Replies

Has anything in his administration been valid or legal? Oddly enough, it seems that a clever legal strategy may make the question of a forged document somehow irrelevant to Obama’s eligibility to hold office.

With all due respect, that is actually a little silly.

If the fake Birth Certificate is evidence of anything in context, it is that he can't produce a Birth Certificate that does show he is eligible to hold the office.

The legal eligibility problem is a line of Supreme Court cases that stands for the proposition that eligibility is a different legal issue than procedural or political inconsistencies (vote counting etc.) in the process of election. A person who is not eligible to hold the office cannot act even if he or she is installed in the position.

Purported acts in office by a person who is not an eligible holder of the office are void.

So when you look at his actions, there are a handful of things he did that required an effective President--appointment of the two ladies to the Supreme Court is one of them. The appointments are void and I don't see anything that saves them.

If Barry was not eligible, under the Constitution, the legal consequence is that Joe served as acting President.

With respect to some of his actions, I speculate that a careful investigation of the underlying events would demonstrate that Joe was carefully inserted as the actor for the purpose of making the action valid. That didn't happen in the case of the Supreme Court appointments.

His actual oath of office (as distinguished from the public performance) was administered in camera in order to avoid disclosing deficiencies in his identity qualifications.

And no; the answer is not impeachment--I believe Barry could not be removed by impeachment for the reason that he does not hold the office. The correct legal attack is to attack the efficacy of the act. Motions to dissolve the Supreme Court decisions to which Keagan and/or Sotomayor were necessary participants in the decisions.

That assumes that the prevailing speculation that he was born under circumstances in which he was not a citizen at birth is accurate.

The substantive issue is also pretty clear. All the speculation you read about Law of Nations and other historic legal treatises is generally misplaced. Barry has two ways to eligibility--the clear certainty is born in the US. And all this stuff about commitment of his parents or his possible loss of citizenship through offshore adoption or whatever is irrelevant--the Supreme Court in our time is a political institution and there simply is no reason to doubt that if he proved born in the US, he or anyone else under the same circumstances would be held eligible.

The other way is less certain--a person born outside the US under circumstances where they obtain statutory citizenship as a birthright (because they are born under circumstances where they become statutory citizens at birth) is almost certain to be held eligible by the Supreme Court. We may not like that answer but it is what it is.

The attack is still currently open because Barry is on the hook for statements against interest that he was born in Kenya to Stanley Ann his mother and Senior his father. If so, he is not eligible--not born in the US; not a citizen at birth because his claimed mother did not confer citizenship at birth under the then effective citizenship statute.

I do not believe those statements are accurate--I don't believe he was born in Kenya; I don't think Stanley was his mother or had anything else to do with his birth other than to take custody of him as an Au Paire for a short period of time (and later in his life perfect the claim that she was his mother for reasons related to his future political efforts); I don't think Senior was his father either.

Under the applicable law in most places in the US, his statements against interest are actual admissible evidence of the fact admitted. He could prove the contrary--evidence of where he was born or the circumstances thereof.

My own view is that he was likely born in Canada to a mother who was not a US Citizen and never had any claim to US citizenship; and a father who was a multi generation US citizen descendant but who would not have conferred citizenship on a child born outside the US to a non-citizen mother under clear US Supreme Court law.

With respect to Trump and Roger Alies (perhaps O'Rilley), I also speculate that Barry has some other evidence of birth in the US which is politically sensitive but which would not be disqualifying legally and has managed to convince several significant observers that the birth evidence is valid as to Barry and that he is eligible and that the observer should not attack the deficiency. For example, born in the US to a father who is a anti US revolutionary whose primary testimony was his conviction to destroy the county.

On balance, I am pretty well convinced he was born in Canada under circumstances in which he would not be eligible to the office of President of the United States.

In other words, you suggest he may have presented SCOTUS and others with private NBC evidence and a story too unsavory for public consumption. Due to embarrassment, these leaders were sworn to secrecy given his position of being a president born a child out of wedlock with deceased parents.

Possibilities include deceased American parents since they can not be summoned to verify his story. So we have- FMD & white girl, MX & white girl or Gramps & black girl. Or mom was a teenager who fell victim to a gang rape or a married man. So the father was written ‘unknown’ and the proxy-African BHO is legally excused.

The story was accepted at face value without running it through the intelligence agencies ... or the agencies were complicit.

This would explain his private meeting with SCOTUS, the double swear-in ceremonies and the media’s disinterest and silence.

Their acceptance and complacency should be contrasted with this information.

In 2005, the Russians spotted his faux identity when he visited with Sen. Dick Lugar. At the Moscow airport, agents seized his passport and accused him of being a British spy, holding him there on the runway most of the day. The WH had to get involved to compel his release. In 2006, an advance team was dispatched to Indonesia and his records were removed. Two years later, under the direction of John Brennan’s company, his passport files were breached three times and then sanitized in 2008. In 2008, Clinton’s PI team was too late to discover much beyond the ‘Barry Soetoro’ name in one Indonesian school registry, his public school records in Hawaii were already missing.

Obviously, he has held more than one identity and his true birthplace, birthdate, and bio-parents are known to very few.

Actually, he would not be a U.S. citizen if Stanley Ann Dunham were legally married to Barack Obama, Sr. But Obama was at that time already married to another woman. Therefore, Dunham doesn’t have to be age 19 in 1961, since U.S. law would deem the marriage of Obama-Dunham as void, as bigamy is illegal. in 1961 and 2008/2012.

Also, under Kenyan law Barack Obama II would receive Kenyan citizenship at birth. Under British law, Barack Obama would have British Commonwealth citizenship from birth, if he applied before age 21. When adopted by Soetoro, Obama obtained Indonesian citizenship. So he had three citizenships at birth, and a fourth at age 6.

Natural-born? U.S. Supreme Court could have heard the case, but declined, ran away from that case. From a legal standpoint, I don’t know what his legal status(es) are. I never heard that he ever renounced his Indonesian citizenship, and I have heard that when a person becomes a citizen of Infonesia (including minor persons), he must give up all other citizenships. If so, then he was not eligible to be President. But no U.S. court has taken the case.