Dr. Orly Taitz’s Continuing Battle for Truth -
Dr. Orly Taitz Continues Searching for the Real Obama!
It seems FOX News will be present at Dr. Orly Taitz’s next hearing on September 8th! I saw on Drudge that newspapers lost another 29% in Ad Revenue last quarter. If they would actually start reporting on the news they might regain some of their readers. I’m sure they won’t because it’s clear they have doubled their bets on the Obama “fairy tale”. Good for FOX for having some courage.
Mary Anne McKiernan talked to one of the producers from Fox news, he identified himself as Pier, he stated that they feel that Sept 8 hearing is important and newsworthy and they will be in the courtroom
Multiple Allegiences Rule Out Natural Born Citizen Status -
If Obama is Not Eligible to Serve, He Cannot Issue "Lawful Orders"
The following article from NaturalBornCitizen raises the interesting possibility that Obama’s multiple/foreign allegiances stemming from his fathers’ side that bar any possibility of “Natural Born Citizen” status might also exist also on his mother’s side.
…”But when the President of the United States continues to keep so many aspects of his multiple foreign citizenship secret, then we certainly have a duty to examine all laws and scenarios which might have a direct effect on his eligibility”….
We know for a fact that Obama’s father was a UKC citizen and never became a US citizen and was never permanently domiciled in the US. As to Obama’s mother, everyone has always assumed she was a US citizen at the time of Obama Jr.’s birth.
But it’s very possible Stanley Ann Obama was not a US citizen by the time Obama was born.
The British Nationality Act of 1948 established Barack Obama Sr. as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. But as to the relevance of the BNA 1948 to Obama’s mother, please take a look at Section “6(2)”:
(2) Subject to the provisions of subsection (3) of this section, a woman who has been married to a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies shall be entitled, on making application therefor to the Secretary of State in the prescribed manner, and, if she is a British protected person or an alien, on taking an oath of allegiance in the form specified in the First Schedule to this Act, to be registered as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, whether or not she is of full age and capacity.
How do we know Stanley Ann Obama didn’t avail herself - after she was married, but before Obama Jr. was born - of the BNA 1948 by registering to be a UKC citizen?
Had she done this, according to the text quoted above, she would have been required to take an oath of allegiance to the United Kingdom and the monarchy. The exact text of that oath is listed in Schedule 1 of the BNA 1948:
Oath of Allegiance.
I, A.B., swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King George the Sixth His Heirs and Successors according to law.
Registering as a UKC citizen and taking such an oath of allegiance are historically recognized acts which exhibit a desire to expatriate oneself of US citizenship. Even as late as 1980, the SCOTUS cases of Afroyim v. Rusk and Vance v. Tarraza recognized “assent” as the determining factor in whether one has given up US citizenship.
The State Department has, since 1990, taken a different approach in that one may now take an oath to a foreign nation and still retain US citizenship as long as one intends to retain US citizenship.
But back in 1961, registering as a UKC citizen and taking the oath listed above would have provided ample evidence of an intent to renounce US citizenship. Therefore, at the time of his birth, Obama Jr. would have been born of two British citizen parents.
I do not make any claim to know whether Obama’s mother did become a registered UKC citizen after marrying Obama Sr. But it’s certainly fair to point out that, like so many other things about him we are not allowed to know, we also do not know whether Obama was born of two British parents. And I see no reason why we should assume his mother didn’t register as a UKC citizen considering her noted preference for living abroad.
We know that Obama’s mother traveled and worked in various nations throughout much of her adult life. Both of her marriages were to foreigners who never became US citizens.
By all evidence available, Stanley Ann Obama considered herself - as her son does now - to be a citizen of the world. I would imagine a UK passport would have validated her sense of being a citizen of the world. And isn’t it natural for a wife to become a citizen of the country of her husband?
It’s more logical to assume Stanley Ann Obama did avail herself of UKC citizenship rather than assuming she did not. This would mean that President Obama was born of two alien parents, not one.
Furthermore, the act of registering as a UKC citizen would have allowed her to obtain a British passport.
The act of “registering” as a UKC citizen under the BNA 1948 is a mechanism readers of this blog must become familiar with in order to properly comprehend my forthcoming report on Obama’s current British status. In the UK, this legal device of being “registered” as a British citizen is just as powerful as naturalizing.
So, how do we know for a fact whether Stanley Ann Obama became a British citizen via the BNA 1948 before Obama was born?
Perhaps we can find this out by asking the British Home Office via a Freedom Of Information Act request. I don’t imagine that whether somebody became a citizen is protected information. And with my next report concerning Obama’s current British status, I assume the Home Office will be receiving more than one FOIA request in the very near future.
I recognize the hypothetical nature of this report. But when the President of the United States continues to keep so many aspects of his multiple foreign citizenship secret, then we certainly have a duty to examine all laws and scenarios which might have a direct effect on his eligibility.…Continue Reading
Continuing Pursuit of Obamanista Americas -
Cuatro Obamaistas!
From the Examiner comes an excellent article concerning the current Honduran politic situation. Obama did not support Iranian protesters in their efforts to overturn a stolen election. Now, he goes out of his way to interfere with the legal removal of a President who was violating the laws and Constitution of Honduras. It seems Obama is following in Chavez’s footsteps by trying to establish leftist/Marxist governments in all of the Americas.
Obama punishes small country because its courts opposed dictatorial ex-president’s return to power
August 27, 4:05 PMDC SCOTUS ExaminerHans Bader
// The Obama Administration has decided to block travel by the people of Honduras to the United States to punish their country’s Supreme Court for refusing to back the return to power of Honduras’s ex-president and would-be dictator, Manuel Zelaya, who is backed by left-wing Latin American dictators like Castro and Chavez. The Obama Administration is now blocking the issuance of nearly all visas, meaning that a Honduran grandma who wants to visit her grandkids in the United States can’t.
Obama’s decision came in response to a recent ruling by the Honduras Supreme Court, ruling that the removal of the country’s ex-president and would-be dictator was a perfectly lawful “constitutional succession,” and that he would face criminal charges for the crimes he committed as president if he returned. Obama’s action will further destabilize a country whose economy has been pushed to the brink by recent turmoil, and which is the third-poorest country in the Western Hemisphere. (Honduras has close economic links to the U.S., making it very vulnerable to sanctions).
Earlier, soldiers acting on orders from the Honduras Supreme Court removed Honduras’s president from office, after he attempted to circumvent constitutional term limits, used mobs to intimidate his critics, threatened public employees with termination if they refused to help him violate the Constitution, engaged in massive corruption, illegally cut off public funds to local governments whose leaders refused to back his quest for more power, denied basic government services to his critics, refused to enforce dozens of laws passed by Congress, and spent the country into virtual bankruptcy, refusing to submit a budget so that he could illegally spend public funds on his cronies and pet projects (The ex-president made Richard Nixon look like an angel by comparison, and Americans would never put up with a president who behaved as badly as Honduras’s ex-president. But American liberals sometimes romanticize left-wing dictators overseas, and Honduras’s ex-president, despite being a wealthy landowner, knew how to curry favor with intellectuals and journalists through seductive left-wing rhetoric). In response to the ex-president’s removal, the nation’s Congress voted almost unanimously to replace him with the Congressional speaker, who is the country’s current president.
Because soldiers, “instead of the police,” carried out the court’s orders to remove the ex-president, the removal has been falsely referred to ever since as a “military coup” — by liberal journalists, the Obama Administration, the Carter Center, and the leftist regimes that now prevail in much of Latin America. Never mind that only soldiers, not police, would have enough manpower to remove a would-be dictator who was the most powerful man in his country, with his own bodyguards. Never mind that Honduran Constitution expressly vests the military — not police — with the power to enforce Constitutional guarantees like term limits, in Article 272. Or that the president forfeited his right to rule by proposing an end to term limits (Honduras has had such a problem with elected presidents later becoming “presidents for life” through vote fraud and intimidation that Article 239 of the Honduras Constitution strips presidents of the presidency if they even “propose” an end to term limits). Or that soldiers have occasionally been used to enforce court orders, even in the U.S., such as in the 1957 Little Rock desegregation order.
The ex-president’s removal was perfectly legal, say many lawyers and foreign policy experts, including attorneys Octavio Sanchez, Miguel Estrada, and Dan Miller, former Assistant Secretary of State Kim Holmes, and the Wall Street Journal’s Mary Anastasia O’Grady.
That no “military coup” occurred in Honduras has long been clear, from the fact that it is the Honduras’s Supreme Court and Congress that continue to object on legal grounds to the ex-president’s return, while the military has said that it will not block its return if Honduras’s courts or legislature conclude that the President’s return would in fact be legal. (Indeed, the military was a big loser in the ex-president’s ouster, since the U.S. promptly cut off military aid as a result, and Honduras is heavily reliant on foreign aid)
Confronted with the legal basis for removing the ex-president under his country’s constitution, the Obama Administration has responded with a series of increasingly ridiculous rationalizations for stubbornly seeking to force his return on the Honduran people.
Obama has argued that elected presidents have a right to continue ruling even if they violate their country’s constitution, and his assistant secretary of state argued that presidents should not be removed without elaborate “judicial process” (an argument at odds with our own Constitution’s provision for legislative impeachment, and Honduras’s constitutional provision automatically stripping presidents of their office if they even propose changes to constitutional term limits).
The Obama Administration earlier showed its ignorance by suggesting that Honduran legislators and judges lost their right to hold office when Honduras’s ex-president was removed. That’s like saying that after Richard Nixon resigned in Watergate, all of his judicial appointees (including the 4 Supreme Court justices he appointed, such as Harry Blackmun and William Rehnquist) should have automatically lost their posts, and the entire Congress should have resigned. In an effort to intimidate Honduras’s legislature and courts, Obama’s State Department earlier rescinded the visas of a Honduran Supreme Court justice, the leader of Honduras’s Congress, and its human-rights ombudsman, who had criticized human-rights abuses and intimidation by the ex-president. State Department spokesman Ian Kelly justified the taking away of the visas by saying that “We don’t recognize Roberto Micheletti as the president of Honduras. We recognize Manuel Zelaya.”
…Continue Reading
Media Carrying Obama’s Water -
Carrying Obama's Water While Drowning the Truth!
It would seem that the media would also come to the aid of Glenn Beck if for no other reason that it’s just a matter of time before they will be the target of such groups. Unless, they agree with being muzzled is a legitimate part of Journalism in Obama’s world. Thanks JJ for tip.
Black Group Comes Out in Support of Glenn Beck
Contact: BOND Action, Inc., 213-804-1872
LOS ANGELES, Aug. 27 /Christian Newswire/ — BOND Action, Inc., a national cultural action organization, has come out in support of FOX News Channel broadcaster Glenn Beck. Beck has been under attack from the radical left-wing group ColorOfChange.org after he said last month that he believes President Obama is “a racist.”
ColorOfChange.org was founded by Van Jones; a self-described “rowdy black nationalist.” Jones now serves as White House environmental advisor (“green jobs czar”). So far advertisers including Geico, Ally Bank, and Sargento Cheese have been intimidated into pulling ads off The Glenn Beck Show. “BOND Action, Inc., will be working to expose the source behind the boycott and counter it,” said Founder and President, Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson.
“Glenn Beck is right, Obama is a racist!” added Rev. Peterson. “Where were the boycotts and outraged activists when President George W. Bush was being falsely maligned as a ‘racist’? This is a blatant double standard. This boycott is an attempt to silence Beck from continuing his expose’ of Barack Obama’s socialist agenda and his radical ‘green jobs czar’ Van Jones.”…Continue Reading
I hope everyone will watch Glenn Beck’s show tonight. Mr. Beck’s rating are sky high. It’s clear that people tune in to media people who are not afraid to stand up to power, especially when that power is corrupt.
This is Glenn Beck’s latest twitter:
glennbeckTODAY marks the end of the SILENT transformation. AMERICA PIVOTS back to sanity. Tell EVERYONE you know to watch tonight. Enough is Enough.
I agree. Enough is enough.
Homeland Security Fleecing America?
Buying Support Comes Under This Heading!
Michelle Malkin reports on a subject, politicizing homeland security, that should be a concern to every American. Even though it is indicative of ChiBama polictics in general, such politicization should stay out of the Homeland Security Office. Security is too important! Note: I did love Ms. Malkin’s use of the phrase “Obama water-carriers”.
By Michelle Malkin • August 27, 2009 09:44 PM
Props to the Associated Press for stepping outside its traditional role as Obama water-carriers and shedding light on the none-too-surprising politicization of border security funding under DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano.
She’s in a state of denial.
The White House is desperately undermining transparency.
And maybe it’s finally dawning on the media stenographers that the Era of HopeNChangeyness ain’t all it was cracked up to be.
Light bulbs going off:
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said Thursday that politics did not influence the decision to spend millions of dollars in stimulus money on little-used border checkpoints while passing over higher-priority projects.
Members of Congress have asked for answers after The Associated Press showed that the Obama administration did not follow its internal priority list when handing out money to repair border stations nationwide.
Two Montana senators have taken credit for securing money for projects in their state, including $15 million for a border crossing that sees about three travelers a day….Continue Reading
