Barack Obama’s official web site, Fight The Smears, admits he was a British Citizen at birth. At the very bottom of the section of his web site that shows an alleged official Certification Of Live Birth, the web site lists the following information and link thereto:

FactCheck.org… Clarifies Barack’s Citizenship

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”

That is a direct admission Barack Obama was a British citizen “at birth”.

My law suit argues that since Obama had dual citizenship “at birth” and therefore split loyalties “at birth”, he is not a “natural born citizen” of the United States. A “natural born citizen” would have no other jurisdiction over him “at birth” other than that of the United States. The Framers chose the words “natural born” and those words cannot be ignored. The status referred to in Article 2, Section 1, “natural born citizen”, pertains to the status of the person’s citizenship “at birth”.

The other numerous law suits circling Obama to question his eligibility fail to hit the mark on this issue. Since Obama was, “at birth”, a British citizen, it is completely irrelevant, as to the issue of Constitutional “natural born citizen” status, whether Obama was born in Hawaii or abroad. Either way, he is not eligible to be President. Should Obama produce an original birth certificate showing he was born in Hawaii, it will not change the fact that Obama was a British citizen “at birth”.

Obama has admitted to being a British subject “at birth”. And as will be made perfectly clear below, his being subject to British jurisdiction “at birth” bars him from being eligible to be President of the United States.

As I have argued before the United States Supreme Court, the 14th Amendment does not confer “natural born citizen” status anywhere in its text. It simply states that a person born in the United States is a “Citizen”, and only if he is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States:

“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

The most overlooked words in that section are: “…or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution…” You must recall that most, if not all, of the framers of the Constitution were, at birth, born as British subjects.

Stop and think about that.

The chosen wording of the Framers here makes it clear that they had drawn a distinction between themselves – persons born subject to British jurisdiction – and “natural born citizens” who would not be born subject to British jurisdiction or any other jurisdiction other than the United States. And so the Framers grandfathered themselves into the Constitution as being eligible to be President. But the grandfather clause only pertains to any person who was a Citizen… at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution. Obama was definitely not a Citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution and so he is not grandfathered in.

And so, for Obama or anybody else to be eligible to be President, they must be a “natural born citizen” of the United States “at birth”. It should be obvious that the Framers intended to deny the Presidency to anybody who was a British subject “at birth”. If this had not been their intention, then they would not have needed to include a grandfather clause which allowed the Framers themselves to be President.

If you click through to Factcheck.org…, a more detailed discussion as to why Obama was a British citizen at birth explains the relevant statutes:

“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:

British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.
In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.’ “

The article goes on to state that Obama’s British citizenship was transferred to Kenya as Kenya became independent from the UK and that Obama’s Kenyan citizenship expired when he turned 21 years old. But none of that is relevant since the Constitution requires that every President be a “natural born citizen”. The word “born” is proof positive that the status must be present “at birth”. If this were not the case, then, as stated above, the Framers would not have needed to put in a grandfather clause.

The Framers recognized that even they were not “natural born citizens” and so they wrote the grandfather clause in to allow any of them to become President. But the grandfather clause only pertains to those who were Citizens at the time of the Constitution’s adoption. And so, Barack Obama is not a “natural born citizen” of the United States and neither is John McCain who was born in Panama, and neither is Roger Calero who was born in Nicaragua.

And every request to date that he document his U.S. birth and citizenship has been opposed vigorously by him and his legions of supporters and defenders, including the national news media.
Numerous suits have been filed all across America seeking to force him to reveal his REAL birth records and prove his citizenship, all to no avail.
Janet Porter, writing for WorldNetDaily, proposes these questions:If you were a natural born American citizen and had it within your means to quiet all the lawsuits and questions with proof, would you do it?

If you were a natural born American citizen, would you spend thousands of dollars to fight the legal cases against you, or would you simply answer the legitimate question of whether you meet the constitutional requirements for office?

If you were a natural born American citizen, would you forge a document called a “Certification of Live Birth” and tell the public it was a real “birth certificate”? (WorldNetDaily, November 25, 2008, “Rathergate II”)

“He’s President now, just get over it,” is a sentiment being widely expressed. But should we just “get over it”? Are we not entitled to know thetruth about BHO? In light of the media blackout on this issue, the silence of the courts and the party line stance of Congress, should the American people simply “roll over and play dead”, and accept that he is our new president, without knowing the truth about his eligibility to claim this honored position over our nation? Should the Constitution continue to be ignored, or will the American people demand that it be obeyed?

As more and more Americans become aware of the facts–in spite of the deafening silence of the media–it should become obvious to Congress and the Supreme Court that this issue is not going away until it is resolved, and the people know the truth about this man. After all, this is the same man who, as candidate, promised an open and transparent government–but he will not even be open and honest about who he is. This should in no way be acceptable to the American people.

There are many other questions swirling around the subject of citizenship and how he has represented himself to the nation. For starters, why was he issued his SSN in Connecticut in 1976-77–was it because he was just returning to the U.S. from Indonesia, after he and his Mother had renounced their U.S. citizenship to be Indonesian citizens, and therefore was starting over? Why has he sealed all of his college records and medical records–is it because these records reveal many things about him he does not want us to know, such as other names he has used, that he returned to America and became a student as an Indonesian citizen, and that his medical records would expose his pattern of drug use, etc.? Since it is widely known that he was known by the name of Barry Soetoro, why did he state that his name was Barack Hussein Obama on his law entrance paperwork in Illinois, and that he has been known by no other name (an act of perjury)?

A myriad of questions continue to emerge with regards to his involvement in shady Illinois politics and his possible illegal maneuvers in securing his positions both as State Senator and U.S. Senator (if he is not a U.S. citizen, how could he claim to be eligible for these offices?). What about all of the unanswered questions about his campaign contributions, with reportedly large amounts coming from offshore sources (which would, once again, be illegal, if proven)? What about all of his ties to unscrupulous people–were criminal acts involved, are things known about him which would force him to compromise America, and has he made promises to some of these characters to keep them quiet, which could be harmful to the United States? Why does he have properties listed in his name all over America?

Why has information about his Mother, his Grandmother and other family members virtually vanished, and their death records appear to have been manipulated, with discrepancies over the dates and causes of death? Did he deceive the nation about his Grandmother’s death, falsely claiming that she died just before the election, all for voter sympathy and political advantage–which could have influenced the outcome of the election?

An even greater question is this: How did he manage to perpetrate such a potential fraud on the American people? Whose agenda is he serving?Certainly not that of the American people! Who helped him pull off such a massive fraud, and how have the media been manipulated–even the normally talkative conservative talk show hosts–into complete silence, and an obviously well-controlled blackout on these issues?
The American people are entitled to the truth about this man who has claimed the role of Commander in Chief. Has he done so legally, or is he a usurper? If he is a usurper, and he is not removed by the Supreme Court or Congress, what would be the ramifications to the United States?
There are many possibilities, all of which could be extremely detrimental to America. Here are a few of them:
******************************************************
Edwin Vieira, a constitutional lawyer who has practiced for 30 years and holds four degrees from Harvard, said if it were to be discovered Mr. Obama were not eligible for the presidency, it would cause many problems. They would be compounded if his ineligibility were discovered after he had been in office for a period of time.
“Let’s assume he wasn’t born in the U.S.,” Mr. Vieira told The Bulletin. “What’s the consequence? He will not be eligible. That means he cannot be elected validly. The people and the Electoral College cannot overcome this and the House of Representatives can’t make him president. So what’s the next step? He takes the oath of office, and assuming he’s aware he’s not a citizen, then it’s a perjured oath.”

Any appointments made by an ineligible president would have to be recalled, and their decisions would be invalidated.

“He may have nominated people to different positions; he may have nominated people to the judicial branch, who may have been confirmed, they may have gone out on executive duty and done various things,” said Mr. Vieira. “The people that he’s put into the judicial branch may have decided cases, and all of that needs to be unzipped.”

Mr. Vieira said Obama supporters should be the ones concerned about the case, because Mr. Obama’s platform would be discredited it he were forced to step down from the presidency later due to his ineligibility, were it to be discovered.

“Let’s say we go a year into this process, and it all turns out to be a flim-flam,” said Mr. Vieira. “What’s the nation’s reaction to that? What’s going to be the reaction in the next U.S. election? God knows. It has almost revolutionary consequences, if you think about it.”

Mr. Vieira said Mr. Obama’s continued silence and avoidance in the release of his birth certificate is an ethical issue because of the dire consequences that could be caused by a possible constitutional crisis.

“If he were my client and this question came up in civil litigation, if there was some reason that his birth status was relevant and the other side wanted him to produce the thing and he said ‘no,’ I would tell him, ‘you have about 15 minutes to produce it or sign the papers necessary to produce the document, or I’m resigning as your attorney,” said Mr. Vieira. “I don’t think any ethical attorney would go ahead on the basis that his client could produce an objective document in civil litigation [and refused to do so].”

Further, Mr. Vieira cited a fraud ruling in a 1977 case called U.S. v. Prudden, which he feels applies in this case.

“Silence can only be equated with fraud when there is a legal and moral duty to speak or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading,” the ruling reads. “We cannot condone this shocking conduct … If that is the case we hope our message is clear. This sort of deception will not be tolerated and if this is routine it should be corrected immediately.”

Mr. Vieira said such an ethical question of representing a client who refused to produce such a basic document is important, even in a small civil case. The current question is concerning the man who potentially could have his finger next to the nuclear button.

“[The birth certificate], in theory, should be there,” said Mr. Vieira. “What if it isn’t? Who knows, aside from Mr. Obama? Does Russian intelligence know it isn’t there? Does Chinese intelligence know it isn’t there? Does the CIA know that it isn’t there? Who is in a position to blackmail this fellow?”

Mr. Vieira explained all laws have to be submitted to the president. In the event that there is no valid president, then no laws passed by Congress in that administration would be legally null and void. Because of that, this case will probably not go away, even after Mr. Obama takes the oath of office.

“If you don’t produce it, you think it’s going to go away,” he said. “There are all these cases challenging Mr. Obama, and some challenging secretaries of state, and they run into this doctrine called standing.”

Mr. Vieira explained although legal standing is difficult to get around in Federal courts, the document could be produced in any criminal cases stemming from legislation passed in the Obama administration.

“Let’s assume that an Obama administration passes some of these controversial pieces of legislation he has been promising to go for, like the FOCA (Freedom of Choice) Act,” said Mr. Vieira. “I would assume that some of those surely will have some severe civil or criminal penalties attached to them for violation. You are now the criminal defendant under this statute, which was passed by an Obama Congress and signed by President Obama. Your defense is that is not a statute because Mr. Obama is not the president. You now have a right and I have never heard this challenged, to subpoena in a criminal case, anyone who has relevant evidence relating to your defenses. And you can subpoena them duces tecum, meaning ‘you shall bring with you the documents.’ ”

Such a criminal defense would enable the defendant to subpoena any person to testify in court and any person to bring evidence in their possession to the court.

Further, records could be subpoenaed directly, in the case of a birth certificate. Once the record could be subpoenaed, the birth certificate could be examined by forensic experts, who would then be able to testify to the document’s veracity as expert witnesses. Any movement by the judges to make a special exception to the president in a criminal case would hurt the legitimacy of that presidential administration.

“I can’t believe I’m the only lawyer who would think of this,” said Mr. Vieira. “I think any criminal lawyer defending against one of these politically charged statutes is going to come up with this. That means it will never go away until that document is laid down on the table and people say, ‘yes, there it is.’ And therefore they’re caught. If people keep challenging this and the judges out of fear keep saying ‘no, go to jail, go to jail, go to jail’ then that’s the end of the Obama administration’s legitimacy. On the other hand, if they open the file and it’s not there, then that’s really the end of the administration’s legitimacy.” (The Philadelphia Bulletin, John P. Connolly, December 1, 2008)

***********************************************************

There are other issues, such as his ability to command the military. What would happen if the commanders of our armed forces and their recruits do not believe that he is the legitimate constitutionally-elected president, and refuse to carry out his orders? What if citizens refuse to obey those laws which have his signature upon them, and make court cases out of them? The nation could become gridlocked and stalled, able to function at only a minimum level. Even in a best-case scenario, millions of Americans will become disillusioned, believing that we have lost our country, and could take steps to redress their grievances, which could take many forms, some of them quite ugly and unproductive for the nation as a whole–all coming at a time when we are facing our most severe economic downturn in decades. And this issue will leave us deeply divided until it is resolved–and possibly, long after it is settled.

We are sailing into deep, uncharted, perilous waters as a nation, with mighty waves battering the sides of the weary old Ship of State. As we begin to take on water, the Captain-Elect seems to have identified certain items to be jettisoned, with his loyal, crafty crew standing at the ready to help. Among these disposable items is the U.S. Constitution, including the Bill of Rights–and with these vital supports, our way of life and America as we have known it for 200-plus years will be thrown overboard, finding their way to oblivion on the ocean’s floor. The Constitution is the law of the land, the legal and moral compass which guides us. And a nation without laws is a rudderless ship, destined for shipwreck upon some faraway rocky shore.

What to do? Pray. Stay informed (see websites below). Network with others, and spread the word about the great cover-up. Contact your Congressmen (over and over again, if necessary, letting them know that “pat answers” are not acceptable, such as: “He has already provided a copy of his birth certificate”, which he has not done; “Hawaii officials have stated that they have his certificate which proves his birth in Hawaii and his citizenship”, which is not true; and “the people have voted, and have chosen their president”, which is not a valid answer, if he has been ineligible all along, since no one has the right to vote for and elect someone who is not eligible according to the Constitution.

Further, if he is not eligible, he has perpetrated a fraud upon 300 million U.S. citizens who have been told that he is qualified to run for president, securing the votes of millions, which would all be invalid in such case.) It appears that many of our Congressmen are lacking accurate information on the subject, while others have been obviously happy to keep their heads in the sand, and accommodate the status quo. We must make sure that they access the right information, such as the websites listed below, particularly polarik.blogtownhall.com…, which proves that what BHO posted on his campaign website is a forgery.

The American people deserve to know the truth, we must persist until we know the truth about this man who claims the presidency, and must insist on Congress and the courts doing the right thing.

We must bind together as a nation more than ever before, to stand against the forces which would destroy our beloved Constitution and rip our nation apart, under the guise of “unity” and “progress”.

The inauguration and first days of the BHO presidency are upon us. And as we witness all the hoopla surrounding his ascension to power, we should remember the secretive and deceptive manner of this man who claims to represent hope and positive change, and ask ourselves, “What is the real agenda which is being masked? What is really going on behind the scenes in the administration of this man who as candidate promised an open and transparent government?”

As his inaugural festivities are initiated with his “We Are One” concert on Sunday, I wonder if he realizes how great a divide he has already created by his refusal to prove that he is our legally elected President–or is this all part of a massive, purposeful plot? As he takes the oath of office next Tuesday and swears on Abraham Lincoln’s Bible that he will protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, will he be committing perjury? As he speaks about “A New Birth of Freedom”, what vision of freedom does he really have in mind–the freedoms as given to us at birth by our Creator and enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution, or the socialist ideas of Karl Marx, in which the people are “emancipated” by the state, and told how much of their lives and earnings are their own, and which freedoms they can enjoy?

His Madison Avenue-projected larger-than-life persona and “audacity of hope” mantra have even spawned marketing themes such as Pepsi’s “Refresh Everything” campaign. Their website asks, “What would you say to the man who is about to refresh America?” Then we are encouraged to “be ready to change our world into a fresher, more optimistic, much better place.” It would be wonderful if it were true! But false hope and false optimism based upon false promises and unrealistic expectations will not make it so, with such an enormous gulf between hype and reality.

Has anyone dared to ask openly, if his presidency promises all of these wonderful things for America and the world, why is it that the most rabid sworn enemies of the United States and Israel such as Hamas, Al Qaeda and radical Islamists everywhere are elated that he has been elected?

With his powerful backers, Barack Obama may be playing a starring role in his own production, with a supporting cast of thousands, with millions of “extras” (the American people). But this is no Hollywood movie–and the price for this real-life show may be more than any of us, indeed, all of us together, can afford.

Be vigilant, fellow Americans! Stay alert, informed, and involved!

God bless you, and may God continue to bless the United States of America.

Kind regards,

A concerned citizen

This just announced—it was announced that plainsradio.com… has a certified copy of an Immigratrion and Naturalization Service (INS) form, signed by Stanley Ann Dunham, showing that she and Obama entered the USA from Kenya on Aug 10, 1961 — proving his likely birth outside of the USA mainland.

Here is what Ed Hale gave as a reference for the document:

INS document # CD E509B TECX SQSQPQ

Per the discussion on the blog tonight, the Port of Entry where Stanley Ann Dunham came back into the U.S. six days after the of her child (BHO Jr.) is under this document, on or about August 10, 1961 (if Obama’s birth is August 4, 1961) and then the registry in Hawaii occurred on August 12, 1961 as shown on the Hawaii birth of records report.

The Audacity of Hope. Exit the dope.

http://madmonq.wordpress.com/2009/01/19/the-secret-obama-masonic-other-ball/

When a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari is filed the Defendants automatically are given thirty (30) days to respond. They are not required to respond. The end of thirty (30) Days in the Berg v. Obama case was December 1, 2008. Keep in mind, the Defendants could have mailed in a response to the Petition for Writ of Certiorari and the Court allows approximately a week for mail. If this is the case, the envelopes must be postmarked December 1, 2008.

In the afternoon, December 1, 2008, Lisa, Mr. Berg’s Assistant contacted the U.S. Supreme Court and spoke with the Clerk. The Clerk informed Lisa Mr. Berg’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari would be distributed to all nine (9) Justices and a conference should be set within ten (10) days. As I’m sure you are aware, during the conference the Justices will discuss Mr. Berg’s Petition for the Writ of Certiorari and decide whether or not to grant or deny the Petition. It only takes four (4) out of nine (9) Justices to agree to grant Mr. Berg’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari. The Justices can also make other Orders during the Conference.

Mr. Berg’s Office also learned the Solicitor General is only representing the Federal Election Commission.

Additional documents will be filed within the next couple of days. All Legal briefs will be posted on our website, so please continue checking back for updates.

No wait, where’s whitey? Not in the Oval Office anymore that’s for sure.