Showing posts with label John McCain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John McCain. Show all posts

Monday, November 30, 2009

See No, Hear No, Speak No Obama Ineligibility

The view of Beckwith at The Obama File
The Biggest Political Cover-Up In American History

The three enablers of Obama's usurpation of the Office of the President of the United States in violation of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.

The Congress will not look at or investigate the merits of the charges. The Courts will not hear in a trial [on] the merits of the charges. And the Main Stream Media will not talk about the merits of the charges and discuss the Constitutional issues involved with the American people. Their ignoring the questions and concerns of the People in this matter endangers our liberty by demonstrating that those in power, once in power feel they do not have to listen to the People.

Obama, the Putative U. S. President, was born a Kenyan citizen and British subject governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 -- a fact he admits to at the bottom of this page. Obama is still a British Protected Person and/or a British subject to this day.

How can a person who was born a British subject be considered a "natural born" citizen of the USA?

Simple answer -- he can't. At the top of this page, in the big blue box, Obama's own campaign identifies him as a "native [born]" citizen. They know. It's been there all the time.

This situation was created when both major political parties ran ineligible candidates, who were not "natural born" citizens. Obama was ineligible because his father was a foreigner (Jus sanguinis), and McCain was ineligible because he was born in a foreign country (Jus soli). The U.S. Constitution, applicable case law and historical and legal precedent have been ignored for political expediency.

We are now witnessing the biggest political cover-up in American history.
h/t: Beckwith, Bob R.

Friday, January 16, 2009

Zapem: '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.

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 Clinton.

ABCNews.com 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.

1 . SENATE RESOLUTION 511–RECOGNIZING THAT JOHN SIDNEY MCCAIN III, IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN — Senate - April 10, 2008
2 . REPORTS OF COMMITTEES — Senate - April 24, 2008
3 . SUBMISSION OF CONCURRENT AND SENATE RESOLUTIONS — Senate - April 10, 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
Sources:

http://thomas.loc.gov
(r:110)

←→Calendar No. 715
110th CONGRESS
2d Session
S. RES. 511
RESOLUTION
Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=sr110-511

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-simple-resolution.htm

© "Zapem," of Zapem's Blog

The views and statements expressed by Investigating Obama contributors, and in quotations and citations, are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of Investigating Obama and Arlen Williams

Sunday, December 21, 2008

L.A. Times Deletes the Lead about Schwarzenegger & Presidency, After Drudge, Free Republic, I.O. Feature it; Could it be... Obama?

Los Angeles Times caught red-handed

2nd Update, Monday 12/22, 4:02am CT

This entry was formerly entitled, "Elect Schwarzenegger President? Obama Says Yes We Can! Dear L.A. Times..."
It was comprised of the letter shown below, which I also emailed to the Los Angeles Times, yesterday evening, in response to their Web article, "Schwarzenegger reveals tricks of the trade on '60 Minutes.'" I had found their story via Free Republic. Then, something very peculiar happened. Here is the story of the story.

After posting and sending the email, I found from a comment to this post, by Ted, that the very same L.A. Times article was featured in Drudge Report, entitled "Schwarzenegger: I Would Like To Be President!" And then, later in the evening -- poof! The lead disappeared! All references to Schwarzenegger not being a natural born citizen, thus not eligible for the U.S. Presidency were deleted. Funny how such a thing can happen, eh?

Was it because of the implications this has, at such a sensitive time -- what with cases before the Supreme Court clearly showing Obama to be a fictitious candidate, not a natural born Citizen at all? And with Congress yet to certify the vote? You can click the image above to enlarge it and see the article before it was so drastically edited. Then, click the image at the left, to see what it became, after the Drudge - FR - I.O., etc. hub-ub began to bubble.

Below is the initial I.O. post, the open letter to the L.A. Times and then my first update, when I learned of the redaction and before learning from Ted that Drudge ha
d linked to the story. That is when the big picture came into focus.

<<<<<<<<<<<<>I.O.<>>>>>>>>>>>>

Dear L.A. Times Editors and Michael Rothfeld,

Sorry, but something that's getting way anachronistic showed up today in your article, "Governor reveals tricks of the trade on '60 Minutes.'" You wrote there that Gov. Schwarzenegger wants to be able to run for president but he can't, because he "is not a 'natural born citizen' of the United States, as required by the Constitution."

Hey, not to worry. I mean, if Congress and the Supreme Court allow Barack Obama to be our next president, next month, then the way is free and clear! You see, his father, Barack Obama I, was a Kenyan and a subject of the United Kingdom. He even passed on his citizenship to Barack II. The sites that your colleagues in the media defer to about Obama confess to it: Annenberg's factcheck.org and Obama's own fightthesmears.com.

To be a natural born Citizen, according to Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution, one must be born in United States territory and his parents must be U.S. Citizens. That is what the term meant to the Constitution's framers and therefore continues to mean, to honest people. You see, they wanted to do what they reasonably could, to assure that a true blue American would control our military -- one with no other allegiances at all, ever.

But, the joke is, John McCain was never legitimate for the office either, since he was born in Colon, Republic of Panama. And what's really ripe is, five states had a Nicaraguan on their presidential ballots: Roger Calero. Do you think it's a fad -- unconstitutional presidential candidates -- "the new black?" Over 120,000,000 American voters were presented a pair of fictitious candidates by the two parties that control our politics. Isn't that funny?

Please issue a correction and let your readers know the Constitution is becoming even more obsolete -- so all things are now possible! I trust the California governor may be pleased. Arnold in 2008! Maybe eventually he'll run against Vladimir? Mahmoud?

There's a whole world of possibilities, with our "Citizen of the World" at the White House door. Spread the word!

Regards,
Arlen Williams

PS: You could read about this, here -- and there is a whole incinerator-full, here.

ht: FReeper, curth

<<<<<<<<<<<<>I.O.<>>>>>>>>>>>>

1st Update, Monday 12/22, 1:20am CT

Since the L.A. Times article was excerpted in FReerepublic.com and written about here, it has been drastically edited. All references to Schwarzenegger's presidential ambition have been eliminated from it. Here is what the article used to say (and I've saved it in a "screen print" and posted the image file, below):
By Michael Rothfeld
4:46 PM PST, December 21, 2008
Reporting from Sacramento -- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger hasn't said whether he would pursue another job in politics after his final term ends in two years. But there's at least one position he might be interested in, if he were eligible for it: president.

"Yeah, absolutely," Schwarzenegger said in an interview airing tonight on "60 Minutes" on CBS, when asked by correspondent Scott Pelley if he would like to be president. "I think that I am always a person that looks for the next big goal. And I love challenges. I always set goals that are so high, that are almost impossible to achieve."

Budget standoff carries big risks, marginal rewards for California governor
Where Schwarzenegger goes, money follows
Gov. Schwarzenegger: Budget gap has increased by $3.6 billion

At the moment, becoming president would be impossible. Schwarzenegger, who was born in Austria and became a U.S. citizen in 1983, is not a "natural born citizen" of the United States, as required by the Constitution.

Talk of amending the Constitution was a hot topic in California and Washington during Schwarzenegger's first couple of years in office, when some of his backers waged an "Amend for Arnold" campaign and members of Congress proposed changing the rule. Schwarzenegger has said he would welcome such a move but has mostly joked about running when asked about it publicly.

Matt David, his spokesman, noted that on "60 Minutes," the governor was responding to a theoretical question.

In the interview, the governor also lifted the veil on some of his tricks of the trade, both in his cinematic and political careers. With Pelley lifting weights as they spoke, Schwarzenegger said that when he played a muscle man in the movies, he just pretended to lift 300 pounds. [excerpt; article continues]
Odd that they decided to redact the lead paragraphs from their Web article. Do you suppose they wanted to shorten it, to save you from scrolling?

(Click the picture, if you wish to expand it.)

Monday, December 15, 2008

Is the Judicial Review Allowed Only After the Electoral College Vote and Congressional Certification?

Is this why the Donofrio v. Wells (NJ) case is still "pending?" Is it only after the Electoral College votes and Congress certifies the election, that the Supreme Court believes it may take action regarding the eligibility of presidential candidates? The cases currently before the court, except for the Berg (PA) case, are versus state secretaries of state, not against Barack Obama, but perhaps that does not make a difference.

Is it similar to a prosecutor only allowed to prosecute after the crime and not before?

You may see this blog post, from Leo Donofrio's new hit thread, "Mother of all Conspiracy Theories, Obama has a Twin" (catchy tune, BTW).
Everyman Says:
December 14, 2008 at 2:32 pm

Yes, we have been betrayed by men… church-wise in the 60’s and maybe tomorrow, civil-wise by the SCOTUS;
Hell man, do you think you are any more protected from betrayal than our Saviour… take a long look at a crucifix… and remember his best friend Peter?

The only thing within your power is you… don’t betray yourself… know you are fighting the good fight and will continue to fight until you have satisfied yourself that you have done all that you can do to right the wrong… understand this…
if the case fails tomorrow that is not because you didn’t fight … if it dies tomorrow and you fail to continue to fight … you must answer to yourself and all those who have given their life to protect the constitution.

Oh you of little faith; so gifted in knowledge and talent to express your thoughts.
You have but to ask yourself have I done the best I could have done? … is there anything more I can do?
Perhaps the electoral must vote as directed in the following:
http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/100108.html#5
Judge Alsup wrote, “Mechanisms exist under the Twelfth Amendment and 3 U.S.C. 15 for any challenge to any candidate to be ventilated when electoral votes are counted, and the Twentieth Amendment provides guidance regarding how to proceed if a president elect shall have failed to qualify. Issues regarding qualifications or lack thereof can be laid before the voting public before the election and, once the election is over, can be raised as objections as the electoral votes are counted in Congress. Therefore, this order holds that the challenge presented by plaintiff is committed under the Constitution to the electors and the legislative branch, at least in the first instance. Judicial review � if any � should occur only after the electoral and Congressional processes have run their course.” Timing is everything… you maybe the only one able to raise an “objection”

Pity-party is over.
Regardless of what they say… you and I will Know the truth …and that makes all the difference.
You will call upon your Ancestors, for at this moment, YOU are the sole reason for Their existence.

And here, from the blog, Ballot Access News, Oct. 1, 2008, is the post about the McCain court case and the ruling of Judge Alsip.
McCAIN WINS BALLOT ACCESS LAWSUIT

On September 16, U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup ruled that John McCain should be on the California ballot. Robinson v Bowen, C08-3836, n.d. The plaintiff, a presidential elector candidate for Alan Keyes, had argued that McCain is not "natural-born". Judge Alsup said that McCain is "natural-born." He also said that even if a candidate does not meet the constitutional qualifications to be president, he or she should still be on the ballot.

Every time a minor party presidential candidate who does not meet the constitutional qualifications to be president tries to get on the ballot, and the matter goes to court, courts rule that the candidate should not be on the ballot. The two leading cases are Cleaver v Jordan, in which the California Supreme Court said that Eldridge Cleaver should not be on the 1968 California ballot, and Jenness v Brown, in which a U.S. District Court in Ohio said that Linda Jenness (Socialist Workers Party presidential candidate in 1972) should not be on the ballot. Both Cleaver and Jenness were under age 35. Unfortunately, neither decision is reported, although the briefs in Robinson v Bowen cited the Cleaver case.

Judge Alsup wrote, "Mechanisms exist under the Twelfth Amendment and 3 U.S.C. 15 for any challenge to any candidate to be ventilated when electoral votes are counted, and the Twentieth Amendment provides guidance regarding how to proceed if a president elect shall have failed to qualify. Issues regarding qualifications or lack thereof can be laid before the voting public before the election and, once the election is over, can be raised as objections as the electoral votes are counted in Congress. Therefore, this order holds that the challenge presented by plaintiff is committed under the Constitution to the electors and the legislative branch, at least in the first instance. Judicial review � if any � should occur only after the electoral and Congressional processes have run their course."

The party that most often nominates a presidential candidate, or a vice-presidential candidate, who does not meet the Constitutional qualifications, is the Socialist Workers Party, which has done this in 1972, 1980, 2004, and 2008. Each time the party used a stand-in who did meet the Constitutional qualifications (but only in those states which refuse to print an unqualified presidential candidate on the ballot). Each time except 1972, the party did not fight in court to place its actual nominee on the ballot. Perhaps, if the SWP or any other party nominates someone in 2012 who doesn't meet the Constitutional qualifications, the party can raise the issue in court again, this time depending on the Robinson v McCain precedent.

What exactly do you think is going on? The "comments" link works just fine. Was Justice Alsip (no disrespect intended, Judge) just conning here, finding an excuse to allow McCain on the ballot, while passing the buck?

Is this the view of proper procedure that the SCOTUS maintains?

Monday, December 8, 2008

Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz "Natural Born Citizen" Case Referred to Full Court by Justice Scalia (about Obama's foreign father)


Justice Scalia, by referring Wrotnowski v.
Bysiewicz to committee on December 12 may allow the Supreme Court to decide upon Barack Obama's status as a presidential candidate before the currently scheduled Electoral College election day, December 15.

This case is essentially similar to the case of Leo Donofrio, who assisted Connecticut resident, Cort Wrotnoski, in drafting it. According to Donofrio, the basis is very much the same (not essentially about the birth certificate, but regarding a foreign father) and it includes additional corroborative research and/or reasoning. Also, the history of this case is less problematic for the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) than the Donofrio case, due to a suspicious misfiling of the latter case by a New Jersey judge which may have provoked a question of standing before the Supreme Court.

My best suggestion for getting good interpretation of this is to visit Leo Donofrio's blog, where he has opined about Justice Scalia's potential thinking. Also, FreeRepublic.com, keyword: obamatruthfile (which will also likely include interesting discussion of numerous kinds). Also,
Plains Radio Network, Inc. forum and The Obama File, Latest News.

Wrotnowski and Donofrio may be interviewed tonight on the Plains Radio Network, to discuss today's actions, possibly at 7pm CT (I do not know, but this has been their habit).

See The Donofrio "Natural Born Citizen" Challenge, for an analysis of this case, which would disqualify Obama, based upon the foreign citizenship of his father (and disqualify McCain, based upon his birth outside of American territory). It has very weighty constitutional merit, by documented contemporaneous meaning of "natural born Citizen."

The Donofrio case was denied, this morning. I will be updating this Weblog, to help you give you a snapshot of where the entire process is.


John Jay's request of the "natural born Citizen" requirement
click image to enlarge | h/t: FReeper: BP2