Free Republic 3rd Quarter Fundraising Target: $85,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $68,580
80%  
Woo hoo!! After accruing the balance of the monthlies we're now over 80%!! Less than $17k to go!! Let's git 'er done!! Thank you all very much!!

Posts by Poparhoid

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Bacon Bookmarks and Crying in the Mens Room

    04/04/2011 11:15:43 PM PDT · 1 of 26
    Poparhoid
  • Is President Obama's Agenda Also a Black Agenda? Well, it Depends (What is Hussein up to?)

    04/08/2010 10:24:18 PM PDT · 15 of 19
    Poparhoid to Libloather

    Yep....That tanning booth tax in the healthcare bill is the most racist thing I have ever seen. How many Blacks do you think will end up paying this tax?????
    Lets put a special Tax on sunscreen and sunburn medications and of course a big one on “White-Out”

  • Demand Congress stop withholding taxes now

    11/17/2009 8:34:59 PM PST · 1 of 20
    Poparhoid
  • Is this really it? (re: possible Obama's Kenyan B.C. - Attny Taitz) Click on the link

    11/13/2009 11:14:33 PM PST · 10,590 of 11,798
    Poparhoid to All

    If anybody is still on this thread....does this argument have validity? Found this on another site and figured if anybody could flush this angle out, it would be the Freepers.

    America, We the People have Weapons!

    U.S.C. Title 44, Chapter 22: “PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS”

    Why haven’t any of you used the simple power of the United States Code mandates that are directly on point??
    Like, as in, uhm?.. U.S.C. Title 44, Chapter 22: “PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS“
    [Thank veteran Congress members for passing the Presidential Records Act of 1978]
    The statutory law of the United States Code is extremely clear, even often in multiple ways, that:
    a) the AG *cannot* represent/defend Obama in any challenge that involves a question of his citizenship, for the relevant statutory laws mandate that the AG be on the *prosecuting* side against Obama, if the AG is involved, at all… In fact, whether intentional or not, Obama and Holder can be hit with “constructive fraud”, at the very least…
    b) the AG also *cannot* represent/defend Senators or the Senate body, itself, in these constitutional questions, either… Again, whether intentional or not, you have that “constructive fraud” against the rule of law thing again…
    c) there are various statutory standings provided for even “mere” individual Citizens to sue Obama, Congress, etc.
    d) Obama’s “Presidential records” are expressly PUBLIC by mandate of simple written law (and, combined with using AG Holder & U.S. Attorneys, i.e., our *taxdollars*, in an expressly-unconstitutional manner, defending Obama in any citizenship issues, then Obama gets to pay back every single red cent of that $1.7+ million spent so far… plus interest and penalties, naturally… plus, getting deported, or imprisoned, or whatever else…).
    e) additionally, there are all sorts of various federal agencies/heads to statutorily go after Obama’s eligibility through.
    I have detailed and provided the direct links to all of these applicable federal statutes, below.
    Of course, we all know that Obama and his agents have fully admitted his dual-citizenship at birth, which precludes him from ever being President, even notwithstanding the obviously-suspicious concealment of virtually all pertinent records…
    Who, then, are the lawful United States Prez and VP, per the original Constitution, right now, at this
    very moment??
    That’s easy enough to answer:
    1. Mr. John McCain, Republican, *is* the President, temporarily, until the Re-Election that must be done, promptly.
    2. Mr Ralph Nader, Independent, *is* the Vice-President, temporarily, until the Re-Election that must be done, promptly.
    (and, those two are not my personal combo pick, but that IS the result of law per the original Constitution, so fine…).
    Oh, and no worries about any “vacuum of power” anxiousness, because of this proposed new Joint Cabinet to be used during the temporary period, accepting this well-balanced set of American leaders (yes, every person listed is eligible and legally qualified to hold the position indicated - you better believe I double-checked that, first…):
    http://www.editgrid.com/user/indianacrc/newJointCabinet
    America needs officials that actually have skill and talent, as our Cabinet - not always a bunch of political flunkies. Further, I have balanced the new proposed Cabinet as 1/3 Dem, 1/3 Rep, and 1/3 all other legally-”major” parties, also indicated an increase in the number of resulting women upon the President’s Cabinet, and additionally sought more harmonious balance within religious and ideological characteristics of the group of officials, plus added geographical and age diversity into the mix, so as to well-represent the vast majority of America, as the temporary power *within* the White House… you see.
    NOTICE RE: MDL CONSOLIDATION OF “OBAMA ELIGIBILITY” CASES:
    Since, even after allowing an entire year now since the fraudulent 2008 General Election, it STILL seems that nobody is able to get actually serious enough to throw a flagrantly-obvious impostor/usurper out of office, in using the court system and the laws already in force, it seems there’s no choice but to soon enter into each of your own respective cases, immediately move to consolidate them all together under MDL (federal Multi-District Litigation), and maybe also bump it up into a huge mass-action or class-action suit, allowing for each and every U.S. Citizen, Taxpayer, Voter and Landowner to be able to self-join/self-intervene by geography (i.e., by jurisdiction), using simple checkbox “legal standing” forms made available online, and then self-filed per each of their own respective Divisional courthouses. And, I just happen to have a nationwide network of 3200+ online groups (for every single State, County, Parish, Borough and Independent City across the whole country) to actually do it, if really needed… That is, unless I can finally see some serious progress made *by the others leading* in these various “NObama” impostor/usurper cases still active in any court, and that good progress implemented in the most urgently quick and direct fashion, by using any or all of the legal info/ammo provided below.
    APPLICABLE STATUTES RE: OBAMA’S “PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS”:
    Let’s start out with THE most basic/direct way to end all of this nonsense, once and for all, ok???
    A simple review of United States Code, Title 44, Chapter 22: “Presidential Records”, provides what is needed.
    Title 44, CHAPTER 22 — PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode44/usc_sup_01_44_10_22...
    § 2201. Definitions
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode44/usc_sec_44_00002201—-000-.html
    i.e., Obama’s “Presidential records”, including all *Constitutional* and similar official documentation, are expressly NOT protected to any forms of privacy or concealment allowed, like his “personal records” are allowed to be..
    and, indeed, since the United States now actually OWNS those same “Presidential records”, and not Obama!, see
    § 2202. Ownership of Presidential records
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode44/usc_sec_44_00002202—-000-.html
    then the United States has NO possible legitimate reason, whatsoever!, to withhold documentation - from ITSELF, hint, hint - of the question of existence, or not, of the properly authenticated qualifications of Mr. Obama, et al… i.e., of it’s own “CEO”… No, the “shareholders” of America are absolutely entitled to see authentication, proven and confirmed.

    IN FACT, it is actually Obama’s **STATUTORY DUTY** to ensure his “Presidential records” are made public…!!!
    § 2203. Management and custody of Presidential records
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode44/usc_sec_44_00002203—-000-.html
    and, to the point necessary:
    § 2204. Restrictions on access to Presidential records
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode44/usc_sec_44_00002204—-000-.html
    paragraph (c)(1) of which provides that those “Presidential records”, i.e., THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE AND ANY OTHER SUCH ”QUALIFICATIONS” DOCUMENTATION, “shall” be made public, pursuant to
    Title 5, § 552. Public information; agency rules, opinions, orders, records, and proceedings
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode05/usc_sec_05_00000552—-000-.html

    Sooo.. merely use the existing jurisdiction of your current “eligibility” case, to subpoena the relevant collection of “Presidential records” from the Archivist and/or National Archives and Records Administration, pursuant to
    § 2205. Exceptions to restricted access
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode44/usc_sec_44_00002205—-000-.html
    under paragraph (2)(A) thereof, and, VOILA! Case closed, slam-dunk, Obama IS done. Over and out. The end.
    (and Mr. McCain and Mr. Nader take over White House power until the Re-Election is held promptly thereafter, as acting President and acting Vice-President, per the original selection process order under the original Constitutional design, as the Presidential vote-getters # 2 and # 3 behind invalid Obama, who is not a natural born Citizen, “failed to qualify”, etc.)
    For further pertinent records handling info, see also:
    CHAPTER 29—RECORDS MANAGEMENT BY THE ARCHIVIST OF THE UNITED STATES AND BY THE ADMINISTRATOR OF GENERAL SERVICES
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode44/usc_sup_01_44_10_29...
    and
    CHAPTER 31—RECORDS MANAGEMENT BY FEDERAL AGENCIES
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode44/usc_sup_01_44_10_31...
    REGARDING CONSTANT FAILURES VIA “STANDING” ISSUES:
    Also, after all of these many cases **continually dismissed** for ONE recurring issue - i.e., STANDING TO SUE - I am simply a-m-a-z-e-d that none of the present cases, with maybe the exception of Donofrio, and that only to a limited degree, have even remotely-adequately addressed any of several available, concrete-solid standing postures of virtually any U.S. Citizen, eligible Voter, Taxpayer, Landowner, or the like. The wide range of standing postures at option includes all manner of first-person, second-person, and third-party standing scenario availabilities. Here, for those of you that wish to learn about LEGAL STANDING, are just several online options, of many out there, to begin with:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law)
    http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s064.htm
    http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/results.pl?co=www.findlaw....
    http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/standing
    http://www.yourdictionary.com/law/standing
    http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/563064/standing-to-sue
    http://www.answers.com/topic/standing-to-sue
    http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title4/civ... (i.e., “the Government ADMITS…”)
    http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O184-StandingToSue.html
    Sooo, as merely a FEW examples, only, there are easy, straightforward uses of either vertical and/or horizontal ‘privity’ for bulletproof standing, due to the running of Hillary Clinton, Dr. Keyes, and etc. against Mr. Obama for the same position – i.e., “Berg ex rel. Clinton v. Obama, et al.” or “Taitz ex rel. Keyes v. Obama, et al.“ - so as to not even be requiring the person of interest to be the petitioning party, in the first place… let alone the power of using the direct petitioning parties, themselves, if using ADEQUATE standing authorities… written into play… Then, there’s an entire myriad of standing options under compelling various federal officers to do THEIR duty to investigate Obama’s qualifications, see even the multiple *statutory* standings provided below. There’s also other legal relational standings, like fiduciary duties of one person/entity to another.. hint, hint.. And, there were/are plenty of other solid, indisputable, and basic foundations for full legal standing for use in play, including, but not limited to, arguments under and via ‘collateral contract’, ‘trusts’, ‘agency’, and the ‘assignment of contractual rights.’ And, again, there’s the direct legal standings of voters, taxpayers, and each Citizen… the KEY is all is well as long as the proper amount of binding authority is finally brought into written play, first! There is *overwhelming* authority on establishing *all kinds* of standing, so what IS the problem so far in sadly systemic, routine failures by “eligibility” Plaintiffs to adequately address the wide variety of indisputable STANDING authorities???
    Heck, I, as a mere Citizen, have full standing by my own Citizenship, and its attributes of voting, paying taxes, Obama’s and/or the Fed’s and State’s fiduciary duties to me, and also as a landowner, if I owned land at the moment.. Moreover, I have standing, again, but in the second/third-person, as “ex rel” on behalf of any other Citizen, to protect his or her Rights and Interests, as their “next friend”, and the same “ex rel” on behalf of any part of Government towards another part, etc…
    Remember, you are guaranteed a “remedy” for a wrong, Constitutionally… Gad-zoinks people!!!, even also under the Federal Constitution, there is *explicit* Citizen standing already provided. See Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1… cf. Amendments 9 & 10… see also Art. IV, Sec. 4, first participle/clause. You can also achieve citizen standing through being denied the right to a *meaningful* vote, and therefore making challenge under Amendment XIV, Section 2 (to compel changing the local basis of representation, duh, even if that is not your *primary* goal.. hint, hint..). Now then, go back and read the end of that First Amendment again..
    But, enough about the utter joke of standing.. The following list is a selection of MANY statutory ways to throw Obama “out da house”, quickly. Please now implement and use at least SOME of them in your own cases, right away, so that I can get back to preparing other key God, Country, and Family issues (SepChurchState, Creation-Evolution, ElectionFraud, Economy/SocialPrograms, FedRsrv/GoldStd/Dollar, rebalance of power, individual liberties, limited government, etc.), for their actual restorations, via a brand new kind of huge federal legal challenge, to get us back at least close to the Framers’ original Constitutional design and intent, as soon as it is possible for one poor man to get it all frickin’ done, and done right.
    Yeah, that’s right. I have chosen to live near poverty for years now, fighting part-time or more for restoration of America.
    If you like my help, I could sure use donations, left side on http://unitedcivilrights.org, to upgrade to full-time restoration.
    EXISTING STATUTES PROVIDE VARIOUS ROUTES TO OBAMA:
    Indeed, a simple once-through, of every possibly-relevant Title of the entire United States Code, looking for the “potentials”, reveals at least a few dozen more direct ways to go after Obama, reveals that AG Eric Holder and his U.S. Attorneys are in **multiple statutory DIRECT conflicts-of-interest** by representing Obama, over citizenship questions, instead of representing the *express* interests of the United States and its several by-statute agencies/departments to the direct contrary of Obama’s legal interests, and even reveals that “AG-Elect” Eric Holder could now be removed from office, for merely participating on the wrong side in Obama’s citizenship problems… In other words, get rid of Holder & U.S. Attys OUT of these “eligibility” cases, immediately, since you now have, below, the clear-cut, mandate power of law to do so!
    from United States Code, TITLE 2, The Congress:
    –> example - go after Obama’s *Senator* records from the 2004 Illinois election, to check eligibilities…
    § 1a. Election to be certified by governor
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode02/usc_sec_02_00000001—a000-.html
    § 1b. Countersignature of certificate of election
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode02/usc_sec_02_00000001—b000-.html
    but see, for “devil’s advocate” knowledge,
    § 118. Actions against officers for official acts
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode02/usc_sec_02_00000118—-000-.html
    yet, not to worry!, because the special circumstance is Obama being a U.S. Senator, and under
    § 118a. Officers of Senate
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode02/usc_sec_02_00000118—a000-.html
    section 118 actually doesn’t apply to Obama, so no representation/defense by AG Eric Holder or his US Attorneys…
    and besides, the Senate and Senators have their own *statutory* representation, anyway:
    § 288. Office of Senate Legal Counsel
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode02/usc_sec_02_00000288—-000-.html
    see also
    § 288c. Defending the Senate, committee, subcommittee, member, officer, or employee of Senate
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode02/usc_sec_02_00000288—c000-.html
    …but, most definitely, the AG (nor his staff, the U.S. Attorneys…) *cannot* represent either the U.S. Senate, former Speaker Cheney, current Speaker Pelosi, Reid, or etc., when it comes to the question of citizenship/qualification of Obama as President-Elect, but the representation *must* be ONLY the Senate Legal Counsel, for any/all of them… because of:
    § 288h. Defense of certain constitutional powers
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode02/usc_sec_02_00000288—h000-.html
    and, also because of:
    § 288k. Attorney General relieved of responsibility
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode02/usc_sec_02_00000288—k000-.html
    and, also because the AG’s direct conflict-of-interest is inherent in challenging Obama’s citizenship, see, e.g.:
    Title 8, § 1501. Certificate of diplomatic or consular officer of United States as to loss of American nationality
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001501—-000-.html
    Also under Title 2 of the United States Code, please take note of federal statutes concerning the FEC.
    Title 2, § 437c. Federal Election Commission
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode02/usc_sec_02_00000437—c000-.html
    (b) Administration, enforcement, and formulation of policy; exclusive jurisdiction of civil enforcement; Congressional authorities or functions with respect to elections for Federal office
    (1) The Commission shall administer, seek to obtain compliance with, and formulate policy with respect to, this Act and chapter 95 and chapter 96 of title 26. The Commission shall have exclusive jurisdiction with respect to the civil enforcement of such provisions.
    ** whereas that same Chapter 95 of Title 26 referenced above includes/specifies:
    ** when referring to aspects of the Presidential Election Campaign Fund, including eligibilities…
    § 9011. Judicial review
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00009011—-000-.html
    ** which gets most any INDIVIDUAL PERSON the right of STANDING to go after Obama, via paragraph:
    (b) Suits to implement chapter
    (1) The Commission, the national committee of any political party, and individuals eligible to vote for President are authorized to institute such actions, including actions for declaratory judgment or injunctive relief, as may be appropriate to implement or contrue [1] any provisions of this chapter.
    ** while back in Title 2, re: the FEC itself, there is ALSO express/specific judicial review available again to “any individual eligible to vote in any election for the office of President”…:
    § 437h. Judicial review
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode02/usc_sec_02_00000437—h000-.html
    soooo, there is more than one way of obtaining *statutory standing* to sue Obama, et al… and there are others, too…
    The creative legal mind can certainly leverage this statute against Obama, somehow, hint, hint:
    Title 2, § 441h. Fraudulent misrepresentation of campaign authority
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode02/usc_sec_02_00000441—h000-.html
    Continuing with remaining Title 2 potentials, believe it or not (and, it figures…), there is nothing very useful under here, as they obviously didn’t want themselves really held accountable in any meaningful manner, if they could avoid it, duh..:
    Title 2, CHAPTER 24 — CONGRESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode02/usc_sup_01_2_10_24....
    SUBCHAPTER IV—ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUDICIAL DISPUTE-RESOLUTION PROCEDURES
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode02/usc_sup_01_2_10_24_...
    so, skip all of that, except make a mental note that Congress has “unlawfully” shielded themselves from judicial accountability?
    from United States Code, TITLE 3, The President:
    § 15. Counting electoral votes in Congress
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode03/usc_sec_03_00000015—-000-.html
    like stated in Constitution, objections to electoral vote must be called for by the Speaker
    likewise, either Biden, and/or Pelosi, God forbid, can be compelled under 28 USC 1361 to “qualify” Obama and themselves:
    § 19. Vacancy in offices of both President and Vice President; officers eligible to act
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode03/usc_sec_03_00000019—-000-.html
    another statutory parallel to the Constitutional provisions
    from United States Code, TITLE 5, Government Organization and Employees:
    Even MORE legal authority to leverage/expose Obama through the FEC, via Title 5 of the United States Code, as to otherwise judicially compelling ALL OTHER duties of the FEC to be manifested into reality, including eligibilities…
    Title 5, CHAPTER 7 - JUDICIAL REVIEW in general
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode05/usc_sup_01_5_10_I_3...
    § 701. Application; definitions
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode05/usc_sec_05_00000701—-000-.html
    i.e., the FEC is *not* listed as an excluded “agency” to judicial review
    and confirm also via:
    § 702. Right of review
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode05/usc_sec_05_00000702—-000-.html
    which includes rights of *individuals eligible to vote for President* to sue in federal court, i.e., STATUTORY STANDING
    and, while the available scope of review for the federal court used is quite wide and grand, indeed, *constitutionally*:
    § 706. Scope of review
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode05/usc_sec_05_00000706—-000-.html
    Then, there’s also going through the angle of the federal Office of Personnel Management
    § 1103. Functions of the Director
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode05/usc_sec_05_00001103—-000-.html
    i.e., to judicially compel, by 28 USC 1361 federal officer duty mandate (see Title 28 below), the Director of OPM to “qualify” Obama as a bona fide qualified federal employee, i.e., as a bona fide U.S. Citizen, etc.
    i.e., as in their statutory duty to ensure Obama’s “loyalty” to the USA…
    § 1304. Loyalty investigations
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode05/usc_sec_05_00001304—-000-.html
    Then, as to compelling the various Secretaries of State (in the various different sister States) to “ensure validity” of Obama’s qualifications and eligibility, those such Plaintiffs can maybe use:
    § 1502. Influencing elections; taking part in political campaigns; prohibitions; exceptions
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode05/usc_sec_05_00001502—-000-.html
    particulary paragraph (a)(1) and maybe also (a)(2) thereof
    Heck, also under Title 5, you could use the compelling of the Merit Systems Protection Board, in the same way as compelling the Director of OPM above, pursuant to
    § 1505. Hearings; adjudications; notice of determinations
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode05/usc_sec_05_00001505—-000-.html
    and under paragraph (2) thereof, to have Obama removed from office…
    which would be agency whitewashed, of course, so then you have statutory right to judicial review, thereafter
    § 1508. Judicial review
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode05/usc_sec_05_00001508—-000-.html
    Also under Title 5 of the United States Code are other commanding “loyalty” statutes, such as
    § 3333. Employee affidavit; loyalty and striking (think: “withholding Presidential records”) against the Government
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode05/usc_sec_05_00003333—-000-.html
    and by following through to the referenced statute therein:
    § 7311. Loyalty and striking
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode05/usc_sec_05_00007311—-000-.html
    “An individual may not accept or hold a position in the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia if he—
    (1) advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government;”
    i.e., we find that Obama is *affirmatively* violating paragraph (1) above, every day, as long as he refuses or “fails to qualify” as Prez under the Constitutional manner dictated, refuses to “make public” his “Presidential records” as per law, etc…
    from United States Code, TITLE 8, Aliens and Nationality:

    regarding defining a U.S. “national” or U.S. “citizen”
    ***OLDER
    in general:
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sup_01_8_10_11....
    a couple of specifics worth tracing through the Library of Congress:
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00000601—-000-.html
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00000801—-000-.html
    ***NEWER
    in general:
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sup_01_8_10_12_...
    a few specifics usable thereunder are:
    § 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001401—-000-.html
    § 1408. Nationals but not citizens of the United States at birth
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001408—-000-.html
    § 1481. Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001481—-000-.html
    § 1488. Nationality lost solely from performance of acts or fulfillment of conditions
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001488—-000-.html
    You could/can compel the Sec of Homeland Security’s duties (again, under 28 USC 1361 mandate) to investigate Obama’s citizenship
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001103—-000-.html
    (which also, again, shows the inherent conflict-of-interest with the AG representing/defending Obama’s citizenship issue)
    AND/OR
    you could/can compel the Sec of State (Hillary) to do the same thing, i.e., investigate Obama’s citizenship
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001104—-000-.html
    which also, by the way, adds a nice touch of direct conflict-of-interests into the game
    see also:
    § 1227. Deportable aliens
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001227—-000-.html
    (multiple angles of attack v. Obama herein, see *especially* (a)(3)(D) thereunder)
    (again, showing inherent conflict-of-interest in the AG defending Obama’s citizenship issues..)
    Maybe a clever Plaintiff party could leverage this statute into deciding the eligibility issue from another angle:
    § 1501. Certificate of diplomatic or consular officer of United States as to loss of American nationality
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001501—-000-.html
    see also:
    § 1642. Verification of eligibility for Federal public benefits
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001642—-000-.html
    Obama’s various federal benefits, i.e., wages, medical, pension, etc., cannot be received by any “alien”
    “proof of citizenship” required under (a)(2) thereunder, but admittedly maybe a stretch to implement…
    also, add any federal benefits being received by Michelle Obama, and by his two daughters, even?…
    see also:
    § 1644. Communication between State and local government agencies and Immigration and Naturalization Service
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001644—-000-.html
    from United States Code, TITLE 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure:
    Oh, on that many inherent conflicts-of-interest by the Atty Gen in representing Obama over citizenship issues?
    So, after knowing the above statutes that specify when and when not, then see:
    § 528. Disqualification of officers and employees of the Department of Justice
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00000528—-000-.html
    (throw the bum, “AG-elect” Eric Holder, OUT OF OFFICE!)
    see also:
    § 530B. Ethical standards for attorneys for the Government
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00000530—B000-.html
    see also:
    § 547. Duties (of all of the U.S. attorneys)
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00000547—-000-.html
    and, see also (kewl!):
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00000591—-000-.html
    Referenced several times above, can be used against Obama, or ANY other federal official…
    § 1361. Action to compel an officer of the United States to perform his duty
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00001361—-000-.html
    And, don’t ever forget about the awesome power and flexibility of seeking any kind of WRIT:
    § 1651. Writs
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00001651—-000-.html
    from United States Code, TITLE 42, The Public Health and Welfare:

    a little bit of creative thinking, or “connecting the dots”, can be leveraged with:
    § 1971. Voting rights
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00001971—-000-.html
    then also, why not go after Obama’s OWN (Chicago/Illinois) vote being unlawful (as an illegal alien, false citizenship, etc.), via:
    § 1973i. Prohibited acts
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00001973—i000-.html
    see especially paragraphs (c) and (d) thereunder, like CONCEALING MATERIAL RECORDS!!!
    see also, and *think* while reviewing:
    § 1973gg–9. Civil enforcement and private right of action
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00001973–gg009-.html
    (to ensure “statutory standing” due to the *private right of action*…)
    and likewise regarding Obama’s continued concealment of records, but used under his OWN voting qualifications in Chicago, in both 2004 and 2008:
    § 1974a. Theft, destruction, concealment, mutilation, or alteration of records or papers; penalties
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00001974—a000-.html
    and the procedure to implement (hint, use “ex rel State of Illinois”?)
    § 1974b. Demand for records or papers by Attorney General or representative; statement of basis and purpose
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00001974—b000-.html
    and, so, of course, the jurisdictional hook:
    § 1974d. Jurisdiction to compel production of records or papers
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00001974—d000-.html
    While, all sorts of different “teams” and “organizations” including Obama in them can be arranged/claimed/accused under
    § 1985. Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00001985—-000-.html
    especially paragraph (3) thereunder..
    AND which therefore gives another *original jurisdiction* to the federal court under:
    Title 28, § 1343. Civil rights and elective franchise
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00001343—-000-.html
    along with the obligatory Section 1983 civil rights claims, of course…
    from United States Code, TITLE 44, Public Printing and Documents:
    includes the mandates regarding all “Presidential Records” - see all info/ammo at very top.
    from United States Code, TITLE 50, War and National Defense:
    Can we spell all of the different names of the “radicals” associated with Obama, both prior and present, stir in a little Acorn soup, allege the basic, obvious facts on paper, and leverage this, even? The skilled legal practioner can surely do it:
    TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 23 > SUBCHAPTER IV — COMMUNIST CONTROL
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_23...
    And, just for good measure, everything you wanted to know about the new Presidential declaration of National Emergency regarding the swine flu, or H1N1 derivative, and including how and when to terminate any national emergency:
    CHAPTER 34 — NATIONAL EMERGENCIES
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_34...
    ________________________________________
    Heck, people, all of that is JUST from pouring through ONLY the entire United States Code (USC). What if someone took the time to sift through *the entire* Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), maybe research the available Secret Service documentation, manuals, and etc., or the same sets of endless rules and regulations from other relevant federal agencies/departments? What if Obama is breaking the law - again - every time he flies out of the country, and then “tries to re-enter” our Nation? Do you get the point? The age-old adage is that “no man is above the law”, and, yet, people think the cliche is true, that high government officers can merely *get away* with acting like they are “above the law” - yet, I tell you the simple truth: the higher a government official is in rank, the more and more rules, regulations, laws and other authorities that exist in relation to their position, and they have, effectively, even more and more “leashes” snaring them down.. watching their every move. Indeed, I would call Obama the man who is “most UNDER the law” in America, actually… every Presidential candidate must be *necessarily* prepared to accept that role for his or her entire term of office… to be the most-leashed public servant that there is… to be subject to intense scrutiny… and, via ‘on paper’, i.e., accountable to the greatest amount and numbers of variously written laws…
    The point is, Patriots of the United States of America, that there are various EASY and COMMANDING ways, already in full force of law, with which to obtain the “eligibility” records sought, or to find no sufficient records exist, and bring an end to this utter nonsense of a circus, if only a **comprehensive** review of the matters be done and actually implemented.
    REPEAT OF SUMMARY:
    The law of the United States Code is extremely clear, even often in multiple times and multiple ways, that:
    a) the AG *cannot* represent/defend Obama in any challenge that involves a question of his nationality/citizenship, for the relevant statutory laws mandate that the AG be on the *prosecuting* side against Obama, if the AG is involved at all…
    b) the AG also *cannot* represent/defend Senators or the Senate body, itself, in these constitutional questions, either…
    c) there are various statutory standings provided for even “mere” individual Citizens to sue Obama, Congress, etc.
    d) Obama’s “Presidential records” are expressly PUBLIC by mandate of law (and, combined with using AG Holder & U.S. Attorneys, i.e., our *taxdollars*, in an expressly-unconstitutional manner, defending Obama in citizenship issues, then Obama gets to pay back every single red cent of that $1.7 million spent so far… plus interest and penalties).
    e) additionally, there are all sorts of federal agencies/heads to go after Obama’s eligibility through, by statutes.
    ADDITIONAL LEGAL THEORIES & ARGUMENTS:
    Lastly, let me also point out and ardently remind of these important items to consider into the mix:
    1) - Clinton was held in contempt by a federal court, while he was still the President, ergo, jurisdiction exists:
    http://law.jrank.org/pages/5671/Contempt-Contempt-Proceedings-again...
    (See also, most especially, Nixon v. Fitzgerald, Jenness v. Fortson, Bush v. Gore, Kawakita v. U.S., U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, U.S. v. Rhodes, and Scheuer v. Rhodes [a different ”Rhodes” case, unrelated], all from SCOTUS)
    2) - Congress, itself, routinely turns to the judiciary to resolve issues, even to sue the President:
    http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press99/pr050199.htm
    3) - EVERY President is sued in order to compel official duties, all the dang time, by business, individuals, and even other government and quasi-government entities. Just one example out of literally thousands:
    http://www.apwu.org/news/webart/2008/0868-bush_lawsuit-080717-b.pdf
    and go look at the online dockets and archived opinions of the various federal court types physically located in DC…
    4) - Heck, it’s even “ok” to actually sue the White House Executives for scandalous allegations of outright fraud:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/jul/10/usa.dickcheney
    5) - You have to remember/realize the REASON *why* Obama goes around hiding/concealing records… because that is exactly what he has been taught from birth to do… His mother obviously embroiled herself into some sort of “bend rules” stuff over Barry’s birth, somehow, and necessarily with someone else.. and HAD to later tell her son at least *something* about his unusual citizenship situation, at some time in his life. Further, with all the moving around the world (her work and etc.), especially to and through countries that were NOT being friendly with the United States, he was also taught through childhood NOT to have too much respect for the United States, or its culture and society… That’s the kind of friends and others who Obama hung around with quite often during his formative childhood, teenage, and young adult years. Also, of course, all that passing through various nations in political turmoils might typically require travelers to forge and fake documents and statements, just to avoid delays and problems.. And, later, for Barry to take a new muslim/african name while living in the United States, in order to demonstrate to his similar-thinking friends his “independence” and “repugnance” of the “establishment” level of the same United States. And, momma was right there, the whole time while Obama grew up, “explaining” away the “shortcuts” that they needed to take, just to get around and survive sometimes… teaching him, by example, to do the same thing as “needed”… Probably helping little Barry fill out student loan paperwork, too, as he prepared to enter his first college or university, right?? Is Obama hiding something in his various records? Oh, that’s a given, easily. Nationality/citizenship is surely not the only thing being concealed. He very likely has taken all sorts of federal financial benefits, student and/or small business loans, congressional perks, and/or now presidential stuff, that he wouldn’t even otherwise be regularly qualified for, in the first place, let alone the impostor citizen status to complicate things even that much further. Sure, he is also a Constitutional scholar himself, also taught to remember that there was the opportunity of better weath and life in America, that country he was likely daily taught to otherwise despise, but he was surely taught, and taught often, to “bend the rules” on nationality/citizenship paperwork as needed… Want confirmation? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Dunham and there Obama’s quote about his mother, who was: “the dominant figure in my formative years… The values she taught me continue to be my touchstone when it comes to how I go about the world of politics.“ Oh, yeah, I am confident he is hiding more than just mere citizenship issues… And, by the way, from recent story developments, it could actually be that little Barry’s mother was NOT married to his father, at all. Could it actually be that, maybe, just maybe, Ms. Dunham was *also not* a bona fide citizen of the United States, either???
    6) - Mr. Berg, Dr. Taitz, and Mr. Apuzzo, especially, but along with all other plaintiffs/counsel, would do well to consider the ramifications - and power - of the first two paragraphs, paragraph (a)(1) and paragraph (a)(2), here:
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/usc_sec_28_00001491—-000-.html
    7) - Sooo, what?? You get Obama thrown out of office… NOW what? What THEN? WHO becomes the next President? The answer, again, is very simple: Per the original Constitution, Mr. John McCain IS the *temporary* President, and Mr. Ralph Nader IS the *temporary* Vice-President, while a proper Re-Election is done promptly, say within 120 to 180 days of new campaigning time period allowed from date of judicial ruling, using ***distinct*** voting/balloting for the offices of President and Vice-President, and *only* those all same 2008 Prez and VP candidates run again, if they so choose to do again, but the mandatory result of the true Constitutional law and design is that you almost certainly end up with one (1) White House Executive from EACH/BOTH of the top two political parties, i.e., most likely either McCain as Prez with Hillary as Vice-Prez, or the reverse, Hillary as Prez with McCain as Vice-Prez, because of simple mathematics and the Constitutional selection process involved, i.e., the top two political strengths/parties each get one of the top two Executive positions, President and Vice-President. That’s pre-12th Amendment, like it *should be* still done. But, even after the 12th Amendment (1804-1805, enacted-ratified), the campaign law hasn’t been followed correctly since the 1870s, and the “newer” opportunity of “running for” Vice-President is **supposed** to be ran for independently from the balloting/voting process of the candidates for President. So, in the current state of things, the Re-Election of 2008, done under present (don’t strike down the) 12th Amendment rule, we must end up with ONE of the Presidential candidates, and ONE of the Vice-Presidential candidates, but NOT necessarily, and NOT even probably or likely, being of the *same* party. In other words, under the current law in place for 200+ years, and that was suddenly ceased to be followed during the 1870s, we should have had 2008 results like: Obama/Palin, Hillary/Palin, McCain/Biden, Baldwin/Palin, Nader/Biden, or etc. - any Prez candidate that wins Prez + any Vice-Prez candidate that wins the SEPARATELY DONE race for the Vice-Presidency… Or, again, what’s even easier.. simply go back to pre-12th Amendment, like it should best be done anyway (strike the 12th Amend. down), and you have no race for VP, at all, itself, but the two top Prez candidates become 1st (Prez) and 2nd (Vice-Prez) in number of votes obtained. Simple. Balanced. Elegant. It’s *supposed* to always be a Joint Administration (politically) in the White House, anyway. And, that law and design and intent always was followed, too, until the 1870s… when the new mega-wealth “barons” and “tycoons” entered onto the American scene through vast new enterprises in railroads, steel, telegraphs, newspapers, etc., and began to *really* take over, in bending and stretching the political process to suit their own desires. Those damn Banksters… greed, the oldest sin of all..
    But then, the Word of God - twice - clearly reminds the inescapable truth:
    “You cannot serve both God and Mammon.”
    And, it also clearly reminds: “My people perish for lack of knowledge.”
    Points proven for God’s Word, as always being solid truth and wisdom, once again…
    CALL TO ACTION:
    Especially to Mr. Apuzzo and Dr. Taitz, in respective timeline order: Regardless of filing appeal to your Circuit, you should certainly — certainly (is everybody watching them??) — incorporate some of the above, and file your immediate motions for reconsideration, based on newly discovered authority, etc. Mr. Apuzzo has until this coming Wednesday, November 4th to file any motion for alteration of judgment (Dismissal entered 10/21/09, ten (10) “business” days, per FRCP Rule 6(a)(2)), to file motion under FRCP Rule 59), while Dr. Taitz has the same ten business days allotted since Judge Carter’s ruling was entered, and she can also slap that traitor Judge Land back with a Rule 60(b) motion, because - omg!! - even *thinking* about any *sanctions* during a *political question* case violates everything known to man… hint, hint… let alone the fact that Judge Land was outLANDish and wrong, in the first place. The above statutes under U.S. Code prove it.
    To all “Obama eligibility” Plaintiffs/Counsel: Please now implement the above clear mandates of federal statutory law, and thereby take away all further notions of “discretion”, “doctrine”, or any other interference or delay. Command your victory. There is absolutely NO legally plausible **excuse** for Obama violating his statutory duties to make his “Presidential records” made ALL and immediately public domain. Period. End of story. Sooo, bye-bye, Mr. Obama, ‘et al.’
    To all “NObama” - “End The Fed” - “Go Sarah” - “Hillary” - and other supporters: Please forward out widely to all available forums/groups/etc., at least the basic “hammers” above, especially the legal mandate of Obama’s “Presidential records” being made full public items for inspection/review. It is actually YOUR tireless communications/distribution work that actually gets the hooks baited, fish caught, cleaned, cooked and eaten tonight for supper. Thank you.
    Yeah, that’s right. I have chosen to live near poverty for years now, fighting part-time or more for restoration of America.
    If you like my help, I could sure use donations, left side PayPal on http://unitedcivilrights.org, to upgrade to full-time restoration work. That would help a whole lot to get this all done, and America back on a good Constitutional course.
    That way, instead of having to spend large chunks of my time working on people’s individual due process and other cases out there, I could focus on nothing but restoring America’s Constitutional Heritage through various legal HAMMERS actually implemented, sooner………………………….
    Thanks!
    Sincerest Regards,
    ——————————————
    Mr. Torm Howse
    Co-Founder, National Board Director, Instructor,
    United Civil Rights Councils of America
    http://unitedcivilrights.org
    Co-Founder, National Board Director, Trustee,
    Parental Alienation Awareness Organization - US
    http://paao-us.com
    Founder, Owner, President,
    The FIDO Network
    http://fidonetwork.com
    General Contact:
    P.O. Box 68665
    Indianapolis, Indiana 46268
    (317) 286-2538 office (888) 738-4643 fax
    indianacrc@earthlink.net
    Increase Your FAITH!

    Subject: U.S.C. Title 44, Chapter 22: “PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS”

  • Geraldo- Hasan might have had a toothache

    11/10/2009 7:58:49 PM PST · 7 of 37
    Poparhoid to smokingfrog

    So...I guess that people with dentures should be investigated for past crimes??
    Way to go Geraldo....a true victim of his own Liberal ideas.

  • Vanity: The Ayesayers and The Naysayers of the Healthcare Vote

    11/07/2009 10:53:05 PM PST · 1 of 16
    Poparhoid
  • The Republican that voted with Obama-Pelosi-Reid and the rest of the Democrat Communist Party

    11/07/2009 10:49:54 PM PST · 1 of 46
    Poparhoid
    Call this Congresscritter and let him know how much you appreciate his vote on the Healthcare vote
  • Pink Slips for Congress. - Go Green, Recycle Congress

    09/01/2009 9:19:38 AM PDT · 1 of 10
    Poparhoid
  • Dr. James David Manning ponders question of whether or not we're ready for a black president

    08/25/2009 12:16:14 AM PDT · 32 of 33
    Poparhoid to sushiman

    Say HEY Joey!
    Nobody can HEY like this man.
    Say HEEEEEEYYYYYYY

  • How many toes do you see? (Michelle Obama wearing sandals alert)

    08/23/2009 11:11:49 PM PDT · 163 of 195
    Poparhoid to maggief

    This picture makes look like a beauty queen.
    Talk about visually challenged.

  • Why are these Hussein Obama documents off-limits to Americans? (Transparency Inc.)

    08/23/2009 10:21:07 PM PDT · 81 of 124
    Poparhoid to TopQuark

    You certainly are not a Charmed Quark

  • Another "Angry Right-Wing Obama-Hater" Story Gone Dreadfully Wrong

    08/18/2009 11:16:12 AM PDT · 3 of 7
    Poparhoid to Poparhoid
  • Another "Angry Right-Wing Obama-Hater" Story Gone Dreadfully Wrong

    08/18/2009 11:09:23 AM PDT · 2 of 7
    Poparhoid to EricTheRed_VocalMinority

    Eric the Red
    I concur wholeheartedly and wish to add the following;

    OPEN LETTER TO THE PRESIDENT

    You guys sure do know how to acting stupidly.
    Are you doing this on purpose or are you just completely incompetent?
    I’m guessing its some of both.

    You decide you will try to sell the biggest, most “Big Brother” style change to the American medical system by insulting the American people.
    Well, that oughta work...Ya Think???

    My first question:

    Just where in the Constitution do you find the power granted to the Federal Government to do this? answer - It isn’t there.

    It isn’t in Article I Section 8 where it defines the power of Congress.

    It isn’t in Article II Section 1. where it talks about the qualification to be president...Natural Born citizen and all....Oops, thats probably a sore spot since you can’t prove and refuse to prove that one...sorry!

    It isn’t in Article II section 4 where it calls for the impeachment of this current president....oh dear me...I did it again!

    It isn’t in the First Amendment , where this Healthcare bill would attempt to get between an individuals decision between he and his religion and god as to the time and method of death., Thereby prohibiting the free exercise of that individuals religion.

    It isn’t in the Ninth Amendment, where this bill would come between, deny and disparage my rights to make my own healthcare decisions.

    It isn’t in the Tenth Amendment where, not being allowed otherwise, these healthcare rights are quite clearly reserved to the States or to the PEOPLE....Not to the Congress or the President.

    In The Life, Liberty and the are declared as unalienable rights endowed by our creator....NOT the President and the Congress. You are trying to preempt my , and my right to make my own decisions about the health of my life, with this Healthcare Bill. That power is not yours to grant. That right of mine is not yours to revoke.

    You are not preserving, protecting or defending the Constitution of the United States. YOU ARE NOT KEEPING YOUR OATH....but that’s no surprise given all the other things you have lied about.

    My second question;

    Have you ever heard, “if it isn’t broken don’t fix it”?
    Probably too ‘down home’ for your National Socialist tendencies.
    The Healthcare system IS NOT BROKEN. STOP LYING TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
    Sure it may need some tweaking in certain areas, but what or who doesn’t?
    Looked in the mirror lately?
    It does not need an overhaul as you propose.

    My third Question;

    Why are you trying to rush through something that hasn’t even been written yet, and apparently is still in the “figure it out” stage? Do you even understand the simple precedence concepts of , and ?

    You seem to think it is OK to pass something...anything......as fast as you can, and then say Oops afterward, when you figure out what damage you have done. Does the word PORKULUS ring a bell?

    This is no way to run any organization.....and quite clearly you never have. Believe me, IT SHOWS! You lack in basic managerial instincts and training, and your advisors are of extremely dubious quality.

    My Fourth Question;

    How many Czars does it take to screw in a light bulb?
    Why don’t you put them on that instead of screwing with
    the country.

    My fifth question;

    Why should ‘We, the People’ trust you when you hide so much of your past. I wouldn’t loan five dollars to someone who is hiding as much as you do, from’ We, the People’. You have shown yourself to be genetically incapable of telling the truth.

    My sixth and final Question;............................
    ........................................................
    How’s that Hopey-Changey thing workin for ya?

  • Sebelius misspoke....Obama still wants public option

    08/16/2009 11:09:17 PM PDT · 1 of 24
    Poparhoid
    Figures..............
  • It's official...

    08/14/2009 11:57:40 AM PDT · 25 of 38
    Poparhoid to Poparhoid

    Oh, I just give up.............

    It refers to the D. of I. July 4 1776

  • It's official...

    08/14/2009 11:55:44 AM PDT · 24 of 38
    Poparhoid to Poparhoid

    It did it again.....

    In the , the rights of Life, Liberty and the are declared as unalienable rights endowed by our Creator.........

    I hope it works this time retyped in.

  • It's official...

    08/14/2009 11:52:15 AM PDT · 23 of 38
    Poparhoid to Poparhoid

    In The , the rights of Life, liberty and the are declared as unalienable rights endowed by our creator....NOT the President and the Congress. You are trying to preempt my , and my right to make my own decisions about the health of my life, with this Healthcare Bill. That power is not yours to grant. That right of mine is not yours to revoke.

    This paragraph did not “cut and paste” correctly, sorry

  • It's official...

    08/14/2009 11:47:36 AM PDT · 20 of 38
    Poparhoid to DavidFarrar

    I’m right there with you David

    Open Letter to the President
    (from: Unamerican Evilmongering Mobster AKA Average American))

    Boy you guys sure do know how to act stupidly.
    Are you doing this on purpose or are you just completely incompetent? I’m guessing its some of both.

    You decide you will try to sell the biggest, most “big brother” style change to the American medical system by insulting the American people. Well that oughta work...Ya Think???

    My first question:
    Just where in the Constitution do you find the power granted to the Federal Government to do this? answer - It isn’t there.

    It isn’t in Article I Section 8 where it defines the power of Congress.

    It isn’t in Article II Section 1. where it talks about the qualification to be president...Natural Born citizen and all....Oops, thats probably a sore spot since you can’t prove and refuse to prove that one...sorry!

    It isn’t in Article II section 4 where it calls for the impeachment of this current president....oh dear me...I did it again!

    It doesn’t, in the First Amendment , where this Healthcare bill would attempt to get between an individuals decision between he and his religion and god as to the time and method of death., Thereby prohibiting the free exercise of that individuals religion.

    It doesn’t in the Ninth Amendment, where this bill would come between, deny and disparage my rights to make my own healthcare decisions.

    It doesn’t in the Tenth Amendment where, not being allowed otherwise, these healthcare rights are quite clearly reserved to the States or to the PEOPLE....Not the Congress or the President , or the Supreme court.

    In The , the , liberty and the are declared as unalienable rights endowed by our creator....NOT the President and the Congress. You are trying to prempt my right to life, and my right to make my own decisions about the health of my life, with this Healthcare Bill. That power is not yours to grant. That right of mine is not yours to revoke.

    You are not preserving, protecting or defending the Constitution of the United States. YOU ARE NOT KEEPING YOUR OATH....but thats no surprise given all the other things you have lied about.

    My second question;
    Have you ever heard, if it ain’t broke don’t fix it?
    Probably too down home for your Socialistic tendencies.
    The Healthcare system IS NOT BROKEN. STOP LYING TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
    Sure it may need some tweaking in certain areas, but what or who doesn’t? Looked in the mirror lately?
    It does not need an overhaul as you propose.

    My third Question;
    Why are you tryiung to rush through something that hasn’t even been written yet, and apparently is still in the “figure it out” stage? Do you even understand the simple precedence concepts of , and ?

    You seem to think it is OK to pass something...anything......as fast as you can, and then say Oops afterward, when you figure out what damage you have done. Does the word STIMULUS ring a bell?

    This is no way to run any organization.....and quite clearly you never have. Believe me IT SHOWS. You lack in basic managerial instincts and training, and your advisors are of extremely dubious quality.

    My Fourth Question;
    How many Czars does it take to screw in a light bulb?
    Why don’t you put them on that instead of screwing with
    the country.

    My fifth question;
    Why should we trust you when you hide your past from the American people. I wouldn’t loan five dollars to someone who is hiding so much, and neither would any of the banks who received all of that Tarp money ( I know...Bushs’ fault.....(no managerial skills at all)).

    My sixth and final Question;
    Hows that Hopey-Changey thing workin for ya?

  • AUDIO: Sen. Vitter: Climate Change Is "Ridiculous Pseudo-Science Garbage"

    08/14/2009 11:30:20 AM PDT · 8 of 14
    Poparhoid to Poparhoid

    Is your atmosphere getting too warm and wet for you ?

    First Change your Depends...then lose some weight.

    You’d be amazed how much drier and cooler you will feel.

  • AUDIO: Sen. Vitter: Climate Change Is "Ridiculous Pseudo-Science Garbage"

    08/14/2009 11:26:18 AM PDT · 7 of 14
    Poparhoid to ianschwartz

    “Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, the missing science”
    by Ian Plimer
    Just out.
    Read it
    READ IT NAAOOOWW

    Global Warming Debunked completely for all who have eyes to see. Finally...Climate history is added to the picture and a whole lot more...............

  • Senator Kerry Misfires about Global Warming and National Security

    08/13/2009 1:49:34 PM PDT · 18 of 18
    Poparhoid to <1/1,000,000th%

    So, you are lobbying for less than 0.7 deg. C., for the past 100 years ?
    I can certainly go with that.
    We are slowly rebounding from the last glaciation, so you can’t wipe it all out.
    I do agree that tempwise we have been on a downhill from 1998.
    I too, agree that earth based measurements are way too full off fertility, and the satellite measurements are the ones to go by.
    The 100 year number varies greatly depending on what your start and end dates are. Way too much wiggle room for the Warmers to splash around in.

  • Senator Kerry Misfires about Global Warming and National Security

    08/13/2009 11:08:10 AM PDT · 14 of 18
    Poparhoid to Paine in the Neck

    “Soon to be Citizen” Kerry, really should get some face work done and even up those eyes before the public option kicks in..
    ..oh wait ......he won’t have the public option......

    Those dastardly devious derogatory Dems.......

  • Senator Kerry Misfires about Global Warming and National Security

    08/13/2009 11:03:07 AM PDT · 12 of 18
    Poparhoid to <1/1,000,000th%

    I believe the operative word is significant.
    Do you find .7 Deg. C. in the past century significant?
    I sure don’t.
    Check out “Heaven and Earth” by Ian Plimer, just out.

    It makes for one heck of a read.
    It makes the mere thought of AGW seem absolutely silly.

    You got some learnin’ to do.

  • Senator Kerry Misfires about Global Warming and National Security

    08/13/2009 10:43:50 AM PDT · 1 of 18
    Poparhoid
    Download the PDF for all the facts the MSM is afraid to print. Hey Goreacle take your fingers out of your ears!!!
  • Follow the Constitution

    08/13/2009 9:43:20 AM PDT · 1 of 5
    Poparhoid
    Hit the link for the video and further links.

    Oath Keepers we need you NOW. STAND UP SHERIFFS

  • Gerald Celente: Future Outlook

    08/12/2009 10:59:04 AM PDT · 1 of 1
    Poparhoid
  • Fact-checking Obama on Healthcare (He lies and lies and lies again - Clinton was impeached for this)

    08/12/2009 10:41:01 AM PDT · 24 of 26
    Poparhoid to bestintxas
  • Obama’s White House is Falling Down (Outstanding Summary of Obozo's Presidency Alert)

    08/12/2009 10:38:50 AM PDT · 26 of 37
    Poparhoid to Zakeet
  • Obamacare Meltdown

    08/12/2009 10:37:49 AM PDT · 44 of 50
    Poparhoid to Sammy67
  • White House Busted Telling More Lies About Health Care Protesters

    08/12/2009 10:30:17 AM PDT · 16 of 17
    Poparhoid to tumblindice
  • Is this really it? (re: possible Obama's Kenyan B.C. - Attny Taitz) Click on the link

  • Dr. Orly Taitz: Update on Major Cook case

    08/12/2009 9:20:30 AM PDT · 1 of 40
    Poparhoid
  • Is this really it? (re: possible Obama's Kenyan B.C. - Attny Taitz) Click on the link

    08/10/2009 10:18:34 AM PDT · 8,478 of 11,798
    Poparhoid to All
    In case you missed this, don't know if has been discussed earlier. ********************************************************** The Law of Nations is quoted in the Constitution August 8th, 2009 This was posted on Citizen Wells and and Natural Born Citizen. You Article II s.1′er guys are just going to love this………THE CONSTITUTION DOES INDEED DEFINE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN AS BORN OF 2 US CITIZEN PARENTS AND ‘IN COUNTRY’, further it defines allegiance by patrilineage!!! Goss wrote: The Constitution and de Vattel’s Law of Nations has the answer to any questions regarding citizenship abroad and any laws crossing national boundaries: EXCERPT 1. U.S. Constitution, Article II, §1: 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; EXCERPT 2: de Vattel’s Law of Nations circa 1758 Book 1, Chapter XIX, § 212: The natives, or NATURAL-BORN CITIZENS, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens…The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. Finally, the main item in the Constitution that ties both together: EXCERPT 3: U.S. Constitution, Article I, §8: The Congress shall have Power…To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations Yes, Law of Nations is CAPITALIZED, meaning our framers were citing a proper name. There was only one Law of Nations in 1787 officially declared. And yes, Congress has the power to create and enforce ANY LAW mentioned in the Law of Nations written by Emmerich de Vattel! It was sitting right under our noses the entire time. http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm ———— US Citizen is defined by the 14th amendment. Natural Born Citizen is defined by The Law Of Nations, which is cited in the Constitution as its very basis Not only does the Law of Nations state that a natural born citizen is born in country of two citizen parents, it ALSO says that the patrilineage determines allegiance, meaning Barack’s father who was British/Kenyan determined Obama’s citizenship. “In God We Trust” (and ONLY God!) ********************************************************** So............stick that in the pot and stir it. Saw this on Orlys' site, not accessible thru , but is thru Internet Explorer. Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »
  • Is this really it? (re: possible Obama's Kenyan B.C. - Attny Taitz) Click on the link

    08/08/2009 10:09:59 AM PDT · 8,115 of 11,798
    Poparhoid to hoosiermama

    That article was all stuff six months to a year old.
    I am so glad that somebody is finally giving it the light of day in actual print where Mom and Pop America can finally see it, in the check out line.

    One more comment

    FREEPER NATION RULES!!!!

    You guys are all great and you perform a VERY necessary service for the maintenance and repair of our beloved
    Constitutional Republic — DON’T EVER STOP.

  • Is this really smoking gun of Obama's Kenyan birth?

    08/02/2009 10:45:28 PM PDT · 16 of 38
    Poparhoid to airborne

    Amen to that brother

  • Is this really smoking gun of Obama's Kenyan birth?

    08/02/2009 10:19:25 PM PDT · 1 of 38
    Poparhoid
  • Vanished: Obama exposer disappears off Net

    07/30/2009 10:53:34 AM PDT · 3 of 25
    Poparhoid to Kartographer

    A hysterical scream I think....if that was coming at me.......

  • Vanished: Obama exposer disappears off Net

    07/30/2009 10:48:07 AM PDT · 1 of 25
    Poparhoid
    Lets rebuild some of it here. Anybody got bits and pieces from their 'cut and pastes' that we can use to create a MiniFile here for everyones' reference.This stuff was just too good to lose. If he changes his mind and comes back PLEASE send him some congrats cash, in lieu of rosy emails............
  • WHY Obama fails to be eligible in MULTIPLE WAYS..........

    07/27/2009 3:21:15 PM PDT · 28 of 35
    Poparhoid to curiosity

    I didn’t write the article you bonehead......go back and teach your students how stupid YOU are..............

  • WHY Obama fails to be eligible in MULTIPLE WAYS..........

    07/27/2009 1:50:14 PM PDT · 26 of 35
    Poparhoid to Tanniker Smith

    This from file. I believe the parents need only be citizens not Natural Born citizens as the author of the article has written.

    from;
    http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaNaturalBorn.htm
    The Chart referred to here is at that link and didn’t make the paste.

    The
    Issue The question that the court must decide is whether a person governed by the laws of Great at the time of their birth could be considered a natural “born citizen” of the United States as required by Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 of our Constitution.

    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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

    The question remains unanswered in any United States court.

    The Chart

    People are confused because they don’t understand the meaning of the relevant legal terms. This chart shows the elements for each of the constitutional terms that are used in the Constitution or in caselaw by the Supreme Court.

    For each presidential candidate, they can put the factual history of their birth in the equation and see if they fit the bill to be president of the U.S. under the of , Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, and the 14th Amendment, Section 1, and the relevant federal law under U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), and Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939). As you can clearly see, Obama is a citizen of the United States, but he’s not a “natural born citizen” of the United States, and, as such, is not eligible for POTUS, because his father, a Kenyan, was not a U. S. citizen.

    Obama... is not a “natural born citizen” because his father was a Kenyan national and a British subject. To be a natural born citizen, a person’s parents must BOTH be citizens of the United States of America. Further, that person must be born in the United States.

    is a “citizen” because his mother was an American citizen. There are question about his birthplace and whether he was naturalized after his period of time as an Indonesian citizen.

    may be a “native born citizen” — a child born in the United States of foreign (non-citizen) parents. He will have to release his birth certificate, which he hasn’t, to ascertain this status.
    John Jay The term natural born citizen was first codified in writing in colonial reference books in 1758 in the legal reference book “Law of Nations.”

    That legal reference book was used by John Jay, who later went on to become the first of the U.S. Supreme Court. Jay had the clause inserted into the Constitution via a letter he wrote to George Washington, the leader of the Constitutional Convention. Jay was considered the outstanding legal scholar of his time and he was the one is responsible for inserting that term into the U. S. Constitution, which was derived from the Law of Nations.

    John Jay wrote: “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and reasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”
    Law Of
    Nations

    Emmerich de Vattel was a Swiss jurist who attained world preeminence in international law. This was primarily the result of his great foundational work, which he published in 1758. His monumental work — The Law of Nations — applied a theory of natural law to international relations. His scholarly, foundational, and systematic explanation of the Law of Nations was especially influential in the United States.

    The Law of Nations was so influential in the United States because his principles of liberty and equality coincided with the ideals expressed in the U. S. Declaration of Independence. In particular, his definitions in terms of Law governing nations regarding citizenship, defense of neutrality, and his rules for commerce between neutral and belligerent states were considered authoritative in the United States.

    Many have said that de Vattel’s Law of Nations was THE primary reference and defining book used by the framers of the U. S. Constitution. It is really not possible to overstate the influence of de Vattel’s Law of Nations as the primary reference book in the drafting of the U. S. Constitution. Emmerich de Vattel’s Law of Nations is almost beyond comparison in its value as a defining document regarding U. S. Constitution intent and interpretation. The Law of Nations, or the Principles of Natural Law, published in 1758, is the first, and ONLY, definitive work the Framers of the U. S. Constitution used for the inclusion of the “Natural Born Citizen” phrase. It nails what is meant by the “natural born citizen” phrase of Section 1, Article 2, of the U. S. Constitution.

    It is amazing how perfectly, precisely, and explicitly what Emmerich de Vattel, wrote in paragraph 212, of book 1, chapter 19, of The Law of Nations entitled CITIZENS AND NATIONS, applies to the Obama FRAUD. Quite clearly and explicitly it defines why Obama, can NOT possibly be qualified to be the President of the United States. Obama MUST be disqualified from the office of President of the United States according to the U. S. Constitution Section 1 Article 2.

    “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society can not exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as a matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. THE COUNTRY OF THE FATHERS IS THEREFORE THAT OF THE CHILDREN.”
    It’s About
    Loyalty The Founders wanted the President to be a Natural Born Citizen to ensure that the ONE person sitting at the top of the Executive branch had UNQUESTIONABLE, UNWAVERING loyalty to the United States, first and foremost.

    At one point, the delegates writing the Constitution in 1787 considered THREE “presidents” in the Executive for “checks and balances.” They considered a “natural born citizen” clause for Senators as well. Debating those issues, they felt that a “natural born citizen” clause for Senators would limit the pool of possible candidates and could cause bad feelings with immigrants needed to “jump start” the newly-formed republic.

    In the end, the Framers compromised that Senators be required to be US residents for 9 years, while striking the “natural born citizen” clause for the office.

    The Framers also compromised on ONE Executive vs. THREE. But to ensure “checks and balances,” the Framers inserted in Art II, Sect. 1, Clause 5: “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 natural born citizen clause was NOT an accident, nor was it an inane rule to be restrictive to immigrants, and it certainly isn’t just a “political” issue. Loyalty to the US is the reason the natural born citizen clause was inserted into the Constitution.
    1st U. S.
    Congress
    Parents (pl) In the official copies of the THIRD (1795) margin notes state “Former act repealed. 1790. ch. 3.” referencing the FIRST U.S. Congress (1790).

    Document ONE: the actual text of the THIRD CONGRESS in 1795 states, “...children of citizens [plural, i.e. two parents] of the United States...shall be considered citizens of the United States; Provided That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States...” (THIRD CONGRESS Sess. II. Ch.21. 1795, Approved January 29, 1795, pp. 414-415. Document margin note: “How children shall obtain citizenship through their parents” Document margin note: “Former Act repealed 1790 ch.3.”) See Attachment A.

    Document TWO: the actual text of the FIRST CONGRESS in 1790 states,
    “...children of citizens (NB: plural, i.e. two parents) of the United States...shall be considered as natural born citizens of the United States; Provided That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident in the United States...” (FIRST CONGRESS Sess. II Ch.4 1790, Approved March 26, 1790, pp. 103-104. Document margin note: “Their children residing here, deemed citizens.” Document margin note: “Also, children of citizens born beyond sea, & c. Exceptions.”) See Attachment B.

    Document THREE: the actual text of the Constitution from the and the , 1774-1789, and subsequent official printings, of the of American: Article II Section 1 Clause 5 states,
    “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…” See Attachment C.

    Source

  • WHY Obama fails to be eligible in MULTIPLE WAYS..........

    07/27/2009 11:38:14 AM PDT · 1 of 35
    Poparhoid
    Letter under "comments" is quite informative also to those just starting to look for the actual facts on this issue....not the Obots emotional hysterics.
  • Sotomayor - Where Did You Put That $3.5 Million "your honor"? - SHE MUST BE STOPPED

    07/24/2009 10:58:18 AM PDT · 10 of 36
    Poparhoid to Mamzelle

    It could be all that facial work and plastic surgery? No?

  • Barack Obama, talking crap

    07/24/2009 10:26:28 AM PDT · 1 of 5
    Poparhoid
    Craptastic and Craptacular !!!
  • The criminal case against ACORN.......

    07/23/2009 11:39:38 PM PDT · 1 of 8
    Poparhoid
    And so, it begins.................
  • N. Korea Calls Clinton 'Schoolgirl,'

    07/23/2009 8:49:17 PM PDT · 1 of 10
    Poparhoid
    Great...now Hillary and Kim Jung Il are bitch slapping each other..........will the real adult Please shut up.
  • Obama Birthdat Surprise -- for August 4

    07/23/2009 11:50:49 AM PDT · 4 of 32
    Poparhoid to humblegunner

    Oops on the spelling!
    Good comeback dat

  • Obama Birthdat Surprise -- for August 4

    07/23/2009 11:47:14 AM PDT · 1 of 32
    Poparhoid
    Birthday packages are so festive................
  • 9/12 Mania: Massive Tea Party storms DC

    07/13/2009 6:58:34 PM PDT · 1 of 25
    Poparhoid
    Time to Bury the Hatchet........heh, heh.............
  • 9/12 TaxPayer March on DC Sept. 10th-12th

    07/10/2009 1:31:08 PM PDT · 5 of 17
    Poparhoid to anniegetyourgun

    We would still have the 2nd ammendment wouldn’t we?

  • 9/12 TaxPayer March on DC Sept. 10th-12th

    07/10/2009 12:59:59 PM PDT · 1 of 17
    Poparhoid
    Lost your Job? Come say Thank You. Don't like what Obama and Congress are doing? Come tell them so. Don't let them think that they are doing a good job of anything EXCEPT destroying this country we love.

    http://www.resistnet.com/group/wethepeoplemarchonwashington