Happier New Year Obama Ballot Challengers! Over half of states filed or will file challenges thus far
Posted by By Pamela Barnett at 2 January, at 14 : 11 PM Print
Those at the Obama State Ballot Challenge 2012 hope and pray for a Constitutional President that loves America and the Constitution in this coming year. To help ensure that the nation’s first known usurper Obama does not illegally get in the White House another 4 years, citizens have taken action where their pitiful and treasonous leaders in Congress and the Department of Justice have not.
OSBC has received credible commitments to challenge Obama on the ballot in over half the states thus far, and that was only within two months of the of the inception of the first Obama ballot challenge filed in New Hampshire which we were a part of through our director, Captain Pamela Barnett, USA Retired. Our stated goal is to encourage and assist Obama ballot challenges in all 50 states and we intend to meet that goal.
OSBC has decentralized operations and backs up the website daily to ensure that OSBC will always be available as a tool for justice to help end the usurpation of the White House.
To those new to OSBC that wonder why Obama is a usurper and an illegal President please visit the Minor v. Happersett and Natural Born Citizenship pages. Obama was born British through his Kenyan national father which makes him a non- NATURAL Born Citizen as required by Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution. OSBC does not care so much about where he was born because we already know Obama is not qualified to be POTUS by his own admissions of a foreign father and being born with foreign citizenship. Obama may be a “born” citizen under the 14th Amendment, but he is NOT “NATURAL BORN”.
Please hang in there with us on this bumpy and trying road to justice for our White House. Also, share our website with all of your contacts, file an Obama ballot challenge and/or volunteer to help this fast growing citizen movement to help save our country and our Constitution. Volunteers needed now in New Hampshire and other states.
More detailed updates and strategies to come in the near future at OSBC.
Sincerely, the Director, CPT Pamela Barnett, USA Retired
Here are the basics as I see it.
The US Supreme Court defined, in Minor v Happersett, a “natural born citizen” as one who is born in US of US citizen parents and in the very same paragraph SCOTUS stated that there were doubts as to whether a child born in US to alien non-citizen parents was even a citizen, let alone a “natural born citizen’.
Did you know this about the 14th Amendment?
In 1927 the US Supreme Court agreed with the SCOTUS doubts about citizenship of children born in US to alien non-citizen parents as were expressed by the judiciary in Minor v Happersett; and SCOTUS went further to confirm that there was in fact no more doubt, that in fact those children born in US to (non-US citizen) alien parents were NOT “citizens of the United States”.
U.S. Supreme Court
Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U.S. 657 (1927)
“By the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution, slavery was prohibited.
The main object of the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this Court, as to the citizenship of free negroes (Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393), and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and OWING NO ALLEGIANCE TO ANY ALIEN POWER, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughterhouse Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 83 U. S. 73; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303, 100 U. S. 306.
This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization.
The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
The evident meaning of these last words is NOT MERELY SUBJECT IN SOME RESPECT OR DEGREE to the jurisdiction of the United States, BUT COMPLETELY SUBJECT TO THEIR POLITICAL JURISDICTION AND OWING THEM DIRECT AND IMMEDIATE ALLEGIANCE.”
Furthermore regarding the SCOTUS reference to English common law in the Wong Kim Ark case, where Calvin’s case was cited, the notion that a child born in the land to an alien was a “natural born subject” was observed by the Wong Kim Ark court, but it can bee seen from a reading of Calvin’s case, that this notion i.e. of alien parent + child born in the land = “natural born” was cherry-picked, omitting crucial elements in the case.
i.e. the crucial elements, that the alien parent, visiting England was in fact considered a “subject”, and if this alien parent was NOT a “subject” then his child can NOT be a “subject”.
Quote from Calvin’s case:
“that issue is NO SUBJECT to the King of England, THOUGH HE BE BORN UPON HIS SOYL, and under his meridian, for that he WAS NOT BORN UNDER THE LIGEANCE OF A SUBJECT…”
And we also have this from the same Calvin’s case which was cited by SCOTUS in WKA case, which shows there are TWO ESSENTIAL qualities REQUIRED to make a “natural born”
“Calvin the Plaintiff naturalized by procreation and birth right….”
“There be regulary (unlesse it be in special cases) three incidents to a subject born.
1. That the parents be under the actual obedience of the king.
2. That the place of his birth be within the king’s dominion. And
3. the time of his birth is chiefly to be considered….”
As anyone can see, the “subject” status of the parent father was an ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENT in determining a “natural born”.
None of this was even mentioned in the Wonk Kim Ark case and consequently the FALSE belief that alien + child born in the land = “natural born” was set in motion.
Ergo: According to English common law AND the Supreme Court of the United States AND the framers of the Constitution of the US (who were PROFOUNDLY influenced by Vattel, diligently and with great wisdom CHOSE the term “natural born” RATHER THAN “native born” in their imperative and duty to secure and protect the highest office of president and commander in chief, from ANY foreign influence and claim.
The notion that the framers intended the term “natural” to mean “native” is ABSURD.
.
MichaelN, 4 months ago
[...] Happier New Year Obama Ballot Challengers! Over half of… [...]
The Vetting Process has begun, to bad it took four years to get around to it. MSM is clueless!! Including Fox!. « The Arizona Sentinel, 4 months ago
Right on-this helped me sort thngis right out.
Mahala, 2 months ago
Morning, All,Quote of the year from WND: Here’s winihsg you all the best for 2010, when we all hope Kanye West will storm on stage and steal the teleprompter from the occupier in chief.
Tarpiut, 2 months ago
[...] by Capt. Pamela Barnett (Ret.), blogging at Obama Ballot Challenge [...]
Happier New Year, Obama Ballot Challengers!| The Post & Email, 4 months ago
Obama may not be the only one not eligible to be on the ballots. If this is true, RINO Romney, as well as Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal, do not qualify as natural born Citizens.
http://politicalvelcraft.org/2012/01/02/breaking-mitt-romney-not-fit-romney-not-natural-born-to-be-u-s-president/
Can someone verify?
Charles Rickey Jr., 4 months ago
Charles Rickey Jr… This is all that comes up
Error 404 – Page not found!
The page you are trying to reach does not exist, or has been moved. Please use the menus or the search box to find what you are looking for.
Paula, 4 months ago
Which one are you looking for, Paula? Going to the menu is best bet- Ballot News Blog.
GeorgeM, 4 months ago
How do I make sure my state, Connecticut is on board with this? What procedure do I follow with my Secretary of State Dept to be sure it is in position to be a part of this challenge?
Patriick Lacy, 3 months ago
We have contacted someone else in CT working on this, to tell him of your interest. Readers, if you know of someone else, please comment.
GeorgeM, 3 months ago