Eligibility Update: Why Eligibility is Questioned; IL, TX Grand Juries; Update: Dual Citizenship on Obama
Sam Sewell at TheSteadyDrip recently posted an article meant to bring folks up to speed on what the eligibility issue regarding Barack Hussein Obama is all about (excerpted):
Somehow, you know it’s coming. That OMG moment is just around the corner. You can feel the inescapable reality creeping up on you. Something will leak. Someone will spill the beans. “For nothing is hid that shall not be made manifest, nor anything secret that shall not be known and come to light.” Luke 8:17
It isn’t hard to imagine the gnawing anxiety that AKA OBAMA (Also Known As: an acronym used to describe suspicious persons who use more than one name) lives with, day in and day out. Much has been written about AKA OBAMA’s behavior that reminds mental health experts and others of NPD (Narcissistic Personality Disorder.) A frequent manifestation of such a disorder is The Narcissist, as Liar and Con-man.
This disorder is frequently misunderstood as “self-love.” A more accurate understanding is love of a reflection of one’s self. Abused, abandoned and neglected children will compensate for damaged egos by creating an ideal reflection of themselves that they then embellish and vigorously defend. A person with NPD is quite capable of a mind twisting position like, “I have nothing to hide but I am hiding things anyway.” AKA OBAMA certainly fits the model of having such a childhood. While I am not in the position to deliver an official In Absentia diagnosis of a full strength NPD case, many of the indicators are present.
If AKA OBAMA were not in a position of public trust, most of us would probably overlook such deception and secrecy. For those of us who care about our Constitution and the rule of law, the issue becomes clear in this article that appeared in on-line Pravda by international columnist, Mark S. McGrew The Mysterious Shadow: Code Name Obama. …
The Certification of Live Birth that was published on AKA OBAMA’s campaign web site is not a Birth Certificate. It is easy to tell the difference between the two types of documents. It is very likely that the COLB used by AKA OBAMA’s campaign is a fraudulent document. Several forensic document examiners have carefully scrutinized the COLB and declared it suspicious or an obvious forgery. The best evidence presented so far is from the Ron Polarik, PhD.Dr. Polarik writes: “There are laws on the books in Hawaii and the Federal Statutes that clearly spell out exactly what constitutes forgery, and in both Hawaii State Law and the Federal Statutes, the act of altering an official government document — even if it is just a facsimile of that document — constitutes forgery. The bogus COLB that Obama created is also considered to be a “false identification document, a felony forgery.” Dr. Polarik’s evidence is preserved online. There is also a YouTube video summary of the evidence.
Forensic document examiner Sandra Ramsey Lines, a Former Federal Examiner with a long history of expert testimony in state and federal courts, has testified in an affidavit that states, in part:
After reviewing Dr. Polarik’s analysis, Sandra Lines says, “I can state with certainty that the COLB presented on the internet by the various groups, which include the “Daily Kos,” the Obama Campaign, “Factcheck.org” and others cannot be relied upon as genuine. Mr. Polarik raises issues concerning the COLB that I can affirm. Software such as Adobe Photoshop can produce complete images or alter images that appear to be genuine; therefore, any image offered on the internet cannot be relied upon as being a copy of the authentic document.” Sandra Ramsey Lines summary is posted at U. S. Law Blog.
As long as we are on the subject of falsified documents, it seems that AKA OBAMA never registered for the draft, as required by Selective Service laws. When his career began to be noticed by the public, suddenly draft registration records appeared. Unfortunately for AKA OBAMA these documents have also been exposed as forgeries.
Another piece of information that many fail to realize is that in the birth certificate cases, all that is needed is for the case to be heard. This case will be over in the “Discovery” phase. Before a trial starts both sides are required by the court to put all their cards on the table to avoid “trial by ambush.” The judge orders all evidence to be presented by both sides. Since this case is about discovering documents that are hidden, the case will be decided by court-ordered presentation of all relevant records. Lawyers in birth certificate cases don’t need to win a trial; they only need to get a trial.
Enough on the hidden birth certificate and forged documents.For those of you who think ridicule and name calling are effective debate tactics, I refer your kool-aid drenched, tin foil protected brains (a dose of your own medicine) to this article from American Thinker; Why the Barack Obama Birth Certificate Issue Is Legitimate. …
Another interesting tid-bit is found on Wikipedia — scroll down towards the bottom to see the entry for President Obama, “Presidents born as British subjects.”
Update: Not only does Wikipedia (for what it’s worth) confirm the dual citizenship issue, but TheNaturalBornPresidency blog commenter “Pieter Nosworthy” make a similarly excellent point:
cited from Betrayal;
Too funny. If the information is so readily available, how is it the media, the government, and the general public are so tragically misinformed?
I did the research in January of this year, principally on dot gov sites, and had no issue discovering the TRUTH.
http://thenaturalbornpresidency.blogspot.com/2009/01/first-post-natural-born-presidency-and.html
Bob Campbell of AmericanGrandJury.org has the following update from Illinois and Texas:
This news just received by Richard Keefner in Illinois:
Bob, we have set a final date for the Illinois Grand Jury.
It will be May 2, 2009 on a Saturday at 2:00 pm CST. I am also involved in organizing this with Stephanie, Mary Ann & Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. Thanks,Rich Keefner
…
I just got a letter from Dianna Nelson-Diaz — she is the person that is organizing the LONE STAR GRAND JURY.
Here’s the letter:
Dianna Nelson-Diaz
Bob,
Thank you for the email and advice. I believe we are 2 people away from our 25 and I starting today to search for a court room if at all possible. I hope to convene on May 6, swear our jurors in and look at the evidence. I would like to think we could bring an indictment against Obama that day with all the evidence that Dr. Orly Taiz has gathered.
I have been working with Carl and will get with him as well. I believe we are only a few weeks away and I once I have the location (preferably a court room, more professional looking) then I will work on the media and getting their attention. Again, thanks for what you are doing. I sent emails to the 23 people I already had and told them to sign up on your web site. I will continue to work on that as well. [emphases original]
A current listing of common law grand jury updates can be found here.
-Phil
Similar Posts:
- Keyes v. Lingle: Case Dismissed; Forensic Examiner Disproves Online COLB
- HI COLB: Verified Non-Credentials versus (Partially) Unverified Credentials
- Eligibility Update: Fox News Poses Certificate Question, Dr. Polarik Speaks Out on Fox’s Coverage, Mario Apuzzo on COLB
- Obama’s Birth Announcement Forgery Allegation; VP Jokes About Certificate
- Newsworthies: More on Obama’s Birth, Articles on Background Checking
Brygenon,
Once again, I am in your debt. Thank you.
I remembered reading somewhere that naturalization was retroactive to birth and what I was reading probably referenced the 14th amendment. (Working from memory is dangerous.) So, I did a little research about retroactive effects of naturalization.
It turns out that in questions of land ownership, courts have held that naturalization has a retroactive effect.
Governeur’s Heirs v. Robertson, 24 U.S. 11 Wheat. 332 332 (1826) [Retroactive 1 month]
Osterman v. Baldwin, 73 U.S. 6 Wall. 116 116 (1867) [Retroactive at least 11 years]
Manuel v. Wulff, 152 U.S. 505 (1894) [Retroactive less than 7 years]
In Chester Arthur’s time, aliens were not allowed to own land in the United States. If William Arthur (Chester’s father) bought land and needed to protect his claim to the land or just wanted to buy land, he would have needed citizenship by naturalization. By previous court decisions, William Arthur’s naturalization would have been retroactive to at least the date that he acquired the land.
William Arthur moved to Vermont sometime before 1824. The relevant questions for Chester may have been “when did William Arthur buy real estate in the United States” and “was his right to hold that land challenged”? With Arthur claiming a birth date in 1830 when he was born in 1929, perhaps his father acquired land in 1830. Chester Arthur may have felt that by claiming a birthdate in 1830, his father’s citizenship status was covered by the previous court decisions involving land ownership and could claim “native” status.
Chester Arthur’s claim to “native status” could still be seen as weak, as no maximum limit had been set on the retroactive effect of naturalization other than the dates cited in the actual cases. The maximum naturalization extension could possibly be interpreted as only eleven years, but the actual maximum that would have been allowed at that time on this basis was never tested and is an open question.
KJ thought,
That would be the 14′th Amendment to your imagination, not to the Constitution. The real one is easy enough to find, but here’s a link: http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am14.html
An argument that whether people knew Chester Arthur’s father’s citizenship history is unimportant, is not an argument with me. Some birthers thought such history was secret and presented that as if significant. The secrecy claim turns out not to be true.
The Military Officers’s cases have standing, Phil.
And that will be AKA Obama’s undoing. I’m not military, but I know this: If I was, and I knew the dubious way in which a usurper as President was covering everything up, including, but not limited to, his Birth Records, his Occidental College Records, his Passport Records……. I’d think long and hard about following any orders coming out of Washington.
The mass and number of Officers is building, as they all are face with that dilemma of upholding the Constitution of the United States, and taking taking orders from a Commander in Chief that at the very least is guilty of forgery (the online document, by AKA Obama’s website is a forgery)…..which is felony forgery, not to be taken lightly.
The time is coming; there are just too many people outraged by the audacity of a President to seal his records from them. Why? Would an innnocent man do that? This isn’t “Are you still Drinking the Obama Koolaid”??? This is more like “How stupid can you be?”
“NATIONAL GRAND JURY INDICTS OBAMA FOR FRAUD AND TREASON” – NEWS RELEASE
News Release
Press Contact:
Sam Sewell,
National Spokesperson for American Grand Jury
http://americangrandjury.org/
Email: writerpromo@comcast.net
Fax (239) 591-1987
Phone: Clinic Office – (239) 591-4565
Ask for Dr. Sam
“NATIONAL GRAND JURY INDICTS OBAMA FOR FRAUD AND TREASON”
No embargo: For immediate release
(United States of America) – April 29th 2009 – At 8 P.M, ET American Grand Jury convened and conducted a hearing with regard to CRIMINAL activity, complaints and allegations presented before said Jury.
After reviewing the evidence and voting, American Grand Jury members from many states issued the documents for presentment to jurisdictions throughout the nation recommending that person(s) known as Barack Obama, aka: Barack Obama, Jr., aka: Barack Hussein Obama, aka: Barry Soetoro, aka: Barry Obama, aka: Barack H. Obama, aka: Barack Obama II, presumed President of the United States, be tried in Criminal Court for charges of fraud (eligibility) and treason.
Said Grand Jury was convened under the power and authority vested with the people as guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States of America.
The American Grand Jury was served by people of the United States; said people being citizens as were sworn under Oath as to Eligibility for and Service in behalf of the Grand Jury.
The American Grand Jury used established public evidence and testimony of recognized by expert witnesses with a long professional history of forensic experience.
Caveat: Grand Jury hearings are secret and all proceedings will remain confidential until released by the courts.
For an unofficial review and summary of the issues that is available in the public domain see: AKA Obama Fans: All together now – say OMG!!
http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/04/aka-obama-fans-all-together-now-say-omg.html
Sorry, let me redo that last paragraph,
Grant for a moment that Chester Arthur has a claim to citizenship both by jus soli and jus sanguinis. I grant that these facts were known before he was sworn in. Now, Mr. Obama has jus soli, but would be the first born after the Constitution was ratified without jus sanguinis …….native born, but not a “native”, not natural born
brygenon,
I take it back. In fact, I would like to sincerely thank you for bringing this to my attention.
Senator Bayard’s letter is relevant. [If only we had had such a letter from our Senators/Congressmen.]
It would seem that Senator Bayard was aware of the naturalization of Chester Arthur’s father. Consider this interpretation:
Chester Arthur was born in the United States to a British father, who was naturalized when his son was 14 years of age, i. e. Chester Arthur had not reached the age of majority. The Fourteenth Amendment states that at naturalization, the US citizenship status is retroactive to the naturalized citizen’s birth, i. e. before his son’s birth. Chester Arthur then would have had citizenship by jus soli and a (possibly weak) claim to jus sanguinis by his father’s naturalization.
This interpretation would explain both why the popular Chester Arthur did not chose to become the Presidential Candidate (his possibly weak claim to jus sanguinis) and the following interchange presented in Hinman’s book:
—————————————————–
New York, January 7th, 1881.
Hon. Thos. F. Bayard, U. S. Senator
Dear Sir: -What is the construction of Article II, S I, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States – that “No person, except a natural-born citizen, etc., shall be eligible, etc.”***.
Yours respectfully, A. P. HINMAN
—————————————————–
Senate of the United States
City of Washington, January 10th, I881. (just before Arthur sworn in as VP)
A. P. HINMAN, E sq., New York.
DEAR SIR :-In response to your letter of the 7th instant-the term “natural-born citizen,” as used in the Constitution and Statutes of the U. S., is held to be a native of the U.S.
(“native” is not jus soli (native born) alone (see below), but includes jus sanguinis, or why would he add:)
The naturalization by law of a father before his child attains the age of twenty-one, would be naturalization of such minor. (Chester Arthur has jus sanguinis by his father’s naturalization)
Yours respectfully,
T. F. BAYARD. (Democratic VP candidate running against Arthur)
—————————————————–
from How a British Subject became President of the United States, A. P. Hinman, New York 1884, Page 89 with (my notes), emphasis in text mine.
This letter is another illustration that “native” and “natural born” are equivalent and include both jus soli and jus sanguinis: one citizenship alone, without doubt, and with totally united allegiance.
When serving as Secretary of State, Mr. Bayard expressed the opinion that jus soli alone was not adequate for citizenship.
“Secretary of State (T. F.) Bayard ruled under Section 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes in 1885 that although Richard Greisser was born in the United States, his father at the time of his birth was a subject of Germany, and thus, Richard Greisser could not be a citizen of the United States. Furthermore, it was held his father was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment.”
Grant for a moment that Chester Arthur has a claim to citizenship both by jus soli and jus sanguinis. I grant that these facts were known before he was sworn in. Now, Mr. Obama has jus soli, but would be the first without jus sanguinis …….native born, but not a “native”, not natural born
brygenon,
But then, what would you do with all that free time you have on hand to come frequent my site?
-Phil
KJ wrote,
Because I looked up “natural born citizen”, and you can too — for free: http://books.google.com/books?id=cJENAAAAYAAJ
See my post of April 28 at 2:28 am.
Phil wrote,
Those of us who study fringe thinking know better. Work on perpetual motion dates back at least 800 years, and has maintained a 100% failure rate. Some people still believe they work; a conspiracy of energy cartels is keeping this free power source from the people.
I look at it as a hobby.
The birthers’ zero-for-dozens record in court is just part of the butt kicking. Why is that that birther have had so much trouble with standing? Because Obama’s serious opponents never wanted anything to do with this nonsense.
Now only the U.S. Congress has the power to remove President Obama, the very body that certified his election without a single objection. We’ve seen responses from members of Congress, including political adversaries of Obama. No less that the Senate Republican Minority Whip stated, “Senator Obama meets the constitutional requirements for presidential office.”
Phil, you responded that one of Dr. Conspiracies findings was interesting, but plays only in the court of public opinion. I agree. If you don’t want to talk about what plays in the various forums, don’t bring it up.
brygenon,
Personally, I don’t call anyone “O-bots,” because I see that as a dehumanizing label. I much prefer “illegitimizers,” because that more properly describes individuals who could not care less about whether or not this particular President is eligible for the presidency and, further, go about trying to tell anyone who does question this President’s eligibility that, to them (the “illegitimizers”), the issue has been solved. Incidentally, if you think that Obama is eligible, good for you; I don’t know if he is or not, but berating me and folks like me doesn’t do anything to convince me that your argument is any better than anyone else’s.
Regarding “how come you birthers are getting your butts kicked so bad in the real world?”, I must say that I find such a sentiment fascinating. One would think that this issue would simply go away, right? After all, according to you and your ilk, there’s nothing to it, so why bother? And, frankly, to say that you enjoy watching people be fools is being foolish in and of itself, as you’re doing nothing more than playing a fool’s game, no matter how you look at it.
But beyond that, I’m not sure to what you refer regarding “butt-kicking.” Do you mean that even though not a single eligibility case has been heard on its merits that this warrants such a pejorative? I think that’s been intellectually dishonest.
Also, your comment is proverbially putting the cart before the horse. That is, just because someone in an authority position has not looked at this issue (that anyone knows of at this point) doesn’t mean that the issue is in any way diminished. Even though I realize this line of thinking doesn’t fit your perceptions of this issue, I suppose one could have said the same thing of any other “highly controversial” movement in this country.
For instance, imagine living in the South prior to the Civil Rights Acts’ passage; it’s highly likely everyone would have told you to simply shut up about the civil rights issue, that it’s not worth pursuing or, even worse, personal relationships might have been severed over disagreements.
While I am not intending to equate this President’s eligibility to the civil rights movement, I am saying that just because the proverbial deck is stacked against pursuing the eligibility issue doesn’t in any way diminish the importance of the eligibility clause.
After all, reverse discrimination is still discrimination.
-Phil
brygenon says:
April 28, 2009 at 6:41 pm
KJ wrote,
Bayard’s letter to Hinman is irrevelant.
Right. On the other hand, Hinman’s letter to Bayard shows that Arthur’s father’s citizenship history was not a secret, as some birthers have claimed.
Hinman believed that Chester Arthur was born in Ireland, probably to a British father residing in Ireland, and was not a citizen at birth. In his letter to Bayard, he could have been asking if Arthur was even a citizen (sound familiar?). Hinman probably realized that Arthur’s father was naturalized and would have believed (not necessarily known) that the naturalization occurred after Arthur’s birth. In Hinman’s mind, Chester had neither jus soli nor jus sanguinis citizenship at birth.
I think that we can all agree that Chester Arthur was at least a naturalized citizen and was born in the United States (native born). Please enlighten me exactly why you think that he was a “natural born citizen”.
Assuming that your justification is feasible, please also enlighten me how Arthur’s case would apply to jus soli and jus sanguinis for Mr. Obama, whose father never became a United States citizen.
Phil wrote,
I may not see the same humor as you, but as I told you, I am laughing. Phil, if it’s we o-bots who are not facing reality, how come you birthers are getting your butts kicked so bad in the real world?
Finding that Chester Arthur’s father’s citizenship history was not a secret, as some birthers have claimed it was, is not a big deal. It is relevant here simply because the article praised and linked a piece by Pieter Nosworthy that included the false claim.
brygenon,
brygenon, questions are not necessarily closed simply because you refuse to consider further information.
Actually, the entire blogosphere is the platform upon which this and every other blog/forum site exists. And if you think you’re honestly “debunking this birther nonsense” on my site, then you really aren’t facing reality.
Remember — opinions are like butt holes — everyone has one.
Unfortunately, you appear to be part of the fantasy world, so I’m not sure I’d be going there. Further, you obviously didn’t get the dry humor; my site is no more an authority on eligibility issues than any other site you can claim, including FactCheck or FightTheSmears. They’re all sites with opinions but no real authority.
-Phil
KJ wrote,
Right. On the other hand, Hinman’s letter to Bayard shows that Arthur’s father’s citizenship history was not a secret, as some birthers have claimed.
Phil wrote,
Phil, questions do not remain open simply because you refuse to face the answers.
Yes, public opinion is the only forum in which this web site could matter, so that’s where I’m debunking this birther nonsense.
Living in a fantasy world is your right, but it is a losing strategy. Claim all the authority you like; what effect do you think that has on Obama’s presidency here in the real world?
from http://www.obamaconspiracy.org:
A. P. Hinman assumed that Arthur was born in Canada and wrote a letter to Senator Bayard, asking if the father becoming naturalized could make his [alleged Canadian born] son a “natural born citizen”. This is the Senator’s reply:
Senate of the United States
City of Washington, January 10th, I881. (just before Arthur sworn in as VP)
A. P. HINMAN, E sq., New York.
DEAR SIR :-In response to your letter of the 7th instant-
the term” natural-born citizen,” as used in the Constitution
and Statutes of the U. S., is held to be a native of
the U. S.
The naturalization by law of a father before his child
attains the age of twenty-one, would be naturalization of
such minor.
Yours respectfully,
T. F. BAYARD. (Democratic VP candidate running against Arthur)
from How a British Subject became President of the United States, A. P. Hinman, 1884, Page 89
(my notes)
Brygenon:
The letter only states that Chester Arthur would have been naturalized if his father was naturalized before Chester Arthur became 21. If born in Canada, he would not have been “natural born”.
The letter does not address whether Chester Arthur’s father was a US citizen when Chester Arthur was born nor does it define “native of the US”.
As the VP Candidate running against Chester Arthur, surely it would have been considered “sour grapes” and ungentlemanly like conduct to try to discredit his opponent immediately before Inauguration. From the article on T. F. Bayard in wikipedia, he sounds like a pretty level headed man who thought for himself.
You might want to check out the following from
http://federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined.html
“Secretary of State (T. F.) Bayard ruled under Section 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes in 1885 that although Richard Greisser was born in the United States, his father at the time of his birth was a subject of Germany, and thus, Richard Greisser could not be a citizen of the United States. Furthermore, it was held his father was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment.”
Bayard’s letter to Hinman is irrevelant.
brygenon,
You should work for CNN, as apparently they, too believe that if you repeat the same myths over and over again, someone might start agreeing with you.
My original point remains the same: back-and-forths with privately-held web sites doesn’t mean anything except for a debate in the court of public opinion.
Where’s your forensics examiner who’s willing to sign an affidavit concluding that the certification of live birth is substantial enough to determine eligibility?
Yet again, I could simply point back to my site in saying that I’m an authority for my side saying that there is no conclusive evidence currently publicly available to substantiate this President’s eligibility.
To which any reasonable observer would correctly conclude, “Yeah, and?”
-Phil
Phil wrote,
Annenberg Political Fact-Check attests to the validity of Obama’s credentials: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html.
What does this finding [ http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/04/chester-a-arthur-rest-in-peace/ ] mean? Chester Arthur’s presidency is a historical precedent proving that a child born to a father who is not a U.S. citizen can still be president. Birthers argued that the Arthur precedent does not count because President Arthur’s father’s citizenship history had been unknown at the time, but that turns out not to be true.
This finding is insignificant to any authoritative forum simply because the birthers were already losing 100% of the time.
brygenon,
Interesting. It is therefore a battle of the web sites over who makes a better argument. That makes for great debate in the court of public opinion, but it doesn’t mean squat unless someone can actually testify as to the validity of Barack Hussein Obama’s credentials.
-Phil
More fine research from http://www.obamaconspiracy.org puts the lie to the claim, by Pieter Nosworthy (and Leo Dononfrio), that President Chester Arthur deceived the public about his father’s lack of U.S. citizenship at the time of Chester’s birth. In 1884, while Arthur was still President, Proto-birther A.P. Hinman published a book titled, How a British Subject became President of the United States. Dr. Conspiracy, purveyor of obamaconspiracy.org, found a copy and it shows that Arthur’s father’s citizenship history was no secret.
More, including a scanned-in copy of the book, at: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/04/chester-a-arthur-rest-in-peace/
Aristotle the Hun wrote:
I never made any reference whatsoever to your particular article so I fail to see what your point is. And in spite of those myths not being included in your article, the myths persist just the same, as evidenced by their being posted here.
Oh, and while the myths you mention are not included in your article, your article does include a fair number of other myths and mischaracterizations so your advertised “CAREFULLY VETTED NEWS, ARTICLES AND ESSAYS!” is a bit misleading.
k
Pete wrote:
I wasn’t aware that Obama went to Indonesia in 1991, let alone with his new wife, which would have been rather difficult since he didn’t get married until 1992.
So show me where Obama went to Indonesia in 1991.
I’m not aware of any evidence that anyone was attempting to “scrub” anything. And since the passport records in question were US passport records, how could his passport record have been scrubbed if he didn’t have a US passport?
Why does anyone get shot? On average, there are over 10,000 people who are shot and killed each year in the United States.
Because there’s no need to?
k
Koyaan says
“myths that never die”
“travel banned in Pakistan in 1981″ and “people could register out of country births in Hawaii as Hawaiian birth place”, and “the Constitution says both parents must be citizens for natural born citizen”
None of those “myths” are included in AKA Obama Fans: All together now – say OMG!!
http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/04/aka-obama-fans-all-together-now-say-omg.html
It is easy to avoid looking foolish if one reads the article before commenting.
Koyaan,
Quite simply, when DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano and leftist activists such as Ms. Gerafalo (sp?) state that people who have views that coincide with what the Bill of Rights specifically stipulates are essentially “right-wing extremists” (to put it mildly), then that is a very mild form of political suppression, especially when coming from a top-level government official (such as a federal department secretary). Clearly, while an activist can go on and on about how she disagrees with another viewpoint, people like a famous actress don’t have the ability to influence with a gun; the federal government does.
That’s what I mean when I say that I think there are real issues with the left in this country — our President’s Administration being one of them — with respect to conservatives, libertarians, and independents — effectively, those who not only disagree with this President but dare question him — speaking their minds and taking political action. This is why I have zero doubts that the DHS report was meant to be “leaked” just prior to the tea parties — you know, just in case those of the “radical right” get too “out of control.”
Sometimes I think that the left in this country — so conventionally favorable with dissent — is quite ironically becoming rather “conservative” in their viewpoint.
-Phil
Koyaan,
Do you have an explanation why Obama could travel to Indonesia as an adult, especially on a trip with his new wife in 1991, without a US passport? Why was Obama’s future cabinet member employees trying to ’scrub’ his passport records? Why did one of these individuals, who was cooperating with authorities, get shot? Why, if Obama has a valid long form Birth Certificate with footprints, can’t this be released to the public?
Pieter Nosworthy asked,
Well, sort of. A government official who ignores their findings does so at risk of indictment. And prosecutors had better take those indictments seriously because the “grand jury” is not afraid to issue even more.
Citizens are convening Grand Juries across the US to gather evidence to indict BHO. It is inconceivable that BHO will be able to remain in office with all the cases pending against him and the way his approval rating is dropping.
There are excellent article explaining why BHO will be indicted and convicted on this site:
http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/04/important-grand-juries-dont-need.html
Koyaan says:
April 22, 2009 at 3:32 pm
“myths that never die”
Proven falsehoods that remain in the lexicon like, “travel banned in Pakistan in 1981″ and “people could register out of country births in Hawaii as Hawaiian birth place”, and “the Constitution says both parents must be citizens for natural born citizen” do the eligibility community no favor.
Failing to correct these items and having them still part of the grand jury evidence when already proven false, taints the results. As folks like to say use when pointing out the birth announcement address, “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus”, one who willingly falsifies one matter is not credible on any manner.
Phil wrote:
No, that’s law enforcement. “Executive branch” stuff. The Judiciary is the courts. Where “adjudication” takes place. By, “judges.” Hence, “judiciary,” from which we get the “Judicial branch” of government.
You said that “If someone doesn’t like that happening, then apparently they don’t completely concur with the Bill of Rights.”
What exactly then did you mean by this? How is someone not liking something that’s happening equate to not concurring with the Bill of Rights?
You and others don’t like what’s happening vis a vis Obama and his policies as President. Does that mean that you’re not concurring with the Bill of Rights?
If not, then again, what exactly did you mean by your statement?
What’s the problem with people having issues with something? You have issues with things as well. Such as people having issues with things.
What has any of this to do with not concurring with the Bill of Rights?
k
John Galt wrote:
Simple. Because US citizens were not prohibited by the US State Department from traveling to Pakistan in 1981. That they did is nothing but a myth.
The State Department did issue a Travel Advisory on Pakistan back in 1981. But it was simply to inform travelers to Pakistan that they needed to get a 30 day visa.
This whole ban on travel to Pakistan nonsense is a perfect example of how someone can simply make something up out of thin air, post it on the Internet, and be assured that there will be people who will believe it without question.
Barbara Crossette is a US citizen. She was born in the birthplace of our nation, Philadelphia, PA. In June of 1981, she wrote of her trip to Pakistan, which was published in the Travel section of the New York Times.
Funny there’s no mention of US citizens being prohibited by the State Department from traveling to Pakistan.
Lahore, a Survivor With a Bittersweet History
Will this myth NEVER die?
k
Koyaan,
I am specifically general about Judicial entities, as I do believe that District Attorneys, Sheriffs, Attorneys General, etc. are all part of the Judiciary. Therefore, one potential way to receive a “hearing” by an empaneled grand jury is through presenting the authorities with evidence that one believes should be further investigated. It’s as simple as that.
There must be some codeword or something that I say that throws you off track and gets you into “analysis paralysis.”
Where did I ever say that anyone could not criticize anything that’s being talked about on this site, including common law grand juries? I didn’t.
However, ever since the tea parties have happened, I’ve noticed that the left in this country appears to have a real issue with people taking the initiative and pushing their government to get off their collective butts and do something about current events.
Common law grand juries are nothing more than another manifestation of that.
-Phil
Phil wrote:
I’ll admit that I really haven’t paid a whole lot of attention to these “common law grand juries.” I think they’re as silly as the wood nymphs that invaded the capitol building here back in the 80s (a dopey political stunt by some environmentalists).
However I am neither obtuse nor completely unobservant of them.
Yes, I understand that.
And I understand that as well.
Because, Phil, in your post that I was replying to, you specifically said that the point of these grand juries is ultimately an attempt to “move an entity in the Judiciary to take action.”
What do you think the Judiciary is, Phil? It’s the courts. The same courts which have thus far tossed out every case brought before them on this issue.
This is why I asked you what differentiated the point you ascribed to these grand juries in your original post, from those who have already brought “evidence in a coherent and formal fashion” to the courts, only for them to be rejected by the Judiciary.
Fear them? That’s not the impression I’ve got.
Judging by your statement here, I would argue that it is you who doesn’t completely concur with the Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights isn’t just for a select few, Phil. It’s for all of us. And they’re not a one-way street. I see nothing in the Bill of Rights recognizing any right not to be criticized by others.
Those who would criticize these grand juries are exercising their rights no differently than those engaging in these grand juries are exercising theirs.
To say that those who would criticize these grand juries don’t completely concur with the Bill of Rights is simply absurd.
k
The case for ‘incitement’
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1239710752105&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
“…It’s no secret that stories critical of government [Obama] polices …become fodder for those …with an [anti-American] agenda… But…our robust press is integral to civil liberties.
THE ISSUE of press freedom is very much on [Obama's agenda] the agenda at the Durban II conference in Geneva even though Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s pathetic Monday performance hogged the media spotlight.
At stake is the question of whether [Obama] Muslim and Arab delegates will succeed in imposing their free press “standards” on other civilizations [Obama's Hate Crimes Legislation]. The conference will be voting on whether to include in its closing policy statement an innocuous-sounding clause prohibiting ‘incitement’…”
How could Hussein have registered for the Draft in 1980, one must have been a U.S. citizen to have done so, and yet travel to Pakistan in 1981 when U.S. citizens were prohibited by the U.S. State Department from doing so?
cited from Betrayal;
Too funny. If the information is so readily available, how is it the media, the government, and the general public are so tragically misinformed?
I did the research in January of this year, principally on dot gov sites, and had no issue discovering the TRUTH.
http://thenaturalbornpresidency.blogspot.com/2009/01/first-post-natural-born-presidency-and.html
-Noz
Koyaan,
Again, I’ll chalk most of this up to your simply being obtuse or completely unobservant of even my coverage of the common law grand jury process.
As I have repeatedly stated on this blog numerous times, everyone — including the grand jurors themselves — knows that a common law grand jury has zero enforcement abilities with respect to any conclusions they derive from a given set of evidence. However, this is not the point of these private gatherings. The point is to be able to make a presentment to “one in authority” (again, as I’ve repeatedly stated), with the goal that eventually said presentment will be formally analyzed by the authorities.
This process is completely outside of the Judiciary, so I’m not sure why you’re thinking that failing standing or other legitimately legal technicalities in the eligibility cases has anything to do with these grand juries.
Frankly, I think what the real issue is that many “illegitimizers” fear gatherings of private citizens who have every right to gather and present paperwork to the authorities, quite similarly to anyone submitting paperwork to a US Attorney’s office or a local FBI office.
Just like the Department of Homeland Security, there are many on the left — and probably a few on the right — who have real issues when the common citizen decides to lawfully take things into their own hands to push things forward.
If someone doesn’t like that happening, then apparently they don’t completely concur with the Bill of Rights.
-Phil
Maybe the Crimes Victims Rights Week Commemeration could be transformed into the crimes against the Constitution…Why not let the Constitution be the metaphorical victim?About 100 protesters should get Janet rolling in with handcuffs?
Tom says:
April 21, 2009 at 11:09 pm
“He’s a communist”
It would be helpful to your cause if you guys would agree on what he is. You read the whole spectrum to describe Obama: “he’s a communist”, “he’s a marxist”, “he’s a fascist”, “he’s a socialist”. Anyone who passed 7th grade social studies knows he can’t be all, let alone some combination of any of the above. You don’t help your case by labelling him as simply anything you think sounds bad.
Tom wrote:
Then get with your US Representative and urge them to draft articles of impeachment against Obama.
Then, if the House manages to impeach him, get with your US Senators and urge them to convict, and remove him from office.
k
Phil wrote:
Eh?
Gather evidence in a coherent and formal fashion such that a singular presentment can move an entity in the Judiciary to take action?
How does that differ from all of the complaints that have been filed in all of the court cases which have so far, and without exception, been rejected by the Judiciary?
Did not all those complaints also gather evidence in a formal fashion such that a singular presentment could move an entity in the Judiciary to take action?
And as Pieter Nosworthy points out, the only constitutional means of removing a sitting President is by way of impeachment in the House and subsequent conviction in the Senate. So why would anything be presented to the Judiciary?
k
B-14594, B-14595 and B-14596
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/Page/VideoPlayer&cid=1194419829128&videoId=1239710744822
3 Auschwitz survivors with consecutive tattoo numbers come together for first time…
I believe if we don’t get this info out and get Obama out of office that we will be under Communist rule. Imagine thiss Obama and Puttin standing together in the W.H. in charge of the U.S. Obama will do all that he can to destroy America. He doesn’t care about slowing down on anything that harms the U.S. He want be deterred by the Tea Parties. We need to get him in court someway. He is a Communist that waa schooled to become POTUS.
Tom
Pieter Nosworthy,
First of all, you are by no means dumb. Secondly, I think that the point of common law grand juries is to gather enough evidence in a coherent and formal fashion such that a singular presentment can move an entity in the Judiciary to take action.
Remember that the main point is to get subpoenas (effectively forcing discovery to take place). While a common law grand jury has no authority to do such, making arrangements with someone in authority can certainly begin the process of making that happen.
-Phil
Department of Justice to Observe National Crime Victims’ Rights Week
Attorney General to Host Prelude Events in Washington, DC on Thursday, April 23, and Friday, April 24
Attorney General Eric Holder will host the Department of Justice’s National Crime Victims’ Rights Week prelude events on Thursday, April 23, and Friday, April 24, 2009. This year’s theme, “25 Years of Rebuilding Lives: Celebrating the Victims of Crime Act,” brings attention to the progress made in serving victims of crime. Both events are open to the public; however, registration is required. To register visit: http://www.ncvrw.org.
NATIONAL OBSERVANCE AND CANDLELIGHT CEREMONY
WHO: Eric Holder, Attorney General
Laurie O. Robinson, Acting Assistant Attorney General, OJP
Joye E. Frost, Acting Director, Office for Victims of Crime, OJP
Jeffrey E. Taylor, U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia
Quincy A. Lucas, Founder and President, Witney’s Lights, Inc.
WHERE: U.S. Chamber of Commerce
Hall of Flags
1615 H Street, N.W.
Washington, DC
OPEN PRESS
WHEN: THURSDAY, APRIL 23, 2009
6:30 P.M. EDT
Government-credentialed media may arrive and set up as early as 5:30 p.m. Equipment vans should proceed to the loading dock on I Street side. Press inquiries regarding logistics should be directed to Michelle Person at 202-305-7381.
NATIONAL CRIME VICTIMS’ RIGHTS WEEK AWARDS CEREMONY
WHO: Eric Holder, Attorney General
Laurie O. Robinson, Acting Assistant Attorney General, OJP
Joye E. Frost, Acting Director, Office for Victims of Crime, OJP
Recipients of National Crime Victims’ Rights Service Awards
WHERE: Andrew W. Mellon Auditorium
1301 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC
OPEN PRESS
WHEN: FRIDAY, APRIL 24, 2009
1:30 P.M. EDT
Government-credentialed media may arrive and set up as early as 12:30 P.M. Press inquiries regarding logistics should be directed to Michelle Person at 202-305-7381.
THIS IS A BIG CHANCE FOR DR. ORLY TAITZ TO ADDRESS HOLDER AND TAYLOR ON HER SUBMITTED MOTIONS!!
If she cannot make it, she should make arrangements to have some on her behalf to attend along with a large number of supporters.
OUR BIG CHANCE TO GET AN ANSWER IS FINALLY AT HAND!!!!!
Sieg Hiel
Obama signs service bill, says volunteers needed
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090421/D97N3IB86.html
Blogs about: Obama Brownshirts
http://en.wordpress.com/tag/obama-brownshirts/
Phil,
Perhaps you can square away this dumb Soldier…here’s my question; What is the role of a CGJ if the only constitutional means of removing a sitting President is through the CONGRESS (QW or impeachment)?
Does the CGJ demand prosecution through their findings of the DC and/or US AGs (i.e. QW)?
Thanks.
-SFC Nosworthy
If you need some encouragement, read some of the comments that have been posted at the following:
Obama expects gestures from Israel
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1239710751747&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull