Posts Tagged ‘obama fraud’

What to Tell the Birthers Bashers by Mario Apuzzo

August 1, 2009

Note: This essay appeared yesterday (July 31, 2009) on Attorney Mario Apuzzo’s blog. Apuzzo represents Charles Kerchner and others in a suit filed Jan 20, 2009 against Barack Obama and the Congress; see Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al

You are poorly informed on the constitutional issue involved with Obama’s eligibility to be President. The primary issue is whether Obama is an Article II “natural born Citizen,” not whether he was born in the U.S. When drafting the eligibility requirements for the President, the Founding Fathers distinguished between “Citizen” and “natural born Citizen” in Article II, sec. 1, cl. 5 and in Articles I, III, and IV of the Constitution. Per the Founders, while Senators and Representatives can be just “citizens,” after 1789 the President must be a “natural born Citizen.” The Founders wanted to assure that the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military, a non-collegial and unique and powerful civil and military position, was free of all foreign influence and that its holder have sole and absolute allegiance, loyalty, and attachment to the U.S. The “natural born Citizen” clause was the best way for them to assure this….(read the rest)

Answering the Birther Bashers

Gibbs: It’s on the Internet Lester….

May 28, 2009

Chief Obama liar, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, laughed off a question from Lester Kinsolving about Barack Obama’s long form birth certificate. Claiming to be “astounded” at the question Gibbs said “You’re looking for the president’s birth certificate? It’s on the Internet, Lester.” “Long-form, listing his hospital and physician,” Kinsolving replied. (see video from Politico44)

Kinsolving made reference to the 400,000 plus names on a petition circulated by World Net Daily saying; “Why the president, who has pledged transparency in his administration, would not release his long-form birth certificate to establish his constitutional eligibility for office”. Spokesman Robert Gibbs then guffawed in unison with other members of the Washington press corps.

World Net Daily notes:

“It was the first time any member of the press corps has publicly asked a member of the administration a question directly related to Obama’s constitutional eligibility for office as a “natural born citizen.”
The “Certification of Live Birth” posted online and widely touted as “Obama’s birth certificate” does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same “short-form” document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii. The true “long-form” birth certificate – which includes information like the name of the birth hospital and attending physician – is the only document
that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not permitted its release for public or press scrutiny.

Broadcaster Les Kinsolving

Broadcaster Les Kinsolving

Donofrio Explains Vattel: Day 57 – March 18, 2009

March 18, 2009

Attorney Leo C. Donofrio bows out of Obama eligibility struggle once again…. Explains the importance of Vattel’s definition of “Natural Born Citizen” and how Vattel’s theories influenced our framers…Donofrio to be on The Chalice Show radio program this evening…

Donofrio says on his blog today:

The case has been made as to the Constitutional process necessary to challenge President Obama’s qualifications for office. I call him President because he is President – under our Constitution – unless and until the District Court for the District of Columbia finds him ineligible. That is the only venue of review currently available under the law.

The case has also been thoroughly made that Obama is not a natural born citizen with regard to the presumption discussed in Marbury v. Madison by Chief Justice Marshall. That case stands for the nullification of the argument that one becomes eligible to be President through 14th Amendment citizenship (if born in the US). Chief Justice Marshall has spoken from the grave on this issue, and he holds that such a construction is “inadmissible”….

Donofrio can be heard on The Chalice Show radio program this evening and he says this will be the last we’ll be hearing from him for some time! The Chalice Show program notes give the following details:

On Wednesday, March 18 from 8-10 CDT, The Chalice Show will air on Patriot’s Heart Network. The special guest will be Leo Donofrio. He will discuss the technical legal aspects of the quo warranto statute as it applies to the Obama presidential eligibility controversy. He will also discuss breaking updates on the natural born citizen controversy. Please review Mr. Donofrio’s blog for complete background on these important issues.

Please tune in. Mr. Donofrio will be on for the entire 2 hours. To ask a question or discuss the issue with Leo and Chalice, the call-in number is (347) 215-6929.

Donofrio concludes his post with a plea for citizen action; Take a Stand he says:

Unless you make EVERY effort to be heard then you will never know if justice was at your fingertips. How much do you believe in this issue? Back in the 60’s when civil rights were being denied, the people came to Washington… a million man march. The law was changed and history with it. There is power available to you. Stop being so defeated. Stop depending on charlatans. Use your mind. Think for yourself. Don’t believe Leo Donofrio. Do your damn homework. I have provided you with the research materials. Use them.

If you don’t have the support of the people, the Government will not listen. You need to assemble peacefully and be heard. If you don’t have the numbers, you won’t be heard. It’s that simple. Go get the people. Bring them to Washington DC. Be heard.

Stay tuned!

Swiss Political Theorist E. Vattel

Swiss Political Theorist E. Vattel

By What Warrant? (Quo Warranto): Day 45 – March 4, 2009

March 4, 2009

Leo Donofrio: Our Military Need Not Take on Obama Eligibility Challenge Burden. A New Approach Involving Non-Military Plaintiffs Seen as Key. Donofrio to Work with Atty Mario Apuzzo to Cooperate in New Effort. The Problem of Legal Standing has Stymied Earlier Efforts but it is Thought Civilian Plaintiffs Can Meet Test of Standing.

The ancient common law writ of Quo Warranto (Latin: By What Warrant?) at one time… functioned as a court order (or “writ”) to show proof of authority; for example, demanding that someone acting as the sheriff prove that the king had actually appointed him to that office (literally, “By whose warrant are you the sheriff?”). (Source: Wikipedia)

In the United States today..The common law writ of quo warranto has been suppressed at the federal level… and deprecated at the state level, but remains a right under the Ninth Amendment which was understood and presumed by the Founders, and which affords the only judicial remedy for violations of the Constitution by public officials and agents.(Source)

Writing at Natural Born Citizen today, Leo Donofrio announces, in a very public way, his decision to work with New Jersey attorney Mario Apuzzo to further challenge Barack Obama’s eligibility to be President. Using the above referenced tactic of Quo Warranto they hope to avoid the usually fatal error of lack of standing of various plaintiffs in previous actions. *Standing is described at one source as:

…the legal right to initiate a lawsuit. To do so, a person must be sufficiently affected by the matter at hand, and there must be a case or controversy that can be resolved by legal action.

The establishment of standing has been the stumbling block so far, and with respect to the military plaintiffs, their speaking out has brought the possibility of courts martial. The new approach by Donofrio and Apuzzo is designed to involve civilian plaintiffs who can, one hopes, show the necessary standing. This must sound hopelessly obscure to the layperson, and I am surely one of those. Donofrio lays out his explanation for this new course and one must go to his blog for a fuller explanation. About the situation for military plaintiffs, many of whom are involved with the Orly Tait action, Donofrio says:

If you are an active military person who is thinking of joining an action in Quo Warranto, please refrain form doing so until you have read the pending brief I will publish here.

Attorney Apuzzo and I will be working together on this public awareness campaign. I am very encouraged to have found another attorney who lives near me and who I believe in. I was very impressed by his intellect as to the various nuances of this intricate field of law. I believe we will both learn from each other and together provide a more powerful perspective and education to the public as well as presenting the best possible pro bono legal action on behalf of any potential plaintiffs.

*there are three requirements for Article III standing: (1)injury in fact, which means an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a)concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) a causal relationship between the injury and the challenged conduct, which means that the injury fairly can be traced to the challenged action of the defendant, and has not resulted from the independent action of some third party not before the court; and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision, which means that the prospect of obtaining relief from the injury as a result of a favorable ruling is not too speculative.

A lengthy and informative study of constitutional standing by Stephen L. Winter, titled “The Metaphor of Standing and the Problem of Self-Governance” (1987) may be read here.

[C]onstitutional standing [is] … a word game played by secret rules…. Characterized neither by the private rights model of the seven common law forms of action nor by the “injury-in-fact” paradigm of modern standing doctrine, these matters took forms astonishingly similar to the “standingless” public action or “private attorney general” model that modern standing law is designed to thwart..

New Obama Eligibility Challenge

Eligibility Movement About Love Not Hate: Day 43 – March2, 2009

March 2, 2009

….that’s Love as in Love of Country and Reverence for Our Constitution, NOT Hatred for Barack Obama. The Left is attempting to smear those concerned about Obama’s eligibility as irrational conspiracy theorists. They are So Wrong! The Issue is not going away; Today’s AOL and Politico Headline the story…

AOL News: The Birthers Continue to Hound Obama
The Politico: Culture of Conspiracy. The Birthers

At The Politico Ben Smith writes:

Out of the gaze of the mainstream and even the conservative media is a flourishing culture of advocates, theorists and lawyers, all devoted to proving that Barack Obama isn’t eligible to be president of the United States…..The challenges to Obama’s eligibility have no grounding in evidence. Courts across the country have summarily rejected the movement’s theory — that Obama can’t be a citizen because his father wasn’t —as a misreading of U.S. law; and Hawaii officials, along with contemporary birth announcements, affirm that Obama was in fact born in Honolulu in 1961.

The issue is hardly out of the gaze of the mainstream…media, it has been in plain sight all along. But the mainstream, and most of the conservative, media have chosen to ignore the most severe constitutional crisis since the Civil War. We must mark 2008 as the year journalism in the United States died. The press has become, in the words of Leo Donofrio, The Propaganda Ponies of the Fourth Estate.

At the time of his birth, Obama was a British/Kenyan citizen by descent of his father. Because I pointed out pesky international laws which governed his citizenship due to the fact that a father has every legal right in the world to have the laws of his nation apply to his son, I have been labeled a conspiracy freakoid of nature.

Never mind that I included demands for Panama John McCain and the Nicaraguan born Roger Calero to also be removed from our ballots. No, they don’t want to talk about that do they – because it would blow the “he’s just another Obama hater” mantra clear out of play. (see Natural Born Citizen)

So much for the mainstream media.Most of the conservative media will not touch the eligibility issue because they fear being smeared as kooks and nut cases. Some Republicans are so desperate to find a suitable candidate to revive the party’s fortunes that they wish the natural born citizen requirement would go away so they can nominate a non natural born citizen; i.e. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal; born of Indian immigrant parents who naturalized after his birth. Governor Schwarzenegger, who would love to be President, at least had the good sense to acknowledge that he is not a natural born citizen and therefore not eligible unless, and until, a constitutional amendment is passed negating the natural born citizen requirement of our Presidents.

The eligibility issue did come up, albeit briefly, at the past weekend’s CPAC gathering in Washington. Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media:

Judging by the applause, a large portion of the audience was not outraged by the remarks.

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...and the President before taking office swears the following oath…“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.” (U.S.Constitution, Article II, Section 2)

Barack Obama taking oath; Michelle Obama holding Lincoln bible..

Barack Obama taking oath; Michelle Obama holding Lincoln bible..

“Obama Not Investigated”- Limbaugh: Day 40 – Feb 28, 2009

February 28, 2009

“Obama has not been challenged. He has not been investigated. He has not been questioned. He’s not been doubted for going on two years, now. That’s a lot of solid time to propagandize people, and that’s where we are.”

(Rush Limbaugh, Feb. 27, 2009)

Unfortunately, Limbaugh was not referring to Obama’s eligibility problem, although it might have sounded that way at first hearing. Actually Rush Limbaugh, along with most of the other well known conservative talkers, has scrupulously avoided the issue. Some observers theorize that it’s the Bobby Jindal factor; so enamored are Limbaugh and others with the Louisiana governor that they will tolerate no discussion of the Obama eligibility problem.

RUSH:  (Feb 25) Let me just say it right out.  I love Bobby Jindal..   I respect Bobby Jindal; I have great enthusiasm for Bobby Jindal, the governor of Louisiana,…He’s brilliant.  He’s the real deal…

…no discussion of the Obama eligibility problem because Jindal too is not a “Natural Born Citizen”  having been born to Indian immigrant parents shortly after their arrival on these shores. Only later, after their son’s birth, did they become naturalized U.S. citizens.

Gov. Bobby Jindal

Gov. Bobby Jindal

Maj. General Says Proof Needed: Day 39 – Feb 27, 2009

February 27, 2009

Now three United States military members agree to participate in suit challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility to be President and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. Maj. Gen. Childers joins Lt. Easterling, and an as yet unnamed soldier, in a petition for declaratory judgment….Leo Donofrio warns against placing soldiers in jeopardy..

World Net Daily via Drudge Report:

On the heels of two active duty members of the U.S. military serving in Iraq calling for President Obama to prove his eligibility to be president, a retired major general has agreed to join the case, saying he just wants “the truth.”

Retired Major General Carroll D. Childers… (agrees) …”to be a plaintiff in the legal action to be filed by Orly Taitz, Esq. in a petition for a declaratory judgment (sic) that Barack Hussein Obama is not qualified to be president of the U.S., nor to be commander in chief of the U.S. armed forces, in that I am or was a sworn member of the U.S. military (subject to recall)”…General Childers minces no words here; he declares…

“What I really want is the truth; is Obama a natural born citizen of the United States. If not a natural born citizen, America has been defrauded and then we would be stuck with Joe Biden whose only redeeming attribute is that he is probably not a communist.”

The war of words concerning the Obama eligibility continues; the Childers remarks come after the Alan Keyes accusation (see previous post) that Obama is a “radical communist”.

A cautionary note to members of the U.S. military has been sounded by Attorney Leo C. Donofrio. Late last year Donofrio brought Natural Born Citizen actions before the Supreme Court. At his site Natural Born Citizen Donofrio says today:

The recent events chronicled in this blog pertaining to active military plaintiffs and the unnecessary jeopardy they have now been subjected to ANGERED me greatly. That doesn’t mean I believe the attorney (Orly Taitz) was operating with wrong intentions. Sometimes in ones zeal to fight, emotions cloud judgment and mistakes are made…..I feel a groundswell of opposition coming from the military regarding the well known issues of whether or not Obama is a natural born citizen Constitutionally eligible to be POTUS. And because I feel that the level of legal education being forwarded to our military as to this issue has been less than stellar, I have decided to present two educational legal templates to the military community via this blog…..Please note that I am NOT counseling any military as to whether they should join a law suit to challenge Obama’s Presidential eligibility. I would STRONGLY counsel against their doing so.

Ret. Maj. Gen. Carroll D. Childers

Ret. Maj. Gen. Carroll D. Childers

The Alleged Usurper by Alan Keyes: Day 34 – Feb 22, ’09

February 22, 2009

Three time Presidential candidate Alan Keyes gets right to the point in this video calling Barack Obama “a radical communist, an abomination, an alleged usurper who is occupying that office without the constitutional authority to do so….who is going to destroy this country…we are either going to stop him or the United States is going to cease to exist…”


h/t Count Us Out

Also see Manly’s Republic

A dispatch from Cullman, Alabama:

..(A) local resident asked Alabama Senator Richard] Shelby if there was any truth to a rumor that appeared during the presidential campaign concerning Obama’s U.S. citizenship, or lack thereof.
“Well his father was Kenyan and they said he was born in Hawaii, but I haven’t seen any birth certificate,” Shelby said. “You have to be born in America to be president.”

Well, he had many a chance to speak out but, like so many others who know, he did not. (see, Those Who Know, Day 28)

h/t Pat Dollard

Dr. Alan Keyes

Dr. Alan Keyes

State Sovereignty Asserted in Oklahoma: Day 33 – Feb 21, 2009

February 21, 2009

We reported earlier (Feb 6) on the movements in several states to reassert their 10th Amendment status of sovereignty and today where one state,

Oklahoma, “claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.”

According to Red Dirt Report, (Feb 17), an Oklahoma news site, the earlier passage of a sovereignty resolution in the  state’s lower body is now completed with its approval by the state senate judiciary committee.

OKLAHOMA CITY – Following last week’s unanimous vote in favor of Rep. Charles Key’s HJR 1003, calling for legislative support of the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, it’s companion bill in the Senate, SJR 10, was supported Tuesday 6-1 by the bipartisan Senate Judiciary Committee.

And there were plenty of supporters on hand to watch the discussion and the subsequent vote. Many wore stickers on their lapel which simply read “10,” supporting Brogdon’s pro-states rights resolution.

And while it is not getting a whole lot of attention in the mainstream press, a number of states, including Washington, New Hampshire, Arizona, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, California, and Georgia have all introduced bills and resolutions declaring sovereignty under the 10th Amendment.

Additionally, Colorado, Hawaii, Pennsylvania, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Alaska, Kansas, Alabama, Nevada, Maine, and Illinois are considering such measures.

Introduced by its Senate author, Sen. Randy Brogdon, R-Owasso, he explained that the “federal government has been putting the screws on (the states) a little tighter and tighter each year” along with unfunded mandates of varying sorts.

And each time this happens, Brogdon explained, “We lose a little bit of our freedom and liberty.”

Dr Walter E. Williams wrote a column titled  “Oklahoma Rebellion” last July where he noted:

Oklahomans are trying to recover some of their lost state sovereignty by House Joint Resolution 1089, introduced by State Rep. Charles Key.

The resolution’s language, in part, reads: “Whereas, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows: ‘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.’; and Whereas, the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more; and whereas, the scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and Whereas, today, in 2008, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government. … Now, therefore, be it resolved by the House of Representatives and the Senate of the 2nd session of the 51st Oklahoma Legislature: that the State of Oklahoma hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States. That this serve as Notice and Demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.”

State Sovereignty Asserted in OK

Eligibility Issue Ignored by Those Who Know: Day 28 – Feb 16, 2009

February 19, 2009

Who else knows about the Barack Obama ineligibility besides Obama himself? There are many influential people in media and politics who know, or at least believe that Obama is not constitutionally qualified for President. These people, and I will name a few, will not touch the issue: The list most prominently features Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity,Mark Levin, Ron Paul, and possibly the Clintons. Why?

Let’s start with Obama who knew, as a self-professed constitutional scholar that he was not eligible. His own campaign website acknowledged his dual citizenship. Then, there are the stories about his Indonesian citizenship:

An investigation into Indonesian citizenship law and a review of Obama’s biography and travels suggest the Illinois senator at one point may have been a citizen of Indonesia. That would not necessarily disqualify Obama to run for president, but it could raise loyalty concerns.

As for Limbaugh, Hannity, and others J.R.Dieckmann at Renew America writes:

… talk radio commentators are afraid to talk about it. Rush Limbaugh stated that he is not sure if it “passes the smell test,” and Sean Hannity has not even mentioned it as far as I know except when a caller brought it up. Hannity remarked that he didn’t know enough about it and moved to another topic.

Hannity may be restricted by his bosses, but Rush is the CEO of his own broadcasting network and has nothing to fear except the possible loss of some of his franchise radio stations across the country which carry his show. Rush is known for facing down any amount of political pressure or politician so he must have his own reasons for not giving it credibility on the air. Privately, I suspect Limbaugh takes this matter very seriously but he has two relatives on the bench; Stephen N. Limbaugh, Sr., Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr. and other friends who may have advised him to avoid the subject until the issue is officially in the hands of the courts.

Turning to Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) we find an in depth article about his reluctance to speak out at Citizen Wells blog:

There are several reasons why Obama is not eligible to be president.
However, most if not all congressmen were aware of numerous lawsuits
challenging Obama’s eligibility beginning with Philip Berg’s on
August 21, 2008. Many mistakenly stated that the lawsuits were
dismissed for lack of merit. That is patently false. However, since
the congressmen were aware of the lawsuits, they were also aware
that obama had employed an army of attorneys and spent enormous
amounts of resources to avoid proving that he was eligible.

That is the real smoking gun.

This is the reason that minimally, Congress should have demanded that
Obama prove that he was qualified. A single congressman could have
initiated this query before or when Congress convened to certify the
Electoral votes.

Not a single congressman stepped forward.

Congressman Ron Paul knew that there were serious issues surrounding
Obama’s eligibility. Congressman Ron Paul, who speaks of upholding
the US Constitution.

Late in December of 2008, Congressman Paul was asked if he would
challenge the Electoral votes in Congress. Here is his response:

“If I did that, I would be laughed out of Congress.”

I believe Congressman Paul’s response is typical of the position
of the entire Congress. However, Mr. Paul, we expected more from
you.

Ron Paul on Patriotism

Ron Paul on Patriotism

We conclude with a quote for the day; this one from Citizen Wells on Twitter:

“Technically Obama will not have to be impeached since he will not be president.

Standard prosecution should suffice.”

Obama Eligibility Taboo in Media