40 thoughts on “Various Other Cases Against Obama”

  1. Will someone please make obama prove he is a natural born citizen before he destories this nation…. this is the worst case of fraud in the history of man kind.. and possibly treason…. this sucks that any one could get over on the american people and its constitution it is ubsurd …… this is insulting and an invation of our national security!!! and by all means must be corrected… open any seald files… there is nothing more important than protecting our govenment from imposters… how did an imposter get this far in our govenment??? why wont some body do some thing we should also be learning from this… we have a right to know!!

  2. Response in Opposition to Motion to Amend Memorandum of Law In Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (O’Sullivan, John) (Entered: 01/26/2009)
    01/26/2009 27 Notice of Adoption/Joinder by Obama for America,Inc. Related document: 25 Response in Opposition to Motion filed by Florida Campaign for Change, Luis R. Garcia, Bruno Lopez, Lucy Laflemme, Damian Perez, Oliva Lopez [See Image at DE #26] (ls) (Entered: 01/28/2009)
    01/28/2009 28 Clerks Notice of Docket Correction and Instruction to Filer re 26 Notice (Other) filed by Obama for America,Inc.. Error – Wrong Event Selected; Correction – Redocketed by Clerk as Notice of Adoption. Instruction to Filer – In the future, please select the proper event. It is not necessary to refile this document. (ls) (Entered: 01/28/2009)
    02/04/2009 29 ORDER Resetting Hearing on Motion 6 MOTION to Dismiss 1 Complaint, and Incorporated Memorandum of Law, 5 Defendant’s MOTION to Dismiss 1 Complaint, : Motion Hearing set for 2/27/2009 02:30 PM in Miami Division before Judge Alan S. Gold.. Signed by Judge Alan S. Gold on 2/3/2009. (tb) (Entered: 02/04/2009)

    11 | OBAMA, B.H. | hidce | 1:2009cv00048 | 02/03/2009 | 440 | Open | Roy vs. Obama

    Refile a third time

    U.S. District Court
    District of Hawaii (Hawaii)
    CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:09-cv-00048-DAE-LEK

    Roy vs. Obama
    Assigned to: JUDGE DAVID ALAN EZRA
    Cause: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
    Date Filed: 02/03/2009
    Jury Demand: None
    Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other
    Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

    Date Filed # Docket Text
    02/03/2009 1 COMPLAINT filed by Kamal K. Roy against B.H. Obama, Rob Blagojevich. (Attachments: # 1 Mailing documentation) ~ DOCUMENT RETAINED IN CASE FILE ~ (Entered: 02/04/2009)
    02/03/2009 2 Order Setting Rule 16 Scheduling Conference for 09:00AM on 5/4/2009 before JUDGE LESLIE E KOBAYASHI. Signed by Chief JUDGE HELEN GILLMOR on 2/3/2009. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum re Corporate Disclosure Statements) (afc) (Entered: 02/04/2009)
    02/03/2009 3 APPLICATION to Proceed in forma pauperis by Plaintiff Kamal K. Roy. ~ the attached image of Mr. Roy’s IFP application represents a duplicate of the 7th and 8th page of Mr. Roy’s Complaint ~ (cc: DAE) (afc) (Entered: 02/04/2009)

  3. 1Lishell,

    I feel like you want people concerned about Mr. O’s past and any possible election fraud to accept your help in abandoning their erroneous opinions.

    It is kind of you to volunteer to guide us to the light. Would you please tell us a little about yourself and why you feel the need to help us?

  4. 1Lishell

    Sorry for being a pest but I like to understand things rather than just accept what is said. Are you saying that if you are “born or naturalized in the United States”, as stated in the 14th amendment makes you a Citizen, this also makes you a “natural born Citizen”.

    1. A citizen born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof would be a natural born citizen, yes. A naturalized citizen would obviously not be a natural born citizen.

  5. ILishell

    I have looked at the 14th Amendment and I do not see any reference to “natural born citizen” just to being a citizen. Article 2 section 1 of the Constitution uses the language “natural born Citizen, or a Citizen”. To me this means they have different requirements. Can you explain how the 14th Amendment equates being a “citizen” to being a “natural born citizen”.

    1. As I’ve said on here several times, the 14th Amendment confers birthright citizenship, which is synonymous with natural born. Nowhere in the Constitution does it mention anything about birthright+ citizenship.

      See my response to Kathy, above on why birthright+ is not a correct interpretation of natural born citizen.

  6. The 14th amendment does not specify whether a “native born citizen” is the same as a “natural born citizen”. All “natural born citizens” are “native citizens”, but the reverse is not necessarily true. (E. G. All women are females, but not all females are women.) The architect of the 14th amendment would not have recognized Mr. O or Wong Kim Arc as “natural born citizens” either. Wong Kim Arc was born and raised in the United States by two legal, long term, resident non-citizens. He was not declared a “natural born citizen” by the Supreme Court, but a “citizen”. He would have been a “native born citizen”.

    “Natural born citizenship” is mentioned in many laws on the books that generally and inconsistently include more individuals as “natural born”. The inconsistent enforcement of those laws (children born abroad of two citizen parents, one parent on active duty in the military, required to “naturalize” in some cases and not in others) has added to the confusion about what is a “natural born citizen”.

    Like I said above, the definition of natural born citizenship can only can be tested in Court by an individual seeking the Presidency who was not born on US soil or not born of two US citizen parents. No other Court test is relevant. With the possibility that a terrorist born of two non-citizen parents and not raised in our culture could become President under the popular definition of “natural born citizenship”, we need a clarification of exactly what is a “natural born citizen” as specified in the Constitution as a requirement for the President of the United States, or a modern equivalent status that would protect the United States as the Framers intended.

    1. Kathy,
      Intent doesn’t matter in interpreting statutes. I don’t care if the Framers intended for the first amendment to mean that we get free lollipops every Friday.

      I quote Justice Scalia’s book, “A Matter of Interpretation:”

      “In expounding this law, the judgement of the court cannot, in any degree, be influenced by the construction placed upon it by individual members of Congress in the debate which took place on its passage, nor by the motives or reasons assigned by them for supporting or opposing amendments that were offered. The law as it passed is the will of the majority of both houses, and the only mode in which that will is spoken is in the act itself; and we must gather their intention from the language there used…”

      Later, while discussing how to interpret the Constitution, he says:

      “In textual interpretation, context is everything, and the context of the Constitution tells us not to expect nit-picking detail and to give words and phrases an expansive rather than narrow interpretation…”

      1. 1Lishell,

        I guess that you like the phase “expansive interpretation”. It is nice.

        Unfortunately, I desire something more concrete for the guy in the Oval office. I would like to know exactly what precedent is being set for the eligibility for the Presidency as there is a precedent being set. We know for sure that Mr. O is the only President that has claimed a father who was not a US citizen at his birth, but we don’t know what other precedents are being set. I question whether the eligibility precedents set by this President will be adequate for the current and future security of this country and its Constitution. These questions have implications far beyond the coming four years that Mr. O will serve in the Office.

        I am concerned and disturbed by Mr. O’s refusal to reveal his citizenship history. I would be especially disturbed if he has claimed non US citizenship at any time after the age of majority. Others are more worried about a Kenyan birth. Surely this isn’t the case, but we just don’t know, do we? And Mr. O just hasn’t fully answered the questions, has he? Why?

        I heard that he actually had lawyers explore the question of his eligibility for the Office based on citizenship. I wonder what they found and where the report is? If the eligibility was cut and dried, why hire lawyers to examine the question?

        I am not afraid to ask questions and I want real answers to my questions: the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, plain and simple but with proof. I want all the existing relevant citizenship documents revealed.

        I do not believe that you are privy to this truth nor do I believe that you wish pursue this truth at this time.

        Thank you for you replies to my comments. I hope that you enjoyed reading them. If you wish, you may have the last word.

        And Now:
        I wait for the light to shine on all the unknown’s in Mr. O’s past. A toast to transparency!

        1. Kathy,
          I’m assuming you aren’t Obama or his attorneys, so it is unlikely that you heard accurately. Any legal research on that would be attorney-client privileged, which is something real lawyers take very seriously: If a lawyer tells anyone but the client or people designated by the client about privileged information, that lawyer can be disbarred.

          I doubt any real precedent is being set, personally. I fail to see how the father’s citizenship is in any way relevant to a president who was not raised by that father. Obama went to school in Hawaii and has lived in the U.S. for most of his life.

  7. Why are so many of Obama’s records sealed? Does anybody ever ask him personally? Why are both Barack and Michelle’s college records sealed? Why aren’t they being transparent?

  8. “Wow I have not seen all of these cases”
    let us know when one wins, the Judge in Berg’s Hollister case used the word frivolous! Being a “birgter” must be dificult, asscociating with the losers!

    1. I sent Phil some more information about some of the above cases. The Roy cases in particular are very interesting. As in “wow is this person off their medication” interesting. (Some of Roy’s lawsuits are hand-written, without use of things like “margins”, “lines”, “spaces”, “punctuation” and the like)

      2008cv03405 “The Church of Jesus Christ Christian/Aryan Nations of Missouri et al v. Obama et al” is pretty vile though. Example (I’ve taken the liberty of editing some of the language):

      “B. Defendant, u$ Senator Barack Hussein Obama is ’employed’ as a professional politician whom the extremely idiotic whiggers of Illinois selected to be their u$ Senator and who the even more idiotic ZOGland whigger ass-clowns, sundry muds and j*w cruds are about to (s)elect as president of the u$/ZOG/Babylon as the Democratic Party nominee, but NOT if Plaintiffs have anything to say about it. This Genesis 1:24-25 and 2:19 Sixth-Day mamzer-Beast of the Field has been tracked to its lair at: 713 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20510.

      C. Additional Defendants:

      Senator John McCain is employed as a professional politician who the Arizona whiggers want as their Senator who is running for President of the u$/ZOG/Babylon. Since the Missouri Republican Party for its part schemed with Democrats to keep White men off the ballot, these whiggers deserve a good swift kick in the ass as well. What’s good for the n****r is good for the whigger. This repellant idiot even more corrupt than O’N****r has been hiding out for 26 years in the District of Corruption/Congoids at: 241 Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510


      “1. The main reason that Plaintiffs are filing this lawsuit is simply that it goes against Plaintiffs religious beliefs to allow any non-white, especially a n****r, to be in any position of authority over any White man, no matter how degraded. Exodus 18:21-26, Deuteronomy 1:13, Leviticus 25:42-48 say that any rulers over Israel were to be of Israel and not of racial aliens or even outsiders. Since Dual-Seedline Christian Identity dogma, the ruling doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ Christian/Aryan Nations of Missouri (Missouri Secretary of State Corporation # N00773365) holds that non-whites are the sixth-day beasts of the field, without souls, and are not even to be allowed to live among White Christian Israelites of the Servant Nation of YHWH, much less rule over them, then this lawsuit against lead Defendant Barack Hussein Obama is a religious duty that we dare not shirk.

      We could, like other White Nationalist organizations, simply hope and pray for an assassin and enjoy the inevitable race riots which we seek. And we simply as White Men will NEVER obey any n****r president, but rather use this as an excuse for revolt. Unlike the Republican eunuchoid whiggers overheard whining about how “Obama is going to take away our guns,” it is not as if we will ever let such a thing come to pass. Plaintiffs as National Socialists have no problem with socialism for the benefit of White people only. We don’t think that taking from rich whigger and j*w regime criminals running ZOG (Zionist Occupation Government)/Babylon to give to White People is anything but a good idea. However, We do not agree that White People are to provide in any way for non-whites or thieving whigger (‘white’ n****r) regime criminals and certainly not j*ws, the literal spawn of Satan whom We are commanded in Genesis 3:15 to hate. Rather such non-whites are to be expelled with extreme prejudice from Israel.”

      The case was originally filed before the plaintiff was released from jail following three and a half years on “statitory sodomy” charges.

      So at least some of the above cases are from people who are not wrapped very tightly at best.

      1. Patrick McKinnion,

        While I haven’t taken the time (too busy doing actual work) to go through your info, thanks for sharing a bit on some of the cases as originally noted on FreeRepublic.com.

        For those who have commented on this blog about actual “hatred” of the President, here’s your evidence. I must say that I stand corrected: at least one Plaintiff is truly spewing forth a lot of hatred and conspiracy against the President.

        Nevertheless, the 1st Amendment guarantees the right of free speech; it does not guarantee the right to not be offended, nor to be heard (hence the reason why the Judiciary is here to hear cases from anyone). This is the price of liberty.


        1. The Aryan Nations case is indeed on PACER, 6:2008cv03405

          “6:08-cv-03405-HFS The Church of Jesus Christ Christian/Aryan Nations of Missouri et al v. Obama et al
          Howard F. Sachs, presiding
          Date filed: 11/04/2008
          Date of last filing: 02/06/2009

          Case Summary

          Office: Springfield Filed: 11/04/2008
          Jury Demand: Plaintiff Demand:
          Nature of Suit: 440 Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
          Jurisdiction: Federal Question Disposition:
          County: Newton Terminated:
          Origin: 1 Reopened:
          Lead Case: None
          Related Case: None Other Court Case: None
          Def Custody Status:
          Flag: EAPN”

        2. I kept getting a “not allowed” message to try and download the suit. I’m reluctant to post a link to the site I found it on.

          Oh, and yes, it is Pro Se.

        3. Sorry, I should have combined all this. From the docket:

          Date Filed # Docket Text
          11/04/2008 1 COMPLAINT against all defendants filed by The Church of Jesus Christ Christian/Aryan Nations of Missouri, Pastor Martin Luther Lindstedt, Newton County White Nationalist – Socialist Libertarian Party. Filing fee $350, receipt number 257122. Service due by 3/9/2009. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Burch, C. Steve) (Entered: 11/05/2008)
          11/06/2008 2 Notice of EAP assignment to an outside mediator. Copy of same mailed to Plaintiff Lindstedt via first-class mail. (Burch, C. Steve) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/6/2008: # 1 General Order) (Burch, C. Steve). (Entered: 11/06/2008)
          02/06/2009 SUMMONS ISSUED as to Newton County Republican Party. (Howard, Linda) (Entered: 02/06/2009)
          02/06/2009 SUMMONS ISSUED as to Barack Hussein Obama, Senator John “M McCain(Howard, Linda) (Entered: 02/06/2009)
          02/06/2009 SUMMONS ISSUED as to Sheriff Ken Copeland. (Howard, Linda) (Entered: 02/06/2009)
          02/06/2009 SUMMONS ISSUED as to Traitor Glenn Miller, Judge John Lepage, Newton County Prosec Skouby. (Howard, Linda) (Entered: 02/06/2009)
          02/06/2009 SUMMONS ISSUED as to Newton County Clerk Baum. (Howard, Linda) (Entered: 02/06/2009)

  9. Wow I have not seen all of these cases. Obama is pissing off people left and right plus making lots of enemies very quickly. The entire healthcare industry, TV networks may be required to run prime time O monthly propaganda which will cost TV networks a lot of $$$, the military, seniors will see healthcare rationed (fools for voting for him – some hope) and others.

    Check out Dr. Edwin Vierira’s site. He is a Constitution attorney with a AB,MA, JD and PhD all from Harvard. He said cases will be filed against any laws Obama signs when anyone gets criminally charged or fined. All the defendants will be able to demand proof as in a BC and other documents.

    The wealthy who are behind him may soon find he is too expensive and that they created a Frankenstein. This happened with Hitler. He was backed by the wealthy to try to restore order in Germany that was in a severe Depression. We know how well that Austrian usurper turned out for Germany.

    1. Vieira may be a Constitutional attorney, but that doesn’t necessarily mean he’s a good constitutional attorney (He isn’t.) Any lawyer trying to raise such a defense would get smacked down by the judge.

    2. Excellent point Sir, Stars flame out quickly here in these united states, his will soon enough . I just hope nobody is too hurt from legislation in the meantime….

  10. Since these cases were all brought before he became President, doesn’t he have to pay for all cost out of pocket and not be able to burden the taxpayers with it?

    I could see lawsuits popping up now, while he is president, the taxpayers $$$ goes to represent/defend, but anything before he took the oath should not be at the cost of the taypayers.

    If we find out that the taxpayers are paying the cost of his legal fees can a suit be brought up on that? Also, wouldn’t that be defrauding the American people by using $$$ that you are not allowed too?

  11. I hope he goes bankrupt and caves in to all of this. It will eventually get to the point that even his wealthy supporters aren’t going to want to get entangled in all of this mess.

    1. Bear in mind that in the VAST majority of these cases, President Obama hasn’t spent one thin dime.

      The majority of these cases have been filed with Secretaries of State and other State and Federal officials as the primary defendant. (Keyes v Bowen, Lightfoot v Bowen, Broe v Reed, etc.). It’s been the primaries that have done the dismissal work, (again, remember none of these have ever gone past initial hearings before dismissal), and as such the cost of defending them have been paid by the taxpayers of those states. (In at least one case, the SoS for that state sought and was awarded court costs against the plaintiffs after dismissal. I suspect this may become more common over time.)

      Only in the cases where Obama has been the primary defendant (Berg v Obama, Hollister v “Soetoro”), has Obama spent any money himself. And even there, the money has been in basic motions for dismissal. Since none of the cases have gone to trial, the costs have been pretty minimal.

      The common belief is that Obama has spent “hundreds of thousands” or “millions” of dollars in defending these cases. However, the truth is that in the vast majority of these cases, the cost of defense has been on the backs of state taxpayers – who may not be happy seeing their money wasted like this.

      1. Patrick,

        If that’s the case, perhaps Soetoro should provide some judicial cost savings by forking over $100 worth of paperwork. He is the one wasting the court’s time by not providing evidence to the world he should even be in office.

        It won’t matter to his ineligibility, but at least he would be trying to save taxpayer money.

        That’s right. He doesn’t want to play ball because he’s illegal and loves to spend millions of U.S. dollars playing under the ruise of “trust” and “transparency”. There’s simply no other explanation for the pompous, cheating, sinister, and outright obnoxious behavior exhibited by him and his merry band of thugs over the past 2 years.

        1. First off:

          1) The rule of law in this country is “Innocent before proven guilty in a court of law”
          2) The burden of proof is on the accuser, not the defendant.
          3) None of the court cases have gone to a level where such evidence is required, and in the few cases that attorneys for Obama has been involved with directly, the attorneys know that the plaintiffs will not accept the evidence in question.

          Second off:

          Why?? There is absolutely NO level of evidence either Berg, Taitz, their followers, or any of their supporters will accept. Even if President Obama provided the vault copy of his birth certificate, passport data, school records, and they were ALL verified by the respective state, federal, and educational authorities involved, what would happen is:

          1) Immediately the people buying into this would start mining it looking for any scrap of evidence they could find.

          2) 24-48 hours “Polarik” or “Techdude” will announce that whatever the evidence, however it’s verified, he “can tell it’s a forgery”, and release a long technobabble explaination that doesn’t hold water to anyone who knows graphic art software, document verification, or forensic examination.

          3) The birthers will take that claim and treat it as gospel truth. Posts will go up claiming “it’s a fact that these documents were forged, and….”

          4) World Net Daily will write something along the lines of “Obama forced to give up documents, doubts remain.”

          5) The bar would be raised again, with people calling for a new level of evidence and claiming President Obama “must have something to hide” if he doesn’t meet THAT new goalpost.

          In short, the people promoting these claims will NOT accept any level of information needed to verify place of birth, citizenship, etc. There’s been too much emotional energy invested in these beliefs that it’s now a matter of faith.

          As someone else said:


          “…RP: “And if he then proves that his father’s citizenship isn’t an issue, you claim he’s still not a natural-born citizen because of his mother’s second marriage, right?”

          Birther: “Right.”

          RP: “And if he then proves that his mother’s second marriage isn’t an issue, you claim he’s still not a natural-born citizen because of his supposed adoption, right?”

          Birther: “Right.”

          RP: “And if he then proves that he didn’t give up his citizenship via adoption, you claim that he’s still not a natural-born citizen because of his 1981 travel to Pakistan, right?”

          Birther: “Right.”

          RP: “And if he then proves that he didn’t give up his citizenship via passport, and even when you run out of citizenship arguments completely, you then claim his election is illegitimate because his legal surname is Soetoro, right?”

          Birther: “Right.”

          RP: “So you want to know why Obama won’t take the simple measure of releasing his birth certificate, when you already have at least eight consecutive fall-back arguments you’ll make if he does so, whereby you’ll continue to insist that he’s ineligible for the Presidency even after he proves that he was born in Hawaii?”

          Birther: “Right.”

          RP: “Y’know, if I were Obama, I think I’d save my ten dollars too.”

          1. The known facts

            On “natural born” citizenship in general.

            The “natural born citizenship” requirement was put into the Constitution to be sure that only an individual with sole allegiance to the United States could be the Commander in Chief of the Military. The Framers were aware of three classes of citizenship: Natural Born, Native, and Naturalized.

            All previous Presidents met the Framer’s definition of “natural born citizenship” except for Chester Arthur, who actively hid the fact that his father was not naturalized at his birth. Mr. O sets an historic precedent for who can be considered a “natural born citizen”. The known fact is that he claims a father with British/Kenyan citizenship, but there may be other facts still hidden.

            The Framers considered a “natural born citizen” to be the child born on US soil to two citizen parents. The accepted meaning of and laws concerning natural born citizenship have been diluted and inconsistently applied since the Wong Ark Kim case was decided. Hamdi, a terrorist born in the United States to two non-citizen parents, had the US natural born citizenship required to be President.

            Mr. O has a claim to “natural born citizenship” that could be open to legal challenge. The current law would protect Mr. O’s citizenship if he were born in Hawaii in spite of an Indonesian adoption/child citizenship if he returned to the United States and became a resident before he was 25 years old. If he held a foreign passport after the age of majority, the State Department would probably ignore that fact (policy since about 1997), allowing him to keep his US citizenship. A Supreme Court decision may negate the State Department’s approach (Vance vs. Terrazas). The public does not really know Mr. O’s citizenship status.

            Who is to determine a Candidate’s Constitutional eligibility to be President?

            The initial burden of proof falls on the Candidate. Then the Constitution requires that the Electors and Congress are required to verify eligibility. Only for the Office of President are there so many opportunities to verify an individual’s Constitutional eligibility required by the Constitution (must have been important to Framers?!).

            The Hawaii Certification of Live Birth qualifies as legal proof in court, but could hide important information about his birth that could be on the Certificate of Live Birth, including a birth outside of Hawaii, and legal modifications to the original birth certificate.

            The Federal Election Commission denied responsibility for determining the Constitutional Eligibility of Candidates in its “Motion to Dismiss” filed in the Berg vs. Obama case. I am not aware of any Federal entity other than Congress that is required to vet Presidential Candidates for Constitutional Eligibility.

            The States did not require proof of citizenship before placing Candidates on the ballots. Affidavits of eligibility signed by Mr. O and/or Ms. Pelosi were required by some Secretaries of State.

            The citizens were denied all information by the Candidate and the Media that was not offered to them willingly by the Candidate. The Courts have refused all citizen requests to date to force the Candidate to provide any additional proof of eligibility, because, in the eyes of the Courts, the citizens did not have the right to ask for the information. Even though the voters were denied the power to vet, some of the Electors and Members of Congress pointed to the voters as responsible for determining the eligibility of the Candidate.

            The Supreme Court was offered the chance to define “natural born citizen” and declined. The definition of “natural born citizen” is only relevant for an individual actively seeking the Presidency: any court review of such an individual’s citizenship status is inherently vital and political. The Court prefers to avoid political matters.

            The Electors are required to determine that a Candidate is eligible before they cast their votes, but did not demand proof beyond Obama’s Certification of Live Birth. Some Electors were aware of their duty and the legal exposure they faced if that duty was not executed.

            I personally received a letter from a Democratic Elector that implied that he relied on the Supreme Court’s dismissal of Donofrio’s cases before he cast his vote.

            Another Democratic Elector apparently hired a lawyer who wrote a letter (widely posted on the internet) that presents the idea that the Elector could (and did) determine his own definition of Natural Born Citizen in the absence of a formal definition by the Supreme Court. That letter ignores the fact that Mr. O lived in Indonesia as a child.

            Congress is required to determine that a Candidate is eligible before the Electoral votes are counted, but did not demand proof beyond Obama’s Certification of Live Birth.

            The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court administers the Oath of Office and should be personally satisfied that the President Elect is eligible. Roberts muffed the public Oath!

            More like an opinion

            The Constitutional requirement of Natural Born Citizenship is apparently insufficient at this time to prevent a person with divided allegiance from becoming President. A new requirement for eligibility is necessary, such as being able to obtain the highest level of security clearance.

            Mr. O has an unusual interest in Kenya. Could this be considered split allegiance?

            Senator O’s actions in Kenya as a Senator could have influenced the citizens of Kenya in their selection of his father’s kinsman for the highest political office. Although what Mr. O did would not have been viewed as improper in our culture, what would the Kenyans have thought about his appearance at a rally for Odinga, no matter what Mr. O said. How many of the people at that rally understood English? Were the Senator’s actions a violation of US law?

            Although it may have been political suicide for Mr. O, the whole dirty mess of his citizenship history should have been hung up for inspection at the outset by Mr. O himself. That would have been transparency.

            Mr. O’s definition of transparency hasn’t changed as demonstrated by his defense of the “stimulus” bill: an excuse at taxpayers expense to spend an exorbitant amount of money to be sure that the Democrats stay in control of the Congress in 2010. Mr. O even stated on television that he wouldn’t have a second term if this bill was not passed! The country, the citizens, and the dollar be damned!

            Interesting question: If Mr. O is ineligible and broke the law at the moment he assumed the Office, does that mean that he is now protected by “assumed innocent until proven guilty”? If so, has been the bar raised for any challengers?

          2. Kathy,
            The Supreme Court does not need to define “natural born citizen.” The citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment defines “natural born citizen.” Obama meets the 14th Amendment test.

          3. This e-mail makes it as obvious as Obamas nose on his face, this whole thing is painfully clear, He alone could have solved all of these in the very begining by just shwoing his paperwork and he was unwilling, end of story period….

Leave a Reply