Obama

[nChrist]

The bottom line is that the TRUTH is going to be exposed for ALL to see. The CRIMINAL and CIVIL CONSEQUENCES will be SUBSTANTIAL - RIGHTFULLY SO! NOBODY IS ABOVE THE LAW AND CONSTITUTION - ESPECIALLY NOT A SERVANT OF THE PEOPLE!

IN TERMS OF POWER - THE PEOPLE HAVE THE ULTIMATE POWER IN A FREE COUNTRY UNDER THE RULE OF LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION!

[Soldier4Christ]

Ky. elections officer:
Investigate eligibility
Refers matter for review
to state attorney general

An official in the office of Kentucky's elections chief has referred to state Attorney General Jack Conway for investigation the issue of Barack Obama's eligibility to be president.

In a letter to Conway, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Leslie A. Fugate noted the issue of "President Barack Obama's eligibility to be on the ballot in Kentucky."

"Because our office does not have investigative powers … we are referring the matter to your office," she wrote.

The letter followed a visit to elections officials by California attorney Orly Taitz, who is working through her Defend Our Freedoms Foundation on several court cases challenging Obama's eligibility.

A committee of concerned citizens accompanied Taitz to Fugate's office to ask that the eligibility issue be investigated.

(Story continues below)

          

There was no immediate word on the status of any investigative work that might be launched by investigators for Conway, the 49th attorney general for Kentucky, who was elected in 2007 and has made targeting cybercrimes a priority.

If a formal investigation actually is begun it apparently would be the first time the many lawsuit plaintiffs across the country would see a door opening to some answers about the murky circumstances surrounding Obama's eligibility to be president.

Among the typical responses to eligibility challenges WND has reported was a federal judge's dismissal of a case because the issue already had been "twittered."

Further, lawyers hired to defend against such cases also have begun threatening sanctions against plaintiffs' lawyers unless they agree voluntarily to leave the issue of eligibility unquestioned.

Questions about Obama's birth place were being raised even before he was elected. He had reported he was born in Honolulu, but because he has steadfastly refused to release a copy of his long-form birth certificate, which would put such questions to rest, dozens of lawsuits have been filed challenging his eligibility to serve as president under the Constitution's "natural born citizen" clause.

While many of the lawsuits have been dismissed, most have not been heard for reasons of jurisdiction and standing, rather than on the evidence and merit of the challenges.

So far, there have been two definitive statements on his eligibility, including one from an Obama campaign spokeswoman talking about the challenges who told WND, "All I can tell you is that it is just pure garbage."

The other is from Chiyome Fukino, the director of the Hawaiian Department of Health, who issued a statement, "I as Director of Health for the State of Hawaii, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures."

What is not said is significant. While the certificate on file is "in accordance with state policies and procedures," there's no affirmation that the document reflects a Hawaiian birth.

Nor is there any explanation for the image of the Hawaii state "certification of live birth" that has been posted by Obama on the Internet purporting to document his Hawaiian birth, even though Hawaiian procedures at the time allowed the document to be issued to parents of children not born in the state.

For example, why would an individual with a verified birth certificate also have a "certification of live birth?"

The questions raised over Obama's eligibility are all very simple: The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."

But getting the issue discussed has been a huge obstacle, and what courts have done several times, including once in a California case, is to schedule hearings on the issue on a date far beyond any reasonable expectation of having applicability, lawyers have said.

It was in his autobiography that Obama reported he was born in Honolulu, and the online "Certification of Live Birth" states that.

But when WND senior staff writer Jerome Corsi went to Hawaii, he was told any Obama records were sealed, and although they would be released if the person made the request, Obama simply has refused to do that.

Corsi also traveled to Kenya where he was also told records pertaining to Obama in Kenya were sealed.

There also have been no confirmed hospital records uncovered that would document his birth, and an investigator even cast doubt on whether the Obama family lived at the address listed in the newspaper announcements.

A woman who reportedly "remembered" Obama's birth and was quoted widely in support of his Hawaiian birth later explained to WND she had been told of the birth of a baby boy by an acquaintance who was a doctor who noted the mother's unusual name of Stanley, but she had no knowledge of the details.

According to much legal research, at the time of Obama's birth he could be a natural born citizen by being born in the United States, by being born to two U.S. citizen parents (not possible because of his father), or, if only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of the birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least 10 years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16.

The problem is, Obama's mother was only 18 when she gave birth, so his only apparent route to "natural born" citizenship status would have been to be born in Hawaii.

Some of the lawsuits that have been filed question whether Obama was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born. Further complicating the issue are the reports he was adopted by an Indonesia man during his childhood and moved to Indonesia and attended school there. There also are questions on what nation's passport he traveled to Pakistan.

Here is a partial listing and status update for some of the cases over Obama's eligibility:

    * New Jersey attorney Mario Apuzzo has filed a case on behalf of Charles Kerchner and others alleging Congress didn't properly ascertain that Obama is qualified to hold the office of president.

    * Philip J. Berg, a Pennsylvania Democrat, demanded that the courts verify Obama's original birth certificate and other documents proving his American citizenship. Berg's latest appeal, requesting an injunction to stop the Electoral College from selecting the 44th president, was denied.

    * Leo Donofrio of New Jersey filed a lawsuit claiming Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court but denied a full hearing.

    * Cort Wrotnowski filed suit against Connecticut's secretary of state, making a similar argument to Donofrio. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court, but was denied a full hearing.

    * Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes headlines a list of people filing a suit in California, in a case handled by the United States Justice Foundation, that asks the secretary of state to refuse to allow the state's 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office. The case is pending, and lawyers are seeking the public's support.

    * Chicago attorney Andy Martin sought legal action requiring Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle to release Obama's vital statistics record. The case was dismissed by Hawaii Circuit Court Judge Bert Ayabe.

    * Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan sought a temporary restraining order to stop the Electoral College vote in North Carolina until Barack Obama's eligibility could be confirmed, alleging doubt about Obama's citizenship. His case was denied.

    * In Ohio, David M. Neal sued to force the secretary of state to request documents from the Federal Elections Commission, the Democratic National Committee, the Ohio Democratic Party and Obama to show the presidential candidate was born in Hawaii. The case was denied.

    * In Washington state, Steven Marquis sued the secretary of state seeking a determination on Obama's citizenship. The case was denied.

    * In Georgia, Rev. Tom Terry asked the state Supreme Court to authenticate Obama's birth certificate. His request for an injunction against Georgia's secretary of state was denied by Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter.

    * California attorney Orly Taitz has brought a case, Lightfoot vs. Bowen, on behalf of Gail Lightfoot, the vice presidential candidate on the ballot with Ron Paul, four electors and two registered voters. She also has been working on several other cases.

In addition, other cases cited on the RightSideofLife blog as raising questions about Obama's eligibility include:

    * In Texas, Darrel Hunter vs. Obama later was dismissed.

    * In Ohio, Gordon Stamper vs. U.S. later was dismissed.

    * In Texas, Brockhausen vs. Andrade.

    * In Washington, L. Charles vs. Obama.

    * In Hawaii, Keyes vs. Lingle, dismissed.

[nChrist]

UM?

It appears that the TRUTH may be EXPOSED soon, and it's just about time.

All of the slickest and most accomplished con men and criminals wind up in PRISON. There's a HERD of FOLKS who need to go with him to the Iron Bar Hilton! There's plenty of room for all of them to serve maximum sentences on a variety of charges - INCLUDING THE RICCO ACT - ORGANIZED CRIME - and that includes forfeiture and seizure of all goods and money obtained in the violation of the law. Most tax payers will be more than willing to build high-max wings to accommodate them if more room is required. If something new is built, I want to request right now that it be called the Al Gore Wing. Obama is just a little fish, but there shouldn't be any plea agreements of any kind. Obama is just a bought and paid for puppet with the BIG BOYS pulling the strings on the sidelines that animate him. I think it's getting close to the LAST ACT! Maybe we can turn it into a politician ZOO, sell tickets, and get part of our money back.

[Soldier4Christ]

Those compounds that the government is building on some of the old Military bases would be a fairly good place for the zoo.

[nChrist]

Those compounds that the government is building on some of the old Military bases would be a fairly good place for the zoo.

Recent news indicates that the self-made RULING ELITE are beginning to get scared, and they should be scared! The RULE OF LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION applies to them also, and there are severe consequences that could be applied at any time. It would mean PRISON for them, and they should KNOW THIS BEYOND ANY DOUBT! All of the actions AGAINST THEM will be quite LEGAL - AFFORDING ALL CIVIL AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS - AND EVEN THE BEST ATTORNEYS! The BIG PROBLEM for them will be the hard public records of the CRIMES THEY HAVE COMMITTED!

[Soldier4Christ]

Yep, they're getting scared and that's the reason they are listing Military and other right wing people as terrorists. Yep they call many of us terrorists simply because we disagree with them breaking the law yet they refuse to call islamic terrorists what they really are. Those of us that are using the rule of law and are insisting that it be used by them will scare them badly. They will do all they can to prevent us from doing so.

[nChrist]

Yep, they're getting scared and that's the reason they are listing Military and other right wing people as terrorists. Yep they call many of us terrorists simply because we disagree with them breaking the law yet they refuse to call islamic terrorists what they really are. Those of us that are using the rule of law and are insisting that it be used by them will scare them badly. They will do all they can to prevent us from doing so.

If they are STUPID enough to start making FALSE ARRESTS, that will signal their downfall. The same will eventually be true of ACTING UNDER THE COLOR OF LAW - ONE THAT IS ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL ON ITS FACE! Most of them are attorneys, and they already know that many acts are illegal and Unconstitutional, so this makes their actions THAT MUCH WORSE. They aren't making errors - RATHER INTENTIONAL VIOLATIONS OF THE RULE OF LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION! One wouldn't need to be a first year law student to know about their WRONG-DOING, SO IT WILL BE A SLAM-DUNK WHEN THE STUFF FROM THE FAN HITS THE WALL! THEY KNOW THIS AND SO DOES A GROWING PERCENTAGE OF THE POPULATION. When Ultra-Left Liberals start asking Constitutional questions as lawyers, that should be more than a hint. THE BOTTOM LINE IS VERY SIMPLE:  WHAT THEY WANT TO DO CAN'T BE DONE WITHOUT THE PEOPLE SPECIFICALLY VOTING FOR IT AND GIVING UP THEIR RIGHTS! This isn't going to happen, so what they do will be illegal and Unconstitutional!

[Shammu]

Those compounds that the government is building on some of the old Military bases would be a fairly good place for the zoo.

I can think of a few elected officials that belong there....................

[nChrist]

I can think of a few elected officials that belong there....................

Can we vote on who gets to spend time in the APE SECTION?

[Soldier4Christ]

How Obama actually delayed pirate rescue
SEAL team deployment stalled 36 hours, hampered by limited rules of engagement

While Barack Obama is basking in praise for his "decisive" handling of the Somali pirate attack on a merchant ship in the India Ocean, reliable military sources close to the scene are painting a much different picture of the incident – accusing the president of employing restrictive rules of engagement that actually hampered the rescue of Capt. Richard Phillips and extended the drama at sea for days.

Multiple opportunities to free the captain of the Maersk Alabama from three young pirates were missed, these sources say – all because a Navy SEAL team was not immediately ordered to the scene and then forced to operate under strict, non-lethal rules of engagement.

They say the response duty office at the Pentagon was initially unwilling to grant an order to use lethal force to rescue Phillips. They also report the White House refused to authorize deployment of a Navy SEAL team to the location for 36 hours, despite the recommendation of the on-scene commander.

The White House also turned down two rescue plans offered up by the Seal commander on the scene and the captain of the USS Bainbridge.

The SEAL team operated under rules of engagement that required them to do nothing unless the hostage's life was in "imminent' danger.

In fact, when the USS Bainbridge dispatched a rigid-hull inflatable boat to bring supplies to the Maersk Alabama, it came under fire that could not be returned even though the SEAL team had the pirates in their sights.

Many hours before the fatal shots were fired, taking out the three young pirates, Phillips jumped into the Indian Ocean with the idea of giving the snipers a clear target. However, the SEAL team was still under orders not to shoot.

Hours later, frustrated by the missed opportunities to resolve the standoff, the commander of the Bainbridge and the captain of the Navy SEAL team determined they had operational authority to evaluate the risk to the hostage, and took out the pirates at the first opportunity – finally freeing Phillips.

[Soldier4Christ]

New law to 'manage' 8 million 'volunteers'
Obama signs huge expansion of youth brigades legislation

President Obama today signed into law the "GIVE Act," H.R. 1388, which massively expands the National Service Corporation and allocates to it billions of dollars, and one executive for the program now says it will allow for the "managing" of up to 8 or 9 million people.

WND has reported on plans to create the corps since Obama told a campaign stop in Colorado Springs last year he wants a "Civilian National Security Force" as big and as well-funded as the U.S. military.

The bill includes a "National Service Reserve Corps" whose members have completed a "term of national service," "training" and "not less than 10 hours of volunteering each year."

In a conference call with reporters on the plan, Alan Solomont, chairman of the Corporation for National and Community Service, said the 75,000 current members of the AmericCorps program "leverage" about 2.2 million volunteers, and the total of all such volunteers who are managed through the federal program total about 4 million.

He said the possibility with the expanded authorization and funding means that up to 8 or 9 million could be involved.

"If we triple the size of AmeriCorps from 75,000 members to 250,000 members annually, and if we – if those 75,000 AmeriCorps members are currently engaging 2.2. million volunteers a year, we could triple that to 6.6 million volunteers, 250,000 AmeriCorps members. So I think – you can do the math – I think that was about six or seven million, and then we have another half a million in Senior Corps and another million or so in Learn and Serve America [for children]," he said.

WND reported when Obama delivered his Colorado Springs mandate and a copy of the speech provided online apparently was edited to exclude Obama's specific references to the new force.

As the presidential campaign advanced last year, another video appeared that for many crystallized their concerns over such a "corps." It shows a squad of young men marching and shouting praises to Obama.

Congress also is considering a "public service academy, a four-year institution that offers a federally funded undergraduate education with a focus on training future public sector leaders."

Joseph Farah, founder and editor of WND, used his daily column first to raise the issue of a "national civilian force" and then to elevate it with a call to all reporters to start asking questions.

"If we're going to create some kind of national police force as big, powerful and well-funded as our combined U.S. military forces, isn't this rather a big deal?" Farah wrote. "I thought Democrats generally believed the U.S. spent too much on the military. How is it possible their candidate is seeking to create some kind of massive but secret national police force that will be even bigger than the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force put together?

"Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that? If not, why did he say it? What did he mean?" Farah wrote.

Solomont warned that people shouldn't be "fixated" on such apparently small numbers.

"We hope sooner or later this will be a part of every citizen's experience," he said.

WND reported when the bill began its quick trip through Congress, and its original language called for a study of how best to implement a mandatory national service program for citizens of the United States.

Later the language was dropped from that bill, only to appear at the same time in another legislative proposal. That plan, H.R. 1444, now is in committee.

The White House announced today that the focus of the program will be "clean energy, education, health care, veterans care, and economic opportunity."

Melody Barnes, director of the White House domestic policy council, confirmed the plan was in response to Obama's demand for civilian service during his campaign.

"That's certainly something that the president has spoken about. And he started his call around nation service publicly during the course of the campaign when he talked about the fact that government cannot be a solution to all of our problems, and we have to work together," she said.

Officials said there also are specific programs for seniors and children to become involved in the government operation, and the plan goes far beyond just working on planting trees or addressing storm damage.

"The bill provides the opportunity for a social innovation fund," said one official, which will allow the government to pursue changes.

The plan also raises First Amendment issues over its limitations on what various corps participants are allowed to do.

For example, it states those in an "approved national service position" may not try to influence legislation, engage in protests or petitions, take positions on union organizing, engage in partisan political activities, or, among other issues, be "engaging in religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship, maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship, or engaging in any form of proselytization."

Judi McLeod of Canada Free Press wrote that the bill simply would turn everyone into a community organizer.

"Everybody means the roughly seven million people called to public duty in the $6 billion National Service effort," she said. "But members pressed into the service of the one million-strong Youth Brigade, sanctioned by 'Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education (GIVE),' will have none of the freedoms of the community organizer who started it all.

"There's no room for God in Obama's long promised Youth Brigade, no room to protest, petition, to boycott or to support a strike, and loopholes to give its mandatory membership a pass," she wrote. "Obama's plan requires anyone receiving school loans, among others to serve at least three months as part of the brigade."

Gary Wood at Examiner.com said it's part of Obama's plan to set up national service. He noted the explanation offered by White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel: "It's time for a real Patriot Act that brings out the patriot in all of us. We propose universal civilian service for every young American. Under this plan, all Americans between the ages of 18 and 25 will be asked to serve their country by going through three months of basic training, civil defense preparation and community service."

Duane Lester, writing at All American Blogger, put into words the worst fears of opponents.

"Hitler knew that if you control the youth, you control the future. I wrote about him in 'The Threats to Homeschooling: From Hitler to the NEA.' As I noted in that article, Hitler said: 'The Youth of today is ever the people of tomorrow. For this reason we have set before ourselves the task of innoculating our youth with the spirit of this community of the people at a very early age, at an age when human beings are still unperverted and therefore unspoiled,'" he wrote.

[nChrist]

NO!

MR. OBAMA!

NO FOR ME!

NO FOR MY CHILDREN!

NO FOR MY GRANDCHILDREN!

We will volunteer for the Salvation Army, the Red Cross, our local Church, our local Children's Shelter, our local Women's shelter, our local food bank, and other causes we consider WORTHY for our volunteer time and effort. The government WILL NOT be mandating volunteer service for any member of my extended family.

BUTT OUT!

MR. OBAMA!

AND GOVERNMENT!

GOVERNMENT DOES NOT!

CHOOSE OR MANDATE!

OUR BELIEFS AND CAUSES!

[Soldier4Christ]

U.S. sovereignty on swap block
Obama negotiating for seat for U.S. on U.N. commission

The Obama administration is preparing to swap U.S. sovereignty for a higher level of U.S. presence at the United Nations, a plan that has alarmed officials working to protect the rights of Americans, specifically the parental rights that traditionally have been recognized across the nation's history.

Michael Farris, founder of the Home School Legal Defense Association and chancellor of Patrick Henry College, said, "The move is little more than another attempt at political correctness by an administration frantic for acceptance by the international community."

Farris also is a dedicated leader behind the effort to change the U.S. Constitution through the amendment process to restore and protect parental rights.

WND reported just days ago his warning that parental rights in the U.S. already are being diminished.

"The erosion is upon us," he said then.

Eighty years ago, the amendment website notes, "the Supreme Court declared that 'the child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.'"

However, according to Farris, a survey last year of state and federal appellate court rulings found "the vast majority of the court decisions refused to acknowledge traditional parental rights are fundamental rights."

Now Farris is alerting to the plan in the Obama White House to try to secure a seat on the U.N. Human Rights Council, an intergovernmental body of 47 member states.

However, it has no legal authority and only offers opinions.

The report from Farris said to secure its seat, the Obama camp has submitted a series of "Commitments and Pledges" declaring its loyalty and "deep commitment" to the U.N.

Farris is familiar with the U.N. and its operations, having proposed the Parental Rights Amendment to prevent the loss of U.S. sovereignty to the U.N. through its treaties, such as the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, which could be used to prevent parents from spanking their own children or directing their religious training.

"This (Obama) administration is all about photo ops," said Farris, "and is apparently willing to trade away U.S. sovereignty for a seat on a council which has no legal authority."

In the April 27 "Commitments" document released by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice, the U.S. representative to the international body, the Obama White House pledged its support for the Convention on Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, which also makes the U.S. subservient to the international agenda.

If the two cited treaties are adopted, Farris said, they will "not only jeopardize U.S. sovereignty but hasten the end of the traditional American family.

"All U.N. treaties require strict scrutiny," he cautioned. "The pledge, as written, expresses no such need but, rather, unilaterally commits the U.S. to meet its U.N. treaty obligations. Apparently, for this administration, membership in a U.N. Council with no authority trumps the right of Americans – not the U.N. or any other nation – to make public policy affecting Americans."

Farris says the Parental Rights Amendment, which would embed in the Constitution a description of parental rights as fundamental, would offer help for families.

"Neither the United States nor any state shall infringe upon this right without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served," the draft states. "No treaty may be adopted nor shall any source of international law be employed to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this article."

Farris said the amendment proposal, which already has about 80 co-sponsors in Congress, is moving "faster then we thought we would." .

The website notes if approved, the Convention on the Rights of the Child would supersede "the laws of all 50 states on children and parents."

According to the Parental Rights website, the CRC dictates the following:

    * Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children.

    * A murderer aged 17 years, 11 months and 29 days at the time of his crime could no longer be sentenced to life in prison.

    * Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion.

    * The best interest of the child principle would give the government the ability to override every decision made by every parent if a government worker disagreed with the parent's decision.

    * A child's "right to be heard" would allow him (or her) to seek governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed.

    * According to existing interpretation, it would be illegal for a nation to spend more on national defense than it does on children's welfare.

    * Children would acquire a legally enforceable right to leisure.

    * Teaching children about Christianity in schools has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.

    * Allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.

    * Children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent.

Good parents also no longer would be entitled to the legal presumption that they act in the best interests of their children, giving way to governmental decisions that would trump anything a parent would seek for his or her child, regardless of the topic, the analysis said.

________________

This is what happens when you get someone that is not an American as President.

[nChrist]

It appears to be time to remind the Federal Government that they are the servant of the States - not the opposite. There's good evidence that the STATES will NOT give up their SOVEREIGNTY, so Obama just might be left representing only himself. Regardless, Obama is going to make chaos in record time.

The results won't be what he and others anticipated. The words that come to mind are "divisive" and "DISUNION". He doesn't have the power of a DICTATOR, won't be given that power, and CAN'T TAKE THAT POWER.

[Soldier4Christ]

Eligibility attorney plans return to Supreme Court
Says, 'I will be filing until I get an answer'

California attorney Orly Taitz, who has taken cases challenging Barack Obama's eligibility to be president to a number of courts across the nation including the U.S. Supreme Court, says she'll be returning to the high court, this time seeking a petition for the extraordinary writ of mandamus.

"As Attorney General Eric Holder and U.S. Attorney Jeffery Taylor did not institute Quo Warranto and did not respond, I will go back to SCOTUS," Taitz announced today on her website.

"As you know, I am being crucified for every little error, so I have sent the draft to a couple of attorneys, paralegals, technical consultants and language consultants, to give me their input and I will file in a few days," she said.

"Bottom line, I will be filing until I get an answer," she wrote.

Taitz was the lead attorney earlier representing military officers from the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines when they cited Quo Warranto, a legal right established in British common law nearly 800 years ago and recognized by the U.S. Founding Fathers, to demand documentation that may prove – or disprove – Obama's eligibility.

The legal phrase essentially means an explanation is being demanded for what authority Obama is using to act as president. An online constitutional resource says Quo Warranto "affords the only judicial remedy for violations of the Constitution by public officials and agents."

Get the new Whistleblower magazine, called "YOUR PAPERS, PLEASE? Why dozens of lawsuits and millions of Americans want Barack Obama to prove he's constitutionally qualified to be president."

Originally requesting the action were Maj. Gen. Carroll Childers; Lt. Col. Dr. David Earl-Graef; police officer and Selected Reservist Navy Commander Clinton Grimes; Lt. Scott Easterling, now serving on active duty in Iraq; New Hampshire state Rep. Timothy Comerford; Tennessee state Rep. Frank Nicely and others.

"As president-elect, Respondent Obama failed to submit prima facie evidence of his qualifications before January 20, 2009. Election officers failed to challenge, validate or evaluate his qualifications. Relators submit that as president elect, Respondent Obama failed [to] qualify per U.S. CONST. Amend. XX [paragraph] 3," the document said.

John Eidsmoe, an expert on the U.S. Constitution now working with the Foundation on Moral Law, has told WND the demand is a legitimate course of action.

"She basically is asking, 'By what authority' is Obama president," he told WND at the time the original document was filed. "In other words, 'I want you to tell me by what authority. I don't really think you should hold the office.'

"She probably has some very good arguments to make," Eidsmoe said.

Taitz' letter was dispatched to Holder and the U.S. attorney, but she has not received a response, she confirmed.

WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."

Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

Several of the cases have involved emergency appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court in which justices have declined even 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.

Complicating the situation is Obama's decision to spend sums estimated in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to avoid releasing a state birth certificate that would put to rest all of the questions.

Taitz' plaintiffs, some of whom potentially face life-or-death situations in defense of the U.S. Constitution on a daily basis, note that information on Quo Warranto against a federal officer normally is related to the attorney general. But since Holder is an Obama friend and appointee, they asked for the appointment of a special prosecutor to help in presenting documentation to the Supreme Court.

Eidsmoe said it's clear that Obama has something in the documentation of his history, including his birth certificate, college records and other documents, "he does not want the public to know."

Obama's critics warn of the impending constitutional crisis should it be discovered Obama is ineligible and the resulting chaos of trying to figure out what, if any, of his executive branch orders, should be valid.

According to the online Constitution.org resource: "The common law writ of quo warranto has been suppressed at the federal level in the United States, and deprecated at the state level, but remains a right under the Ninth Amendment which was understood and presumed by the Founders, and which affords the only judicial remedy for violations of the Constitution by public officials and agents."

According to a report at All The News That Fits, lawyers for Obama submitted in a court challenge late in 2008 that "particularly serious embarrassment will result from turning over the requested documentation" in one of the many eligibility challenges that have been filed.

As Jerome Corsi, WND senior staff writer, explained, "The main reason doubts persist regarding Obama's birth certificate is this question: If an original Hawaii-doctor-generated and Hawaii-hospital-released Obama birth certificate exists, why wouldn't the senator and his campaign simply order the document released and end the controversy?

"That Obama has not ordered Hawaii officials to release the document," Corsi writes, "leaves doubts as to whether an authentic Hawaii birth certificate exists for Obama."

A state official, Hawaiian Health Director Chiyome Fukino, said, "I, and Dr. Alvin Onaka have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures." But officials have rejected requests for access, saying Obama would have to authorize any access, and left ambiguous its origin: Does the certificate on file with the Department of Health indicate a Hawaii birth or was it generated after the Obama family registered a Kenyan birth in Hawaii?

Obama's half-sister, Maya Soetoro, has named two different Hawaii hospitals where Obama could have been born. At one point a Kenyan ambassador said Obama's birth place in Kenya already was recognized and honored.

cont'd