Welcome! Jesus Christ is my LORD and Savior! Romans 10:9-10,13; John 3:16

[For EU visitors, I do not personally use cookies, but Google or any clickable link (if you choose to click on it) might. This is in compliance with mandatory EU notification]

I am a Natural Born United States Citizen with NO allegiance or citizenship to any nation but my own, and will use this site as a hobby place of sorts to present my own political and religious viewpoints, as a genuine Constitutional Conservative and a genuine Christian Conservative.

Thank you for coming.
In the Year of our LORD Jesus Christ
-- As of January 20, 2017
A Sigh Of Relief With The Inauguration Of Donald John Trump as President of the United States of America, And Hope For A Prosperous Future For All United States Citizens (we who are a nation called "the melting pot of the world"). We shall be great and exceptionally great again.

It is likely that the entries to this blog will be less frequent than in years past. I do intend to keep this blog active, and to offer insightful information and/or opinion (and sometimes humor and/or entertainment on occasion) when I do post.

Peace and Liberty. Semper Fidelis.

Wednesday, June 29, 2011

Obama Eligibility Issue hits the National Press Club, June 2011

(Edited on June 30, 2011: Press Club video updates loaded)

On June 29, 2011, WND addressed the National Press Club on Obama's Ineligibility

An Adobe Editor attested the Obama Birth Document as being fraudulent at the same meeting.

Esquire liable to $30,000,000 actionable libel suit for intentional malicious false reporting on Corsi and Farah

 Press Club Help: NBC Issue for Dummies.

In Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 US 657 (1927) @ 660-661, you will note that Wong Kim Ark (WKA, 169 US 647 (1898) exceeded what was recognized in the cited Annals of Congress, re: February 3-4 of 1790 (WKA and Weedin quoting Mr. Burke @ 1160).

In the debate of the Naturalization Bill of 1790, Congress

from pp. 1147 – 1164
was persuaded by several particulars: that like the later WKA gloss-over mention @ 169 US 647 @ 666 (IV.),
in that Congress in 1790 stated that:
1) Citizenship in the USA should be unique like the ancient Romans (cf. Mr. Hartley pp. 1147-1148, Mr. Jackson 1153); 2) That the influence of naturalization did NOT necessarily follow the Common Law of Britain and Europe and the application of in pari materia (where statute construes the law passed) past 1701 A.D. in regard to naturalization (cf. Mr. Page @ 1148, 1153).
3) Under the argument put forth by Mr. Tucker and agreed to by Mr. Madison,  it appears and very well  may be that a proper interpretation of the NBC clause 14 year residency requirement meant simply that only those Natural Born Citizens (born of two US parents on US soil and a sole US Citizen his entire life with no dual or multi-nationalities) who has lived as a citizen of a single state the immediate 14 years prior to running for the US Presidency, , as with that of a US Senator and US Representative is supposed to be a citizen of their state the immediate number of years in order to run their (in Constitutional Originalism), is or was intended to be (by the Founders) as those qualified in their running for office (Mr. Tucker @ 1154-1155 discussing the that "He thought the citizens...every person who was eligible under their State laws and constitutions" and applied this to the Constitution in such a way as though to infer a State residency of a native lifelong permanent and sole resident of the United States on a national scale).

In fact, paternal (including the two parent citizenship rule of both father and mother citizens) was known and accepted as required in defining citizenship, WKA citing @ 668 the 1343 A.D.  Statute in the Rolls of Parliament , followed by the 1350 A.D. clarification @ 668 of WKA , followed by the 1483 A.D.  TWO PARENT DEFINITION OF CITIZENSHIP that by COMMON LAW, “that he who is born beyond the sea, and his father and mother are English, their issue inherit by the common law…”

The two parent statute therefore both preceded by centuries as well as followed Coke’s decision by decades in 1677, 1708, 1731 -- as was cited by WKA @ 671, appears to follow the application of fathers and mothers of children whose fathers were presumed natural-born English subjects.
{{Addendum July 02, 2011
See also 

end of addendum}}

Congress and the Founding Fathers of the period appear to have adopted not only John Locke’s second treatise chapter “Of Paternal Power”, but to have ignored British Statutes on the naturalization subject at least past 1731 A.D., while accepting works like Vattel’s Law of Nations.

The Court in WKA concluded by majority that WKA was a citizen of the United States under the criteria of the 14th Amendment because –
1) Wong Kim Ark was born in the United States.
Wong Kim Ark never renounced US Allegiance, nor did his parents do so for him.
2) Wong Kim Ark was maintained in a permanent US State domicile every year of his life as his primary residence from birth to age 21.
3) Neither of his parents was employed in either a diplomatic or in ANY OFFICIAL capacity at the time of WKA’s birth.

that Barack lost US residency, that Barack swore allegiance and was naturalized (indefinitely) to the nation of Indonesia as of August 13, 1968. Hence, even by WKA standards @ 652-654 and 704-705, as well as Minor v. Happersett,
...all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. ...It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. “ 

Obama without a US Citizen Father and without proof of a US Birth (forgeries and refusal to produce in Court genuine documents are unacceptable) clearly shows us all that Obama is NOT a 14th Amendment Citizen, but an illegal office holder of the US Presidency.  And finally, lawyers like Mario Apuzzo are finally writing more extensively about Obama's Social Security Number fraud as well.

Mr Apuzzo  states in that extensive and well written article, 
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939) (confirmed that a child born in the United States to a naturalized U.S. citizen father and naturalized citizen mother, the mother being derivatively naturalized by marrying a U.S. citizen, was a “natural born Citizen.”

cf. Perkins v. Elg @  349-350.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/307/325/case.htmlThe court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants Page 307 U. S. 350 (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U. S. 227), declared Miss Elg “to be a natural born citizen of the United States…”  and elsewhere just simply refers to her as "citizen of the United States". 

 Obama was born with a United Kingdom and Colonies Citizenship through his father, and his minor US (and married into UKC) mother naturalized him through her second husband to alien country with which we had no Treaty, either directly or by International Convention.  In 1968, when Indonesia was no longer a sovereign nation, Barack Hussein Obama was legally adopted by Lolo Soetoro and his name was legally changed to Barry Soetoro (Soebarkah) of Indonesia, with a religious faith of being a Moslem (with the approval of his mother) in Indonesian Court, and in Indonesian School Registry.   He did not repatriate to Kenya or Britain, but went to a totally alien place NOT covered by Perkins v. Elg in 307 US 325 (1939).
as Obama’s unique circumstances do NOT apply. @ 329 the operation of Obama’s US Citizenship legally ceased with his adoption into Indonesia, his mother’s declaration on FS-277 to the US Consulate of new naturalization-allegiance and intention of indefinite residency in Indonesia on August 13, 1968. 
At NO TIME in a Court of Law, has the Obama defense team EVER introduced into evidence a United States Certification of Live Birth. Only once in all the actions in court that have now cost Obama for America over 2.8 million dollars, Obama for America payments to Perkins Coie: 
4th Quarter 2008    (amended figure) $205,323.00
April Quarterly, 2009                        $314,018.06 
July Quarterly 2009,                          $270,754.18
October Quarterly, 2009                    $688,316.42
 1st Quarter, 2010                              $261,206.69
2nd Quarter, 2010                              $248,483.94
3rd Quarter, 2010                               $234,284.82
4th Quarter, 2010                                $241,422.79
1st Quarter, 2011                                $165,008.20

This last payment you can see @

Layered Technologies were paid $2,027.  Did they FUBAR the Obama forgery?  Just asking.

Totals to defend against required introduction of Obama Identity into Court Evidence: $2,628,817.80

This does NOT include legal representation by the US Attorneys on the Taxpayer dime for an additional (of what I believe now tallies at least) $1,400,000 (estimate), or a total of what probably is about $4,000,000 likely expense minimum as of March 31st 2011 between Obama for America and the US Taxpayers. 

  In only one Leftist Judge Rejection decision, has there been any Obama defense.  And what was that?  Oh yeah, Bauer's overpaid and whiny lame argument of two media reports being as acceptable alternatives to actually PRODUCING IN COURT THAT EVIDENCE (i.e. the original documents) TO VET THE PERSON IN QUESTION is taken and recorded, where he flippantly referred (in the Court's footnote) to Factcheck.org (a front for a former Obama employer, the Annenberg Foundation, an organization with known alleged Communist and Socialist activisms) to be a PRIMARY source of what he claimed vetted Obama.   Bauer himself (and Perkins Coie by extension) REFUSED to bring the alleged documents themselves into evidence. From that decision, the footnote reads:
1 President Obama has publicly produced a certified copy of a birth certificate showing that he was born on August 4, 1961, in Honolulu Hawaii. See, e.g., Factcheck.org, “Born in the U.S.A.: The truth about Obama’s birth certificate,” available at http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html (concluding that the birth certificate is genuine, and noting a contemporaneous birth announcement published in a Honolulu newspaper). Hawaii officials have publicly verified that they have President Obama’s “original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.” See “Certified,” Honolulu Star Bulletin, Oct. 31, 2008. This Court can take judicial notice of these public news reports. See The Washington Post v. Robinson, 935 F.2d 282, 291 (D.C. Cir. 1991); Agee v. Muskie, 629 F.2d 80, 81 n.1, 90 (D.C. Cir. 1980).Unquote.

The greater preponderance of evidence suggests that Obama is what the NATION OF KENYA claims of Barack in 2008 and 2010, that “Obama the US President was born in Kenya” http://brianroysinput.blogspot.com/2011/04/obama-fec-audited-in-2011-little-bit.html
(likely at Lady Griggs Hospital in Mombasa, but we are not allowed to ascertain it with finality). We do know that because Barack uses an Identity Theft Social Security Number issued to someone born in 1890, and has multiple SS#s (which is illegal), and because Bauer will not dare introduce any Obama Birth Certificate into evidence (because both his Long and Short forms are forged), it is likely that Barack was NOT born in the United States, and that his actual birth may have been just as he claimed in 2009, to be 3 months prior to the Bay of Pigs or January 1961. Since Bauer (and by extension, Perkins Coie) refuses to offer a genuine birth certificate in a Court of Law per legal requirements (333 US 640 (1948) @ 653 per 533 US 53 (2001) @ 54,62), or any pre-Brennan stolen Obama passports
...and since Obama’s mother was not either of Statute age 19, and certainly NOT of voting age (21) at the time of his birth, Obama not only has no legality as President now, but can still be legally challenged in Court for running for 2012, even in the primary stage.

Unfortunately, we have to have a concrete injury such as being unlawfully arrested by the Obama Administration before having standing, as shown in June 2011 by the US Supreme Court in Bond v. US,  564 U. S. ____ (2011)

Now that we have the ground rules for what constitutes Article III standing...for every unlawful Obama Administration Arrest, we need to have those US Citizens do a legal push back in the Courts, and do a straight shot to the US Supreme Court, argue exigency and Article III standing with all the argument data on the Law and the facts that easily by preponderance rule against Obama, and remove the felon (and I mean that literally he is a felonious criminal) from Office by an order of the US Supreme Court issuing an order for his removal and arrest. All legal, peaceful, and properly followed within the Law. 

No comments:

Post a Comment