having a dinner with Dr. Rodney T. West, an obstetrician, when he discussed the birth of a baby boy to Stanley Ann Dunham, Obama’s mother.
She said she later taught Obama as a high school student in Hawaii.
WND senior reporter Jerome Corsi went to both Kenya and Hawaii prior to the election to investigate issues surrounding Obama’s birth. But his research and discoveries only raised more questions.
The biggest question was why, if a Hawaii birth certificate exists as his campaign has stated, Obama hasn’t simply ordered it made available to settle the rumors.
The governor’s office in Hawaii said there is a valid certificate but rejected requests for access and left ambiguous its origin: Does the certificate on file with the Department of Health indicate a Hawaii birth or was it generated after the Obama family registered a Kenyan birth in Hawaii?
=================================================
A private investigator has released to WND 
