All Entries Tagged With: "president"
The Transparency of the Presidential Lie
By CFIF Staff Thursday, January 07 2010
Most of us know someone who, as is said, will lie about what he or she had for breakfast. For those who don’t know such a stranger to veracity, meet the current President of the United States. Now you know one.
The late, lamented columnist and language explorer, William Safire, made the term “congenital liar” famous this very week (January 
in 1996, although it seems like only yesterday that he so aptly applied the label to Hillary Clinton, then merely First Lady, then merely lying about penny ante personal corruption issues.
Compared to Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton is a rank amateur. He out lied her to become the Democratic Presidential nominee. In multiple ways, on multiple subjects, on multiple occasions, he told the biggest lie of all – that he is someone he is not – to become President.
This week, what is likely his most transparent lie is laid out for all to see, even liberal children who will need counseling to deal with the fallen god of their parents and teachers.
How transparent is this latest lie? Well, as documented by Andrew Breitbart in this video , eight times President Obama said that his health care reform plan would be, could be, should be broadcast on C-SPAN. Thus would both the process and product of his beneficent vision for the future of our health care be open and understandable, the epitome of representative government striding from the shadows into the light, even Page 1139, Part 6 (z, 73).
All those campaign pledges, promises, assurances were but cons, calculated to head off the Sudden Legislative Death Syndrome that buried HillaryCare before it even got out of the crib, largely because of its secrecy, its lack of transparency.
Not that transparency has been any working part of the development of ObamaCare until now, but the House bills, the Senate bills, with their endless CBO scorings of the unscorable, have been but rehearsals.
Obama Bows to Emperor, First to Break Protocol in U.S. History
[webmaster: Would someone please help Obama to keep his head up. It's disgusting.]
Sunday, November 15, 2009 11:14 PM By: Daniel Ruddy
President Obama created a new presidential precedent when he bowed to the Japanese Emperor Akihito and Empress Michiko Saturday.
No president of the United States in the more than 230 years since the country was founded in 1776 had ever bowed to a member of royalty. That was until Barack Obama’s presidency.
In April, President Obama bowed to the Saudi king during the G-20 meeting. At the time, Obama’s deferential bow was somewhat obscured, and the White House insisted that the president simply had leaned forward to shake the king’s hand.
But the president’s recent demonstration of royal deference to the Japanese emperor and empress suggests his earlier action was no aberration.
What should we make of this? Is it trivial to worry about what on its face could easily be interpreted as nothing more than a polite gesture by our president to respect the culture of a country?
Chuck Norris kicks Obama: Release birth certificate!
Posted: August 03, 2009 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 Chuck Norris
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
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:
|
|
Bombshell: Orders revoked for soldier challenging prez
By Chelsea Schilling and Joe Kovacs © 2009 WorldNetDaily
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.
Cheney: Execute Terrorists If Cuba Prison Must Close
(c) newsmax Monday, June 1, 2009 8:59 PM
Former Vice President Dick Cheney said Monday that the only alternative to holding some suspected terrorists indefinitely would be to execute them, arguing against the Obama administration’s plans to close the Guantanamo detainee prison.
"If you’re going to be engaged in a world conflict such as we are, such as the global war on terrorism, if you don’t have a place where you can hold these people, your only other option is to kill them," Mr. Cheney said.
"And we don’t operate that way."
The former vice president’s statements only raise the stakes in fierce debate with his critics, who believe Mr. Cheney presided over the formulation of interrogation techniques that they regard as torture and remains unapologetic for approving waterboarding and other harsh methods used.
Mr. Cheney bases his argument on the view that suspected terrorists should be considered prisoners of war and said such persons "ought to be held until the end of the conflict.
He also criticized the Obama administration for failing to think through its plans to shutter Guantanamo.
"The administration made a mistake of the president issuing an order that he wants it closed within a year, but didn’t have a clue as to how to proceed," Mr. Cheney said. "And now they’re having trouble because they’re having to come up with a plan of some kind."
Mr. Cheney, who has become the most prominent figure to defend the Bush administration’s record on terror and national security, spoke and took questions at a lunch honoring journalism award winners at the National Press Club.
The former vice president said that the Guantanamo Bay prison is "a fine facility" and that the White House will have a "very difficult" time closing it, because of the legal, political and diplomatic challenges associated with indefinite detention.
Mr. Obama has indicated that even after Guantanamo’s closure, the government will still hold some detainees in prolonged detention. He has also restarted the military commissions process to try some detainees there instead of in civilian courts, following a Bush-era policy.
In arguing for the continued use of Guantanamo, Mr. Cheney cited recent press reports that said about 14 percent of the more than 500 prisoners released from Guantanamo have returned to what he called that jihad business. However, more recent reporting has indicated that the recidivism rate among freed detainees is likely much lower.
Mr. Obama’s decision to close Guantanamo, however, was praised by Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu during a visit to Washington.
For the psychological atmosphere the symbolic issues are important, Mr. Davutoglu said during an interview with a small group of journalists at his Washington hotel. Many things in our region are psychological.
But on the domestic political front, one of the leading contenders for the Republican nomination to run against Mr. Obama in 2012, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, took aim at the president’s foreign policy and defense budget cuts.
Mr. Romney characterized Mr. Obama’s last two trips abroad as a tour of apology and criticized signs from the White House that they might back off a missile defense system in Eastern Europe.
"Arrogant, delusional tyrants can’t be stopped by earnest words and furrowed brows," Mr. Romney said. "Action, strong bold action coming from a position of strength and determination, is the only effective deterrent."
North Korea and Iran were two of the topics that Mr. Cheney admitted the Bush administration did fall short on.
We didn’t bat 1,000. No question about it. And Iran and North Korea are still out there, Mr. Cheney said in response to a question about the growth of nuclear programs in both regimes during the eight years that Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney were in office. I wish we could have done more, but those are problems that are passed on to the next administration.
But Mr. Cheney did assign responsibility to the CIA for both the pre-war intelligence prior to the invasion of Iraq, and for proposing the enhanced interrogation techniques that have been the cause of so much controversy.
The former vice president also said that al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden is not the threat he once was.
I don’t think he can have much impact in terms of managing the organization, because that link between Obama and the people under him is pretty fragile, Mr. Cheney said, inserting the president’s first name for bin Laden’s, a gaffe committed in the past by numerous politicians.
I don’t think he has the capacity to do as much harm as he did at one point, but we ought to still continue to chase him, Mr. Cheney said of bin Laden.
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
Congressman says: Prove eligibility
Posted: May 13, 2009 11:00 pm Eastern By Bob Unruh © 2009 WorldNetDaily
Virginia representative signs onto plan to demand evidence
Now there are two.
A Virginia congressman, very quietly, has signed onto a measure in Congress that would require presidential candidates to verify their eligibility to hold the highest elected office in the United States.
WND earlier reported when freshman Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla., filed H.R. 1503, an amendment to the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971.
According to the Library of Congress’ bill-tracking website, H.R. 1503 would "require the principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of president to include with the committee’s statement of organization a copy of the candidate’s birth certificate, together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution."
The plan has been referred to the House committee on House administration, where it has remained.
Now, Virginia Republican Bob Goodlatte has signed on as a co-sponsor, putting a notice on his website that it’s one of the efforts in which he’s joining.
"Another man with a spine – there are at least two up there on the Hill," wrote a WND reader who has followed the Posey plan.
Get the new Whistleblower magazine, called "YOUR PAPERS, PLEASE? Why dozens of lawsuits and millions of Americans want Barack Obama to prove he’s constitutionally qualified to be president."
George Cecala, a spokesman for Posey office, told WND that constituents had been calling, questioning whether Barack Obama – who has publicized a Certificate of Live Birth, but not his official birth certificate – has demonstrated that he meets the Constitution’s requirement to be a natural-born citizen.
"Those are legitimate constitutional concerns," Cecala said. "Folks have brought the issue up, and the court really hasn’t clarified. And I think American citizens have a right to have answers from their government."
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 365,000 others and sign up now!
"When 7-year-olds play soccer in Brevard County, to be in Little League they have to prove their residency," Cecala said. "To be president there are three requirements: one is citizenship, two is the age of 35, and three, you have to have been a resident for 14 years. We’re simply saying when you file your statement of candidacy with the FEC, you should also file documentation that you fulfill the three requirements to be president.
"Opponents of President Bush used the 2000 election results and the court decisions to question the legitimacy of President Bush to serve as president," explained Rep. Posey in an official statement. "Opponents of President Obama are raising the birth certificate issue as a means of questioning his eligibility to serve as president. Neither of these situations is healthy for our republic. This bill, by simply requiring such documentation for future candidates for president will remove this issue as a reason for questioning the legitimacy of a candidate elected as president."
Goodlatte appeared to have issued no such formal announcement as he signed onto the plan.
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.
Although Obama officials have told WND all such allegations are "garbage," here is a partial listing and status update for some of the cases over Obama’s eligibility:
* New Jersey attorney Mario Apuzzo has filed a case on behalf of Charles Kerchner and others alleging Congress didn’t properly ascertain that Obama is qualified to hold the office of president.
* Pennsylvania Democrat Philip Berg has three cases pending, including Berg vs. Obama in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a separate Berg vs. Obama which is under seal at the U.S. District Court level and Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama, (now dismissed) brought on behalf of a retired military member who could be facing recall to active duty by Obama.
* 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 lawyer 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.
* Also in Ohio, there was the Greenberg v. Brunner case which ended when the judge threatened to assess all case costs against the plaintiff.
* In Washington state, Steven Marquis sued the secretary of state seeking a determination on Obama’s citizenship. The case was denied.
* In Georgia, Rev. Tom Terry asked the state Supreme Court to authenticate Obama’s birth certificate. His request for an injunction against Georgia’s secretary of state was denied by Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter.
* California attorney Orly Taitz has brought a case, Lightfoot vs. Bowen, on behalf of Gail Lightfoot, the vice presidential candidate on the ballot with Ron Paul, four electors and two registered voters. She also has brought forward several other cases and has conducted several public campaigns to generate awareness of the issue.
* 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 Cohen vs. Obama.
* In Hawaii, Keyes vs. Lingle, dismissed.
Historic Issue: YOUR PAPERS, PLEASE?
WorldNet Daily Whistleblower Single Issue - April 2009 – YOUR PAPERS, PLEASE? Why dozens of lawsuits and millions of Americans want Barack Obama to prove he’s constitutionally qualified to be president . With Barack Obama in the White House, millions of Americans are watching the news night after night in sheer shock, wondering out loud what the next unprecedented expansion of government power will be. Nationalizing entire industries with gigantic taxpayer bailouts; forcing taxpayers to fund abortion; releasing Gitmo prisoners onto U.S. streets; rapidly converting free-market, capitalist America into a government-run socialist state – every day seems to bring a new unconstitutional power-grab, critics say.
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.”
Keyes to appeal case on Obama’s eligibility
Keyes to appeal case on Obama’s eligibility. By Bob Unruh © 2009 WorldNetDaily
A lawsuit filed on behalf of Ambassador Alan Keyes, a candidate for president on California’s general election ballot last year, challenging President Obama’s eligibility to hold office under the requirements of the U.S. Constitution will be appealed, according to a lawyer working on the case.
WND reported earlier on the case being filed and then again when a judge dismissed it after concluding anyone can run for president on the California ballot – whether or not they are eligible under the Constitution of the United States.
Judge Michael P. Kenny said the secretary of state, who is responsible for election laws in the state, has no "duty" to demand proof of eligibility from candidates.
But now Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation has confirmed to WND the case will be appealed.
"The judge’s ruling in the case that only Congress and only on Jan. 6 of each year following a presidential election can object as to whether the nominee is eligible to serve as president of the United States is, in our opinion, completely wrong and eviscerates the [Constitutional] requirements for serving as president in the United States Constitution," Kreep said.
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 some 350,000 others and sign up now!
"It has been publicly reported that Mr. Obama as far back as 2006 had a relationship to a law firm that was coincidentally researching ways to get around the Article 2 requirements of the U.S. Constitution for service as president," he said.
"This appears to be an ongoing attempt by Mr. Obama to obtain the presidency while avoiding and evading all questions on his eligibility," he said.
Kreep said the judge’s ruling leaves open the option for any candidate, resident or not, alive or not, to run for the office of president.
"California has a history of removing people from the ballot who are not qualified to run for president," Kreep said. "The most famous case being Eldridge Cleaver."
"It is incumbent upon us here at the USJF to continue this fight to learn the truth," he said.
In the court’s decision to dismiss the case, the judge rejected concerns over the problems that could result if a president was found to be ineligible.
"If Mr. Obama is not constitutionally eligible to serve as president of the United States, then no act that he takes is, arguably, valid, the laws that he signs would not be valid, the protective orders that he signs would be null and void, and every act that he takes would be subject to legal challenge, both in courts of the United States of America, and in international courts, and that, therefore, it is important for the voters to know whether he, or any candidate for president in the future, is eligible to serve in that office," the case explained.
The case documents previously explained that in 1968 the Peace and Freedom Party submitted the name of Eldridge Cleaver as a qualified candidate for president. But then-Secretary of State Frank Jordan "found that, according to Mr. Cleaver’s birth certificate, he was only 34 years old, one year shy of the 35 years of age needed to be on the ballot as a candidate for president."
USJF explained that "using his administrative powers, Mr. Jordan removed Mr. Cleaver from the ballot. Mr. Cleaver unsuccessfully challenged this decision to the Supreme Court of the State of California, and, later, to the Supreme Court of the United States."
The USJF said similarly, in 1984, Peace and Freedom Party candidate Larry Holmes was removed from the ballot.
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.
Further, others question his citizenship by virtue of his attendance in Indonesian schools during his childhood and question on what passport did he travel to Pakistan three decades ago.
Adding fuel to the fire is Obama’s persistent refusal to release documents that could provide answers. While his supporters cite an online version of a "Certification of Live Birth" from Hawaii, critics point out such documents actually were issued for children not born in the state.
Keyes has been critical of judges’ refusal to listen to evidence in the disputes and suggestions that those who bring such allegations for review should be penalized..
"In the final analysis if the courts refuse to respect the Constitution, they are not the judges of their own action. The people must ultimately decide. Which is why I and others will use every outlet to inform them of the injustice being done not just to individuals but to the sovereign people as a whole," Keyes said.
In a commentary on the dispute, Keyes wrote that the suggestion of sanctions against those who bring up the questions, already raised as an issue by Obama’s lawyers in his case, "confirms Obama’s ruthless determination to destroy anyone who continues to seek the information the Constitution requires.
"Why should they demand penalties against citizens who are simply seeking the enforcement of the Supreme Law of the Land? It is simply because their persistence runs contrary to the will of a supposedly popular demagogue? This smacks of tyrannical arrogance. That Obama thus signals his intent to bring financial ruin on those who won’t accept his cover-up of the circumstances of his birth is a tactical escalation," Keyes said.
"As one of the targets of this escalation, I need no more convincing proof of the ruthless disposition so far successfully masked by his empty rhetoric of hope and change. Obviously he means to offer hope only to those willing to surrender their most basic rights. To any who insist on questioning his actions, he offers the drastic change of ruin and destruction. So be it. We shall be among those who learn firsthand the meaning of the sacrifices made by the Founders of our free republic, as they pledged and gave up their lives, their fortunes and the world’s esteem," Keyes said.
Here is a partial listing and status update for some of the cases over Obama’s eligibility:
* New Jersey attorney Mario Apuzzo has filed a case on behalf of Charles Kerchner and others alleging Congress didn’t properly ascertain that Obama is qualified to hold the office of president.
* Philip J. Berg, a Pennsylvania Democrat, demanded that the courts verify Obama’s original birth certificate and other documents proving his American citizenship. Berg’s latest appeal, requesting an injunction to stop the Electoral College from selecting the 44th president, was denied.
* Leo Donofrio of New Jersey filed a lawsuit claiming Obama’s dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court but denied a full hearing.
* Cort Wrotnowski filed suit against Connecticut’s secretary of state, making a similar argument to Donofrio. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court, but was denied a full hearing.
* Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes headlines a list of people filing a suit in California, in a case handled by the United States Justice Foundation, that asks the secretary of state to refuse to allow the state’s 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office. The case is pending, and lawyers are seeking the public’s support.
* Chicago attorney Andy Martin sought legal action requiring Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle to release Obama’s vital statistics record. The case was dismissed by Hawaii Circuit Court Judge Bert Ayabe.
* Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan sought a temporary restraining order to stop the Electoral College vote in North Carolina until Barack Obama’s eligibility could be confirmed, alleging doubt about Obama’s citizenship. His case was denied.
* In Ohio, David M. Neal sued to force the secretary of state to request documents from the Federal Elections Commission, the Democratic National Committee, the Ohio Democratic Party and Obama to show the presidential candidate was born in Hawaii. The case was denied.
* In Washington state, Steven Marquis sued the secretary of state seeking a determination on Obama’s citizenship. The case was denied.
* In Georgia, Rev. Tom Terry asked the state Supreme Court to authenticate Obama’s birth certificate. His request for an injunction against Georgia’s secretary of state was denied by Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter.
* California attorney Orly Taitz has brought a case, Lightfoot vs. Bowen, on behalf of Gail Lightfoot, the vice presidential candidate on the ballot with Ron Paul, four electors and two registered voters. She also has been working on several other cases.
In addition, other cases cited on the RightSideofLife blog as raising questions about Obama’s eligibility include:
* In Texas, Darrel Hunter vs. Obama later was dismissed.
* In Ohio, Gordon Stamper vs. U.S. later was dismissed.
* In Texas, Brockhausen vs. Andrade.
* In Washington, L. Charles vs. Obama.
* In Hawaii, Keyes vs. Lingle, dismissed.
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, which the state’s procedures allowed at the time?
Citizen grand jury indicts Obama
Groups in 20 more states reviewing eligibility claims. By Bob Unruh © 2009 WorldNetDaily
President Obama has been named in dozens of civil lawsuits alleging he is not eligible to be president, with one man even filing a criminal complaint alleging the commander-in-chief is a fraud, and now a citizen grand jury in Georgia has indicted the sitting president.
The indictment delivered to state and federal prosecutors yesterday is one of the developments in the dispute over Obama’s eligibility to be president under the U.S. Constitution’s requirement that presidents be "natural born" citizens.
Orly Taitz , a California attorney working on several of the civil actions, also announced she has filed another Quo Warranto case in the District of Columbia, where, she told WND, the statutes acknowledge that procedure.
The Quo Warranto claim essentially calls on Obama to explain by what authority he has assumed the power of the presidency.
Georgia resident Carl Swensson, whose work is detailed on his Rise up for America website, told WND he got tired of the issues over Obama’s eligibility, as well as his performance in office.
"I took it upon myself to find as many patriots as I could across the state, for the purpose of seating 25 for a grand jury," he said.
Over the weekend the jurors took sworn testimony from several sources, including Taitz, and then generated an indictment that later was forwarded to the U.S. attorney, the state attorney general and others in law enforcement across the state.
Swensson cites on his website as authority for the grand jury the Magna Carta, the bill of rights that formed the foundation of British common law on which U.S. law is based.
He said the members were chosen, sworn in and observed all of the rules of procedure. Swensson declined to elaborate on the specific allegations about Obama, telling WND that remains confidential at this point because of the possibility of a prosecution.
However, the website explanation of the procedure includes some intimidating language.
"If the government does not amend the error within 40 days after being shown the error, then the four members shall refer the matter to the remainder of the grand jury," it says. "The grand jury may distrain and oppress the government in every way in their power, namely, by taking the homes, lands, possessions, and any way else they can until amends shall have been made according to the sole judgment of the grand jury."
Swensson said the indictments were delivered to the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Georgia, state officials and leaders of the Georgia Senate and House.
He told WND that since the action in Georgia, he’s been contacted by groups in at least 20 other states who want to pursue a similar action.
Meanwhile, Taitz told WND she has forwarded to U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Taylor in Washington, D.C., a request for the U.S. to relate Quo Warranto "on Barack Hussein Obama, II to test his title to president."
Named as plaintiffs in the action are nine military or legislative leaders, including Allen C. James, currently on active duty in the U.S. Army in Iraq. Others include several retired military leaders as well as elected state representatives.
"Relators request that as U.S. Attorney, you institute a Quo Warranto proceeding against Obama under DC Code § 16-3502, and demand that Obama show clear title, proving, with clear and convincing evidence, that he had qualified as president elect," Taitz told Taylor.
"By each relator’s constitutional oath of office, and interest above other citizens and taxpayers, relators submit that they have standing," Taitz wrote.
"In arguendo of Respondent Obama’s burden of proof, motions are submitted requesting mandamus on Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle for evidence, and on Sec. State Hillary Rodham Clinton for evidence and to request evidence from Britain and the Republics of Kenya, Indonesia and Pakistan," Taitz said.
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 345,000 others and sign up now!
She told WND the case was filed in the District of Columbia because the district recognizes the procedure. Taitz, who is working on her cases through the Defend Our Freedoms Foundation , cites a legal right established in British common law nearly 800 years ago and recognized by the U.S. Founding Fathers to demand documentation that may prove – or disprove – Obama’s eligibility to be president.
She previously submitted a similar case to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder.
The legal phrase essentially means an explanation is being demanded for what authority Obama is using to act as president. An online constitutional resource says Quo Warranto "affords the only judicial remedy for violations of the Constitution by public officials and agents."
John Eidsmoe, an expert on the U.S. Constitution now working with the Foundation on Moral Law, said the demand is a legitimate course of action.
"She basically is asking, ‘By what authority’ is Obama president," he told WND. "In other words, ‘I want you to tell me by what authority. I don’t really think you should hold the office.’
"She probably has some very good arguments to make," Eidsmoe said.
WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama’s status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."
Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama’s American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.
Other challenges have focused on Obama’s citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.
Several of the civil cases already have involved emergency appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court in which justices have declined even to hear arguments.
Eidsmoe said it’s clear that Obama has something in the documentation of his history, including his birth certificate, college records and other documents, "he does not want the public to know."
What else could be the reason for his hiring law firms across the nation to fight any request for information as basic as his Occidental College
records from the early 1980s, he asked.
According to the online Constitution.org resource: "The common law writ of quo warranto has been suppressed at the federal level in the United States, and deprecated at the state level, but remains a right under the Ninth Amendment which was understood and presumed by the Founders, and which affords the only judicial remedy for violations of the Constitution by public officials and agents."
According to author Chester Antieau in his "The Practice of Extraordinary Remedies," Quo Warranto is one of the oldest rights in common law.
"The earliest case on record appears in the 9th year of Richard I, 1198," he wrote. "The statute of 9 Anne c. 20 in 1710 authorized a proper officer of a court, with leave of the court, to exhibit an information in the nature of quo warranto, at the ‘relation’ of any person desiring to prosecute the same – to be called the relator. Early American statutes were modeled after the Statute of Anne and, indeed, the statute has often been ruled to be part of the common law we inherited from England."
Antieau noted the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled, "Quo warranto is addressed to preventing a continued exercise of authority unlawfully asserted, rather than to correct what has already been done. …"
Its first recognized purpose, he said, is "to determine the title of persons claiming possession of public offices and to oust them if they are found to be usurpers."
Among those who are subject to its demands, under court precedent, are chief executives in other U.S. governmental positions, including governors and sheriffs.
As WND has reported on several occasions, none of the so-called "evidence" of Obama’s constitutional eligibility produced thus far is beyond reasonable doubt nor as iron-clad as simply producing an authentic birth certificate, something Americans are required to do regularly but the president still refuses to do.
Adding fuel to the fire is Obama’s persistent refusal to release documents that could provide answers. While his supporters cite an online version of a "Certification of Live Birth" from Hawaii, critics point out such documents actually were issued for children not born in the state.
As Jerome Corsi, WND senior staff writer, explained, "The main reason doubts persist regarding Obama’s birth certificate is this question: If an original Hawaii-doctor-generated and Hawaii-hospital-released Obama birth certificate exists, why wouldn’t the senator and his campaign simply order the document released and end the controversy?
"That Obama has not ordered Hawaii officials to release the document," Corsi writes, "leaves doubts as to whether an authentic Hawaii birth certificate exists for Obama."
Obama officials repeatedly have declined comment, relenting only one time to call such allegations "garbage."
WND also has reported that Taitz’ appeals have been submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Justice Department, where officials confirmed they received the paperwork.
WND reported earlier on a proposal by U.S. Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla., and the criticism he’s taking for suggesting that the issue be avoided in the future by having presidential candidates supply their birth certificate.
Other members of Congress have been reading from what appears to be a prepared script in response to queries about Obama’s eligibility:
Among the statements from members of Congress:
* Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.: "Thank you for your recent e-mail. Senator Obama meets the constitutional requirements for presidential office. Rumors pertaining to his citizenship status have been circulating on the Internet, and this information has been debunked by Snopes.com, which investigates the truth behind Internet rumors."
* Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla.: "Presidential candidates are vetted by voters at least twice – first in the primary elections and again in the general election. President-Elect Obama won the Democratic Party’s nomination after one of the most fiercely contested presidential primaries in American history. And, he has now been duly elected by the majority of voters in the United States. Throughout both the primary and general election, concerns about Mr. Obama’s birthplace were raised. The voters have made clear their view that Mr. Obama meets the qualifications to hold the office of president."
* Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio: "President Obama has provided several news organizations with a copy of his birth certificate, showing he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961. Hawaii became a state in 1959, and all individuals born in Hawaii after its admission are considered natural-born United States citizens. In addition, the Hawaii State Health Department recently issued a public statement verifying the authenticity of President Obama’s birth certificate."
* U.S. Rep. Rush Holt, D-N.J.: "The claim that President Obama was born outside of the United States, thus rendering him ineligible for the presidency, is part of a larger number of pernicious and factually baseless claims that were circulated about then-Senator Obama during his presidential campaign. President Obama was born in Hawaii." The response provided no documentation.
Here is a partial listing and status update for some of the cases over Obama’s eligibility:
* New Jersey attorney Mario Apuzzo has filed a case on behalf of Charles Kerchner and others alleging Congress didn’t properly ascertain that Obama is qualified to hold the office of president.
* Pennsylvania Democrat Philip Berg has three cases pending, including Berg vs. Obama in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a separate Berg vs. Obama which is under seal at the U.S. District Court level and Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama, (now dismissed) brought on behalf of a retired military member who could be facing recall to active duty by Obama.
* 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 lawyer 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.
* Also in Ohio, there was the Greenberg v. Brunner case which ended when the judge threatened to assess all case costs against the plaintiff.
* 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 Cohen vs. Obama.
* In Hawaii, Keyes vs. Lingle, dismissed.
Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation also has confirmed to WND a civil case brought on behalf of Ambassador Alan Keyes, a candidate for president on California’s general election ballot last year, challenging Obama’s eligibility will be appealed.
WND reported earlier on the case being filed and then again when a judge dismissed it after concluding anyone can run for president on the California ballot – whether or not they are eligible under the Constitution of the United States.
Judge Michael P. Kenny said the secretary of state, who is responsible for election laws in the state, has no "duty" to demand proof of eligibility from candidates.
"The judge’s ruling in the case that only Congress and only on Jan. 6 of each year following a presidential election can object as to whether the nominee is eligible to serve as president of the United States is, in our opinion, completely wrong and eviscerates the [Constitutional] requirements for serving as president in the United States Constitution," Kreep said.
"If Mr. Obama is not constitutionally eligible to serve as president of the United States, then no act that he takes is, arguably, valid, the laws that he signs would not be valid, the protective orders that he signs would be null and void, and every act that he takes would be subject to legal challenge, both in courts of the United States of America, and in international courts, and that, therefore, it is important for the voters to know whether he, or any candidate for president in the future, is eligible to serve in that office," the case explained.
Loading ...