Topic: Synthesizing Justia-gate to coverup Obama's lack of natural born qualifications

[Pandora]

First this:

Posted by Ann Barnhardt - October 21, AD 2011 12:59 PM MST

The definitive online law library service Justia.com has been caught red-handed via web caching services as having fraudulently removed all references to the definitive "Natural Born Citizen" SCOTUS decision, Minor vs. Happersett, from its entire library. This was done in early 2008, obviously front-running for Obama at the Obama campaign's bidding. Minor vs. Happersett explicitly defines "Natural Born Citizen", a standard which Obama obviously does not meet simply by virtue of the fact that his male DNA contributor was a Kenyan - regardless of Barry's physical place of birth.

In early 2008, every Heppersett reference was painstakingly removed by Justia.com. When the fraud was discovered last year, Justia.com then painstakingly returned the case law to its original, uncorrupted and unedited form. But the damage was already done.

Justia.com is run by a man named Tim Stanley. Mr. Stanley should be arrested and tried for treason and sedition. Sedition is defined as engaging in behavior designed to subvert the lawful order, namely the Constitution of the United States. Tim Stanley has committed a capital offense in facilitating the subversion of the Constitution in the person of Barack Obama. When are we going to start arresting traitors? How can this nation survive if treason and sedition are LAUGHED AT and men can literally shred the Constitution without compunction?

Now the analysis:

Posted by Ann Barnhardt - October 24, AD 2011 12:38 PM MST

Now a quick expansion on the Justia.com sedition issue. Here is what I SUSPECT happened with regards to Obama's elevation to power. This is just my theory given the evidence. Since there is no longer any journalism in this country, people like me are left to assemble the facts as best they can, and then parse and synthesize those facts into the most likely theory. I wish I didn't have to do this. I wish that journalists would dig for and then report the truth. But since they refuse, this is the best that we can do.

From the get-go in 2007, Obama wanted to run against McCain. Here is a quote from an AP story dated 2/2/2008 :

    Obama advisers have said privately for months that McCain would be their preferred opponent among all those who sought the GOP nomination.

Citation URL here:
http://en.trend.az/regions/world/ocountries/1125644.html

The thing that has ALWAYS bothered me the most about the 2008 election was NOT the ascendency of Obama himself. That is no mystery. The truly imbecilic electorate in this country was told by the media to vote for the black guy, because voting for the black guy would wash all of their sins away. Good people vote for the black guy, and to so much as ASK a question about his background or qualification is RAAACIST. And the sheep ran to the slaughter, as they were told. This is no mystery.

The mystery is the fact that McCain was a weak, Bob Dole-esque candidate who was performing poorly in the primaries, and then all of a sudden, Romney dropped out and McCain was it. It was bizarre. Now I think we know, to some extent, what happened.

Yes, McCain was indeed a Bob Dole redux. McCain had an unattractive personality and comportment, somewhat like Dole, was an injured war hero, like Dole, and was just on the cusp of being too old to run, like Dole. The whispered cover-story was, "It's his turn. He spent five years in the Hanoi Hilton. Let him have this."

But that isn't why Obama wanted McCain. Obama wanted McCain because McCain provided Obama with cover vis-a-vis Obama's eligibility. McCain was born on a U.S. Naval Air Station in the Panama Canal zone, and thus there was a question about his eligibility per Article 2 Section 1 of the Constitution. Was McCain born on U.S. soil?

Note the question: Was McCain born ON U.S. SOIL.

A big hullabaloo was made about this, climaxing in Senate Resolution 511, co-sponsored by Senator Barack Obama himself, affirming that McCain was eligible under Article 2 Section 1. Here is that URL:

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-sr511/text

Note the date: April 10, 2008. We now know that at EXACTLY the same time as these Resolution 511 thrashings were going on, Justia.com was scrubbing all mentions of Minor v. Happersett from their SCOTUS archives. Now some argue that these rulings were still available on LexisNexis and WestLaw. That's right. But LexisNexis and WestLaw are expensive PAY services. Justia.com is the only real FREE online law library. How many Americans are going to fork out the big bucks for access time on LexisNexis or WestLaw to investigate SCOTUS precedents for the definition of "Natural Born Citizen"? Uh, you could probably count the total on one hand, and still be able to pick your nose.

Obama wanted to shift the focus from the definition of "Natural Born" and the focus on the parents to the physical location of birth as the one and only relevant factor - when it is NOT the only relevant factor. Obama was confident, having Marxist co-conspirators in Hawaii who were ready to perjure themselves with regards to his original birth certificate, that he could fake his way to proving that he was born in Hawaii. He thought that he could wave the "certificate of live birth", which is the document generated for foreign-born children like his sister, Maya, and that this would satisfy the lapdog press. If any further questions came up, he could get a Hawaii state official to lie and say that they had "physically seen" his original long-form birth certificate, even though no such thing existed. Remember, Marxists lie, and they lie without the slightest compunction. This was no big deal and is EXACTLY what was accomplished.

Back to Justia.com . The meme that was put out in the press with regards to the question of the definition of "Natural Born Citizen" was that the term was totally ambiguous and had never been defined. THIS IS THE BIG LIE THAT JUSTIA.COM WAS COVERING. The term had been defined by SCOTUS in a UNANIMOUS decision in 1875. The case was Minor v. Happersett, and the Minor decision had been cited in subsequent cases as precedent. This is what Justia.com edited away so that if any journalists or citizens were to go online and research the question using standard search engines, they would come up dry and never see Minor or any of the subsequent case law citing Minor without having an expensive pay subscription to either Lexis or WestLaw.

Here is a quote from a Washington Post piece about McCain's eligibility dated May 2, 2008. Emphasis mine.

    But Sarah H. Duggin, an associate law professor at Catholic University who has studied the "natural born" issue in detail, said the question is "not so simple." While she said McCain would probably prevail in a determined legal challenge to his eligibility to be president, she added that the matter can be fully resolved only by a constitutional amendment or a Supreme Court decision.

    "The Constitution is ambiguous," Duggin said. "The McCain side has some really good arguments, but ultimately there has never been any real resolution of this issue. Congress cannot legislatively change the meaning of the Constitution."

Here's a hotlink to this WaPo citation.

That is a stone-cold lie. There HAD been a resolution in the form of a UNANIMOUS SCOTUS decision in Minor that explicitly definined NBC as a citizen born to two U.S. citizen parents.

Duggin almost certainly knew this, being a law professor who had claimed to have studied the Natural Born issue "in detail". Duggin, like Justia.com, has some serious explaining to do, and may be staring down a sedition charge.

So, in conclusion, I think the reason that Obama wanted McCain is because McCain provided cover and shifted the eligibility issue from the nationality of the parentage, which CLEARLY and OBVIOUSLY disqualified Obama as unanimously defined and codified by SCOTUS in Minor, and shifted the focus the the physical locale of birth, which Obama was confident he could bluff.

And here we sit, with our government usurped by a Marxist-Communist cabal, fronted by a puppet who can only produce a forged birth certificate that is so laughably obvious in its forgery that it defies belief. And we are mere weeks away from a global financial collapse, with said usurping contingent fanning the flames of hot civil war, and doing everything it can to start World War 3.

The Rule of Law matters. Article 2 Section 1 matters, and was written for a reason. Am I a Birther? You're damn straight I am.

Please see the post immediately above for a collection of Denninger's authoritative and objective proofs of the April 27 birth certificate forgery.

Final note: I do NOT believe that McCain is directly involved in this. The man spent five years in the Hanoi Hilton. No, he is not personally involved in elevating a Communist to the White House. McCain is, like the rest of them, a power-hungry, money-hungry man who isn't too terribly bright. He is just another "useful idiot". His time in the Hilton didn't spare him from his own character flaws, but a Communist he is not.

I am very glad to see Ann has explained this so thoroughly.  This is not the first I've heard of it, though; Jim Quinn covered it last week on the radio show.

No one else is talking about it.

[RickZ]

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/minorvhapp.html

MINOR v. HAPPERSETT
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
88 U.S. 162;  21 Wall. 162

OCTOBER, 1874, Term

(Unanimous decision of the Supreme Court holding that the Constitution of the United States
does not guarantee to women the right to vote in federal elections.)

--SNIP--

Whoever, then, was one of the people of either of these States when the Constitution of the United States was adopted, became ipso facto a citizen -- a member of the nation created by its adoption. He was one of the persons associating together to form the nation, and was, consequently, one of its original citizens. As to this there has never been a doubt. Disputes have arisen as to whether or not certain persons or certain classes of persons were part of the people at the time, but never as to their citizenship if they were.

Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that "no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President," and that Congress shall have power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.

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. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.

--SNIP--

[Pandora]

I'm quite disappointed as this does not rise to the level of a substantive ruling on the issue in my opinion.

[RickZ]

I think the problem is that the phrase 'natural-born' had a commonly understood usage and meaning back when the Constitution was written.  It was commonly understood that if one were born of a male (then later upgraded to include the female) who were citizens of the same country, the child was naturally born a citizen of that country as well.  But the phrase went out of use, so its meaning went out the window as well.  I think if Madison, Jefferson, et.al., could have seen the mess that exists because of assuming the phrase would be known by later generations to be extremely disconcerting and would have labored to make the meaning crystal clear.  Because of the Founders' worry that the President might hold divided loyalties, that is why they used the phrase 'natural-born' as a requirement to become President.  As travel was more limited, they knew that if one's parents were from another country, that there would still be an attachment to the place - and that holds up even today.  The problem today is that citizenship itself has lost its importance.  So now, even if a President is the child of two US citizen parents, there can still be divided loyalties, or even a loyalty undivided as Obama's is.

Just as the identification of our form of government as a 'democracy' clumsily made by so many today (not understanding the differences between a democracy and a representative republic), what chance do such citizens today have of being able to understand the now archaic phrase 'natural-born'?  The importance of citizenship and its hereditary inheritance has lost all meaning today, something the Founders could never have imagined.  I agree this is a less than stellar on-point prima facie proof of a Constitutional definition for 'natural-born'.  The Court still needs to rule on a firm definition, sooner rather than later as the more liberals become Justices, the more liberal the definition of 'natural-born' will be, without any understanding of historical meaning or intent.  Obama is a prime example of someone who is historically ignorant, and he's not caught out on many of his historical gaffes and misstatements because no one else knows, either (and are much too lazy to verify; now if it were Cain who showed such ignorance or {rubbing hands gleefully together} Palin, well. 'harumph, harumph, harumph').

[BMG]

Not that this tidbit is technically about the birth certificate, but it is related...and I found it to be an interesting read.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/the_case_against_barack_obama_sr.html

The short version:

None of the scenarios for marriage we have discussed so far -- love, or love with a separation, a shotgun marriage, or doing the "right thing" -- makes any sense with the facts we know.  There is one scenario, however, that makes a lot of sense.

Let's assume that Ann was impregnated by someone unknown and was facing the stigma of becoming an unwed mother.  Obama Sr., for a fee, agreed to "marry" Ann.  Being a foreign national from Kenya, there would be no liability for him (child support, etc.), and it might have been a help for extending his stay in America.

Ann's taking Obama's name for the sake of being "respectable" would explain all of what we now know: why there was no love in the relationship, the separate living arrangements, Ann and Barry leaving Obama and moving to Seattle, the EWC friends knowing nothing about Ann and child, Obama's letter to Mboya mentioning his wife Kezia, all of the mistakes on the birth certificate, and the apparent friendship between Obama and Ann's father Stanley.

The immigration documents support this scenario, as they show just how broke Obama Sr. was.  On 3/3/1961 Obama Sr. claimed $1,200 in income and $2,000 in annual expenses (page 42).  This was just one month after he was supposedly married.  He had a shortfall of $800.  He was a man in serious need of funds.  A pay for service arrangement is eminently believable, especially when the immigration documents show that he earned $5.00 a day as a dishwasher at the Ink Blot Coffee Shop (page 43) and worked for the Dole Corporation as an "ordinary summer worker" for $1.33 per hour (page 35).

Ann filed for divorce in January of 1964.  Obama was notified while at Harvard; he signed an acknowledgement, and that was the extent of his involvement.  My guess as to why Ann filed for a divorce, when there was no marriage, is that she was now in love with Lolo Soetoro.  She wanted to make sure there was no legal reason, such as common-law marriage, that would potentially prevent their union.  Ann and Lolo were married in March of 1965.

The evidence is clear: there is no license; there was no marriage.  Ann took Obama's name, but there was no love, no estrangement, no coercion, no selfless gallantry in the "marriage."  Obama was a financially desperate student who got a big break when the Dunhams found him and paid him to be a father in name only.  Ann and son Barry went on with their lives, and Obama continued on with his studies.

Is it possible that our president doesn't know this?  I find that hard to believe.  I do know, though, that he used the compelling, but mythical, story of an African father and Midwestern mother to get elected.  I also believe that whether or not Obama knew the truth about his parents' relationship, he didn't realize then that Obama Sr.'s Kenyan nationality would lead opponents to question his "natural born citizen" status.

In all likelihood, our President is a "natural born citizen" who was elected under false pretenses.  Mr. President, in the next election, please run on your record and not a mythological past.  History and your fellow citizens deserve this much.

[Pandora]

Dissected this way, it appears there isn't anything BHO hasn't lied about or exaggerated. This takes "natural born citizen" off the table as an issue, if true.  He's still alien, however.

[BMG]

True that it takes the 'natural born' issue off the table. But it is also true that it could quiet possibly mean that he lied outright about his origins in order to paint a more palatable picture to the great unwashed masses in order to help win his election to higher office. I wonder, if that proved to be true and became common knowledge, how many supporters he'd lose? Probably no true believers, because stuff like that doesn't matter to them of course. But what about the fence-sitters, the independents and the democrats that are 'Reagan democrats'?

[Pandora]

True that it takes the 'natural born' issue off the table. But it is also true that it could quiet possibly mean that he lied outright about his origins in order to paint a more palatable picture to the great unwashed masses in order to help win his election to higher office. I wonder, if that proved to be true and became common knowledge, how many supporters he'd lose? Probably no true believers, because stuff like that doesn't matter to them of course. But what about the fence-sitters, the independents and the democrats that are 'Reagan democrats'?

I'd suggest none of those you delineate because he'll then be painted as a "victim" of a unfortunate childhood.  There are many "reasons" available for those who do not care to scuttle this particular sloop and this could include the fence-sitters who are bound and determined to tread the middle-line, the "independents" who aren't; they're just the "feeeeelings" people, and the "Reagan democrats" who have no friggin clue there is no party there-there to which to cling.

How many of them are there?  We'll see.  And from that, we can draw the target list.  We're now being oppressed by a minority enforced by an even smaller minority and I'm just damn.well.sick of it.  Do I want to "lower myself to their level"?  At this point, it seems a viable option.  So, let the bashing begin.

[charlesoakwood]

Impersonating a citizen, impersonating a President,  just more counts in the
indictment. 

[BMG]

I guess when it all comes out at the end history will end up judging him a lying jerk or the 'one'...depending upon the outcome of the next election...but more importantly the success of rolling all this socialist garbage back. History is written by the victors and all that.

In the meantime, even if this were to come out by the time the elections rolled around (which I seriously doubt we'll ever read anything more on this topic), I'd imagine that he might loose maybe a percentage point because of it...at the most. My cynical side cropping up again...

I mean after all of the crap this guy has done his approval numbers are STILL in the low 40's? It makes me nauseous knowing that because it should be a whole lot closer to 20%...about the number of his rabid communist base.

[BigAlSouth]

I searching for some consensus here.

Can we all agree that Obama is a "Natural Born Marxist"?

[Sectionhand]

I think he should have been precluded from running because he's a "Natural-Born A**hole" . But , alas , precedent is not on my side . No fewer than seven Natural-Born A**holes ran and were elected president during the last century . I'm not naming names but their initials were Wilson , Roosevelt , Truman , Kennedy , Johnson , Carter and Clinton . Their assholian antecedents are unquestioned by those with a normal number of brain cells .

[Libertas]

I think he should have been precluded from running because he's a "Natural-Born A**hole" . But , alas , precedent is not on my side . No fewer than seven Natural-Born A**holes ran and were elected president during the last century . I'm not naming names but their initials were Wilson , Roosevelt , Truman , Kennedy , Johnson , Carter and Clinton . Their assholian antecedents are unquestioned by those with a normal number of brain cells .