6 Responses to “Update in AL”

1. vadaryl
   January 5th, 2012 @ 8:44 am

   What time is the Hawaii case tomorrow eastern time? Good luck. Is there any way you can use one of these free video web sites to stream what is going on or use it to get the word out on the results quicker?

2. vadaryl
   January 5th, 2012 @ 12:38 pm

   How many states are we up to, I heard New Mexico can be added to the list.

3. Max
   January 5th, 2012 @ 2:24 pm

   Letter to New Hampshire Legislators
   Posted on November 24, 2011
   One of the most obvious reasons the Supreme Court has refused to take any eligibility case is that it -the Supreme Court- has already decided the matter of Obama’s eligibility for office–in 1875. Reaffirmed several times since then and even by Congress in 2008, ref SR-511, there is no need for a ‘clarified’ definition of ‘natural born citizen’, and Obama can be removed right now…not by impeachment, not by a Congressional wimps ‘r us hearings, not by the 25th Amendment–but by his immediate arrest.

   A review:

   The binding language in the Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, that requires the president be a natural born citizen:

   “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 binding legal precedent as to the definition of natural born citizen:

   “At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” Minor v Happersett 1875

   “Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency.” Luria v. U.S., 1913

   The Fourteenth Amendment was definitively a statement about slaves becoming citizens of the United States;

   John Bingham, “father of the 14th Amendment”, the abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln’s assassins, reaffirmed the definition known to the framers, not once, but twice during Congressional discussions of Citizenship pertaining to the upcoming 14th Amendment and a 3rd time nearly 4 years after the 14th was adopted.

   The House of Representatives definition for “natural born Citizen” was read into the Congressional Record during the Civil War, without contest!

   “All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.” (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862)).

   The House of Representatives definition for “natural born Citizen” was read into the Congressional Record after the Civil War, without contest!

   “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))”

   No other Representative ever took issue with these words on the floor of the House. If you read the Congressional Globe to study these debates, you will see that many of the underlying issues were hotly contested. However, Bingham’s definition of “natural born citizen” (born of citizen parents in the sovereign territory of the U.S.) was never challenged on the floor of the House. Without a challenge on the definition, it appears the ALL where in agreement.

   Then, during a debate (see pg. 2791) on April 25, 1872 regarding a certain Dr. Houard, who had been incarcerated in Spain, the issue was raised on the floor of the House of Representatives as to whether the man was a US citizen (generally. they were not trying to decide if he was a NBC). Representative Bingham (of Ohio), stated on the floor:

   “As to the question of citizenship I am willing to resolve all doubts in favor of a citizen of the United States. That Dr. Houard is a natural-born citizen of the United States there is not room for the shadow of a doubt. He was born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, and by the express words of the Constitution, as amended to-day, he is declared to all the world to be a citizen of the United States by birth.”

   The arguments from the flat-earth the eligibility deniers have been thoroughly discredited. They have managed to distract the general public away from this dangerous threat to our national security…and those that continue to cover for him will one day have to tell their children–from their own jail cell– how they allowed this mess to go on.

   Until Minor v. Happersett is overturned, the SCOTUS holding stands: Obama is not eligible to be president of the United States. He is only a usurper.

   The Provost Marshal is nominated by the President and Defense Secretary…and the Defense Secretary would have to give the order to arrest…what to do when the usurper has control ?

   Put on your big boy pants and arrest him or resign.

   Now I know no one in the NH legislation body would arrest him but it is clear he has commited fraud, he is NOT an NBC and needs to be disqualified from haveing his name on our ballot. You took an oath to uphold the Constitution. You are either going honor that oath or not. By not honoring that oath you are guilty of Misprision of a Felony and I will work tirelessly to see that all of you are held accountable.

   Greg Goss
   Hudson NH

   Part of the above was taken from Dr Kate The Supreme Court Has Decided Obama’s Eligibility and embellished by me.

4. David Gurney
   January 5th, 2012 @ 7:39 pm

   It was late January 1973,when John Sirica started the ball rolling against Nixon.I’ve got a good feeling about this one.

5. Pat
   January 5th, 2012 @ 7:49 pm

   It should also be noted that when the Pelosi filed the doc stating Obama was qualified, there were TWO docs filed with the Sec of State in Alabama as well as other states.

   Why? One doc had he met all of the qualifications under the Constitution and the other filed on the same day had the clause left out.

   The Dems will use this as a technicality. Still it was deliberate and shows premeditation to commit fraud.

6. Veritas
   January 6th, 2012 @ 3:59 am

   America is warned on the Airwaves!
   From Drudge:

   —

   Levin: Obama’s Comment ‘Forthright Statement Of A Dictator’…

   Limbaugh: The Lawless Obama Regime…

   Savage: Here’s what America will look like if Obama wins…

Leave a Reply