OpenGov - Open Government Brainstorm

"We all know Obongo has spent over $950,000 in campaign cash since January on private attorneys defending eligibility lawsuits (that's fraud, btw)."

You don't know any such thing. It's just another long discredited birfer lie.

Odinga is Obama's Cousin. Obama helped Odinga with his campaign in Kenya when he was running for President of Kenya.

I disagree with BLACKMONS statement.

Obvoiusly, there are discrepancies within President B. Obama's record to validate discovery.

The only problem is: "he" refuses to disclose and provide.

e.g. refusaal to discuss

refusal to disclose,

refusal to provide.

Sen J McCain stood before congress to provide required information regarding credibility. Why does our current President refuse?

Honestly I do not know, However; I feel I have a RIGHT to know as a citizen of this great land and country.

Further I suggest:

1) Who are you to deny my right as a citizen to know our Presidents credebility.

2) Who is our President; to deny my right as an American citizen to know His Birthal Constitutionality ability to be my President?

Post the law that says he has to disclose that info. I've been asking one of you mental giants to post it for a week now.

"You don't know any such thing. It's just another long discredited birfer lie. "

-----------------------------------

-----------------------------------

That is solely your claim, without any factual backing. Below you will find information showing that Mr. has been paying a law firm to defend him in B.C. lawsuits.

-----------------------------------------------

President Obama may be using campaign funds to stomp out eligibility lawsuits brought by Americans, as his campaign has paid more than $1 million to his top lawyer since the election.

According to Federal Election Commission records, Obama For America paid $688,316.42 to international law firm Perkins Coie between January and March 2009.

The campaign also compensated Perkins Coie for legal services between Oct. 16, 2008 and Dec. 31, 2008 – to the tune of $378,375.52.

----------------------------------------------

Letter showing Perkins Coie has been involved in the lawsuits can be seen here: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images/misc/hemenwaytwo.jpg

You can see that Robert Bauer who signed the letter has been involved in the case noted in the letter here: http://citizensagainstproobamamediabias.wordpress.com/2009/03/07/hollister-v-soetoro-dismissed-3-5/

Robert Bauer of Perkins-Coie was involved in previous case: http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2008/09/24/philip-j-berg-lawsuit-obama-files-motion-to-dismiss-dnc-motion-to-dismiss-september-24-2008/

Hmmppph. You're quoting World Nut Daily, the kings of half-statement and mis-statement.

Again, I ask you, how much would you pay lawyers to file dismissal after dismissal? I suggest to you that those lawyers are getting paid for other services.

To blackmonrikker:

--------------------------

"Post the law that says he has to disclose that info. I've been asking one of you mental giants to post it for a week now. "

--------------------------

The law is already posted, its in the Constitution. The problem is the FEC, DOJ, and FBI have been derelict in their duty to Enforce the law.

BTW: Thank-you for acknowledging that we are mental giants vs. the mental midgets of the opposing side.

Thanks again,

Photosrme

"BTW: Thank-you for acknowledging that we are mental giants vs. the mental midgets of the opposing side."

That's obvious from your track record in court...

Blackmon,

It is no point to discuss President Obamas perusual of the US Constitution.

However, you wish to peruse the eligibility question under "NATURAL BORN CITIZEN," et. the laws pertaining to e.

I contend, there have been enumerous questions raised, regarding B O.s election.

More surepetitious is the frank disreagard, by "Him" to answer these honest and obvious questions surrounding "his" eleigibilty.

I appreciate your opinion, yet I will not nor can not, be rectified until B Obama Releases his self - sequestered documents regarding his birthal eligibilty to up hold the office he has assumed under questionable circumstance; as provided within the Constitutionality of the United States of America.

"More surepetitious is the frank disreagard, by "Him" to answer these honest and obvious questions surrounding "his" eleigibilty."

I strongly disagree. The questions are neither obvious nor honest.

The birfers have put the president in a situation where ANY answer he gives will not be accepted. Every answer he has given so far has only resulted in even more far-fetched conspiracy theory. Ed Hale is claiming he "heard" that the Obama administration is currently "aging" a vault BC in Canada and plans to release it in September.

The Kenyan birth theory is the most problematic, for it presumes that an eight month pregnant teenager endured a battery of immunization shots and then took a flight to Kenya in 1961 that (at the time) took up to a week!!! Then she bore her child in Mombasa and rushed back to the United States FROM KENYA in two days, in time to PLANT a fictitious birth announcement in TWO different local newspapers. All this because she knew up front that her bi-racial child was destined to become the President of the United States.

By answering these idiotic questions, he is not laying the issue to rest, he is merely throwing gasoline on the fire of people who aren't going to vote for him ANYWAYS.

He would be a MORON to respond to anything these birfers ask. If he EVER responds, he'll lose my vote. I don't vote for morons.

Oh, and I didn't mention this important facet of the "born in Kenya" story. Mombasa Coast Provincial Hospital if over 300 miles from Obama's ancestral village. 300 MILES. It's not like Kenya had Interstate Highways at the time. And the Obama's didn't even have electricity; they certainly didn't have a Range Rover to make the trip over muddy, lion-infested, territory.

How did a full-term Stanley Ann Dunham make that trip?

A birfer will tell us the Obama's rented a helicopter and the Bilderberg Group paid for it.

Who takes these people seriously?

"Why won't Barry instead simply order a $12.00 copy of his hospital birth certificate from the hospital he claims he was born in and post it?"

The hospital probably doesn't have the records.

I don't want Obama to provide anything to witch hunters. Giving them anything only makes them worse. Obama turned over his birth certificate. Two Hawaiian newspapers carried birth announcements days after Obama's birth. Independent experts examined the document. The people in charge of the records attested that they have his birth certificate on file. That is proof beyond a REASONABLE doubt. Any resonable person would be satisfied. It doesn't matter what kind of birth certificates the hospital kept or what his college application said because he was born in the United States and that legally makes him a natural born citizen. That's all anybody needs to know.

Endless doubts are raised by the witch hunters. Look at the statement - "Why doesn't he turn them over? What does he have to hide?"

Its an ignorant game that means if you don't submit to our demands we'll accuse you of something. Giving power to people who play that way is a losing game. Its best to ignore them if you can. I'm sure Obama feels the same way about it. I'm glad he's smart enough to give the birthers nothing.

They look foolish trying to trick a smart guy like Obama who won't fall for it.

Excerpt from

http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/12/05/stand-by-me/

Author P. A. Madison considers the definition of “natural born citizen”. Excerpts from the text follow.

“One universal point most all early publicists agreed on was natural-born citizen must mean one who is a citizen by no act of law. If a person owes their citizenship to some act of law (naturalization for example) they cannot be considered a natural-born citizen. This leads us to defining natural-born citizen under the laws of nature, or jus naturale, the laws the founders recognized and embraced.

Under the laws of nature, every child born requires no act of law to establish the fact the child inherits through nature his/her father’s citizenship as well as his name (or even his property) through birth. This law of nature is also recognized by law of nations.

The advantages of Natural Law is competing allegiances between nations are avoided...

In the year 1866, the United States for the first time adopted a local municipal law under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes that read: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

Rep. Bingham, commenting on Section 1992, said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parentS (plural) not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen”.

As an important historical thread, this language was further codified in Section I of the 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868, as the ‘citizenship clause’:

“All persons born or naturalized n the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside” (emphasis added).

Continuing with P.A. Madison’s article:

“What better way to protect the office of the Executive from foreign influence then to require the President to have inherited his American citizenship through his American father and not through a foreign father? Any child can be born anywhere in the country and removed by their father (mother???) to be raised under foreign influences in another country.

The risks would be for the child the return in later life to reside in this country bringing with him foreign influences and intrigues (emphasis added).

Therefore, we can say with confidence that a natural-born citizen of the United States means those persons born whose father the United States already has an established jurisdiction over, i.e., born to father’s who are themselves citizens of the United States. A person who had been born under a double allegiance cannot be said to be a natural-born citizen of the United States because such status is not recognized (only in fiction of law). A child born to an American mother and alien father could be said to be a citizen of the United States by some affirmative act of law but never entitled to be a natural-born citizen because through laws of nature the child inherits the condition of their father.”

P.A.Madison can be read at federalistblog.us.

Keep in mind Obama's websites admit he was born as a British subject through his Kenyan father.

Citar:

Thank you for linking to something that at least includes more than just repeated declarations about what the law is with no underlying support.

I've read some of your link and post and something jumps out at me right away. There is a misunderstanding of the term "under the jurisdiction." One need not be a citizen to fall under jurisdiction. If you were a Namibian in Ohio and you broke the law in Ohio you could be arrested and convicted and punished in Ohio. Ohio would have jurisdiction over you. What is meant with the definition of "natural born subject" is that the parent was under the control of the sovereign.

For 300 years before the US Revolution, common law held that any child born of two parents under the jurisdiction of the king was a citizen. Allegiance only came into place because there were two exceptions in common law. One was for ambassadors, who didn't qualify, because ambassadors were immune from arrest. The other exception was for soldiers of invading armies, because they weren't under the king's jurisdiction, at least not until they were defeated or captured.

From US V. Wong Kim Ark:

"II. The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance-also called 'ligealty,' 'obedience,' 'faith,' or 'power'-of the king. The principle embraced all persons born within the king's allegiance, and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual,-as expressed in the maxim, 'Protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem,'-and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the king's dominions, were not natural-born subjects, because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said this day, within the jurisdiction, of the king."

P.A. Madison confuses this requirement of jurisdiction. He thinks it means require two citizen parents. That's not the case.

Another mistake in the linked article is the idea that a person with dual citizenship loses his American citizenship. That's not the case. You could find reference to the real rules in US V. Wong Kim Ark. I'll also cite other cases if you'd like.

P.A. Madison brought up the law of nations. The law of nations is the law of many different nations. Some held a two citizen parent standard. The rest granted citizenship by birth. England handed down the law in the US at the time of the drafting of the constitution. It set the citizenship by place of birth standard. While its interesting to see how other nations looked at it, its inconceivable that the founders would leave a legal term to be defined by the law of a foreign nation without notification when the current American law on the books well defined "natural born citizen." And it was defined, except for those two exceptions, as anyone born within the United States.

I don't agree with the author that one must have two citizen parents to be trustworthy. We are a nation of immigrants. Many of us could have been and in fact were taken for periods of time back to ancestral countries. Yet the number of cases of treason in the US are few. The idea that only those with domestic ancestry can be trusted is a convenient tool for racists and xenophobes.

I think its best to make a judgement based on ones own witness of the object of the discussion, rather than a second hand analysis of the object coming from someone else, particularly if they are partisan.

It takes a long time to read it but much can be learned from US V. Wong Kim Ark.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=169&page=649

Creeksneakers- Thanks for joining me in rationally discussing the laws and the definition of "natural born citizen," as required by the Constitution. Reading some of these posts, it feels like we're back in first grade hurling insults, instead of discussing an extremely serious issue.

Article II, Sec. 1-- No person except a Natural Born citizen...shall be eligible to the Office of President...

Natural-Born is Nationality from Natural Law. It is determined by the father at birth, from which all rights of birth and inheritance flow. Barack Obama's father was a Kenyan British colonial.

Natural-Born Citizen, A person born within the jurisdiction of a national government.

Black's Law Dictionary, 17th Ed. (1999)

Naturalized-Citizen, A foreign born [or born of foreign parentage] who attains citizenship by law. Black's, 17th Ed (1999)

I have read "Ark" and must point out that the court ruled he was a citizen, having been born in the US; but did not state he was a "natural born citizen", inasmuch as his parents were not citizens . He was "native-born" in the US. You have misunderstood the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction". Perhaps you did not read the entire case, including the opinions concerning "subject to..." It does not mean, for instance, that if a foreign tourist violates US law, he is "subject to the jurisdiction." Of course, he is; but that is not the meaning of the wording used by the founders. The founders of the country and writers of the Constitution and 14th amendment explained at length what was meant by the term.

The legislative definition of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was defined as "not owing allegiance to any other." "[E]every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parentS {plural} NOT owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of the Constitution itself, a natural born citizen." [Sec 1992 of U.S.Revised Statutes (1866)] Rep. Bingham Dec 1866 confirmed these words as the meaning.

Senator Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee when the 14th Amendment was written said,

"... 'all persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens'... that means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof'.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof'? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."

Those born in the US of parents who are citizens of another country (such as border babies) under present interpretation of the 14th are considered citizens; but they can never be "natural born citizens" because at birth, they owe allegiance to that other country.

Emerich de Vattel was a consummate writer on the law, whom the framers knew well and understood. Following is from his Law of Nations which they used extensively.

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. NOTE THE PLURAL- TWO PARENTS who are citizens.

Statutes over foreign birth, or birth to a foreigner, are Naturalization laws as they provide for the revocation of that alien nationality. Statutes cannot create or redefine Natural-Born, an immutable condition occurring from two U.S. citizen parents. http://paralegalnm.wordpress.com/2009/02/27/barack-hussein-obama-a-natural-born-subject-of-great-britain/

National law prevented the creation of conflicting dual citizenships between other nations' citizens. The simple fact that Obama had a foreign father removes the possibility of Natural Born status.

If he was born in the US, he would still be ineligible for the office, due to the fact that his father was a Kenyan, a British subject, which citizenship passed to Obama at birth.

Obama was born with a split allegiance and is therefore ineligible to be a "natural born" citizen. This split allegiance becomes evident in his interference in the political affairs of Kenya and the Mideast, while declaring himself to be a "citizen of the world." The founders of our country specifically intended that only one whose sole allegiance is to the United States would be eligible to serve in the presidency.

From Fightthesmears website-

“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."

The Constitution is the supreme law of the US and the intent and meaning of the writers of that document is today's law. They defined "natural born citizen" and Mr. Obama, having been under allegiance to Britain at his birth, cannot meet the test.

Added reference- http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/04/article-ii-natural-born-citizen-mean.html

"Mombasa Coast Provincial Hospital if over 300 miles from Obama's ancestral village. 300 MILES. It's not like Kenya had Interstate Highways at the time. And the Obama's didn't even have electricity; they certainly didn't have a Range Rover to make the trip over muddy, lion-infested, territory."

Ever been to Kenya? I have and driven across the country extensively. It is a wonderful country with wonderful people.

Kenya is not as backwards as you would have us believe. Do not forget it was still under British rule in the early 60's with one of the best road networks in Africa.

- Kenya did have a very serviceable and relatively well maintained road connecting Kogelo and Mombasa. Granted, no McDonalds or 'rest areas' but adequate. I have been on worse roads in the US.

- Range Rovers were not available in the early 60's. Land rovers were readily available. The Obama's may not have *owned* one at that time, but the local LR owner would definitely help the white women if needed? (If she was actually in the Village)

- There would be no mud, it was not rainy season.

- The only lions that would have caused a threat on that trip (if taken) would be the local Lions Club Members looking for donations.

"How did a full-term Stanley Ann Dunham make that trip?"

It is plausible she could have. I am not convinced she did, but the point is she could have. According to your naive (and offensive) view of Kenya, she could not.

Redkite, I'll grant you better roads. HOW DID SHE MAKE THE PLANE TRIP BACK TO HONOLULU IN TWO DAYS?

The only international airport was in Nairobi. THERE WERE NO DIRECT FLIGHTS. So she would have had to travel to Nairobi from Mombasa IMMEDIATELY (within minutes) of giving birth. Then a local flight to Cairo, then to Rome, then to London, then to NY, then to San Francisco, then to Honolulu. In 1961 EACH OF THOSE FLIGHTS WOULD HAVE HAD LAYOVERS OF UP TO 12 HOURS, and SOMETIMES A DAY OR MORE. There was no such thing as hourly international flights in 1961.

And she would have had to get back to Honolulu in time to PERSONALLY direct TWO newspapers to print notice of Obama's birth.

That defies credulity.

"And she would have had to get back to Honolulu in time to PERSONALLY direct TWO newspapers to print notice of Obama's birth."

I forgot to mention this teenager's recovery time. Therefore,

"And she would have had to get back to Honolulu, all the while dripping blood from her nether regions and trying to soothe a screaming newborn, EXHAUSTED, in time to post a FAKE announcement in two Honolulu newspapapers, because the BILDERBURG GROUP had assured her that her son was destined to be president.

If the Bilderburg Group was that smart in 1961, why did they let her make the trip to Kenya in the first place? Wouldn't that place the coming Messiah/Usurper at risk?

HOW DID STANLEY ANN DUNHAM GET FROM MOMBASA TO HONOLULU IN 48 HOURS BACK IN 1961?

Isn't one of you birfers going to attempt the logisitics of that one? Really, you HAVE to. Because that's what you will get asked in court.

It's a poser isn't it? Here's another:

How did she get back into the country without a valid passport? She didn't apply for a passport until 1967 according to State Department records.

"And she would have had to get back to Honolulu in time to PERSONALLY direct TWO newspapers to print notice of Obama's birth."

Are you sure she had do it PERSONALLY?

fyi

My home town paper printed a birth announcement for my first child. She was born 3500 miles away from my home town and did not visit for nearly a year.

Yet again, misdirection and claiming 'it is impossible' when clearly it is plausible.

The newspaper announcement data was obtained from the Hawaiian health depart who obtained the information from hospitals.

For the birth announcements to be false, there would have had to have been a conspiracy at the health department to fake Obama's birthplace. Why would they do that? That's a question the birthers should answer.

Mr Obama (not the President) his real Birth Certificate would be with "http://www.vitalcertificates.co.uk/uk-birth-certificates-15-c.asp" (British Pounds, 16.95 + VAT)a contractor to UK Government since in 1961 Kenya was under British Rule. Their web site offers to answers inquiries but two attempts have gone unanswered. That leads me to believe that their otherwise "Open Records" are also sealed and guarded by the Obama helpers.