'Sanctions' sought in President's Eligibility case

WorldNet Daily ^ | Feb. 13, 2009 | Bob Unruh

[SvenMagnussen]

A high-powered team of Los Angeles attorneys representing President Obama in his effort to keep his birth certificate, college records and passport documents concealed from the public has suggested there should be "monetary sanctions" against a lawyer whose clients have brought a complaint alleging Obama doesn't qualify for the Oval Office under the Constitution's demand for a "natural born" citizen in that post.

The suggestion came in an exchange of e-mails and documents in a case brought by former presidential candidate Alan Keyes and others in California. The case originally sought to have the state's electors ordered to withhold their votes for Obama until his eligibility was established. Since his inauguration, it has been amended to seek a future requirement for a vetting process, in addition to the still-sought unveiling of Obama's records.

[Albertafriend]

Someone named Judah Benjamin did the research into Indonesian law and posted it on Texas Darlin back in July. Here is a link to one of his reports. I think all of his research reports have been exclusively posted on this website.

http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/07/29/the-paper-trail-obamas-indonesian-background/

[Michael Michael]

You sure are spending a lot of time banging away on that keyboard for someone who doesn't care.

Take a look at what I was responding to when I said I didn't care. It was in response to someone who said I was afraid of what the birth certificate will reveal. I said that in order to be afraid of what the birth certificate will reveal, I'd have to care what the birth certificate will reveal. And by that I mean that it's no skin off my nose one way or the other what the birth certificate might reveal because I simply haven't any vested interest in Obama.

You may or may not know what you're talking about, but it is quite clear to me that you are investing a lot of time and energy defending the Usurper.

Nothing I say has anything specifically to do with Obama and is not any sort of specific defense of Obama. What I've been talking about has been the issue itself. It's the issue that interests me. Just as it was the issue that interested me regarding the TANG/Dan Rather forgery scandal some years back. I came down on the side that the documents were forgeries. It wasn't any sort of specific defense of Bush. Just as how I've come down on this issue isn't any specific defense of Obama.

This place is becoming infested with Obots.

No, what it's becoming infested with are people who mindlessly call people who don't agree with them "Obots."

[Michael Michael]

I’m ignoring you since it’s obvious you are an Obot.

What's obvious is that you haven't a clue what you're talking about. But that's ok. Stick your fingers in your ears like a child and shout "BLAH! BLAH! BLAH! I CAN'T HEAR YOU! BLAH! BLAH! BLAH!"

[FormerACLUmember]

ANYTHING but producing a $12.50 vault birth certificate to a court of record .... WHAT could be so damning on a birth certificate? MUST be something ... to jump through all these hoops ...

I agree. What is worth the vast money Obama is spending to preventg the public from seeing a $12.50 birth certificate?

[BIGLOOK]

I've seen enough of 1/27/09 imposter to realize he's a plant.

Replying is a waste of time.

[Michael Michael]

It is natural to have differences of opinion and understanding but the two Michaels is unreasonable and argumentative.

Unreasonable and argumentative? Why, because I don't agree with you? Well hey, welcome to the real word. Not everyone agrees.

Once he stooped to the ad hominem attacks, his cover was blown.

Stooping to ad hominem attacks? What, "Obot" is a term of endearment?

Hypocrite.

It’s the same with No Sequitur and mlo and a few others that are infesting these threads.

If all you want is a big circle-jerk with those who only agree with you, might I suggest avoiding public forums. Otherwise, if you post on public forums, expect that someone is liable to disagree with you. And when they do, don't whine about it.

[Michael Michael]

Not clueless enough to know you're an Obot spewing forth BS.

And that's precisely what makes you clueless.

I was the very first poster to post to you asking if you were a troll? You said, No, I'm not a troll. I just didn't like didn't like people ganging up on mlo.

Yes, that's what I said and that's correct.

You further stated that you had no interest in politics just in graphics and Polarik's analysis of Obama's COLB was wrong.

I said I had no interest in arguing politics online. And I don't.

This isn't politics.

The "stimulus" package, that's politics. What Obama's religious beliefs are, that's politics.

This isn't politics. Either he was born in Hawaii or he wasn't. Either he lost his US citizenship or he didn't. The truth of either of these is not subject to anyone's opinion.

[Michael Michael]

I agree. What is worth the vast money Obama is spending to preventg the public from seeing a $12.50 birth certificate?

If you send your $12.50 to the Hawaii Department of Health and ask them to send you a copy of your birth certificate, what you're sent is precisely what Obama has already provided; a Certification of Live Birth.

[mojitojoe]

It's the COLBots who are running around parroting their pre-printed talking points, not me.

_____________________

You just joined, you LIVE COLB on threads that you think are BS. It's quite obvious to all that you are on a mission and that it would break your little heart if your wet dream fantasy Mr. Yes We can), was found to be a phony

[Michael Michael]

You just joined...

Yes. You have to join in order to post. You don't have to join to read. And I have been reading for some months before I joined.

...you LIVE COLB on threads that you think are BS.

Uh, would you care to translate that for me? What does "you LIVE COLB on threads" mean?

It's quite obvious to all that you are on a mission and that it would break your little heart if your wet dream fantasy Mr. Yes We can), was found to be a phony

That's your own little delusion, and you're more than welcome to it.

[mojitojoe]

Excellent article Chief. I read it 3 times. This man has some deep seated mental problems. We are in deep trouble with him in the WH. He has a one track mind. That’s why he’s already bored at the WH. he couldn’t care less about foreign affairs. He has one agenda and the rest can go to hell for all he cares.
He is going to set racial relations back 50 years. It’s already starting. I found many of the commenters made some excellent points. I wonder what many of them are saying now, since these were made 4 months ago. How right they were:

This guy can say nothing more eloquently than anyone I’ve ever seen. The Dems are about to nominate a community activist. He is a divider not a uniter. He is a partisan not a maverick. He is a hater not a lover. He is the polar opposite of what he claims to be.

The people he denounces - Mayor Daley and big business - have done far more for the people than any of his communities. The man he speaks of most admiringly - Harold Washington - was a terrible and ineffectual mayor. Obama’s narcissism prevents him from seeing these obvious truths.

So he helped Mosely Braun’s election. Great. His judgment is already in question regarding the folks he reveres and takes as mentors and contributors. Alan Dixon was a really good man; and Mosely Braun, who was cashing her mom’s welfare checks while the old lady was in a State-paid nursing home, and who let taxpayers fund her boyfriend’s trips to Africa with her was just the type of pol he purports NOT to admire. Sorry, but his emphasis on collectivism has turned me off entirely.

If a white politician spoke repeatedly of working with pastors in white neighborhoods to ensure that whites get “their share”, which he insists they are currently denied. If a white politician spoke of the need for long-lasting institutions to be created beyond the temporal excitement created by a politician who furthered the power of the race to which he belonged, and the need for real change to be initiated after the conclusion of such marches in which he’d participated as one led by Lester Maddox (a rough equivalent to Louis Farrakhan and his Million Man March), would you really be writing, “He wants to be the president for all Americans?”

His role as community organizer was merely to further the material standards of blacks and Hispanics merely in the community he resided - unfortunately that’s wholly different than an elected official’s position to look out for the concerns of his state or nation at large - he doesn’t see the difference.

E.g., when he speaks of anti-Semitic statements not doing the job of lifting black communities - do you get a sense of outrage at the existence of anti-Semitic statements? I don’t. Again, if a white politician spoke of anti-black statements not doing the job for the frustrated ambitions of poor whites - shouldn’t we feel umbrage at such a nonchalant reference to the existence of such bigotry?

Obama is a socialist, plain and simple. He eschews individualism, calling it a “myth” that individual effort and hard work can allow people to work their way out of poverty — while evading the fact that millions of people, black and white, have done precisely that.

No, instead, he wants to offer blacks an alternative to the notion that they must work for a living; he wants to promise them a “share of the pie” — a pie they did not produce, by the way — to be achieved by “collective action”. Translation: if enough of us stick together and become a big enough block of voters, then we can get government to further loot the taxpayers and give us more of their earnings.

That is all Obama is promising: more of the same government looting that has been on the rise for decades. Obama is not a candidate of change; Obama is a candidate of “staying the course” on the march to socialism in America.

Obama is half white (American mother) and half black (Kenyan father) - correct? He was raised by his white mother and white grandparents.
Why does he only identify himself as a black man? Why has he forgotten the heritage of his white mother?
Curious.

Obama became involved in politics to advance black people...This article shows that clearly.. If you want to know how Obama really feels inside study J. Wright’s sermons. Obama is like Satan.. he promises everyone everything but gives nothing and will take everything
‘
This entire article confirms what many have suspected all along. Obama is a SOCIALIST. He eschews the individual and favors the collective. It’s pretty obvious what “collective” he favors. That is why he was so drawn to the racist hate monger, Jeremiah Wright.

Never once has Obama ever spoken about personal responsibility. Never once do you ever hear him speak of the very black problem of out of wedlock births in that community that cause the majority of the black communities problems.

To him socialism is the answer. Take from those who are productive to those who live grievance lifestyles.

This guy is dangerous. He will be the most racially divisive man in the history of this country if people are insane enough to elect him. He will be a one term failure of a president that is for sure. If he does get to the White House, he will guarantee no other black person is ever elected president for at least two generations.

I won’t even bother getting into the failure and total weakness he would represent on a foreign policy front.

If Obama was white, he would have been eliminated in the early primaries. He offers nothing but larger government taking from those who have earned and giving it to those who do nothing to help themselves. He offers nothing but the failure of socialism. Most people are idiots. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Obama has never run anything larger than his senate office staff. This country will be in for much larger disaster than the Jimmy Carter years where Carter weakened this country abroad and at home gave us 17% interest rates.

Obama spells failure for this country.

Obama’s wife hates this country. Obama also hates his country. He wouldn’t have stayrd friends with rabid racists and hate mongers like Jeremiah Wright if he actually loved this country.

If anything the Obama campaign is showing America that “Black Liberation Theology” is nothing but pure hatred. No different than the KKK.

Collectivism is a cornerstone of communist thought. Do what is better first for the State, then the individual. The constitution is based on the individual, not the State. Quoting Obama in this article:”The political debate is now so skewed, so limited, so distorted,” said Obama. “People are hungry for community; they miss it. They are hungry for change.

“In America,” Obama says, “we have this strong bias toward individual action. You know, we idolize the John Wayne hero who comes in to correct things with both guns blazing. But individual actions, individual dreams, are not sufficient. We must unite in collective action, build collective institutions and organizations.The right wing talks about this but they keep appealing to that old individualistic bootstrap myth: get a job, get rich, and get out. Instead of investing in our neighborhoods, that’s what has always happened. Our goal must be to help people get a sense of building something larger”. If you wish to take a major turn toward communism vote for the BIG O!

I thoroughly understand the injustice that has been given to blacks over the last 400 years. What I don’t understand is why does everyone want the government to take care of them. Have we become so lazy that as long as we have TV/Alcohol/ and Sex we are content. I will tell ALL OF YOU one thing, if you Congress and the President decide what is best for you then you are doomed to be SLAVES. A persons race will not matter.

When a left winger criticizes “John Wayne individualism” he’s speaking code for “Everything inside the State; nothing outside the State,” Mussolini’s slogan for Fascism. If you want to see a real attack on the Constitution -— not the mere piddling stuff Bush has been accused of -— just elect Barack Obama to the presidency. His “collective” vision wants everything you’ve got, starting with your liberty.

For blacks living in Chicago’s South Side, how has Obama improved things? Has he provided more jobs? Is unemployment down? Is crime down? Are high school graduation rates up?

The Government has had this “war on poverty” for what, 40 years now? If you ain’t out of poverty yet, you ain’t never gonna be. Stay in school, stop having baby mamas, stop selling and using drugs, drinking, get a job, work your way up, become middle class. Viola!

Riddle me this..
Michelle Obama has spoken of how they know what its like trying to make ends meet these days. Gee, she makes over $300,000.00 a year and then whatever he makes from his books and job. Shame on me... here I was feeling frustrated making less than $20,000.00 while my male counterparts make closer to $30,000.00 a year.

For those having trouble doing the math:
Obama is 50% Caucasian,43.25% Arabic and 6.25% African Negro. So actually rather than the first African American he is really the first Arabic American to be elected president.

The African American community really are only voting for him because of the color of his skin.

It appears he’s ashamed of his Arabic heritage. Why else would cling to his 6.25% African Negro heritage.
“The right wing, the Christian right, has done a good job of building these organizations of accountability, much better than the left or progressive forces have. But it’s always easier to organize around intolerance, narrow-mindedness, and false nostalgia. And they also have hijacked the higher moral ground with this language of family values and moral responsibility.”

Wow, calling the Christian Church, which he claimed to be espoused for so many years, “Intolerant and narrow-minded.” I guess we are seeing his true colors here. Someone who was an activist and a member of various organizations for the sole purpose of higher office. This brings me back to what I have always wondered about this man, what does he truly believe?

“In America,” Obama says, “we have this strong bias toward individual action. You know, we idolize the John Wayne hero who comes in to correct things with both guns blazing. But individual actions, individual dreams, are not sufficient. We must unite in collective action, build collective institutions and organizations.”

I believe that is the same rhetoric used by Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini and Castro. Destroy the individual desire for achievement and rely on the government to take care of you. This guy is pure Marxist to the core and always has been. God help us as the other choice is marginally better. Sad to think in 2008 this is the best the USA has to offer.

Great - so he wants to improve the ghetto - but what about everyone else? He talks of change and uniting a divided nation, but all he writes about is helping our African American communities. How can I possibly give him my vote when he’s so obviously motivated to concentrate his efforts on one demographic? I’m not black and I don’t live in the ghetto, but I’m also not a rich white person living in the suburbs either. I need someone who has EVERYONE’s interests in mind. I too feel the squeeze every time I stop at the gas pump, or go to the grocery store. But I’m still considered “middle-class” (although I’d like them to see my checking account balance at the end of each month), so my taxes are raised to fund more social programs to help those who are struggling during these hard economic times. What I want to know is, where’s MY help?

Do you realize he is poised to support and fulfill all of Planned Parenthood’s agenda? The same organization who took calls for donations to “kill black babies” and didn’t even bat an eye? Who puts centers up in black low-income areas so they can continue to kill black babies at an alarming rate? Do you realize he supports partial birth abortion, where they pull a viable baby backwards out of the mother (except the head), stick a tube in its head, suction out its brains, crush the skull and THEN deliver it? He also rejects the born-alive protection act, where babies who actually survive an abortion are not left to die in linen closets? What kind of human being could truly believe that a civilized society could support such monstrous acts? No matter how smooth his tongue is, his inhumanity towards ‘the least of these’ speaks volumes to me, and drowns out his eloquent rhetoric.

As a resident of Hawaii for 42 and a Haole or White male,as is the racially motivated term used here, I am amazed that BHO had such difficulty at a local elitist school like Punahou. If he had attended Iolani another elitist school of a different racial make up he would have known just how racial things can get in this wonderful melting pot of humanity. It is beyond me how anyone can fall for this Used Car Salesman! Haven’t they observed what has and is still happening in the Southside of Chicago? All of the US Government money that is dumped into this area under the guise of helping the poor. The result is what BHO saw in Djakarta but on a larger scale. This money goes to make the elite blacks rich, and BHO is one of them who has gained his power and riches on the backs of the very same people he continues to say he is helping. And as President, a lot of your money and mine will end up in his pocket and the pockets of his friends.

Senator Compassion voted to kill a baby who survives an abortion in Illinois Senate in 2001...read the transcript, and if it does not send chills down your spine you are not human. Fast forward to 2008 when he said he doesn’t want his daughters “punished by a baby”...of course, that would be his grandchild he’s talking about! Obama is a wild-eyed ideologue who said his first act will to sign the Freedom of Choice Act which will permit the federal govt to fund all abortions on demand, and then Obama will raise all of our taxes to pay for it. Get ready for the nanny state of the God-less One

Obama is a: a) collectivist, b) fascist,or c)socialist? Take your pick. Our great country was not founded on any of the above political theories. Inquire, research, question, learn; leave the ‘herd’ mentality behind. I am reading ‘The Audacity of Hope’ so I am learning what Obama stands for..... (collectivism) and it scares me!!!

Obama is good at expressing what he would like to see happen in the “communities”, but doesn’t say where the money to do this will come from. Does anyone else but me wonder how immigrants of all races come here, most not even speaking the language, learn the language and economic system and within a matter of years buy their own home, yet our own citizens will not avail themselves of the same resources and work ethics these foreign immigrants have proven are a recipe for success?

Obama, like all Marxists attempt to fan the flames of class envy. For all the intellect he clearly has, he fails to see that it is better to guarantee equal opportunity to compete, not guarantee outcome without competition. Societies always benefit from the fruits of those who struggle and suffer from supporting those who are capable of effort, but refuse to do so.
make no mistake about this barack obama II is all about barack obama II. but as much as he loves to hear himself, michelle is ‘the MAN’.what’s going on with those ‘health club stopovers’?

AND WHERE IS THE DAMN BIRTH CERTIFICATE BOMMA BOY?? Let’s see those medical records too, the ones you refused to release. You want our medical records, fine, right after we see yours and NO SCRUBBING them first since that seems to be the only thing you are good at.

http://www.chicagoreader.com/features/stories/archive/barackobama/

[mojitojoe]

This place is becoming infested with Obots.

The closer people get, the more obots are put out to squelch the info. What’s funny is we all know there is much going on behind the scenes and there is much more info already in the hands of people and it sure as hell won’t get posted here for them to see. They hope that someone slips up and gives them the goods. Won’t happen here obots, you will just be given enough crumbs to make you go ballistic.

[mojitojoe]

That statement proves he is an unhinged liberal who would scream if anyone referred to Obama as a chimpanzee.
__________________

Well now that you mention it, with those ears, he does look like one. They called Bush Chimpy for years, now it’s our turn.

[BP2]

None of the states veered from the English common law with respect to citizenship. The "natural born" of Article II is the "natural born" of the English common law. Which is jus soli, meaning you were a citizen of the United States by having been born in the United States, regardless of whether or not your parents were US citizens.

OK, let me help you out on this one too, which educating along the way (good book -- Spiro, "Beyond Citizenship"):

The common law rule moved with the colonists to the New World and was adopted by the new republic, if only as applied to whites and matter or custom rather than codified law. After the Constitution was drafted, the first Congress soon extended birth citizenship to the children of American citizen fathers born abroad, which is a limited form of jus sanguinis.

Not all states, and not all citizens wanted jus soli across the board for EVERYONE. And for obvious reasons to the people and events of the time. The issue of birth citizenship stood at the core of the race controversial that the Framers could not resolve. The South, of course, would not have accepted an absolute rule of jus soli, for that would have meant citizenship for the children of slaves -- an expropriation of property, in the plantation view. But the South could not abide by national citizenship even of free blacks and their children. On one hand, slaveholding interests saw free blacks as subversive instigators of slave revolt. Many slave states had what were considered necessary protective measures controlling the activities of free blacks sojourning in their jurisdictions and state territories, in some cases, barring free slaves entry altogether. Such laws would have been CLEARLY unconstitutional at the time had free slaves enjoyed the status of national citizens. On the other hand, antislavery forces would themselves have rejected a rule of jus soli excluding blacks. Although jus soli was the uncontested matter of practice with respect to whites (MOST IMPORTANTLY, WITH RESPECT TO THE CHILDREN OF IMMIGRANTS WHO OFTEN COULD NOT CLAIM CITIZENSHIP THROUGH PARENTAGE), in the face of the race question, it did not lend itself to political resolution.

The Judicial Resolution? Dred Scott v Sandford, where Scott claimed he became a free man when his owner transported him into a jurisdiction in which slavery was prohibited. For the Court to hear that claim, it would have to determine that IF free, Scott would qualify as citizen. The SCOTUS concluded that blacks, even FREED blacks, could NOT hold US Citizenship.

Dred Scott was one of many things that helped spark the Civil War. The fix became effective in 1868, as Section One (the so-called Citizenship Clause) of the 14th Amendment, which afford "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

The 14th Amendment DID still leave room for ambiguity with respect to at least THREE significant groups, however. First, were the children of immigrants who were barred from citizenship. Although touched on in Wong Kim Ark in 1898, some rights were not completely granted to this group until 1952. Second, Native American felt should be allowed citizenship under the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof. In Elk v Wilkins, the SCOTUS felt the Indians owed alliance to their tribes and thus were NOT part of the United States. Congress however extended Native Indians birth citizenship in 1924. Subsequently, that same right has been extended to Puerto Rico, Guam and other US Territories. The third group, Illegal Aliens, has not been decided by the SCOTUS, although it's been assumed for legal and other purposes that one need only proved birth in the US to claim citizenship based upon current immigration laws.

So, in regards to your statement "None of the states veered from the English common law with respect to citizenship" -- sorry to inform you that you're incorrect.

However, in regards to Obama's dad and jus soli and Obama Jr's stated birth on Aug 4, 1961.

British Nationality Prior to 1983

The British Nationality Act 1981 came into force on 1 January 1983. Prior to 1983, British nationality was only be transmitted from the father through one generation only, and parents were required to be married. That can be construed as jus sanguinis or possibly even a type of lex soli in Obama Sr's case, but not jus soli (unless you want to give the Kenyan birth theory credence, which is dubious but possible).

So, might I recommend that you go back over to or maybe and get some more practice there before you play with the big boys and girls here on .

[BP2]

But it really doesn't matter, because ALL CITIZENSHIP of the United States is defined by the Fourteenth Amendment.

later you say ...

Do yourself a favor and educate yourself by Googling “reception statutes.”

later you say ...

The “natural born” of Article II is the “natural born” of the English common law. Which is jus soli, meaning you were a citizen of the United States by having been born in the United States, regardless of whether or not your parents were US citizens.

Dude, at this rate you're going to be on to the Magna Carta by noon and the Ten Commandments by Wednesday saying that Obama’s a "Natural Born Citizen". LOL

[BrerLion]

I'm libertarian, not liberal.

That is an interesting statement. Conscientious libertarians usually know the history and the various meanings of the word "liberal", and use it sparingly or not at all. I suspect that you mistakenly thought that "libertarian" was a synonym for "charlatan".

You do not argue like a libertarian (much too wimpy for starters). You need a better cover story; abandon your screen name and try again.

[BP2]

>>> That document is just about 50% of D’onofrio’s case, ain’t it????

The “NBC strategery” requiring NO birth certificate is Donofrio’s brainchild. However, going after the SOS was, in hindsight, perhaps a weak approach for SCOTUS standing. Even still, we found some weaknesses with the NJ SOS that can be exploited that I think were previously overlooked.

Part of the 1980 Soetoro divorce papers were revealed by Berg first on or about Dec 19 on his website. Orly had them shortly thereafter. BOTH too late to get them in front of the SCOTUS.

A research group I work with received the 1964 Obama divorce papers on Jan 2, and the remainder of BOTH 1980 and 1964 divorce papers on Jan. 8. SO, most of this stuff is very new and hadn’t been introduced into existing court cases.

These papers can be used to:

— establish that Obama Jr was IN FACT born to Obama Sr (a UK subject at Obama Jr’s birth)
— establish that Ann Dunham most likely LIED when she said she was in Hawaii TWO years prior to filing for divorce
- establish that Ann Dunham had motive and a pattern of lying about her children’s citizenship
— and other tidbits

Once the attorneys have their hands on:

— any Occidental College transcript records
— any adoption papers
— any passport records revealing citizenship (keep in mind that any records BEFORE Dec 2001 should reference the LONG FORM, because the Hawaii computerized “CertificaTION of Live Birth” didn’t exist before then)
— any birth registrations (NOT necessarily birth certificates) for Obama Jr _OR_ Obama Sr...

... it’ll be game over ;)

[Smokin' Joe]

On the other hand, antislavery forces would themselves have rejected a rule of jus soli excluding blacks

What about "Free, white, male, 21 and a property owner" being required to vote?

While it may have later emerged that there were strong antislavery factions in the North, Northern states had slaves, too, and until there were numerous immigrants to exploit, those slaves were important to the northern economy, but not treated as "citizens".