LIVE Monday, May 2, 2011 Live Updates From Obama Eligibility Hearing At The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Pasadena...

OBAMA'S LAWYERS PIC


[link to 3.bp.blogspot.com]

PLEASE PIN THIS

WHERE ARE THE MODS

THIS IS THE FIRST TIME A CASE HAS BEEN GRANTED IN ALL THE STRUGGLE
THIS IS
THE OBAMA ELIGIBILITY HEARING
PLEASE DO NOT TREAT THIS HISTORIC COURT CASE WITH THE SAME CONTEMPT THE TRAITOROUS MAINSTREAM MEDIA HAVE AND ARE!

COMON GLP !!

Requirements for the Office of President and vice-President…

“natural born Citizen” and “citizen” are not the same!

“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;…” – Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 – U.S. Constitution

From the Obama AKA Soetoro AKA Soebarkah website via Factcheck.org…

“When Barack Obama, Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.” – Factcheck.org

Senate Resolution 511: Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen…

Mrs. MCCASKILL (for herself, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. OBAMA, Mr. COBURN, Mrs. CLINTON, and Mr. WEBB) submitted the following resolution;

“Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.

Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen’ of the United States;…

…Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.” – (April 30, 2008)

On the House floor with no objections…

“All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.” – (1862)

“Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen….” – (1866)

Rep. John Bingham, Principal Framer of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

From the Supreme Court of the United States…

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.” – MINOR v. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S. 162 (1874) U.S. Supreme Court –

All Souces linked here: [link to obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com]

[link to obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com]

[link to obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com]

Obama is TOAST!

The video that will END the Obama Presidency! Birthers Get Last Laugh & Demand Formal Apology

[link to www.youtube.com]

More questions than answers
Posted: May 02, 2011
1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

It is truly remarkable to witness the speed with which the mainstream and conservative media have revised their opinion about Obama's birth certificate. The reader may recall that for most of the last three years, the media have been insisting that Obama released his genuine birth certificate when, in fact, all he had released was the short form "Certification of Live Birth."

Amusingly, some Internet sites that purport to be devoted to fact-checking still haven't caught up yet with the latest revisionism. For example, About.com is still, as of May 1, insisting that the document released last week by the Obama administration does not exist and that there is no significant distinction between the birth-related document released in 2008 and the one released in 2011.

According to both the Hawaii state government website and a June 6, 2009, article in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin, the computer-generated Certification of Live Birth is the only kind of birth record now issued by the state (original records are stored electronically), so the distinction between "short-form" and "long-form" is moot.

How astonishing that the administration officials somehow managed to obtain what we were informed was unobtainable, if not nonexistent. Once more, we see the strategic geniuses in the Obama administration undercutting Obama's self-appointed defenders. The fact is that the so-called "birthers" were correct all along. Obama had not released a copy of his original birth certificate, and the copy of the Certification of Live Birth released in 2008 was not a copy of his genuine birth certificate.

(Column continues below)



And this is all assuming that the document released last week is legitimate, an assumption which has been cast into reasonable doubt by a number of interesting anomalies that have been noted by various individuals who have examined the purported birth certificate.

1) Snopes reports that Doctor David T. West delivered Obama. However, the delivering doctor on the released document is David A. Sinclair.

2) The father's race on the newly released document, dating 1961, is "African." But in 1961, the racial classification to which Mr. Obama belonged was categorized as "Negro."

3) The signature dates of the mother and attendant on the newly released document are identical to the signature dates of the attendant and supervisor on the supposedly forged Kenyan birth document that was produced in 2009 by Orly Taitz. Even if the Kenyan document is a forgery (and this document has its own suspicious anomalies), how was it possible for whomever created it to correctly include two specific details that were absent from the document released in 2008 and present on the one released in 2011?

4) Karl Denninger of the Market Ticker has produced a video demonstrating that the released document is not, as it is claimed to be, a photograph, a photocopy or even a scan, but a graphic image created on a computer. This suggests that the document itself is a forgery, even if the information it contains is completely accurate.

All of this is, of course, irrelevant to either the constitutional or the political realities of the country. Both the conservative and mainstream medias long ago decided that they would see, hear and speak no evil concerning the legitimacy of Mr. Obama/Soetoro/Soebarkah, and so it would not matter if conclusive evidence was produced proving that Obama was a man-eating, shape-shifting invader from the ninth moon of Neptune instead of merely not being a natural-born American due to his father's documented inability to confer such status. There will be no impeachment hearings, and Republican elders will be quick to criticize any elected officials who dare to publicly doubt the latest version of the official story.

However, it will be interesting to see if Democrats continue to stick by Obama as he leads them from devastating political defeats into disastrous budget debacles. Those of us who don't travel in elite Washington circles can't possibly know what is being whispered behind closed doors, but there appear to be increasingly strange eddies in the political continuum. So, don't be too surprised if there is an "unexpected" challenge to Obama's nomination and the Democrats wind up putting forward a different presidential candidate for election in 2012.

[link to www.wnd.com]

Thank you for posting this, OP! , 5 * and a Suggest Pin.

Please pin this mods1!!

BUMP

This man is making a fool of the US

Excellent video!
You should start a new thread for this video so it will get the attention it deserves!

Thanks so much for posting this!

Did any of the plaintiffs address the matter of standing, which must be settled before they can go any further?

Or do they have nothing to say on standing and are just using this as a publicity opportunity. All the stuff about Obama's SS #, BC, etc. is totally irrelevant if they don't have standing to be in court.

Personally, I think citizens should have standing. But it's got to be made as a legal argument. A good lawyer can write 20 pages to "prove" something that is facially completely obvious.