"Nobel committee have embraced the great American policy of affirmative action and that even if you do not achieve, because you are a minority we have to allow you to join the club"

Barack Hussein Obama the new Messiah but he had to complete his title as the Prince of Peace. Nine months into to presidency two major speeches one to the Muslim world and the second at the UN, he is pronounced Nobel Laureate for Peace and about to be anointed in Norway. WOW, WOW hale the Messiah!!

The world is either very sick or very stupid, maybe both. Al Gore is the Nobel Laureate for Global Warming, when the earth is now cooling for eleven years in a row and now the world is on the edge of war with an appeasing president; it will undoubtedly deliver us the opposite of peace. How naive can the world be? Well it is about as naive as the world was in the 1930s, I suppose.

To listen to the justification for such a prize is so funny if it were not so pathetic. As one radio commentator put it this morning, that he had just himself been awarded an Oscar for the greatest film he has yet to make. I thought we win acknowledgment and prizes for achievements not for expectations. I get it, the Nobel committee have embraced the great American policy of affirmative action and that even if you do not achieve, because you are a minority we have to allow you to join the club.

The Nobel Laureate prize has already discredited its value by awarding Nobel prizes to Yasser Arafat, Al Gore and now to a President who cannot justify such a prize based on his record to date.

If Barack Hussein Obama was the real deal he should thank the Nobel board for their honor but refuse to accept the prize until he has shown the world that he can deliver some tangible results in peace with justice and truth not just an absence of war. However, based on viewing this arrogant and narcissistic record to date it is unlikely that a gesture of humility will be forthcoming.

I hope and pray that President Obama can achieve the expectations the world sets for him, but based on the current track and the lessons of history we are set for some very difficult times ahead.

Hope and change is here, hale the new Messiah, Nobel Prince of Peace.

WASHINGTON – California attorney Orly Taitz, who has filed a number of lawsuits demanding proof of Barack Obama’s eligibility to serve as president, has released a copy of what purports to be a Kenyan certification of birth and has filed a new motion in U.S. District Court for its authentication.

The document lists Obama’s parents as Barack Hussein Obama and Stanley Ann Obama, formerly Stanley Ann Dunham, the birth date as Aug. 4, 1961, and the hospital of birth as Coast General Hospital in Mombasa, Kenya.

No doctor is listed. But the alleged certificate bears the signature of the deputy registrar of Coast Province, Joshua Simon Oduya. It was allegedly issued as a certified copy of the original in February 1964.

WND was able to obtain other birth certificates from Kenya for purposes of comparison, and the form of the documents appear to be identical.

Last week, a counterfeit document purporting to be Obama’s Kenyan birth certificate made the rounds of the Internet, but was quickly determined to be fraudulent. The new document released by Taitz bears none of the obvious traits of a hoax.

One of the issues Taitz must deal with will be the authentication of the document. Critics immediately jumped on the Feb. 17, 1964, date for the document, explaining that the "republic" of Kenya wasn’t assembled until in December of that year.

Media Matters wrote, "Sorry, WorldNetDaily: Kenya wasn’t a republic until Dec. 1964."

But Kenya’s official independence was in 1963, and any number of labels could have been applied to government documents during that time period.

At Ameriborn Constitution News, the researcher noted that the independence process for the nation actually started taking as early as 1957, when there were the first direct elections for Africans to the Legislative Council.

"Kenya became an Independent Republic, December 12, 1963, which gives more [credibility] that this is a true document," the website stated.

The 1963 independence is corroborated by several other information sources, including the online African History.

Even the People Daily news agency cited, on Dec. 12, 2005, the "42nd independence anniversary" in Nairobi. "The country gained independence from Britain on Dec. 12, 1963," the report said.

An online copy of the Kenya Constitution, "adopted in 1963, amended in 1999," states: "CHAPTER I – THE REPUBLIC OF KENYA, Article 1, Kenya is a sovereign Republic. Article 1A, The Republic of Kenya shall be a multiparty democratic state…"

It was in November 1964 when the region voluntarily became a one-party state, according to an online source.

The region including Mombasa originally was dealt with as a separate independence movement, but it almost immediately became part of Kenya when the sultan of Zanzibar ceded the "coastal strip" to Kenya, according to sources.

Taitz told WND that the document came from an anonymous source who doesn’t want his name known because "he’s afraid for his life."

Taitz’s motion, filed yesterday in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, requests the purported evidence of Obama’s birth – both the alleged birth certificate and foreign records not yet obtained – be preserved from destruction, asks for permission to legally request documents from Kenya and seeks a subpoena for deposition from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

"I filed the motion with the court asking for expedited discovery, which would allow me to start subpoenas and depositions even before Obama and the government responds," Taitz told WND. "I am asking the judge to give me the power to subpoena the documents from the Kenyan embassy and to require a deposition from Hillary Clinton so they will be forced to authenticate [the birth certificate].

"I’m forcing the issue, where Obama will have to respond," she said.

"Before, they said, ‘You don’t have anything backing your claims,’" Taitz explained. "Now I have something. In fact, I have posted on the Internet more than Obama has. My birth certificate actually has signatures."

Join the petition campaign to demand President Obama resolve the question by revealing his long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate!

Taitz’s most celebrated case involved a military officer, Maj. Stefan Cook, whose order to deploy to Afghanistan was revoked when he challenged Obama’s eligibility to hold office. That case has now been refiled in federal court in Florida, raising the specter of a class-action claim among members of the military that their orders aren’t valid because of questions surrounding Obama’s constitutional eligibility.

Taitz told WND she plans to file additional paperwork with the Florida court tomorrow, adding the alleged Kenyan birth certificate to Maj. Cook’s case.

The suit seeks damages and a declaratory judgment. Named as defendants are Simtech, Cook’s former civilian employer, and several officials, including Col. Louis B. Wingate and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.

WND previously reported a judge in Georgia dismissed Cook’s case when the government suddenly revoked his orders to report to Fort Benning for deployment to Afghanistan.

WND reported when the case originally was filed that Cook’s concern was that without proof that there is a legitimate commander in chief, the entire U.S. Army becomes "merely a corps of chattel slaves under the illegitimate control of a private citizen."

Cook told WND: "As an officer in the armed forces of the United States, it is [my] duty to gain clarification on any order we may believe illegal. With that said, if President Obama is found not to be a ‘natural-born citizen,’ he is not eligible to be commander in chief."

The new complaint says it seeks Cook’s reinstatement with his civilian employer, Simtech Inc., as well as protection from the Department of Defense and president "from further retaliation for plaintiff’s challenge to the president’s constitutional authority."

See the movie Obama does not want you to see: Own the DVD that probes this unprecedented presidential eligibility mystery!

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.

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.

WND has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes his kindergarten records, his Punahou school records, his Occidental College records, his Columbia University records, his Columbia thesis, his Harvard Law School records, his Harvard Law Review articles, his scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, his passport, his medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records.

Developing …

Dear Mr. President:

First, happy birthday. I do hope Aug. 4 is an enjoyable day for you and your family. Coincidentally, I also will be celebrating this week the birth of someone dear to me, my beloved wife, Gena, whose birthday is on Aug. 9.

Speaking of birthdays, I couldn’t help but hear and read all over the news last week about the fresh attention to your constitutional eligibility and natural born citizen status. I can hardly believe that individuals are now offering bounty – one for $100,000 – for any personal witness or sufficient evidence to your American birth.

For nearly two years, this debate continues to grow despite all your administration’s attempts to diffuse it. And those who are raising concerns aren’t just those on the right, but moderate law-abiding citizens like a retired CIA officer who commissioned an investigator to look into the issue.

Still, your press secretary, Robert Gibbs, continues to glibly brush aside the issue by calling it "fictional nonsense." But, in so doing, he devalues the grievance passage of the First Amendment and insults those who are genuinely concerned and inquisitive by categorizing them all as political quacks. He needs to learn that you can’t model tolerance for certain minorities while belittling and quarantining those who don’t blindly follow your lead.

Believe it or not, I’m not writing you to challenge whether you were born in America, though I see nothing wrong with the American public voicing that constitutionally based grievance with someone in your esteemed position. As one blogger wrote, after all, "We aren’t talking about a 12-year-old qualifying to play Little League here." Or as Ronald Reagan once said, "Trust but verify."

Personally, I must admit that I find it a bit of a groundless stretch not to believe in the birth announcements in two major Hawaiian newspapers in August of 1961, in which the Hawaiian Health Department would have been required to post information they received directly from hospitals: "Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama, 6085 Kalanianaole Hwy., son, Aug. 4." Nevertheless, that proof still doesn’t answer why you refuse to reveal your original birth certificate and end the growing tides of controversy.

I’m writing you because this is no longer a matter merely about proving a presidential prerequisite in the Constitution. Refusing to post a copy of your original birth certificate is an unwise political and leadership decision that is enabling the birther controversy. The nation you are called to lead is experiencing a growing swell of conspirators who are convinced that you are covering up something. So why not just prove them wrong and shut them up?

If the birther movement is truly full of a bunch of conspiracy-fringed kooks or "zombies," as the Los Angeles Times proclaims, then prove once and for all that you are a naturally born citizen by posting your original birth certificate. And all the controversy will fade away like the pains of childbirth.

I agree with CNN’s Lou Dobbs, who was chastised by his own media outlet for demanding the release of your original birth certificate. So why is that such a bad request? We certainly know why CNN/U.S. President Jon Klein thought it was a bad idea: because he previously declared that CNN researchers determined that Obama’s 1961 birth certificate no longer existed.

But Hawaii’s officials confirmed again last week that they indeed have your original birth certificate on file. Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaiian State Department of Health, repeated her October 2008 statement that she had personally seen with her own eyes the "original vital records."

Some claim that even you cannot see or request your own personal birth certificate, because Hawai’i's disclosure law (Hawai’i Revised Statutes 338-18) states that "it shall be unlawful for any person to permit inspection of, or to disclose information contained in vital statistics records, or to copy or issue a copy of all or part on any such record … "

But the law further states that the Health Department "shall not permit inspection of public health statistics records, or issue a certified copy of any such record or part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the record." (Italics mine)

Isn’t categorically satisfying constitutional requirements for a president, or answering the First Amendment grievances of hundreds of thousands of Americans, or ending a national debate or healing a country’s divisions enough "direct and tangible interest"?

Mr. President, as more and more people realize that you are refusing to release your original birth certificate, further questions will fuel the fires of debate or at least hinder the embers from ever being snuffed out. Questions like, "Does it really contain the Hawaiian physician’s name?" Or "Does it disclose something other than his birth place that he wishes others not to see?"

In fact, last week copies of the 1961 birth certificates from twin girls, who were born a day after you in the same Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital, give examples of those typical of the time. They include much more information than certificates today, like the baby’s parents’ ages, occupations, birthplaces, race, etc., as well as specifics of the medical personnel presiding over the baby’s birth and the hospital in which he or she was born.

Of course not every U.S. citizen has access to their original birth certificate, but you do, and that’s the only one under debate. As valuable as copies can be, textual critics know that nothing outweighs an original, especially when only it contains the information under question.

So again I ask, why don’t you simply request, release and give permission to make public your original birth certificate?

Mr. President, you promised the American people that you are "committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government." In fact, on July 23 in your prime time press conference, you said that your administration was more transparent than those of previous presidencies: "I think that we have provided much greater transparency than existed prior to our administration coming in."

So again I ask, why not live out that transparency promise by posting your original birth certificate and end the division and debate?

Well, I have a birthday to plan, so I better get going.

Again, happy birthday Mr. President.

Yours truly,

Chuck Norris

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews got into a heated exchange with a congressman on his show Tuesday as he revisited the question of President Barack Obama’s birth certificate — or lack of one.

Rep. John Campbell, R-Calif., is a co-sponsor of the so-called "birther bill," which would require future presidential candidates to provide a copy of their original birth certificates.

“Birthers” are those who believe Obama is not qualified to be president based on a belief that he was not born in the United States.

Campbell is not a “birther” and has never claimed that Obama was born outside the United States or should be disqualified from being president.

On the show, Matthews seemingly undermined claims by some that Obama has never released his birth certificate, producing what Matthews said was a true copy of it.

But Matthews made a false claim. Obama has never released his actual birth certificate. He has released another document, often provided by state authorities in lieu of a birth certificate, called a certificate of live birth.

Matthews on Tuesday said Campbell was "playing to the crazies" by supporting the "crazy" bill, and the congressman shot back that it was all about "putting the matter to rest."

Matthews also accused Campbell of "feeding the wacko wing of your party," and held up what he called a copy of the supposed Obama birth certificate.

Case closed?

The indisputable fact is that Obama has not released his birth certificate, which the state of Hawaii issues for all citizens born there.

Instead, his campaign has only released his certificate of live birth from the state of Hawaii, which is a document that offers a summarized version of the birth certificate.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, GOP nominee Sen. John McCain quickly released his birth certificate when liberal bloggers raised questions about his eligibility to be president. McCain was born at a military hospital in Panama.

Obama could likewise put the matter to rest by releasing his actual birth certificate, which would show, among other things, the place of his birth and the doctor who performed the birth procedure. This information is not provided on the certificate of live birth.

As it stands, Obama is the only president in history whose birthplace is unknown to the public – a fact that would be stated on the actual birth certificate. Interestingly, his family has mentioned two different hospitals in Hawaii as the place of birth.

The fact that Obama has refused to release his actual birth certificate does not mean conspiracy theorists are right when they claim he was born in Kenya and therefore not eligible to be president. Investigators who have reviewed the claims have found no evidence Obama was born outside of Hawaii.

But Obama’s refusal to release his birth certificate does mean that Obama remains one of America’s most mysterious and opaque presidents ever.

Obama, for example, has not released many other documents regarding his public and private life.

Many of these documents were sought by reporters, who easily acquiesced when Obama said he would release them – though most presidential candidates release them as a perfunctory matter.

Among the key documents that continue to be shielded from the public by Obama:

A U.S. Army Reserve major from Florida scheduled to report for deployment to Afghanistan within days has had his military orders revoked after arguing he should not be required to serve under a president who has not proven his eligibility for office.

His attorney, Orly Taitz, confirmed to WND the military has rescinded his impending deployment orders.

"We won! We won before we even arrived," she said with excitement. "It means that the military has nothing to show for Obama. It means that the military has directly responded by saying Obama is illegitimate – and they cannot fight it. Therefore, they are revoking the order!"

She continued, "They just said, ‘Order revoked.’ No explanation. No reasons – just revoked."

A hearing on the questions raised by Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook, an engineer who told WND he wants to serve his country in Afghanistan, was scheduled for July 16 at 9:30 a.m.

Join the petition campaign to make President Obama reveal his long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate!

"As an officer in the armed forces of the United States, it is [my] duty to gain clarification on any order we may believe illegal. With that said, if President Obama is found not to be a ‘natural-born citizen,’ he is not eligible to be commander-in-chief," he told WND only hours after the case was filed.

"[Then] any order coming out of the presidency or his chain of command is illegal. Should I deploy, I would essentially be following an illegal [order]. If I happened to be captured by the enemy in a foreign land, I would not be privy to the Geneva Convention protections," he said.

The order for the hearing in the federal court for the Middle District of Georgia from U.S. District Judge Clay D. Land said the hearing on the request for a temporary restraining order would be held Thursday.

Want to turn up the pressure to learn the facts? Get your signs and postcards asking for the president’s birth certificate documentation here.

Cook said without a legitimate president as commander-in-chief, members of the U.S. military in overseas actions could be determined to be "war criminals and subject to prosecution."

He said the vast array of information about Obama that is not available to the public confirms to him "something is amiss."

"That and the fact the individual who is occupying the White House has not been entirely truthful with anybody," he said. "Every time anyone has made an inquiry, it has been either cast aside, it has been maligned, it has been laughed at or just dismissed summarily without further investigation.

"You know what. It would be so simple to solve. Just produce the long-form document, certificate of live birth," he said.

Cook said he was scheduled to report for duty tomorrow, on July 15, to deploy to Afghanistan as part of President Obama’s plan to increase pressure of insurgent forces there.

He told WND he would be prepared for a backlash against him as a military officer, since members of the military swear to uphold and follow their orders. However, he noted that following an illegal order would be just as bad as failing to follow a legal order.

Before news of the orders being revoked were reported, MSNBC anchor Keith Olbermann tonight called Cook a "jackass" and Taitz a "conwoman," as he labeled both of them the "worst persons in the world." He flayed the soldier as "an embarrassment to all those who have served without cowardice."

Named as defendants in the case are Col. Wanda Good, Col. Thomas Macdonald, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Obama, described as "de facto president of the United States."

According to the court filing, Cook affirmed when he joined the military, he took the following oath: "I, Stefan Frederick Cook, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the president of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

According to the claim, "Plaintiff submits that it is implicit though not expressly stated that an officer is and should be subject to court-martial, because he will be derelict in the performance of his duties, if he does not inquire as to the lawfulness, the legality, the legitimacy of the orders which he has received, whether those orders are specific or general."

The military courts offer no option for raising the question, so he turned to civilian courts to consider "a question of paramount constitutional and legal importance: the validity of the chain of command under a president whose election, eligibility, and constitutional status appear open to serious question."

"Barack Hussein Obama, in order to prove his constitutional eligibility to serve as president, basically needs only produce a single unique historical document for the Plaintiff’s inspection and authentication: namely, the ‘long-form’ birth certificate which will confirm whether Barack Hussein Obama was in fact born to parents who were both citizens of the United States in Honolulu, Hawaii, in or about 1961," explains the complaint.

Taitz said she will attend the hearing to amend the temporary restraining order to an injunction because more members of the military have joined the cause.

"We are going to be asking for release of Obama’s records because now this completely undermines the military. It revoked this order, but it can come up with another order tomorrow. It can come up with orders for other people," she said. "Am I going to be flying around the country 1,000 times and paying the fees every time they issue an order?"

Taitz said the issue "must be resolved immediately," and she will continue working to ensure Obama proves he is eligible for office.

"We’re going to be asking the judge to issue an order for Obama to provide his vital records to show he is legitimately president," she said. "We’re going to say, we have orders every day, and we’ll have revocations every day. This issue has to be decided."

She said there cannot be any harm to the president if he is legitimately holding office.

"If he is legitimate, then his vital records will prove it," Taitz said. "If he is illegitimate, then he should not have been there in the first place."

Asked what this decision means for every other serviceman who objects to deployment under a president who has not proven he is eligible for office, Taitz responded:

"Now, we can have each and every member of the military – each and every enlistee and officer – file something similar saying ‘I will not take orders until Obama is legitimately vetted.’"

Multiple questions have been raised about what that would mean to the 2008 election, to the orders and laws Obama has signed and other issues, including whether he then is a valid commander-in-chief of the military.

But arguably Obama’s most egregious, unconstitutional “power-grab” as president may have been his very first – being elected to the highest office in the land while steadfastly refusing to offer proof he is a “natural born citizen,” as required of all presidents by the U.S. Constitution.

That explosive story is the focus of the April 2009 edition of WND’s acclaimed Whistleblower magazine. It’s called “YOUR PAPERS, PLEASE? Why dozens of lawsuits and millions of Americans want Barack Obama to prove he’s constitutionally qualified to be president.”

This issue of Whistleblower “is not only the most complete and thorough exposé of the eligibility questions surrounding Barack Obama’s presidency,” says WND founder and CEO Joseph Farah, “it is an indictment of the process that put him in the White House Jan. 20 of this year.”

Although Article II section 1 of the Constitution clearly requires that all presidents be “natural born citizens,” the 2008 election proved, Farah points out, “that no controlling legal authority bothered to establish” that Obama was qualified for the Oval Office. “Everybody dropped the ball,” said Farah.

The biggest reason interest in the Obama eligibility issue continues to mount, with ever more legal actions being filed and more Americans demanding answers, says WND Managing Editor David Kupelian, is simple: “Barack Obama is hiding something. About that statement, there is no dispute. Despite dozens of lawsuits, with plaintiffs including a former presidential candidate, a former deputy attorney general, many legislators, active-duty U.S. military and other serious people, Obama simply refuses to release his original, long-form birth certificate. That’s the one that could actually prove he was born in Hawaii. What is posted on Obama’s ‘Stop the Smears’ website as well as the FactCheck.org website is the abbreviated short-form ‘certification of live birth’ that could have been issued for a child born overseas, and thus does not prove he was born in Hawaii. What is so difficult about this to understand?”

And while some of the many lawsuits challenging Obama on this issue have reached the eyes of U.S. Supreme Court justices, at least one former state Supreme Court chief justice – Alabama’s Roy Moore – now says the Obama eligibility issue should be adjudicated: “Why doesn’t the president have to show that he’s a natural born citizen? … We’ve had all kinds of suits filed, and the press doesn’t mention them and the courts continually reject them. … It’s troubling to me because we’ll suffer the consequences if we ignore our Constitution."

Highlights of “YOUR PAPERS, PLEASE?” include:

• "The question of eligibility" by Joseph Farah
• "Why I care about the Obama eligibility issue" by David Kupelian
• "Why questions persist regarding Obama’s qualifications" by Bob Unruh, on why the president’s defenders never actually address the merits of eligibility challenges
• "The 20th Amendment: What if the president-elect fails to qualify?"
• "U.S. military officers demanding eligibility proof" by Bob Unruh, regarding which one plaintiff said, "In the worst case … it’s going to be revolution in the streets"
• "What is ‘quo warranto’"
• "Scalia: You need 4 votes for Obama eligibility case"
• "Ex-chief justice: ‘If he’s not a natural born citizen, he’s not qualified’" in which former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore weighs in on the issue
• "Was Obama born in Hawaii – or Kenya?" by Jerome R. Corsi, who interviews the private detective who investigated Honolulu hospitals claimed as Obama birthplace; also a report on eyewitnesses to Obama’s grandmother saying she witnessed his birth in Mombasa, Kenya
• "Kenyan ambassador: ‘I don’t know’ if Obama was born in U.S." by Chelsea Schilling – a revealing follow-up to the on-air "gaffe" by African official about president’s birth
• "What congressmen say about Obama’s eligibility," an extensive sampling of what lawmakers are telling constituents about where the president was born
• "Eligibility bill hits Congress" by Drew Zahn, detailing U.S. Rep. Bill Posey’s proposed law requiring candidates to show birth certificate – which would apply to Obama’s re-election
• "Congressman scorned for suggesting eligibility proof," documenting media reaction to Rep. Bill Posey’s eligibility bill, including MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann who advises the congressman to "take the Reynolds Wrap off your head"
• "States reviewing ‘eligibility’ challenges," detailing how Montana has tabled its plan while Oklahoma’s gets committee approval
• "California used to check presidential candidates’ qualifications"
• "Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility" by Aaron Klein, who documents how the very mention of citizenship issues is deleted in minutes and "offending" users banned
• "Judge ripped for using blog hearsay" by Bob Unruh, on the eligibility case lawyer who says he’s entitled to see Obama’s birth certificate during "discovery" process
• "Resolving Obama birth issue ‘once and for all’" by Leo C. Donofrio, in which the attorney proposes a solution to what he calls the "bottomless pit of pending litigation"
• "Does dual citizenship disqualify a candidate from being president?"
• "Chief justice accepts lawsuit docs, WND petition" by Drew Zahn, in which John Roberts agrees to read Obama filings and consider WorldNetDaily’s 330,000 online petition signers
• "Obama team threatens plaintiffs" by Alan Keyes, the former Reagan diplomat and presidential candidate who rallies all involved in the eligibility battle to stand firm

“To me, this is a historic issue of Whistleblower magazine,” says Farah. “I do not pretend to know where the information you are about to read will lead. But I do know that it is explosive, profoundly important and represents much more than the future of the Barack Obama administration. No less than our Constitution – the foundation of our national liberties and the rule of law in America – is at stake.”

Officials at Occidental College in Los Angeles, Calif., have been served with a demand to produce records concerning Barack Obama’s attendance there during the 1980s because they could document whether he was attending as a foreign national – in one of three fronts now established by those contesting the president-elect’s constitutional eligibility for the Oval Office.

The Supreme Court and Congress also both are being challenged to address the worries that Obama doesn’t meet the requirements of the U.S. Constitution that the president be a "natural born" citizen.

WND has reported on a long list of legal cases raising questions over the issue, and several of those have reached the U.S. Supreme Court already. Justices have so far declined to give any of the cases full hearings on their merits, but another conference remains on the Supreme Court docket for Jan. 23 on the issue.

"If Obama is sworn in as president, we will file a Petition for Writ of ‘Quo Warranto,’ a case that will challenge Obama as being ineligible to serve as president because he is ‘not qualified,’" said Philip J. Berg, a lawyer who has brought several cases to court. Berg, whose information is on his ObamaCrimes.com website, indicated the issue isn’t going away.

Orly Taitz, a California lawyer whose dispute remains pending before the high court, agreed, noting that one of the hearings already is scheduled for the days following Obama’s inaugural on Tuesday.

Taitz said her arguments rest on precedents from both the California Supreme Court, which years ago removed a candidate for president from the ballot because he was only 34, and the U.S. Supreme Court’s affirmation of that ruling. The Constitution requires a president to be 35.

In one of the latest developments, Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation petitioned Occidental College with a demand for its records concerning Obama.

"The gravamen of the petition is the question as to whether United States Senator Barack Hussein Obama, of Illinois, is eligible to serve as president of the United States pursuant to the requirements for that office in the Untied States Constitution," he wrote. "The records sought may provide documentary evidence, and/or admissions by said defendant, as to said eligibility or lack thereof."

Where’s the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 200,000 others and sign the petition demanding proof of eligibility now!

College officials confirmed they had gotten the notice, but had not decided how to respond, a decision that may be removed from their hands because of the team of lawyers Obama has engaged to prevent such inquiries into his past.

"Senator Obama has filed responsive pleadings in this matter and is represented by counsel, and has the opportunity to object to this production, should he so desire," the affidavit from Kreep said.

"Good cause exists for this production under Subpoena Duces Tecum, in that testimony will be elicited from the original records obtained through the witness named herein, and there is no other process available to secure said testimony," he wrote.

The lawsuits allege in various ways Obama does not meet the "natural born citizen" clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, which reads, "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 allege his birth took place in Kenya, and his mother was a minor at the time of his birth – too young to confer American citizenship. They argue Obama’s father, Barack Obama Sr., was a Kenyan citizen subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time and would have handed down British citizenship.

There also are questions raised about Obama’s move to Indonesia when he was a child and his attendance at school there when only Indonesian citizens were allowed and his travel to Pakistan in the ’80s when such travel was forbidden to American citizens.

The lawsuit on which USJF is working was filed on behalf of presidential candidate Alan Keyes and others, and describes the potential damage an ineligible president could create.

"Should Senator Obama be discovered, after he takes office, to be ineligible for the Office of President of the United States of America and, thereby, his election declared void," argues a case brought on behalf of Ambassador Alan Keyes, also a presidential candidate. "Americans will suffer irreparable harm in that (a) usurper will be sitting as the President of the United States, and none of the treaties, laws, or executive orders signed by him will be valid or legal."

On his ObamaCrimes.com website, Berg sent his message directly to the U.S. Congress.

He’s asking in an open letter to members of Congress for congressional hearings "to determine the truth regarding qualifications of Barry Soetoro, otherwise known as Barack Hussein Obama…"

"As you must be aware, there are many unresolved questions concerning Soetoro/Obama’s status or lack thereof, as a ‘natural born’ American citizen, as required by ‘our’ U.S. Constitution," he wrote.

He noted the failure by Congress to challenge Obama’s eligibility during the process through which the Electoral College vote was adopted.

"Because of your failure to ‘question’ the eligibility of Soetoro/Obama, we are headed for a ‘Constitutional Crisis.’ Yes, a ‘Constitutional Crisis’ because Soetoro/Obama who appears not to be a ‘natural born’ U.S. citizen is ‘ineligible’ under ‘our’ U.S. Constitution to serve as president," he said.

He cited the document published on the Internet by Obama’s campaign, the "Certification of Live Birth," as no more than an effort to "quash" questions. Other critics have noted the state of Hawaii granted such certifications to parents of children not born in the state at the time.

"Without truthful information concerning Soetoro/Obama’s eligibility to serve as President, ‘We the People’ have been injured," he wrote.

Taitz took a different route, submitting to the U.S. Supreme Court a motion "to declare that by default, the president elect respondent Barack Obama has failed to qualify under [the] U.S. Constitution."

"Does the burden of proof lie with the petitioner to prove standing and evidence lack of qualification by a candidate/president elect, where election officers rely on a candidate’s declaration? OR does the [Constitution] place the burden of proof on the president-elect to provide objective government certified witnessed proofs, with election officers under oath to challenge, examine and declare that the president elect has or has not qualified, enforceable by petition for redress of grievances?"

Not only has the respondent, Obama, "failed to submit proofs … for any of the qualifications," she wrote. "Respondent has hindered discovery."

She argued that having Obama declared ineligible until he would provide documentation would "cause far less political trauma" than allowing his inauguration because it would uphold the constitution.

She also raised the issue of the concealment of Obama’s records.

"Obama has refused to submit certified copies of any of his original long form ‘vault’ birth certificates in Hawaii to any public officer or to any Petitioner. Relevant records in Kenya have also been officially restricted," she said. "Obama has sealed all educational records which might reveal his stated citizenship. These include Punahou High School, Occidental College, Columbia University, and Harvard Law School."

Her letter included a warning, too.

"Thirty-three democracies descended into tyranny during the 20th century by failing to uphold constitutional protections," she said. "Petitioner humbly prays this Court evaluate the Petitioner’s case in context of how best to enforce restrictive qualifications for president to preserve the Constitution and Republic from tyranny."

WND twice has organized opportunities for readers to send FedEx letters to the Supreme Court, asking for consideration of the issue on its merits.

The most recent campaign generated 12,096 messages, following the earlier effort that resulted in 60,128 letters.

Obama has claimed in his autobiography and elsewhere that he was born in Hawaii in 1961 to parents Barack Hussein Obama Sr., a Kenyan national, and Stanley Ann Dunham, a minor. But details about which hospital handled the birth and other details provided on the complete birth certificate have been withheld by Obama despite lawsuits and public demands for release.

WND senior reporter Jerome Corsi went to both Kenya and Hawaii prior to the election to investigate issues surrounding Obama’s birth. But his research and discoveries only raised more questions.

The biggest question was why, if a Hawaii birth certificate exists as his campaign has stated, Obama hasn’t simply ordered it made available to settle the rumors.

The governor’s office in Hawaii said there is a valid certificate but rejected requests for 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?

Original Story

Dr.Orly Taitz, ESQ
drorly.blogspot.com
dr_taitz@yahoo.com

No. 08A524
Title: Gail Lightfoot, et al., Applicants
v.
Debra Bowen, California Secretary of State

Docketed:
Lower Ct: Supreme Court of California
Case Nos.: (S168690)

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dec 12 2008 Application (08A524) for a stay pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Kennedy.
Dec 17 2008 Application (08A524) denied by Justice Kennedy.
Dec 29 2008 Application (08A524) refiled and submitted to The Chief Justice.
Jan 7 2009 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 23, 2009.

Original Story …

A second conference has been posted on the docket for the U.S. Supreme Court over the issue of Barack Obama’s eligibility to occupy the White House, this one scheduled a week after Congress is to review the Electoral College vote tabulation.

The latest issue posted is a request for an injunction on the election results pending the resolution of a petition for a writ of certiorari filed by attorney Philip J. Berg, a case that is docketed for a similar conference among the justices on Jan. 9.

Berg’s original case raises questions about Obama’s eligibility and his injunction request first was filed early in December. It was submitted to and rejected by two different justices before it came before Justice Antonin Scalia on Dec. 18. Then just before Christmas the docket was updated to reflect that the motion had been "distributed for conference of January 16, 2009."

On Berg’s Obama Crimes.org website, he said Congress is scheduled to hear the Electoral College results on Jan. 8. Then on Jan. 9 there’s the conference scheduled on Berg’s case itself, with the injunction issue to be addressed a week later.

WND has reported Berg’s case, one of the first legal challenges to Obama’s eligibility to reach the Supreme Court, alleges he cannot constitutionally be inaugurated.

"I know that Mr. Obama is not a constitutionally qualified natural born citizen and is ineligible to assume the office of president of the United States," Berg said in a statement on his ObamaCrimes.com website.

"Obama knows he is not ‘natural born’ as he knows where he was born and he knows he was adopted in Indonesia; Obama is an attorney, Harvard Law grad who taught Constitutional law; Obama knows his candidacy is the largest ‘hoax’ attempted on the citizens of the United States in over 200 years; Obama places our Constitution in a ‘crisis’ situation; and Obama is in a situation where he can be blackmailed by leaders around the world who know Obama is not qualified," Berg’s statement continued.

"The Supreme Court has listed the case of Berg vs. Obama for ‘conference’ on January 9," the website said.

"I am appalled that the main stream media continues to ignore this issue as we are headed to a ‘Constitution Crisis,’" Berg wrote. "There is nothing more important than our U.S. Constitution and it must be enforced. I am concerned that our courts have not yet decided to look into the merits of our allegations."

WND previously reported on a case brought by Cort Wrotnowski. It fell by the wayside when the justices heard about it in conference but refused to give it a further hearing. That was the same fate handed to a case brought by Leo Donofrio. Both challenged Obama on essentially the same issue: allegations that dual citizenship based on a father who was a British subject and a mother who was an American minor disqualified him for office.

Where’s the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 190,000 others and sign up now!

The high court previously turned down a request from Berg to stop the Electoral College from selecting the 44th president until Obama documents his eligibility for the office.

As WND has reported, more than a dozen lawsuits have been filed over Obama’s eligibility to assume the office of the president, many have been dismissed, while others remain pending.

The cases, in various ways, have alleged Obama does not meet the "natural born citizen" clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, which reads, "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 legal challenges have alleged Obama was not born in Hawaii, as he insists, but in Kenya. 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. Such cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

Several details of Obama’s past have added twists to the question of his eligibility and citizenship, including his family’s move to Indonesia when he was a child, his travel to Pakistan in the ’80s when such travel was forbidden to American citizens and conflicting reports from Obama’s family about his place of birth.

A partial listing and status update for several of the cases surrounding Obama’s eligibility to serve as president is below:

* Philip J. Berg, a Pennsylvania Democrat, demanded that the courts verify Obama’s original birth certificate and other documents proving his American citizenship. Supreme Court conferences on the case and its motions are scheduled Jan. 9 and 16.

* 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 injuction against Georgia’s secretary of state was denied by Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter.

* California attorney Orly Taitz also has brought a complaint alleging Obama is not a "natural born" citizen and has written an open letter to the Supreme Court asking for the issue to be resolved.

Last month, WND reported the worries over a "constitutional crisis" that could be looming over the issue of Obama’s citizenship.

"Should Senator Obama be discovered, after he takes office, to be ineligible for the Office of President of the United States of America and, thereby, his election declared void," argues the Alan Keyes case pending in California, "Americans will suffer irreparable harm in that (a) usurper will be sitting as the President of the United States, and none of the treaties, laws, or executive orders signed by him will be valid or legal."

With such high stakes potentially at risk, WND earlier launched a letter campaign to contact Electoral College members and urge them to review the controversy.

That followed a campaign that sent more than 60,000 letters by overnight delivery to the U.S. Supreme Court when one case contesting Obama’s eligibility for the Oval Office was pending.

A separate petition, already signed by more than 190,000 also is ongoing asking authorities in the election to seek proof Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution.

WND senior reporter Jerome Corsi had gone to both Kenya and Hawaii prior to the election to investigate issues surrounding Obama’s birth. But his research and discoveries only raised more questions.

The biggest question was why, if a Hawaii birth certificate exists as his campaign has stated, Obama hasn’t simply ordered it made available to settle the rumors. The image his campaign posted online has been rejected by critics since it is a "certification of live birth," not a birth certificate, and under Hawaii law at the time such certifications were given to parents of children born outside the state.

The governor’s office in Hawaii said there is a valid certificate but rejected requests for 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. There have been other allegations that Obama actually was born in Kenya during a time when his father was a British subject. At one point a Kenyan ambassador said Obama’s birthplace in Kenya already was being recognized.

[I have collaborated on this with my sister and historian Greg Dehler, author of  "Chester Allan Arthur", Published by Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2006  ISBN 1600210791, 9781600210792  192 pages. ]

I’ve been forwarded the actual naturalization record for William Arthur on microfiche, obtained from the Library of Congress.   He was naturalized in New York State and became a United States citizen in August 1843.

Chester Arthur perpetrated a fraud as to his eligibility to be Vice President by spreading various lies about his parents’ heritage.  President Arthur’s father, William Arthur, became a United States citizen in August 1843.  But Chester Arthur was born in 1829.  Therefore, he was a British Citizen by descent , and a dual citizen at birth, if not his whole life.

He wasn’t a “natural born citizen” and he knew it.

We’ve also uncovered many lies told by Chester Arthur to the press which kept this fact from public view when he ran for Vice President in 1880.  Garfield won the election, became President in 1881, and was assassinated by a fanatical Chester Arthur supporter that same year.

How ironic that the allegations  started by Arthur Hinman in his pamphlet entitled, “How A British Subject Became President” , have turned out to be true…but not for the reason Hinman suggested.

Hinman alleged that Arthur was born in Ireland or Canada as a British subject.   It was bunk.  It’s been definitively established that Chester Arthur was born in Vermont.   But Hinman turns out to be correct anyway since Chester Arthur was a British citizen/subject by virtue of his father not having naturalized as a United States citizen until Chester Arthur was almost 14 years old.

That means Chester Arthur was a British subject at the time of his birth.

We’ve uncovered news clips exposing a thorough trail of lies, all of which served to obscure Chester Arthur’s true history of having been born as a British citizen.

Chester Arthur’s lies came during his Vice Presidential campaign in 1880.  His fraudulent attempt to obfuscate family history provides context and evidence that in 1880 it was recognized that having been born as a British citizen would make one ineligible to be President or VP.  His falsification of family history indicates he was aware of POTUS ineligibility.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT

Chester Arthur was in politics at the time of the 14th Amendment’s ratification.  He was a lawyer and a politician while the 14th Amendment was being debated.  It was ratified in 1867.  In that same year Chester Arthur rose to become chairperson of the Executive Committee of the State Republican Committee.   He would have been fully cognizant of the natural born citizen issue and that should he ever run for POTUS or VP, problems could arise.

He would have known that if anybody found out his father naturalized after he was born, he could never be President or Vice President.

CHESTER’S LIES

The definitive biography on Chester Arthur is “Gentleman Boss” by Thomas Reeves .  It’s an exhaustive reference.  Many of the blanks in Chester Arthur’s legend were filled in by this book which utilized interviews with family members and authentic documents like the Arthur family Bible.   It was a necessary work since old Chester Arthur was a very wily protector of his strange history.  He burned all of his papers. (See page 2365.)

Read Full Story Here

After President-elect Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee let a Dec. 1 deadline slip by without responding to Pennsylvania attorney Philip J. Berg’s petition for writ of certiorari demanding Obama produce a legitimate birth certificate, the attorney is now filing a motion to stop Obama from taking office in January.

Berg has filed an emergency motion for immediate injunction, America’s Right blogger and legal writer Jeff Schreiber reports. Berg is asking the court to stop state certification of electors to keep the Electoral College from meeting Dec. 15 and casting votes for Obama. He is also seeking to postpone the official vote count Jan. 6 until the court reaches a decision on his appeal.

Where’s the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. and thus a "natural-born American" as required by Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution? If you still want to see it, sign WND’s petition demanding the release of his birth certificate.

"It is my firm belief, my one thousand percent firm belief," Berg told Schreiber, "that he does not meet the natural born qualifications, that he should not be voted for by the electors, and that he should not be sworn in this January unless he shows his credentials … which he of course cannot, simply because he does not have them."

Berg filed his petition Oct. 30, and according to procedure, a response from the defendants was due yesterday. While the Federal Election Commission waived its right to respond to the complaint Nov. 18, there has been no word from Obama or the DNC.

The parties are not legally required to respond, and Berg said he doesn’t expect them to do so. He believes the defendants will argue that he lacks standing.

"If they were going to respond, I get the feeling that it would have been in there by now," Berg told Schreiber. "The feeling may be that, if they respond, they could hold themselves out for perjury later on when we’re successful. That’s why, in the lower court, they just relied on a motion to dismiss based on standing. Here, they may not want to file an actual, specific response in the Supreme Court

for fear they’ll be held to it later."

Berg referenced nationwide efforts to demand Obama produce an original birth certificate.

"We’re finding that there is a great interest across the United States," Berg said. "I’ve been on talk show after talk show, and the more the case is discussed, the more people are made aware of it and are disgusted by the fact that Obama just won’t simply produce the credentials showing he’s qualified. Hopefully, some authority will demand it."

Original story …

A lawyer who is playing a key role in a California lawsuit urging officials to prevent the state’s 55 Electoral College votes from being recorded for Barack Obama until questions about his citizenship are resolved says he’s organizing plans to challenge, even after the inauguration, every order, every proposal, every piece of paperwork generated by Obama.

Barack Obama

"We will file lawsuits on his actions, every time. As long as we have money , we will keep filing lawsuits until we get a decision as to his citizenship status," Gary Kreep, chief of the United States Justice Foundation, told WND today.

"We’re already talking to groups who are willing to be plaintiffs," he said.

As WND reported, Kreep filed the California challenge with presidential candidate Alan Keyes as a plaintiff.

The complaint urges the California secretary of state to refuse to allow the state’s 55 Electoral College votes to be cast until Obama’s citizenship and related eligibility to hold office is resolved.

It is just one of more than a dozen legal challenges brought forward so far over Obama’s citizenship. The cases all cite Obama’s clouded history and the U.S. Constitution’s requirement that a president be a "natural-born" citizen.

Sign the petition to insist on release of birth certificate.

There have been allegations he was born in Kenya, not Hawaii as his campaign has reported, that he could be considered a British subject because of his father’s residency in what then was a British protectorate that later became Kenya, and that the "Certificate of Live Birth" posted on his website simply shows his mother registered his birth in Hawaii after he was born but does not document a location.

There also have been questions raised about his travels as a youth, including the years he spent registered as a Muslim in an Indonesian school, and his later travels to Pakistan at a time when U.S. passports weren’t welcome in that nation.

WND senior reporter Jerome Corsi traveled to Kenya and Hawaii prior to the election to investigate issues surrounding Obama’s birth. But his research and discoveries only raised more questions.

The biggest question is why Obama, if a Hawaii birth certificate exists, simply hasn’t ordered it made available to settle the rumors.

The governor’s office in Hawaii said there is a valid certificate but rejected requests for 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, while a video posted on YouTube features Obama’s Kenyan grandmother Sarah claiming to have witnessed Obama’s birth in Kenya.

The California action was filed on behalf of Keyes, as well as Wiley S. Drake and Markham Robinson, both California electors.

"Should Senator Obama be discovered, after he takes office, to be ineligible for the Office of President of the United States of America and, thereby, his election declared void, Petitioners, as well as other Americans, will suffer irreparable harm in that (a) usurper will be sitting as the President of the United States, and none of the treaties, laws, or executive orders signed by him will be valid or legal," the action challenges.

Kreep told WND today he’s now working with several groups that could serve as plaintiffs to challenge Obama’s actions, even from the Oval Office, should the issue remain in dispute.

"There is a reasonable and common expectation by the voters that to qualify for the ballot, the individuals running for office must meet minimum qualifications as outlined in the federal and state Constitutions and statutes, and that compliance with those minimum qualifications has been confirmed by the officials overseeing the election process," the complaint said, when in fact the only documentation currently required is a signed statement from the candidate attesting to those qualifications.

The issue is much more important than a single candidate, said Judge Roy Moore, the former chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court and a WND columnist. He now runs the Foundation for Moral Law.

Moore had his own constitutional confrontation when he was removed from his position Alabama Supreme Court chief justice after he refused to remove from state grounds a monument recognizing the Ten Commandments as the foundation for U.S. law.

"We can survive four years of any president; we cannot survive without a Constitution," he told WND. "This calls for a major investigation. Our Constitution is at stake."

Moore said the requirement for a president to be a natural-born citizen is clear in the Constitution. The document, he added, provides procedures to amend the requirement, but that hasn’t been done.

"We live under the rule of law," he warned, "If we start ignoring that. …"

A WND reader agreed in a letter to the editor.

"If Obama is allowed to take office without proving his citizenship, then we have no Constitution. America as it’s been will be dead. If an easy to understand rule is ignored, then the others harder to understand will be easy to ignore," wrote Tony Costello.

Moore said, "If a person is not qualified, he’s not qualified. It doesn’t matter who it is, Republican, Democrat, black or white, rich or poor."

He added the members of the Electoral College have an obligation to verify Obama’s qualifications before voting for him.

But he said the dispute may end up with court action, too.

"The courts are there to uphold the law. People have a right to change the Constitution. But until then it’s the rule of law," he said.

"I don’t see any reason a candidate who has such a serious question would not come forward with the truth about where he was born," Moore said.

"The Supreme Court has to answer this. They have to do it by law and not by the popularity of a person. If we do that, we might as well throw the Constitution out the window," Moore said.

"[Obama] has the answer. He knows where he was born. If he tells something that’s untrue that’s another matter. It’s not an Obama issue, it’s an American issue. It’s about the Constitution of the United States."

U.S. State Department officials declined to respond to WND inquiries about the process for keeping a U.S. citizenship while attending schools in Indonesia, or the possibility of a U.S. citizen keeping that status while traveling on another nation’s passport.

But several online "fact" sites have reported that the concerns over Obama’s citizenship are much ado about nothing.

Factcheck.org, for example, has posted an image described as Obama’s "birth certificate." But within the image can be seen the words "Certificate of Live Birth," which is not the same document. In Hawaii at the time Obama was born the state would issue a "Certificate of Live Birth" to a parent registering a birth, but it does not indicate the location of the birth.

"FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate," the group said in a statement accompanying the image of the "Certificate of Live Birth."

Snopes, also, attested to Obama’s U.S. citizenship, citing information from the campaign itself.

However, WND columnist Janet Porter, who has investigated the dispute, wrote in her column today that there are too many questions to ignore.

"In Hawaii, a Certification of Live Birth is issued within a year of a child’s birth to those who register a birth abroad or one that takes place outside a hospital," she said.

She cited the work of Ron Polarik, who holds a Ph.D. in instructional media and specializes in computer graphics with over 20 years experience with computers, printers and typewriters.

"Polarik has submitted a signed affidavit and has now released his findings on video at www.ObamaForgery.com with his identity masked and voice altered to guard against the carrying out of threats, which he has already received," Porter wrote.

"The Summary: The Certificate of Live Birth documents posted on Mr. Obama’s website www.fightthesmears.com , Daily Kos (a pro-Obama blog) and factcheck.org, (a pro-Obama political research group), were found to be altered and forged," she said.

The researcher cited problems with pixels in the image and a fold line and a blurry border. He asserts the border is a 2007 version while the seal and signature are from 2008.

She also cited issues beyond the birth certificate.

"There’s the matter that Obama traveled to Indonesia, Pakistan, Southern India and Kenya in 1981. He said he went to Indonesia to see his mother. This seemed plausible, except for the fact that his mother returned to Hawaii in August of 1980 to file for a divorce from her second husband, Lolo Soetoro. Unless she went back to pal around with the man she divorced, she wasn’t there at the time of Obama’s visit," Porter wrote.

"There’s another problem. No record of Obama holding an American passport prior to the one he received once becoming a U.S. senator has been found. If he traveled to Pakistan with an American passport, he wouldn’t have been allowed in – since Pakistan was in turmoil in 1981 and under martial law. It was also on the State Department’s travel ban list for U.S. citizens," she wrote.

"If he couldn’t get into Pakistan with a U.S. passport, perhaps he went there with an Indonesian passport. But the only way you can get one of those is if you are an Indonesian citizen ," she wrote.

Porter encouraged residents to contact the members of the House Judiciary Committee with a request to hold congressional hearings and write to the U.S. Supreme Court to request a ruling.

On the FederalistBlog the writers concluded:

"A child born to an American mother and alien father could be said to be a citizen of the United States by some affirmative act of law but never entitled to be a natural-born citizen because through laws of nature the child inherits the condition of their father."

Obama’s mother held U.S. citizenship, but his father never did.

WND also reported that Herb Titus, the Constitution Party’s running mate to Howard Phillips in 1996 and recognized authority on the U.S. Constitution, said it is up the electors from the 50 states to make certain Obama is a natural-born U.S. citizen before they cast votes for him in the Electoral College Dec. 15.

"If they do their duty, they would make sure that if they cast a vote for Mr. Obama, that Mr. Obama is a natural-born citizen," he told WND.

"I think it should be resolved. The duty is in the Electoral College. Every Obama elector that is committed to casting a vote on the 15th of December, they have a constitutional duty to make certain whether Mr. Obama is a natural-born citizen," he said.

If the electors fail their duty and Obama proves ultimately to fail the eligibility requirement of the U.S. Constitution, there would be only the laborious, contentious and cumbersome process of impeachment available to those who would wish to follow the Constitution, he suggested.

On WND’s new forum page, the level of frustration was rising. Dozens contributed their thoughts immediately after the forum was posted:

"What makes Obama non-respon[sive] to the simplest of requests?" asked one reader. "Does he think that it is politically incorrect to ask for authentication of the myriad of facts about himself … Is he testing the grounds to see how far he can play with this charade?"

Other comments included:

* "Obama won his first election ever by getting three Democratic opponents thrown off the ballot? He’s all for using the law to help himself win. Wouldn’t it be ironic if he is not allowed to serve as president due to the law? … Turn around is fair play!
* "Even the left-wing liberal news media is beginning to ask the question: ‘Who is this man we have elected? We really do not know much about him.’"
* "Obama’s refusal to produce the ORIGINAL given birth certificate gives us all pause. His silence on these allegations is deafening. The anointed one believes that if he can hold us all back until he’s in the Oval Office he’s hit a home run and he’s ‘safe.’ Ah, not so! Check your law, Obama, and you will see that even if were to make it to the White House you will no longer be able to hide behind those red velvet ropes."
* "There must be something that would have caused him great harm prior to the election, and would have stopped him from becoming elected. What could that little piece of information be?"

Original story here …

The following report is the culmination of over four months of intensive, empirical research whose sole purpose has been to determine if the images and photographs posted on the Internet are true reproductions of a genuine document purported to be Obama’s original birth certificate. The idea for the research actually began from the time when the first image was posted on June 12 to the Daily Kos blog. I don’t recall on which website I actually saw the story (most likely World Net Daily), but the news had gone viral basically from the moment that it hit the Internet.

Before seeing the image, I had no idea that Barack Obama’s birthplace was in question, or that his status as a natural-born US citizen had never been proven. Like millions of other Americans, I believed the story he told about being born in Hawaii to an American Mother (and a U.S. citizen) and an African Father (a Kenyan national attending college on a student visa). I had no idea that this issue would mushroom and take on a life of its own. What I did know, however, was that from the first time I saw the Daily Kos image, or what I now call, "Obama’s bogus birth certificate," that something was just not right about it. As someone who has scanned hundreds of thousands of documents in his lifetime, I had a hard time accepting that this was an original scan image made from an original paper document. As Fate would have it, right then, on June 13, I was looking at the conclusive evidence that the text on this image had been graphically altered, or "manufactured," as my first blog post would claim.

From that point onward, I had no inkling of what was to come. I had no idea that I would wind up being the only person on the Planet (at that time) to have spotted the anomalies that I knew were the by-products of intentional, graphic alteration, and to go on record as stating that the Daily Kos image was a fake. I was also not prepared for what came along with this knowledge, for what I had to endure for making it public. Basically, I had painted a big bullseye on my chest and my research findings, and the critics were now coming out of the virtual woodwork taking shots at me personally, and my research, secondly. I had started a new online game called, "Let’s pile on Polarik," and every little error I made was magnified into a major transgression. Yet, the crux of my contention was never successfully refuted.

Now, if I had to do it all over again, I probably would not have done it at all, knowing that I’d be spending the next four months conducting further research and compiling evidence on not just the COLB image, but also the digital photographs that were to follow two months later. The personal costs to me were enormous, and I will not elucidate on them (but for those who know me, they also know what were those costs). What began as sort of a curiosity turned into my personal quest for the "Holy Grail," so to speak. I was guided only by the need to uncover the truth, and by the constant harassment by my critics. Had they left me alone from the beginning, I probably would not be writing this report today.

I debated, long and hard, about the title of my report. Aside from it being catchy, I ran the danger of being lumped into a group of false conspiracy theorists, and brushed aside as an idiot wearing a "tinfoil hat." (Actually, that’s already happened, many times over). Perhaps there are a lot of false conspiracies, including some really outlandish ones, but there would not be laws on the books, both at a state level and a federal level, that specifically mention the act of conspiracy when the purpose of that conspiracy is to either engage in illegal activity, engage in a cover-up of that illegal activity, or interfering with the investigation of that illegal activity. Conspiracy can involve all of these. Yet, somehow, the word, "Conspiracy," has become a pejorative for "nutty theories from the fringe," as if there has never been a real "conspiracy."

Do you remember, or ever hear about, the "Watergate Conspiracy?" Do you remember, or ever hear about, what happened to President Richard Nixon as a result?

I would tell all of you who think that "conspiracies" are a joke and that the people who claim to have found them are "idiots wearing tinfoil hats," to just ask an FBI agent what he or she thinks about "conspiracy." Or, go ahead and ask a federal judge what he or she thinks about "conspiracy."

"Conspiracy" is no laughing matter, ladies and gentlemen, and neither is "document fraud," as in creating and passing a counterfeit birth certificate .

I should now alert you to the fact that I have been using the phrase, "Bogus birth certificate," as a euphemism for "Counterfeit birth certificate," which is defined as, "A copy or imitation of a state-issued birth certificate that is intended to be taken as authentic and genuine in order to deceive another. "

Sound familiar? According to Authenticate-360 :

Birth certificates are generally used as “breeder” documents to gain other identity documents and to perpetuate fraud. But unlike Social Security cards, birth certificates are issued by hundreds, if not thousands, of entities, with little regard to consistency or security. An accurately forged birth certificate is a dangerous document, allowing the bearer significant access to everything from driver’s licenses to passports…The increasing availability and affordability of high-quality digital scanners and copiers is a constant threat to the authenticity of government issued documents.

There are current Federal laws in place that prohibit the use of false identity documents, such as a birth certificate, and they are spelled out in Chapter 18 of the United States Code, Section 1028, Fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents, authentication features, and information. In particular, there are specific paragraphs that relate to the use of a false identification document :

The term "false identification document" means a document of a type intended or commonly accepted for the purposes of identification of individuals that – (A) is not issued by or under the authority of a governmental entity or was issued under the authority of a governmental entity but was subsequently altered for purposes of deceit ; and(B) appears to be issued by or under the authority of the United States Government, a State, a political subdivision of a State, a foreign government, a political subdivision of a foreign government, or an international governmental or quasi-governmental organization.

What you are about to read in this report are well-documented facts arising from evidence collected over a period of four months and subjected to intense scrutiny and empirical evaluation. Given the overriding fact that the individual whose identity document is in question, has repeatedly failed to provide a genuine identity document, the charge that this individual, along with other individuals, did conspire to proffer in its place, a false identification document, is hereby levied by the American people, by way of one of its citizens. To summarize the seriousness of these actions and this charge, and to the importance of what is contained within this report:

There is conclusive and irrefutable evidence that the COLB image created and distributed by Obama’s campaign to the Daily Kos, Annenberg’s Factcheck , and the St. Pete Times, Politifact , is, unquestionably, a false identification document . Furthermore, there is conclusive and irrefutable evidence that the photos taken by Annenberg’s Factcheck , in collusion with the Obama campaign, are themselves, false identification documents , having been made from the same false identification document image, as well as from additional false identification documents created for the same purpose; namely, to proffer these false identification documents as true reproductions of a genuine, Hawaii-issued and certified, "Certification of Live Birth" document, and thereby, intentionally deceive the American public into believing that Barack Hussein Obama is a natural-born citizen of the United States, and thereby, fully qualified to become their President.

I never imagined that my studies would amount to this. I thought, like most Americans, that maybe the information was accurate even though the document image was fake. I thought, like most Americans, that Obama would simply present a copy of his real, original birth certificate, and that would be that. Yet, here we are, more than twenty months after Obama announced his candidacy for the Presidency , and nearly three weeks after the election, and Obama still refuses to show his real birth certificate!

Read the rest of this great hot breaking story and research here …