Comments on: FULL ANALYSIS OF OBAMA ELIGIBILITY HEARING

By: Shadow Patriot

Shadow Patriot — Mon, 09 Apr 2012 14:38:24 +0000

Turth Atlast must be drinking the kool-aid. The Natural-born citizen clause was born out of English common law and universally understood as being born of parents who are both citizens of the country in question. The 14th Amendment addressed the concern of citizenship, especially dealing with freed slaves and Native Americans. If you read it, there is a clause that the Supreme Court ignored in the Wong Kim Ark case. That clause is “…subject to the jurisdiction of…” If we went by that, and we largely have given the number of children born to illegals in the US that now possess social security cards and a US birth certificate, then Obama IS a natural born citizen. However, if the jurisdiction clause is considered, then no he is not.

Oh, and I can promise you, the author definitely knows the Civil War is over.

By: roberta

roberta — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 02:40:21 +0000

Reply to Rocky Lyons:
The SS number that obama is using belonged to a dead man born in 1890 CT. who died in Hawaii.
How often has SS make that mistake giving a person born in Hawaii in 1961 a Connecticut SS#.
SS # are given in the state you apply for it, obama was living in hawaii, never lived in CT.
YOU CAN SPIN THE STORY ANY WAY YOU WANT TO, ALL YOU WANT TO.
FACT: obama is using a dead man’s SS#. .

By: Truth Atlast

Truth Atlast — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 02:43:29 +0000

This is the most contemptible piece of garbage, cobbled together by lies and strategized by those who refuse to admit the Civil War is over. Any testimony I researched actually meant the exact opposite. True racists, from the claim that the Phonoshop tool to change type is called “unsharp mask” when if you were trying to do what was alledged, you would use “sharpen”. Most ridicoulous that the case Minor/Happenrsett form 1875 had any relevence. This was a case about whether the 14th amendment gave women the right to vote. It does not deal with Natural born citizen’s definition. In fact the opening statement is “From the opinion (women’s right to vote and the 14th amendment) we find it was the only one decided in the court below and it is the only one which has been argued here.”

The ruling had nothing to do with Presidential eligibility and is only twisted here to denigrate the first Black President by stone racists. “Who is this guy” cries the author. He is the President elected by 52% of the vote. Who elected you? You are a self-appointed blowhard.

By: Harry

Harry — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 23:01:33 +0000

@Rock Lyons,

The SOS # was not issued in 1890.
The SOS # was issued to a man that was born in 1890.

By: S S Pierce

S S Pierce — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 02:57:12 +0000

Perhaps someone else has previously addressed this, but in case not. To Rock Lyons, here is what was said about 1890. You will see that the person given that SS number was born in 1890, not given the numvber. “She was hired to look into Obama’s background and found a Social Security number for him from 1977. Professional opinion given that this number was fraudulent. The number used or attached to Obama in 1977, shows that the true owner of the number was born in the 1890. This shows that the number was originally assigned to someone else who was indeed born in 1890 and should never have been used by Obama.

By: AZSunshine

AZSunshine — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 06:26:35 +0000

Aside from all this about whether he’s a natural born citizen, when he filled out forms for a Passport he was old enough to say that his name was Barry Sotero and was a citizen of Indonesia. If he says so, it’s good enough for me even if he did do it to get a free law degree in the USA. Smart him and stupid USA. A real, professional LIAR! And the point about an old man’s S/S number is the fact that he’s using it and the real owner’s been dead for years.

By: STCopper

STCopper — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 06:11:00 +0000

Bob Says:
January 27th, 2012 at 955am
If his name is not on the ballot, it will simply be written in.

If he is deemed to be ineligible then the write-ins won’t count either.

By: Leonard

Leonard — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 05:01:24 +0000

1. What if the U.S. Constitution was abrogated by F.D.R. in march of 1933, using the War Powers and Alien and Sedition Acts?

2. What if the U.S. Congress accepted the U.N. Charter as a Treaty (Article VI, para. 2 of U.S. Constitution)?

3. What if the “Founding Fathers” were mostly Freemasons and created a new form of government for “… ourselves and our Posterity”?

By: Chicago Nick

Chicago Nick — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 08:31:20 +0000

Obama and his minions can’t appear in court because they’ll be on the record and he knows as much as we know once that happens a cascade and literal waterfall of perjury will begin

Furthermore, because he’s lied so much on government documents over the years, and held different identities and the likes, any response would open the door to the other suits being re opened with standing, because he acknowledged the suit in GA.

This truthfully could be finally his legal unraveling and undoing God be willing.

By: traderjack

traderjack — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 08:11:11 +0000

It brings up and interesting point. Can a literal Bastard child become the President of the United States?

Some one has stated , somewhere, the Stanley Ann Dunham was unmarried when Barack was born, which , would , of course, make him a bastard child with an unknown father!

Ergo, father’s citizenship could not be determined and that would confuse things even more.

And, I do believe, that Michelle Obama has stated that when Barack was born his mother was a young unmarried girl!

Perhaps that is why there is little evidence of a marriage license for Dunham and Obama.