Glenn Beck Judge Napolitano: Government Sanctioned Assassination: Whatever Happened to Treason?

A cornerstone of our Republic has been our justice system of due process, the right to a trial of our peers along with the right of appeal. What happens when a president puts an American citizen's name on a government-sanctioned assassination list - no trial, no jury, no appeal? See a Judge Napolitano video below.

Government Sanctioned Assassination

For some months now the CIA has had the authority to kill dual Yemeni-American citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki. It appears that al-Awlaki has not been indicted for treason. Apparently, he can be killed abroad, whether on a battlefield or not. I would be comforted to know that al-Awlaki could not inspire another Nidal Hasan because he was one-dead-dude, and dead by the hand of an American, but is it constitutional?

Article 3, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution covers treason. Treason consists only of levying War against the U.S., or giving the enemy aid and comfort. There can be no conviction on charges of treason without the testimony of two witnesses to each treasonous Act ("overt" Act). The Congress is tasked with fixing the punishment. In this administration, Congress would abdicate that duty to a czar.

Why is al-Awlaki not charged with treason? Maybe because there is no way we can find two witnesses to anything he has done. So where does that leave us? With a kill list?

American Adam Gadahn, a California native and convert to Islam, is charged with treason, but is not on the government kill list. Gadahn has family and other non-Muslim acquaintances in the U.S. Maybe witnesses against Gadahn can be found.

Adam Gadahn - Treason - Traitor

Obama has targeted American Anwar al-Awlaki for assassination in an obviously unconstitutional act. What gives Obama this authority, and what are we going to do about it? Consider this: what if the truth becomes treason...one day?

Will Truth become Treason?

The video below is Judge Andrew Napolitano and Glenn Beck discussing the government-sanctioned kill list. The second video is the Judge, on another occasion, also talking about hit lists.





Judge Andrew Napolitano and Glenn Beck on Sanctioned Assassination (video) Judge Andrew Napolitano - Obama's Assassination Program (video)

Second video - thanks to therightscoop

Liz Wiehl Obama Natural Born Status: Congress Investigated Obama Natural Born Status

Last night, attorney Liz Wiehl appeared on Bill O'Reilly's The Factor. The discussion was about attorney Orly Taitz' $20,000 fine for a frivolous lawsuit seeking to have Barack Obama's long-form birth certificate released. I was shocked to hear Wiehl say that Congress has "investigated" Barack Obama's natural born status. I'm asking when, and who, investigated, where is the report, and how does Wiehl know this? See video below.

Liz Wiehl

She makes other irresponsible claims about "birthers" that she does not back up, and O'Reilly is clueless in his constant reminders that Obama is natural born - again with nothing to back it up. When O'Reilly tells his audience "we" have investigated, and Obama is natural born citizen - I want to smack him. He says "we" have seen the birth certificate, but he never engages in a full discussion of what is really known or not known. Let's have that full discussion, Bill.

I do not believe Bill O'Reilly has seen Obama's long-form birth certificate, and I certainly do not believe Congress has investigated. If someone knows differently I hope they come forward.

You'll see in the video below that O'Reilly asks all the wrong questions. Notice that this conversation asserts that the Obama administration loves the focus on the birth certificate. The problem is, this should have been solved before there was an Obama administration - an arrogant administration, according to O'Reilly.

The questions should be: Who has seen Obama's long-form birth certificate? Why has Obama not released his long-form birth certificate? Why does Congress not always vet a presidential candidate, as they did John McCain?







 Bill O'Reilly Obama Natural Born Status

Obama's Mother's Divorce from Obama Sr. - Papers Available, kinda sorta

Below is the next edition of the Obama-natural-born-status. I do not know what's going on here. I know nothing about Ed at PlainsRadio.com, I know nothing about his attorney. InvestigatingObama has been following and dissecting this venture. When you visit the website, check out the comments, and then the sidebar which precisely lays out why he and others believe that Barack Hussein Obama II is not a natural born citizen. You can see from the comments that the facts are confusing, no matter where they lead or how they are interpreted. I will say this: The people closely following this and giving up their time to document each step along the way should be lauded, not lambasted. The lastest pro-Obama argument in the comment section: Obama is natural born and that's certain because the State of Illinois qualified and cleared him, (paraphrasing) is just too rich. You can read it and more at InvestigatingObama. Obama may be a natural born citizen, but some, like InvestigatingObama, believe they have well-explained why this is not possible - but the one thing we know is that Obama refuses to clear up the issue. He is hiding his birth certificate, and paying thousands to fight its reveal. You know folks, this just isn't natural.He cannot even say he has proven the issue because the birth certificate he placed on his website is obviously fraudulent, but if not fraudulent, then insufficient, as it would be a version that proves nothing, including an actual birth place. Note that there is more. Visit America's Right, the website that broke the initial story, for information about Hollister v. Soetoro. Here's the latest. Please visit InvestigatingObama for ALL the details. Just click on the documents below to enlarge. There are more than a few mysteries here. As Arlen at InvestigatingObama said:

And, to anyone actually offended by how nutty this all appears to be, just relax and have a sense of humor -- this is just the United States presidency after all

*****

Obama Divorce Papers, via PlainsRadio.com - updating as it goes by Arlen Williams at InvestigatingObama

The Barack Hussein Obama Sr. / Stanley Ann divorce papers are in the possession of Ed Hale and PlainsRadio.com.

Investigating Obama will likely be making numerous updates within this post, as the afternoon and evening proceed. You might expect some bad spelling, typos, and weird grammar. And, to anyone actually offended by how nutty this all appears to be, just relax and have a sense of humor -- this is just the United States presidency after all. I.O. reports; you decide, hide, or roller-coaster ride. (Ed and Caren Hale, pictured.)

2:25pm CT - Ed Hale has his FedEx package and has made sure that among others, attorney, Stephen Pidgeon is getting a copy. PlainsRadio.com is to post it for public view at 8pm CT, tonight. Ed and others will be 'net audio-wise, too, as previously mentioned.

3:38pm CT - I.O. has gained a pre-release copy of image files of the divorce papers. (BTW, these are the previously unreleased Obama divorce papers, not the Soetoro divorce papers, for any who are still wondering.) I will be examining them over the next few minutes, but will withhold essential information as to how it pertains to BHO II until probably shortly before 8pm, as agreed with Plains Radio.

4:51pm CT - Someone I.O. is not naming has suggested listening to The Shags, while waiting for the Plains Radio broadcast. Hm. And I.O. confesses it would not have thought of that, but loves you all, too.

5:02pm CT - While, as stated, I will not yet divulge whether or not the divorce decree refers to the citizenship of Barack Obama (a.k.a., "The Fresh Prince of Bill Ayers," as FReeper, Rodney Dangerfield has named him) I will say that this document is significant and do suggest listening to Plains Radio, tonight.

6:10pm CT - Ed Hale is on PlainsRadio live, now. He is proclaiming he has new information (that is beyond me at this point, but don't let that get you down) but will not state yet, what it is. He is exhuberant indeed. Go ahead and listen, if you can. He says they can prove now, that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. That is what he is saying. I'm just hearing. ;-)

6:23pm CT - Ed won't say what exactly he is speaking of, but he believes that one piece of information on the document has lead to further information. He also reports that four pages of the divorce decree information are missing and that he is working with his PI in Hawaii to get them. Also, that the Globe will be reporting further and interviewing him. (Remember, it was National Enquirer that found out about John Edwards.) And now, my PlainsRadio audio feed has gone out.

6:30pm CT - I got the audio back. Ed Hale is convinced he can prove Obama was born in Kenya, with the further, undisclosed evidence. I believe he is convinced.

6:56pm CT - It is the original Hawaiian birth certificate of BHO II that Ed believes he can somehow fish out of the Pacific islands. He purports it can be obtained with further work on the ground, now that some bit of information in this divorce decree has been discovered: a different name for Stanley Ann is listed there? I'll have to take another look at those documents.... And, whoever is on the ground may want to start eating out of vending machines and wearing kevlar -- just kidding about that, aren't I?

7:18pm CT - Okay, Mr. Hale says the birth certificate he seeks is not the Hawaiian vault copy.

7:46pm CT - As for names, I see names on the divorce decree. Stanley Ann is listed in a standard and consistent way. So are both B.H.O's I and II. It would s-e-e-e-m that Hale is referring to another name/person. And here, it isn't even 8:00, yet.

8:07pm CT - Here are the image files of the divorce decree, from Plains Radio. You may enlarge each one with a click. As you see, there are no pages marked 8 through 11. Just 1 through 7, plus 12. Hale says that the "D." in Stanley Ann (Dunham) Obama's name is significant of something. I wouldn't know what, except for her maiden name. You may also note that BHO II is mentioned in two places and place of birth is not mentioned. However... This is a court declaration that BHO II is in fact the son of BHO I as has been "naturally" assumed. That means that Barack Obama is constitutionally disqualified from being U.S. President, as this Web log has repeatedly explained and has documented -- along with numerous lawyers, historians, and thoughtful Web surfers. 8:28pm CT - Obama challenging lawyer, Stephen Pidgeon is on Plains Radio, now. His perspective will be quite interesting. 8:28pm CT - Attorney Pidgeon is essentially giving Ed Hale his legal assistance, on the air. Interesting times again, at Plains Radio. Pidgeon explains how BHO II is not a natural born citizen, if born abroad. Further, he explains how Obama's online "Certificate of Live Birth" (COLB) has been altered and in that way (among others, potentially) is invalid. Then, he explains how Hawaii COLB's are not birth certificates of the kind which are required for fundamental identification. Then, he explains how it is admitted knowledge that Stanley Ann's second husband, Lolo Soetoro adopted Barack, whose name was changed to Barry Soetoro and who was registered in an Indonesian elementary school as an Indonesian citizen. After this, the discussion gets into the question of whether Barack Obama might be guilty of criminal fraud, if he were born in another nation. 8:50pm CT - Pidgeon now explains once more how BHO I passed along U.K. citizenship to BHO II and how that disqualifies BHO II from being U.S. President (not a natural born Citizen of America, clearly a U.K citizen). Ed underscores this. Good for Ed. Nevermind the letter "D." for Dunham. Ed has the the letter from John Jay going for the cause. "This program is brought to you by the letter, Jay." 9:15pm CT - Now, Pidgeon explains how becoming an Indonesian citizen voids the status of natural born Citizen, requiring naturalization, if one is to then become an American citizen, again. And now, the discussion goes to this peculiar, new working assumption of Ed Hale has that there is a immigration birth certificate (perhaps my term) for BHO II on file in America and how to get a copy. 9:26pm CT - Now, Pidgeon discusses the natural born Citizen issue per the foreign father further... friends. There is a difference between controlling authority (law and precedent) and persuasive authority (original intent and meaning, informed by such things as contemporaneous documentation). Pidgeon discusses how the "hard" (my word) British citizenship of BHO II brings weight in terms of controlling authority, as well as the Donofrio doctrine of what Pidgeon refers to as persuasive authority. My personal take as a part-time student of history: the courts should/must defer to hard evidence of persuasive authority in such an instance as this, in order to maintain intellectual/epistemological honesty, though Pidgeon's point is hard-core clear, too. 9:46pm CT - Now, a caller's question is the effect of Obama potentially having an Indonesian student visa, when a college student and later. Also, did Obama have an American passport, when he travelled back to Indonesia, in 1981? Can this be discovered? [Yes, can this be discovered, or can it be certified that one does not exist? Can an Indonesian passport be discovered? Not many days left....] Other callers are asking other questions. Pidgeon is very informative. 9:50pm CT - Pidgeon reminds us that the Wrotnowski case is still "pending" and procedurally alive. The program closes, to the synthesized drum and bugle core music of the Hales' Lion's Den. It should become available as a streaming archive on the plainsradio.com site. Stephen Pidgeon is to revisit Plains Radio on Monday evening. I am sure that Ed Hale and his Plains Radio compatriots will continue to pursue the immigration birth certificate issue and that we will hear more about it. And now, I will invite you to read further in your humble Investigating Obama and suggest that you look into the article in The Right Side of Life, "Dunham v. Obama: Document Confirms Fatherhood, FactCheck.org, UK-Kenyan Colonial Law," for a recap of this evening's events, Internet discussion, and documentation. I'm going to read that article for the first time now, myself. I will take at least one more look into comments for this post, too. There have been numerous ones. Feel free to pass along this and other I.O. postings.

Testing e-referrer:

www.e-referrer.com

Obama and Dunham Divorce Decree Found Showing a Kenyan-born Child?

UPDATE: 2:45 PM CST

2:30pm CT From Investigating Obama: Ed Hale has sent an email stating that his delivery has been delayed until Friday, 1/2. We wait another day for what he has to show.

Readers: as many of you know, I have been offline, off and on for a couple of months, and mostly offline for the last two weeks, due to internet connection problems. In the meantime, the quest for the truth about Barack Obama's natural born status continues, and as of December 30th, I think my connection problem is solved.

The latest from Investigating Obama reports the possibility of a "found" divorce decree, filed by Barack H. Obama, Sr., showing that he and Ann Dunham had "one child under the age of eighteen, born in Kenya." Investigating Obama gives the details of the reveal of this document sometime today, New Year's Eve, 2008, and equally important is this information near the end of the following article:

The Supreme Court has turned down cases which make this point [Obama is not natural born], but according to a September decision in a lower federal court (regarding John McCain's eligibility problem) this would be due to a question of jurisdiction, until Congress is to certify the Electoral College vote on January 8. Further action is to occur, after this date. You may read about this in previous I.O. articles and the sites linked in its sidebar.

My thanks to Jenn at Ft. Hard Knox for the tip.

*****

December 31, 2008 Obama's Kenyan Birth Evidence to be Revealed Today, Online By Arlen Williams at Investigating Obama A private investigator in Hawaii has uncovered the divorce decree for Barack Obama's father and mother, which indicates they had "one child under the age of eighteen, born in Kenya." That is the report of Ed Hale of PlainsRadio.com, an Internet radio site which has focused upon the natural born Citizen challenges to Obama's presidential eligibility. Hale announced this during his evening Internet broadcast on PlainsRadio.com, Tuesday, 12/30 and confirmed it with I.O. in an online interview, later that night. He reported that certified copies of this documentation have been sent from Hawaii by the investigator to himself and four others. Hale is to receive his copy today, Wednesday, 12/31 and plans to post it graphically on the site, during the day. He will also discuss this on a special Internet broadcast, between 6pm and 10pm Central Time, tonight. The site streams audio as soon as it is accessed via Web browser.

Link to PlainsRadio and their message forum Link to PlainsRadio and chat window

The Texan Internet entrepreneur relates he got fed up with the lack of documentation on Obama and decided to discuss ideas with his radio audience. His offer to hire an investigator was met with piecemeal sums of money from listeners to his broadcasts. Hale said some of the information one would expect to find was not available. For example, documentation from Obama's mother, Stanley Ann's divorce to her second husband, Lolo Soetoro had vanished. Hale speculates, the reason this forthcoming 1964 divorce decree had not also been "scrubbed" could be that the divorce had been filed not by Obama's mother, but by Barack H. Obama, Sr. Thus, it may have been overlooked by any plumbers for Obama. Hale does admit to incomplete certainty of his investigator's work until he receives it, partially due to the PI's accent, the telephone connection, and his slight hearing impediment. However, he is very confident of what he will receive during the day. Mark S. McGrew, who writes about Obama's natural born Citizen problems for Pravda.ru, accompanied Hale in his broadcast and also expressed confidence. McGrew had sought publication in numerous American news outlets, but they turned down his articles referring to Obama's apparent ineligibility. Russia's Pravda however, decided his effort to find and report the truth was not to be redlined. As often related, Barack Obama, due simply to his U.K. citizenship at birth via his Kenyan father, is not a natural born Citizen of America, by definition and the original intent of that term. The Supreme Court has turned down cases which make this point, but according to a September decision in a lower federal court (regarding John McCain's eligibility problem) this would be due to a question of jurisdiction, until Congress is to certify the Electoral College vote on January 8. Further action is to occur, after this date. You may read about this in previous I.O. articles and the sites linked in its sidebar. Meanwhile, on the question of Obama's place of birth, professionals dealing with documents and forensic evidence have testified that the online "certificate of live birth" provided by Obama is not identifiable evidence of American birth. Now, if Obama's parents' divorce decree states that he was born in Kenya (as his Kenyan grandmother has repeatedly stated) the second epistemological wheel is coming off his vehicle to the White House. Will Congress pay attention and do its Constitutional duty? End Investigating Obama article. Visit Investigating Obama. Take a look at the sidebar. It's loaded with interesting background and this intriguing question:

Why has SCOTUS allowed Donofrio's NJ case to remain " pending," while they denied his petition for a stay? Or have they?

Click on the question at Investigating Obama and read the discussion.

Video: A Message to Our Electoral College

The narrator in this video says "join the growing list of electoral delegates before the College meets." I haven't been able to verify how big the "growing list" is, at this time. America Already Knows has useful information, but the College meets December 15, so time is very short. View the video at YouTube.com Go to Michigan Electors and Democrat-Disaster for additional information.

Obama's Citizenship: Lawsuits Continue

This video explains the role of a Constitutional Republic. If you believe that Barack Obama was "elected by the people" and as such our Constitution is not relevant in the 2008 Presidential election, think about it again. America is not a Democracy. Scroll down for commentary on today's Supreme Court refusal to hear Leo Donofrio's case claiming that Barack Obama was born a British citizen, and information on the latest lawsuit to be considered for review by Justice Scalia on the citizenship issue. View video at YouTube.com Today, the Supreme Court refused to hear Leo Donofrio's claim that Barack Obama was born a British citizen, and as such, is not constitutionally eligible to be the President of the United States. The case was dismissed without comment from the Justices - so once again, there is no hint of Obama's legitimacy or the lack of it. The latest information in this saga came just after 7 pm this evening, from Leo Donofrio's website, NaturalBornCitizen.com. Donofrio has participated in the preparation of another lawsuit known as Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz. The Supreme Court Docket No. is 08A469: Wrotnowski Application Referred to Full Court by Justice Scalia - Distributed for Conference on Dec 12 - Supplemental Brief to be Submitted Tomorrow From the Press Release: December 8, 2008 7:20 p.m.

Cort Wrotnowski’s emergency application for a stay and/or injunction as to the Electoral College meeting on Dec. 15 was today referred to the full Court by the Honorable Associate Justice Anotonin Scalia. It has been distributed for Conference of Friday December 12. The official case name is WROTNOWSKI v. BYSIEWICZ, United States Supreme Court Docket No. 08A469. The Wrotnowski Supreme Court application was prepared by Leo Donofrio, Esq. and is centered on the same issue from Donofrio’s case which was discussed by the Supreme Court in its conference of December 5 - whether Barack Obama is not eligible to the office of President due to the fact that he was a British citizen at the time of his birth. Tomorrow, Dec. 9 - Cort Wrotnowski will submit a supplemental brief concerning the newly discovered ineligibility of twenty-first President Chester Arthur due to his having been born as a British subject. This is relevant to the case at hand in that Justice Gray - who wrote the seminal opinion in United States v. Wong Kim Arc - was appointed by Chester Arthur.

There is extensive information at the above link. Another excellent place to keep on top of any and all lawsuits filed in the endeavor to make Obama prove that he is natural born, is America's Right. The blog owner, Jeff Schrieber, lives and works in Philadelphia and is a "Legal writer by day, exhausted law student by night... He broke the story of the first failed Philip Berg lawsuit. For those advising that I just take a look at the Obama birth certificate on fightthesmears.com, I ask how you give validity to a birth certificate which documents no hospital where the birth took place, and is not signed by a doctor? I do not know whether or not Barack Obama is a natural born citizen, and neither do you. I do know that if our President-elect had any respect for our Constitution, his proof of natural born status would have been provided immediately - and that proof would have included a delivering physician and a hospital name. Will we ever learn the truth, it's doubtful. Doesn't that make everyone feel comfortable and secure about our Constitutional Republic? Related discourse on Constitutional Republics and Democracies: United States Was Founded as a Constitutional Republic and Not a Democracy

Contrary to popular rhetoric, America was founded, not as a “democracy,” but as a constitutional republic--a political structure under which the government is bound by a written constitution to the task of protecting individual rights. “Democracy” does not mean a system that holds public elections for government officials; it means a system in which a majority vote rules everything and everyone, and in which the individual thus has no rights. In a democracy, observed James Madison in The Federalist Papers , “there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention [and] have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property.”

Ron Paul: Constitutional Republic vs Democracy

Unlike a pure democracy, in a constitutional republic, citizens are not governed by the majority of the people but by the rule of law. Constitutional Republics are a deliberate attempt to hold in check the threat of mobocracy thereby protecting dissenting individuals from the tyranny of the majority by placing checks on the power of the majority of the population. The power of the majority of the people is checked by limiting that power to electing representatives who govern within limits of overarching constitutional law rather than the popular vote having legislative power itself. John Adams defined a constitutional republic as "a government of laws, and not of men."Also, the power of government officials is checked by allowing no single individual to hold executive, legislative and judicial powers. Instead these powers are separated into distinct branches that serve as a check and balance on each other. A constitutional republic is designed so that "no person or group [can] rise to absolute power." The original framers of the United States Constitution were notably cognizant of what they perceived as a danger of majority rule in oppressing freedom and liberty of the individual. For example, James Madison, in Federalist Paper No. 10, advocates a constitutional republic over a democracy to protect the individual from the majority. The framers carefully created the institutions within the Constitution and the United States Bill of Rights. They kept what they believed were the best elements of majority rule. But they were mitigated by a constitution with protections for individual liberty, a separation of powers.

Of Presidents and Constitutional Republics

First, a small update on the Supreme Court Conference on the Leo Donoforio case challenging Obama's citizenship status. There's no news on what the Supremes plan to do, but WorldNetDaily has the best, easily understood discourse on what Donoforio is alleging. If you are confused about the issues and specifically about Donoforio's suit, this will be of interest. The following, written by Alan Keyes, is a finely crafted look at our Constitutional Republic and specifically at the authority under which our President governs:

The events that mark the end of one form of government and the beginning of another are more easily perceived and understood in the aftermath than by those caught up in the events and circumstances that constitute the transformation. The passions and affections of the moment interfere with the detachment that makes it possible for the mind to see the true significance of issues and decisions. Some things that seem large and momentous are in fact the exaggerated mirages of transient passion; others dismissed as sideshows will be seen in retrospect as crucial to the main event.
At the moment, these different possibilities may be ascribed to the same occurrence. A great storm of interest and celebration rages at the prospect of the first "African-American" president, and the supposed implications of his election as a breakthrough in the history of "race" relations in the United States. Yet, because it centers on a man who has in his background and character no ties to the actual people and events of that history, historians will have to look elsewhere for the event that truly represents the denouement of the story whose greatest turning point remains the first American Civil War. By contrast, scant attention is being paid to the unfolding constitutional drama, also connected with his inauthentic personal history, even though it clearly represents a potentially fatal crisis for the regime of constitutional, democratic self-government that has heretofore determined the government of the United States.
Until now, the government of the United States has been a constitutional republic based on the sovereignty of the people. The Constitution of the United States, as the ultimate and permanent expression of that sovereignty, has been respected as the Supreme Law of the Land. Some people, myself included, would certainly argue that in some matters this respect has been a merely formal camouflage for actions and decisions that contradict, embroider or simply ignore the plain text of the Constitution, but until now this has been done with arguments (however groundless and illogical) that formally preserve its authority.
Now a question has arisen with respect to what may be in a practical sense the most critical allocation of power in the Constitution, that of the President of the United States. Though by election that power is in the gift of the American people, the Constitution clearly imposes two restrictions or conditions upon it. It cannot be extended to someone under 35 years of age. It cannot be given to anyone who is not a natural born citizen of the United States.
Evidence has emerged, including recorded statements by his Kenyan grandmother, that raise doubts as to whether Barack Obama is in fact a natural born U.S. citizen, eligible to be president. Whatever the facts are, there can be no doubt of the constitutional requirement, and no doubt that a conscious decision to ignore it involves open and destructive disregard for the Constitution's authority. If Obama is accepted as president of the United States in a context that sets aside the Constitution of the United States, by what authority will he govern?

Read Mr. Keyes article in its entirety at WorldNetDaily, along with the words of Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers. Note Keyes' comments about the the civil rights cause and the authority given to civil rights and citizenship, which depend solely on the Constitution. Thanks to Thoughts on God for leading me to Mr. Keyes and other discussions of the citizenship issue. This is an amazing blog. Be sure to visit.
In the meantime, we must await the Supreme Court decision on a yay or nay for hearing Donofrio's case. You'll find some interesting commentary on that likelihood at America's Right. Related: More from Donofrio at Natural Born Citizen blog And research on other possible ineligible Presidents, and the one who probably was ineligible, by virtue of a calculated lie: "President?" Chester Arthur et al - Why they aren't precedent for Obama's Eligibility

Citizenship - Illegal Immigration - Judicial Intervention

U.S. President George W. Bush (R) and first lady Laura Bush (3rd R) join five new American citizens in pledging allegiance to the U.S. flag following their citizenship ceremony at the reopened National Museum of American History in Washington November 19, 2008. Bush participated in the event where the renovated museum was reopened. Photo Credit: Reuters and Daylife.com

Have you wondered why any baby born on American soil with illegal parents is considered a legal American citizen? The answer may shock you as much as it did me.
My reference is a discussion at the Heritage Foundation, dated March 30, 2006 by John C. Eastman, Ph.D.

—John C. Eastman, Ph.D., is Professor of Law at Chapman University School of Law and Director of The Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence. This memorandum stems from an amicus brief filed by the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence in support of respondents in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.

The key to the 14th Amendment which defines U.S. citizenship are the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," which means that no one can be a U.S. citizen if their allegiance is to any other country. For instance, an Ambassador to the U.S., living in the U.S. but serving allegiance to another country cannot be a U.S. citizen - and neither can the Ambassador's child...well, maybe.

The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amend­ment provides that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”[1] As manifest by the con­junctive “and,” the clause mandates citizenship to those who meet both of the constitutional prerequi­sites: (1) birth (or naturalization) in the United States and (2) being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Today's incorrect viewpoint, according to Dr. Eastman:

The widely held, though erroneous, view today is that any person entering the territory of the United States—even for a short visit; even illegally—is considered to have subjected himself to the juris­diction of the United States, which is to say, sub­jected himself to the laws of the United States. Surely one who is actually born in the United States is therefore “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and entitled to full citizenship as a result, or so the common reasoning goes.

Why that viewpoint is incorrect:

The “subject to the jurisdiction” provision must therefore require something in addition to mere birth on U.S. soil. The language of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, from which the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was derived, provides the key to its meaning. The 1866 Act provides: “All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.”[3] As this formulation makes clear, any child born on U.S. soil to parents who were temporary visitors to this country and who, as a result of the foreign citizenship of the child’s par­ents, remained a citizen or subject of the parents’ home country was not entitled to claim the birth­right citizenship provided by the 1866 Act.

An historical example: In Elk v. Wilkins, John Elk was born on an Indian reservation and eventually moved off the reservation, renounced his tribal allegiance and applied for U.S. Citizenship. He was denied citizenship because at birth, his allegiance was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. According to the Supreme Court, he "owed immediate allegiance to" his tribe and not to the U.S. - and his tribe was considered an alien nation. In a geographical sense, Elk was born within the U.S., but according to the 14th Amendment was not subject to U.S. jurisdiction. Then comes the Court action that changed everything.

In Wong Kim Ark, Justice Horace Gray, writing for the Court, held that “a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who at the time of his birth were subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and resi­dence in the United States,” was, merely by virtue of his birth in the United States, a citizen of the United States as a result of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

Justice Gray [who also served on the Court in the Elk case] appears not to have appreciated the distinction between partial, territorial jurisdiction, which subjects all who are present within the terri­tory of a sovereign to the jurisdiction of that sover­eign’s laws [such as an Emperor, a King, a Prince, a Queen] and complete political jurisdiction, which requires allegiance to the sovereign as well.

By limiting the “subject to the jurisdiction” clause to the children of diplomats, who neither owed alle­giance to the United States nor were (at least at the ambassadorial level) subject to its laws merely by virtue of their residence in the United States as the result of the long-established international law fic­tion of extraterritoriality by which the sovereignty of a diplomat is said to follow him wherever he goes, Justice Gray simply failed to appreciate what he seemed to have understood in Elk, namely, that there is a difference between territorial jurisdiction, on the one hand, and the more complete, alle­giance-obliging jurisdiction that the Fourteenth Amendment codified, on the other.

Gray "astoundingly" ignored the Constitution's requirement for a citizen to swear an oath to support the Constitution of the U.S. and renounce all allegiance to any other country.

Finally, Justice Gray’s position is incompatible with the notion of consent that underlay the sover­eign’s power over naturalization. What it meant, fundamentally, was that foreign nationals could secure American citizenship for their children merely by giving birth on American soil, whether or not their arrival on America’s shores was legal or illegal, temporary or permanent.

Justice Gray saw only two classes of children ineligible for U.S. citizenship: the children of ambassadors and other foreign diplomats, and the children of members of invading armies who were born on U.S. soil while it was occupied by a foreign army.

...apart from these two narrow exceptions, all children of foreign nationals who managed to be born on U.S. soil were, in Justice Gray’s formulation, citizens of the United States. Children born of parents who had been offered permanent residence but were not yet citizens, and who as a result had not yet renounced their allegiance to their prior sovereign, would become citizens by birth on U.S. soil.

Children of parents residing only temporarily in the United States on a student or work visa would also become U.S. citizens. Children of parents who had overstayed their temporary visas would like­wise become U.S. citizens, even though born of parents who were now in the United States ille­gally. And, perhaps most troubling from the “con­sent” rationale, even children of parents who never were in the United States legally would become citizens as the direct result of the illegal action by their parents. This would be true even if the par­ents were nationals of a regime at war with the United States and even if the parents were here to commit acts of sabotage against the United States, at least as long as the sabotage did not actually involve occupying a portion of the territory of the United States. The notion that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment, when seeking to guaran­tee the right of citizenship to former slaves, also sought to guarantee citizenship to the children of enemies of the United States who were in its terri­tory illegally is simply too absurd to be a credible interpretation of the Citizenship Clause.

The U.S. Congress has the sole power to grant U.S. citizenship to children of foreign nationals. but so far, this has not happened. The idea of "birthright" citizenship, is, Dr. Eastman says, "contrary to the principle of consent that is one of the bedrock principles of the American regime." In 2006, the Heritage Foundation called for Congress to revive it's "constitutional power over naturalization."

It is time for the courts, and for the political branches as well, to revisit Justice Gray’s erroneous interpretation of the Citizenship Clause, restoring to the constitutional mandate what its drafters actually intended: that only a complete jurisdic­tion, of the kind that brings with it a total and exclusive allegiance, is sufficient to qualify for the grant of citizenship to which the people of the United States actually consented.

"While Congress seems to be reluctant to get at odds with a "co-equal" branch of government, (exercising it's own constitutional authority to interpret the Constitution in way contrary to the pronouncements of the courts) Eastman says it is their sole duty to do so.

Congress’s power over natu­ralization is “plenary,” [complete, entire, absolute] while “judicial power [Supreme Court] over immigration and naturalization is extremely lim­ited.

Dr. Eastman's entire paper is well worth a read - you'll find much more detail. Look for the comments about creating redundancy within the Constitution interesting. The Citizenship clause in the 14th Amendment was written by Senator Jacob M. Howard (MI). 14th Amendment.us gives us his own words to explain the meaning and intention of the Citizenship clause:

Mr. HOWARD: I now move to take up House joint resolution No. 127. The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the joint resolution (H.R. No. 127) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.

The above discussion continues with Senator Howard responding to Senator Lyman Trumbull who was chairman of the Judiciary Committee and author of the 13th Amendment. Then Senator Johnson takes the floor:

...all this amendment [citizenship clause] provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power...shall be considered as citizens of the United States. That would seem to be not only a wise but a necessary provision. If there are to be citizens of the United States there should be some certain definition of what citizenship is, what has created the character of citizen as between himself and the United States, and the amendment says that citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born to parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.

There is more discussion and more confirmations from members of the U.S. Senate as to the original intention of the 14th Amendment. Please visit 14th Amendment.us. If you are interested in illegal immigration, you'll want this document bookmarked. A reminder: Congress is solely responsible for citizenship. Related Reference: Citizenship clause of the 14 Amendment

Hawaiian Patriots Contact Hospitals: Obama & Mom Never There?

Sun setting on Hawaii and maybe on the Obama Presidency Who will do the right thing?

Earth Frisk Blog claims that Honolulu hospitals have no record of Ann Dunham (Obama) giving birth to Barack Obama. According to admin at Earth Frisk, all of the following hospitals were:

...called or visited from November 20-December 2nd, 2008. Hospital employees bribed, some gave info for free. All to be released on video shortly
Hospitals you can check yourself

• The Queen’s Medical Center - Honolulu, Hawaii Obama claims as his birth hospital
• Kapi’ olani Medical Center Obama’s sister claims Barack Obama born here
• Honolulu Shriners Hospital Never a patient Mom or Obama
• Straub Clinic & Hospital Never a patient Mom or Obama
• Hawaii Health Systems Corporation - Honolulu, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama
• Cancer Institute of Maui - Wailuku, Hawaii No Comment ???
• Kuakini Hospital - Honolulu, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama
• Rehabilitation Hospital of the Pacific - Honolulu, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama
• St. Francis Healthcare System of Hawaii - Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama
• Straub Heatlh - Honolulu, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama
• Tripler Medical Center - Honolulu, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama
• Wahiawa General Hospital - Wahiawa, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama
• Wilcox Memorial Hospital - Lihue, Kauai, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama

We were pretty detailed in our calls and visits thanks to dozens of native Hawaiian patriots! To the College Republicans all over the Island kudos!. You can look at every hospital here and call or visit any of them. Everyone has a family member working in a hospital. Talk, pay and bribe. You can file freedom of information acts, you can do everything and anything you wish. Barack Obama was never born in a hospital in Hawaii as claimed.

As the blog says, we can check this ourselves - or we can let the Supreme Court weigh in here. Read more at Earth Frisk.

Supreme Court Sends Citizenship Appeal to an Anthrax Lab

Who is this man?

U.S. Supreme Court Building in Washington D.C.

U.S. Supreme Court Justices

As expected, President-elect Barack Obama and the Democrat National Committee (DNC) let yesterday's Supreme Court deadline to respond to Philip Berg's Writ of Certiorari slip by unanswered, but it appears even at the Supreme Court, a deadline is not really a deadline as the Court allows two additional days for "mail service." Associate Justice David Souter denied an emergency appeal for the Court to halt the Electoral College's tabulation of votes to officially declare Barack Obama the President, until proof of his eligibility is affirmed. While Souter denied the appeal, he did set the above mentioned requirement for a response from Obama and the DNC. Attorney Philip Berg, this morning, filed an emergency injunction with the Court to bar Obama from taking the oath of office of the Presidency. Jeff at America's Right interprets Berg's motion as follows:

From what I could gather, the emergency motion for immediate injunction contains two main parts -- in filing the motion, Berg is looking for the Court (1) to prohibit the certification of electors by the governors of each individual state in order to stay the Electoral College from casting votes for Obama on December 15, and (2) to stay the official counting of any votes for Obama by Vice President Dick Cheney, the House of Representatives and United States Senate on January 6, 2009, pending any decision on his appeal.

Berg is quoted as saying that he is one-thousand percent certain that Obama is not a natural-born U.S. citizen. Obama and the DNC are not "obligated" to file an answer, and Berg says that he "believes that the lack of response could be rooted less in procedure and more in audacity..." "The feeling may be that, if they respond, they could hold themselves out for perjury later on when we're successful." As November 4th neared, a few of us were desperately attempting to get this information to the public. Surely, we thought (bloggers) this was an important and valid issue. After all, the Supreme Court ordered Obama to provide proof of his U.S. birth. How many times has that happened? But the MSM wouldn't touch it. I thought the media, including cable television, viewed this as too ludicrous to even consider, but as time passed, credible reasons to believe that Obama could not provide proof of his U.S. birth, began piling up. Someone, for some reason, was able to keep this out of the MSM. Here are other actions at work at the Supreme Court: Donofrio v. Wells will be heard by the full Court with Justice Clarence Thomas chairing the Conference on December 5th. The purpose of the Conference is to consider granting Certiorari, which allows further review of the original lawsuit.

If 4 of the 9 Justices respond in the affirmative to Leo’s [Donofrio] case, there will be an oral argument and further briefing. If 5 of the 9 Justices respond in the affirmative, they could grant a stay of the Electoral College vote.

Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz "has been officially tendered to the Supreme Court..." All things get weirder when it concerns Barack Obama. Wrotnowski, allegedly, was told by the Court that his emergency stay renewal was referred to an ANTHRAX CONTAINMENT FACILITY! A reader left this information on a Maggie's Notebook post, and it appears that is exactly what Wrotnowski is saying he was told in a telephone conversation (read more below). Hunter v. Obama sent to the Supreme Court For detailed information and commentary read the terrific work by The Right Side of Life which also reports this intriguing information:

There is also a rumor that the full Court may be seriously considering staying the Electoral College vote until after Barack Obama’s eligibility can be confirmed (the following excerpt from Bob Vernon of Honest American News (Plains Radio Network):

Today I spoke with Patricia McCabe Estrada, Deputy Director of Public Information at the United States Supreme Court. She informed me that Mr. Donofrio’s application was first referred to the full Court by Justice Clarence Thomas on November 19, 2008. After that referral took place the full Court, and not Justice Thomas alone, distributed the application for an emergency stay for Conference of December 5, 2008. [emphasis mine]

We now know that the renewed request to halt the election was not denied and is actively being considered at the Supreme Court.

The We the People Foundation placed a full page in the Chicago Tribune, running on December 1st and 3rd:

The Open Letter to Mr. Obama is a formal Petition for a Redress (Remedy) for the alleged violation of the "natural born citizen" clause of the Constitution of the United States of America. Mr. Obama is respectfully requested to direct the Hawaiian officials to provide access to his original birth certificate on December 5-7 by our team of forensic scientists, and to provide additional documentary evidence establishing his citizenship status prior to our Washington, D.C. press conference on December 8. A First Amendment Petition to any official of the Government for Redress of a violation of the Constitution is substantially different from the garden-variety political petitions frequently received by government officials. This Petition demands it be given the highest priority for an expedited review and official Response by Mr. Obama. As a formal "Notice of a Constitutional Violation," the Petition naturally includes the People's inherent Right to an official Response. As a time-sensitive, election related Petition involving the Office of the President, failure to Respond as requested would constitute an egregious breach of the public trust and confirm the certainty of a Constitutional crisis.

Dr. Orly Taitz reports numerous phone calls to the SC demanding to know why Cort Wrotnowski's Petition for Stay of Elections was delayed by 7 days because it was sent to an anthrax lab:

Mr. Wrotnowski is a law abiding citizen, a business owner, was never in trouble with the law. Why was his petition delayed by a week via sending it to the Anthrax lab. No response was received, no name of the clerk was given. These clerks are sabotaging anti Obama cases to put a foreigner in the White House, this is bordering on aiding and abetting treason.

Dr. Taitz is asking for our help:

Please write to all 9 judges, let them know what is going on, demand to join all 5 cases currently in the Supreme Court, you can send them a copy of our Keyes v Bowen petition for Writ of Mandate as a supporting document. Currently I am working on filing a second case, representing another group of candidates, party officials, Certified Electors and Registered voters and I am assisting other attorneys all around the country, that are preparing similar actions and trying to match voters and electors in different states with attorneys that can represent them.

Here's contact information (if you have previous written, please continue to do so):

The Honorable Associate Justice Clarence Thomas United States Supreme Court One First St. N. E. Washington DC 20543 Put docket # on Envelope 08-A407 Ask him UPHOLD our Constitution with Full Disclosure as the only Constitutionally viable answer.

Also, send identical requests to the remaining Justices: Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Associate Justices David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Antonin G. Scalia, John Paul Stevens, Samuel A. Alito, Anthony M. Kennedy, Stephen G. Breyer

Read more about Dr. Taitz's attempts to hold Barack Obama accountable. America, this is no small thing.

Vote for this article at JBlog

The Final Report - The Pressing Issue

What do you do when a supposed computer graphics expert of twenty or more years, claims he is a PhD., and publishes a report of great interest to the public, but the name he is using is probably a pseudonym? What confidence can we have in the report of "great interest to the public," when we cannot verify the author of the report? I do not know the answer, but read these author's comments before you declare this a ruse:

I had no idea that this issue would mushroom and take on a life of its own. What I did know, however, was that from the first time I saw the Daily Kos image, or what I now call, "Obama's bogus birth certificate," that something was just not right about it. As someone who has scanned hundreds of thousands of documents in his lifetime, I had a hard time accepting that this was an original scan image made from an original paper document. As Fate would have it, right then, on June 13, I was looking at the conclusive evidence that the text on this image had been graphically altered, or "manufactured," as my first blog post would claim. From that point onward, I had no inkling of what was to come. I had no idea that I would wind up being the only person on the Planet (at that time) to have spotted the anomalies that I knew were the by-products of intentional, graphic alteration, and to go on record as stating that the Daily Kos image was a fake.

This, of course, concerns Barack Obama's citizenship. Ron Polarik, PhD, published this long and comprehensive report on his Towhall blog on November 22, 2008, as the culmination of months of research. I'm not advocating for it, or sanctioning it, of course, but there is a lot of detailed information from someone who sounds like he knows what he's talking about. Polarik describes: 1. The scanning process 2. Everything you ever wanted to know about pixels, and the lack of them 3. Compression percentages 4. Image size and portions of image sizes 5. Color counts 6. Image cropping 7. Papers 8. Borders and WHY the border tells a story, and why it matters 9. The same "dirty" spot on all of the acclaimed birth certificates 10. Fold lines, seals and stamps 11. Photoshopping or something else 12. Overlays and "cloning" Here are some intriguing snippets to whet your interest: Red Flags: 1. Predominance of white and gray pixels in between the letters of the child's name. 2. Almost total lack of green pixels on green paper

This deficit in the total number of colors counted in an image, coupled with the specific deficit in green pixels, is absolutely the result of human intervention, and not any artifacts known to Man.

With that fact firmly in place, then it is a somewhat simple, but lengthy and tedious, process, to figure out what would cause these deficits to be there, and then to reproduce the conditions to validate the process. The answer turned out to be, that the original scan image was saved as a GIF file, with its restricted color count, then edited as a GIF image, and finally, resaved as a JPG file with a moderate amount of compression. It should also be noted that neither the GIF nor the JPG, were subjected to any additional smoothing techniques to enhance the image. Had these techniques been applied, then the pixel patterns I found would likely not be there.

Only through sheer determination and a lengthy trial-and-error process, that produced over 400 test images, was I able to discern the right combination of factors that not only marked the image as a forgery, but also outlined the steps necessary to produce it. As I mentioned...while the forged image was most likely distributed to these four websites by the Obama Campaign, the person who manufactured it could be anyone inside or outside of the Campaign, or even inside Factcheck. The reason why I believe that the original forgery might have been made at Factcheck, is by virtue of their photo session with Obama's alleged real COLB and their efforts to squelch any claims of fraud on their part or on Fight The Smears.

From Polarik's report: First, from Obama's proported certificate, second from a real certificate:

From Polarik (snippets):

There is a difference between questioning the authenticity of a document image and questioning whether the document image is a deliberate forgery -- especially in this era of manufactured news stories like Dan Rather's discredited "expose" of President Bush's military records. There is a quantum leap of a difference between someone who just suspects that the image might have been "Photoshopped," (a term I define below), to someone actually conducting empirical studies to answer the question of its authenticity. The three major players in this little" con game include Obama, his campaign staff, and Annenberg's Factcheck group, with a supporting role played by Politifact: a Factcheck sister organization allied with the St. Petersburg Times. The Daily Kos was just picked as a testing ground for the fledgling forgery. If the Left bought it, and they did, hook, line, and sinker, then with enough word-of-mouth, the rest of the American electorate would also buy it. From the very beginning, this was a clever plan to both deflect any claims that Obama might not be a natural-born US citizen and qualified to run for President, and to promote Obama to the American electorate as a fully American, a self-made man. There are no gray areas concerning the evidence I've collected and presented about the COLB image being a bogus, nonexistent document, and that same reality must apply to any and all images and photographs allegedly made from that same document: they cannot be real if their source is bogus. If even one aspect of one photo is demonstrated to be fraudulent, i.e., intentionally altered to create the illusion of authenticity, then all of the other photographs must also be fraudulent.

This is a mind-boggling report supported by many photos, and the above doesn't come close to doing it justice. If you have expertise in this area, please leave a comment and let me know what you think. If you do not have the expertise, let me know what you think too. I hope you'll read it. Let's keep the discussion going. Polarik says he is "one bulldog that will not let go." I hope he means what he says. Read it all at: Obama's 'Born' Conspiracy: Forged images, phony photos, and felony fraud by Ron Polarik, PhD

Supreme Court to Conference on Obama's Citizenship: Write Now

BLOGGERS: Real Clear Politics refuses to allow Reader Articles concerning Barack Obama's citizenship. My latest post reports a scheduled Supreme Court conference on this very issue. My post was removed from RCP today. In fact, every post, by most bloggers, covering Barack Obama's citizenship has been scrubbed from RCP. Most of us think what the Supreme Court does is news worthy. Not the case at RCP. The question is: why does RCP not deem actions by the U.S. Supreme Court important for readers to know about? PLEASE, if you have not posted about this already, grab this and cross-post at your blog. Let's get the information out and send some letters to the Supreme Court.

*****

Justice Clarence Thomas has placed a discussion of Barack Obama's citizenship on the December 5th docket for conference, meaning a discussion of the merit of this particular case. A commenter at America's Right, who has been the leading source of excellent information on the various lawsuits, is requesting that we write directly to the Supreme Court:

The Honorable Associate Justice Clarence Thomas United States Supreme Court One First St. N. E. Washington DC 20543 Put docket # on Envelope 08-A407 Ask him UPHOLD our Constitution with Full Disclosure as the only Constitutionally viable answer.

One commenter said he/she was sending a copy of his letter to each of the nine Justices. Good idea! Here are some details just in from WorldNetDaily

The Supreme Court's website listed the date for the case brought by Leo C. Donofrio against Nina Wells, the Secretary of State in New Jersey, over not only Obama's name on the 2008 election ballot but those of two others, Sen. John McCain and Roger Calero. The case, unsuccessful at the state level, had been submitted to Justice David Souter, who rejected it. The case then was resubmitted to Justice Clarence Thomas. The next line on the court's docket says: "DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 5, 2008."

Jeff Schreiber at America's Right has followed this case closely. His post today reports:

As for New Jersey firebrand and attorney Leo Donofrio, his application for an emergency stay was denied by Justice Souter, Donofrio was able to refile and resubmit it to the Justice of his choosing, and properly did so. Today, the docket for his action shows that after being put before Justice Clarence Thomas, the application will be discussed by the Court in a December 5, 2008 conference. Normally, during their term, the Supreme Court Justices conference on Wednesday (typically, but not always) and review the various petitions and applications before them, deciding which of the many such proceedings should be heard by the Court. I suspect that we could soon see a similar entry on the docket for Berg's case as well. Now, this does not mean that the Court has decided to hear either of these matters and, in fact, is fairly typical when it comes to the process. Still, for those hoping to have these cases heard on their merits, for those who feel these issues are more about the United States Constitution than Barack Obama, this is a step in the right direction.

Please visit America's Right and WorldNetDaily for more.

Berg v Obama: Ph.D. Says "Standing" is not in The Constitution

Conservative Edge has published a piece by Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D. Obama Must Stand Up or Step Down Now Thanks to Brian Goettl

Edwin Vieira, Jr., holds four degrees from Harvard: A.B. (Harvard College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences), and J.D. (Harvard Law School). For more than thirty years he has practiced law, with emphasis on constitutional issues. In the Supreme Court of the United States he successfully argued or briefed the cases leading to the landmark decisions...

This is one you must read for yourself, and please, do not read the following as this blog speaking for Dr. Vieira - because I'm not. Here's my interpretion, and what I consider to be the short story: Background: Barack Obama's natural-born citizenship has been questioned. A Philadelphia attorney, Philip Berg, filed suit in a Philadelphia Federal Court to require that Obama show proof of his natural-born status. The Court dismissed that case with Judge Surrick saying that Berg did not have "standing," meaning that he was not eligible to bring the case, and also that no injury had happened to the American people and until there was an "injury" there was no case. Dr. Vieira has a differing opinion: Vieira thinks Philip Berg has a case - meaning that in Dr. Vieira's opinion, America has the right to know that Obama is a natural-born citizen. "Standing" - Not constitutional, but "judicial intervention" Vieira says that the term "standing" is not to be found in the Constitution and is simply something derived within the legal system. He points to Article II, Section 1, Claure 4 of the Constitution, and says that "every American has what lawyers call 'a implied cause of action.' He goes on to say that the people have the implied cause of action "to require that anyone standing for "the Office of President" must verify his eligibility for that position, when "serious" allegations have been put forward. It appears that Vieira believes those serious allegations have been presented. "Injury" - We have already, indeed, been injured. Vieira believes that if Obama is not a natural-born citizen, then "injury" has already happened - just as many of us have expressed. He mentions Hillary Clinton's lost White House bid and the States that illegally placed Obama's name on their ballots. Obviously, if Obama's White House bid is fraudulent, the entire country has been harmed, and as he says - it could destroy the country. Ironically, Vieira points out that should any "usurper" ascend to the office of the President of the United States, Congress could not impeach him to get him out of the office. He muses about the possibility of having an "outright usurper" elected...a "poser" in the Presidency. Vieira says this would set our country on a "course of judicially assisted political suicide." He discusses the crime of perjury or false swearing, and he says that every act committed under such a fraud would render every act by that person as a criminal offense. I did not find in the article, Dr. Vieira discussing why it seems there is no Law requiring that candidates show proof of natural-born status before being allowed to file for office. He points out what an exasperated populace has been saying: it is Obama's moral duty to produce the evidence of his natural-born status. I will add that if the Democrat National Committee has vetted this issue, and DOES know, without a doubt that he is qualified for the Oval Office...then it is unconscionable that they would not have gotten the message to America. Is this the simple arrogance of Obama having the proof but refusing to produce it...just because he can. If so, why would the DNC and Congress do this to "the people?" Read Dr. Vieira here.