All Entries Tagged With: "McCain"
Where’s the Birth Certificate? No!!! not the fake one.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009 6:33 PM By: Jim Meyers (c) Newmax
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:
|
|
Barack Obama Is a Big Fat Liar
June 26, 2009 4:00 AM (c) NRO Jim Gerathey
E ver since Barack Obama declared his candidacy for president, it’s been easy — and great fun — to spotlight when his promises and statements come with “expiration dates.” The list is long: Public financing. Renegotiating NAFTA. His promise to support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies. His inability to disown Rev. Jeremiah Wright. The release of detainee photos. Denouncing Turkey for genocide.
Flip-flops are nothing new in politics, but every once in a while, a president breaks a promise or an important pledge on such an epic level that it defines him, at least in part: “Read my lips: No new taxes. ” “I did not have sexual relations with that woman. ” “We did not — repeat — did not trade weapons or anything else for hostages — nor will we. ” Even “I will never lie to you. ”
Barack Obama’s sudden about-face on taxing employer-provided health insurance deserves to rank among these classics. Not because it’s as laughable as Bill Clinton’s, or as emphatic as George H. W. Bush’s, but because it takes a certain moral venality to casually adopt, as president, a position that was a dominant theme of your argument for why your opponent should not be president.
 |
|
|||
| |
Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign spent $44 million on 16 different television ads hammering John McCain on this idea, according to research by Evan L. Tracey, founder and president of Campaign Media Analysis Group, a TNS Media Intelligence company.
“This message was a central theme and a significant percentage of the Obama campaign’s advertising in 2008,” Tracey said. His organization estimated last November that Obama’s campaign spent $250 million on television advertising, meaning that about 17 percent of all of Obama’s ads were denouncing McCain for this proposal.
The ads left no wiggle room:
Announcer: John McCain on health care.
John McCain: “I want to give every American a 5,000-dollar refundable tax credit.”
Announcer: Here’s the truth.
Barack Obama: “He says that he’s going to give you a 5,000-dollar tax credit. What he doesn’t tell you is that he is going to tax your employer-based health-care benefits for the first time ever. So what one hand giveth, the other hand taketh away.”
Announcer: John McCain. Instead of fixing health care, he wants to tax it.
Barack Obama: I’m Barack Obama, and I approve this message.
Sometimes the ads keyed the issue to a particular swing state:
Announcer: In Nevada, we work hard, and many of us get health insurance through our jobs. John McCain’s health plan would tax our health benefits as income. Taxing health benefits for the first time ever, meaning higher taxes for us. Under McCain, insurance companies prosper. Nevadans pay. Taxing our health-care benefits. An idea we should send back to Arizona. John McCain doesn’t get Nevada. He doesn’t get us.
Barack Obama: “I’m Barack Obama, and I approve this message.”
Obama won Nevada, 55 percent to 43 percent, a dramatic improvement on John Kerry’s 47.9 percent four years earlier.
The back-and-forth on the proposal in the vice-presidential debate provided the visuals and audio for another ad:
[Text]: McCain’s health plan. What she said.
Sarah Palin: “He’s proposing a 5,000-dollar tax credit for families so that they can get out there, and they can purchase their own health-care coverage.”
[Text]: What she didn’t say.
Joe Biden: “Well, you know how John McCain pays for his 5,000-dollar tax credit? He taxes as income every one of you out there, every one of you listening who has a health-care plan through your employer. Taxing your health-care benefit. I call that the ultimate Bridge to Nowhere.”
[Text]: Taxing health benefits for the first time ever.
Gwen Ifill: “Thank you, Senator.”
[Text]: The McCain health tax. What they can’t explain.
Barack Obama: “I’m Barack Obama, and I approve this message.”
Of course, it wasn’t just ads. Obama hammered the point again and again in his stump speech. On September 12, 2008, while appearing in Dover, N.H., Obama said :
And I can make a firm pledge: under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase — not your income taxes, not your payroll taxes, not your capital-gains taxes, not any of your taxes. My opponent can’t make that pledge, and here’s why: For the first time in American history, he wants to tax your health benefits. Apparently, Senator McCain doesn’t think it’s enough that your health premiums have doubled, he thinks you should have to pay taxes on them too. That’s a $3.6 trillion tax increase on middle-class families. That will eventually leave tens of millions of you paying higher taxes. That’s his idea of change.
Notice there’s no mention of income level, or certain limited circumstances in which it would be acceptable to tax health benefits. No suggestion that the proposal might be something he would accept a compromise on. No ifs, no ands, no buts.
In early October he went even further, calling McCain’s plan “so radical, so out of touch with what you’re facing, and so out of line with our basic values.”
On Capitol Hill, however, Democrats have long liked the idea as a new form of tax revenue. Obama’s relentless denunciation of the proposal would seem to preclude his signing it into law, but “would seem to” is not “does.” Back in March, White House budget director Peter Orszag said taxing employer benefits was among several ideas that “most firmly should remain on the table,” and some congressional Democrats told the Washington Post that White House officials said Obama would accept such a tax “as long as he didn’t have to propose it himself.”
Finally, during Wednesday’s p.r. push for his health-care plan, Obama refused to rule out the proposal that he once said made John McCain unfit for office.
“I don’t want to prejudge what they’re doing,” he said about Senate proposals to tax workers who get expensive insurance policies. “I have identified the ways that I think we should finance this. I think Congress should adopt them. I’m going to wait and see what ideas ultimately they come up with.”
Poof! What was once “so radical, so out of touch with what you’re facing, and so out of line with our basic values” now is not worthy of prejudgment.
Where does John McCain get his reputation back? And if Obama will do an about-face on this issue, is there any promise he’s made that is not approaching an inevitable expiration date?
— Jim Geraghty writes the Campaign Spot for NRO.
Why Obama wants to hide birth certificate
Posted: June 16, 2009 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 Joseph Farah
Since I began my quixotic campaign to uncover Barack Obama’s birth certificate, many have asked me about the president’s possible motives for hiding it with such tenacity and diligence.
I think there are many plausible motives:
* Perhaps something in that birth certificate, if it indeed exists, would contradict assertions Obama has made about his life’s story. These might even involve his true parental heritage. Without a real birth certificate, no one really knows who his parents
were. So it is ridiculous even to speculate about whether citizenship could be conferred upon him by his mother, when we don’t know for sure who his mother is.
* Perhaps it reveals a foreign birth, as Hawaii allowed for in 1961 while still issuing the "certification of live birth" we have seen posted on his website.
* Or perhaps it will show just what Obama has claimed all along – a birth in Hawaii to two officially non-citizen parents, for the purpose of establishing "natural born citizenship" under the Constitution.
What do I mean by that last possibility?
Well, as you know, in 2008, the Senate of the United States held hearings to determine if one of the presidential candidates fulfilled the requirement of being a "natural born citizen." It wasn’t Barack Obama. It was John McCain, who was born on a U.S. military base overseas to two U.S. citizens.
Start your own elibibility billboard campaign in your neighborhood with WND’s new yard signs, asking: "Where’s the Birth Certificate?"
On April 10 of last year, two senators, both Democrats, Patrick Leahy of Vermont and Claire McCaskill of Missouri, introduced a resolution into upper house expressing a sense of the Senate that McCain was indeed a "natural born citizen."
It’s interesting what Leahy had to say on the subject: "Because he was born to American citizens (emphasis added), there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen. I expect that this will be a unanimous resolution of the U.S. Senate."
And, indeed it was. It was also, interestingly, the only such hearing held by the Congress on the subject of "natural born citizenship" and its application to the 2008 presidential race. Why was that interesting? Because everyone involved in this process knew – or should have known – that the life story told by Barack Obama would raise far more doubts about his eligibility than McCain’s.
Notice Leahy did not say one parent citizen would qualify a child for "natural born citizenship." He indicted it would take two to tango.
He did so again at a Judiciary Committee hearing April 3, when he asked then-Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, a former federal judge, if he had any doubts about McCain’s eligibility to serve as president.
"My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen," Chertoff responded – again underlining the fact that both parents would need to be citizens.
And what did Leahy say to that? "That is mine, too."
By the way, Obama voted for this resolution, so he obviously agrees with the definition of what constitutes a "natural born citizen" – the offspring of two U.S. citizens.
Now, I don’t know who Barack Obama’s parents are, because I have never seen his birth certificate. All I’ve seen is a facsimile of a "certification of live birth" on the Internet. That document, even if genuine, proves nothing about Obama’s birth in Hawaii or who his parents were. Hawaii had a very slipshod practice in 1961 of issuing these documents to babies born outside the country and listing parents who may not have been the parents at all.
But I do know who Barack Obama claims his parents were. According to him, neither one of them was an American citizen able to confer natural born citizenship on a child. One, Barack Obama Sr., was a foreign national from Kenya, and the other, Stanley Ann Dunham, was too young to have qualified under the law for bestowing that privilege on her son, even if the father had been a citizen and even in the unlikely event Obama was actually born in Hawaii!
So, if we are to take Obama at his word, he is not a natural born citizen and not eligible to serve as president.
If he is to be judged by the same standard as his opponent in the race, there is no way he qualifies. That’s what Leahy said. That’s what Chertoff said. That’s what the law says.
A logical question naturally follows: Why didn’t the Congress of the United States hold hearings on Obama’s eligibility when they did so on McCain’s eligibility?
I’m still trying to figure that one out. Maybe the answer is this simple: Because there’s no way Obama would have qualified.
Another logical question follows: Why is this man still serving in the White House and turning the country upside down when he is not even constitutionally eligible?
That’s the heart and soul of the campaign I’ve been running.
By the way, further establishing that it was impossible for Obama to have been a "natural born citizen" are some astonishing words found on his own campaign website. They indicate that Obama was "at birth" a citizen of Kenya and a subject of Great Britain. Why did the founders insist upon a "natural born citizen" clause in the Constitution? To avoid questions of divided loyalties. (Just scroll down the webpage and read the FactCheck.org excerpt to see this amazing admission for yourself.)
So, again, I ask: Why doesn’t Obama want to reveal his real birth certificate? Because he wants this discussion of eligibility to go away – once and for all. It is a vulnerability he cannot explain away. So he would rather not discuss it at all.
But let me remind you all, in case you hadn’t considered this: Obama plans to run for re-election in 2012. And that’s why we can never, ever let this matter rest.
WCJ: Obama Not an American
Barack Hussein Obama obviously has something to hide. He obviously knows how to keep a secret when it comes to releasing his Birth Certificate; the one document that could bolster the argument that he is, in fact, eligible under Article 2, Section 1, of the United States Constitution to hold the office of President of the United States.
And yet, Barack Hussein Obama has no problem sharing information that SHOULD remain secret to the entire world and to our enemies .
Case in point! The Obama Administration just released secret memos and photographs that detail the interrogations of terrorists that were being held in American custody.
Obama authorized the release of these photographs and memos in spite of the undeniable fact that releasing these memos and photographs places the lives of our intelligence operatives and their families in imminent danger .
Obama authorized the release of these photographs and memos in spite of the undeniable fact that r eleasing these memos severely compromises our national security, and endangers each and every one of us .
It’s becoming more and more clear, with each passing day, that the issue surrounding Obama’s refusal to release his Birth Certificate and prove his eligibility to hold the office of President of the United States goes much deeper than initially thought.
The fact that Obama has something to hide when it comes to his Birth Certificate (and some of his college records for that matter) is now more than apparent.
And Obama, through his own obstruction in this matter, has established that contention as valid. It can no longer be reasonably questioned.
But what is now becoming apparent is that Obama’s refusal to release his Birth Certificate hints at an arrogance and disdain of the American people that is unprecedented… an arrogance and disdain that places all of us, our children, our grandchildren and our way of life in extreme jeopardy .
Obama: What I Do Is None Of Your Business.
Consider the following incident. It clearly speaks to Obama’s character and the character of those in his Administration.
Team Obama recently dispatched a Boeing-747 and an F-16 fighter jet to buzz New York City. The residents of New York City were not informed, and, with the tragedy of 9-11 still fresh in their minds, understandably went into a panic.
Not to worry, said the Obama Administration, it wasn’t an attack or even a drill. It was just a photo-op. We needed updated photographs of Air Force One flying by the Statue of Liberty.
But when asked to release the photographs, the Obama Administration stonewalled.
Why? Were those really cool photographs, that sent the people of New York into a panic and cost the American taxpayer hundreds of million of dollars to shoot, a secret?
Do you see a connection here?
When it comes to sharing legitimate secrets with America’s enemies and endangering the lives of Americans, Obama is an open book .
But, when it comes to releasing information about himself or those close to him… even information that is not of a highly personal nature, that the American people SHOULD know (Hey folks, don’t panic, the planes flying perilously close to the New York Skyline are ours, or, here’s my Birth Certificate which proves I am eligible to hold the office of President of the United States) Obama takes an it’s-none-of-your-business attitude .
Who knows, perhaps this combination of courtesy for those that hate the United States and disdain for average Americans explains why Obama has gone to extraordinary lengths to keep his Birth Certificate under lock-and-key.
Perhaps this combination of courtesy for those that hate the United States and disdain for average Americans explains why teams of lawyers have been tasked to thwart the efforts of Americans who simply seek to compel Obama to produce his Birth Certificate.
Perhaps this combination of courtesy for those that hate the United States and disdain for average Americans explains why Team Obama has gone to extraordinary lengths to confound, confuse, distort and spin the issue surrounding his citizenship and eligibility, under the Constitution, to hold the office of President of the United States.
But one thing is becoming painfully obvious, Barack Hussein Obama is not an American, at least not in the truest sense of the word; he does not respect or admire or love the United States as you or I love and respect and admire the United States.
The Birth Certificate Controversy And The Obstruction… Just The Facts.
It’s been stated before but, as there is so much erroneous information published on this issue (from both sides of the ideological aisle) , it’s beneficial to state the facts whenever possible.
Barack Obama Senior (Obama’s Father) was a subject of the British Commonwealth (Kenya was not an independent nation when Obama was born. It was under the control of the British Crown) .
As an aside, since many have asked… yes, even under the best case scenario, Obama was born with dual citizenship and there are legal arguments as to whether his status as a dual citizen would also disqualify him under Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution.
However, we don’t address those arguments at this point so as not to confound matters. Essentially, one cannot even progress to that question until Obama proves that he was born in Hawaii.
His mother, while an American citizen, was not of sufficient age, under the laws of the United States, to bestow citizenship onto any of her offspring that were not born on American soil.
Amazingly, the liberal media initially treated the matter of Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution with a degree of seriousness. In fact, the liberal media probably started the ball rolling by aggressively questioning Senator McCain’s eligibility .
McCain’s father was stationed in Panama at the time of McCain’s birth. McCain was NOT born on American soil.
Is McCain eligible to be President of the United States? … The media aggressively pursued that question .
And McCain’s campaign promptly answered the question and put it to rest. Although McCain was NOT born on U.S. soil, McCain’s parents were both natural born citizens of the United States and of sufficient age to pass that status onto McCain… case closed.
The McCain incident was all but forgotten. Then Obama’s paternal grandmother reportedly made a statement that Obama was born in what is now Kenya and that she witnessed the birth .
Admittedly, at the time, the statement was unverified and even if Obama’s grandmother had, in fact, made the statement, it could be dismissed as a little white-lie told by a proud grandmother.
The story might have died were it not for the actions of Team Obama . In a rush to respond to the situation, Team Obama published a Hawaii CERTIFICATION of Live Birth on Obama’s Fight the Smears (or as we call it, Obama’s Fight the Truth) website… an action that raised more questions than it answered .
The Certification of Live Birth, while an official document is NOT an ACTUAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE (a CERTIFICATE of Live Birth) .
Why not produce an actual birth certificate? That was - and still is - the legitimate question that keeps this all too important controversy alive .
Except when it came to the media; what was initially a valid question, when it came to McCain, was apparently no longer of any importance.
When it came to McCain, they pursued the issue with diligence. When it came to Obama, to even ask the question was a conspiracy theory.
But, as shall become apparent, the ONLY conspiracy going on here is the conspiracy on the part of Team Obama, to keep his Birth Certificate vaulted .
The Real Obstruction Begins.
Again, the Certification of Live Birth is a legal document, but it is TOTALLY INADEQUATE when it comes to proving an individual was born in Hawaii .
The State of Hawaii DOES NOT EVEN ACCEPT the Certification of Live Birth as valid proof that an individual was born in Hawaii .
The Hawaii Department of Homelands, which administers programs to encourage property ownership for native Hawaiians states the following on its website.
"In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found ONLY on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL." [Emphasis Mine].
The bottom line is that the Certification of Live Birth can be erroneous. It has been reported that it was not uncommon for foreigners residing in Hawaii to bring their infant children to the Clerk of the Court, swear they were born in Hawaii and have actual Certificates of Live Birth issued to their children.
It has even been reported that foreigners residing in Hawaii, in some cases, produced birth certificates from foreign countries and the State of Hawaii still issued Hawaiian Certificates of Live Birth to the infants in question.
Could either of those two things have happened in Obama’s case?
The question remains unanswered because Team Obama started moving heaven and earth to keep Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth (the ACTUAL Birth Certificate which lists information such as the hospital, attending physician etc. that would verify Obama’s physical place of birth) under wraps .
The only person who may have seen it is the head of Hawaii’s Department of Health, Dr. Chiyome Fukino. Fukino issued the following statement to the media.
"Therefore, 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."
When pressed for details… who was the physician… what hospital is listed… does the certificate say "unknown" … does it indicate Obama was delivered by a Mid-Wife … does it actually acknowledge he was born outside the United States… Fukino went silent.
And the hospital where Obama was born appears to be a hard question to answer because Obama won’t even answer it.
Obama’s own sister was once willing to answer the question but seems confused. She named two different hospitals on two different occasions and then, she too, went silent.
And the question remains unanswered.
What Is Obama Hiding?
Obama could easily answer the question by releasing his actual Birth Certificate. But not only has Obama refused to do so, teams of attorneys are thwarting efforts to compel Obama to produce it .
Obama is actively obstructing efforts to un-vault his actual Birth Certificate and this active obstruction, in and of itself, should arouse a tremendous amount of suspicion. Without a doubt, there is something on his actual Birth Certificate that he does not want known .
And for those maintaining some hope that the courts will resolve this issue… don’t hold your breath.
Court actions have been unsuccessful. Team Obama actually has the audacity to claim that the courts have settled the issue but THAT’S NOT A FACTUAL ASSERTION . In all cases, the courts have dismissed these suits WITHOUT ever considering the claims or even the MERITS of the actual claims.
In most cases, the courts have simply ruled that the petitioners "lacked standing" to bring the suits. In layman’s terms, the courts have basically stated, we’re not even going to look at this because you have NO RIGHT to even ask Mr. Obama to produce a Birth Certificate .
Generally, rulings on "standing" are valid. Simply put, you don’t have the right to un-vault your next-door neighbor’s Birth Certificate simply out of curiosity.
But in this particular case, there is a nagging issue of the Constitution that simply won’t go away. In our humble opinion, approximate 300 million people have standing to compel Barack Hussein Obama to un-vault his ACTUAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE .
So what’s happening with the courts? Simply put, they’re punting the ball. No judge wants to be the person who opens this Pandora’s Box.
But the American public thinks otherwise. While some in the political and media establishment are trying to convince everyone that this matter is some kind of conspiracy theory, a recent AOL poll (while non-scientific) indicates that 52 percent of the respondents believe this matter has validity .
It’s YOUR country. It’s YOUR Constitution. No one is going to honor or preserve it but YOU ! You have to stand up for your rights and you can do that by keeping up the pressure.
The liberal media wants this story to go away. The liberal media wants YOU to go away.
Don’t let that happen. Don’t give them the satisfaction. Demand they cover this story.
The Constitution Is NOT Just A Piece Of Paper.
Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution 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…"
Now… Obama supporters have written us hate-filled letters and told us that Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution, as it pertains to Obama, is nothing more than a "legal technicality."
Can you believe that?
Others have gone so far as to take the "living-breathing argument" to its unfortunate and dangerous conclusion and told us that Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution is outmoded, outdated and no longer relevant.
Sadly, even some conservatives have advanced that erroneous argument.
Erroneous because Obama’s own actions PROVE exactly WHY our Founding Fathers ratified Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution and why Article 2, Section 1 is STILL relevant today.
In under 100 days, Barack Hussein Obama:
Supplicated himself by bowing before the King of Saudi Arabia. But Obama did not simply supplicate himself. As the elected leader of the United States, he obsequiously and subserviently supplicated you… supplicated me… supplicated the entire United States before a man who is arguable, as the protector of Mecca and Medina, the most important man in the Muslim world .
Contrast Obama’s subservient bow to the actions of then-New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani in October of 2001. Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, came to the United States after the 9-11 attacks and, during a high-profile ceremony, gave Giuliani a $10 million disaster relief check.
After the ceremony, the Prince released a statement to the media saying the policies of the United States partially led to, and by implication, were a justification for, the 9-11 attack. Giuliani, gave the check back !
Obama, on the other hand, traveled to Europe and profusely apologized for America’s arrogance. He’s snuggled up to Hugo Chavez and the Castro regime in Cuba and is even reaching out to Iran’s Mahmoud "the-Holocaust-never-happened" Ahmadinejad.
Radio talk-show host, Tom Roeser comments on yet another incident:
"When Nicaragua’s president Daniel C. Ortega spent 55 minutes ripping the U. S. as a fascist, anti-humane power he smilingly said, ‘I’m grateful President Ortega didn’t blame me for things that happened when I was three months old’-referring to the climactic test with USSR-sponsored Cuba, supposedly a shining hour of the Kennedy years. Shove off JFK: your travail has nothing to do with me. You see, I was only a baby! To our enemies he says hate the U. S. but love me!"
Mark Rhodes, writing for the Internet news blog, Illinois Review , offered additional insights on Roeser’s point:
"Does Barack Obama… view himself as a citizen of the world who only happens to be the custodian of the American executive branch? This is a question that Tom Roeser hints at and it is an entirely legitimate one that in an unguarded and honest moment, President Obama himself might have a tough time answering. … Roeser’s point is that Obama can happily shake hands with enemies of America because he does not see their rants against our country as anything he needs take personally since he is detached from the history of the nation and is not emotionally bound up in its identity as most Americans are."
Taking into account Obama’s past associations with the Reverend Jeremiah "God D___ America" Wright and Nation of Islam leader, Louis Farrakhan; it’s almost as if hating America is a major prerequisite for those who wish to make it into Obama’s cozy little circle .
Our Founding Fathers ratified Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution for just such a reason. It should be obvious that the President of the United States should have sole allegiance to the United States .
When it comes to Barack Hussein Obama, many rational people will always have doubts when it comes to issues of his loyalty and allegiance.
Hiding his Birth Certificate from the American public will only compound those doubts . That issue must be resolved.
And While We’re On The Subject Of Allegiance And Loyalty, A Few More Points… .
It should come as no shock that Obama is reaching out to Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Obama, after all, expressed a willingness to meet Ahmadinejad without preconditions during the campaign.
Unfortunately, Ahmadinejad appears to have some preconditions of his own.
According to MSNBC; "Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said Iran would welcome talks with the U.S. - but only if there was mutual respect. Iranian officials have said that means the U.S. needs to stop accusing Iran of seeking to build nuclear weapons and supporting terrorism… ."
Of course, there’s just two small problem with Ahmadinejad’s demands. Iran IS seeking to secretly build nuclear weapons and IT DOES support terrorism.
And on another front, Obama’s still moving forward with plans to close Guantanamo Bay.
Last week, Attorney General Eric Holder told the media that at least 30 of these terrorists had already been cleared for release. Allusions were initially made that these 30 terrorists could actually be released on U.S. soil and that most of the remaining terrorists could be tried on U.S. soil (Essentially meaning that after retaining slick ACLU lawyers, who would make a mockery of our legal system, many of these remaining terrorists would also be released onto U.S. soil) .
Holder quickly contained the situation and issued a "clarification" on Thursday, saying that no terrorists will be released in the United States. However, as things stand now, we have no place to put these terrorists… no other country will take them. So WHERE ARE THEY GOING TO GO!
Frankly, coming from an Administration that distributed a secret report to law enforcement officials contending that patriotic Americans are the real terrorists, such statements are far from reassuring.
Senator Kit Bond of Missouri said: "While President Obama has no plan for what to do with these killers, he has pledged to close the terrorist detention facility in January, to fulfill a campaign promise. This is a dangerous case of putting symbolism over security."
And things are even worse on the domestic front.
Under the guise of "bailing-out" the auto industry, Obama essentially took control of General Motors and Chrysler. Not being a selfish man, he then turned around and effectively gave away pieces of the former to Big Labor and Fiat (a foreign automobile manufacturer).
But Obama’s not done yet. In a time of severe economic hardship, Obama has proposed to triple the national debt and he is laying the groundwork for an effective nationalization of the health-care industry .
As for the banks, they’re ripe for takeover as well. Economist Stuart Varney, in an editorial published by The Wall Street Journal , alerted us to the Obama Administration’s reluctance to accept money from banks that are attempting to repay TARP bailout money:
"My answer: The government wants to control the banks, just as it now controls GM and Chrysler, and will surely control the health industry in the not-too-distant future. Keeping them TARP-stuffed is the key to control. And for this intensely political president, mere influence is not enough. The White House wants to tell ‘em what to do. Control. Direct. Command."
Varney goes on a talks about what is happening to a large well-known bank that was FORCED to accept TARP money and is NOT being allowed to pay the money back to the American taxpayer:
"The chairman offers to write a check, now, with interest. He’s been sitting on the cash for months and has felt the dead hand of government threatening to run his business and dictate pay scales. He sees the writing on the wall and he wants out. But the Obama team says no, since unlike the smaller banks that gave their TARP money back, this bank is far more prominent. The bank has also been threatened with ‘adverse’ consequences if its chairman persists. That’s politics talking, not economics."
Are Obama’s actions, the actions of a man that loves the United States?
Many patriotic Americans will say no; but, at the very least, we should compel the man occupying the office of President of the United States to prove that he is eligible, under the highest law in the land, to occupy that office .
Use the button below to send your personalized faxes to Barack Hussein Obama and the editors of USA Today, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Daily News, the Chicago Tribune, the New York Post, and Long Island Newsday - the top ten newspapers in the United States with a combined circulation of approximately 10 million. Also send my personalized faxes to the producers at ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX News, MSNBC and CNN.
Tell them that Barack Hussein Obama has NOT produced an actual birth certificate and therefore has not verified that he is Constitutionally eligible to hold the office of President of the United States. Tell them to purse this very real story. Tell them to stop distorting and start reporting.
Floyd Brown
Western Center for Journalism
Eligibility issue: McCain checked but not Obama
Lawsuit contends Congress failed to qualify Democrat for Oval Office
Posted: February 10, 2009 9:09 pm Eastern By Bob Unruh © 2009 WorldNetDaily
A lawsuit that accuses Congress of failing to investigate President Obama’s birthplace before approving the Electoral College vote giving him the presidency has been amended to include additional claims of rights violations, including unequal treatment, because Congress did such an investigation into GOP candidate Sen. John McCain.
That word comes from Mario Apuzzo, the lawyer handling the case on which WND previously has reported.
The case raises many of the same arguments as dozens of other cases that have flooded into courtrooms around the nation since the November election.
The case was brought by Apuzzo on behalf of Charles F. Kerchner Jr., Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell James Lenormand and Donald H. Nelson Jr. It names as defendants Barack Hussein Obama II, the U.S., Congress, the Senate, House of Representatives and former Vice President Dick Cheney along with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Apuzzo told WND that Congress last year raised the issue of whether McCain was a "natural born" citizen, a requirement set out in the U.S. Constitution for the president, because of his birth to U.S. citizens in the Panama Canal Zone.
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 235,000 others and sign up now!
According to a report in the Washington Post, the Senate unanimously declared McCain to be a "natural born" citizen, meeting the demand of Article 2 of the Constitution, which states, "no person except a natural born citizen … shall be eligible to the office of president."
The report, however, pointed out that such a statement was opinion only, and the constitutional question actually isn’t so simple. It quoted Catholic University associate law professor Sarah Duggin saying the document is ambiguous.
"Ultimately there has never been any real resolution of this issue. Congress cannot legislatively change the meaning of the Constitution," she told the newspaper, saying a constitutional amendment or a U.S. Supreme Court ruling would be the way to reach a determination.
However, even though his clients wrote to Congress requesting a similar review of Obama’s birthplace, they were refused.
"The question is: Why do you do it for McCain, but not Obama," Apuzzo told WND.
More specifically, those who doubted McCain’s eligibility had an opportunity for a review but not those who doubt Obama.
That violates a liberty right for his clients, he said, because as members of a republic, they have a right to know that their president is legitimate.
"What I’m arguing is that Congress and President Obama have violated my clients’ due process under Article 5 [of the U.S. Constitution]," Apuzzo said.
Already; Congress held a responsibility to make certain Obama is qualified for the post, he alleges. And the public outcry, evidenced by the dozens of lawsuits over the issue, should have prompted due diligence on the part of members of Congress, he said.
Obama, meanwhile, has refused to hand over "sufficient documents" to verify his "natural born" status, Apuzzo said.
"We’re not a monarchy," Apuzzo said, "People have a right to know."
He said his case in U.S. District Court in New Jersey is at the point where the court notices about the case are being distributed.
He said the fact Obama already has been inaugurated changes nothing in his case.
"Before that, everything really was premature," he said. "He has a right to run for office. But when you down to the nitty gritty, he still has to qualify for the position."
He said the Constitution specifically raises the scenario of a president who has been chosen for office but has failed to qualify.
"Even though you ran, everybody loves you, you still have got to qualify under the Constitution," Apuzzo said.
Further, the lawsuit explains, not only are there legitimate questions about Obama’s birth, and therefore eligibility, he might not even be a U.S. citizen at all.
"There exists a possibility that Obama could be an illegal alien," the lawsuit said. "Obama has yet to adequately prove that he was born in the United States. [Further], Obama has publicly conceded that his father was born in Kenya and a British subject/citizen at the time of Obama’s birth which precluded Obama from gaining any U.S. citizenship from his father."
The lawsuits over Obama’s eligibility, 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. The 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 and on what nation’s passport he traveled to Pakistan in the ’80s, as well as conflicting reports from Obama’s family about his place of birth.
Apuzzo told WND the biggest reason to investigate further is the fact that Obama has refused to allow public release of a signed "vault" copy of his original birth certificate.
Several of the legal cases – including those brought by Orly Taitz, Cort Wrotnowski, Leo Donofrio and Philip Berg, already have been discussed in conference at the U.S. Supreme Court, which has failed to have a hearing on any of the merits involved.
Taitz, in fact, is requesting information from the Supreme Court about a meeting eight of its justices held with Obama, a defendant in her case, before the justices reviewed the issues of the case in a private conference.
Several of the cases still remain active at lower court levels, from which emergency requests to the high court were launched.
"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.
While Obama’s campaign team called the cases garbage, here is a partial listing and status update for several of the cases:
* 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.
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.
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 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?
Loading ...