It seems there may be yet one more lawsuit against Obama! First there was Berg v. Obama, now there are scores of lawsuits with no end in sight! If Obama is allowed to serve as an illegitimate Imposter in Chief, every law he signs will be of questionable effect and the subject of another lawsuit. The scandals keep coming for Obama: Blago, Rezko, Ayers, Wright, violations of Logan Act, Larry Sinclair, Odinga, Kenyan birth, no records presented, socialist party, terrorists endorsement, U.S. Military skeptical, Donald Young, Constitution Hall of Shame Man of the Year, etc., etc., etc. The truth will come out about Obama eventually. Keep the Faith and Do YOUR Part!
This is from CitizenWells:
I received the following from an attorney I have been in touch with
on the internet. The attorney’s name will be withheld for the
“I want this summary to go out to legislators before tomorrow. Can
you please post this on your blog?
I added a blurb about Annenberg. I was putting together the comments
from the Wall of Shame on Citizen Wells and found that several
legislators have relied on FactCheck to make their decisions for them.
So, I explained in this summary, FactCheck is BO’s former employer!”
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE * DISTRICT OF *
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, a/k/a
CIVIL ACTION NO.:
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF
SUMMARY OF THE CASE
Plaintiffs *, *, and * all served proudly in the United States military and were honorably discharged from active duty status subject to recall. On entering the service, these men swore a solemn oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic” and to “bear true faith and allegiance to the same” and to “obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.” So help them God. At all times in the past, they have faithfully served their country consistent with this sacred oath. And while it is true that, the Uniform Code of Military Justice metes out penalties for failure to carry out the mandates of this oath; this threat of adverse consequences is not what has motivated these men to put their lives on the line for their country. Rather, it was their deep abiding faith in our Constitutional Republic that formed the basis of this allegiance. However, on January 20, 2009, assuming that Defendant Barack Hussein Obama will be sworn in as the 44th President of the United States, Plaintiffs’ faith and allegiance will be tested as never before. Because having closely monitored events related to this latest election cycle, they now share grave concerns as to whether he is eligible for the job. Specifically, under Article II, Section I of the United States Constitution, is he a “natural born citizen”?
Back in December 2007, Mr. Obama did “solemnly swear” he was a “natural born citizen” in the document he submitted to the Secretary of State of Arizona announcing he would participate in that state’s February Presidential nominating primary. But by June 2008, he was publicly acknowledging concerns as to whether he is eligible for the job. At that time, he created an internet web site entitled “Fight the Smears,” with this stated purpose: to “spread the truth.” Here’s what he posted on that site to address rumors he held dual U.S./Kenya citizenship.
“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.”
But wouldn’t being born with dual U.S./Britain citizenship mean he is not a natural born citizen?
To address rumors he was not a U.S. citizen, he posted information under the heading, “The Truth About Barack’s Birth Certificate.” Below was the photocopy of a document entitled “Certification of Live Birth,” State of Hawaii, with this added caption: “Barack Obama’s Official Birth Certificate.” Unlike a regular Certificate of Live Birth, which is filled with several boxes containing information like baby’s height and weight; the name of the hospital in which he was born; and the signature of the doctor attending the delivery, this Certification contains little more information excerpted from the original than the names of Defendant’s father and mother and that he was born in 1961 on the Island of Maui. He insisted posting this document established once and for all he was born in Hawaii. Only, in 1961, in Hawaii, any adult could legally register a foreign birth of a child born to anyone claiming Hawaii as a legal residence for at least one year before the birth. In other words, Defendant could have obtained a Certificate of Live Birth showing he was born in Hawaii even if that isn’t where he was born. Indeed, Hawaiian officials recently announced they have Defendant’s original Certificate of Live Birth. Maybe it shows he was born in Hawaii. But he could also have been issued a Certificate of Live Birth that proves he was born in another country. Of course, if he was born in another country then, he is not a natural born citizen.
Mr. Obama insisted this Hawaiian Certification he posted on the internet establishes he is a “native citizen.” Then, why did he swear to the Secretary of State in Arizona he is a “natural born citizen”? Having taught Constitutional Law, surely he knows “native” and “natural born” are not the same thing; and that being only native born makes him ineligible to be President.
“Staffers” from FactCheck.org also assured the public Defendant’s birth certificate is real, calling FactCheck a “nonpartisan, nonprofit “consumer advocate” for voters.” But that is a lie. In fact, the real name of FactCheck is Annenberg Political Fact Check, and they are funded by the Annenberg Foundation, the same group that hired Mr. Obama to Chair the Board of their Chicago Annenberg Challenge, where he doled out tens of millions of Mr. Annenberg’s dollars to community groups like ACORN and Bill Ayers’ Small Schools Workshops in a failed attempt to raise test scores of students enrolled in Chicago public schools. FactCheck operates out of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania. However, according to the disclaimer at the bottom of their web site, only FactCheck staff is responsible for the material they put out, and not the University or the Annenberg Foundation.
But even if it turns out that both of Mr. Obama’s parents were American citizens and, that he really was born in Hawaii, these facts alone would still fail to establish he a natural born citizen.
In his memoir, Dreams from my Father, he wrote that his mother married Lolo Soetoro, whom he calls his stepfather, when he was 4 years old, and moved her son to Mr. Soetoro’s native Indonesia. He remained silent throughout the book as to whether he was adopted. But during that time, only Indonesian citizens were allowed to attend school; and last year, the Associated Press released a copy of his elementary school registration. This document records his name is Barry Soetoro; it lists his nationality is Indonesian. Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship; American law on dual citizenship deferred to the law of the foreign sovereign. In other words, if he was adopted by Lolo Soetoro, this would have made him a citizen of Indonesia, and he would have ceased being an American citizen.
His mother brought him back to Hawaii at age 10. If he passed through U.S. Customs and Immigration on re-entering the country, now he would be a “naturalized” but not “natural born citizen.” And naturalized citizens are Constitutionally ineligible to be President. She left him in Hawaii with her father and mother, where he remained until attending Occidental College, in California. Last April, at a private fundraiser in that state, he let slip that in 1981, on a break from college, he spent a few weeks in Pakistan. Did the passport he carried that allowed his entrance into that country say, citizen of the United States of America; or Kenya; or Indonesia?
Despite all of these unanswered questions as to his Constitutional eligibility to occupy the Oval Office, Defendant nonetheless managed to become the nominee for President of the Democratic Party; get (the names of his Electors) onto the general election ballot in all 50 states and the District of Columbia; and receive the majority of popular votes cast in the general election.
Two days after the election, Detroit radio talk-show hosts Mike Clark, Trudi Daniels, and Marc Fellhauer on WRIF’s “Mike in the Morning” show called Honorable Peter Ogego, Kenyan Ambassador to the U.S., at the Embassy of Kenya in Washington, D.C. for reaction to his countryman being elected the American President. Ambassador Ogego was understandably proud. He proclaimed that the President-Elect’s “birthplace” in Kenya is “already an attraction.” Asked whether the Kenyan government intended to identify the spot with some sort of marker, the Ambassador assured the interviewers, the site is “already well known.”
Of course, being born in Kenya means, Mr. Obama cannot be President because he is not a natural born citizen.
Members of the Electoral College, long-time loyalists and activists selected by the Democratic Party cast their votes for President on December 15. Presumably, they went along with their Party. Congress is scheduled to count and certify these Electoral Votes on January 8. Still, no proof exists Defendant is a natural born citizen.
Being a natural born citizen is a Constitutional prerequisite to being President but Defendant has failed to establish he is eligible for the job. Well-founded deep-seated concerns as to whether he is a natural born citizen now confront Plaintiffs with an untenable Hobson’s choice. If he is sworn in as President on January 20, must they honor their vows to protect and defend the Constitution by disobeying what could be an illegal order issued by the man unlawfully acting as Commander in Chief, thereby facing certain discipline under the Uniform Code of Military Conduct up to and including prosecution for crimes punishable by imprisonment or execution? Or, should they face such discipline by obeying an order that in fact, is illegal, in violation of the sacred oath? END
Contact Members of House and Senate!!