U.S. Army Officer Calls Obama an "Imp...

U.S. Army Officer Calls Obama an "Impostor"

There are 18753 comments on the WNBC-TV New York story from Feb 24, 2009, titled U.S. Army Officer Calls Obama an "Impostor". In it, WNBC-TV New York reports that:

A U.S. Army soldier said he thinks Obama is an "impostor" and is pushing for further investigation into Obama's citizenship.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at WNBC-TV New York.

“MICHAEL MACIAS”

Since: Aug 09

levelland tx

#17632 Jun 13, 2010
hes just another first "eye witness" to disaters
toldyouso

Rahway, NJ

#17633 Jun 13, 2010
reeltime wrote:
What does that make Bush?
Bush claims to have kept America safe, but in his time in office the number of worldwide terrorist atacks has increased, Iran has gained influence in the Middle East, North Korea still hasn't verified its nuclear work, anti-Americanism sentiments have stepped up extremists' recruitment efforts and a safe haven for terrorists remains along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.
And as for Bush actually keeping America safe, how many non-domestic terrorist attacks occurred before 9/11? And since Bushco knew there was a possibility of a major attack taking place a month before 9/11, well....
BUSH WAS WARNED BIN LADEN WANTED TO HIJACK PLANES
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html ?
res=9C03E2DB1139F935A25756C0A9 649C8B63
Yeah, well Clinton had a chance to have Bin Jadens head handed to him several times and chose not to so who is really at fault?
toldyouso

Rahway, NJ

#17634 Jun 13, 2010
jadens=Ladens
toldyouso

Rahway, NJ

#17635 Jun 13, 2010
Mykro wrote:
<quoted text>Cheney did a wonderful job? Were have you been for eight years in a coma.
Cheney did a wonderful job of shooting his "friend" in the face.
I guess he might be able to hit the broad side of a barn if he tried real hard. LOL

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#17636 Jun 14, 2010
Snow Bunny_ wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, it was his name. Are you really that dumb? What page number in the book does it say that? You are only repeating what you've "heard"..lol
What you say is a lie..if not, then what page it it on?
PROVE that he said that...because he didn't:)
Spell checker? Sorry, but I don't need the COMPUTER to make me feel smart:) REMEMBER it's the computer doing the work, not you:)
lol
Go slow and think this out.
If his name was Barry Soetoro at birth, and he changed it, as he said to honor his Father, his original certificate couldn't have the name Barrack Obama on it, it would have said Barry Soetoro. If you don't care to read his books, that is your business, just don't expect everyone to do your reading.

“DC Police Complaint #T14002751”

Since: Nov 08

Swift Water,NY

#17637 Jun 14, 2010
budd wrote:
<quoted text>
This is true, but it wont change the FACT that Obama is the 44th POTUS. For that, your going to need some law to back up your cockamamie theories.
Let's see it janitor.
BTW I like the new nickname....it suits you.
Not a theory. Fact.
18USC,Part 1,Chapter 115,Sec.2381

Janitors Clean up. I clean up corruption in the Government.

“DC Police Complaint #T14002751”

Since: Nov 08

Swift Water,NY

#17638 Jun 14, 2010
budd wrote:
<quoted text>
You are! Obama is POTUS. That is a fact.
The BOGUS POTUS.

“DC Police Complaint #T14002751”

Since: Nov 08

Swift Water,NY

#17639 Jun 14, 2010
Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>
The only way that Obama's mother's age would be at issue if he were born in Kenya. Title 8 U.S.C.§ 1401 provides:“The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:.....“(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years ….” Prior to its amendment in 1986, the section had required residence of 10 total years, at least 5 of which were after attaining the age of 14. See §301(a)(7), 66 Stat. 236.
As you know there has not been one iota admissible document showing that he in fact was born in Kenya.
That refers to naturalization.
Obama has never BEEN "Natural-Born" and can never be so.
BOTH his parents were NOT Americans.
There is ONE position,the Presidency,where STRICT restriction is placed on the person entering into it.

He/She MUST have been born IN the USA AND have TWO American "Citizen" parents. Obama has not met BOTH requirements and perhaps neither.

“DC Police Complaint #T14002751”

Since: Nov 08

Swift Water,NY

#17640 Jun 14, 2010
Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>
The United States Constitution must be read in light of the existing English Common Law.
Justice Joseph Story noted that: "[t]he whole structure of our present jurisprudence stands upon the original foundations of the common law,.” Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, pg. 65 (1833).
In Smith v. Alabama, 124 US 465, 478 (1888)." Id. at 654-55. The court explored in detail the jus soli English common law rule of Calvin's Case, concluding as follows:
"It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a NATURAL-BORN SUBJECT, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established." (emphsis added)
Chief Justice Taft stated in Ex Parte Grossman, 267 U.S. 76, 108-09 (1925).
"The language of the Constitution cannot be interpreted safely except by reference to the common law and to British institutions as they were when the instrument was framed and adopted. The statesmen and lawyers of the Convention who submitted it to the ratification of the Convention of the Thirteen States, were born and brought up in the atmosphere of the common law, and thought and spoke in its vocabulary. They were familiar with other forms of government, recent and ancient, and indicated in their discussions earnest study and consideration of many of them, but when they came to put their conclusions into the form of fundamental law in a compact draft, they expressed them in terms of the common law, confident that they could be shortly and easily understood."
As such, the drafters, of the Constitution understood the English Common Law meaning of "Natural Born Citizen" and thereby inserted this phrase in the Constitution knowing that anyone born in the United States regardless as to the citizenship status of his or her parents would be eligible to be president.
Court of Chancery, State of New York, Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sand. Ch. 583, 656 (1844)
"SUPPOSE A PERSON SHOULD BE ELECTED PRESIDENT WHO WAS NATIVE BORN, BUT OF ALIEN PARENTS, COULD THERE BE ANY REASONABLE DOUBT THAT HE WAS ELIGIBLE UNDER THE CONSTITUTION? I THINK NOT. The position would be decisive in his favor, that by the rule of the common law, in force when the Constitution was adopted, he is a citizen.(emphasis added)
A person born of alien parents is disqualified to be POTUS.
State courts interpretations of the meaning of the Constitution are not controlling.SCOTUS interprets the meaning of Federal Constitutional law.

“DC Police Complaint #T14002751”

Since: Nov 08

Swift Water,NY

#17641 Jun 14, 2010
Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>
So this is your legal summation with applicable Points and Authorities?
When and IF,YOU are ever the presiding Judge in the matter of the Eligibility of Obama to be POTUS and I am the Prosecutor,I will MAKE a full summation.

“DC Police Complaint #T14002751”

Since: Nov 08

Swift Water,NY

#17642 Jun 14, 2010
Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>
Under your theory of who is natural born citizens, anyone who is born to permanent residents in the United States are not natural born citizens and must go through the natiionalization process. As such your Michelle Malkin is an illegal alien since she never went through the naturalization process due to the simple fact that she was born in the United States while her parents were here on student visas from the Philipines.
As to the term "Native American" it isn't a legal term. 8 U.S.C. 1401 provides in relevant part:
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
Permanent residents are not citizens if they were not naturalized.
If one's parents are naturalized americans,that satisfies the requirement of Jus Sanguinis. A presidential/vice-presidential candidate must also have been born in the US.

“DC Police Complaint #T14002751”

Since: Nov 08

Swift Water,NY

#17643 Jun 14, 2010
Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>
Some of them would be considered deists and they would be condemned by today's "christians" as being hetrodox.
If Christ were here there is one thing he would not be -- a Christian.
-- Mark Twain, Notebook
Mark Twain?

Christ believed in himself.That makes him a Christian-Robert Laity

“DC Police Complaint #T14002751”

Since: Nov 08

Swift Water,NY

#17644 Jun 14, 2010
Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>
Where do you get the idea that "both parents of a President must be Americans?"
I hope it is not the Supreme Court opinion in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) since facts in the case had nothing to do with the term "Natural Born Citizen" in the Constitution. In fact, the issue in the case was whether a woman who was a citizen of the United States had a right to vote under the privilege clause of the 14th Amendment.
Chief Justice Waite, speaking for the court, held that the "Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one,(Id. at 178)" unless specifically mentioned in the 15th Amendment where it provides: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, or by any State, on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."
In his opinion, Chief Justice Waite mentioned in passing the following language that was not germane to the case by noting:
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. Id 167-168
The above language is a typical example what is refer to as Obiter Dictum or in other words “words of an opinion entirely unnecessary for the decision of the case.” Black’s Law Dictionary, p. 967 (Fifth Ed. 1979). When there is Obiter Dictum language in an opinion that part of the opinion that contained Obiter Dictum language has no precedent value since it was unnecessary in the court’s decision.
In the Minor case, nowhere in the opinion was the status of Virginia Minor citizenship discussed. Moreover, there was no discussion as to the citizenship status of Minor’s PARENTS. In fact, the court noted “She has always been a citizen from her birth, and entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizenship.” Id. at 170.
Therefore, Chief Justice Waite’s gratuitous comment about “natural born citizenship” had absolutely nothing to do with the decision of the court. In fact,
he himself remarked “For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts [citizens children born without reference to citizenship of their parents].” Id at 168 (emphasis added).
As such, the holding the Minor case is that citizenship does not itself confer the right to vote under the Privilege Clause of the 14th Amendment.
You "hope" it is not this case? Did I cite the case?
I note that the Judge still referred to the widely accepted legal premise that persons born in a nation of citizen parent(S)(with an S for plural)are themselves citizens.

That is what I said. BOTH "Parents" (with an "s") must be citizens of the USA and he/she must be born here.

Orbiter dicta or not,those ARE the rquirements to BE POTUS,with regard to being a "natural-Born" American.

“DC Police Complaint #T14002751”

Since: Nov 08

Swift Water,NY

#17645 Jun 14, 2010
Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah yes Vattlels. He may have infuence as to international law but as to Natural Born Citizenship/Subject he had no influence with the founding fathers since the founding fathers relied on the English Common Law concept of Natural Born Subject which was articulated by Chief Justice Coke in the Calvin's Case in 1608.
Moreover, not one single federal decision has ever cited Vattels as persuasive authority on natural born citizenship in the United States
SCOTUS has never defined the term. It is widely accepted that one country must have sole jurisdiction of the child,the child must have two parents (with an "s") who are BOTH citizens and the child MUST be born in the nation to be considered a "Natural-Born" citizen.

One can NOT be under dual jurisdiction as Obama was at birth.

“DC Police Complaint #T14002751”

Since: Nov 08

Swift Water,NY

#17646 Jun 14, 2010
On the Obama eligibility issue:

"We are evading that issue"-Clarence Thomas,SCOTUS Justice to Congress,2010

Obama asks his attorneys in 2005 to find a way that he could "Evade" the eligibility requirements of the Constitution:
http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/6507-4...

“DC Police Complaint #T14002751”

Since: Nov 08

Swift Water,NY

#17647 Jun 14, 2010
Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>
LTC Lakin?
LTC Lakin's attempts to challenge Obama's orders will fail under the political question doctrine.
The judge in LTC Lakin's court martial will not allow the defendant to go on a fishing expedition through discovery to find out if Obama is constitutionally eligible to be president. The judge will denied his request as being immaterial and irrelevant to his violation of Article 92 (FAILURE TO OBEY ORDER OR REGULATION) and furthermore, the judge will ruled as a matter of law that the deployment order was lawful. See Manual of Court Martial (2008 Edition) Paragraph 14 (2)(a) page IV-19
Upon his conviction for violating Article 92 and after exhausting his administrative remedies in the military court system, LTC Lakin will file a petition
for Habeas Corpus in the federal district court arguing that court martial judge violated his Fifth Amendment rights in refusing to permit him to discover whether or not Obama is constitutionally eligible to be president .
The federal district court will affirm LTC Lakin’s conviction and following established Supreme Court precedent in Baker v. Carr (Political Question doctrine) it will also hold that LTC Lakin’s discovery of Obama’s eligibility is barred by the Political Question doctrine.
The federal district court will rely on the language in the United States v. New, 448 F.3d 403 (D.C. Cir. 2006) decision in which the New court observed:
"[N]othing gives a soldier "authority for a self-help remedy of disobedience." 55 M.J. at 108 (quoting United States v. Johnson, 45 M.J. 88, 92 (C.A.A.F.1996)). Two of the canonical factors from Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 217, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962), "an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made," 369 U.S. at 217, 82 S.Ct. 691, and "the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question," id., are uniquely powerful when the context is a soldier's use of the "self-help remedy of disobedience." Also supporting a broader sweep to the political question doctrine in military trials is the point made by Judge Effron in his concurring opinion — that the doctrine "ensur[es] that courts-martial do not become a vehicle for altering the traditional relationship between the armed forces and the civilian policymaking branches of government" by adjudicating the legality of political decisions. Id. at 110. Thus we find no defect in the Court of Appeals' application of the political question doctrine, even though that application might be highly contestable in another context. Compare Campbell v. Clinton, 203 F.3d 19, 24-28 (D.C.Cir.2000)(Silberman, J., concurring)(finding that no "judicially discoverable and manageable standards" exist for application of the Constitution's war powers clause or the War Powers Resolution, 50 U.S.C.§ 1541 et seq.), with id. at 37-41 (Tatel, J., concurring)(concluding that such standards do exist). Given the threat to military discipline, we have no difficulty accepting the military courts' reliance on the doctrine. Id.
As such, the judge of LTC Lakin’s court martial will ruled as a matter of law that the deployment orders were lawful and under the Political Question doctrine, LTC Lakin’s attempts to disprove Obama’s eligibility is immaterial and irrelevant.
I have petitioned the Court-Martial I.O.Driscoll for permission to file an Amicus.

It is simply determined that Obama is NOT the President.
He did not have TWO American parents.

Furthermore,he has constitutionally been found guilt of sedition and fraud along with Columbia University and is therefore,inter alia,prohibited from being president:
18USC Part1,Chapter 115,Sec.2381

“DC Police Complaint #T14002751”

Since: Nov 08

Swift Water,NY

#17648 Jun 14, 2010
http://americangrandjury.org/public/

Also see:
Clinton v. Jones,520 US681-"A sitting president is NOT immune from prosecution for acts committed before taking office".

Obama has a pending ICE Charge against him that he is an Illegal Alien as well as federal charges of treason and fraud.

“DC Police Complaint #T14002751”

Since: Nov 08

Swift Water,NY

#17649 Jun 14, 2010
Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem facing LTC Lakin's counsel in attempting to use discovery in determing whether or not a sitting President is a natural born citizen is that under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) the lawfulness of order is a question of law to be determined by the military judge. Manual for Military Court Martials (2008 Edition) Article 92(c)(2)(a)(ii)htt p://www.jag.navy.m il/documents/mcm20 08.pdf
Moreover, since the issue of lawfulness of an order is to be decided by the military judge presiding a court martial, the military jury in the court martial who is the trier of the facts will not hear LTC Lakin's explanation and/or motives as to why he violated the order. See United States v. New, 448 F.3d 403 (D.C. Cir. 2008)(accused court martial for failing to follow order in wearing United Nations insignia — a shoulder patch and a field cap — to his basic uniform)
As such, LTC Lakin’s beliefs as to the illegitimacy of Obama’s presidency as a defense to his disobedience to an military order is irrelevant since his belief is not an element of the offense he is charged. United States v. Huet-Vaughn, 43 M.J. 105 (1995)
An excellant observation regarding the legality of deployment orders is Judge Effron's concurring opinion in United States v. New 55 M.J. 95 (C.A.A.F 2001) where he noted:
“The political question doctrine serves a particularly important function in military trials by ensuring that courts-martial do not become a vehicle for altering the traditional relationship between the armed forces and the civilian policymaking branches of government. Since the days of George Washington, America has demonstrated that military professionalism is compatible with civilian control of the armed forces. With few exceptions, American military personnel have been faithful to the concept that once their advice has been tendered and considered, they are duty-bound to implement whatever policy decisions the civilian leadership may make...... There is nothing in the more than 2 centuries of our history as a Nation that suggests courts-martial should be empowered to rule on the propriety of deployment orders as a matter of either constitutional or military law.“
As such, a judge at LTC lakin's court martial will deem the defendant's request for discovery as immaterial and irrelevant as to the defendant's being charged in violating Article 92 (FAILURE TO OBEY ORDER OR REGULATION) of the UCMJ.
Orders given by unlawful civilian authority are null and void.
There is significant eveidence,currently being ignored by misprisioners of treason and fraud,that Obama is NOT legal civilian authority and that LTC Lakin's command has been usurped. See Article 99.

“DC Police Complaint #T14002751”

Since: Nov 08

Swift Water,NY

#17650 Jun 14, 2010
Boycott Sanctuary Cities wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a pathetic liar
The case has NEVER been thrown out for the reasons you LIE about
Back up your lies with proof
you pathetic moron.
SHow us the case that was thrown out for the reasons you state
JUST ONE CASE you liar
Why do you twitiots have to make up lies ?
Truth too difficult ?
,,I,,ibtards
lol
The issue is being Evaded by the courts by claiming "lack of standing",a stance that is unconstitutionally being proffered by the courts.

On the merits,Obama would have been OUT on his treasonous ass years ago.

Clarence Thomas recently told congress that SCOTUS was "evading that issue".

Reportedly,Obama PAID his attorneys in 2005 for them to find a loophole in order to "evade" the "Natural-Born" requirement to be POTUS. That is a felony,since he does NOT meet said requirement.
http://open.gov.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/6507-...

“DC Police Complaint #T14002751”

Since: Nov 08

Swift Water,NY

#17651 Jun 14, 2010
Furthermore,Thomas's statement that SCOTUS is evading an issue of National Security,the bona-fides of our bogus POTUS,amounts to a confession that the SCOTUS Nine are misprisioners of treason.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

US Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Thousands of demonstrators protest Trump in Atl... 1 min ThomasA 2,041
News Sessions' lies 6 min spud 10
News Under Trump, ICE arrests soar for migrants with... 8 min Chicagoan by Birth 202
News Attorney General doesn't realize Hawaii is a state 11 min spud 320
News Tax Day marches aim to pressure Trump to releas... 16 min District10 308
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 24 min Chicagoan by Birth 240,357
News Obama meets with at-risk youth ahead of Chicago... 28 min spud 74
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 31 min Soetoro Sucked 1,521,967
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 33 min Limbertwig 265,214
News Americans have rendered their verdict on the fi... 42 min Retribution 97
News Will Islam Inherit the Earth? 1 hr Rabbeen Al Jihad 181
More from around the web