Congress: Arrest Mr. Obama

ATLAH Media Network ^ | 07/07/10 | ATLAH Ministries

[ATLAHWorldwide]

Congress: Arrest Mr. Obama

Dr. James David Manning calls for Congress to arrest Mr. Obama. Recorded on 21 June 2010. http://atlah.org/atlahworldwide/?p=8723

[wintertime]

but the process for removing a sitting president is clearly outlined in the Constitution.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

If he isn’t a natural born citizen he isn’t a president. He is a criminal fraud. And...There has been plenty of discussion about that on both sides. Claiming that there hasn’t is pure denial.

[rosettasister]

Highly unlikely that this is going anywhere.

But we are still waiting to hear about Kenneth Allen’s FOIA request.

See here:

http://blessedistruth.wordpress.com/2010/07/06/the-day-after-roswell-by-philip-j-corso/#comment-4801

And here:

http://blessedistruth.wordpress.com/2010/07/06/the-day-after-roswell-by-philip-j-corso/#comment-4802

[jamese777]

If he isn’t a natural born citizen he isn’t a president. He is a criminal fraud. And...There has been plenty of discussion about that on both sides. Claiming that there hasn’t is pure denial.

---

You’re entitled to your personal opinion but here’s what a federal judge had to say: “There may very well be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential candidate who has not already won the election and taken office. However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a President, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs attempt to subvert this grant of power to Congress by convincing the Court that it should disregard the constitutional procedures in place for the removal of a sitting president. The process for removal of a sitting president–removal for any reason–is within the province of Congress, not the courts.”—US District Court Judge David O. Carter in dismissing “Captain Pamela Barnett, et. al. v Barack H. Obama, et. al.,”—October 29, 2009

There have now been seventy adjudications in Obama eligibility lawsuits including eight at the Supreme Court of the United States (Berg v Obama Beverly v FEC, Craig v US, Donofrio v Wells, Beverly v FEC, Herbert v Obama, Lightfoot v Bowen, Schneller v Cortes, and Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz).

No Court has found Obama to be ineligible and two state courts in have found him to be eligible: “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by [the Supreme Court of the United States in their 1898 decision in the case of U.S. v.] Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States natural-born citizens.”—Indiana Court of Appeals, “Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels,” Nov. 12, 2009

If Obama is a CRIMINAL fraud, it is astonishing to me that there has been no attempt made to remove him via the criminal justice system. All the attempts have been via civil lawsuits.

Any prosecuting attorney could initiate a Grand Jury investigation of Obama for election fraud and then that prosecutor could issue subpoenas and compel witnesses to testify under oath. There are no issues of legal standing to sue to prevent a criminal investigation from going forward in the criminal justice system.

Both the Nixon resignation and the Clinton impeachment were initiated through Grand Juries.

[omegadawn]

Whether or not obama’s mother was legally married or not is of no importance . Natural Born citizenship requires that both Parents be U.S. citizens , not whether they are legally married. For what’s it’s worth in 1790 , citizenship was carried by the man, women did not acquire the right to pass on citizenship until the 1920’s. obama could be a native born citizens , but there is no way he could be a Natural born citizen.

[83Vet4Life]

Hopefully congress will listen to this man and arrest him.

[jamese777]

Whether or not obama’s mother was legally married or not is of no importance . Natural Born citizenship requires that both Parents be U.S. citizens , not whether they are legally married. For what’s it’s worth in 1790 , citizenship was carried by the man, women did not acquire the right to pass on citizenship until the 1920’s. obama could be a native born citizens , but there is no way he could be a Natural born citizen.

---

Since the passage of the 14th Amendment in 1868 there are only two classifications of citizens: Citizens-at-birth and naturalized citizens. Citizens at birth can become president, naturalized citizens cannot. No court decision and no law passed by Congress has ever differentiated between a Citizen-at-birth and a Natural Born Citizen.

That is why the US Supreme Court has rejected all eight Obama eligibility appeals that have reached them.
Here’s the law:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1401.html

[omegadawn]

Since the Wong KIm Ark case (1890’s) native born(naturalized ) has been recognized. Where as Ark was born to parents that had allegiance to the U.S. by immigration(legal) they were not yet citizens and did not have FULL AND COMPLETE ALLEGIANCE as was required for a Natural Born citizen. All the cases in the Supreme Court has been rejected on Standing. A citizen does not have the right(standing ) to file a case against obama for lack of egibility. No case has been heard based on the merits of the case. If one was obama would not be sitting in the White House.

[jamese777]

Since the Wong KIm Ark case (1890’s) native born(naturalized ) has been recognized. Where as Ark was born to parents that had allegiance to the U.S. by immigration(legal) they were not yet citizens and did not have FULL AND COMPLETE ALLEGIANCE as was required for a Natural Born citizen. All the cases in the Supreme Court has been rejected on Standing. A citizen does not have the right(standing ) to file a case against obama for lack of egibility. No case has been heard based on the merits of the case. If one was obama would not be sitting in the White House.

---

Your placing the word “naturalized” in parenthesis as relating to the word “native born” is legally wrong. A native born person is not naturalized. A foreign born person can become naturalized by meeting the requirements for citizenship, passing the citizenship exam and being issued a Certificate of Naturalization.
The US Supreme Court has not rejected any Obama eligibility appeal for lack of standing because the Supreme Court has not given any reasons for rejecting any of those eight lawsuits. They merely denied petitions for Writs of Certiorari without stating any reasons.
As for Wong Kim Ark, it was used as a precedent in one state level Obama eligibility lawsuit. I quote from the Justices’ opinion: “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by [the Supreme Court of the United States in their 1898 decision in the case of U.S. v.] Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States natural-born citizens.”—Indiana Court of Appeals, “Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels,” Nov. 12, 2009

Also, from the actual US v Wong Kim Ark decision:
“The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that ‘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,’ contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.”—US v Wong Kim Ark (1898)
and:
“The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.”—U.S. v Wong Kim Ark (1898)

finally, the US Supreme Court ruled that:
“We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1.

Distinctions between native-born and naturalized citizens in connection with foreign residence are drawn in the Constitution itself. Only a native-born may become President, Art. II, § 1. “Schneider v. Rusk,” 377 US 163 – Supreme Court 1964

You are correct that those who oppose Obama as ineligible have failed to present a plaintiff who would be granted legal standing to sue Obama and have a lawsuit decided on the merits. The person most likely to have legal standing is John McCain, the only other person to receive Electoral Votes. One federal judge did contemplate granting standing to Allen Keyes in “Keyes v Obama” but the judge decided against it since Keyes was only on the ballot in three states and therefore had no serious chance of winning.

There are no issues of standing in the CRIMINAL courts and I’ve been surprised that no one has tried convening a grand jury investigation of Obama for election fraud on the criminal side of the judicial equation. A grand jury could subpoena Obama’s birth documents and compel witnesses to testify under oath. If everything is on the up and up after the investigation, the Grand Jury is disbanded. If there is evidence of a crime having been committed, an indictment could be handed down by a prosecutor or special counsel.

For example, I know that Obama signed a document to get on the ballot in Arizona (and possibly other states) saying that he was a natural born citizen. A grand jury could investigate that.

Both Nixon’s resignation and Clinton’s impeachment stemmed from grand jury investigations

[Mr. Lucky]

Article 1, Section 9, of the Constitution prohibits bills of attainder.

[wintertime]

jamese777 and lucysmom

For Saul Alinsky reasons Obama's eligibility will be a nearly bottomless pit of laughs as the election approach.

"Senate-seeker wants Obama birth-certificate treatment"

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2549414/posts

"A Mexican-born candidate for U.S. Senate said he is considering a lawsuit against the Missouri secretary of state for discrimination because her office forced him to produce a birth certificate but "didn't make Obama show proof of citizenship" to appear on the ballot."

"It said, 'Hey, you have to prove you're a citizen.' I ignored it," he said. "You know, Obama ignored it, so I figured I could get away with it, too."

The audience began laughing, applauding and cheering during his statement.

[omegadawn]

In the Wong Kim Ark , the wording AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION WAS USED which refers to the allegiance of the parents(Senator Brown 1868). Children receive their citizenship from their parents. If a child is born to U.S. citizens, they have full and complete citizenship (natural born) if they are born to parents in the naturalization process they are also naturalized with their parents. The Indiana case is a joke ,it has no bearing on federal law and it quoted the Ark case ,but chose to ignor the fact ark was declared a native born citizen not a natural born citizen. obama appears to have mixed loyalties , the very thing that Article two was meant to block. obama is not going to allow any grand jury to get a copy of his birth records, it is the proof that would remove him from the White House.

[jamese777]

In the Wong Kim Ark , the wording AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION WAS USED which refers to the allegiance of the parents(Senator Brown 1868). Children receive their citizenship from their parents. If a child is born to U.S. citizens, they have full and complete citizenship (natural born) if they are born to parents in the naturalization process they are also naturalized with their parents. The Indiana case is a joke ,it has no bearing on federal law and it quoted the Ark case ,but chose to ignor the fact ark was declared a native born citizen not a natural born citizen. obama appears to have mixed loyalties , the very thing that Article two was meant to block. obama is not going to allow any grand jury to get a copy of his birth records, it is the proof that would remove him from the White House.

---

“and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excludes persons with diplomatic immunity and foreign occupying militaries, only. Even illegal aliens are “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” that’s how we can deport them under our laws.

“Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by [the Supreme Court of the United States in their 1898 decision in the case of U.S. v.] Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States natural-born citizens.”—Indiana Court of Appeals, “Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels,” Nov. 12, 2009

[omegadawn]

The Indiana court ruling does not overrule federal laws and the 14th amendment. As far as I am concerned the “judges” ruling is a act of treason. Nothing more than a attempt to override the Constitution. We are a Constitutional Republic( a nation of laws), courts can not change the laws or the Constitution.

[jamese777]

The Indiana court ruling does not overrule federal laws and the 14th amendment. As far as I am concerned the “judges” ruling is a act of treason. Nothing more than a attempt to override the Constitution. We are a Constitutional Republic( a nation of laws), courts can not change the laws or the Constitution.

---

It is irrelevant whether you call judges who disagree with your personal opinions “treasonous” or not. You have a First Amendment right to state your opinion, but that’s all it is, a personal opinion.

The Electoral College operates on a state by state level. Indiana had every right to determine whether or not Obama and McCain qualified to receive that state’s electoral votes, qualifying as natural born citizens or not.

The federal courts have also shown no inclination to get involved in the Obama eligibility controversy. Here’s what three different federal judges have had to say:
“This is one of several such suits filed by Ms. Taitz in her quixotic attempt to prove that President Obama is not a natural born citizen as required by Constitution. See U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1. This Court is not willing to go tilting at windmills with her.”—Chief US District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth in dismissing the Quo Warranto claim in “Taitz v Obama”—April 14, 2010

---

A spurious claim questioning the President’s constitutional legitimacy may be protected by the First Amendment, but a Court’s placement of its imprimatur upon a claim that is so lacking in factual support that it is frivolous would undoubtedly disserve the public interest.
For all of these reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s
motion for a temporary restraining order should be denied.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons previously stated, Plaintiff’s motion for a
temporary restraining order is denied and Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed in its entirety. Defendants shall recover their costs from Plaintiff. –US Federal District Court Judge for the Middle District of Georgia Clay Land in dismissing “Rhodes v MacDonald,” September 16, 2009

---

“There may very well be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential candidate who has not already won the election and taken office. However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a President, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs attempt to subvert this grant of power to Congress by convincing the Court that it should disregard the constitutional procedures in place for the removal of a sitting president. The process for removal of a sitting president–removal for any reason–is within the province of Congress, not the courts.”—US District Court Judge David O. Carter in dismissing “Captain Pamela Barnett, et. al. v Barack H. Obama, et. al.,” October 29, 2009

---

The Supreme Court of the United States has refused to hear any of eight appeals that have reached them for Justices’ conferences on Obama’s eligibility. It only takes four of the nine justices to agree to hear a case before the full court. Four justices did not agree to hear Berg v Obama Beverly v FEC, Craig v US, Donofrio v Wells, Beverly v FEC, Herbert v Obama, Lightfoot v Bowen, Schneller v Cortes, or Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz.
I guess that means from your perspective that among Justices Scalia, Roberts, Alito, Kennedy and Thomas there are some “treasonous” Supreme Court justices too.

---

Finally, a federal judge had a response to people like you who throw around the term “treasonous” to label those who disagree with you: “Plaintiffs have encouraged the Court to ignore mandates of the Constitution; to disregard the limits put on its power put in place by the Constitution; and to effectively overthrow a sitting president who was popularly elected by “We the people”—over sixty nine million of the people.
Plaintiffs have attacked the judiciary, including every prior court that has dismissed their claim, as unpatriotic and even treasonous for refusing to grant their requests and for adhering to the terms of the Constitution which set forth its jurisdiction. Respecting the Constitutional role and jurisdiction of this court is not unpatriotic. Quite the contrary, this Court considers commitment to that constitutional role to be the ultimate reflection of patriotism.”—US Federal District Court Judge David O. Carter in dismissing “Captain Pamela Barnett, et. al. v Barack H. Obama, et. al.”—October 29, 2009

[omegadawn]

I don’t disagree with most of what you have said . I believe that the original intent of the Natural Born citizen clause should be maintained. Both parents must be U.S. citizens . A state (Indiana) does not have the legal right to redefine the qualifications for the office of the President.
I believe obama managed to get into the White House by fraud and deception and the people need to know how this happened. The problem is that everyone is afraid of going against obama . It is considered political sucide. Who is willing to put their career on the line to contest obama.

[jamese777]

I don’t disagree with most of what you have said . I believe that the original intent of the Natural Born citizen clause should be maintained. Both parents must be U.S. citizens . A state (Indiana) does not have the legal right to redefine the qualifications for the office of the President.
I believe obama managed to get into the White House by fraud and deception and the people need to know how this happened. The problem is that everyone is afraid of going against obama . It is considered political sucide. Who is willing to put their career on the line to contest obama.

---

No US Supreme Court decision in US history has ever found that two US citizen parents are required in order to qualify as a natural born citizen for Article 2 Section 1 purposes.
The closest the Supreme Court has come is in the opposite direction in US v Wong Kim Ark from 1898:
“The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that ‘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,’ contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.”—US v Wong Kim Ark (1898)

The Indiana Court of Appeals’ decision could have been the beginning of clarifying that issue once and for all. Most US Supreme Court decisions work their way up from state courts through the federal system to the court of last resort, the Supreme Court of the United States.
In this case though, the Supreme Court of Indiana refused to review the lower court’s decision and it appears that at least for now, the issue stopped there.

I see a whole lot of people going against Obama and not being the least bit afraid to do so. On this eligibility issue alone, more than 70 lawsuits have been filed challenging his eligibility. Suing Obama is certainly “going against him” in my mind.
But there is a difference between going up against someone and beating them.

[omegadawn]

Congress has defined Natural Born as Children of Citizens
The Supreme court defined it achildren whom parents were U.S. citizens .
In the Eng case she was declared a citizen because both her parents were U.S. citizens at the time of her birth.

What is meant by PARENTS/ CITIZENS? a reasonable person would assume that this means both parents.

Until such time as Congress amends the Constitution to allow one parent/citizen to be defined as natural born, then the original intent should be upheld.
Until such time as a high profile politican puts his career on the line to oppose obama nothing will be done to correct this injustice to the American people.

As for the Indiana case , if another lower court defines Natural born as requiring parents and grandparents to be U.S. citizens , would this suddenly override the Indiana case and Constitution? No court (including the SCOTUS) can override the constitution.

[jamese777]

You are wrong, Congress has never defined Natural Born as Children of Citizens.

However in Wong Kim Ark, neither of his parents were American citizens and he was ruled to be a natural born citizen.
In the Wong Kim Ark decision the Supreme Court said: “[An alien parent’s] allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, ’strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’”

The Supreme Court does not “override” the Constitution but the Supreme Court does interpret the meaning of the Constitution and their interpretation stands until Congress passes new laws or the Constitution is amended.

[omegadawn]

The actual text of the FIRST CONGRESS in 1790 states,
“...children of citizens of the United States...shall be considered as natural born citizens of the United States

(FIRST CONGRESS Session II Ch.4 1790, Approved March 26, 1790, pp. 103-104.

The question is whether obama is born of American citizens and shall be considered a Natural Born citizen per the original intent of the U.S. Constitution. Congress and the Supreme court has allowed many people to claim citizenship , but this does not mean that it is Natural Born Citizenship? NO. Being an American citizen does not automatically make you a Natural born citizen. obama may have citizenship by code , but he is not a Native born citizen.

When a court makes a ruling in direct opposition to the original intent of the Constitution they are “overruling “ the constitution. A interperation of the constitution is required to follow the original intent. The Indiana court decision totally ignors the original intent.

[Non-Sequitur]

Congress: Arrest Mr. Obama

Someone what to tell Dr. Manning that Congress has no arrest powers?