Saturday, January 17, 2009

Do you recognize this medallion?

A medallion worn around the neck of a young Barry Soetoro in Indonesia appears in a picture of the Soetoro family which is featured in the article "The Three Stooges go to Washington: Part 3, Barack Hussein Obama" by Don Nicoloff, which was published in fthe September 15, 2008 issue of The Idaho Observer newspaper. Do you know what this medallion is, or what it signifies?

Washington Times-Letter to the Editor

I posted the following comment on Fox News' 'Greta Wire' blog. Greta is asking her viewers to tell her what they would like Barack Obama to do the first 100 days he is in office. Although I don’t want him to have one single day in office, I could not resist the temptation to post my desires. I wonder what kind of feedback I will get.

Let us see if he has a spine or will continue to hide behind the thugs that got him into office.

From: "Falon Fontaine" View contact details To: "Orly Taitz"

LETTER TO EDITOR: Supreme Court accountablity
Saturday, January 17, 2009

ASSOCIATED PRESS President-elect Barack Obama was born under the jurisdiction of a foreign power, Britain, and is therefore ineligible to serve as president of the United States, according to a lawsuit that has reached the Supreme Court.
I stand amazed at what I am witnessing in our constitutional republic. Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the Constitution the rule of law in this nation? Don’t Supreme Court judges take oaths promising to protect and uphold that Constitution from foreign and domestic enemies? If our laws are derived from this text, then what is it called when those laws are ignored? It is called, “breaking the law.”
Our Constitution lays down the eligibility requirements for presidents. One requirement states that the president of the United States must be a natural-born citizen. Now, any reasonable thinking person knows citizenship is proven by one’s birth certificate.
President-elect Barack Obama’s presentation of a Certification of Live Birth certified that he was born alive but not that he was born in Hawaii. So we have rumors of a Kenyan birth. How do you get to the bottom of rumors? You inquire and investigate.
Our Supreme Court judges are required to uphold our law and get to the bottom of this unnecessary upheaval that Mr. Obama has hurled America into. What’s so hard about producing a real birth certificate? He is challenging our rule of law by refusing to prove his natural-born citizenship and is, therefore, undermining the foundation of our nation.
If our Supreme Court justices continue to deny “hearing” the many lawsuits that they are being presented with concerning Mr. Obama’s citizenship, then they are failing to do their jobs. The law states eligibility through natural-born citizenship is required. It is the court’s duty to get to the bottom of this and hold Mr. Obama accountable to the law.

another letter from a reader of this blog

Dear Fellow Americans,
Recently an article appeared in the Chicago Tribune written by Robert K. Elder, "NOT AMERICAN, JUST STARRING AS ONE", about British and Australian actors who have adopted American accents to perform in movies in the United States.
In a few short days America will have a new President. Who is he--is he an American, or is he simply "starring as one"?
Why do I ask this question? Because there is much about this man we call Barack Obama that we do not know--including whether he is even a U.S. citizen, and if Barack Hussein Obama (BHO) is even his legal name. And if he is a U.S. citizen, is he a natural born citizen, as our Constitution requires for the highest office in the land, or is he only a native citizen (as his web site has stated), or is he a naturalized citizen? The truth is, we don't really know, because the one who really knows has ordered this information to be sealed, hidden away from the American people, at great legal expense. 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, 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

Important websites: (click "Obama Citizenship"),,,, (read columns by Dr. Kate, especially),

From reader Mr. Carl Swenssen

Dear Dr. Taitz,

I'd like to thank you for all the hard work you're doing. With Cheif Justice
Roberts entertaining Barry Soetor we've come to another crossroads, have we
not? A blatant conflict of interest! I wish you well and just want to let
you know I've put your latest post and your web Site as a link on
mine... (Links you need to see).
I'm just trying to put as much info out there as people dare read. I have a
gut feeling that the Military might have to stand up and honor their vows to
"Protect and Defend the Constitution from enemies both foreign and
Domestic". As it seems, all efforts to have this addressed by SCOTUS are
destined to be swept under the rug with willing accomplisses in the Media.
Ayn Rand had it perfectly written in "Atlas Shrugged". Was she some sort of
prophet or what???
By the way, John Gault tried to get a patent and was summarily dispatched
along with his inventions. I guess that's the only real twist to her story.

God Bless you and fight the good fight,

An admirer,

Carl A. Swensson

Excerpt from Vattel

From: Brett Gillilan To: 'Lindsey Springer' ; Cc: 'Fred Smart' Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 1:42 PMSubject: RE: Question
Why? The Constitution says that they have to be “natural born” which has a specific definition, originally determined at the time of the Constitution. And the Law of Nations book as the reference of the day clearly spells out that the father minimally must be a citizen of the country. See below.

Book 1

§ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. (EXAMPLE 1) As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, (EXAMPLE 2) and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; (EXAMPLE 3) and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; (EXAMPLE 4) for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. (EXAMPLE 5)

List of all 31 cases, need help

For my next motion I need a list of all 31 cases filed to challenge Obama's eligibility and legitimacy for presidency. I need proper legal citation of each and every case: name of the plaintiff, defendant and court where it was filed. please e-mail it to me

I got hundreds of e-mails like this, thank you all for the support

Keep up the good fight, Orly! May God richly bless you and protect you & your loved ones!!!


I got hundreds of e-mails like this, thank you all for the support

Keep up the good fight, Orly! May God richly bless you and protect you & your loved ones!!!


Find from KS+ what does that medalion signify

There is a letter from a reader re birth records in KS. There is an article by Nicoloff "Three Stooges go to Washington" The article was circulating all over internet for a while. One thing I was wondering, what does the medalion that Barry Soetoro is wearing, signify? Does anyone know? It looks like a Christmas tree with two brunches on each side pointing down.
Dear Orly,
I don't know who else to give this info to or if it has already been looked into. I think it is interesting though. I found this after reading about Obama's mothers name on your site last night. When you click on the link then scroll down to Dunham and there is a name of Warren Stanely Dunham being born and buried the same day. There couldn't have been that many Dunham's in Wichita back in the 40's.
Dunham Warren Stanley 16 Nov 1943 16 Nov 1943 K 84 W5

I also found this very disturbing article and hope this isn't true and that Obama is just a thug.

Orly, I also want to thank you so very much for your hard work and all that you are doing for our cause. I and many family and friends are so grateful for patriots like you and others.
My family has been in this country since the mid 1600's, they fought and died, they treated (physicians) and worked hard in this country for the freedom and comfort we have today. It makes me sick that in my generation, we could all see this country go literally to the wild dogs.
Kim ShafferMonument, CO

John Roberts Confirmation

Carolyn wrote:

Perhaps you have seen this, but here is the footage of Roberts actually saying he will uphold the Constitution, basic liberties, and Bill of Rights. This would be great on the blogs!

1:04 min/sec "No one above the law, not even the President..."
1:16 min/sec "Do all in my power to uphold Constitution..."
1:22 min/sec "Protect basic liberties...for every citizen..."

YouTube - John Roberts Confirmation

WND-King Obama -President for life

From: "WorldNetDaily" Add sender to Contacts To: A Free Press For A Free People

All hail King Obama: President for life
As Inauguration Day approaches and Barack Obama prepares to assume his first term as president, some in Congress are hoping to make it possible for the Democrat to not only seek a second term in office, but a third and fourth as well.

Read the latest now on

Must Read News
1 in 3 'Christians' say 'Jesus sinned'
Barna poll confirms most adults develop own beliefs

CAIR campaign: Jesus was Muslim
Claims Islam is 'way of life of Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad'

DOJ considering commutation for Ramos, Compean
Attorney who makes recommendations to Bush has opened file on border agents

Iran green lights 'escalation'
Fears Hamas will be severely damaged if truce not reached

Allies rally behind Prop 8 in judicial battle
'The people have spoken unequivocally regarding the definition of marriage'

D.C. orgy confirmed by homosexual newspaper
Health officials asked to investigate possible risk from public sex

Plan allows Nativity at Christmas!
Schools already authorize menorah, star and crescent
Today's WND Poll
What do you think of survey showing Christians pick and choose what to believe?

Other Highlights
1908 Siberian-explosion mystery solved
Zimbabwe rolls out $100 trillion note
Study: Drinking coffee reduces Alzheimer's risk
Yanks jumped in line for place on Titanic lifeboats?
Make your homepage today! Still On Site
Immigrants ravage U.S. infrastructure
Financial analyst: $1.6 trillion required to repair devastation

Whistleblower Magazine Special
The bizarre worldview and brilliant tactics of today's radicals

Special Offers
'Shocked by the Bible' – autographed – $4.95 today only!
Save $18, discover 'The Most Astonishing Facts You've Never Been Told'

Chuck Norris wants a word with you
Get his 'Black-Belt Patriotism' personally autographed only from WND

BAILOUT NATION: Truth AND Consequences
Last October Congress passed the biggest bailout in American history, but that's just a drop in the bucket of what's ahead. Stocks are near 5-year lows with no bottom yet in sight.

Is your money safe?
Is the free market over?
What if these massive bailouts fail?
Get a FREE 14-Page Special Report and DVD

Thank you

I wanted to thank for all the help in research and logistical help the following people: David Hagen, Lisa Ostella, Bob Stevens, jbjd, Leo Donofrio, Cort Wrotnowski, Teresa Cao, Joe Armour, Neil Sankey, Fred, Steve Marquis, Suzanne Pedro, Jerry Reese, Dinko, Elliott, Mike, Richard, Eugene, David Archbold, Sarah R., Sarah B., Linda S, Neil, Linda M.,Carol Huggenberg, Carol Greenberg, Carolyn, Chris S., Jim H., Joel Let me know, if I missed somebody, e-mail
I wanted to thank for generous donations Pamela Barnett, Evelyn Bradley, HHB,Mr. Kerchner, Mr. Bass, Mr. Sheldon, Mr. Gibson, Dr. Cruse, Ms. Morris, Ms. Borden,Ms. Stevens, Mr. Winthrope, Mr. Lewis, Mr. Davies,Ms. Stegall. (I am missing a name on one more donation for $100 from Dr. and Mrs.?? from Carolina, let me know the name)
I also appreciate donations from Ms Huggenberg, Mr. Blair, Mr. Lahr, Mr. Breen,Ms. Dewell, Mr. Hernandez, Mr. Eckensley, Mr. Peterson, Mr. Sandin, Mr. Hudson, Mr. Cundiff, Ms. Generaux, Ms. Schlegel, Ms. Bertolini, Ms. McFarland, Ms. Cottle, Ms. Revell, Mr. Danielson, Ms. Lynch, Ms. Gotto, Ms. Kulig, Mr. Pendery, Mr. Haas, Mr. Ward, Mr. Freeman, Mr. Swartz, Ms. Boykin, Ms. Crespo, Ms. Sarich, Mr. Danielson, Mr. Powner. (I am missing a name on one more donation for $25, let me know the name)

what should be done?

As a follow up to the previous article about Clair McCuskill, Obama "truth" squad and people like Secretary of State of Ohio Jennifer Brunner and all the others that have been collaborating with this Gestapo-SS establishment, they all should and would be tried in Nurenberg style trials for harassing, intimidating, blackmailing and terrorizing fellow citizens, for defrauding the whole country. Patriots of this country didn't fight and defeat Nazi Germany to end up with Obamas, McCuskill, Soros, Brunner and the rest of this squad. I hope that the men in this country, particularly in our military will finally revolt against this travesty of Justice. If our government and our elected officials and our judiciary have failed us, then it is time for the new government, new elected officials and a new judiciary.

In February of last yearObama and Clair McCaskill tried to change the constitution to legitimize Obama for presidency, later used Gestapo technic

Friday, January 16, 2009Zapem: 'Obama Knew He Wasn't Eligible for POTUS'
In this article, originally posted in the blog of the same name, "Zapem" breaks a report of the history of sidestepping, skirting, and attempted Constitutional tinkering on behalf of unnatural born Citizen, John McCain -- thereby, an attempt to pave the way for Barack Obama.
by Zapem
If one were to look at the activity on Capital Hill during the campaign, there would be no question in their minds that both McCain and Obama were sweating the “natural born citizen” issue. How do we arrive at that conclusion? We take McCain’s ingrained, glib advice and “Look at the record, my friends“. Doing just that, we find that back on February 28, 2008, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) introduced a bill to the Senate for consideration. That bill was known as S. 2678: Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act. The bill was co-sponsored by Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ), and Sen. Thomas Coburn (R-OK). Bill S. 2678 attempted to change article II, section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States with reference to the requirements of being a “natural born citizen” and hence; the entitlement to run for President of the United States. This bill met the same fate that similar attempts to change the Constitution have in the past. Attempts such as The Natural Born Citizen Act were known to have failed and the text scrubbed from the internet, with only a shadow-cached copy left, that only the most curious public can find. Sen. McCaskill, her co-sponsors, fellow colleagues and legal counsel, contend that the Constitution is ambiguous in article II, section 1 and requires clarification. But does it? According to the framers and such drafters as John Bingham, we find the definition to be quite clear:
I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that 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… . . - John Bingham in the United States House on March 9, 1866
From the days of James Madison to the present, the courts have held that the amendment process be justiciable in accordance with its constitutionality and not self-serving or political. But is that what happened here? Again, we must go to the record. Within only five short weeks after Senate Bill 2678 faded from the floor, we find Sen. Claire McCaskill back again, making another attempt with Senate Resolution 511. On April 10, 2008, she introduced a secondary proposal in the form of a non-binding resolution, recognizing John McCain as a “natural born citizen” in defiance of the Constitution. Curiously, it contained the same identical co-sponsors, Barack Obama and Hillary reported:
“With questions - however serious - about whether Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., is eligible to run for president since he was born outside U.S. borders on an American Naval base, Sens. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo. today introduced a non-binding resolution expressing the sense of the U.S. Senate that McCain qualifies as a “natural born Citizen,” as specified in the Constitution and eligible for the highest office in the land. Co-sponsors include Sens. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, and Barack Obama, D-Illinois; Leahy said he anticipates it will pass unanimously.”
One has to wonder — what dire urgency could there possibly have been in persisting with trying to legislate a candidate into being a “natural born citizen”? Certainly providing a birth certificate and reading the Constitution would be more than sufficient. Why did these candidates and their wishful nominees go to such lengths in the Senate when obviously, they had more pressing matters to attend to? And why were there two Senators co-sponsoring such an issue, twice, who were in direct competition with John McCain in the 2008 election? One answer is that looking at John McCain’s long-form birth certificate reveals he was not a natural born citizen and Barack Obama hasn’t submitted his long-form at all. John McCain was born in an “unincorporated territory”, held by the courts to be not part of the United States for constitutional purposes. Barack Obama has submitted only a Certification of Live Birth, but Hawaii law will certify a live birth using that document for births that occurred even outside of the country. Furthermore, Barack Obama’s father was Kenyan and never an American citizen. Since the status of citizenship occurs at birth, this makes Barack Obama a citizen if born in Hawaii, but not a natural born citizen. One must have two citizen parents, at the time of birth, and be born on U.S. soil, to be deemed a natural born citizen and be declared eligible for the presidency. The Senate, for all their trouble, cannot legislate a person’s born status. It happens at birth, according to the law. While Senate Bill 2678 fell to the wayside, Senate Resolution 511 was passed on April 30, 2008 as a non-binding resolution. However, S.R. 511 is not a law, but rather, a unanimous opinion. Technically, it means absolutely nothing what they’ve written as it’s not a law, nor did the matter reach the House for review. It’s a stepping-stone in the larger scheme of things that haven’t happened yet; the push to change our Constitution. World Net Daily reported on November 13, 2008:
More than a half-dozen legal challenges have been filed in federal and state courts demanding President-elect Barack Obama’s decertification from ballots or seeking to halt elector meetings, claiming he has failed to prove his U.S. citizenship status. An Obama campaign spokeswoman told WND the complaints are unfounded. “All I can tell you is that it is just pure garbage,” she said. “There have been several lawsuits, but they have been dismissed.”
Perhaps someone should have informed Obama’s spokeswoman that many of these cases have not been dismissed at all, rather they are mounting, and her statements are in fact, pure “garbage”. Then perhaps someone may prompt an answer from the Obama spokespeople as to why they were entertaining the thought of fiddling with the United States Constitution back in February and April of THIS YEAR? Perhaps because it was in the best interest of Sen. Obama. Then what of Sen. Claire McCaskill? What possible interest could she have had in these proceedings and leading the charge with her proposals? Was it a bonafide Constitutional issue of judicial importance, or rather a political one?Digging further into the record we find that according to Wikki and subsequent footnotes therein:
“In January 2008, Claire McCaskill decided to endorse Senator Barack Obama in his campaign for the Democratic nomination for the presidential elections of 2008, making her one of the first senators to do so. She has been one of the most visible faces for his campaign.[14] McCaskill’s support was crucial to Obama’s narrow victory in the Missouri primary in February, 2008. She had been frequently mentioned as a possible vice presidential choice of Senator Obama in the 2008 run for the White House…”
So what we see is a definite political motive being dragged into the Senate for the purposes of legitimizing the 2008 candidates. But if these candidates were legitimate already, there would obviously be no reason for these proceedings. So political was the motive of McCaskill, even Missouri’s Governor, Matt Blunt revealed that Sen. McCaskill was involved in the “abusive use of Missouri Law Enforcement“. This was dubbed as the “Truth Squad” during the election campaign by the media. The Truth Squad was comprised of Missouri officials and attorneys who set up shop on the streets of Missouri and threatened the public with criminal penalties and lawsuits if they engaged in critical speech against Sen. Obama. The Obama campaign also issued cease and desist letters to media station managers who carried advertisers who were unfriendly towards Barack Obama, namely, the NRA. Citizen outrage prompted this response from Governor Blunt:
“Obama and the leader of his Missouri campaign Senator Claire McCaskill have attached the stench of police state tactics to the Obama-Biden campaign. What Senator Obama and his helpers are doing is scandalous beyond words, the party that claims to be the party of Thomas Jefferson is abusing the justice system and offices of public trust to silence political criticism with threats of prosecution and criminal punishment.”
Considering these facts and the judicial record, there is every reason to believe that Sen. McCaskill had no interest in resolving Sen. McCain’s eligibility, but Sen. Obama’s long-term. She manipulated the Senate and then threatened the media and the public thereafter, politically motivated at the prospect of becoming Obama’s Vice-Presidential pick. But it didn’t stop there. Chairman Patrick J. Leahy entered into the Senate record a legal analysis of two high-powered attorneys hired by Sen. McCain - Theodore Olson and Laurence Tribe - both of whom are extremely politically active and biased, and attached that opinion to S.R. 511. So controversial was that legal opinion, that it prompted a rebuttal by Professor Gabriel J. Chin of The University of Arizona, James E. Rogers College of Law, in a discussion paper #08-14 entitled, Why Senator John McCain Cannot Be President. Professor Chin points out clearly where Tribe-Olson sought to draw out implied theories in the law, which in reality, are simply not there and in fact have been decided by the courts already, in opposition to the suggestions offered by Tribe-Olson. Simply put, the attorneys hired by Sen. McCain attempt to fit the law into their agenda with contrived implications. Professor Chin brings the law back into focus, requiring no implied theories. Legalities aside, in anticipation of the feared “Fairness Doctrine”, the whole of the main stream media has since acquiesced to the intimidation tactics of the Obama campaign and paraded the non-binding resolution known as S.R. 511 to the public with unfactual foolishness. S.R. 511 is neither a constitutional amendment nor legally binding in any way. Yet the media caved to political pressure and reported it to the public as Chairman Leahy dictated, giving the illusion to the pubic that said resolution was binding to the 2008 election. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The public responded, initially by way of lawsuits contesting the eligiblity of not only John McCain, but Barack Obama and Roger Calero as well, citing them all, with equal disqualifying merit, as being constitutionally ineligible to run for President of the United States. Later, netizens of the internet caught wind of the court actions and responded with their own explosion of blogs, forums, websites, chatrooms, emails, etc. In an attempt to quell the discord, the main stream media offered personalities such as Thomas Goldstein which only served to infuriate the public further. The public saw such maneuvers as deceitful and an attempt to embarrass the now educated public. However, the greater proof is in the activity which originated in the Senate in early 2008 which was hidden from the public, that sought to change what our representatives knew to be unconstitutional from the start. The public really needs to look no further than this activity, for it speaks to the heart of the deals that went on beyond the Senate doors. Rather than trust the preservation model our founding forefathers wrote into our Constitution, these respresentatives, beholden of the public trust, saw fit to manipulate the clauses contained therein, for the sole benefit of their own political self-interests. Perhaps our representatives, the United States Supreme Court and the main stream media would be interested in reflecting on these records and then start answering truthfully the questions which have so far been ignored. The public has been promised transparency, but to date has only been dealt scoffing, deceitful rhetoric, if they choose to address it at all. While the public has been patient and eduring, the questions remain and refuse to be dismissed. We expect them to be answered, preferrably prior to January 20, 2009. We the people, deserve an answer! ____________________________________________________
Listing of 9 articles from the 110th Congress as entered.


2 . REPORTS OF COMMITTEES — Senate - April 24, 2008


4 . JOHN S. McCAIN, III CITIZENSHIP — Senate - April 30, 2008

5 . MEETINGS SCHEDULED — Extensions of Remarks - April 21, 2008

6 . Daily Digest - Friday, April 18, 2008

7 . Daily Digest - Thursday, April 24, 2008

8 . Daily Digest - Wednesday, April 30, 2008

9 . Daily Digest - Wednesday, April 23, 2008

←→Calendar No. 715
2d Session
S. RES. 511
Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.

I am looking for people experienced with subpoenas please call 949-683-5411 in the morning or e-mail

Friday, January 16, 2009

More on Ford-sutoro-Obama connection

From: "Jerry Reese (WSDD)" View contact details To: dr_taitz@yahoo.comOrly,

I know you have suspected for quite some time there was a connection to the Ford Foundation. Here is a bit of interesting info that might be useful to you.


Timothy F. Geithner, Obama’s tarnished selection for Treasury Secretary, is connected to Obama through their parents.

Geithner’s father, Peter F. Geithner, is the director of the Asia program at the Ford Foundation in New York . During the early 1980s, Peter Geithner oversaw the Ford Foundation’s microfinance programs in Indonesia being developed by Ann Dunham-Soetoro, mother of President-elect Barack Obama, and they met in person at least once.

Mr. Geithner’s father was head of the philanthropy’s Asia grant making for a period in the early 1980s and oversaw the work of Mr. Obama’s mother, who developed the organization’s microfinance programs in Indonesia .

During the vetting process, it was discovered that Geithner failed to pay his 1099, self-employment, taxes during the years he worked at the International Monetary Fund, making him uniquely qualified to direct Obama’s election-scam that gives billions of dollars in “income tax rebates” to people who never paid any income taxes..... on link....

Letter to the media

From: This sender is DomainKeys verified "Kimberly England" Add sender to Contacts To: "" --- On Fri, 1/16/09

Dear Glenn, Rush and Sean, This is an interesting web link for your reading pleasure regarding Obama's usurpurism and possible illegal social security number. Obviously the constitutional bloggers (democratic, republican and independants) are well aware you will have no consorted effort to discuss the matter on air since you've become like the rest of the fly by media. You as well as others know that if the story of Obama's "usurpurism" were reported, you could take him down. So it leads us constitutional bloggers to boycott your shows and we are grouping together (as one nation under god) to do so. Until you report the truth, or the story, your listeners, viewers, etc. will continue to deplete. We will post this email on the web and are organizing as we speak. You can continue your censorship, but will only cause Americans (true Americans) to boycott your shows and much more.

Orly Taitz' Wikipedia article

Someone wrote a stub of an article on Wikipedia about Orly Taitz:

It is up for deletion because we do not have enough mainstream media articles that discuss Orly Taitz in the article. We need things like articles in regular newspapers and NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN and Fox news websites. We can use CSPAN as well. Anything in the mainstream media that mentions Orly Taitz. Can we make a list to save this article, or at least to use in a replacement article?

If you want to edit Wikipedia, then it is best to get an account first or else your IP will be visible and people will not treat you with respect.

Letter to the Joint Chiefs of Staff

Hi Orly,

The following is a letter to the Joint Chiefs written and sent to them by a good friend of mine. He gave permission for you to post it but asked me to hide his identity.


Here is the text of the letter:

Please distribute to the Joint Chiefs for consideration.

Each of you took an oath before God and Country to serve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United
States against all enemies foreign and domestic. I submit that you have not honored this commitment.

There is not one elected federal official who is in compliance with the 10th Amendment. As such, we the people,
are driven further and further into debt to pay for their schemes to use public resources for buying votes from
those sufficiently corrupt to sell them. They are law breakers all, regardless of party affiliation. Like you, they also
took oaths and now, we have a Communist headed for the White House. He also is a law breaker as is his vice
president. All are, at the very least, guilty of felony perjury and, at the most conspiracy and/or treason against the
United States and our Constitution.

Obama seeks to create a civilian military to rival the existing one. The last time such an organization was created, it
was called the Gestapo.

On the day after the elections, millions of citizens were at gun stores arming up. This was the greatest sale of
weapons and ammo in the history of the country. Commentator Glenn Beck said, this is 1860 (ie: eve of the civil
war). These words have been spoken by others and everyone out here buying weapons knows it. The real
question is, 'will you be fighting for the American people or against us?'. Posse Comitatus prevents the use of the
military against the population. However, as the Constitution is already near death - it hard to expect there will be
any pretense at the rule of law when those charged with its safe keeping are, themselves, the law breakers.
If you are to be true to your oaths, it falls to you to arrest and incarcerate every elected federal official and to
establish circumstances that allow for the restoration of the Constitutional government that allowed us to be the
greatest nation this planet has ever seen. If you fail in this, the force and weight of history will run its course with
chaos not far behind.

Rxxxxx Wxxxxxxxxx

From reader Kerby

I pulled this off of thought you enjoy it.


Dear Mr. Obama

Excuse me Mr. Obama, I mean President-elect Obama, sir. Um . . . know you are busy and important and stuff. I mean running for president is very important and . . . ah . . . I hate to bother you. I will only take a minute ok, sir?

See, I have these missing pieces that are holding me up, and I was wondering sir, if you could take time out of your busy schedule and help me out. You know, no big deal, just some loose ends and things.

Hey, you have a nice place here! The wife sees houses like this on TV all the time and says boy she wishes she had digs like this you know? Is that painting real? Really? Wow. I saw something like that in a museum once!

Oh, sorry sir. I didn't mean to get off the track. So if you could just help me out a minute and give me some details, I will get right out of your way. I want to close this case and maybe take the wife to Coney Island or something. Ever been to Coney Island ? No, I didn't think so. . .

Well, listen, anyways, I can't seem to get some information I need to wrap this up. These things seem to either be "locked" or "not available'. I'm sure it's just some oversight or glitch or something, so if you could you tell me where these things are . . . I . . . I . . . have them written down here somewhere . . . oh wait. Sorry about the smears. It was raining out. I'll just read it to you.

Could you help me please find these things, sir?

• Your Occidental College records
• Your Columbia College records
• Your Columbia Thesis paper
• Your Harvard College records
• Your Selective Service Registration
• Your medical records
• Your Illinois State Senate records
• Your Illinois State Senate schedule
• Your Law practice client list
• A Certified Copy of your original Birth certificate
• Your embossed, signed paper Certification of Live Birth
• Your Harvard Law Review articles that were published
• Your University of Chicago scholarly articles
• Your Record of baptism

Oh hey . . . listen! I know you are busy! Is this too much for you now? I mean tell you what. I will come back tomorrow. Give you some time to get these things together, you know? I mean, I know you are busy, so I will just let myself out. I will be back tomorrow. And the day after. . .

We couldn't get Obama's ineligibility on the air, but Al Jazera will be allowed to poison US citizens with it's lies all over the country

Al Jazeera Signs Deal to Air Throughout U.S.

Friday, January 16, 2009 7:17 AM

Article Font Size

NEW YORK - The Al Jazeera Network plans to announce on Thursday that it has signed a deal to run its news on Worldfocus, a syndicated nightly news program produced in New York and distributed throughout the United States.

The deal would help the international news network, one of the top services in the Arabic-speaking world, broaden its reach in the United States, where it so far has been available to only a limited audience.

Worldfocus, hosted by former NBC News correspondent Martin Savidge, is produced by New York City public broadcaster WLIW and syndicated to a number of Public Broadcasting Service affiliates, as well as other stations in 60 U.S. markets, including 27 of the top 30.

Al Jazeera declined to disclose terms of the deal.

The service's Arabic-language network is available in the United States through the DISH Network Corp. It has been trying to increase the distribution of its English- language network through cable television, but so far is available only in Washington, D.C., Toledo, Ohio and Burlington, Vermont.

One of its English-language programs, "Witness," reaches viewers through the LINK TV network, which is distributed by DISH Network and others.

Al Jazeera also is expanding its presence on the Internet, with a YouTube channel, a Twitter feed on the Gaza war and a free broadcast at an online service called Livestation.

The network, whose English broadcasts appear all over the world through deals with companies such as Singapore's SingTel and Hong Kong's PCCW, has started running ads in papers such as The Washington Post and The New York Times, advertising its Web presence with the slogan, "Find out what you're missing."

Al Jazeera has increased its marketing campaign, particularly during Israel's air-and-ground offensive into Gaza that began about three weeks ago.

It also plans to begin running ads in several weeks that a spokesman said will address misconceptions about the network in the United States. The U.S. government criticized the network for irresponsible and biased news reporting when the United States launched the 2003 war in Iraq.

© Thomson Reuters 2009 All rights reserved

You can now see on the docket Suggestion for Recusal of the Justices of the Supreme Court to swear Barack Obama as president(conflict of interest)

No. 08A524

Gail Lightfoot, et al., Applicants


Debra Bowen, California Secretary of State


Lower Ct:
Supreme Court of California

Case Nos.:

~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dec 12 2008
Application (08A524) for a stay pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Kennedy.

Dec 17 2008
Application (08A524) denied by Justice Kennedy.

Dec 29 2008
Application (08A524) refiled and submitted to The Chief Justice.

Jan 7 2009
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 23, 2009.

Jan 7 2009
Application (08A524) referred to the Court.

Jan 13 2009
Suggestion for recusal received from applicant.



Attorneys for Petitioners:

Orly Taitz
26302 La Paz
(949) 683-5411

Counsel of Record
Mission Viejo , CA 92691

Party name: Gail Lightfoot, et al.

Orly Taitz, Esq. Accepted to SCOTUS

Congratulations Orly!!!

from, more info, we are getting closer

A reader Linda sent me this, it shows Obama being born in Somerville, MA.
If you recall in the database, I've posted a few days ago, that came from Lexis-Nexis- Choice Point- Reed Elsevier, the social security number linked to Obama was issued in CT and the address was in Sommerville, MA. One database shows age as 118 y.o. We know BO never lived in CT. So, there are two options:
1. port of entry of Ann Dunham(by what ever name she used Stanley Ann D. Obama or Anna Toot or god knows what)
was in MA in 1961.
2. BO got a fraudulent SS number: a number of a deceased person, that lived in CT or a completely made up number
BO's aunt Zetunia, who is in this country illegally, lived in MA too and was practically stealing from us, by using our tax dollars to pay for her public housing. How did she get this public housing? You need to fill out forms and put down the social security number in order to get public housing. Who supplied her with that number? Similarly, I saw that Ann Dunham that was born in
KS got her ss in WA and the signature on Ann Dunham's application for the ss and the signature on the actual card were completely different. Her ss number was linked in the database to the name and address of Phillis Albrektson (Phillis stated that it is a wrong number). So what does is mean? Is there somebody with an access to databases of ss administration or passport agencies or DMV or other governmental agency of MA, WA and possibly CT, that comes up with these fraudulent numbers?
Keep in mind Ann Dunham and Madelyn Dunham worked with loans. You need to put down your social on your loan applications. Madelyn Dunham volunteered in probate department of the Oahu Circuit Court House (how sweet and noble). You can get all the vital statistics of the deceased from the probate court, if you are a volunteer there.
Lastly, an article in Hawaiian newspaper, I believe HI observer, stated that Obama's mother was Shirley Ann Dunham (not Stanley). A database search showed a co in Belleview Wa- under Dunham organization. Descriptions showed this firm dealing with real estate loans, auto loans, attorneys. Recent search showed an address in Seattle Wa.
I believe this is much bigger then Dunham- Obama. I've posted info that the the data base used by attorneys and PIs had some 80 fraudulent units on Obama and Dunham. I call them "dead soul units". Typically such units will have one or two correct components and one or two fraudulent components. If it was one occurrence like that I would say it is a typo. But when you see numerous dead soul units, you know there is a concerted effort to create such a database. I will clarify this further in a future article.

Please forward all this info to all the law enforcement on the right side of this blog.

FREE Birthday Search
Can't remember the birthday of a friend, relative or co-worker?
Search our database of 120 million names and birth dates:

First Name Last Name Estimated Age
Note: Our information comes from official government records so it is best to search using the person's full first name, like Robert instead of Rob or Joseph instead of Joe. But, if you do not find their birthday after your first search, try again using their shorter first name. Also, the City/State/Zip shown in our results may not be current. It is what was listed on file at the time our data collected, and just used to help you identify the correct person.

First Name Last Name Birthday City State Zipcode
BARACK H OBAMA 1961-08-04 Somerville MA 02145

Total records: 1

Strong Plea to our Armed forces from Lt. Col. David A Earl-Graef

Friday, January 16, 2009 4:11 AM
From: This sender is DomainKeys verified "David Earl-Graef" View contact details To: dr_taitz@yahoo.comPlease post this ASAP. This is very Important
To ALL Who Serve,

You have expressed many kind thoughts about me and I am keenly aware that every single day you serve is an act of courage because you as well have pledged to support the Constitution of our great nation to the risk of grave peril. During these difficult times, I am reminded every day of the vision of the spirit of our country former President Ronald Reagan conveyed when he spoke of the General officers on their knees in the snow at Valley Forge. This for me remains the hope of this country and serves always to humble and remind me of their courage facing the onslaught of the mighty British Army. I think no less of the courage and valor of the General Officers in command of our fighting forces at this very difficult moment in our history.

I have every faith, trust and confidence, as should you, in our military leaders and would follow their lawful orders as all military should to the death. I am confident our voices have been heard so now as of 20 Jan. 2009 we must listen. Although I do not know them I trust they love our Country, care for you and have earned my respect and loyalty. They have never EVER given me a single reason by their ACTIONS to question them or their legal authority over me. Make no mistake I trust that they will do what is right for our country. My intentions have always been only to raise the awareness of the gravity of the situation and its inherent security risks. I stand on my actions and I have acted in good faith and believe I have just cause grounded on my trust in our Supreme Court and Chief Justice Roberts.

On 20 Jan. 2009, I will give respect to the OFFICE of the POTUS as I am required to do. You must as well. However, for me until the court tells me that Mr. Obama is constitutionally qualified or not I personally will remain conflicted because it is before the court and I look to them as the ultimate instrument to help me understand and interpret the Constitution which I am sworn to defend. However, we must each and every one act in good faith and in a way to support our country and our Oath and obey the orders of the officers above us until we know.

It is clear to me that if Mr. Obama would allow it; I would willingly render my absolute loyalty to the person, in this case Mr. Biden, as per the Constitution until such time as Mr. Obama qualifies. I believe you must as well. In addition if Mr. Oabama is found qualified by the Supreme Court I will likewise render loyalty until such time as I may be relieved of my obligation, if this is even possible, on legal or moral/ethical grounds. I simply pray, with an earnest heart for our country that this is brought to an expeditious and just resolution and that we ALL as Americans stand united, respectful and kind to each other. This too was the dream of our founding fathers and President Lincoln; “from many we become one.”


LtCol. David A. Earl-Graef USAFR MC

Thursday, January 15, 2009

letter from a reader- telling children not to go to school on the 20th and boycott inauguration, schools will miss on federal dollars

boycott inauguration

Thursday, January 15, 2009 8:00 PM
From: redacted e-mail per sender View contact details To: barhfarms@gmail.comCc: chalice@comcast.netI just heard a caller call into PlainsRadio -- he is from this site (but you need to join to view the articles)

At any rate... this caller said there's a teacher that was told if she doesn't show the inauguration in the classroom while it's being broadcasted... that she'll have to face punitive consequences for failure to show the broadcast of the event. The caller wants to get the message out to ALL parents that if their children will be forced to watch the inauguration on election day at their schools... to keep your child home from school on that day.

This led me to another idea to expound on this caller's idea... which is as follows:

Let others know about this too... cause that would be an effective boycott. Especially in California. I know that California public schools get a set amount of money for each child that is in school... they lose money for each absent child. If enough children are absent on that day -- that's a huge monetary loss for the school systems here... and that would send a clear message.

Also -- follow up this boycott action with complaints to the PTA and also put a call into the School Board members for the local districts... this would be a really great effective way to get the message out to a huge population group that aren't aware of the Natural Born Citizenship issue. Make sure you let it be known that you do not want your child to witness a non constitutional qualified candidate to be sworn in to destroy our country. He is NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN!!! I don't have children in school any more... but I have a mind to call anyway and find out if they are doing this and let the PTA and School Board Members know of my disapproval.

This could lead to media attention if enough people light up the school board switchboards and overwhelm them with complaints. Do you think this idea could work and take off?

From reader Lauren from Chicago

Dr. Taitz,

Isn't it a total/blatant violation of legal ethics for a judge to meet behind closed doors/ex parte with a *defendant*?

If the SCOTUS wanted to meet with the President-Elect, shouldn't this meeting have been in full view *with* reporters and cameras running live?

Shouldn't formal ethics violation complaints/impeachment proceedings against the SCOTUS judges that participated be initiated immediately?

And given Chief Justice Roberts' prior statements about due diligence regarding Obama's documentation, if he fails to do his own, he has proven that his own statements are worthless.

What I am seeing is that there is *no* reliable oversight of anything in our country (e.g., FDA, SEC, FTC, FEC, ...........).

The SCOTUS was supposed to be part of the checks and balances - instead, they've proven themselves to be no different than Dems/GOP (or Blago).

This next week is going to be scary - too many different crises that could occur alone or in combination.

Lauren Scheffers

Letter to Judicial Ethics forum from Jean Kulig-Tucker

Jean WTPUSA says:Today, 10:49:10 AM“Letter emailed to Judicial Ethics Forum KSWISHER@POST.HARVARD.EDU

Dear Mr. Swisher,

I came across your Judicial Ethics forum and was wondering if I could ask you a few questions regarding Judicial Ethics.

I'm not sure if you are aware, but currently, Chief Justice Roberts and the entire SCOTUS has been asked by attorney Dr. Orly Tait to recuse themselves in regards to administering the "Oath of Office" to President Elect Obama on January 20th, as there are cases pending on the SCOTUS docket which are challenging Mr. Obama's "Natural Born" Citizen status and therefore his "eligibility" to hold the office of POTUS. Many eligibility cases have recently made their way to the Supreme Court and some are on the docket to go to conference after the inauguration.

Additionally, it is my understanding that SCOTUS met with Mr. Obama and Sen. Biden yesterday. Isn't that unusual for a judge to meet with a plaintiff behind closed doors when there is a case pending in front of that judge or the entire Supreme Court? Doesn't that give the appearance of impropriety? And shouldn't judicial ethics take precedent over political formalities?

I was wondering if you had am opinion on whether Judge Roberts is acting ethically, if he swears Obama in on Jan 20th, if Roberts and/or SCOTUS has reason to believe that Obama may perjure himself? And, if 300 Million Americans see Justice Roberts swear Obama in, thereby conveying the impression of legitimacy,=2 0won't the jury pool be tainted if Obama is later put on trial for being a usurper? Doesn't this act, alone, prejudice the Plaintiffs that currently have their cases bending in the SCOTUS? (I copied Dr. Taitz's petition below) (info on the eligiblity lawsuits)

PS. You may also be interested in an excellent article form Dr. Edwin Vieira, that outlines what would occur if a Usurper is sworn on Jan 20th.

Thank you in advance for your reply.

Jean Kulig-Tucker
Founder, We The People USA

I need help from patriots in South Carolina

I got this letter from South Carolina. I need somebody, preferably with legal background to send a certified mail letter to Nanci Pelosi and request an explanation, how did she verify Obama's eligibility. Please send it cc to me and cc her response to me.
thank you

To: dr_taitz@yahoo.comMessage contains respons.pattachmentsobama-south-carolina-sec-of-state-df (79KB) No virus threat detected File: obama-south-carolina-sec-of-state-respons.pdf Download File
Dr. Taitz

I found the following document and thought you might be interested. I know you are busy as all get out and I believe what you are doing is the right thing. I am so tired of all of those who have been Brain washed to the Obama hogwash…I would just like to know, what document exists that certified Obama in South Carolina per the attached document. Thank you very much for your love of our country and the many freedoms we enjoy as a people. God Bless you and hope it helps.

Timothy Ray Allman, your friend and fellow countryman.

You need to speak up

I have filed the motion to declare that the president-elect has failed to qualify. Two days ago I have filed the petition for the Justices of the Supreme Court to recuse themselves from administrating the oath and swearing in Obama as president, due to the conflict of interest with the upcoming cases DEEMING HIM TO BE INELIGIBLE. Please remember: now it is up to you. You need to call and fax and write to the Supreme Court, letting them know how you feel about these petitions and motions. Do you feel that the Justices should be impartial and not have private tea parties with Obama, when Obama is defrauding the whole nation and cases to that extend are in front of the Supreme Court.

Important, This motion was filed today

No. 08A524

In The
Supreme Court of the United States



DEBRA BOWEN, Secretary of State of California


On Petition For A Write Of Certiorari
Before Judgement To The
Supreme Court of California
Case Nos.:(S168690)

AMENDMENT 20, PER RULE 21 (2)(B) & (4)

Attorney of Record
Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ

26302 La Paz
Mission Viejo CA 92691

January 15, 2009


Question I: Does the burden of proof lie with the Petitioner to prove standing and evidence lack of qualification by a candidate/President elect, where election officers rely on a candidate’s declaration? OR Does the CONSTITUTION amend. 20 place the burden of proof on the President elect to provide objective government certified witnessed proofs, with election officers under oath to challenge, examine and declare that the President elect has or has not qualified, enforceable by petition for redress of grievances?

Question II: Should the “natural born citizen” presidential qualification be interpreted expansively to expand civil rights under the 14th Amendment? OR Should it be interpreted restrictively as an essential guard against tyranny by ensuring the Commander in Chief has only had undivided allegiance to the U.S.A., to safeguard the Constitution and the Republic?

I. Motion to file Under Rule 21 (2) (b), and 21(4).
The Petitioner requests leave of this Court to file this Motion under Rule 21, (2) (b) which empowers Petitioner submit “any motion the granting of which would dispose of the entire case or would affect the final judgment to be entered”. By Rule 21 (4), “the Court may act on a motion without waiting for a response.”
To the Petitioner’s knowledge, the following two questions have not been brought to the attention of this Court by the parties or have not been adequately discussed:
Question I: Does the burden of proof lie with the Petitioner to prove standing and evidence lack of qualification by a candidate/President elect, where election officers rely on a candidate’s declaration? OR Does the CONSTITUTION amend. 20 place the burden of proof on the President elect to provide objective government certified witnessed proofs, with election officers under oath to challenge, examine and declare that the President elect has or has not qualified, enforceable by petition for redress of grievances?
Recent events strongly changed the circumstances relating to the Respondent relative to the Petition.
A. Respondent declared President elect
Congress in joint session recorded the Electoral College votes on January 8, 2009. It declared Respondent Barack Hussein Obama II to be the President elect. This event now brings to bear U.S. CONST. Amendment 20.
B. Burden of Proof on Respondent
The clause “have failed to qualify” in U.S. CONST. Amend. 20, place the burden of proof directly on the President elect, the Respondent in this case.
C. Respondent has failed to submit proofs
Per the Petitioner’s petition and to his belief and knowledge, the Respondent has to date failed to present to any constitutional election officer, any government certified proofs attested to by reliable witnesses, for any of the qualifications required under U.S. Const. Art II §1.
D. Respondent has hindered discovery
Respondent has actively hindered election officers and We the People from obtaining and examining proofs of his qualifications for President comprising government certified proofs attested to by reliable witnesses, and certified copies of military, public and educational records.
Per the Petitioner’s petition and to her belief and knowledge, the Respondent has, at great cost, systematically opposed in court every effort to require him to provide such proofs, including those presented before this Court by the Petitioner.
E. President elect has failed to qualify, by default and by opposition.
The Petitioner submits that, both by default and by active hindrance to officers and to petitioners seeking that evidence, Respondent, Barack Hussein Obama II, the President Elect, has “failed to qualify” as per U.S. Constitution Amendment 20.
F. Immediate Constitutional Remedy
In light of the importance of upholding the CONSTITUTION as supreme law, these changed circumstances bring Amendment 20 to bear, and because of the very high pubic importance of this matter, Petitioner prays that this Court provide the following immediate constitutional remedy to better satisfy the prayer of the Petitioner:
Find that the President elect has failed to qualify by default, under U.S. CONST. Article II §1 & Amendment 20.
This remedy would rely on observation of the Respondents actions of not supplying proofs that he qualifies, both by omission and commission, rather than on the merits of the Petitioner’s case.
The Petitioner’s previous and present prayers may then be molded to communicate that finding to Congress, which then would have constitutional business of the highest privilege to elect a President who does qualify.
G. Presidential candidates can then qualify.
This constitutional remedy would then return to the Electoral College and to Congress the constitutional duty to elect a President who did qualify from all the available candidates.
Question II: Should the “natural born citizen” presidential qualification be interpreted expansively to expand civil rights under the 14th Amendment? OR Should it be interpreted restrictively as an essential guard against tyranny by ensuring the Commander in Chief has only had undivided allegiance to the U.S.A., to safeguard the Constitution and the Republic?
Petitioner submits an underlying constitutional principle of undivided loyalty to distinguish the stringent qualifications of “natural born citizen” essential for the Commander in Chief for the common defense in time of war, and preserving domestic tranquility, versus upholding civil rights of “citizens”.
Petitioner appeals to the primacy of upholding the Constitution as invoilable supreme law, and preserving the essential protection of presidential qualifications to preserve the Republic.
Petitioner prays that the Court provide clear guidance on this question of interpreting this critical qualification of the President elect before the Inauguration on January 20th. This would enable election officers to examine proofs submitted by the President elect, or on lack thereof, to properly conduct their constitutional duty to declare that the President elect has qualified, or has failed to qualify, before the date of the Inauguration.
The Petitioner’s prayer could then be molded to communicate that finding to Congress, which then would have constitutional business of the highest privilege to elect a President who does qualify. The Petitioner comes bearing the burden of upholding our Constitution and protecting our Republic against tyranny, on behalf of We the People in this and future generations. Standing before the Judge of all the world for the rectitude of her ways:
“I hereby certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am aware that if any of the foregoing statements made by me are willfully false, I am subject
to punishment.” ___________________________, January 15, 2009
Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ, 949-683-5411
26302 La Paz, Mission Viejo CA 92691

The Petitioner humbly requests waiver of Rule 37(2)(a) of this Court, requiring timely filing of a motion with specified notice to all parties. Petitioner appeals to the unique over riding change in circumstances created by the formal election by the Electoral College of the Respondent, Barack Hussein Obama II, and his delayed declaration on Thursday, Jan. 8th, 2009, by Congress in joint session, to be the President elect. This uniquely brings to bear the constitutional actions prescribed by U.S. CONST. Amend. 20.
Per the Petitioner’s case, the motion, and to her belief and knowledge, to date the Respondent has failed to submit to constitutional election officers the necessary government certified witnessed proofs verifying that he qualifies to be President. He has further opposed all efforts by election officers and by We the People to obtain such certified proofs.
Furthermore, to date, all State and Federal election officers appear to have committed misprision of their duties under U.S. CONST. amend. 20, by failing to examine the qualifications of the President elect, and thence by failing to declare that the President elect has qualified, or has failed to qualify.
The delayed declaration of the President elect left but five (5) working days to observe this misprision, prepare this Motion, and to submit it, before this Court meets in conference on Friday January 16th to consider the Petitioner case After that conference this Court has no (0) working days before the inauguration of the Respondent as President on Tuesday January 20th. That event without word from this Court would give the impression of fait accompli creating such enormous political barriers as to possibly prevent effective redress by the Petitioner.
Inauguration of the President elect having a popular majority while preventing his qualifications from being examined would nullify U.S. art. II §1. Conversely, declaration that the President elect had qualified or failed to have qualified would be of very high public import.
Were this Court to provide the recommended remedy, of declaring that the President elect had failed to qualify, that would provide obvious immediate constitutional relief for the Petitioner. This would cause far less political trauma by clearly upholding constitutionally defined procedures than any redress by granting existing prayers after the inauguration.
Petitioner presents analysis regarding critical safeguards to the Constitution that could be of existential importance to preserving the Republic. The constitutional principle of sole allegiance underlying the restrictive qualification of “natural born citizen” for Commander in Chief to protect the Constitution rather than civil rights of citizens, does not appear to have been so identified in the Petitioner’s case nor in other petitions to the Court.
The Motion would further support the cause of numerous subsequent Petitioners including Berg v. Obama No. 08-570 distributed for the Court’s conference on January 16th, who are committed to submitting petitions for similar issues.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on January 15, 2009. ______________________________
Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ


I.The CONSTITUTION Places The Burden Of Proof On the President Elect, Who Has Failed To Qualify 3
A. The 20th Amendment qualification process 3
1. Burden of proof on the President elect 3
2. Qualification candidate 3
3. Constitutional qualifications exist 3
4. Officers competent to judge qualifications 3
5. Challenging Respondent’s qualifications 3
6. Venues for qualification 4
7. Period for qualification 4
8. Opportunity for qualifying 4
9. Time and Actors for remedy 4
10. Verification of proofs of qualifications 4
11. Electoral College 5
12. State Election Officers 5
13. Declaration of qualification/failure 5
14. Proofs for explicit qualification criteria 5
15. Inauguration would not remedy defects 6
B. Respondent’s refusal to supply proofs 6
1. No certified documents provided 6
2. Birth records sealed 6
3. Educational records sealed 6

II. Undivided allegiance to the U.S. underlies the restrictive “natural born citizen” qualification for Commander in Chief to preserve the Republic. 7
A. Stringency of qualifications 8
1. Increasing Responsibility 8
2. Increasing Maturity 8
3. Increasing Citizenship/Residency Duration 8
4. More Stringent Citizenship 8
Table 1: Stringency of Leadership Qualifications 8
5. Founders all U.S. citizens 9
6. Founders exception as not “natural born citizens” 9
B. Contemporary definitions: “native born citizen” 10
1. Emmerich de Vattel, Law of Nations (1758) 10
2. William Blackstone, Commentaries (1765) 10
C. Primary allegiance passes through fathers 10
D. Birth to Colonials not U.S., “natural born” 10
E. RPE Obama born of a British Colonial 10
F. Birth to two citizens overseas 11
G. Commander in Chief in time of war 11
1. Foreigners excluded for Commander in Chief 11
2. Undivided Allegiance for Commander in Chief 12
3. International conflict over divided loyalties 12
4. Danger of Traitors with Foreign Allegiance 12
5. Avoid dual nationality through a parent 13
6. Avoid dual nationality through birth place 13
7. Power to Exclude Aliens 13
H. Natural Born under Amendment 14 14
1. Citizenship rights 14
2. Bingham affirms narrow “natural born 14
3. Reviews of “natural born citizen” 14


A. Petition for redress of President elect’s failure to qualify A-1
C. Civilians killed by 20th Century Tyrants A-2
D. The Rule of Law, collective ‘unalienable rights’ and ‘ancient liberties’
E. Oaths Secure the CONSTITUTION & and Rule of Law A-4
F. CONSTITUTION of the United States of America A-5


231 U.S. 9, 22 (1913) 10
322 U.S. 665, 673 (1944) 10
377 U.S. 163, 165 (1964) 10
Chae Chan Ping v. United States 130 U.S. 581, 603, 604 (1889) 13
Perkins v. Elg 307 U.S. 325 13, 14
U.S. CONST. pmbl 7, A-5
U.S. CONST., amend. XX passim
U.S. CONST., amend I. 7
U.S. CONST., amend. IX A-6
U.S. CONST., amend. X A-6
U.S. CONST., amend. XIV § 1 A-6
STATUTES: Organic Laws of U.S.A. & States
DECLARATION para. 2. A-3
DECLARATION para. 32 A-5
Massachussetts Constitution §XXX (1780) A-3
STATUTES: Organic Laws - Common Law
1 Blackstone Commentaries(1765) Ch. 1 § 3 (1765) 10, A-3
BILL OF RIGHTS secs. 16, 17, 18. 1, W. & M., 2d sess., c. 2 , 16 Dec. 1689 (U.K.) 7,A-4
Blackstone, Commentaries, 152-154 (1765) 10
DOOMS (Code) of Alfred “the Great” (880). A-4
MAGNA CARTA, 17 John (1215); 1 Henry 3 (1225). 6, 7, A-4
Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393, 476 (1856) 10
U.S. CONST., art. VI ¶2 6, 7
Washington, Writings (1932), Vol. XI, pp. 342-343, General Orders of May 2, 1778 12
STATUTES: Other, Bills, Proclamations, & Resolves
5 U.S.C. 3331 Oath of Office. A-5
10 U.S.C. 312. Militia duty: exemptions. A-4
28 U.S.C. 453. Oaths of justices and judges. A-4
29 U.S.C. 169 Employees with religious convictions[]fees A-4
Naturalization act of 1795, 1 Sess. II Ch. 21 414, 415 (1795) 11
Bible. A-3
Matthew 5:33-37. Affirmation. A-4
Ruth 4:6 10
Courtois, Stéphane et al. The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression, 912 pp, ISBN 0-674-07608-7 (1999). 7
de Vattel, Law of Nations (1758), Bk. 1, Ch. 19, p 101 10, 14
John Locke 2nd Treatise of Civil Govt. ch. 4 § 22 (1690) A-4
Rushdoony (1973), Inst. Biblical Law, Craig Press 10
Story, Joseph Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. 2 Vols. xxxiii, 735, 702pp. (Reprint ed. Lawbook Exchange, Ltd. 2001 ISBN 1-58477-193-3) (1858). A-5
4 Elliott’s Debates p. 196 (30 July 1788). A-4
British Nationality Act (1948) §5(1) 10, 11, A-1
Continental Congress, Declaration and Resolves 14 Oct. 1774 Tansill 1--5 #2 A-3
Rec. Fed. Conv. 1787 CCLXXXVIII p 385, 387 (March 28, 1800) 12, 13
Rec. Fed. Conv. 1787 LXVIII. John Jay to George Washington.3 (NY Jul. 25)
1, 12, 13
Trial of the Seven Bishops for Publishing a Libel. 12 How. St. Tr. 183, 415, (1688).
Washington, George Farewell Address (Sept. 17, 1796). A-5
Samuel Rutherford Lex Rex (1644). A-26


1. The Petitioner submits that the U.S. CONST’s 20th Amendment places the burden of proof directly on the President elect to demonstrate that he qualifies to become President, and on government officers to evaluate and report on those proofs. It negates the lower court’s assumption that the burden of proof lies with the Petitioner.
The Respondents, President elect Barack Hussein Obama II (herein RPE Obama) et al., have failed to submit to election officers the requisite objective government certified proofs attested to by multiple reliable witnesses, as evidence that the President elect qualifies per U.S. CONST. Art. 2 §1 and §2. Furthermore, they have systematically acted to withhold from State and Federal election officers, and from We the People, the evidence necessary to evaluate the qualifications of the President elect.
Having thus failed to qualify by default, U.S. CONST. amend. 20 requires election officers to declare that the President elect has “failed to qualify”. Congress then has constitutional business of the highest privilege to elect a President who does qualify.
By misprisions of State and Federal election officers to perform these duties, Petitioner has the constitutional right and duty to challenge the qualifications of the President elect by redress petition preserved under U.S. CONST. amend. 1, by rights reserved by We the People, under U.S. CONST. amend. 1, 10 and 20, and by each government officer’s oath of office to uphold the CONSTITUTION as inviolable supreme law, U.S. CONST. art. VI.
2. The core issue underlying the Petitioner’s motion, this case before this Court, and to all similar cases is the constitutional interpretation of the restrictive “natural born citizen”qualification for President.
Prior cases with other issues have brought issues of individual civil rights of citizenship to the attention of this Court. The Petitioner brings the issue of the restrictive constitutional qualifications for President. This addresses the essential safeguard provided by the Founders to preserve the Republic and upholding the inviolability of Constitution as supreme law.
The intent of the Founders is clearly seen in John
II. The CONSTITUTION Places The Burden Of Proof On the President Elect, Who Has Failed To Qualify The 20th Amendment qualification process The U.S. CONST. amend. 20 prescribes that:
“. . . if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified;. . .”
The Constitution does not guarantee inauguration of a President elect. It requires that he first “qualify”.
The Petitioner has observed that the Constitution nowhere delegates the power and method of qualifying. Thus, the Petitioner appealed to powers reserved under the 14th Amendment. However, common principles may still identify methods by which the President elect may qualify, or fail to have qualified.
1. Burden of proof on the President elect By the past tense verb “have failed to qualify”, the CONSTITUTION places the burden of proof directly on the President elect to lay objective proofs before competent officers necessary to demonstrate that he has met the constitutional qualifications for President.
2. Qualification candidate Respondent Barack Hussein Obama II was declared the constitutional President elect by Congress in joint session on Jan. 8th, 2009. RPE Obama is thus the active subject of U.S. CONST., amend 20.
3. Constitutional qualifications exist The verb “qualify” indicates that the Constitution establishes objective criteria that the President elect must satisfy. See explicit restrictive qualifications in U.S. CONST. Art II, §1 and implicit qualifications listed below.
4. Officers competent to judge qualifications The verb “has failed to qualify” implies that there are election officers to whom those constitutional proofs of qualifications must be submitted. The electoral votes are submitted to the President of the Senate presiding over Congress in joint session with tellers appointed from the Senate and House. At least those constitutional officers are competent to receive evaluate the qualifications. The Chief Justice of this Court, and the President are other constitutionally defined officers before whom the President elect could submit his proofs for qualification.
5. Challenging Respondent’s qualifications All Executive, Legislative and Judicial officers, being on Oath to uphold the CONSTITUTION, have the power and duty to challenge the Respondent President elect Obama to show cause by date certain why he should not have failed to qualify.
a. Objections to reading Electoral votes
When Congress tabulates votes of the Electoral College in joint session, law explicitly requires the President of the Senate to ask for Objections after the reading of each State’s electoral certificates. 3 U.S.C. Ch. 1, §15. Objections to electoral votes may be filed if signed by one Senator and one Representative. Electing a candidate for President who would not qualify would violate the Constitution and justify raising a formal objection on reading each State’s votes. On reading the electoral votes, Senate President Dick Cheney failed to ask for objections on reading of each State’s votes on Jan. 8th, 2009. See also 3 U.S.C. Ch. 1,§17, §19(a) (1), and §19 ©) (1)
b. Point of Order on declaring President elect Obama has failed to qualify
Officers on oath to uphold the Constitution bear the high privilege to raise a Point of Order or Question of Order over any breach thereof, as well as over any breach of the Rules of each House. Senate Rule XX. When an appointed election officer fails to uphold the duties required by U.S. CONST. Art II §1 and amend. 20, any Member of Congress has the power and duty to raise a Point of Order.
Failing that, citizens, including the Petitioner, have the unalienable right of petition for redress of grievances, to petition their State or Congress with a prayer to raise a Point of Order over breach of Constitution. U.S. CONST. amend. I
Reporting the tallied electoral votes provided an opportunity to raise the Point of Order that the President elect has not qualified. However, no Member of Congress raised that Point of Order requested by numerous citizens by redress petition. See Appendix A. Every time any House is in session provides an opportunity for Members of Congress to raise a Point of Order that the President elect has failed to qualify.
6. Venues for qualification The joint session of Congress, held to count electoral votes and announce the President elect, is one venue in which the President elect could have submitted his qualifications. Thereafter, the President elect could submit his qualifications to the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House, the Chief Justice of this Court, or the President as constitutionally recognized officers being under oath to uphold the Constitution.
7. Period for qualification By the classification “President elect”, Amend. 20 establishes at least the qualification period between the constitutional “election” of tabulating electoral college votes before Congress on January 6th (January 8th in 2009) and the inauguration on January 20th when the President elect is sworn in as “President”.
8. Opportunity for qualifying By “have failed to qualify”, the President elect will have been given the opportunity to submit proofs showing that he does qualify. By January 16th, RPE Obama will have had five business days during which to submit proofs of his qualification.
9. Time and Actors for remedy Were this Court to determine and find the President elect has failed to qualify by default, there would still be time to notify Congress, for Congress to appoint the Vice President as Acting President, and for the Electoral College and Congress to proceed with electing another President who does qualify, per U.S. CONST. amend. 20. This urgent constitutional business would have privilege over other business.
10. Verification of proofs of qualifications By “have failed to qualify”, the competent election officers must examine the proofs submitted by the President elect against the constitutional qualifications. The CONSTITUTION grants all powers necessary to perform constitutional duties including obtaining government certified documents from any Federal or State repository, and to subpoena other records as needed.
11. Electoral College By U.S. CONST. amend 12, Electors in the Electoral College are election officers with the duty to elect the President. Electors, and the Electoral College have the privileges and duty to evaluate the qualifications of all candidates for President, and the President elect. By their oath to uphold the Constitution, they have a duty to demand and evaluate proofs and to find that the Presidential candidate or President elect has or has failed to qualify.
12. State Election Officers Each State has the equivalent privileges and opportunities to evaluate the qualifications of all candidates for President and for the President elect. As the Petitioner has sought relief, the Secretary of State can communicate RPE Obama’s failure to qualify to the Governor, the State’s Senators and President of the Senate, and to its Representatives, and the Speaker of the House. Each State’s Senators, Representatives and Governor have the Privilege of the Floor in the respective House, and may communicate that failure, or raise a Point of Order. Senate Rule XXIII
13. Declaration of qualification/failure By “have failed to qualify”, the election officers have the constitutional power and duty to declare that the President elect has met or has failed to meet the restrictive constitutional requirements for President. They have the power and duty to communicate that determination to the authorities responsible to elect the President. I.e. to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House.
14. Proofs for explicit qualification criteria Objective evidence of qualifications must be commensurate with the level of proof required. Certified copies of original birth certificates are commonly required by citizens to obtain government photo ID, marriage certificates, driver’s licenses, and to register to vote.
To obtain security clearance, military officers must provide increasingly exhaustive evidence that they qualify. As Commander in Chief, the President commands the Chiefs of the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force bearing Top Secret clearance. Common sense requires that the President elect provide objective proofs commensurate with the higher constitutional office of Commander in Chief, and the Top Secret clearance required of those he must command. To verify constitutional qualifications, election officers should require the President elect to provide the following, and to verify their validity.
a. Age 35 years
Government certified copies of original full (“long form”) birth certificates attested to by two reliable witnesses, and all revisions thereof. U.S. CONST. art. II, §1.
b. 14 years residency in the US
Evidence of residence within the U.S., with certified copies of all passports held to confirm time within versus without the U.S., being more thorough than that required for naturalization, or documenting U.S. births abroad. U.S. CONST. art. II, §1.
c. Natural born citizen with sole allegiance
By the underlying constitutional principle of sole allegiance to the U.S.A. the Commander in Chief should have all biological and adoptive parents holding allegiance to the US, the President elect be born in U.S. jurisdiction, and have had only had sole allegiance to the U.S. CONST. art. II, §1.
(1) President Elect’s Citizenship
Government certified copies of the original (“long form”) birth certificates of the President elect, showing original place and date of birth, and both biological parents.
(2) Citizenship of Biological Father
Government certified copies of the original birth certificates or naturalization certificates, evidencing US Citizenship of the biological father at the birth of the President elect.
(3) Citizenship of Biological Mother
Government certified copies of the original birth certificates or naturalization certificates, evidencing US Citizenship of the biological mother at the President elect’s birth.
(4) Citizenship of Adoptive Parents
Government certified copies evidencing citizenship of every adoptive parent of the President elect.
(5) Change of Name
Government certified copies of every legal change of name since birth.
(6) Declarations of allegiance
Certified copies of each document wherein the President elect has sworn allegiance, or declared his citizenship or allegiance, whether as a youth or adult, including applications for higher education and financial aid.
(7) Military & Public Service
Certified copies of any registration for military service, and of each and every military and/or public service.
15. Inauguration would not remedy defects Official inauguration of a President elect do not remedy failure to constitutionally qualify. The US Constitution is inviolable, founded on the security of the U.S. CONST., art. VI ¶2 No certified documents provided Per the Petitioner’s application and current belief and knowledge, none of these documents having been submitted to election officers in Congress, in the Electoral College, or in any State, by RPE Obama, that are government certified with reliable witnesses. Upcoming petitioners including Gail Lightfoot have similarly found no evidence of such positive action by RPE Obama to qualify.
2. Birth records sealed The RPE Obama has refused to submit certified copies of any of his original long form “vault” birth certificates in Hawaii to any public officer or to any Petitioner. Relevant records in Kenya have also been officially restricted.
3. Educational records sealed The RPE Obama has sealed all educational records which might reveal his stated citizenship. These include Punahou High School, Occidental College, Columbia University, and Harvard Law School.

III. Undivided allegiance to the U.S. underlies the restrictive “natural born citizen” qualification for Commander in Chief to preserve the Republic. When King and Parliament breached their rights with arbitrary laws, the Founders fought to restore the Rule of Law claiming ‘unalienable rights’ and ‘entitle[ment]’ by the ‘laws of God.’ DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE (U.S. 1776) (herein “DECLARATION”). The inviolability of the Magna Carta (1215) was preserved in the U.S. Constitution (1787) as “supreme law.” Magna Carta (1215) §61. This security was restored by theU.S. CONST., amend I.U.S. CONST. pmblU.S. CONST., art. I §3 para. 5. The “natural born citizen” allegiance qualification was strictest of these, to protect against treason and tyranny.
Democracies Descending into Tyranny: Thirty three democracies descended into tyranny during the 20th century by failing to uphold constitutional protections. These included Germany, Russia, and China.
Secularist States Murdered Millions: States establishing Secularism caused the most extrajudicial deaths in the 20th Century. Courtois et al. (1999) detail the consequent horrors of atheistic communist governments killing more than 125 million - more than three times the 38 million killed in all 20th Century wars. See Appendix C, Hagen & Irish (2000).
The greatest threat to Domestic tranquility is not war but descent into mob rule and dictatorship. Preserving protections of the Constitution and Republic are critically important. The restrictive “natural born citizen” qualification for President, is a critical constitutional guard against tyranny. Petitioner applies the unalienable right of redress petition and security of Oaths to preserve the US. CONST. in face of misprision of failing to enforce presidential qualifications by election officers.
Petitioner humbly prays this Court evaluate the Petitioner’s case in context of how best to enforce restrictive qualifications for President to preserve the Constitution and Republic from tyranny, rather than its prior cases on protecting individual civil rights.
A. Stringency of qualifications The U.S. CONSTITUTION explicitly requires a progressively increasing stringency in qualifications for higher levels of officers of government. See Table 1.
1. Increasing Responsibility Representatives represent a portion of a State (< 30,000 citizens per U.S. CONST. art. I, §2 para 3). Senators have greater responsibility to represent a State and the Nation’s interests. The President is responsible for the entire Nation. In light of their increasing responsibilities, the CONSTITUTION imposes increasingly stringent qualifications for Congressional offices, with the greatest stringency for the President.
2. Increasing Maturity The minimum age increases from 25 to 30 to 35 years for Representatives, Senators and the President. After coming of age at 21, this requires from 4 years to 9 years to 14 years of maturity. The President must have 350% the adult maturity of Representatives.
3. Increasing Citizenship/Residency Duration The qualification of citizenship increases from 7 years to 9 years for Representatives, and Senators (no residency). ( U.S. CONST. art. I, §3 para. 3U.S. CONST. art. II, §1 para. 5 Each Member of Congress must be a “citizen” U.S. CONST. art. I, §2 para. 2; U.S. CONST. art. II, §1 para. 5. The features distinguishing “natural born citizen” from “citizen” are critical to this and other cases contesting respondent Obama’s qualifications.

Table 1: Stringency of Leadership Qualifications

Member of Congress President
Repre-sentative Senator Commander in Chief
Responsi-bility Part State State All States
Minimum Age years 25* 30** 35***
Resident 7 years citizen* 9 years citizen** 14 years a resident ***
Citizen Type Any * Any ** Natural born ***
US allegiance Sole or divided Sole or divided Undivided
Father a citizen Option Option Yes
Mother a citizen Option Option Yes
Naturalized Option+ Option+ No+
Born in US jurisdiction Option+ Option+ Yes (or Residency)+
*U.S. CONST. art. I, §1; **U.S. CONST. art. I, §3; ***U.S. CONST. art. II, §1; +U.S. CONST. amend. XIV §1 with statutory citizenship requirements

Petitioner submits that the qualification of “natural born citizen” for the President must be more stringent than “citizen”, both by logic, and by inference from the gradation of constitutional qualifications for Representatives, Senators and the President.
However, “citizen” is a binary qualification. As “natural born citizen” is not defined within the Constitution, what are the constitutional criteria for establishing for this greater stringency? The “jurisdiction” of birth, allegiance or citizenship of each parent at an individual’s birth, and the individual’s own actions regarding allegiance on coming of age create multiple subcategories of “citizen”. Following are distinctions between “naturalized”, “native”, and “natural born” citizens as shown in the CONSTITUTION, by the Founders, and by contemporary authorities.
6. Founders all U.S. citizens By U.S. CONST., art. VII para. 3, the U.S.A. is dated by “the independence of the United States of America the twelfth” codifying that it was established by the Declaration of Independence, (U.S. 1776). On adoption of the U.S. CONST. numerous candidates for Representatives and Senators satisfied the requirements of “citizen”, having 7 or 9 years of citizenship, and age per & §3. If Respondent Obama had been a U.S. “citizen” for 9 years and was at least 30 years age he would have qualified on his election to the Senate.
7. Founders exception as not “natural born citizens” However, DECLARATION (U.S. 1776)377 U.S. 163, 165 (1964)322 U.S. 665, 673 (1944)231 U.S. 9, 22 (1913) " Emmerich de Vattel, Law of Nations (1758)
de Vattel’s Law of Nations widely quoted by the Founders. de Vattel stated:
"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. ..” Emmerich de Vattel, The Law of Nations (1758), Bk. 1, Ch. 19, Citizens and Nations, p 101 para 212; cited in Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393, 476 (1856).

2. " William Blackstone, Commentaries (1765)
Blackstone in reviewing the Common Law stated:
“Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, . . . aliens, such as are born out of it. . . .
. . .every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, . . .” Commentaries 154-57 (Dean Gait ed., 1941)
Both de Vattel and Blackstone thus state that children born of two citizens in that nation are natural-born citizens. RPE Obama has not shown evidence that both his biological parents were U.S. citizens.
D. Primary allegiance passes through fathers In the Judeo-Christian legal tradition, allegiance flows through the father. Bible Ruth 4:6; de Vattel and Blackstone affirm this principle:
“ . .the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. . . .The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children.” de Vattel, Law of Nations (1758), Bk. 1, Ch. 19, Citizens & Nations, p 101 para 212.

“ . . .so that all children, born out of the king’s licence, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes,. . .” William Blackstone, Commentaries 154-57 (Dean Gait ed., 1941)

RPE Obama has not shown evidence his father was a natural-born US citizen.
E. Birth to Colonials not US, “natural born” George Washington was born to colonials of Virginia, and John Adams to colonials of Massachussetts. Both were born “native” to those Colonies, and “overseas” to Britain. Yet by the exception clause, the Founders implied that the restriction to U.S. “natural born citizen” disqualified both from becoming U.S. President. The CONSTITUTION’S exclusion clause by application disqualifies all U.S. citizens born to colonial fathers subject to the British sovereign.
F. RPE Obama born of a British Colonial RPE Obama has posted:
“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.”
(Technically the British East African Protectorate of Zanzibar until Kenya gained independence in 1963.)
The divorce decree for RPE Obama’s parents has recently been posted. (
“That one child has been born to said Libelant and Libeled as issue of said marriage, to wit: BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II, a son, born August 4, 1961.” HI, 1st Cir. Domestic Relations, divorce decree D. No. 57972 Stanley Ann D. Obama v. Barack H. Obama p 2 §IV.

The Hawaii court thus confirms RPE Obama’s statements.
RPE Obama acknowledged that he had foreign allegiance, being a British citizen at birth through his Kenyan father (per British law provided exceptions for children born overseas to ambassadors, merchants, and citizens:
“Yet the children of the king’s ambassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: . . .all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband’s consent, might inherit as if born in England:” Blackstone Commentaries 154-57.

After adoption of the Constitution, Congress adapted this common law distinguishing between children born overseas vs those within the jurisdiction of the US, describing them as “citizen” rather than natural born citizen. Naturalization act of 1795, 1 Sess. II Ch. 21 414, 415 (1795), (with variations in 1790 and 1798.)
If born overseas, RPE Obama has not submitted proofs that he was born to two US citizens.
I. Commander in Chief in time of war The U.S. CONST. art II §2 provides:
“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States when called into the actual service of the United States;”

Petitioner submits that this unique constitutional duty of Commander in Chief provides a critical constitutional principle differentiating the qualifications of “national born citizen” for president vs “citizen” for Members of Congress.
1. Foreigners excluded for Commander in Chief John Jay, the first Chief Justice, wrote George Washington:
“Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check on the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the commander in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.”Records Federal Conv. 1787 LXVIII. John Jay to George Washington.3 (New York, July 25, 1787)

Jay expressly defined the qualification of “natural born citizen” for the “commander in chief of the American army” as excluding all “Foreigners” with allegiance to foreign sovereigns. Washington acknowledged his “hint” and this qualification of “natural born citizen” was included in the Constitution without further discussion.
2. Undivided Allegiance for Commander in Chief Senator Charles Pickney affirmed Jay’s restrictive qualification, stating:
“It was intended to give your President the command of your forces, . . . to insure experience and attachment to the country, they have determined that no man who is not a natural born citizen, or citizen at the adoption of the Constitution, of fourteen years residence, and thirty-five years of age, shall be eligible....” Rec. Fed. Conv. 1787 CCLXXXVIII p 385, 387 (March 28, 1800)

Petitioner respectfully submits that the underlying constitutional principle on the restrictive qualification of “natural born citizen” to become President is that of requiring undivided allegiance to the U.S.A. for the Commander in Chief to “insure attachment to the country” and exclude “Foreigners”.
On adopting the CONSTITUTION, the United States was just recovering from an existential war with the superpower Britain. The US endured ongoing conflict with Britain impressing US citizens for its ships, over this issue of the allegiance of native or naturalized citizens “natural born citizens”. Britain demanded the allegiance of all US citizens born in the colonies, or whose father was a British citizen, and who thus were not “natural born” with both parents being US citizens. In 1812 the US was forced to go to war with Britain to resolve this festering issue of allegiance to Britain.
5. Danger of Traitors with Foreign Allegiance “Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.” US Const. Art. III, §3. As Commander in Chief, the President must guard against Treason.
During the War for Independence, General Greene reported: “Treason of the blackest dye was yesterday discovered. General Arnold who commanded at West Point . . . was about to deliver up that important post into the hands of the enemy. Such an event must have given the American cause a deadly wound if not a fatal stab.” Washington, Writings (1932), Vol. XI, pp. 342-343, General Orders of May 2, 1778.

Though a U.S. citizen and war hero, Benedict Arnold had been born under allegiance to Britain and his wife has strong allegiance to Britain. In light of the Founders’ painful experience during their recent War of Independence, the Treason section reinforces the principle that “natural born citizen”as qualification for Commander in Chief is to exclude citizens having any foreign allegiance. I.e., to select Presidents having only ever had sole allegiance with both biological parents and adoptive parents being US citizens.
Since the attack on New York’s World Trade Center on “9/11", the US has been at “war on terrorism”. This enemy is not a nation state but radical Islamic religious faction bent on imposing its religious views through force. Indonesia is the largest Islamic country.
Similarly, Petitioner submitted affidavits detailing how relatives of RPE Obama in Kenya have used violence to subjugate Christians, coerce elections, coerce the government into granting political power (establishing a Prime Minister without constitutional amendment.) Petitioner documented RPE Obama as having aided and abetted this coercive effort.
RPE Obama has failed to show that he is free of foreign influence as necessary for a Commander in Chief in time of war.
6. Avoid dual nationality through a parent Tories retaining allegiance to the British sovereign were a major part of the “enemy” during the US War of Independence. The Founders’ experience directs an explicit avoidance of citizens having near relatives with foreign allegiance as a threat of direct opposition or of becoming traitors. This infers that “natural born citizen” should be interpreted to mean that both parents of the Commander in Chief should be U.S. citizens. Adoptive parents should also be U.S. citizens.
Petitioner documents that RPE Obama had Indonesian citizenship evidenced by school records and parents divorce decree. Petitioner submits that the core purpose of “natural born citizen” is that of allegiance to safeguard against tyranny. The issue is thus whether RPE Obama retained sole allegiance to the USA per requirements for a Commander in chief in time of war, rather than his personal civil rights of citizenship or if he lost his citizenship (cf Perkins v. Elg 307 U.S. 325).
7. Avoid dual nationality through birth place Foreign birth establishes foreign allegiance (dual citizenship). During World War II, Hitler recalled US citizens with dual nationality or German parentage. Pierce O’Donnell, In Time of War: Hitler's Terrorist Attack on America, 2005. Some were trained sent back to sabotage the US war effort. By the sovereignty of the U.S., Congress has the absolute power
“to exclude aliens from the United States and to prescribe the terms and conditions on which they come in. . . .The United States, . . . are one nation, invested with powers which belong to independent nations, the exercise of which can be invoked for the maintenance of its absolute independence and security throughout its entire territory.” Chae Chan Ping v. United States 130 U.S. 581, 603, 604 (1889)

Making an Alien the Commander in Chief would incur the danger of the US losing “its absolute independence and security”by descent into tyranny. Pickney restricting the President from foreigners applies this power to exclude aliens and applies it to excluding any citizen with foreign allegiance, by birth or adoption, from becoming Commander in Chief, lest they endanger the U.S.’s “absolute independence and security.”
J. Natural Born under Amendment 14 Citizenship rights In ” John A. Bingham, appointed Union Army Judge Advocate by Lincoln, crafted the 14th Amendment (final April 28, 1866.) Bingham himself affirmed the narrow interpretation of “natural born citizen” clause stating:
“[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that 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…. .” Rep. John A. Bingham, re S 61 Bill, March 9, 1866.

He confirmed de G. J. Chin, reviews U.S. SC cases finding that in Insular Cases, “persons born in unincorporated territories are not Fourteenth Amendment citizens.” Why Senator John McCain Cannot Be President Mich. Law. Rev. 1st Impressions, Vol. 107, No. 1, 2008,
S.H. Duggin & M. B. Collins (Feb. 2005) provide a detailed review, arguing that “natural born citizen” is unfair. ‘Natural Born’ in the USA’ Boston Univ. Law Rev. However, they omitted the key contemporary definition of Petitioner submits that the Constitution places the burden of proof to qualify on the President elect. All officers sworn to uphold the Constitution including election officers in Congress, the Electoral College and all States have the duty to challenge and test those qualifications, and to declare that the President elect (or candidate) has qualified or failed to qualify.
The Petitioner and public record indicate explicit active refusal by the RPE Obama to submit any government certified witnessed proofs that he qualifies for President.
The restrictive qualification “natural born citizen” is essential to preserve the Constitution and the Republic from descending into tyranny. It should be guided by the underlying constitutional principle of enforcing sole allegiance to the United States and to exclude all candidates with any foreign allegiance through the allegiance of either birth parent or by any adoptive parent, or by the President elect’s own actions.
Petitioner humbly submits that this Court should therefore affirm the Petitioner’s Motion and find that the Respondent, President Elect Barack Hussein Obama II has failed in his constitutional burden of proof to qualify for President.

“I hereby certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am aware that if any of the foregoing statements made by me are willfully false, I am subject to punishment.”

___________________________, January 15, 2009
Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ

No. 08A524

In The
Supreme Court of the United States



DEBRA BOWEN, Secretary of State of California


On Petition For A Write Of Certiorari
Before Judgement To The
Supreme Court of California
Case Nos.:(S168690)

AMENDMENT 20, PER RULE 21 (2)(B) & (4)

Attorney of Record
Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ

26302 La Paz
Mission Viejo CA 92691

January 15, 2009

A. Petition for redress of President elect’s failure to qualify David L. Hagen submitted to Congress the following Petition for redress of grievances that Barack Obama II failed to qualify to become President.

“Re: Petition for Point of order: Barack H. Obama II is not qualified to become president.
Grievance: Barry Soetoro/a.k.a. Barack Hussein Obama II is not qualified to become president, having had primary allegiances to other nations, and not providing unambiguous evidence he is a “natural born Citizen” without other allegiance, to satisfy the Constitution Article 2 Sect. 1.
Prayer: By your oath to uphold the Constitution, your privilege to raise a Point of Order, by the 10th Amendment powers retained by We the People, and by the right of petition for redress of grievances, I pray that you cosign/raise an Objection/Point of Order in Congress on January 8th 2009, with a member of the other House, on the reading of each State’s electoral certificates/of the total vote for Barack Hussein Obama II, per 3 U.S.C. Ch. 1, §15, §17, §19(a) (1), and §19 ©) (1), namely:
“We/I Object/raise a Point of Order that Mr. Barack Hussein Obama II, is not qualified to become president per the Constitution Article Two, §1, having “Foreign Allegiances” by birth and adoption, by renouncing US citizenship, and by failing to provide unambiguous evidence that he is “a natural born Citizen” without other allegiance, election of a President who does qualify having precedence over other business of this House per Amend. 20 §3 and 3 U.S.C. 1. In particular:
1 Mr. Obama having had conflicting “Foreign Allegiance”(s) cannot become Commander in Chief having sole allegiance to the USA, and thus cannot qualify as “a natural born Citizen”.
1.1 Barry Soetoro, a.k.a. Barak Obama, has first allegiance to Indonesia, having Indonesian citizenship with renunciation of US citizenship, by adoption/legal acknowledgment by Lolo Soetoro Mangunharjo, a citizen of Indonesia, per Constitution of Indonesia, Law No. 62 of 1958, Art. 2 (1), as required to enroll in Indonesian schools, per school records and travel to Pakistan in 1981; and
1.2 Mr. Obama had first allegiance to the British Crown and to Kenya, being born a citizen of Kenya through his Kenyan birth father Barack Obama, Sr., per Chapter VI. Sections 87 and 97 of the Constitution of Kenya; and being a bipatride under the Historians and experts estimate that about 100-176 million were executed or starved by dictators and tyrants - in the 20th century. E.g., typical ranges from Hagen & Irish (2000):
Murder by Government
Tyrant Civilians killed
Mao Tse-tung, China 50-70 million
Stalin, USSR 20-40 million
Hitler, Europe 10-20 million
Lenin, USSR 4 million
Talaat Pasha, Turkey 2 million
Sudan Arab vs Nebo 2 million
Franco, Spain 2 million
Pol Pot, Cambodia 1.7 million
Kim Il-sung, N. Korea 1 million?
Mengistu, Ethiopia 1 million
Sukarno, Indonesia 0.6-1 million
Rawanda Hutu v. Tutsi 800,000
Tito, Yugoslavia 500,000
Ho Chi Minh, Vietnam 200,000
Milosovic, Yugoslavia 200,000
Nehru-Gandhi, India 200,000

The greatest danger to the People and the USA is not external but INTERNAL. Dictators have killed about three times the 38 million killed in all 20th Century wars.
Republics and Democracies succumbing to Tyrants
At least thirty three Democracies succumbed to tyrants in the 20th Century when they failed to uphold Oaths and constitutions. Taken from Hagen & Irish (2000):
Argentina: Juan Peron; Cambodia: Pol Pot & Khmer Rouge; USSR - Ukraine: Stalin; USSR - Russia: Stalin; China: Mao Tse-Tung & China’s “Great Leap Forward”; Central African Republic: Jena-Bédal Bokassa; Cote D’Ivoire: Felix Houphouet-Boigny; Dominican Republic: Diederich B ernard Trujillo; Germany: Adolf Hitler, GDR; Ghana: Kwame Nkrumah; Haiti: Dr. François Duvalier; Indonesia: Sukarno, Suharto; Iran: Shah Pahlavi, Khomeini; Iraq: Sadam Hussein; Italy: Benito Mussolini; Malawi: Dr. Hastings Kamuzu Banda; Malaysia: Dr. Mahathir Mohammad; North Korea: Kim Il-Song; Panama: General Noriega; Philippines: President Ferdinand Marcos; Romania: Ion Antonescu, Gheorghiu-Dej, Nicolea Ceausescu; Rome: Julius Caesar, Nero, Domitian; Senegal: Leopold Sedar Senghor; Spain: Prima De Rivera, General Francisco Franco; Sudan: Arab-Islamist military; Tanzania: Mwalimu Julius Nyerere; Turkey: Prime Minister Talaat Pasha (Ottomon Empire); Turkmenistan: Saparmurat Nyazov; Uganda: Idi Amin; Uruguay: Gregorio Alvarez; Zaire: Mobutu Sese Seko; Zimbabwe: Robert Mugabe.

F. The Rule of Law, collective ‘unalienable rights’ and ‘ancient liberties’
The Declaration and Resolves, Continental Congress, Tansill 1--5 #2 (14 Oct. 1774) preserved ‘immutable laws of nature, the principles of the English constitution and the several Charters.’ These included ‘rights, liberties, and immunities’ and ‘common law’ via their ancestors. Those Codes, Charters, Acts and ‘unalienable rights’ acknowledged God and were secured by swearing before God.
When King and Parliament breached their unalienable rights, the Colonies interposed, establishing the U.S.A. by the DECLARATION to restore the Rule of Law:
The Rule of “[Law] depends not upon the arbitrary will of any judge; but is permanent, fixed, and unchangeable, unless by authority of parliament.” 1 Blackstone Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765) Ch. 1 § 3 (p 138, 1765).
‘to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.’ Declaration para. 2.

People codified and ratified Constitutions to secure these principles.

“In the government . . . the executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, . . . the judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them: to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men.” MASSACHUSETTS CONSTITUTION § XXX (1780).

Quotations on the Rule of Law and Ancient liberties:

“[T]he charter; . . . the divine law, the Word of God; . . . in America the law is king. For as in absolute governments the king is law, so in free countries the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other.”
Thomas Paine, Common Sense (1776)

'Freedom of men under government is to have a standing rule to live by, common to every one of that society.' John Locke 2nd Treatise of Civil Govt. ch. 4 § 22 (1690)
Whether the supreme law . . . be above the king. . . . People may resume their power. Samuel Rutherford Lex Rex Ques. IX, XXV (1644).

'Leave all causes to be measured by the golden and straight mete-wand of the law, and not to the incertain and crooked cord of discretion.' Sir Edward Coke 4 Inst. 41 (1628).

The Rule of Law was embodied in the Bible’s MOSAIC CODE with public consent. Exodus 20:2-17, Deut. 4:13. The COMMON LAW ‘Dooms’ (Code) of Alfred (880) began with the Decalogue and Golden Rule verbatim. Lee (1997). ‘[H]aving regard to God,’ Archbishop Stephen Langton and the barons interposed, bringing King John, the Chief Justice and all civil powers back under the Rule of Law by the MAGNA CARTA, 17 John (1215) (restoring the CHARTER OF LIBERTIES, 1 Henry, 1100), securing it by redress petition. Parliament interposed, binding the King by the Bill of Rights, 1 W. & M., 2d sess., c. 2 (1689), codifying Trial of the Seven Bishops (1688), to preserve redress petition, interposition, and alternatives for conscience sake.
G. Oaths Secure the CONSTITUTION & and Rule of LawThe People secured the CONSTITUTION and Justice on Theism, mandating swearing before God of everyone exercising governmental authority or testifying in court. U.S. CONST., art. VI ¶ 3, amendments I, IX, X and XIV.
To obey Jesus’ commands some people refuse to swear: “But I tell you, Do not swear at all: . . . but let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes’ and your ‘No’, ‘No’; . . .” Matt. 5:33-37 NIV. For conscience’ sake, the CONST. Art. VI, ¶ 3 provides the alternative of ‘Affirmation’ to ‘Oath.’ This embodies the First Principle:
Provide alternatives for the sake of conscience, whenever government touches religion, especially involving deeply held sectarian religious practices, like swearing before God. SC Justice James Iredell defined the Oath as:
“a solemn appeal to the Supreme Being for the truth of what is said by a person who believes in the existence of a Supreme Being and in the state of rewards and punishments according to that form which would bind his conscience most,”
4 Elliott’s Debates p. 196 (30 July 1788).

He described other forms of oaths for other religions. 28 U.S.C. § 453, requires each Judge or Justice to “solemnly swear (or affirm) [to] administer justice.” Alternatives to militia duty and union fees are provided for conscientious objectors and those with religious convictions. 10 U.S.C. 312b; 29 U.S.C. 169.
The DECLARATION para. 32U.S. CONST., art. VI, ¶ 3.U.S. CONST., art. I, § 3, ¶ 6.; 5 U.S.C. 3331 Oath of Office. Story, Joseph Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. 2 Vols. xxxiii, 735, 702pp. (Reprint ed. Lawbook Exchange, Ltd. 2001 ISBN 1-58477-193-3) (1858).Washington, George Farewell Address (Sept. 17, 1796). (1787)
U.S. CONST., art. I, § 3, para. 6.U.S. CONST., art. II, § 1, para. 8.U.S. CONST., art. VI, ¶2, 3
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
U.S. CONST., amend. I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (Emphasis added.)
U.S. CONST., amend. IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
U.S. CONST., amend. X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
U.S. CONST., amend. XIV § 1
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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
U.S. CONST., amend. XX §3
If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.