Tag Archives: birther

Kansas panel delays ballot decision on Obama

Kansas panel delays ballot decision on Obama
Kobach seeks Democrat’s birth records from Hawaii
By Tim Carpenter

Three of the state’s top elected Republicans on Thursday determined they lacked sufficient evidence of President Barack Obama’s birth records to decide whether to remove the Democratic nominee from the November ballot in Kansas.

The State Objections Board comprised of Secretary of State Kris Kobach, Attorney General Derek Schmidt and Lt. Gov. Jeff Colyer postponed until Monday action on a complaint filed by a Manhattan resident pending review of a copy of Obama’s birth certificate from Hawaii.

“I don’t think it’s a frivolous objection,” Kobach said. “I do think the factual record could be supplemented.”

Requests were to be sent to officials in Hawaii, Arizona and Mississippi in an attempt to secure copies of the president’s birth records. Obama released a copy of his birth certificate last year, but detractors persist in advancing “birther” arguments that the Democrat lacked standing.

Removal of Obama’s name in Kansas — a state certain to side with Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney — would be strange given the president’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, and maternal grandparents, Stanley and Madelyn Dunham, were Kansas natives.

“My Kansas roots run deep,” Obama said during a trip to Osawatomie in December.

Joe Montgomery, who filed the ballot challenge with the all-Republican panel, said the president’s father held British and Kenyan citizenship, making Obama ineligible to run for the nation’s highest office.

Montgomery pointed to a handful of U.S. Supreme Court cases to support his claim a presidential candidate must be a “natural born citizen” from two American citizens.

“As for Mr. Obama’s citizenship, there are many doubts,” he said. “Doing the right thing can be hard and unpopular.”

A legal representative of Obama submitted a letter arguing the complaint had no merit.

No representative of the Kansas Democratic Party attended the hearing in a Topeka auditorium.

Dakota Loomis, spokesman for the state Democratic Party, declined to answer directly whether the complaint was justified. Instead, he criticized Gov. Sam Brownback’s approval of a bill reducing state income taxes.

“We’re focusing on Kansas candidates and letting people know about Brownback’s tax plan,” Loomis said.

Montgomery, who works at the College of Veterinary Medicine at Kansas State University, said Obama hadn’t provided valid documentary evidence to establish his birth in the United States.

In Montgomery’s written complaint, he declared “there is substantial evidence showing that much of Mr. Obama’s alleged birth certificates have been forged or doctored, and have not been confirmed as legally valid, true and accurate.”

Meanwhile, the state board decided Democrat Tom Sawyer could remain on ballots in Wichita as a candidate for the Kansas House. Craig Gabel, president of Kansans for Liberty and an advocate of Sawyer’s opponent in the November election, said Sawyer misrepresented on state documents his actual address.

Gabel referred to the residence listed on Sawyer’s candidate filing records as having been “abandoned.”

Sawyer said the home in question had been his address since 1993, and he was standing in the residence while participating on a conference call with the state board. He had spent considerable time the past few years caring for his elderly mother after she suffered a stroke.

“This is the only house I’ve ever owned,” Sawyer said.

Kobach said the board interpreted state law on candidate residency to require clear evidence with the burden of proof on the person filing a complaint. He said candidates were required to reside at the listed residence or demonstrate intent to return there in the future.

“I’ve been to Yellowstone once,” Gabel said in response, “but I’m not sure I’m going to return.”

The panel also declared the Reform Party of Kansas had authority to place on the state’s ballot Chuck Baldwin for president instead of the national organization’s choice. In addition, the board approved a request to remove presidential candidate Roseanne Barr from Kansas ballots.

SOURCE

Is Mitt Romney Trying to Avoid Having to Admit to Massive Tax Fraud?

Is Mitt Romney Trying to Avoid Having to Admit to Massive Tax Fraud?

Dave Lindorff

A lot of theories have been put forward to try and explain why Romney has allowed his campaign to become bedeviled by charges of tax dodging, but what if what he is hiding is felonious tax fraud?

Okay, so he’s taken the legal option of delaying filing his 2011 taxes, which every taxpayer is entitled to do without penalty and without having to give any explanation until October 15 this year (I agree it’s a little weird when a super-rich guy who pays accountants by the dozen does this, but hey). The nagging question though is why he hasn’t just responded to the demand that he release two years of tax returns like John McCain did in 2008 by simply releasing his 2009 tax filing, along with the 2010 return he already released?

The answer may well be that 2009 was the year that the Treasury Department decided to offer an amnesty from prosecution for tax fraud to any of the tens of thousands of millionaires who were known or suspected to have illegally hidden income abroad in the Cayman Islands or in Swiss banks — a felony, but one that people thought they’d never be caught at.

That year alone, some nearly 30,000 people, many of them no doubt prominent in society, politics and business, and customers of the finest accounting firms, reportedly voluntarily came forward to the IRS to admit that they had hidden some of the estimated $100 billion in income that crooked rich Americans have for years been secreting away in banks overseas. Under the terms of the program, they were able to just report their fraud, pay the taxes, penalties and interest on the money and then walk away scott free, with no charges and with their returns kept confidential by the agency.

That is, unless they decided to run for national office, where the expectation is that they have to release their income tax returns to the media for inspection.

Did Romney use a 2009 IRS tax amnesty to escape being caught in a giant multi-year tax fraud?Did Romney use a 2009 IRS tax amnesty to escape being caught in a giant multi-year tax fraud? The 2009 tax return he won’t release has the answer.

As journalist Matthew Yglesias has written in Slate, “Romney might well have thought in 2007 and 2008 that there was nothing to fear about a non-disclosed offshore account he’d set up years earlier precisely because it wasn’t disclosed.”

But the scandal that exploded around Swiss megabank UBS, where a whistleblowing employee released some of the names of wealthy Americans who were being allowed to use the bank’s privacy protections to hide their income from the IRS, caused many of America’s super-rich, fearing the worst, to rush for an amnesty offered by the IRS, which was more interested in collecting the money than putting a lot of the country’s toniest people behind bars. The floodgates opened when the US sued UBS demanding the full list of tax criminals from the bank, and then offered an amnesty to those who came forward voluntarily, reported their fraud to the IRS, and paid the required interest and penalties.

Given Mitt Romney’s known predilection for avoiding taxes, it’s hard to imagine him not having taken advantage of the Swiss tax dodge, particularly when so many other people of his class were doing it. Hiding income overseas was, back in the early years of this gilded century, the thing to do–the stuff of mirthful asides over cognac at the Club after a bracing game of golf or polo.

But explaining paying lower taxes than your maid or gardner to the public is one thing. Explaining deliberately committing massive tax fraud is another. Plenty of Americans have gone to the slammer for years for defrauding the IRS of mere five-figure sums. Most Americans live in a deliberately cultivated fear of the IRS, worrying that they made some mistake on a form or missed a filing deadline, and yet the wealthiest Americans, thanks to the 2009 and subsequent amnesties or partial amnesties, have routinely gotten away with massive fraud, just having to pay penalties and interest, as if they had just inadvertently filed late or made a math error.

None of this is proof that Romney is guilty of felony tax fraud, of course. On the other hand, it is curious that John McCain would have gone for the loopy lady from Wassilla and rejected Romney as his running mate back in 2008. Mitt was seriously in the running as a candidate for the job of VP on the McCain ticket at one point, and the UBS scandal broke right when McCain was picking his running mate. It seems logical that McCain’s vetting team would have asked Romney if the scandal might touch him. Maybe they ruled him out of contention when they got the answer.

In any case, running for president is not for sissies, and there is no presumption of innocence in politics. If Romney did not commit tax fraud back in 2008 and earlier, and did not avail himself of the IRS’s 2009 tax amnesty program, he should have to prove it by releasing his 2007, 2008 and 2009 taxes, and, if the 2007 and 2008 filings turn out to have been belatedly corrected, he should have to show the original filings too.

No doubt the Obama campaign has figured all this out, which would explain why they are offering Mitt Romney a deal that says: “You release five years of your taxes, and we’ll shut up” about demanding even older ones.

It remains to be seen whether conservative and right-wing and libertarian Americans, famous for their loathing of taxes, will decide that Romney is simply doing what they’d all like to get away with doing, and give him a pass on all this tax dodging, or whether they will become so incensed at the idea of this richest of presidential candidates in history cheating on his taxes that they will demand that he prove he didn’t do it before he can have their vote.

Meanwhile, if Romney did commit tax fraud courtesy of a Swiss bank arrangement, and he stonewalls it through the campaign weeks ahead, he runs a huge risk that someone will leak the information. After all, federal employees have to realize that four years of a Romney/Ryan administration will be brutal on their job security, benefits and working conditions. And right now Obama is the boss of the federal government, with his own appointees at Treasury and the IRS.

Stay tuned.

SOURCE

Transparency? Obama’s Lawyers Move to Censor Videos of New Jersey Ballot Challenge Hearing, Rewrite History

Obama’s Lawyers Move to Censor Videos of New Jersey Ballot Challenge Hearing, Rewrite History

Custom Search

By Alex Thomas
theintelhub.com

According to multiple reports, a series of videos from a New Jersey Ballot Challenge Hearing are so damning to Obama that his lawyers are actively trying to get them removed from the internet.

The videos document the recent New Jersey ballot challenge hearing in regards to Barack Obama’s fraudulent birth certificate and his possible ineligibility to appear on the New Jersey presidential ballot.

A report from Conservative News and Views confirmed that attorney Mario Apuzzo has been threatened by Obama’s lawyers for supposedly filming the court hearing. The lawyers went on to claim that they would have it scrubbed from the public domain (know more about warrant search here).

Jerome R. Corsi made the latest Obama eligibility issue famous with this story about the hearing. Then, on Tuesday afternoon, Alexandra Hill’s boss called Mario Apuzzo directly. CNAV heard first from Nick Purpura and then directly from Apuzzo.

Apuzzo received a call from a man identifying himself as Angelo Genova, the lead partner of Genova, Burns, Giantomasi and Webster. Genova was agitated and almost overwrought. He demanded to know why Apuzzo had videotaped the proceedings (a thing Apuzzo did not do), and then said that he would “move to strike the video from the record.” Genova also said that:

Alexandra M. Hill is not working on the case of Purpura and Moran v. Obama any longer. Angelo Genova has taken that case over and is handling it personally.
Death threats have come to the firm. Apuzzo told CNAV that Ms. Hill was the main target of these threats. Billy Baer also talked to Apuzzo, after CNAV called Dan Haggerty for comment. Apuzzo apparently told Baer that Genova never made clear whether the threatening person was threatening Ms. Hill alone or “the firm in general,” whatever that might mean.

Apuzzo offered to Genova to condemn the threats for the record, on his blog. Genova hastily declined. He then dwelt at length on the making of the video or videos and accused Apuzzo of making them without the court’s permission.

To top it off, Obama’s lawyers have accused Apuzzo of having CNAV illegally record the hearing when in reality all public court hearings are allowed to be filmed.

The New Jersey Administrative Code says that anyone may record a public hearing. The judge may restrict such recording so that it does not disrupt the hearing. On April 10, before the hearing began, Judge Masin summoned Apuzzo and Hill to his chambers. There, as Apuzzo said later, the judge asked about persons wanting to record the hearings on video. Apuzzo knew that CNAV and Dan Haggerty had brought cameras. He had also given an interview to Station WHYY-TV (Channel 12, Philadelphia, PA), who told him they would come to the hearing. Judge Masin said that he would allow video cameras, so long as their operators mounted them on fixed tripod stands. Haggerty and CNAV agreed to this. (See also Commander Kerchner’s blog entry.)

The lawyers representing Obama are clearly attempting to re write history by claiming that the videos of the hearing have caused their employees and firm to be threatened and, because of this, should be removed.

You can watch all three videos below:

SOURCE

Kenya Sees Spike in Obama Administration-Funded Projects….Hmmmmm

Kenya Sees Spike in Obama Administration-Funded Projects

Kenyan businesses lately are increasingly becoming recipients of U.S. government largesse, as the Obama Administration, among pursuing other endeavors, aims to expand “livestock-related economic opportunities” in that nation. Although this and other recently released presolicitation notices for unrelated programs serve as advance alerts to potential vendors—and therefore do not offer cost estimates and other details— a review of U.S. government contracting actions nonetheless indicates a spike of activity in Kenya in a variety of sectors.

The White House is committing to a five-year effort to “improve the inclusiveness and competitiveness” of the livestock industry specifically in Marsabit and Garissa counties, Kenya, according to a presolicitation notice released April 12 that U.S. Trade & Aid Monitor located via routine database research.


The Feed the Future-related initiative, known as the Resilience and Economic Growth in the Arid Lands-Accelerated Growth, or REGAL-AG, program, will be carried out by contractors hired by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), according to the document.

The agency did not disclose the project’s estimated cost: “No additional information regarding this planned RFP [Request for Proposals] is available at this time.”

USAID that same day separately alerted potential contractors to the launching of yet another endeavor in that nation, known as the Kenya Agricultural Value Chain Enterprises, or KAVES, program.

The KAVES presolicitation notice simply states the agency’s intention “to use full and open competition for the contract, which will be performed in Kenya. USAID intends to release the solicitation within the next 45 days.”

The agency pointed out that the presolicitation number——will change upon release of a bid request, but the program name would remain the same.

Other recent contracting actions include:
•Up to $50 million in U.S. Navy-coordinated military construction projects on the horizon at Camp Simba, Kenya, and at Camp Lemonnier, Djibouti.
•Deployment to Kenya of a privately contracted Regional Advisor for USAID’s Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA). as well as an Emerging Pandemic Threats Advisor.

•A U.S. Trade & Development Agency-led search for a contractor to perform a “definitional mission” exploring possible funding of geothermal energy projects in Kenya and Rwanda.

The above-mentioned endeavors have taken place in recent weeks; however, other notable U.S.-funded Kenyan projects thus far in 2012 include the launching of a National Institutes of Health-led initiative to hire contractors to conduct genetic research of Kenyans with Type-2 diabetes. Separately, the U.S. Army embarked upon a market survey of potential vendors to provide helicopter flight-training simulators to the Kenyan government.

SOURCE

Alabama Supreme Court Justice Says Barack Obama Birth Certificate Would Not Stand Up in Court

Alabama Supreme Court Justice Says Barack Obama Birth Certificate Would Not Stand Up in Court

Finally someone in America is paying attention to the Maricopa County Cold Case Posse investigation report indicating that Barack Obama’s birth certificate is a fraud.

Hugh McInnish of Alabama filed a lawsuit against the Alabama Secretary of State challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility to have his name on the November 2012 ballot for President of the United States. One of the stipulations in the case was a request to obtain an original copy of Obama’s birth certificate.

In a decision written on March 6, 2012, the Alabama State Supreme Court denied McInnish’s demand of obtaining the birth certificate copy before allowing Obama’s name to be placed on the ballot. The denial was not based on the merit of the evidence of forgery of the birth certificate, rather it was denied because they did not believe that the state supreme court had legal jurisdiction of the matter. To quote Alabama Supreme Court Justice Tom Parker:

“The language of the foregoing provision of the Alabama Constitution implies that this Court is without jurisdiction over Mcinnish’s original petition for a writ of mandamus. It is not our appellate jurisdiction that is being invoked, and this matter is not within original jurisdiction of this Court ‘to issue such remedial writs or orders as may be necessary to give it general supervision and control of courts of inferior jurisdiction.’ Ala. Const. 1901, Art. VI, § 140. The office of the Secretary of State of Alabama is not a ‘court of inferior jurisdiction; that this Court may control through the issuance of a writ in response to a petition first filed in this Court…”

However, Justice Parker wrote that the evidence McInnish provided along with the findings of the Cold Case Posse make Obama’s birth certificate to be highly suspect and questions if it would be able to stand up in a court of law. He also said that he is experienced in computer science and indicated he concurs with the conclusion of forgery made by the Cold Case Posse.

SOURCE

Occidental College Transcripts Reveals Obama Claimed Foreign Citizenship to get Scholarship

Occidental College Transcripts Reveals Obama Claimed Foreign Citizenship to get Scholarship

In a move certain to fuel the debate over Obama’s qualifications for the presidency, the group “Americans for Freedom of Information” has Released copies of President Obama’s college transcripts from Occidental College …

Released today, the transcript school indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate.

The transcript was released by Occidental College in compliance with a court order in a suit brought by the group in the Superior Court of California.

The transcript shows that Obama (Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship for foreign students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program.

To qualify, for the scholarship, a student must claim foreign citizenship.

This document would seem to provide the smoking gun that many of Obama’s detractors have been seeking. Along with the evidence that he was first born in Kenya and there is no record of him ever applying for US citizenship, this is looking pretty grim. The news has created a firestorm at the White House as the release casts increasing doubt about Obama’s legitimacy and qualification to serve as President article titled, “Obama Eligibility Questioned,” leading some to speculate that the story may overshadow economic issues on Obama’s first official visit to the U.K. In a related matter, under growing pressure from several groups, Justice Antonin Scalia announced that the Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to hear arguments concerning Obama’s legal eligibility to serve as President in a case brought by Leo Donofrio of New Jersey . This lawsuit claims Obama’s dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president.. Donofrio’s case is just one of 18 suits brought by citizens demanding proof of Obama’s citizenship or qualification to serve as president.

Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation has released the results of their investigation of Obama’s campaign spending. This study estimates that Obama has spent upwards of $950,000 in campaign funds in the past year with eleven law firms in 12 states for legal resources to block disclosure of any of his personal records. Mr. Kreep indicated that the investigation is still ongoing but that the final report will be provided to the U.S. Attorney general, Eric Holder. Mr. Holder has refused to comment on the matter…

LET OTHER FOLKS KNOW THIS NEWS, THE MEDIA WON’T!

Subject: RE: Issue of Passport?

While I’ve little interest in getting in the middle of the Obama birth issue, Paul Hollrah over at FSM did so yesterday and believes the issue can be resolved by Obama answering one simple question: What passport did he use when he was shuttling between New York , Jakarta , and Karachi ?

So how did a young man who arrived in New York in early June 1981, without the price of a hotel room in his pocket, suddenly come up with the price of a round-the-world trip just a month later?

And once he was on a plane, shuttling between New York , Jakarta , and Karachi , what passport was he offering when he passed through Customs and Immigration?

The American people not only deserve to have answers to these questions, they must have answers. It makes the debate over Obama’s citizenship a rather short and simple one.

Q: Did he travel to Pakistan in 1981, at age 20?
A : Yes, by his own admission.

Q: What passport did he travel under?
A: There are only three possibilities.

1) He traveled with a U.S. … Passport,
2) He traveled with a British passport, or
3) He traveled with an Indonesia passport.

Q: Is it possible that Obama traveled with a U.S. Passport in 1981?
A: No. It is not possible. Pakistan was on the U.S. .. State Department’s “no travel” list in 1981.

Conclusion: When Obama went to Pakistan in 1981 he was traveling either with a British passport or an Indonesian passport.
If he were traveling with a British passport that would provide proof that he was born in Kenya on August 4, 1961, not in Hawaii as he claims.. And if he were traveling with an Indonesian passport that would tend to prove that he relinquished whatever previous citizenship he held, British or American, prior to being adopted by his Indonesian step-father in 1967.

Whatever the truth of the matter, the American people need to know how he managed to become a “natural born” American citizen between 1981 and 2008.

Given the destructive nature of his plans for America, as illustrated by his speech before Congress and the disastrous spending plan he has presented to Congress, the sooner we learn the truth of all this, the better.

If you Don’t care that Your President is not a natural born Citizen and in Violation of the Constitution, then Delete this, and then lower your American Flag to half-staff, because the U.S. Constitution is already on life-support, and won’t survive much longer.

If you do care then Forward this to as many patriotic Americans as you can, because our country is being looted and ransacked!
The Plot Thickens

An intensive investigation has revealed the identity of the man whose Social Security number (SSN) is being used by President Obama: Jean Paul Ludwig, who was born in France in 1890, immigrated to the United States in 1924, and was assigned SSN 042-68-4425 (Obama’s current SSN) on or about March 1977.

Ludwig lived most of his adult life in Connecticut . Because of that, his SSN begins with the digits 042, which are among only a select few reserved for Connecticut residents.

Obama never lived or worked in that state! Therefore, there is no reason on earth for his SSN to start with the digits 042. None whatsoever!

Now comes the best part! Ludwig spent the final months of his life in Hawaii, where he died.

Conveniently, Obama’s grandmother, Madelyn Payne Dunham, worked part-time in the Probate Office in the Honolulu Hawaii Courthouse, and therefore had access to the SSNs of deceased individuals.

The Social Security Administration was never informed of Ludwig’s death, and because he never received Social Security benefits there were no benefits to stop and therefore, no questions were ever raised.

The suspicion, of course, is that Dunham, knowing her grandson was not a U.S. Citizen, either because he was born in Kenya or became a citizen of Indonesiaupon his adoption by Lolo Soetoro simply scoured the us probate leads until she found someone who died who was not receiving Social Security benefits, and selected Mr. Ludwigs Connecticut SSN for Obama.

Just wait until Trump gets past the birth certificate and onto the issue of Barry O’s use of a stolen SSN. You will see leftist heads exploding, because they will have no way of defending Obama. Although many Americans do not understand the meaning of the term “natural born” there are few who do not understand that if you are using someone else’s SSN it is a clear indication of fraud.

Was Obama Born in the USA?

http://www.truth24.co.za/alternative-world-news-media-info-warrior-truth-conspiracy-syndicator/03/27/12/david_dickheadcom-pine-gap-and-the-australian-quake/13552.html

Under State Judge’s recommendation Obama to be REMOVED from the Georgia 2012 Presidential Ballot !

Obama Ballot Access Challenge Hearing – Gavel to Gavel Live Video Stream Coverage from Atlanta GA

My comment and reaction to today’s legal proceedings in GA:

Today I give thanks to God and the great state of Georgia which demonstrated that we are in some parts of our nation still a nation of laws and not men. Obama and his attorney thumbed their noses at the Georgia court and the entire judicial system and decided not to even show up at the court hearing in Atlanta GA today to present evidence and the real 3-dimensional identity documents requested and subpoenaed, not merely digital images on the internet. Obama thinks he is a King and thus not subject to the election laws of Georgia and the United States Constitution. He will soon learn otherwise. As the Georgia Secretary of State said in warning Obama and his attorney if they did not show up for the court hearing today … if they do that, they will do so at their own peril. See results below. CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret), cdrkerchner.wordpress.com

Prior link to the live coverage, now over, was at 9 a.m. EST 26 Jan 2012 at this link: http://www.art2superpac.com/

Update 12:45 pm : Based on watching the live feed. Obama’s attorney was a no show. Hearing was conducted without him. At least one of the attorney’s pointed out to the judge that Obama’s attorney not showing up was showing contempt to the court and to the entire judicial system. There was a short private meeting in the Judge’s chambers prior to the start of the hearing. The hearing ended after about two hours of presentation by the various lawyers for the plaintiff’s side including getting testimony from witnesses and presenting the court exhibits and Supreme Court case law covering the issue of natural born Citizenship and that Obama is not “natural born Citizen of the United States” and thus is not eligible to be on the GA ballot. Atty Taitz also introduced evidence and witness testimony regarding Obama’s identity fraud activities regarding the Connecticut SSN and the forged online birth certificate. The judge is allowing some additional time for the both sides to submit written briefs to him before he makes his decision. As I understand it, he will release the final outcome and his decision sometime in early February. But he was obviously not happy that Obama and his attorneys stiffed the court. More details will be posted as additional information is provided by those who physically attended the hearing.

Update 1:05 pm: Per telecon between G Wilmott and Dean Haskins which was relayed to me. Dean Haskins who was in the courtroom this morning assisting with the Art 2Pac live stream. Judge Malihi talked to the attorneys in chambers before the hearing this morning and told them that he was going to enter a DEFAULT JUDGMENT against Obama and recommend that Obama’s name not be on the Georgia ballot! All the attorneys expressed a desire to put an abbreviated streamlined case on the record and the judge agreed. How does the mainstream media spin this? The Georgia SOS has already indicated that he will follow the judge’s recommendation. Obama will not get any popular vote or electors from the great state of Georgia! Congratulations to all freedom-loving Americans!

More coverage and news about the hearing here: http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/01/georgia-ballot-hearing-judge-wanted-to.html

Brief report by the Atlanta Journal Constitution newspaper site trying to put the best spin they could on Obama defaulting the case by him or his legal team not showing up today: http://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-politics-elections/no-ruling-in-birther-1318374.html

# # # #

Barack Obama is NOT a “natural born Citizen of the United States” and is thus constitutionally ineligible to be the President and Commander in Chief of our military. Obama was born to a FOREIGN NATIONAL FATHER who was NEVER a U.S. Citizen nor was Obama’s father even an immigrant to the USA or even a permanent resident in the USA. For no other U.S. President in the history of the nation since the founding generation (who were exempt from the natural born Citizen clause in the U.S. Constitution via a grandfather clause in Article II Section 1) was that the case, i.e., having a foreign national father who was never a U.S. Citizen or even an immigrant to this country. Obama being seated as the putative president is an outrageous violation of Article II Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, the presidential eligibility clause. Obama was not born with sole allegiance to the USA. Sole allegiance and unity of Citizenship at birth was the goal and purpose for putting the natural born Citizen clause into Article II Section 1 of the Constitution as to who could serve as president once the founding generation has passed away. Obama (II) was born a British Subject via his foreign national father Obama (Sr.) who was a British Subject. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen of the United States” to constitutional standards since he was born with dual allegiance and citizenship. The founders and framers did not want anyone with foreign allegiance to ever get command of our military, i.e., be the president. Obama is constitutionally not eligible to be president and commander in chief of our military.

Adjectives mean something. A “Citizen at Birth” is not logically identically equal to a “natural born Citizen at Birth”. Barack Obama may be a ‘Citizen of the United States’ but he is not a ‘natural born Citizen of the United States’ and does not meet the constitutional standards as to who can be the President and Commander in Chief of our military: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/03/obama-maybe-citizen-of-united-states.html

The natural born Citizen clause in our Constitution is a national security clause inserted into our Constitution by John Jay and George Washington. Read why the natural born Citizen clause is still important and worth protecting.

Five Citizenship Terms Mentioned in the U.S. Constitution: http://www.scribd.com/doc/11737124/Citizenship-Terms-Used-in-the-US-Constitution-The-5-Terms-Defined-Some-Legal-Reference-to-Same

Of Trees and Plants and Basic Logic and Citizenship Types: http://www.scribd.com/doc/44814496/Of-Trees-and-Plants-and-Basic-Logic-Citizen-at-Birth-NOT-Identical-to-Natural-Born-Citizen

See evidence Obama forged the birth certificate posted on White House servers 27 Apr 2011: http://www.scribd.com/collections/3166684

See evidence Obama is using a SSN 042-68-4425 not legally issued to him: http://www.scribd.com/collections/3260742

See evidence of Obama’s forged and back dated draft registration here: http://www.debbieschlussel.com/4428/exclusive-did-next-commander-in-chief-falsify-selective-service-registration-never-actually-register-obamas-draft-registration-raises-serious-questions/

The Obama constitutional eligibility issue is not a fringe issue! South Carolina Poll Results – A poll done by Public Policy Polling (PPP) shows that almost 2/3 of GOP voters want Obama’s constitutional eligibility and true legal identity investigated. This is not a fringe issue: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=340805

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Lehigh Valley PA USA
http://www.protectourliberty.org/
http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/

“The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened.” Ronald Reagan alerting us to Norman Thomas’ and the socialist/progressives’ long-term stealth agenda to transform the USA from a constitutional republic into a top-down, central controlled, socialist form of government

SOURCE

I created Obama’s Certification of Birth

I created Obama’s certification of birth’
White House links to deliberate forgery from Snopes.com, thinking it was real

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2011 WND

When the White House posted online an image of President Obama’s purported long-form birth certificate, it also linked to the previously circulated “Certification of Live Birth,” the short-form version that had been presented as the only birth documentation available.

However, the short-form certificate to which the White House linked April 27 was a forgery, claims research expert Ron Polland, Ph.D., who says he made the image himself.

“I made the birth certificate image that was given to the media at the White House press conference held on April 27, 2011,” Polland told WND.

“The White House said the black-and-white image is a copy of Obama’s 2007 [Certification of Live Birth], but it’s not. It is the forgery I created, and I can prove that is the case,” he declared.

Polland said he created the image to bolster his contention that the short-form Certification of Live Birth circulated by the Obama presidential campaign was a forgery.

“You have to be able to show how an electronic document was created in order to prove it is a forgery,” he explained. “I wanted to prove the [short-form certificate] was a forgery, and I wanted to show how it can be done.

Then how did the White House end up presenting the forgery as authentic?

Polland contends that all of the short-form “versions in circulation on the Internet are forgeries.”

“Probably the White House just picked my forgery off Snopes.com, thinking it was the real thing,
” he said.

Polland said he realized various Obama supporting groups, including Snopes.com, had posted his forgery as the authentic Obama document, but he decided to say nothing until he felt the time was right.

“I didn’t say anything until the White House published my forged Obama birth certificate as the real thing,” he said. “Then I decided it was time to speak up. Once the White House posted the forgery, I knew I could expose both the president and a supposedly independent, fact-checking website like Snopes.com as being caught promoting a fake document as the real thing.”

Polland walked WND through step-by-step documentation to show that the White House linked to his creation, not a document issued by the state of Hawaii.

The White House website documenting the April 27 press conference states:

In 2008, in response to media inquiries, the president’s campaign requested his birth certificate from the state of Hawaii. The state sent the campaign the president’s birth certificate, the same legal documentation provided to all Hawaiians as proof of birth in state, and the campaign immediately posted it on the Internet. That birth certificate can be seen here.(PDF).

Clicking that link, as seen in Exhibit 1, leads to a black and white image on the White House website:

Exhibit 1: Obama short-form COLB on White house website

A close-up of the bottom of the page shows that the document was taken not from a White House or Hawaii Department of Health Web page, but from Snopes.com:

Exhibit 2: Closeup of Obama short-form COLB on White House website

Snopes.com, in an June 2008 article, posted the Obama short-form certificate after it had been first published by DailyKos.com June 12, 2008, and by the Obama campaign website FightTheSmears.com.

When Snopes.com posted Polland’s fake document, he took a screen shot of the Snopes.com website, showing that the linkto the Obama document was the URL at which Polland had posted his forgery.

Interested in learning more about Obama’s Birth Certificate? Check out the Top 20 Conspiracy theories surrounding Barack Obama\'s Brth Certificate.

Exhibit 3 shows the Snopes.com website attempting to “debunk” what it considered the false claim that the Obama short-form birth certificate was a forgery.
Exhibit 3: Snopes page attempting to ‘debunk’ claim Obama COLB is a forgery

Exhibit 4 is a screen shot that shows the Snopes.com website linked to Polland’s forgery:

Exhibit 4: Snopes COLB linking to Polland’s forgery

Independent confirmation is readily available on the Internet that Snopes.com had linked to the forged Polland birth certificate.

It can be seen, for instance, in the following comment a reader postedon Salon.com, a strongly partisan pro-Obama website, on Nov. 3, 2008.

As seen in Exhibit 5, the reader shows that the article posted on Snopes.com, attempting to prove the authenticity of the Obama short-term birth certificate, was linked to Polland’s forgery:



Exhibit 5:
Salon.com letter showing Snopes.com linked to Polland’s fake

Exhibit 6 shows a closeup of the relevant section.

Exhibit 6: Closeup of Salon letter showing Snopes link to Polland’s fake

Exhibit 7
shows that as recently as April 7, only 20 days before the White House press conference releasing Obama’s long-form birth certificate, a reader on HuffingtonPost.com was unknowingly urging others to send Polland’s fake certificate to Donald Trump as evidence Obama had been born in Hawaii.

Exhibit 7: Huffington Post reader unknowingly urges others to send Trump a copy of Polland’s fake COLB

The Snopes.com link to the Polland fake document was still in place at the time of the April 27 White House press conference, as demonstrated by a reference to Polland’s Photobucket website. At Polland’s site, the hits to his fake document peaked April 27, as seen in Exhibit 8.

Exhibit 8: Polland’s Photobucket account for fake COLB peaks coincident with White House April 27 news conference

“If Obama has his Certification of Live Birth and his 2008 presidential campaign had actually scanned it and posted it on their website FightTheSmears.com, then why did the White House distribute on April 27 a fake copy … that the White House never had and never made?” Polland asked. “Instead, the White House distributed a fake [short-term certificate] image that I had and I made.”

Polland takes this as proof that the document the campaign released in 2008 was a forgery.

“Because what Obama calls his birth certificate is a fabricated Photoshop forgery, and I proved it by duplicating one from scatch, in real-time, in the only way it could have been created,”
he said. “No scanner in the universe created the [document] Obama claimed was his.”

As seen in Exhibit 9, Snopes.com has replaced the Polland fake document with a new green-background image that no longer matches the one posted on the White House website with the Snopes.com URL.

Exhibit 9: Snopes.com substitutes different COLB image to replace Polland fake

Polland, a frequent Internet poster under the username “Polarik,” has published a series of videos on YouTube summarizing his three-year investigation seeking to prove the Obama short-term birth certificate was a forgery.

Polland’s expertise is in computer graphics and the use of computer peripherals, such as printers and scanners to input digital images.

He earned a Ph.D. in Instructional Systems from Florida State University in 1978 and a masters degree in Educational Research and Psychology from Florida State in 1972.

Polland has just published an e-book entitled “Alias Barack Obama: The Greatest Identity Fraud in History.”

Read more: ‘I created Obama’s certification of birth’ SOURCE

Remove the wool

DC Knows that Obama is Ineligible for Office –


Posted on April 21st, 2010 by David-Crockett

CFP

Members from all three branches of the Federal government already know that Barack Hussein Obama is ineligible for the office of President. National leaders, to include members of the US Supreme Court, already know that Barack Hussein Obama is not a “natural born citizen” of the United States of America, and therefore, is ineligible for the office he currently holds.

What they don’t know is how long it will take for most Americans to figure it out, or what to do about it.

The diversionary search for an authentic birth certificate is ongoing and Obama has now spent in excess of $2 million in legal fees to keep that search

Eric Holder’s Department of Justice continues to deploy taxpayer funded attorneys around the country to file dismissals on behalf of Obama, denying all American citizens access to the courts as a peaceful remedy, which only fuels the fire of discontent and the questions about Obama persist.

Michelle Obama states that Kenya is Barack’s “home country.” She knows, after twenty years with Barack. The Ambassador or Kenya has confirmed the same His family friends all know it, and are in fact quite proud of the fact that Americans had no hesitation in electing a “black man from Kenya” as President of the United States.

The US Supreme Court knows what the constitutional condition of “natural born citizen” means. Even the most far left member of that court, Justice Ginsberg, is on record proclaiming that a “natural born citizen” is a birth child of TWO legal US citizens.

Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi knows that Barack Hussein Obama is not eligible for the office of president, which is why she refused to certify the following language when certifying Obama as the DNC candidate for president in 2008.

This is the normal language for certification of nomination for president and vice president, filed by the DNC only in the state of Hawaii…

This is the language filed by the DNC in the other 49 states, however…

Note that the language which certifies that Barack Hussein Obama meets all constitutional qualifications is missing in the DNC documents filed in 49 of the 50 states. The certification of constitutional qualification for the office of president was filed only in Hawaii. That text is missing in the DNC certification filings for all other states.

Whereas the RNC filed the exact same certification document, including the constitutional text for John McCain in all 50 states, Obama was technically certified in only one state, Hawaii. A mere inconvenient technicality, I’m sure…

The US Congress knows that Barack Hussein Obama is not constitutionally qualified for the office he holds. Although the congress passed a resolution proclaiming Senator John McCain a “natural born citizen” as the son of two US citizens, no such congressional resolution exists for Barack Hussein Obama.

The press knows that Obama is not a “natural born citizen,” having written on several occasions about the “Kenyan born” senator from Chicago. A number of citizens have already been arrested and jailed for asking these questions.

Over four-hundred law suits have been filed across the country asking the courts to force Obama to become the “transparent president” he promised to be, and all four-hundred are being dismissed before discovery, all on the basis that “no citizen has proper legal standing” to ask who and what their president really is…

Over a half-million citizens have now signed a petition demanding to see Obama’s birth records.

Numerous members of the US Military have refused deployment orders from Obama, on the basis that he refuses to evidence his constitutional qualifications to issue such orders. In most cases, the soldiers have simply been reassigned, so as to avoid any disciplinary action that could end in “defense discovery” which might finally force Obama to open up his files once and for all.

Now an eighteen year veteran flight surgeon and active Lt. Colonel faces court martial as he makes his demands for proof that Obama is constitutionally eligible to issue orders as Commander-in-Chief.
Obama’s entire domestic, foreign and national defense agenda has proven to be wholly anti-American

Obama’s entire domestic, foreign and national defense agenda has proven to be wholly anti-American on every possible level. Still, the answers concerning who and what Barack Hussein Obama Jr. really is remain elusive in the face of unprecedented efforts to ask the right questions.

No matter who asks, how they ask or where they ask, not one single individual in Washington DC or even state government seems willing to weigh in on the most important issue of our era. Who and what is the man sitting in the people’s White House?

How in the hell did we get an overtly anti-American resident of the people’s White House without so much as a simple birth certificate to prove who this person really is?

And why won’t a single elected representative of the people engage in the effort to force an answer to this question?

The answers to these and many more questions are likely very simple and equally chilling…
The Speaker of the House does not refuse to certify her candidate as “constitutionally qualified” in forty-nine of fifty states by accident

Nobody spends $2 million in legal fees to hide an authentic birth certificate. The Speaker of the House does not refuse to certify her candidate as “constitutionally qualified” in forty-nine of fifty states by accident. A press that knew he was the “first Kenyan born senator” didn’t forget that he was Kenyan born when he decided to run for president.

Most importantly, the people DO have a right (read – proper standing) to ask who and what their president really is, in any court, any time. And soldiers are court-martialed for refusing orders, unless those orders were issued by an illegitimate Commander-in-Chief.

DC knows what most Americans have yet to figure out…

Obama is NOT a natural born citizen no matter where he might have been born. Obama’s birth father was at no time an American citizen and on this basis alone, Obama cannot be a constitutionally qualified resident of the White House.

They know something else that the American people have yet to figure out…

The US Constitution no longer stands as the governing law of this land. Obama’s many unconstitutional policies, Czars, executive orders and statements provide the proof, and the fact that nobody in DC cares whether or not Obama is constitutionally qualified to be president of the United States should send a shiver down the spine of every red blooded American citizen, no matter their partisan agendas.

The people willing to ask the tough questions are deemed crackpots and conspiracy theorists, racists or bigots. But those tough questions should be obvious questions to all Americans and every president should have to answer those questions, no matter race, creed, color or party affiliation.

I fear that those questions will only be answered at the tip of pitch forks and torches one day. Sooner or later, the people will run out of patience with a system built to exclude them. When that day comes, I fear what methods will be employed and whether or not there will be a country left to save by then.

But sooner or later, one way or another, Obama will have to answer those questions. One day, the world will know who and what this man is and there will be a day of reckoning like no other in American history.

The longer it takes for that day to arrive, the more dangerous the situation will become. A man not even qualified to hold the office is using that office to destroy the greatest nation on earth. How much patience can the people be expected to display?

Obama is not eligible for the office he currently holds and everyone in a position to know – already know.

What they don’t know is how much longer they can keep it all a secret, or what will happen next.

http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?p=6340

Supreme Court to give Obama eligibility case another look!

Stunner! Supremes to give eligibility case another look

Challenge to Obama getting 2nd conference before court


Posted: February 17, 2011
2:23 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2011 WorldNetDaily

U.S. President Barack Obama (R) delivers remarks at the Chrysler Indiana Transmission Plant II in Kokomo, Indiana on November 23, 2010. Obama along with Vice President Joe Biden traveled to Kokomo as part of their White House to Main Street tour of areas helped by the Recovery Act and auto industry bailout.   UPI/Brian Kersey Photo via Newscom

In a stunning move, the U.S. Supreme Court has scheduled another “conference” on a legal challenge to Barack Obama’s eligibility to occupy the Oval Office, but officials there are not answering questions about whether two justices given their jobs by Obama will participate.

The court has confirmed that it has distributed a petition for rehearing in the case brought by attorney John Hemenway on behalf of retired Col. Gregory Hollister and it will be the subject of a conference on March 4.

It was in January that the court denied, without comment, a request for a hearing on the arguments. But the attorney at the time had submitted a motion for Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, who were given their jobs by Obama, to recuse.

Should Obama ultimately be shown to have been ineligible for the office, his actions, including his appointments, at least would be open to challenge and question.

At the time, the Supreme Court acknowledged the “motion for recusal” but it changed it on official docketing pages to a “request.” And it reportedly failed to respond to the motion.

Available to order now! The definitive answer on Obama’s eligibility, in “Where’s The Birth Certificate?” by New York Times best-selling author Dr. Jerome Corsi.

Hemenway then submitted a request for a rehearing, pointing out that the situation appeared to be violating the rules of the U.S. Supreme Court.

He also argued that if court members continue to “avoid” the dispute they effectively will “destroy the constitutional rule of law basis of our legal system.”

“We have not exaggerated in presenting the question of the constitutional rule of law being at stake in this matter,” Hemenway wrote in a petition for rehearing before the high court. “A man has successfully run for the office of president and has done so, it appears, with an awareness that he is not eligible under the constitutional requirement for a person to be president.


Case motion for recusal of Sotomayor and Kagan

“Despite a vigorous campaign that he has conducted to make ‘unthinkable’ the very idea of raising the issue of his eligibility under the Constitution to ‘be’ president the issue has not gone away,” Hemenway said.

“Instead it has steadily grown in the awareness of the public. Should we be surprised that he shows no respect for the constitutional rule of law? What else would we expect?” he wrote.

The U.S. Supreme Court today did not respond to WND questions today about whether the two justices would participate in the conference, and there was no response to WND’s request that questions be forwarded to the justices themselves about their plans.

“The real question here is one of getting members of the judiciary to take seriously the oath that they swore to protect and preserve the Constitution,” Hemenway wrote in his petition for rehearing. “To continue to avoid the issue will destroy the constitutional rule of law basis of our legal system when it is under vigorous assault as surely as if the conscious decision were made to cease preserving and protecting our founding charter.”

That the justices are “avoiding” the Obama issue already has been confirmed by one member of the court. It was last year when Justice Clarence Thomas appeared before a U.S. House subcommittee that the issue arose.


Docketing information from Supreme Court

Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y., raised the question amid a discussion on racial diversity in the judiciary.

“I’m still waiting for the [court decision] on whether or not a Puerto Rican can run for president of the United States,” said Serrano, who was born in the island territory. “That’s another issue.”

Yet after Serrano questioned him on whether or not the land’s highest court would be well-served by a justice who had never been a judge, Thomas not only answered in the affirmative but also hinted that Serrano would be better off seeking a seat in the Supreme Court than a chair in the Oval Office.

“I’m glad to hear that you don’t think there has to be a judge on the court,” said Serrano, “because I’m not a judge; I’ve never been a judge.”

“And you don’t have to be born in the United States,” said Thomas, referring to the Constitution, which requires the president to be a natural born citizen but has no such clause for a Supreme Court justice, “so you never have to answer that question.”

“Oh really?” asked Serrano. “So you haven’t answered the one about whether I can serve as president, but you answer this one?”

“We’re evading that one,” answered Thomas, referring to questions of presidential eligibility and prompting laughter in the chamber. “We’re giving you another option.”

The video:

Hemenway’s arguments came in the petition for rehearing that followed the decision last month by the court not to hear the arguments. However, he pointed out in the petition for rehearing that the U.S. Supreme Court appears to have broken its own rules in his case by failing to respond to a pending recusal motion.

That circumstance is enough, he argues, for another hearing to be held on the case, and this time without participation by the two justices appointed to the court by Obama.

Laurence Elgin, one of the experts working with the Constitutional Rule of Law Fund and website and monitoring the Hollister case, said the attorneys wanted Kagan and Sotomayor to remain out of the arguments since both were appointed to their lifetime posts by Obama and clearly would have a personal interest in the dispute if Obama was found to be ineligible and his actions, including his appointments, void.

Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee during the fourth day of her confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington on July 16, 2009. UPI/Kevin Dietsch Photo via Newscom

Hemenway submitted such a motion, but since the motion never was given a response, it should be acted on as if it were granted by the court, the petition for rehearing argues.

“Petitioners would request the court to rehear their petition and in doing so to consider the consequences of their motion for recusal of December 30, 2010 being treated as conceded because it was not opposed in a timely fashion under the rules of this court,” said the document, submitted to the court.

“Rule 21 (4) of the court requires that any motion shall have an opposition to it filed, if one is to be filed, ‘as promptly as possible considering the nature of the relief sought … and, in any event, within 10 days of receipt.’ Thus by January 14, 2011, when petitioners’ petition was denied without comment, the respondents had failed to respond to the motion,” Hemenway wrote.

“Therefore, as a matter of due process of the court, petitioners suggest that the court should have on that day considered the possibility that the motion had been conceded by respondents with an examination of the consequences of that failure,” the brief explains.

“If petitioners are entitled to have their motion for recusal as conceded because of lack of a timely opposition, as petitioners contend is the case, then the court was obliged to make sure that the Justices Sotomayor and Kagan did not participate in the decision. Yet there was no statement that they did not participate,” the brief states.

The brief further argues that because of the lack of a response or acknowledgment by the court, the court should have considered “the law of nations on matters of citizenship such as the phrase in question here as placed in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, namely, the requirement that a president ‘be’ a ‘natural born citizen.'”

Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan, President Obama's pick to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens, testifies during the second day of her confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington on June 29, 2010. UPI/Kevin Dietsch Photo via Newscom

The argument continued, “Thus, it would seem, with all due respect, that if the court is required to and does treat the petitioners’ motion for recusal as conceded the court would be required to consider the intent of the Framers of the Constitution in choosing the Article II phrase ‘natural born citizen.’

“That is, of course, assuming that the majority of its members still believe that the intent of the Framers is essential to the constitutional rule of law in this country,” the filing said.

In the original petition to the high court, the pleadings noted that if Obama is not constitutionally eligible, it will create a crisis.

“If proven true, those allegations mean that every command by the respondent Obama and indeed every appointment by respondent Obama, including the appointment of members [Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor] of this and every other court, may be only de facto but not de jure [by right of law],” stated the pleading.

“Further, his signature on every law passed while he occupies the Oval Office is not valid if he is not constitutionally eligible to occupy that office de jure,” it continued.

“Thus, it is not hyperbole to state that the entire rule of law based on the Constitution is at issue. Moreover, it would indicate that the respondent Obama ran for the office of president knowing that his eligibility was at the very least in question,” it continued.

Elgin earlier confirmed that Hemenway, as the attorney of record, got the notice from the court that the certiorari petition was denied without comment. But he said there was nothing from the court on the motion for recusal.

The order on Jan. 18 from the high court simply listed case 10-678, Hollister, Gregory S. v. Soetoro, Barry, et al as “denied” with no explanation.

It appears from the court’s documentation that Kagan and Sotomayor participated in the “conference,” the meeting at which Supreme Court justices determine which cases they will take. On other cases there are notations that Kagan or Sotomayor did not participate, and the Hollister case is without any such reference.

Although proceedings are not public, it is believed that a case must earn four votes among the nine justices before it is heard.

WND reported when another eligibility case attorney who has brought cases to the high court, Orly Taitz, approached Justice Antonin Scalia about the issue.

“Scalia stated that it would be heard if I can get four people to hear it. He repeated, you need four for the argument. I got a feeling that he was saying that one of these four that call themselves constitutionalists went to the other side,” Taitz said.

At that time, the Supreme Court was considered to have a 4-4 conservative-liberal split, with one swing vote on most issues. On the conservative side generally was Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Samuel Alito, Scalia and Thomas. Justice Anthony Kennedy often is the swing vote. The liberal side frequently included Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens.

Stevens and Souter have departed since then and have been replaced by Obama with the like-minded Kagan and Sotomayor. Presumably, should there be only seven justices in the discussion, three votes might be sufficient to move the case forward.

Hollister’s case is one of the longest-running among those challenging Obama’s eligibility.

Elgin told WND that the case, throughout the district and appellate court levels, never was denied standing, a major hurdle that has torpedoed many of the other eligibility disputes to rise to the level of court opinions.

The petition for rehearing explains that the “certification of live birth” posted online by the Obama campaign in 2008 cannot be cited as proof, since “Sun Yat Sen, the Chinese nationalist leader,” was granted “the same type of document that the respondents have claimed on the Internet and from the White House ‘proves’ that the respondent Obama was born in Hawaii.”

It cited as an example of Obama’s disconnect from the “rule of law” his administration’s “illegal ban on offshore drilling,” which was struck down by Judge Martin Feldman.

“They immediately came back and instituted a further illegal ban, showing no respect for the rule of law at all,” the petition argues.

Further is the recent judge’s ruling in Florida that Obama’s health-care law is unconstitutional.

“The respondent Obama and those working for him have made it clear that they intend to ignore the decision and proceed as if they never opposed it vigorously in court and the decision never happened,” the argument explains.

The Hollister case made headlines at the district court level because of the ruling from District Judge James Robertson of Washington.


Judge James Robertson

In refusing to hear evidence about whether Obama is eligible, Robertson wrote in his notice dismissing the case, “The issue of the president’s citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America’s vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama’s two-year-campaign for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a court.”

Along with the sarcasm, the evidence pertinent to the dispute was ignored.

The fact that the evidence never was reviewed and the judge based a “biased” decision on “a completely extrajudicial factor”  — twittering — prevented Hollister from having the constitutional rule of law applied, the court file explains.

The motion to recuse explained that federal law requires that judges exclude themselves when circumstances arise that would involve “even the appearance of impartiality.”

“It would seem literally to apply to Justice Kagan in any case since she was serving as Solicitor General during the pendency of this and other cases involving the ineligibility question. The U. S. Attorney did make a brief appearance in this case in the appellate document and did appear in many parallel cases,” the motion said.

The president is represented by a private law firm in the current case.

“Historical analysis establishes, therefore, that … respondent Obama, since his father was a Kenyan of British citizenship and not a U. S. citizen, was not ‘eligible to the office of president,…’ Therefore his appointment of the present Justices Sotomayor and Kagan are not valid appointments under the Constitution and they should not, therefore, be sitting as justices deciding upon our petition if this court itself observes the law it has set out under the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. Otherwise the concept of a rule of law based upon the Constitution, which we contend is at issue in our petition, is being flouted at the very outset of consideration of the petition,” the motion explained.

Neither is Hollister a novice on the issue of eligibility, it explains.

“It is a matter of record that Colonel Hollister, while on active duty in the Air Force, in a career from which he honorably retired, inquired into the legitimacy of President Clinton’s orders because President Clinton participated, while at Oxford, in communist protest marches in Eastern Europe against the Vietnam War at a time when we were at war with communism in Vietnam, something that would seem to violate the Fourteenth Amendment,” the site explains.

While the district judge dismissed the case because it had been “twittered,” the appeals court adopted his reasoning but wouldn’t allow its opinion affirming the decision to be published, the petition explains.

Hollister’s concern rests with the fact that as a retired Air Force officer in the Individual Ready Reserve, it is possible that he could be subject to Obama’s orders.

“If Congress called up the Air Force Individual Ready Reserve the respondent Obama would have to give the order … If, as it appears, those orders would not be lawful, Col. Hollister would be bound … to question them and look to the respondent [Vice President Joe] Biden as constitutionally next in succession for lawful orders,” the pleading said.

The case doesn’t have the “standing” dispute that has brought failure to so many other challenges to Obama’s eligibility, the pleading explains, because Robertson “found that it had jurisdiction of the case, and therefore that petitioner Hollister had standing.”

John Eidsmoe, an expert on the U.S. Constitution now working with the Foundation on Moral Law, has told WND a demand for verification of Obama’s eligibility appears to be legitimate.

Eidsmoe said it’s clear that Obama has something in the documentation of his history, including his birth certificate, college records and other documents that “he does not want the public to know.”

WND has reported on dozens of legal and other challenges to Obama’s eligibility. Some suggest he was not born in Hawaii has he claims; others say his birth location makes no difference because a “natural born citizen” was understood at the time to be a child of two citizen parents, and Obama’s father was subject to the British crown when Barack Obama was born.

Read more: Stunner! Supremes to give eligibility case <I>another</i> look http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=264897#ixzz1EGNmbS3Z

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=264897