AFP ON THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION MARCH 16, 2009 • ISSUE 11 • AMERICAN FREE PRESS 3
What of his position in the UN? Is that High Treason, read the article from the following link:
http://www.infowars.com/has-president-obama-the-constitutional-lawyer-committed-open-treason/
When the president of the United States, Barack H. Obama accepted rotating status as chairman of the United Nations Security Council, he committed high treason… not only a direct violation of article 1 section 9 clause 8 of the Constitution for the United States of America, which states emphatically:
“No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States; and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall without consent of Congress accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”
DR. EDWIN VIEIRA, Ph.D., J.D
http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin84.htm
Obama must stand up now or step down
The United States Justice Foundation
By Pat ShannanArmy Officers Challenge Authority of Commander-in-Chief
Pat Shannan is a correspondent for American Free Press.
Patriotic Americans have refused to let the presidential
birth certificate issue go away without
legitimate proof and truth. Now it has spilled
into the military ranks.Lt. Scott Easterling, a U.S. soldier on active duty in
Iraq, called President Obama an “impostor” in a statement
in which he challenged Obama eligibility to be
his commander in chief. He was then joined by another
active duty soldier who preferred not to go public.
Lt. Easterling wrote in a “To-Whom-It-May-Concern”
letter: “As an active-duty officer in the United
States Army, I have grave concerns about the constitutional
eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to hold the
office of president of the United States. He has
absolutely refused to provide to the American public
his original birth certificate, as well as other documents
which may prove or disprove his eligibility. In fact, he
has fought every attempt made by concerned citizens in
their effort to force him to do so.”Lt. Easterling had learned of the legal challenge by
California attorney Orly Taitz, who is working on a
series of legal cases to uncover Obama’s birth records
and any other documents that might reveal whether or
not Obama is constitutionally qualified to sit in the
Oval Office.Next, a high ranking retired officer threw his hat in
the judicial ring, demanding that Obama prove his eligibility
to be president. Maj. Gen. (ret.) Carroll D.
Childers has submitted a similar statement saying that
he just wants the truth and, as one subject to recall, does
not want to answer to an unlawful commander-in-chief.
“I agree to be a plaintiff in the legal action to be
filed by Orly Taitz, Esq. in a petition for a declaratory
judgment that Barack Hussein Obama is not qualified
to be president of the U.S., nor to be commander in
chief of the U.S. armed forces, in that I am or was a
sworn member of the U.S. military (subject to recall),”
he wrote.If recalled, Childers said he would be unable to follow
any orders given by a constitutionally unqualified
commander in chief, since by doing so “I would be subject
to charges of aiding and abetting fraud and committing
acts of treason.”Obama spokesmen have described such statements
as “garbage” but have refused to show any evidence to
the contrary. “Why not just produce the birth certificate
and end the debate?” say a fast-growing group of
doubting detractors.Taitz said other legal cases questioning Obama’s eligibility
filed by members of the military mostly have
included retired officers, and courts several times have
ruled they don’t have standing to issue their challenge.
(Several of the cases have involved emergency
appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court in which justices
have declined to hear arguments. Among the cases
turned down without a hearing at the high court have
been petitions by Philip Berg, Cort Wrotnowski, Leo
Donofrio and Taitz.)Easterling, however, is subject to enemy fire and
certainly would have a reason to need to know the legitimacy
of his orders, she argued.The multiple suits and non-response have raised
many other questions, none complicated. For instance,
does Obama possess a driver’s license? A Social
Security number? A passport? If he did not produce a
birth certificate what sort of proof of citizenship did he
use?In a draconian legal effort to stonewall the issue
totally, a high-powered team of Los Angeles attorneys
representing Obama in his effort to keep his birth certificate,
college records and passport documents concealed
from the public has suggested there should be
“monetary sanctions” against a lawyer whose clients
have brought a complaint alleging Obama doesn’t qualify
for the Oval Office under the Constitution’s demand
for a “natural born” citizen in that post.While the Supreme Court, as expected,By Pat Shannan and AFP Staff ISSUE 51 December 22, 2008
declined to hear the first challenge to
Barack Obama’s constitutional qualifications
for president, the fight is far from
over. More challenges are making their way to the high
court. If, as likely, they, too, are rejected, more cases
will be filed as Obama, with a Democrat-controlled
Congress, imposes his legislative agenda on the
American people.When the high court, without comment, refused to
accept the first case on December 5, it effectively upheld
a lower court ruling that citizens have “no standing” to
raise the issue because they cannot claim injury. (A citizen
is “not injured” if his president is unqualified.)
But when “President” Obama pushes through, for
example, a tax increase to “redistribute (your) wealth,”
a citizen can have “standing” because of the “injury” to
his wallet. Many Americans plan to make this case.
It only takes four of nine justices to force a full hearing
and ruling by the Supreme Court. This means that
at least one of the four “conservatives” failed to vote to
hear the case: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices
Antonin Scalia, ClarenceThomas and SamuelAlito.All
the justices will be receiving mail from outraged patriots.They do read their mail.
It is possible that three justices wanted a full hearing.
The court rarely allows the public to know such things.
In refusing to accept the case, the court said only that,
“The application for stay addressed to Justice (Clarence)
Thomas and referred to the court is denied.” The
court is historically mute about its divisions. The decision
in 1954 to integrate the public schools was
announced as “unanimous.”Years later, as justices died
and memoirs were published, it was learned that some
justices dissented, but agreed to have it called “unanimous”
to avoid dividing the nation further.There is hope that, ultimately, the Supreme Court
will accept the case and force Obama to produce an
unedited birth certificate. The least outcome will be the
education of millions of Americans that “President”
Obama is unqualified because he is not a “natural-born
citizen” as required by the Constitution.On what may be the greatest constitutional crisis
since 1861, the mainstream media have continued to
dodge Obama’s “natural-born American” issue as deftly
as he has dodged it himself and have managed to
keep the controversy out of the minds of the very large
majority of Americans by simply ignoring the developments
of the story for six months. Except for an occasional
letter to the editor and (only recently) a few
biased columnists distorting the facts and belittling the
“conspiracy theorists” for pursuing such “folly,” both
print and electronic media have been virtually silent on
the matter.Obama Status Remains in Limbo
Above, a young Barack and his mother. Independent researchers
are still insisting—based upon the testimony of family
members—that baby Barack was born in Kenya and that his
mother had already given up her U.S. citizenship, willingly
accepting British citizenship at the price of her own U.S. citizenship.
Researchers say she whisked baby Barack to
Hawaii, where she completed a registration of live birth
implying the baby had been born in the United States.
Unless he was born in the United States, he
cannot be a “natural-born” American citizen
and cannot, therefore, be president.
At upper right, the Obama “registration of live
birth,” a far cry from a valid U.S. birth certificate.
Lower right, Obama participates in an Islamic
ceremony while living in Indonesia as a young
man.
BARACK OBAMA’S ELIGIBILITY December 22, 2008 • Issue 51 • AMERICAN FREE PRESS 13
WorldNet Daily (WND), an Internet news service,
reported that more than 60,000 “urgent overnight” letters
and e-mails were delivered to the court from the
WND website subscribers alone, asking that this case
be heard, lest an alien be illegally ensconced in the
White House.Unlike the Philip Berg suit filed in federal court in
August and later stonewalled, as previously reported by
AFP, Leo Donofrio, a retired New Jersey attorney who
identifies himself as a “citizen’s advocate,” did not
challenge Obama’s claim of being born in Hawaii. His
suit against New Jersey’s Secretary of State NinaWells
says it made no difference considering the British citizenship
of Obama’s father.“Do you understand that my suit is not about
Obama’s birthplace?” Donofrio asked AFP. “The birth
certificate issue as an ancillary matter in that the person
I sued, the New Jersey secretary of state, should
have, at the very least, requested to see Obama’s birth
certificate. But that is not a core issue in my case. And
I have publicly criticized those who brought lawsuits
but failed to nail the main issue—that Obama can
never be a “natural born” citizen—even if he was born
on theMall in D.C. with two million witnesses—since,
at the time of his birth, he was born as a British citizen/
subject.“Despite how the media distort it, my lawsuit is
challenging Obama’s eligibility on the fact that he has
admitted he was a British citizen ‘at birth.’ His own
web site told me so. And FactCheck.org backed it up
with their analysis of Britain’s NationalityAct of 1948.”
News people who have cited FactCheck.org as a
“nonpartisan” source should know that the same source
has confirmed that Obama was a British citizen “at
birth” through his father.The New Jersey suit firmly argues that John McCain
was not eligible to be president, either, and Donofrio has
handled McCain’s decision to run—and the Senate’s
faux resolution saying he could run—with harsh treatment.
Donofrio said, just as AFP did earlier this year,
that McCain is not a natural-born citizen since he was
born in Panama and, despite popular belief and the
Senate’s sanitizing, the military base there was not on
U.S. soil (as per the Department of State ForeignAffairs
Manual 1116.1-4(c)). However, the Supreme Court
ruled in 1964 that Sen. Barry Goldwater, Republican
presidential nominee, was eligible even though Arizona
was a territory, not a state, when he was born.
Should the Electoral College somehow be convinced
to reject Obama and installMcCain a whole new
can of worms could be opened, now that the legal doors
would have sprung wide. Should they not, which is far
more likely, then legalists have already pointed out that
until his “natural-born” position is ascertained, every
executive order, veto, pardon, and congressional
approval that he signs can be legally challenged by “We
the People.”Donofrio was questioning Obama’s citizenship because
the former Illinois senator, whose mother was
from Kansas, was born in Hawaii and his father was a
Kenyan native and therefore a British national. Therefore,
Donofrio argues, Obama’s dual citizenship does not
make Obama “a natural-born citizen” as required by
Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution.The fact that
he also became a citizen of Indonesia, and became
“Barry Soetoro” at age six via his mother’s next marriage,
further muddied the legal waters.Following the rejection of Donofrio’s suit by New
Jersey’s courts, Justice David Souter had rejected a petition
that asked the court to prevent the meeting of the
Electoral College on Dec. 15, which will certify Obama
as the first half-black/half-white president.
In a highly unusual move, Justice Clarence Thomas
had asked his colleagues on the court to consider the
request of Leo Donofrio. This is unusual because it is
outside the unwritten protocol for one justice to attempt
to trump another, and should it happen, the court almost
never accepts it. Nevertheless, the high court’s only
black brought the matter to his colleagues as a result of
the writ that was filed by Donofrio, who had discovered
under Rule 22, the matter can be submitted to another
justice for consideration.Donofrio’s choice of Thomas may have been a touch
of genius. Not only did it remove any potential charge
of “racism” by the Obama backers, but Donofrio
remembered that when Obama was on the campaign
trail and was asked which, if any, Supreme Court justice
he would not have appointed, he replied, “Clarence
Thomas.” Donofrio knew that Thomas would harbor no
bias in favor of Obama, even though they are both of
African descent.However, while it was enough to get the consideration
to a private conference of the justices, it was all
for naught when they said “No” to certiorari without
comment.Some are saying that Donofrio’s case is off-target
and that the real issue is where Obama really was born,
and because of the video testimony of Obama’s relatives
swearing they were present at his birth in
Mombasa, Kenya, there is great uncertainty (and no
proof yet) that he was born in Hawaii. If Obama was
born in Hawaii, then all those proud-as-can-be relatives
of his in Kenya are lying.As mainstream America sits, those who have pursued
the truth are inflamed. A letter to the editor of
Phoenix’s Arizona Republic said in part:
The issue of whether Obama is constitutionally
eligible to become president of the United
States is the most important political issue of this
century. Ultimately it will determine whether the
Constitution of the United States of America will
ever again be respected as the supreme law of the
land. It is not inconceivable that this issue will
determine whether our 232-year experiment in
self-government will disintegrate in civil conflict.
If Obama does not prove his birthplace with
unquestionable veracity, he will not be considered
president by a very large and very angry segment
of American society. If this issue is swept under
the rug, a lot of people are not going to feel like
playing nice.
