Federal Judge Grants Temporary Petition To Remove Obama From Ballot

Originally posted by digital01anarchy

Originally posted by spleenika
reply to post by Thunderheart

 

Did you know it is actually illegal to use E-verify on someone who is not a direct employee of yours?

Anyone who knowingly and willfully uses SSNVS to request or obtain information from Social Security under false pretenses violates Federal law and may be punished by a fine, imprisonment or both.

Link

So what I would like to know, is who supposedly ran this check? And also, how did they acquire the supposed legitimate social security number for the president? As far as I know the number is not public record. Answer those questions, and there will be a reason to answer your question.

edit on 9/9/2012 by spleenika because: (no reason given)

apparently you have no clue who employs the President

the president works for the American people if I'm correct that would make just about any American citizen his employer. Now how was that illegal again

Sorry, no.

I know you're just being facetious, but it must be noted, that when it's something like the law enforcement putting security cameras up, the right cries, "big brother, civil liberties," etc., but when someone on the right actually illegally obtains someone's personal data, protected by the law, the same folks suddenly don't give a crap about privacy.

It's hypocrisy, and it's not surprise.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by longlostbrother

 

Guess what? I've decided to post the ultimate birther debunker site so you can just go directly to it and start using it here to argue with birthers.....go ahead... indulge yourself.

www.thefogbow.com...

edit on 11-9-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

You'd better use your time reading this thread, as that site is linked in it numerous times.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by kozmo
You stated "There's no requirement for US citizenship in Obama's case, other than being born in the US, and no law at all against dual citizens being President. Obviously. "

Try reading Article II of the US Constitution.

No where in the constitution does it define what "Natural born citizenship" is. This has been left up to the courts to decide on the matter, and they have time and time again:

Allen v. Arizona Democratic Party,

Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. See United States v. Wong Kim Ark (addressing U. S. Const. amend. XIV) ; Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana (addressing the precise issue). Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett does not hold otherwise

www.scribd.com...

Farrar v. Obama,

Obama "became a citizen at birth and is a natural-born citizen,"

www.ajc.com...

Ankeny v. Governor

President Obama was a United States citizen at the moment of his birth in Hawaii. Since he held citizenship at birth all constitutional qualifications have been met. There is no basis to question the presidents citizenship or qualifications to hold office

www.scribd.com...

Voeltz v. Obama

I have reviewed and considered the legal authority submitted by the plaintiff and the Defendants on this issue and conclude as a matter of law that this allegation, if true, would not make the candidate ineligible for office. Cited Hollander v. McCain and Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana.

www.scribd.com...

Tisdale v Obama

The eligibility requirements to be president of the United States are such that the individual must be a "natural born citizen" of the United States and at least thirty-five years of age. U.S. Const. art. II, S1. It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens. See, e.g United States v Ark, 169 U.S 649, 702 (1898)

www.scribd.com...

Supreme court justice J. Grey in his ruling on the Wong Kim Ark (1898) case:

The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that
“all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,”
contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization

www.law.cornell.edu...

Then read minor v. happersett.

Minor v. Happersett was not based on natural born citizenship, the judge made an opinion and that opinion merely stated that there was doubt:

Minor did not exclusively define "’natural-born" citizen’ as ‘all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens.’" Indeed, the court expressly left open the question of whether a child born to alien parents is a "natural born citizen" because it was not necessary to the disposition of the case.

www.obamaconspiracy.org...

Birthers sure like to tell everybody else to read things they can't seem to understand themselves.

This post should be stickied - god knows every birther needs to read it, repeatedly, until it sinks in.

reply to post by longlostbrother


oh I must have missed it

Was it you who linked it?

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by longlostbrother

 

oh I must have missed it

Was it you who linked it?

repeatedly...

reply to post by longlostbrother


The obamaconspiracy . org site is put together by a guy who somewhat prefers to debunk birtherism. which of course is why you selected it.

I thought your arguments looked familiar

I will select this one to counter

drkatesview.wordpress.com...

Now we are even


That one even has a bonus conspiracy theory about Holmes

Originally posted by longlostbrother

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by longlostbrother

 

oh I must have missed it

Was it you who linked it?

repeatedly...

Oh yes, I've found it on page 7. I'm not too surprised you are using their stuff....they were using Wong Kim Ark in like 2009

You wouldn't happen to be one of their members would you?

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by longlostbrother

 

The obamaconspiracy . org site is put together by a guy who somewhat prefers to debunk birtherism. which of course is why you selected it.

I thought your arguments looked familiar

I will select this one to counter

drkatesview.wordpress.com...

Now we are even

That one even has a bonus conspiracy theory about Holmes

edit on 11-9-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-9-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-9-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

I "selected" it, because it's a handy place to reference all the truth the propagandists like to obfuscate.

Sure, it's just a collection of info, which is all sourced (you know what that means, yes?). If you want to go to the original sources and try and tear them apart, do... Fogbow just compiles and puts the sources into plain English, but it doesn't GENERATE data/evidence. Unlike say, WND.

You can't hate the fact that someone has compiled a list of all the birther lies, and explained how they are all lies, but sure, it's just a list... all the sources are there for you to read... maybe learn something in the process.

But hey, I know you're just here to spread propaganda... you have ZERO interest in the truth... it's pretty transparent at this point.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by longlostbrother

 

The obamaconspiracy . org site is put together by a guy who somewhat prefers to debunk birtherism. which of course is why you selected it.

I thought your arguments looked familiar

I will select this one to counter

drkatesview.wordpress.com...

Now we are even

That one even has a bonus conspiracy theory about Holmes

edit on 11-9-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-9-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-9-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

It only took about 30 seconds to find about eight lies on that page, like the 14th Amendment had nothing to do with defining Natural Born Citizens...

Here's a quote from the debate on the 14th Amendment:

Mr. Cowan: “I will ask whether it will not have the effect of naturalizing the children of Chinese and Gypsies born in this country?”
Mr. Trumbull: “Undoubtedly.”
...
Mr. Trumbull: “I understand that under the naturalization laws the children who are born here of parents who have not been naturalized are citizens. This is the law, as I understand it, at the present time. Is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen? I am afraid we have got very few citizens in some of the counties of good old Pennsylvania if the children born of German parents are not citizens.”

Mr. Cowan: “The honorable Senator assumes that which is not the fact. The children of German parents are citizens; but Germans are not Chinese; Germans are not Australians, nor Hottentots, nor anything of the kind. That is the fallacy of his argument.”

Mr. Trumbull: “If the Senator from Pennsylvania will show me in the law any distinction made between the children of German parents and the children of Asiatic parents, I may be able to appreciate the point which he makes; but the law makes no such distinction; and the child of an Asiatic is just as much of a citizen as the child of a European.”

memory.loc.gov.../llcg070.db&recNum=603

The problem with being a propagandist friend, is that your lies are hard to sustain, under the light of evidence.

Just believing any old birther blog, (unhindered as it is with "sources" and "facts") makes you feeble minded. Why? Well, ignorance is only ignorance until you've been told the facts... after that it's just feeble-minded ideology.

The reason why Birther blogs don't actually list sources is because they don't HAVE any.

Five recent court case judgements have been listed several times in the last few pages from which it is plain that as far as the law is concerned there is no such thing as an additional two citizen parent constitutional requirement for anyone born on US soil in order to be a NBC. Ignore the debunking or birther sites themselves, just read the actual court decisions. These are public information. They have not been manipulated by anyone and they couldn't be clearer. It is therefore currently settled law and the currently applicable interpretation of the constitution, that birth in USA is enough to make someone a NBC.

Now could those courts/judges all be wrong and have just made bad or unconstitutional decisions? Yes, of course that's "possible". However that does not appear to be what longlostbrother and others are arguing. They appear to be arguing either that these court cases did not occur or that they did occur but do not have the effect of creating the current settled law state of affairs that I've just described. Their view is backed up by nothing at all so far.

So how about longlostbrother or others now mirror the example court cases already given to them by themselves providing even one court case in which a judge has held that someone born in USA also requires to have had two citizen parents to be considered a NBC? I can however save them the trouble. There is no such case.

Alternatively perhaps longlostbrother or others can perhaps cite a single civics class text book or other course material which taught students that two citizen parents plus birth in USA were required to make someone a NBC? I can save them the trouble there too. Birthers have been searching for such a thing for four years now ever since the imaginary "two citizen parent" requirement was dreamt up by a couple of birther lawyers after it became clear to them that the claim that Obama was born outside USA was false. There is no such civics text book, no such course material and no students were ever taught that NBC required anything additional to birth on US soil.

Again on the theme of ignoring any sources who you think might be partisan and instead going straight to things like the actual court case documents, some of those who like me have a genuine interest (instead of a party political motivated one) in this subject might wish to consider reading the very detailed Congressional Research Service report on this issue. It can be found here and is crystal clear that there is no such thing as a constitutional two citizen parent requirement for anyone born on US soil.....

www.scribd.com...

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by SeventhSeal
So f'n ridiculous. If you don't like the President, don't vote for him. It's that simple.

Taitz is a complete looney.

Easy to say that about someone who got a law degree without Haaarvaard. She studied and got her law degree, passed the bar exam and everything. Her problem is her excitability and probably a lack of mentors who would give her opportunities to do internships and learn the ways of the courtroom. Also she has been dogged by a group of Obama supporters who played wicked jokes on her to purposely make her look ridiculous. These people are nasty and I have had conversations with them online. Most of the time in their chatrooms they post nasty pictures of people ridiculing them. They are good at photoshopping and other computer activities. One of them reportedly works at ICANN, or so I was told by one of their number.
You just never really know what is truly going on behind the scenes.

I also find it interesting that people here on this conspiracy site would have so much contempt for a lawyer with so many conspiracy theories.

edit on 10-9-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

I said she's a looney, not "she's not smart enough to pass her studies." Gingrich is also smart, but a sleazeball who helped impeach a former president WHILE cheating on his own wife while she was on her death bed.

Your post is invalid.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by backtolife

 

This has been discussed ad nauseum, here and everywhere else too. People keep saying that anyone born in the US is eligible to be President.
I hope this to be the last time I revisit this because I get tired trying to explain it to people who refuse to listen.

The Constitution is as clear as the nose on your face. According to Article II, Section 1, to be eligible to be president or vice president of the United States one must be a “natural born citizen.” That means born in the United States to two American citizen parents. The framers, concerned about destructive foreign influences at a time of the founding of the nation, were wary that the foreign biases of parents could tragically influence the country’s leadership, especially during its formative years. Being largely from England themselves, with British parents, the framers also knew and lived among Tories who did not want to see a new nation arise, but who, comfortable in their noble status and wealth under the British Crown, desired to continue to be ruled by King George III. They did their best to prevent the signing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776, and sought to undermine and subvert the ensuing Revolutionary War effort. Later, not willing to give up, British of their ilk attempted to retake control of the “colonies” and invaded Washington, D.C., in 1812, only to burn down the White House, among other dastardly deeds.

Indeed, as depicted in Dinesh D’Souza’s and John Sullivan’s new documentary film, “2016: Obama’s America,” the framers were also anticipating that adverse if not evil foreign influences could infest our body politic later in the nation’s history, such as has occurred with our current president, who identifies with his Kenyan, anti-neocolonialist, socialist, Muslim father. Obama’s father of his same name not only despised the United States (particularly after he was deported, having been here illegally on an expired student visa) but, consistent with his Islamic roots, also Israel, Jews and Christians in general.

www.wnd.com...

Ok now go back to your willful ignoring of the obvious.

Good day or night to you and namaste

Here is something even more obvious. The US courts categorically disagree with you about the intent of the constitution. Every single court to have so far considered the argument that the constitution requires a person born in the USA to also have had two citizen parents in order to be a NBC has dismissed the argument as having no persuasive basis.These court decisions have been posted already. Hopefully you are not denying that these court case decisions exist and are instead merely indicating that you disagree with them, which you are of course free to do.

If there is ever a court decision in the future which rules that two citizen parents are required we will all know about it very quickly. Until that happens you are stuck with the status quo and the currently settled law ie that anyone born in USA (other than the children of diplomats or a hostile invading army) is a natural born citizen.

You simply repeating over and over again that you don't think this is what the constitution meant has absolutely no effect on the current settled law. As it happens the essence of your above opinion has already been put before the courts by Appuzzo and others and been rejected by them. It could not possibly be any clearer that US law right now today is that anyone born in the USA is a natural born citizen

Your opinion and my opinion as regards whether the US courts should or should not be interpreting the constitution differently from how they are currently unanimously interpreting it, are both irrelevant and are a different subject.

The existing settled law is what the courts say it is and up to now the courts say you are wrong. As regards the future there does not seem to me to be the slightest reason to think that in the future the judiciary will ever interpret the constitution any different from how it has always interpreted it to date. If you don't like the current settled law as regards what constitutes a NBC, you are free to campaign to change it. Realistically that would probably require a constitutional amendment as you simply arguing that the constitution has been wrongly interpreted by the courts has already been attempted umpteen times and failed every time in every court (Appuzzo's latest appeal on this exact subject was dismissed last Friday).

Originally posted by hanyak69
reply to post by wascurious

 

McCain released an untouched BC, at best obama's is fraudulent.
Bush had to release his college transcipts and military record so why doesn't obama?

1. At no time has McCain ever presented any birth certificate whatsoever, touched or untouched, to any court or to the public.....nor was he ever asked to. The case brought against him failed on standing grounds and never got anywhere near an evidentiary stage. You may be confusing the fact that in the run up to the case, so called supporters of those pursuing the case against him produced a maliciously forged birth certificate (which they intended to be used against McCain until they found out it was faked).

2. No candidate or serving President in history has ever been required to release either their college transcripts or their birth certificates and no serving President (other than Obama) has ever voluntarily released either of those things. A copy of Bush college transcripts was the subject of unauthorised release by a mole. To his credit Bush then at least confirmed that what was published was genuine.

3. Obama doesn't have a military record to release as he did not serve. The Selective Service have confirmed that he registered as required and that as far as they are concerned there is nothing untoward about his registration.The date and place of his registration is in the public domain and the serial number allocated to him is entirely consistent with the serial numbers assigned to other members of the public who registered at the same post office in the same month and who have come forward. Nobody from Obama's era has ever been drafted.

I am going to clear this up for everyone.

Reptilians don't have live births, the egg was laid in Kenya, and hatched in Hawaii. It is nice and warm and humid there.

As to his likes: Obama likes personal handlers, Reggie Love in particular. He likes pickup basketball and doesn't care if he is shirts or skins, as long as someone throws it to him. He likes baths, cause who doesn't after getting all hot and sweaty with a bunch of men. He likes video games, especially flying ones where you get to blow stuff up on the ground. He likes to read but doesn't like to talk much. Most of all Obama likes his country. He is the promise of a new Dawn, Hope we can believe in, and Change in our pockets, cause that's how he roll.

Rupaul for President/2012

CNN COMMITS FRAUD IN OBAMA “BIRTHGATE”
Eligibility Cover-Up Widens
Exclusive Investigative Report by Pixel Patriot
June 2nd, 2012

pixelpatriot.blogspot.com...

The “BIRTHGATE” scandal is still unfolding after CNN committed an act of “Fraud” upon the American people on May 30th 2012 by writing, producing, editing and broadcasting a report with a microfiche copy of a long form birth certificate knowing it is not Barack Obama’s yet claiming it was.
CNN claims (Exhibit A), which is a (negative) copy of microfiche of a CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH was released by Obama 4 years ago, although he did not. What Obama purportedly released in 2008 was an online digital image of a COLB or Certification of Live Birth. They are NOT the same. He has never released microfiche. After the original digital image of the COLB became a problem because it was missing the raised seal then later photographs of other short-form documents (COLB) were released having their own problems.

Here is a screen shot of (Exhibit A) from the CNN report from the 30th:

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
CNN COMMITS FRAUD IN OBAMA “BIRTHGATE”
Eligibility Cover-Up Widens
Exclusive Investigative Report by Pixel Patriot
June 2nd, 2012

pixelpatriot.blogspot.com...

The “BIRTHGATE” scandal is still unfolding after CNN committed an act of “Fraud” upon the American people on May 30th 2012 by writing, producing, editing and broadcasting a report with a microfiche copy of a long form birth certificate knowing it is not Barack Obama’s yet claiming it was.
CNN claims (Exhibit A), which is a (negative) copy of microfiche of a CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH was released by Obama 4 years ago, although he did not. What Obama purportedly released in 2008 was an online digital image of a COLB or Certification of Live Birth. They are NOT the same. He has never released microfiche. After the original digital image of the COLB became a problem because it was missing the raised seal then later photographs of other short-form documents (COLB) were released having their own problems.

Here is a screen shot of (Exhibit A) from the CNN report from the 30th:

Have you WATCHED it?

Or are you just spreading more lies around for fun?

ac360.blogs.cnn.com...

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by wascurious

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by wascurious

 

Do you even bother to read stuff you don't selectively want to? Prez Clinton kept his license active. Didn't that link I provided have an entire description of that event when they impeached him?

What was the difference between Clinton and the Obama's law licenses?
Do you bother to read?

The difference is that Clinton renewed it even though he became President.

Actually I never even knew that till today. This is why discussions like this are so valuable. I think I learn more by the stimulation of dialogue which gives me ideas for searching.

edit on 11-9-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

I guess the difference between Arkansas and Illinois is lost on you.

Originally posted by Golf66
As I stated I don't so much question the birth location

Either you question where he was born or not, there's not grey area. If you believe that he has failed to prove that he was born in Hawaii, then you are a "birther" by definition.

I doubt his mother knows and Barrack Sr. happened to be just one of many possible men.

Well these are merely your assumptions and opinions. Fact is, you weren't at anytime involved in their personal lives. For whatever reason you've decided to question Obama's past, but neither you nor I will ever personally account for the lives of either Obama or past presidents. Accounts point to Barack Obama senior being Obama's father just like those accounts pointing to Reagan's or Clinton's fathers, personal lives. Beyond that it's your personal perceptions and opinions.

The mystery remains for me as to whether he registered as a foreign exchange student from Indonesia to get grants or reduced tuition/entry standards for quota purposes.

This would mean that he and/or parents would've had to deceive:

1. The American government over the fact Obama was born here (because if you are U.S citizen or born in the U.S, you would not be eligible for a foreign exchange in the U.S).

2. Deception over the fact one of Obama's parents is an American citizen,

3. The Indonesian government, because Indonesia forbid dual citizenship, and Obama was too young to relinquish his citizenship at that time.

So you have this idea that there may very well have been some conspiracy concocted by Obama and his parents to rip off the system, governments, in order to get a foreign scholarship. It's a rather serious and extensive accusation, especially if you really have nothing to show for it.

That would mean he is a dual citizen since he made the claim after the age of 18. Which as some have said is not a disqualifier.

No where in the constitution does dual citizenship specifically disqualify you from the presidency. Other American presidents, including Chester Arthur, held dual citizenship by virtue of their British and Irish fathers and mothers. Obama lost his dual citizenship at the age of 23 years as Kenya had forbid dual citizenship at that time. Obama was not eligible for Indonesian citizenship during his time there because he was too young to relinquish his American citizenship and had not resided there for a sufficient period of time.

Oh the hypocrisy.

Originally posted by hanyak69
McCain released an untouched BC,

Neither the McCain campaign nor the RNC official released a birth certificate or officially recognized one. A guy called Holland waged a lawsuit against McCain in 2008 and presented what he claimed to be McCain's birth certificate with the name of a hospital that was not situated within American Naval territory. He was disputing whether McCain was eligible for being born outside of U.S territory in the Panama.

Bush had to release his college transcipts and military record

What do these have to do with where he was born? What is a college record going to tell you about where he was born? If you're waiting for birth certificates, he released both the short form and long form, both verified by state officials. You just choose not to accept it, either because you've already made up your mind, or you have personal issues about letting go this conspiracy.

Birthers and Truthers, silly people all looking in the wrong place.
No need to go all the way back to his birth or his schooling in Indonesia to find the truth.
Once upon a time Obama was elected a Senator form Illinois
It was a bit of a surprise. He only won because his opponent disappeared and he won by default
So?
So no one expected it. He came out of (politically) nowhere
So?
So of course the people in Illinois were curious about who this new unknown was who was going to represent them.
So?
So every local newspaper, magazine and even mom and pop newspaper in the state ran a story on their new Senator. But where did they get their stories from?
Ask anyone in the newspaper business and they'll tell you they, of course, called the Obama for Senate camp for the "official biography".
And where did this "official biography" come from?
Why from the pro-Obama people working to get him elected
And common sense says someone got an O.K. from Obama before releasing it.
This is a source Obama can not suppress. Too many copies in too many libraries.
I've only seen a couple of these reports, one magazine, two newspapers, talking about how this young fellow from Kenya was now a U.S. senator.
I admit I didn't look for more but then there was no argument back then and everyone seemed to be in basic agreement probably because they were all working off the same release from the Obama camp.
I could tell you I read that this new senator was born in Kenya which would be a very strange thing for Obama's people to be passing on to the press if it weren't true.
But please don't talke my word for it. There must be thousands of articles in Illinois telling their readers all about their new representative. This is where you should be looking.
But if I am remembering this correctly then I'm left trying to explain why all those obvious racist (why else would they deny his citizenship) worked so hard to get Obama elected.
Curiouser and curiouser