The Most Important Political Discussion of 2012 will be Held Here on InspectorSmith

[bsteadman]

The Most Important Political Discussion of 2012
will be Held Here
on the Dynamic InspectorSmith Forum

This important discussion SHOULD have been conducted on the Free Republic Forum during the last year and a half, but for reasons I will now briefly reference, it could NOT.

Lucas Daniel Smith was personally 'zotted' (and banned from even being mentioned on FR) by Jim Robinson, owner of FreeRepublic.com in the summer of 2010. For those interested in reading more about this unwarranted and shameful treatment of Lucas, I reference the COMMENTS SECTION in the below linked article on The Post & Email. I especially cite the comment made at 7:38 pm on 9/7/2010 by 'Brian Hicks'.

http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/09/...#comment-21412

The Complex but Important Topic That Must Be Discussed Now:

Many fine and dedicated patriots are concentrating ALL their efforts to legally remove Obama from office by pursuing a 'LIMITED NBC' (L-NBC) argument. They CORRECLY cite the 1875 'Minor v Happersett' ruling by SCOTUS affirming that the President must be born of two parents who were themselves, at least 'ordinary citizens', at the time of the future President's birth.

However, what worries me is the fact that these fine ladies and gentlemen can often be heard to make statements such as: "The birthplace is just a diversion!" or "It doesn't matter where he was born!"

I think it matters a great deal where Obama was born. Of paramount importance, of course, is the fact that the NBC definition CONSTITUTIONALLY REQUIRES that the President be born 'on the soil'.

What I wish to discuss here instead, however, are some rather unpleasant PRACTICAL MATTERS.

I think a significant fraction of the American People will NOT, any time soon, either understand or accept the 'L-NBC' requirement as the sole reason for their President being kept off the ballot in their state. Their confusion and anger will, of course, be encouraged and aggravated by numerous, well-trained, radical-left 'community organizers'! The result, I believe, will be unnecessarily widespread and serious civil disorder and violence occurring in major cities across the country!

I believe the many 'Obama L-NBC State Ballot Challenges' need to be BALANCED with the simultaneous, widespread dissemination of hard information regarding BHO-II's suspected fraudulent activities.

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE MAY NOT WIDELY UNDERSTAND THE L-NBC ARGUMENT BUT THEY WILL UNDERSTAND 'OBAMA REPEATEDLY TELLING A SERIOUS LIE ABOUT HIS TRUE PLACE OF BIRTH', 'OBAMA RELEASING A FRAUDULENT HAWAIIAN BIRTH CERTIFICATE', 'OBAMA BEING BORN IN KENYA AND NOT IN THE USA', 'OBAMA INVOLVED IN SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER FRAUD AND IDENTITY THEFT' AND OBAMA INVOLVED IN FRAUDULENT SELECTIVE SERVICE REGISTRATION!

The threat and occurrence of civil disorder will get worse as the election year progresses, if this unbalanced approach continues. It is tragic that this discussion has had to be postponed for so long. (Shame on you, Jim Robinson, for 'zotting' Lucas, but THANK YOU 'YouTube' for scheduling a change to your new, limited interaction format that forced us to start this dynamic new, full-featured InspectorSmith forum!)

Since this discussion can not properly be held on FR (because Lucas Smith, who obtained Obama's CPGH Kenyan Birth Certificate can not even be mentioned there), I cordially invite all the 'good guys and gals' (intelligent, logical, open-minded, eloquent, passionate, & patriotic individuals) over there to join us in this discussion on InspectorSmith.

The LIMITED-NBC Approach:

Advantages:

It is simple and Constitutionally accurate (as far as it goes).

Disadvantages:

A significant fraction of the American People will not understand or accept it, resulting in unnecessarily widespread and violent civil disorder.

CONGRESS (both Democrat and Republican members) and SCOTUS KNEW BEFORE THE 2008 ELECTION that Obama's father was NOT an American Citizen at the time of Jr's birth. Nevertheless, they allowed the election process to proceed. They will be embarrassed, angry and pubically ridiculed for allowing this to happen if the L-NBC approach is used. They will put up a prolonged, nasty fight against this approach.

This success of this approach CRITICALLY DEPENDS upon SCOTUS, at the Federal level, interpreting the 'Minor v Happersett' case correctly. I think it is possible that SCOTUS has been compromised in their integrity! What are the consequences if they render a decision, regardless of the justification, that does not affirm that 'two citizen parents are required' restriction? This would get BHO-II off the hook and would simultaneously set a HORRIBLE NEW PRECEDENT!

It's possible that Obama and his supporters will start claiming that he was born to a SINGLE MOTHER and that he was thus born a 'bastard'. As such, it is possible that a liberally-inclined SCOTUS could consider that ONLY THE MOTHER WOULD NEED TO BE AN AMERICAN CITIZEN IN ORDER FOR HIM TO BE CONSIDERED A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. The March 5, 1964 divorce of Ann Dunham and BHO Sr. is a matter of record. However, no official recording of their purported 1961 marriage has ever been located. (1)

To date, L-NBC eligibility challenges to Obama, such as those conducted by Van Irion and Mark Hatfield on January 26, 2012 in the Atlanta, GA court hearing conducted by Judge Michael Malihi, have relied upon Obama's very likely FRAUDULENT 4/27/2011 LFBC for basic data regarding his parent's identity. It is possible that Obama can, at some future date, claim that he did not know that this Hawaii-issued BC was fraudulent. Perhaps he can then claim that he does not know who his real father is, or that he believes his real father is Frank Marshall Davis, an American citizen, for example. This might be able to let him 'off the hook' legally, regarding his NBC status. (2)

I have the feeling that many supporters, enablers and handlers of Obama are secretly hoping that this approach will prevail and are encouraging its adoption.

The BALANCED Approach:

Advantages:

A much larger fraction of the American People will UNDERSTAND and ACCEPT this approach. This should result in significantly reduced instances of civil disorder.

It does NOT depend entirely on the whims and, I believe, resultant questionable decisions, of SCOTUS, a Federal level agency. Many of the valid criminal charges against Obama can appropriately be handled at the county or state level. For example, the work currently being done by Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio's 'Cold Case Posse' may result in criminal charges against Obama. If so, this type of charge can easily be understood and accepted by reasonable people.

It goes a long way to letting Congress 'save face', thus greatly easing its adoption. I can almost hear their sad exclamations now -- "We didn't know Obama was lying and was actually born in Kenya". If only we had known, we would never have let this tragedy occur! You can't blame us!"

Disadvantages:

This approach is more complex and may take longer to implement than the simpler L-NBC approach.

Why is consideration of Lucas Daniel Smith and the CPGH-BC so important to discussions regarding the BALANCED approach?

The balanced approach can be compared to a three-legged stool. The first leg is the NBC issue (not widely understandable to the general public). The second leg is the Obama Criminal Acts issue (SSN fraud, Selective Service Registration fraud, Chicago real-estate deals, etc.). The third leg is the Obama Born in Kenya issue (Lucas Smith and the CPGH-BC).

All three legs of this argument are required to achieve the proper balance and all three legs SHOULD be employed to remove Obama from office.

The Lucas Smith/CPGH-BC issue is a critical component of the the Balanced Approach! The implication of Obama's Kenyan BC can be easily understood by the average American citizen. I admit that Obama's CPGH-BC may never be FULLY authenticated since the Kenyan authorities may never acknowledge its validity. Nevertheless, a STRONG CASE CAN BE MADE FOR ITS AUTHENTICITY and it can be widely used as a valuable tool to help get this country through these treacherous and turbulent times.

LET THIS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT DISCUSSION FINALLY BEGIN!

[bsteadman]

Video: It DOES matter greatly that OBAMA was born in KENYA!

Video: It DOES matter greatly that OBAMA was born in KENYA!

Uploaded by 'bsteadman1 on 1/8/2012

View the video at the following link:

http://youtu.be/nxPacssPH6Y

[bsteadman]

Will Obama Now Start Claiming to Have Been Born a NBC in Hawaii to a 'Single Mother'?

Will Obama now start claiming he really is a 'natural born Citizen' because he was born in Hawaii to a 'single American mother'?

That is, if he was born a 'bastard' to an 'unmarried American citizen' mother, does Obama's reported 'British citizen father' even need to be considered in a determination of his POTUS eligibility?

Will Barack Hussein Obama Sr. now get 'thrown under the bus' so that Jr. can claim to SCOTUS that he is legally eligible for POTUS, using a loose interpretation of 1875 Minor v. Happersett?

The following is an excerpt from 'The Obama File' (http://www.theobamafile.com):

"Obama, himself, hints that his father and mother’s wedding may not have been properly documented. "How and when the marriage occurred remains a bit murky, a bill of particulars that I have never quite had the courage to explore. There's no record of a real wedding, a cake, a ring, a giving away of the bride. No families were in attendance; it's not even clear that people back in Kansas were informed." Obama writes in his memoir.

The lack of any documentary evidence, when such evidence for legal marriages that took place in Hawaii during 1961 is readily available today to any inquiring family member, strongly suggests that Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Obama Senior were not ever legally married and that Senior, a married man of 25, almost certainly impregnated the 17-year-old Dunham, since nine months before Obama’s birth would be early November 1960, about three to four weeks before Ann Dunham’s 18th birthday on November 29, 1960.

And this, Michelle Obama says that Senior and Anna were never married. She described Anna as "very young and very single when she had him (Obama)."

The following are excerpts from comments, pertinent to the above statements, that were posted in the Free Republic thread titled, "Judge Orders Obama to Appear to Testify", which was started 1/20/2012 by 'GregNH':

COMMENT #289 (Seizethecarp):

"Obama’s new 2012 Facebook campaign promo:
“I was born in Hawaii to a single mother.”

Holy Cow!

Single mother???

What happened to BHO Sr and the “improbable love” and marriage??

This looks to me like a signal that the Obama campaign team is pivoting to the “bastard child of a single mother thus unitary US citizenship at birth and not a UK subject at birth” defence on the NBC issue.

Maybe the book “The Other Barack” showing his father was considered by the US INS and U of HI officials to be a bigamist and sexual predator gave them the opening they needed to throw BHO Sr under the bus!

This doesn't get Obama a genuine HI BC but he can still count on HI officials to back him up on that. Meanwhile by declaring his mother to have been single when he was born (as Mooshell said way back when, remember?) gives him strong cover on the NBC issue...because a bastard child cannot be a dual citizen regardless of who his father is."

COMMENT #316 (Seizethecarp):

"Below is what I posted last May including a comment I sent to Leo Donofrio that he refused to publish. My prediction that Obama could resort to calling himself a bastard to save himself on the NBC issure may be coming true, if this Facebook ad is true.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-...4/replies?c=30

begin quote

Whether Hawaii considered Senior and SADO to be married is immaterial to whether the UK would consider the Hawaii marriage to be bigamous and thus invoke the illegitimacy clause of the 1948 BNA.

For Barry to be a UK subject and dual-citizen would depend on how the UK would apply their own 1948 BNA law and the Kenya Colonial 1902 Marriage Act.

Here is a comment I posted to Leo (which he has refused to publish) beginning with the Factcheck.org statement:

“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.”

Parsing this statement, I note the careful lawyerly reluctance to explicitly state that Obama II, like his father, was also a British subject at birth. The statement only says that the 1948 BNA “governed the status” of his father’s children in general. IOW, the statement invites the reader to conclude that BHO II was a dual citizen British subject at birth, but does not say so.

If the 1948 BNA “governs the status” of Obama Sr.’s children, then any exclusions in that act must be considered. As you recently blogged:

“The State Department Has “Always” Recognized And Abided By Foreign Laws Concerning US Citizens Born With Dual Nationality.”

Therefore we must not be squeamish in applying the 1948 BNA to Obama II.

The 1948 BNA says that the act does NOT apply to illegitimate children:

“(2) Subject to the provisions of section twenty-three of this Act, any reference in this Act to a child shall be construed as a reference to a legitimate child; and the expressions “father”, “ancestor” and “descended” shall be construed accordingly.”

http://www.uniset.ca/naty/BNA1948.htm

My understanding is that a bigamous marriage is a nullity and the children of a bigamous marriage are illegitimate under the UK Legitimacy Act of 1926. BHO II himself has recognized his stepmother, Kezia, and her children as family and wrote in “Dreams” of his father’s shortcomings and doubts about the marital status of his parents.

In a Daily Mail story about Kezia, presumably based on information provided by her, BHO Sr is described as a “bigamist” and the presumably legal Kenyan tribal marriage between Obama Sr. and Kezia is described in some detail:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...d-—mother.html

In applying the 1948 BNA to determine whether a marriage is bigamous, it seems that UK authorities would look to the 1902 Kenya Marriage Act (KMA). From what I have found so far (not a lawyer) the 1902 KMA appears to have still been in effect in 1961 in Kenya Colony.

Under the 1902 KMA, tribal marriages are legal and subsequent marriages are bigamous, including even marriages following Muslim marriage:

37. Marriages under native law or custom.

“Any person who is married under this Act, or whose marriage is declared by this Act to be valid, shall be incapable during the continuance of such marriage of contracting a valid marriage under any native law or custom, but, save as aforesaid, nothing in this Act contained shall affect the validity of any marriage contracted under or in accordance with any native law or custom, or in any manner apply to marriages so contracted.”

“49. Contracting marriage under this Act when already married by native law or custom.

Whoever contracts a marriage under this Act, being at the time married in accordance with native law or custom or in accordance with Mohammedan law to any person other than the person with whom such marriage is contracted, shall be guilty of an offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.”

http://www.kenyalaw.org/kenyalaw/klr_app/frames.php"

[bsteadman]

COMMENT #371(Seizethecarp) in the same Free Republic thread:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-.../2835505/posts:

"It is well established international law going back to the founders that the child of a legally single mother has only the unitary citizenship of the mother. I believe that this is why Barry is suddenly claiming to be a bastard in the very week that this case comes up in GA.

Only a child of a legitimate (non-bigamous) marriage becomes a UK subject at birth regardless of “blood relationship” and without UK citizenship at birth Barry is not a dual citizen, thus much more likely to be considered NBC, IMO (only SCOTUS could decide)."

COMMENT #377 (Seizethecarp):

"There are sham marriages and sham divorces for different reasons.

In this case, in 2011 a national best seller “The Other Barack” announced to the world that BHO Sr. kicked out of the USA for being a suspected bigamist and serial predator making the Ayers-writen “Dreams” a fantasy.

The “improbable love” narrative was key to Obama’s 2004 Senate campaign and his 2008 campaign but the narrative is toast for the 2012 campaign.

So to get down with the folks Axelrod is now trying to sell Obama as a kid from the hood...child of s single mother. So BHO Sr goes under the bus...just like he threw Barry and his mom under the bus.

There was no legal marriage in HI under US and UK law if BHO Sr had a legal tribal marriage already in Kenya. No Muslim plural marriage escape applies because HI would not recognize a plural marriage. Kenya would almost certainly not recognize the HI marriage as a plural Muslm marriage, nor did UK law recognize any foreign marriage that would not have been legal in HI. (My head is spinning...)

So even if there was a civil marriage in Maui on Feb 2 1961 (no actual marriage documentation is yet in evidence), it would have been bigamous in both HI in Kenya if BHO Sr was criminally bigamous, as was stated to be suspected by US INS and the U of HI files!

Fortunately for Obama the “sting” of being a bastard is greatly reduced by him no longer being a UK subject at birth and thus much more likely to be ruled by SCOTUS to be NBC. But, as I have said no FR and on Leo Donofrio’s site for two years now, Obama has always known this could be a fall-back on the NBC issue."

COMMENT #398 (Seizethecarp):

"My understanding is that the bastard child of a legally single mom only has ONE legal parent and only ONE legal citizenship with no conflicting sovereignty, which was the explicit concern of John Jay expressed to George Washington.

Minor v. Happersett distinguishes NBCs from the children of foreigners and aliens, but I do not believe that this SCOTUS would consider Obama to be the ineligible, non-NBC legal child of alien foreigner BHO Sr because the marriage to SADO either didn't exist or was bigamous as supported by US government INS files."

COMMENT #426 (Seizethecarp):

“Obama Sr. is on the BC, then he IS the legal father. Regardless of whether or not he is the actual biological father. That is just how it works.” [COMMENT #382 (Danae)]

This is how it works in recent decades for US child support, but it is not how it worked for making an illegitimate child a UK subject.

Read the 1948 BNA. It only passes UK citizenship to legitimate children, not any children whose birth certificates bear the name of a UK citizen. Big difference.

The US constitution and courts cannot declare Barry to be a dual citizen at birth just because a UK subject is on his (alleged) BC. Only UK law could do that and it explicitly excludes illegitimate children of UK subjects."

COMMENT #429 (Seizethecarp):

“I don’t think the new sham marriage angle is going to fly.” [COMMENT #380 (Mimi3)]

Have you seen the INS files released by the author of best-selling “The Other Barack”? BHO Sr has been publicly exposes as having been expelled by Harvard and the US gov’t for strong evidence that he was a sexual predator and bigamist!

The dream of “Dreams” is now dead, so the Obama campaign has come up with a new narrative for 2012: Born to a single mother (like all of you in the hood!)."

[bsteadman]

COMMENT #433 (Seizethecarp) in the same Free Republic thread:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-.../2835505/posts:

“So Stalin, or Dolphie, or OBL could just knockup some merkin skanks, take em home and raise em to be good little fascists, and the son of Hitler would be eligible just because he WASN'T married?” [COMMENT #352 (rawcatslyentist)]

At birth such a child would have the unitary US citizenship of the mother because it would have no legal father for citizenship purposes (different from legal child support purposes introduced into the law in recent decades).

Whether such a child would be NBC has not been declared by SCOTUS under Minor v. Happersett, IMO. But not being subject to, for example, being drafted to fight in a war against the US if the child visited the country of his biological father would negate the long-standing concern regarding dual citizens, which bastard children are not.

There are residency requirements for being POTUS so a child of UBL would have to return to the US for the specified number of years and reach the specified age. At least the mother would have to be a US citizen, unlike anchor baby Anwar al-Awlaki."

COMMENT #441 (Seizethecarp):

“I don’t have it here, but I’ve read that generally speaking, bastards are considered stateless. The important thing is what the founders would have believed. Legitimacy is an issue that Vattel discusses in regards to the monarchy, but I’m not up to speed on it.

“The bastard angle is not a good one for Obama, because he has to come up with a good story as to why he’s deceived the American public about this angle.” [COMMENT #406 (edge919)]

Obama can claim that until the INS records were released with the publication of the book “The Other Barack” he had no idea that his father was a bigamous sexual predator at the time he was born, and, as he said in the Ayers scripted “Dreams,” he relied on his mother's stories about his father and mother's “hopes for the future” and their “improbable love.” It is obvious to the whole world that somebody lied (Stanley Ann or Barry) and Stanley Ann is dead so why not blame her and claim innocence if you are Barry?

Bastards (children of unmarried women, whether or not their father is on the BC or not) are not stateless and never were in the US back to the beginning. They have the “unitary” citizenship of their mother when born in US jurisdiction. This is especially true after WWII when international treaties and laws were pretty much universally changed to prevent stateless births around the world, IIRC."

COMMENT #449 (Seizethecarp):

“This may have been Plan B from the beginning.” [COMMENT #431 (RummyChick)]

That is what I have been trying to tell Leo Donofrio for two years, and I am not the only one. Leo would not put up comments on his blog that undermined his NBC complaint...a totally justified one, considering the blatant violation of the Constitution Barry was claiming in front of everyone, but no one cared.

BTW, Hat tip to you, RummyChick, for first putting me on to the Kezia marriage in Kenya, IIRC!

Leo claims that since Obama made a legal "statement against interest" that he was "governed by the 1948 BNA," his mere statement was sufficient to go full bore against him. But, as I wrote to Leo in comments, Barry lies all the time twisting things cynically to his advantage. With a $billion in cash for his campaign and lawyers why would Barry admit to something (non-NBC status) that could bring down his presidency if true...if he didn't have a Plan B???...exactly as you suggest.

I told Leo that Barry had an out of simply revealing his father's bigamy. If Barry's Factcheck legal team was citing the 1948 BNA I would expect them to have read it, including the provision that illigitimate children do not become UK subjects."

[bsteadman]

Where's the basic data to reference in trying to determine if BHO-II is a NBC or NOT?

Where does one go to look for the basic data to reference in trying to determine if BHO-II is a NBC or NOT?

Does the required factual information required for BHO-II's true NBC status actually now exist in a form that can even be viewed and adjudicated upon?

The situation becomes incredibly complicated and confusing if the basic BHO-II birth data, in the form of an April 27, 2011 publicly released LFBC, and which the courts are being encouraged to consider, is FRAUDULENT!

Is it possible that BHO-II's fraudulent LFBC was actually 'accepted' as permissible evidence at Judge Michael Malihi's court hearing on 1/26/2012 in Atlanta, GA? Perhaps it was, but who knows for sure how these issues might ultimately be interpreted? Obama's lawyer, Michael Jablonski, was not present at the hearing to object to the LFBC being 'accepted'. Plaintiff lawyers, Van Irion and Mark Hatfield, based their cases, which cited Obama's father a British citizen at the time of Jr's birth, on BHO-II's fraudulent LFBC. It appears that Judge Malihi will be issuing a default judgment against Obama in which his fraudulent LFBC data were 'accepted' and used in making the judgment.

What happens if, in some future court challenge, Obama's lawyers claim that Obama was not aware that the April 27, 2011 LFBC was fraudulent. For example, Obama might claim that he recently learned from his research on the internet that his REAL father was either Malcolm X or Frank Marshall Davis, who were both American citizens at the time of his birth. Under these circumstances, as long as Obama is allowed to claim he was born in Hawaii, he can still claim to be a NBC.

Regarding the quotes from passages taken from Obama's own writings that were introduced at the hearing, let me simply quote the following passage from page xv of the Introduction to his book, 'Dreams From My Father' (hardcover edition):

"I learned long ago to distrust my childhood and the stories that shaped it. It was only many years later, after I had sat at my father's grave and spoken to him through Africa's red soil, that I could circle back and evaluate these early stories for myself. Or, more accurately, it was only then that I understood that I had spent much of my life trying to rewrite these stories, plugging up holes in the narrative, accommodating unwelcome details, projecting individual choices against the bind sweep of history, all in the hope of extracting some granite slab of TRUTH upon which my unborn children can firmly stand" (bold, underline and caps emphasis added).

BHO-II is still 'rewriting' his history and I believe he may use this excuse to deflect future court challenges regarding the identity of his 'real' father!

I think those largely well-intentioned but naive individuals who boldly state that challenges to Obama's status based on his foreign birth are a 'distraction' and that 'it does not matter where he was born' are making a BIG MISTAKE!

I think it is FAR SAFER to ALSO pursue challenges, as has Attorney Orly Taitz, that include issues such as those involving Obama's fraudulent BC, his fraudulent use of a SSN, and especially HIS 'LUCAS DANIEL SMITH' PROVEN BIRTH IN KENYA.

I think pursuing the issue of Obama's birth in Kenya is of paramount importance because it, unlike the various fraud-related issues, can result in him being declared ineligible for POTUS and perhaps having some of his disasterous appointments and signed-laws declared null and void!

I believe there exists a small group of Obots, who are working surreptitiously to try to limit the Obama eligibility challenges to those relying strictly on limited, 'two citizen parent' interpretations of 1875 MvH, which they believe can be effectively circumvented, one way or another!

---

Regarding some of the implications of the recent Georgia court hearing, please consider the following comments made on Free Republic in the thread titled, “Obama Eligibility Hearing to Be Streamed Live Starting at 0900 EST”, which was started 1/26/2012 by ‘RaceBannon’ and which is linked below:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2838105/posts

COMMENT #776 (Seizethecarp):

"The Fogbowers express surprise that Orly did not object and let the attorneys in the first NBC case place Obama’s BC’s “in the record.” But it was not possible for Orly to object because she was not arguing the NBC case today and the first two cases were not her cases. She was required to remain silent during those cases.

The way I see it, the first two cases won by default based on the HI BCs being genuine and proving a non-citizen father.

Orly's case won by default based on proving that the HI BCs were forgeries!
These results seem contradictory together with two based on an assumption that the BCs are genuine and Orly's based on them being forged. But each was was heard separately on its own facts..facts that Obama’s attorneys didn't object to because they weren't there!"

COMMENT #921 (Seizethecarp):

"The first two cases that stipulated that Obama’s BCs combined with his own writings in Dreams were genuine will, IIRC result in a default judgement that Obama was NOT NBC under MvH. Those two non-Orly cases could result in SCOTUS defining NBC from now forward if an appeal challenges those facts. Part of Obama's strategy might be to appeal the GA SOS case on jurisdictional or other technicalities, such as those Jablonski tried to put over on the GA SOS.

Orly's case today cannot prove ineligibility but only demonstrate a failure to prove eligibility. Orly's default judgment will be based on failure of Obama to submit a genuine BC.

If Obama’s BC is fake, then nothing on it can be relied on as genuine including the father, mother, date and location.

If Obama’s BC is fake he still may or may not be NBC depending on who his actual birth father, mother, date and location."

COMMENT #980 (Seizethecarp):

“So you’re saying that paternity was conceded based on Obama’s CLAIM that these BC’s were genuine? That it wouldn’t matter if the documents were fake as long as they were accurate - and Obama admits against his own interest they are accurate? So the claim of BHO as Obama’s father was made by the plaintiffs and Obama never rebutted that claim, as evidenced by his claim that the BC’s listing BHO as father were genuine. … Does that sum up what you’re saying? The plaintiffs never proved (or attempted to prove) that BHO was the father, but they did prove that BHO wasn’t contesting the claim so it would be considered admitted as a fact.” (Excerpt from Comment #785 by ‘butterdezillion)

"Not exactly. The plaintiff's uncontested claim in the first two non-Orly cases was that the two BCs were genuine. The judge had to issue a default ruling in favor of the evidence presented in the pleadings and testimony. Orly's claim that the same images of Obama’s BCs were fakes was also not contested due to Jablonski being no-show. So today in different cases the same court accepted on motion of the plaintiffs as undisputed evidence Obama’s two BC images as being BOTH factual and faked, IMO."

[bsteadman]

Atty. Orly Taitz: Update on challenges around the country

Defend Our Freedoms Foundation
Orly Taitz, Esq.
2/11/2012

Excerpt:

"My main concern and advice to voters: don’t limit your challenges to Article2 and Minor v Happersett, bring forward all the evidence of the Social Security fraud, forgery and elections fraud. I believe, that no judge will remove Obama from the ballot based on Minor v Hapersett only. I believe, that filing very limited cases based only on Minor, is a waste of time and money. It will take more, than that. It will take a combination of showing malfeasance, criminal behavior by Obama in conjunction with bringing forward the issue of eligibility based on his father’s foreign citizenship. The judges understand, that the citizens will not accept removal of a siting President from the ballot based on the interpretation of the Constitution only, as the reasonable question will be: why was he allowed in the WH in the first place? It will make the whole Congress culpable."

View the complete post at:

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=31531

[bsteadman]

Correction-related comment by 'Seizethecarp' in the Free Republic thread titled, "Georgia eligibility challenge returns! [The issue won't go away]", which was started 2/8/2012 by 'RobinMasters'

COMMENT #7 in the thread, by 'Seizethecarp':

"Note that per Hatfield:

“A review of the record in my clients’ above-captioned cases reveals no evidence of defendant’s place of birth and no evidence of defendant’s mothers’ citizenship at the time of defendant’s birth,” he wrote. “My clients did not enter into evidence any copy of defendant Obama’s purported birth certificate in these case.”

In laying the foundation for a claim that Barry is not an NBC under MvH, Hatfield ONLY entered testimony and evidence that BHO Sr. was NOT a US citizen (and also Barry's acknowledged father) and did NOT claim that a pdf copy of Barry's alleged BC was genuine.

Therefore, Hatfield did NOT conflict with Dr. Taitz’s LFBC forgery claims and there was no finding of fact by Malihi that the White House pdf LFBC copy was genuine, only that Malihi “considered” SADO to be Barry's mom and Barry to have been born in HI without reference to any specific evidence."

View the entire Free Republic thread at:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2843814/posts

[bsteadman]

Free Republic is running a thread titled, "Obama's Eligibility Diversion", which was started 2/14/2012 by 'Flotsam_Jetsome'

The thread references a 2/14/2012 'American Thinker' article with that same title, written by Cindy Simpson

The following is COMMENT #32 in the thread by 'Seizethecarp'

“I don’t think the bigamy (regarding BO Sr.) changes anything. IF BO Senior was his biological father, it doesn’t matter whether they were married or not . . . whether he was a bastard . . . or illegitimate or whatever they called them back in the 1960’s. It just says two parents who are citizens, doesn’t matter their marital status. BHO Senior was still not an American citizen.”

Using the “original intent” of the founders, IMO was to prevent a dual citizen from becoming CIC. If Barry is not a dual citizen under the BNA of 1948 which would explicitly exclude him from being a UK subject if he was illegitimate, then there would be no dual citizenship and no conflict with the founders intent.

Using “strict construction” of the Minor case NBC definition of "parents who are citizens" it could be inferred that SCOTUS could rule against Barry for having a non-US citizen sperm donor not legally married to his mother. But I would expect SCOTUS to go with original intent and not strict construction.

IMO, there is no on-point SCOTUS case matching the fact pattern of Barry's alleged birth circumstances and nationality of parents, especially since mothers were allowed to retain their own citizenship beginning in 1922 if they legally married an alien, which was not the case when MvH or WKA were decided.

The entire US legal and congressional establishment chose to nullify any insinuation that Barry was not NBC provided he was born in HI by virtue of his US citizen mother, analogous to a jury nullification of a law that the jury doesn't agree should be applied on a particular case. IMO, all federal courts, including SCOTUS would give Barry a Mulligan and declare him NBC...provided he was born on US soil." (bold and underline emphasis added)

View the Free Republic thread at:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-.../2846238/posts

View the complete, referenced 'American Thinker' article at:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/...diversion.html

[bsteadman]

Obama Represents Both a Dangerous Threat and a Unique OPPORTUNITY!

Obama represents a dangerous threat but he also provides us a unique OPPORTUNITY!

It has become increasingly obvious to many informed and concerned American citizens that we have been relinquishing political control, both of our country’s daily operations and its long-term destiny, to an ever expanding federal government and a diffuse, parasitic group of elite, powerful and often internationally-oriented individuals and organizations.

This reality is diametrically opposed to the intentions of our country’s founders, who envisioned control being exercised by reasonably well informed, individual citizens working through competent, elected representatives to allow the passage of needed and Constitutionally-lawful legislation in a balanced manner at the local, state and federal levels.

This shift to centralized control has been slowly and quietly growing like a cancerous tumor, out of sight of a largely apathetic and/or preoccupied electorate, for at least a century or more. However, its danger has become much more acute in recent decades and has now culminated in the election to our presidency of a constitutionally-ineligible, radical left imposter by the name of Barack Obama, who may not even be an ordinary citizen of the country.

Most ominously, this matter, which directly impacts our national security, is not being discussed in the main stream media and nobody in a position of authority in any branch of government has yet chosen to formally and publicly insist that it be properly addressed. It just can’t get much worse than this! What to do?

Obama represents a dangerous threat but he also provides us a unique OPPORTUNITY!

I believe the single-page, easily-understood, authentic, 1961 Obama Kenyan Birth Certificate, WIDELY DISTRIBUTED AND DISCUSSED, provides a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to dramatically shock and educate a major fraction of the American public about the lies that have been inflicted upon them and the danger they have been exposed to by their so-called leaders, their largely-controlled main stream media and the ‘New World Order’ elite!

CARPE OCCASIONEM – Seize the Opportunity

The following trinity is now in place:

(1) A highly visible, central symbol, Obama, who has been widely promoted and defended by the political establishment, the elite and the MSM. Unlike the vast majority of complex events and circumstances that have occurred in our country’s history, it is easy for many ordinary people to focus their attention on this single, radical-left individual. He symbolizes many problems.

(2) An easily understood opposing object, Obama’s Kenyan BC, which can be conveniently used by millions of citizens, utilizing the ‘WasObamaBornInKenya’ website, to expose and either slow or temporarily halt the nefarious actions of the political establishment, the elite, and the MSM.

(3) A large, rapidly growing, informed, alarmed, internet-connected, and increasingly organized American Patriot Movement, which is fully capable of using the above cited ‘object’ to successfully defeat the ‘symbol’ and all that it stands for, thereby accomplishing the most important task of our generation.

The above is an unprecedented confluence of events and circumstances that, if used intelligently, can result in our delivering a major benefit to millions of individual-liberty seeking people.

Hopefully, the shock to the American people of learning an important TRUTH will be enough to help start our country back toward functioning as a Constitutional Republic.

Eliminating Obama as an eligible candidate in the 2012 election using the 1875 Minor v Happersett Supreme Court ruling defining 'Natural Born Citizen', for example, is certainly a worthy goal. Proving that he has committed a serious crime by fraudulent use of a Social Security Number, for example, is another worthy goal. However, these types of actions merely remove Obama from the office or insure that he is not able to run again. THEY DO VERY LITTLE TO EXPOSE THE MASSIVE UNDERLYING SUPPORT AND PROMOTION NETWORK THAT MADE POSSIBLE HIS ELECTION AND ALLOWED HIM TO CONTINUE FUNCTIONING UNCHALLENGED AS PRESIDENT!

We can’t let this unique opportunity escape us so let’s get busy distributing Obama's Kenyan BC rapidly and to as many people as possible!

ps. Unfortunately, all of the above reasoning explains EXACTLY why the radical-left has worked so hard these last 3 or 4 years to suppress any talk of their chosen one being born in Kenya!

[bsteadman]

WND Poll: 80% don’t buy 2-citizen-parent Presidential eligibility requirement

Obama Conspiracy Theories
Dr. Conspiracy
3/19/2012

Excerpt:

"WorldNetDaily released poll results yesterday showing widespread confusion over Barack Obama’s place of birth, in their article: Stunning Percentage Agrees with Sheriff Joe. There’s a lot of spin in the article about a poll commissioned by WND, and you can read it yourself ...

However, what I found interesting, buried way down, is that despite an almost 3-year campaign, and claims that we were all taught it in school, only 1 in 5 of the 685 respondents said that US Presidents must have two citizen parents."

"The WND/Wenzel poll also asked registered voters what they think natural-born citizen means. Half believe it requires being born in the U.S., and one in five believe it means that both parents must be citizens."
...
"The scientific telephone survey, conducted March 10-13, has a margin of error of 3.72 percentage points."

WARNING: Site is not Birther Friendly

View the complete article at:

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/...y-requirement/

---

My comment:

I was certainly not surprised at learning the results of the poll, as reported in the above referenced article. It's distressing, but obvious, that a great majority of the American People do not understand the basic POTUS eligibility requirements and would not yet be ready to accept removing Obama from office based solely on a 'M v H' based, NBC legal approach challenging his POTUS Constitutional eligibility.

I am now more convinced than ever that a BALANCED LEGAL APPROACH MUST BE CONDUCTED IN EXPOSING OBAMA AND BRINGING HIM TO JUSTICE!

The work of Sheriff Arpaio, which has so far concentrated primarily on the criminal matters of Obama's probable SSS# and Hawaiian LFBC forgeries, is excellent. Lucas Daniel Smith's work to inform the world about Obama's authentic CPGH Kenyan BC is very helpful and important! Attorney Orly Taitz' legal work with issues such as Obama's likely fraudulent use of a Connecticut SSN is very important!

The American People are very capable of understanding 'fraud' and 'deception' and accepting the removal of Obama from office based on these types of issues.

The 'M v H' based, NBC legal approach also needs to be vigorously continued, although so far, this approach does not appear to be getting any traction due to the apparent high level of corruption in our judicial system at the present time. Tragic indeed!

[AMERICAN ADVOCATE]

It matters not what the public imagines to be the requirement for the office of president . Facts are facts , and the forefathers knew exactly what they intended .
The lame brained , lazy , frightened members of congress know that the treasonous , fraudulent , lying socialist would be dictator is not eligible , and they should get off their butts and indict the clown . If they do nothing ~ they should be indicted along with obummer .