Challenging Obama's Eligibility to be President

[Aplomb]

Just an FYI: There's not just one or two cases in process, Brian. And with threads such as ours, the word is getting out and like I said, a LOT is happening behind the scenes. It looks like something is actually going to come of this afterall, Rick, I know really hard to believe. There was just another case filed by a former Democrat Senator from Texas, by the name of Hunter. I think at this time, it's 5 in front of the SCOTUS, and at least 10 more seem to be on the way.

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/106778-0/

Barack, The Amazing Mr. Obama


By Mark S. McGrew
Barack Obama is truly an amazing man, with many amazing friends. He has succeeded where countless others have failed. And he has also succeeded where many before him have succeeded with the same time honored methods.



He has managed to create an illusion of a Public Office that does not exist, The Office of the President Elect.


Barry Sotero, AKA Barack Obama, along with the Democratic National Committee and the Federal Election Commission have successfully ignored a Federal Lawsuit asking him to produce a valid Birth Certificate. When the time to respond to that lawsuit expired, under Federal Court Rules, they all admitted that he was not a citizen of The United States of America and deemed to have committed fraud. A normal man would have been found to have admitted he was not a US citizen.


But the man with no visible past, was blessed by a light shining from above on a Federal Judge, by having the lawsuit against him dismissed, three weeks after his non-response was proof that he is not a US citizen.


That lawsuit has since been taken to the US Supreme Court, where Obama, the Democratic National Committee and the Federal Election Commission have until December 1, 2008 to answer the complaint made against them.


Another lawsuit by another attorney against him to prove he is a US citizen has been scheduled for a conference of Justices of the US Supreme Court on December 5, 2008.


Full documentation of the Philip Berg lawsuit can be seen here at ObamaCrimes.com and a copy of a full page ad regarding this in the Washington Times can be seen here.


A full page ad in the Chicago Tribune, asking Obama to prove his citizenship can be seen here.


Other lawsuits landed in the Supreme Court of The United States can be seen here.


Alan Keyes, a Presidential candidate has also filed a lawsuit in California Supreme Court to not certify the California Electors of the US Electoral College until Obama can prove that he is a US citizen. It is those Electors who decide who shall be President of the United States of America on December 15, 2008. That lawsuit can be seen here.


Barack Obama promised people what they wanted: Hope and Change, without ever saying what that hope and change were going to be. One of Obama’s much praised abilities is his way of being very articulate in his speeches.


Every con man walking free or in jail is an articulate speaker. Who would give their trust to a man who could not use the right words to convince his targets to trust him?



Articulate speaking is no way to judge or rate the integrity of a person.


Every con game uses three ingredients against the target: Sell the dream. Push the greed button. Stress urgency.


Obama sold the dream of hope and change so desperately wanted by the American voters. He pushed the greed button by promising to take from the rich to give to the poor. And he stressed urgency by himself and his wife telling voters to vote early.



Another final nail in the coffin a con man uses against his targets is “The Jack Call”. After your sucker has committed himself to buying your offer, but has not sent the check, the con man calls him with “Good news!!!” and constantly re-sells his target until the check has cleared and the funds are in the con man’s bank account.


The non-existent Office of the President Elect is the Jack Call. The constant news shots of his “involvement and concern” in national and world issues are the repeated Jack Calls.


It remains to be seen if Barry Sotero, Barack Obama or whatever his name is, is appointed President by the Electoral College.


The only “Certificate of Birth” that he has produced is not a Birth Certificate. It is a Certificate of Live Birth, which any foreign citizen can obtain by simply showing up at the Vital Records department of the State of Hawaii and showing the original Birth Certificate from the original birth place, regardless of what country the birth took place in. Forensic records experts have stated that the document Obama produced on his web site is a forgery.


The only comment made by the Hawaii Department of Vital Records is that they “Have seen the original Birth Certificate”. They never once have said he was born in Hawaii.


None of these lawsuits and suspicions mean as much as the fact that Obama can easily dispel all the legal actions and mistrust by simply producing a valid Birth Certificate. It matters not in the least that he has not proven his attendance at Harvard and Columbia University. It does not matter that any number of claims about his past and his experience have not been validated.



The only thing that matters is that he refuses to produce a valid Birth Certificate and instead spends thousands of dollars on attorneys and defies Federal lawsuits and State lawsuits asking him to produce one single piece of paper that most every citizen of every nation of the world has easy and rapid access to.


But beyond all of that controversy, there is one subject in this man’s activities that is truly astounding: There is absolutely no proof whatsoever that his beloved grandmother actually died on the day before the election as his campaign said she did.



He said he would attend her funeral “In a few days”. He never did. Then he said he would have a funeral for her around the end of the year. What kind of person keeps their grandmother’s body on ice for two months? What kind of a person would play on the death of his grandmother to win “the sympathy vote”? Where is the proof that she died when she said she did? Normally, we could simply learn from the local coroner of a well known person’s death. But the only public comment made by the Honolulu Medical Examiner, who acts as coroner in Honolulu, Hawaii was, “We didn’t work that case.”


Barack Obama may just win his place in history as the greatest con man of all time. A hundred million people believed him and spent 600 million dollars to get him “elected” to the highest office in America, without ever knowing if he is or is not eligible to even run as an American citizen. It is either amazing that he will pull it off or it is amazing that so many millions of people believed him.


If the Electoral College appoints him as President of The United States of America on December 5, 2008 and Congress ratifies that choice, and it is later proven that he is not a US citizen, then not one single word he utters will be valid as representing this country. The Courts, our police, our military will have no duty to obey anything he signs. It is also possible that certain people, who were part of and promoted the con, may be charged with Treason.


And if he does prove that he is a US citizen the questions remain: Why did he fight so long and so hard to not show that simple, single piece of paper when asked? Why would a man subject so many citizens of his country and leaders of other nations to such mistrust?

Mark S. McGrew can be reached at McGrewMX@aol.com

[samizdat]

It's embarrassing. Nothing on Fox, CNN, major networks nor major rags. A few piecemeal anti-look see spot run articles on msn, wsj, csn.

...analysis- US media is more commybiased and dictated than even Russky commy media. And to boot- US voters voted for a commy terrorist-linked, pro-satanic child sacrifice and torture, gay adoption advocate.

If you read it in pravda- well- it's true.

[American Patriot]

Fox covered it yesterday. In fact Hannity I believe said some stuff about it.

[vector7]

Berg v. Obama: The Day of Reckoning

Thomas J. Latino, Esq.

The deadline has come and gone. At 5pm Eastern Standard Time, yesterday, December 1st, 2008 the case of Berg v. Obama reached a seminal moment. Yesterday was the deadline for the Obama legal team to file their response to the Berg Petition for a Writ of Certiorari. There was nothing. According to the Supreme Court's docket for the case nothing was filed overnight. Mr. Obama has done what hasn't been done before, he has made history twice, Mr. Obama has blatantly ignored a request from the Supreme Court of the United States—our highest and most revered legal institution; Mr. Obama, quiet frankly has thumbed his nose at the highest court in our land.

Being an attorney, I know full well that Rule 11 of the United States Supreme Court does not specifically dictate a Respondent file a reply brief "unless specifically ordered by the Court"—and to be fair we have no evidence to show that Mr. Obama was indeed ordered by the Court to produce such a reply. However, it is out of sheer reverence and respect for the institution, if not to underscore the merits of your case and the lacking of your opponents' that almost ALL Respondents file some sort of reply with the court. Mr. Obama's actions yesterday reek of a type of arrogance that even I as an attorney never displayed to any court nor have I ever witnessed such flippant behavior during my legal career.

This is not some low level circuit court; this is the United States Supreme Court. Why would the Obama legal team find it necessary to work so diligently in the Federal Court in Pennsylvania filing Motions to Dismiss and Protective Orders and not even file a Waiver of Rights with the Supreme Court? One can surmise two logical possible explanations for Mr. Obama's strategy: (1) Mr. Obama is putting all his chips on the hopes that 4 justices will view Mr. Berg's petition as laughable and deny his Petition for the Writ and (2) Refer to #1.

So what now? Now the issue rests with 9 robed clad justices residing in the inner most chambers of America's most revered legal institution. We will know more likely than not before the week is out whether or not the court will hear this case. The justices now find themselves in a most unenviable position. They have to way the consequences of their actions. If they vote

What if they deny Berg's petition? That answer is relatively simple. This issue goes away once and for all. The other 14 lawsuits pending in various states will suffer a mortal blow—all the district courts in those cases will do is cite the US Supreme Court case of Berg v. Obama ___ US____ (2008) as binding precedent and that will be that.

What will the justices have to consider? These 9 justices are charged with deciding if one American citizen has the standing to legitimately challenge the constitutional qualifications of our President-Elect. A man who will be our leader, our public servant, our Commander in Chief; a man who will, god forbid, be charged with the responsibility of sending our sons, daughters, husbands, wives, aunts, uncles, cousins, brothers and sisters into harms way to fight and possibly die for our beloved nation. The court will determine if Berg is directly injured by Obama's transgressions. If Berg has any siblings in the US Armed forces, it would seem he would have a direct interest and the possibility for direct harm if the President sent his sibling to fight and die should not have been allowed to serve in the first place.

Indeed, all Americans would have a vested interest and thus standing.

As noteworthy as this argument is, the court has not forgotten Bush v. Gore and the fallout that decision created. There are those on the court that remember the hit the court's approval rating took after many on the left accused it of "stealing" an election and "injecting law into a political, democratic process". These are valid arguments; after all, judges are political animals at heart; they have to be elected to the local circuit and to be successfully elected one has to be a decent politician. It is for this reason that I am still uncertain as to what the court will ultimately decide.

On one hand we have the gravity of the US Constitution, Article 2 Section 1; on the other we have a court who has its ear to the ground, who can ascertain the public fallout not only if they agree to hear the case but if the eventually were to find for Berg. It is very likely, the court will decide to simply "punt" the issue and avoid opening a can of worms.

I conclude this article with a simple question that I realize will generate a myriad of responses, "If Mr. Berg, an American citizen, does not hold the right to challenge the constitutional requirements of the President-Elect of the United States, then who among us will ever; who among us will have the authority to challenge such an individual if there are legitimate questions surrounding his or her qualifications?" Some will undoubtedly answer that Congress is the only one to hold such authority. Do we really want a partisan, elected body -many of them belonging to the same party as the President-Elect involved in such an issue? Allowing Congressmen to interject themselves would turn the process into some sort of morbid, grand-standing ploy, everyone clamoring for their 15 seconds of fame. This issue is something Congress would be to inept to handle.

If Berg's Petition is granted, it will be an oral argument session that will go down as one of the seminal moments in the judiciary's 200 year history.

There is no greater charge entrusted to the Supreme Court than to prevent any grievous usurpation of the US Constitution; it is there solemn duty—regardless of political ideology or identification—to entrust the fundamental rule of law is upheld. to hear the case, do they stay the Electoral College vote? And if they find for Berg what then? Do we have new elections if Mr. Obama fails to show he is a natural born citizen and who will be responsible for setting a time table?

http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...ama.html?cat=9

[Aplomb]

http://www.afro.com/tabid/456/itemid...k-at-Obam.aspx

I can't bring anything over from the National News article but it can be viewed at the link.

[samizdat]

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=82640







The end of the constitutional republic?

[Ryan Ruck]

Republican Senator Mel Martinez Sends Letter: It Doesn't Matter Whether Or Not Obama Is A Citizen

Elevator reserved for Senators, Presidency open to anyone in the world.

And what pieces of the United States Constitution are to be dismantled and discarded next, Senator? And at whose discretion and to what purpose? In order to promote the general welfare and the common good? If so, then why would the most fundamental national security requirement of the nation's leader, which protects it against interests opposed to its own, be the first to be cast off in the era of the One? One. Him. What it's all about, what we are expected to be all about. Which telegraphs everything we can expect of tomorrow.

According to his letter, Senator Martinez says it is the voters' responsibility to act as an agent of the Federal Government, and verify the authenticity of a candidate or President's natural born citizenship, since no specific person or agency is named in the Constitution as being responsible to do so.

At the same time, he says that the judgement of the court in the Berg case, which is that an American voter has no standing to demand any proof of natural born citizenship, is to be respected. Well, Senator, if it's the voter's job to see the evidence, but at the same time the voter is guaranteed by law not to be allowed to see the evidence upon demand, then it is impossible for the voter to do the job you say the Constitution has mandated him to do. Which is to say that your position is that no person shall ever be required to offer proof that they meet the most fundamental national security requirement of a President of the United States.

Senator Martinez also misstates the Court's position by saying: "The District Court dismissed Mr. Berg's suit and held that the question of Obama's citizenship is not a matter for a court to decide. The court further noted that voters, not courts, should decide whether a particular presidential candidate is qualified to hold office." He is telling a flat out lie here, a lie of omission, because he does not want to point out the obvious Catch-22 of his position on whether or not a candidate can be compelled to provide proof of his natural born citizenship. He does not tell you that the Court decided Mr. Berg had no standing to demand proof of Obama's citizenship because Mr. Berg was merely a lowly American citizen and voter.

We are in trouble, ladies and gentlemen, from day One…

From reader Tom In Fla:

"I don't hold out too much hope that the truth will come out. The ruling class is protecting out for each other. Check out this response I received from my Republican Senator:"

Thank you for contacting me regarding President-Elect Obama's citizenship. I appreciate hearing from you and would like to respond to your concerns.

Like you, I believe that our federal government has the responsibility to make certain that the Constitution of the United States is not compromised. We must fight to uphold our Constitution through our courts and political processes.

Article II of the Constitution provides that "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." The Constitution, however, does not specify how that qualification for office is to be enforced. As you may know, a voter recently raised this issue before a federal court in Pennsylvania. On October 24, 2008, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania released an order in the case of Berg v.Obama.In that case, the plaintiff, Phillip Berg, raised the same issue that your letter raises regarding proof of the President-Elect's birthplace. Through his lawsuit, Mr. Berg sought to compel President-Elect Obama to produce a certified copy of his birth certificate.

The District Court dismissed Mr. Berg's suit and held that the question of Obama's citizenship is not a matter for a court to decide. The court further noted that voters, not courts, should decide whether a particular presidential candidate is qualified to hold office.

Presidential candidates are vetted by voters at least twice - first in the primary elections and again in the general election. President-Elect Obama won the Democratic Party's nomination after one of the most fiercely contested presidential primaries in American history. And, he has now been duly elected by the majority of voters in the United States. Throughout both the primary and general election, concerns about Mr. Obama's birthplace were raised. The voters have made clear their view that Mr. Obama meets the qualifications to hold the office of President.

After he is sworn into office, Mr. Obama will be our nation's President and I intend to bestow upon him the honor and respect due any man who holds that Office. Yet, I am certain that there will be times when I will disagree and oppose President Obama's policies. When that happens, you can be assured that I will pursue vigorously what I believe to be in the best interest of Florida and the nation.

I thank you for sharing your views with me and will keep your concerns in mind. If you have additional questions or comments, please contact me. For more information about issues and activities important to Florida, please sign up for my weekly newsletter at http://martinez.senate.gov.

Sincerely,

Mel Martinez
United States Senator

[Aplomb]

http://www.abc2news.com/news/local/s...uvvdJpxsQ.cspx

Terry Owens says:

The Afro American Newspapers first reported the story on it's website Wednesday night.

It is like somebody making an excuse for citing the forbidden news in our own United Socialist States of America, pointing the finger at somebody else who did it first and only doing it a little bit. Seriously. It's exactly 4 sentences long, even though in his opening he admits:

All eyes will be on the Supreme Court Friday

.

I'm not quoting the little blurb because of this:

Copyright 2008 The E.W. Scripps Co. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

HUH???

[Ryan Ruck]

Don't worry about posting the article Aplomb... Fair Use laws. If there are objections, the publisher can contact us about any disputes.

[Aplomb]

Okay, Ryan, then here we go:

http://www.abc2news.com/news/local/s...uvvdJpxsQ.cspx

Supreme Court To Hear Obama Case

Reported by: Terry Owens Email: owens@wmar.com Reported by: Terry Owens Reported by: Terry Owens Last Update: 6:15 pm

All eyes will be on the Supreme Court Friday when the justices will consider a lawsuit that alleges Senator Barack Obama was not qualified to be on the New Jersey ballot. The lawsuit was filed by attorney Leo Donofrio who is questioning Obama's citizenship. The Afro American Newspapers first reported the story on it's website Wednesday night. The high court hearing will come just 10 days before the Electoral College meets to certify the election results.

Copyright 2008 The E.W. Scripps Co. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

For 3 months now, the challenging of the Constitutional eligibility of one man legally has been on-going and hard fought. Yet there has been a silence about the issue even among the conservative talk radio programs. Now this reporter from ABC takes a brave step out yet 1 out of 4 of his statements is an attempt to blame somebody else for doing it first! What I ask you is going on??? And what about this material may not be published? Since when? When are people going to stop saying that there is nothing we can do? Make the time to get involved and stand up! It's your country, make them take it from you, don't just give it to them.

[Aplomb]

I had been waiting for this to be confirmed. For the record:

http://americamustknow.com/default.aspx

12/2/08 - Wrotnowski sent a renewed application for an emergency stay to the SCOTUS on Saturday and should of been docketed on Monday, 12/1/08. Well, lo and behold, instead of docketing the case, the paper work was sent to an anthrax containment facility! What kind of bologna is this? Wrotnowski hand delivers paperwork on 12/2/08 and clerk should recieve it by 2PM.
12/2/08 - Wrotnowski's case is on the docket as of 3:12 PM with a date of 11/29/08

[Aplomb]

http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=1500#more-1500


We already know that Obama’s family and the entire nation of Kenya (which is about to have a national holiday for Obama) know that Barack Obama was born in Mombasa Coastal Hospital in Kenya. The government of Kenya has sealed these records. More and more secrecy due to the fact that once proven, Obama will not be constitutionally allowed to become President of the United States!
All of these were called from November 20 - December 2nd 2008. It is confirmed, OBAMA not born in any hospital in Honolulu County! NONE FACT!

Hospitals you can check yourself

• The Queen’s Medical Center - Honolulu, Hawaii Obama claims as his birth hospital
  
• Kapi’ olani Medical Center Obama’s sister claims Barack Obama born here
• Honolulu Shriners Hospital Never a patient Mom or Obama
• Straub Clinic & Hospital Never a patient Mom or Obama
• Hawaii Health Systems Corporation - Honolulu, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama
• Cancer Institute of Maui - Wailuku, Hawaii No Comment ???
  
• Kuakini Hospital - Honolulu, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama
• Rehabilitation Hospital of the Pacific - Honolulu, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama
• St. Francis Healthcare System of Hawaii - Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama
• Straub Heatlh - Honolulu, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama
• Tripler Medical Center - Honolulu, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama
• Wahiawa General Hospital - Wahiawa, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama
• Wilcox Memorial Hospital - Lihue, Kauai, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama

We were pretty detailed in our calls. You can look at every hospital here and call any of them. You can file freedom of information acts, you can do everything and anything you wish. Barack Obama was never born in a hospital in Hawaii as claimed.
Only his original that he has sealed will have this info. Will the Supreme Court force it open and thus preserve the Constitution of the United States?

[Aplomb]

Please pray and fast. Tomorrow is the big day.

I hand wrote letters to all 9 of the Supreme Court Justices. I didn't have the time. It wasn't easy to write the letters and include necessary information and yet keep it to one page, and there is risk of retaliation and/or being put on a government naughty list. But I included my full legal name, address, and phone number. If I can do something, everybody can do something.

Let me tell you about a man in Littleton, Colorado. He has been trying to find out who is responsible for verifying the eligibility of U.S. Presidential candidates. He has contacted and received responses from different states regarding who has the responsibility and by what process eligibility was determined until he has what he considers enough information to conclude that there are no checks and balances in place; and as a consequence he has proposed a ballot initiative to solve this issue. Way to go, Justin! http://www.yourfellowcitizen.com/200...nitiative.html
I am sure that he does not have the time to do this. Yet he is. (And I wish this had been done prior to the 2008 general election.)

[Aplomb]

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/Mr-Obamas-Eligibility-Aired-Monday/story.aspx?guid={35E191D7-D7BD-4722-BAF1-E6C0CBC18EA3}

PRESS RELEASE
Mr. Obama's Eligibility to be Aired Monday at the National Press Club





Last update: 3:18 p.m. EST Dec. 4, 2008



QUEENSBURY, N.Y., Dec 04, 2008 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX/ -- On Monday, December 8, 2008, at 1:30 pm, the We The People Foundation will conduct a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington D.C.

The licensed attorneys who initiated lawsuits in PA (Philip Berg), NJ (Leo Donofrio) and CA (Orly Taitz), challenging Mr. Obama's legal eligibility to hold the Office of President of the United States, will briefly summarize the facts, legal arguments and status of their cases. They will answer questions from the press.

Prior to the start of the conference, at 10 am, the Supreme Court of the United States is expected to announce whether it will consider applications from these attorneys who have asked the Court to delay the proceedings of the Electoral College pending a determination of the underlying constitutional question - the meaning of the "natural born citizen" clause of Article II of the Constitution and its application to Mr. Obama.

Robert Schulz will briefly discuss Mr. Obama's response to the publication of his Open Letter in the Chicago Tribune on Monday and Wednesday of this week. For the reasons given in the Open Letter, Schulz asked Mr. Obama to: (1) immediately authorize Hawaiian officials to provide a team of forensic scientists access to his original ("vault") birth certificate and (2) arrange for the delivery of other documents needed to conclusively establish Obama's citizenship status. Mr. Schulz will answer questions from the press.

"Under our Constitution, no one is eligible to assume the Office of the President unless he or she is a 'natural born citizen,'" said Bob Schulz, Chairman of the Foundation. "To date, Mr. Obama has refused all requests to release his original birth certificate or other documents that would definitively establish his citizenship status and thus his constitutional eligibility."

The Open Letter to Mr. Obama summarizes the evidence against Mr. Obama and the adverse consequences that would befall the Nation should he assume the Office of the President as a usurper.

"Should the state members of the Electoral College cast their votes for Mr. Obama in the face of such overwhelming evidence, and without verification of Mr. Obama's eligibility, they would be committing treason to the Constitution," said Schulz.

www.WeThePeopleFoundation.org
SOURCE We The People Foundation For Constitutional Education, Inc.

http://www.WeThePeopleFoundation.org

Copyright (C) 2008 PR Newswire. All rights reserved

[Aplomb]

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/nat...,6297587.story

From the Chicago Tribune Tax activist's ad challenges Obama's eligibility for office

The Tribune examines allegations about president-elect's 'natural born citizen' status

By Sara Olkon and James Janega |Chicago Tribune reporters

10:23 AM EST, December 3, 2008

Excerpt:

Here are the allegations raised in Schulz's ad, and some relevant facts:

•The birth form released by Obama was "an unsigned, forged and thoroughly discredited" live birth form, Schulz says.

Last summer, Obama's campaign presented a digital copy of his certificate of live birth. After critics questioned its authenticity, staff at FactCheck.org, a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, said they had seen, held and examined the actual birth certificate.

•"Hawaiian officials will not confirm" that Obama was born in their state, Schulz says.

Initially, Hawaiian officials said that privacy laws prevented them from releasing a copy or confirming that Obama's copy was authentic. But in late October as questions persisted, Hawaii's health director and head of vital statistics reviewed Obama's birth certificate in the department's vault and vouched for its authenticity.

•Schulz says that legal affidavits state Obama was born in Kenya.

The affidavits that Schulz refers to are filings by the Obama critics themselves in the court cases challenging Obama's citizenship.

•Obama's paternal grandmother is recorded on tape saying she attended Obama's birth in Kenya, Schulz says.

The group's Web site posted what it says is a transcript of a long-distance phone conversation in Swahili and English from late October between a questioner in the United States and Sarah Hussein Obama, in her Kenyan home. The translator said he was one of two interpreters conducting the interview in a crowded hut during a celebration, over a speaker phone that dropped the call three times. A copy of the recording was not provided by Schulz.

• Schulz says that "U.S. law in effect in 1961 [the year of Obama's birth] denied citizenship to any child born in Kenya if the father was Kenyan and the mother was not yet 19 years of age."

If a child is born in the United States—as Hawaiian officials state that Obama was—that child is a U.S. citizen regardless of his or her parents' nationalities. If born to an American parent outside the U.S., the law at the time would require the U.S. citizen parent to be at least 19, which Obama's mother was not. The provisions of this law were subsequently loosened and made retroactive for government employees serving abroad and their families. It appears that this would not apply to Obama's mother. The matter would seem to be academic: Hawaiian officials vouch for Obama's birth certificate.

•Schulz says that in 1965, Obama's mother relinquished whatever Kenyan or U.S. citizenship she and Obama had by marrying an Indonesian and becoming a naturalized Indonesian citizen.

U.S. law lists the specific acts and formal procedures necessary to relinquish U.S. nationality. The statute requires the acts be performed voluntarily and with the intention of relinquishing one's nationality. In many instances, one must be 18 to renounce one's citizenship. Obama moved to Indonesia in 1968 and moved back to Hawaii while still in grade school. There is no indication that Obama renounced his U.S. citizenship.

Schulz supports his argument with a reproduced Indonesian school document that states Obama's citizenship at that time as "Indonesian." But the same document also lists Obama's birthplace as " Honolulu, Hawaii."

Schulz, interviewed by the Tribune on Tuesday, said his concern about Obama's citizenship is not partisan.

"We never get involved in politics," he said of We The People. "We avoid it like the plague."

Tax debate is fair game, however. The Queensbury, N.Y., man has been active on tax issues for nearly 30 years. Last year, a senior judge in the Northern District of New York ordered Schulz to shut down a Web site that sold advice on avoiding taxes.

Asked about the case, Schulz said the government has tried to silence him.

He hopes the Tribune ads bring his group prominence.

Schulz said his group also considered a similar ad in USA Today, but said the cost was prohibitive. He said his group considered both the Chicago Sun-Times and the Tribune, but said his group settled on the Tribune because of the size of its pages and its larger circulation. He would not specify how much his group spent on two days of full-page ads except to say they cost tens of thousands of dollars and were paid for by donations from supporters.

A Tribune advertising spokesman said the newspaper has standards for what ads it will accept and that the ad met those standards.

solkon@tribune.com

jjanega@tribune.com

[American Patriot]

The Supreme Court isn't HEARING the case.

The Supreme is going to DECIDED if they will HEAR the case.

There's a big difference.

They don't have to see it, hear it or talk about it - and I'm betting money they won't hear it. They will refuse to bring the case in, if there isn't sufficient evidence.

The thing is, by US law, Obama doesn't have to PROVE anything. he's INNOCENT until someone PROVES he's guilty.

if they SCOTUS doesn't feel this case is worthy of their time (it's a CONSPIRACY THEORY as far as most people are concerned) they WILL SIMPLY REFUSE.

My bet is on them taking the easy way out right now.

In my lifetime I've seen hundreds if not thousands of cases that are very important, and earthshaking, simply ignored.

This is going to be no different.

(Now, with all that said know that I understand when I make predictions I'm usually wrong!) haha

[samizdat]

Eligibility dispute story spreads
Now National Press Club event scheduled on challenge to Oval Office occupant

---

Posted: December 05, 2008
10:00 pm Eastern



By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

Barack Obama

Questions raised over Barack Obama's citizenship are reaching into the National Press Club now, with an event scheduled Monday at which an activist group will call for the release of documentation proving his eligibility to occupy the Oval Office.

[samizdat]

api-
The tape has not yet been released, API has refused to be dictated by any parties involved and instead has planned for release either before the 15th of December or immediately thereafter, but not after the US presidential inauguration day. API and the MBOs have decided to do it this way in order to avoid emotional Americans getting carried away one way or another if things do not go the way they so dearly wish after the tape is released.
The Imam document on Mr Obama as concerns his originality is also one of the things that has given the American people a lot of emotional feelings and the book will dwell deeply on the divisions the document has caused among API readers. Emotions deeply rooted that seems to have endangered people’s lives.

[Ryan Ruck]

The Supreme Court isn't HEARING the case.

The Supreme is going to DECIDED if they will HEAR the case.

There's a big difference.

They don't have to see it, hear it or talk about it - and I'm betting money they won't hear it. They will refuse to bring the case in, if there isn't sufficient evidence.

The thing is, by US law, Obama doesn't have to PROVE anything. he's INNOCENT until someone PROVES he's guilty.

if they SCOTUS doesn't feel this case is worthy of their time (it's a CONSPIRACY THEORY as far as most people are concerned) they WILL SIMPLY REFUSE.

My bet is on them taking the easy way out right now.

In my lifetime I've seen hundreds if not thousands of cases that are very important, and earthshaking, simply ignored.

This is going to be no different.

(Now, with all that said know that I understand when I make predictions I'm usually wrong!) haha

Unfortunately, I agree. SCOTUS hearing Heller was the exception to the rule. In modern times, it seems SCOTUS has been averse to hearing controversial cases.

[samizdat]

A spokesman for the court said the decision on whether to hear the suit brought by retired New Jersey lawyer Leo Donofrio is likely to be announced next week.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/06/obama-challenge-awaits-a-decision/