OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL
Eligibility dispute story spreads
Now National Press Club event scheduled on challenge to Oval Office occupant
Posted: December 05, 2008
10:00 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=82819
Questions raised over Barack Obama's citizenship are reaching into the National Press Club now, with an event scheduled Monday at which an activist group will call for the release of documentation proving his eligibility to occupy the Oval Office.
Already, at least one legal advocacy group is promising to raise legal challenges to whatever Obama would do as president, until and unless his eligibility is established.
Now the group that has aired and published a number of ads challenging Obama based on charges that he was born in Kenya, not Hawaii, and doesn't meet the U.S. Constitution's requirement that all presidents be "natural-born" citizens has scheduled a news conference in Washington.
Among those scheduled to be present are attorneys handling a Pennsylvania case brought by Philip Berg, a New Jersey case brought by Leo Donofrio and a California case brought by Orly Taitz. The U.S. Supreme Court justices were scheduled to have a conference today on whether to accept arguments on the issue, but no immediate announcement was made.
WeThePeopleFoundation.org, which is scheduling the event, will talk about Obama's response to the publication of an open letter last week in the Chicago Tribune.
The letter sought Obama's authorization for access to his original birth certificate, which state officials in Hawaii report having seen.
"Under our Constitution, no one is eligible to assume the office of the president unless he or she is a 'natural born citizen,'" Bob Schulz of WeThePeople said. "To date, Mr. Obama has refused all requests to release his original birth certificate or other documents that would definitively establish his citizenship status and thus his constitutional eligibility."
More than a dozen legal challenges have been initiated over Obama's citizenship, all citing Obama's clouded history and the U.S. Constitution's requirement that a president be a natural born citizen.
Join more than 165,000 others in signing WND's online petition calling for release of Barack Obama's birth certificate and verifying beyond any shadow of a doubt his constitutional eligibility for office.
There have been allegations Obama was born in Kenya, not Hawaii as his campaign has reported, that he could be considered a British subject because of his father's residency in what then was a British protectorate that later became Kenya, and that the "Certification of Live Birth" posted on his website simply shows his mother registered his birth in Hawaii after he was born, but does not document a location of birth.
There also have been questions raised about his travels as a youth, including the years he spent registered as a Muslim in an Indonesian school, and his later travels to Pakistan at a time when U.S. passports weren't welcome in that nation.
WND senior reporter Jerome Corsi traveled to Kenya and Hawaii prior to the election to investigate issues surrounding Obama's birth. But his research and discoveries only raised more questions.
The biggest question remains why Obama, if a Hawaii birth certificate exists, simply hasn't ordered it made available to settle the rumors. The dispute has been covered mostly by online news sources, but in recent days, Washington and Philadelphia newspapers have begun following, CNN and Fox have commented and even the American Bar Association Journal has noted the dispute.
The governor's office in Hawaii said there is a valid certificate but rejected requests for access and left ambiguous its origin. Obama's half-sister, Maya Soetoro, has named two different Hawaii hospitals where Obama could have been born, while a video posted on YouTube features Obama's Kenyan grandmother Sarah claiming to have witnessed Obama's birth in Kenya.
Schulz' open letter asked that Obama have delivered to the National Press Club a certified copy of the original birth certificate, including any under the names Barack Husssein Obama, Barry Soetoro, Barry Obama, Barack Dunham and Barry Dunham, a certificate of his citizenship and admission forms for his attendance at Occidental College, Columbia and Harvard.
The dispute is facing an immediate deadline, because members of the U.S. Electoral College are scheduled to vote Dec. 15 formally to make Obama the next president.
Don't be surprised by the developments in an Obama White House. Read the "The Audacity of Deceit" for an analysis of what to expect – today for only $4.95, an incredible $21 discount!
"Should the state members of the Electoral College cast their votes for Mr. Obama in the face of such overwhelming evidence, and without verification of Mr. Obama's eligibility, they would be committing treason to the Constitution," Schultz said.
WND has reported that as long as two years ago, a lawyer whose firm is linked to Obama was advocating abandonment of the "natural-born" requirement in the Constitution.
And in an analysis in the Philadelphia Bulletin, constitutional lawyer Edwin Vieira, suggested there would be major problems should Obama not be eligible, and assume the office anyway.
"Let's assume he wasn't born in the U.S.," Vieira told the Bulletin. "What's the consequence? He will not be eligible. That means he cannot be elected validly. The people and the Electoral College cannot overcome this and the House of Representatives can't make him president. So what's the next step? He takes the oath of office, and assuming he's aware he's not a citizen, then it's a perjured oath."
The result would be any appointments made an ineligible president, and all the appointees' decisions, would be invalid, he said.
Vieira suggested Obama supporters should be the ones raising the questions, because of the discredit that would follow a revelation of ineligibility.
"Let's say we go a year into this process, and it all turns out to be a flim-flam," Vieira told the newspaper. "What's the nation's reaction to that? What's going to be the reaction in the next U.S. election? God knows. It has almost revolutionary consequences, if you think about it."
He also suggested Obama's silence on the issue, itself, is a concern.
Vieira told the newspaper the question is significant because it involves the man who could have his finger next to a nuclear button. He also said the question would remain whether any laws he signs would be valid.
Even after Obama takes the oath of office, the questions will remain, he suggested.
Wes Pruden, editor emeritus of the Washington Times, said Obama's refusal to authorize release of his birth certificate has fueled the dispute.
"This has led to furious speculation on the Internet that Mr. Obama's parents returned to Hawaii with him shortly after his birth and simply registered his Kenyan birth certificate, certified by the doctor who delivered him and by the hospital where he was born, with the Hawaii Department of Health. Why, these skeptics ask, won't the president-elect authorize release of the original Hawaii certificate and squelch speculation once and for all?" he said. "It's a good question, though lack of his asking doesn't prove anything."
++++++++++++
WeThePeopleFoundation.org is a fraud.
If you visit their home page, you will see an enlarged section from a 1963 Hawaiian birth certificate box 7c with the caption "Foreign Country" which they claim proves that Hawaii allowed foreign-born persons to register on the Live Birth form. The fraud is that blocks 7a-7g are the MOTHER'S RESIDENCE, not the place of birth, which is in block 6a and has nothing about "Foreign Country". It's a total sham which they hope nobody will notice since the full certificate showing the context is too blurry to read.
kwdavids has left a new comment
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Decision on Obama citizenship pending (Washington Times + 57 COMMENTS)
Decision on Obama citizenship pending
Court delays action on suit - 'They apparently need the time to deliberate'
Tom Ramstack (Contact)
Saturday, December 6, 2008
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/06/obama-challenge-awaits-a-decision/
The Supreme Court held off Friday on deciding whether to grant a hearing in a long-shot lawsuit that would decide whether Barack Obama can constitutionally become president as a "natural born" U.S. citizen.
The Friday list of court orders that denies or grants hearings did not mention the lawsuit, which says Mr. Obama should be disqualified from the presidency because he purportedly acquired the same British citizenship that his father had when he was born.
A spokesman for the court said the decision on whether to hear the suit brought by retired New Jersey lawyer Leo Donofrio is likely to be announced next week.
A decision not to grant a writ of certiorari -- the legal term for the declaration that the justices will hear the case -- would mean that a lower court ruling that dismissed the lawsuit can stand.
The Supreme Court's justices met in a private conference Friday morning to discuss the issue. At least four of the court's nine justices must approve before the case is heard.
Justice Clarence Thomas picked up the petition to hear the lawsuit after it was denied by Justice David H. Souter. Justice Thomas referred it to the full court, which decided to distribute the case for the justices' conference.
Mr. Obama demonstrated his citizenship during his campaign by circulating copies of his birth certificate, which showed he was born in Hawaii on Aug. 4, 1961. But unlike many of the lawsuits regarding Mr. Obama's citizenship -- which claim he really was born on foreign soil -- Mr. Donofrio's case concedes that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii but says he still held foreign citizenship at birth.
"Since Barack Obama's father was a citizen of Kenya, and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of Senator Obama's birth, then Senator Obama was a British citizen 'at birth,' just like the framers of the Constitution, and therefore, even if he were to produce an original birth certificate proving he were born on U.S. soil, he still wouldn't be eligible to be president."
Kenya was British East Africa until it received its independence in 1963.
Legal scholars doubt the court will hear the case. The Supreme Court rarely grants the kind of court orders -- or stays -- sought by Mr. Donofrio. And doing so in this case would set up an unprecedented challenge to the presidency of a man who already has won the election and almost certainly will have taken office by the time any hearings or decisions could occur.
About a half-dozen people who say the court should stop Mr. Obama from becoming president protested in front of the Supreme Court on Friday morning.
"He does not meet the criteria of the Constitution that the Founding Fathers set out," said Roger Bredow, an Internet publisher from Bethlehem, Ga., who has tried to rally lawsuit supporters to block Mr. Obama's presidency.
Valerie Wohllheden, of Alexandria, said the danger is that in deciding the lawsuit, the Supreme Court might bend to "the will of the people" by allowing Mr. Obama to become president despite constitutional provisions.
"Then you've got mob rule," she said. "How can he uphold the Constitution if he's breaking it?"
The Supreme Court may hear a lawsuit that argues President-elect Barack Obama cannot become president as a "natural born" U.S. citizen. (Associated Press)
After the list of actions was released, Washington resident Theresa Cao said she took heart from the court's delaying its decision on whether to grant a hearing.
"They apparently need the time to deliberate," she said.
COMMENTS
*
By: Panamabound
This is another lying newspaper. Obama HAS NOT produced a birth certificate. He has only produced a "certificate of live birth", which has been inspected by several specialists in fraud detection and this document has been declared to be fraudulent by at least 3 parties. A "certificate of live birth" is not sufficient in the USA to even obtain a passport. Only a birth certificate is sufficient.
There is a tape recording of Obama's grandmother who is now living in Kenya who said that she was present at Obama's birth and he was born in Kenya. As far as I'm concerned he's a phony any way you cut it. That's why he's always smirking.
December 7, 2008 at 5 a.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: unspun
More on the Donofrio challenge, including rationale, context, and case law:
http://investigatingobama.blogspot.com/2...
December 7, 2008 at 1:42 a.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: boopu2
Thank God! Hopefully the Supreme Court will do the right thing by forcing Obama to produce a valid birth certificate! Obama is a fraud! He's trying to derail our country!
December 7, 2008 at 12:51 a.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: coolpillow
So happy that the TIMES - and the Kool Aid Drinkers- are Finally waking up! Just hope that the Supreme Court does the same.
OR We are lost-
Wake up Justice Kennedy- PRAVDA is paying more attention than YOU!
December 7, 2008 at 12:01 a.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: pff136
"A general dissolution of the principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy.... While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but once they lose their virtue, they will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader.... If virtue and knowledge are diffused among the people, they will never be enslaved. This will be their great security." - Samuel Adams
December 6, 2008 at 11:54 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: Krazyhorse
I tell ya, I am so fed up with the whole thing, it is not funny. I don't know what the people are doing anymore???? this could be the single most important court case that we have ever had in America and we the people should make sure it see's the inside of a court room. I feel like my country is going soft and that is a shame.
December 6, 2008 at 11:25 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: adamsrelic
OK, let me get this straight. I sign up my boys to play baseball and I'm required to present their birth certificates, yet this guy can run for president and nobody checks his credentials? What's wrong with this country?
December 6, 2008 at 10:21 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: emery
The Obama Zombies seem quite pleased with this because they themselves have sold their souls to this charlatan Obama or whatever the hell his name really is. He is the mystery man of the New World Order. He is far more secretive than his equally incompetent predecessor GW Bush. He appears to have been groomed for this role by the elite for many years. If we can ever get them to release his college info we will see what this student of Bzrezinski has been hiding from us. They should take him to court for that info to be released to. Let the court proceedings begin.
December 6, 2008 at 10:14 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: emery
Obama was born in Kenya. Berg has the sworn affidavits proving this. Obama produced a false certificate of live birth claiming he was born in Hawaii. This is not the same thing as a birth certificate. He did so knowing it was fraudulent and a lie. He used that false document to claim he could legitimately run for office of POTUS. It stands to reason that he had some doubt or he would not have lied and produced a falsified document to try and put the issue to rest. The DNC is also complicit in the fraud as well as the national media who continue to try and cloud the real issue.
Here is a report by Dr. Polarik proving this COLB is a photoshop fake.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-blog...
The Obama media has not reported this yet. The first reports were available as early as July 20th.
This is the real issue. It is criminal what he has done. Obama should be arrested and tried for defrauding the American electorate. An election based on fraud and deception is not the basis of validating an election. The majority does not rule when it comes to the US Constitution or interpreting the law. This undermines not only the spirit but the letter of the laws of our constitution and our election laws.
We are not surprised the dummycrats have been fooled by this charlatan. But shame on the Republican leadership who has not and still has not challenged this fraudulent election. It is an example of how compromised the Republican party really is today. It is empty shell of American conservative values.
If Obama and the DNC and the New World Order wanted to modify or change the US Constitution there is a legal way to do it. Obama thinks he can illegally posses the office and then change the Constitution to suit the selfish personal needs of his ego.
Does the Supreme court have the backbone to do their job and rule on the law? It is highly unlikely. They will pull a Pontius Pilate and wash their hands of the crime. The American people have no standing. This is suppose to be the peoples court to protect us from the rich and powerful. Now it protects the rich and powerful. This is the same morally compromised court that has allowed the murder of millions of innocent babies in the womb in the name of women's reproductive rights. This is the same court that has presided over the destruction of the American way of life by the liberals and socialist and communist and atheists. Thanks to them criminals have more rights than legal citizens now.
It is highly unlikely that the SCOTUS will find their conscious after it has so completely compromised. The undermining of the judicial system has been one of the main strategies of the New World Order in dismantling the US Constitution. They are very close to finally succeeding in destroying America.
December 6, 2008 at 10:14 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: TARHEELKNIGHT
But on the other hand, current America doesn't care.
December 6, 2008 at 10:03 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: TARHEELKNIGHT
Just like Jose'; need I say more?
December 6, 2008 at 9:57 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: americangenie
"Mr. Obama demonstrated his citizenship during his campaign by circulating copies of his birth certificate, which showed he was born in Hawaii on Aug. 4, 1961." NOT!!
Mr. Obama produced a bogus Certification of Live Birth as evidenced by the use of the word "African" to indicate his father's race. "African" is not a race. In 1961, the accepted terminology for the race of a black person was "negro" or "colored." The Harvard educated 'one' is too elitist to even allow the correct terminology on his fake COLB. His father couldn't have possibly been a negro or colored. That's simply beneath him.
Lord, have mercy on us all.
God bless America.
December 6, 2008 at 9:26 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: zeezil
Where there's smoke, there's fire. And the question of Obama's birth/citizenship is producing so much smoke, the fire is imminent.Even more so if the Supreme Court dodges the issue.
December 6, 2008 at 9:19 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: SmittyinLACA
This is the "Anchor baby" issue, are foreign nationals within the US under US jurisdiction and eligible for birthright citizenship?
Before you say yes, be sure you understand it will allow birthright citizenship by adverse posession to the global community and guarantee continuous criminal foreign invasion of America forever or until America becomes the least desirable place on the planet, America by law wll become the global lowest common denominator.
The Supremes will not touch this issue, they have no spine, they've managed to avoid this issue for decades, now they're stuck with the wreckage, one of the Anchor babies is running for President and the immigrant mob of Socialist voters is bigger than the non-immigrant mob.
December 6, 2008 at 7:51 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: mother1991
Immigrations have started out that citizenship between an alien and US citizen is inherited through the father. Then in 1922 under Cable Act Married Womens Independent Nationality Act changed to state that it limited women could keep US citizenship if she stayed within US but if she married foreigner and lived on foreign soil for two years she lost American nationality. And the Immigration of 1972 reduced restrictions concerning residence requirements for retention of U.S. citizenship acquired by birth abroad through a U.S. citizen parent and an alien parent.
We need to make sure the paperwork was done correctly for Obama if he really was born in Kenya and if he was really born in Hawaii then the arguments need to go bye. Personally I tjink we need to let things lie so we can heal as a country and if not it could create anarchy and an uprising that would do more harm than good.
December 6, 2008 at 7:18 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: Bubbette
The earlier long post relating to the laws that apply to Obama is not quite correct."Prior to 14 November 1986, the physical presence requirement in this case was ten years (instead of five) -- including five years (instead of two) spent after the parent's 14th birthday. The requirement was reduced in 1986, but the change did not retroactively make US citizenship available to people born previously who did not meet the old requirement. (Congress's intent not to make this change retroactive was affirmed in 1988 with the passage of Public Law 100-525, § 8(d), 102 Stat. 2619)." So the question of whether Obama was born in Hawaii is still an issue, there is a further issue in regards to whether his parents were married if you read through this material.
http://www.richw.org/dualcit/law.html#Ci...
But this is a complicated issue that can only start with the production of the birth certificate or Certificate of Live Birth.
Here is the State of Hawaii site that shows Obama how to fill out the form and send in $10.00 to get a copy of his birth certificate or Certificate of Live Birth as opposed to the worthless Certification of Live Birth he has produced. See pages 7-11 for the particulars.
http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/Loaa%2...
This is a complex issue that can only be answered once Obama is willing to be transparent on this issue and provide the documentation needed by government representatives that are knowledgeable in this area and competent to make the determination. This should have been done BEFORE THE ELECTION. It is obvious that Obama and his team have found a loop hole in the election process pertaining to vetting of candidates that will need to be addressed to ensure this never happens again.
December 6, 2008 at 7:04 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: Cullen
To all the Obama supporters who don't care about the Constitution, I have a new Pledge of Allegiance for you:
"I pledge allegiance to the President of the Blue States of America, and to Socialism, for which he stands, one Obamanation, under Democrats, indiscriminate, with poverty and abortion for all."
(Say while facing rainbow-flag and placing hand over wallet.)
Somebody made a video of you voting on election day: http://www.howobamagotelected.com/
Check it out, it's your finest moment!
December 6, 2008 at 6:36 p.m.
*
By: Irate Nation
>We have the media to thank for this not coming out sooner. This was known before he was the democratic nominee.
So true, even now it's being called a long shot or non starter. Interesting to see this story appeared in Pravda before a DC newspaper decided to report it
December 6, 2008 at 6:10 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: johnboy
SoCalSicilian:
Democracies and Republics are NOT opposites.
Republics can be monarchies, dictatorships, or representative democracies like ours. There are some very nasty Republics around the world with dictators in charge (can you say Zimbabwe?)
You really shouldn't be so forceful with your opinions even when you are right (which in this case you most definately are not)
December 6, 2008 at 6:06 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: Kitty1
We have the media to thank for this not coming out sooner. This was known before he was the democratic nominee.
December 6, 2008 at 5:41 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
Next Page
*
By: levotb
Answer: You can't. Once the Constitution is broken, abused and trashed--which would be the case if they give Obama a "pass"--anarchy will reign and the country will spiral into civil unrest. SCOTUS MUST debate and rule for the People!
December 6, 2008 at 5:20 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: SoCalSicilian
Additionally, The article is WRONG!!!
Obama has NOT released a copy of his Birth Certificate. What he submitted to factcheck.org is something ANYONE can get, natural-born citizen or not!
Vladimere Putin could get the same thing Obama produced!
WAKE UP PEOPLE!!
Once again you are being controlled and duped by the power base and their cronies, the media!
December 6, 2008 at 5:20 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: SoCalSicilian
First of, WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY in the USA! Therefore, even if 100% of "The People" wanted Obama to be President, if he is NOT Constitutionally Qualified he can't be President of the United States!
The fact that the majority of "The People" voted for someone means NOTHING! It is NOT a racist thing, a Right Wing Conspiracy Thing, IT IS A CONSTITUTIONAL THING!!
The United States of America is a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC!! The CONSTITUTION is what matters! If the "will of the people" goes against the Constitution, TOUGH!
The founding fathers NEVER wanted a democracy, IN FACT they despised democracy. Read the Federalist Papers which outlined WHY the founders did NOT want democracy. It is VERY clear!
If the SCOTUS has ANY Constitutional credibility, they will hear the case.
What is it that everyone who opposes this suit scared of. If he is qualified according to the Constitution you have nothing to be worried about. However, IF he is NOT Constitutionally qualified then we are ALL better off if he is exposed now so we are not thrown into a Constitutional crisis.
It is so typical of those who have NO Respect for the Constitution to sit there and say it doesn't matter. However, IT DOES MATTER!
The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land!
If Obama refuses to follow the Constitution, what do you think he will do when it comes time to preserve and protect your liberty?
December 6, 2008 at 5:16 p.m.
*
By: joe y
Get over it, you lost.
Let's move on.
December 6, 2008 at 4:47 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: Bubbette
Here is a State of Hawaii site that actually shows how to fill out the form to receive a birth certificate, and why a Certification of Live Birth (as produced by Obama) is not sufficient see pages 7 to 9:
http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/Loaa%2...
Obama could produce a birth certificate for $10.00?
December 6, 2008 at 4 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: SonAmerica
Rendezvous with Duty
To those who supported and voted for Obama, I say a heartfelt congratulations. Truly. It was an historic day for all Americans. I did not vote for Obama, but he is my President Elect, and I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt. However, this cloud hanging over his eligibility is making that hard to do. Defending and upholding the Constitution is more important than "unity" and more important than any one personality. The Constitution is absolutely central to our form of government. It is the supreme law of the land. If we begin to ignore the black letter text of the Constitution, then it soon ceases to be a constitution and we are on a slippery slope towards tyranny. Some may say we have already started down that slope, but at least up til now there have been arguments presented (even if poor arguments) that at least attempt to address the Constitutional issues and leave the formal authority of the Constitution intact. Ignoring it is not acceptable.
I want the Supreme Court to hear the case to show that at least somebody gives a care about the Constitution. They don't even have to necessarily declare Obama eligible/ineligible. I just want the facts and the law on this issue out there for all to see. There needs to be a clear independent determination of the facts and a clear independent determination of the law defining "natural born citizen". Even if the Supreme Court doesn't want to inject itself into a presidential race, it at least needs to be a clearinghouse of the facts and law. Then on Dec 15 trust the Electoral College to do their duty, as they are also sworn to uphold the Constitution. Both of these bodies have a rendezvous with duty. May they rise to the occasion and not shrink.
December 6, 2008 at 3:57 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: American for America
If Obama is what he is trying to appear to be, he will provide the certificate. How tough is it to do so? Mccain had to show his being from Panama. Obama will not provide this because he was not even born on US soil. I believe we are in for some VERY SERIOUS problems with Obama. Change is what you want? Sure you do. Just like most Presidents he will start well and he will finish with us hating him. We need another Reagan or Kennedy. Our Constitution was set in place for a reason and it has been stepped on, amended, etc. There will come a time when we the people will have to use the Declaration of Independence and will throw the corrupt Government out of office. This must happen because people, there are greater forces at work here. If you think the President and our Government are in control, you are mistaken. The Bankers are evil and will stop at nothing to achieve their goals. The current goal seems to be the North American Union. Expect Obama to work on that. Obama is backed by Rockefeller and that man is backed by the Rothschilds. Believe me when I tell you that the Rothschilds have Central Banks all over the World in areas of major economy. They only place they don't have yet are where? Afghanistan and Iraq!!!
This is evil working in front of us and they must be stopped. If the Supreme Court is not corrupt, they will see this case through. If not, we have no one to turn to but ourselves to stop the New World Order...
December 6, 2008 at 3:55 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: Justmy02
And what are they waiting for this time? For January 20th to come and go so it becomes even tougher to get any sort of straight answer about this CONSTITUTIONAL issue?
I don't understand why Obama is so reluctant to show a vault birth certificate and end this matter once and for all. Could it be because George Soros and Co. and the DNC don't want people to know we've all been screwed?
December 6, 2008 at 3:16 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: ska'd4life
Here's something to think about...
If you were running for POTUS, because you knew you were qualified as a per the Constitution a Natural born citizen, wouldn't it be self incriminating if you were to spend one penny for a law firm to safeguard your birth records?
BHO is paying 3 law firms (not lawyers) to defend him.
Why would someone who knew he was qualified to be president need lawyers to defend him?
BTW he is a constitutional lawyer from Harvard.
If you were a lawyer, what kind of deep stuff would you be in if you needed to hire a bloody lawyer?
December 6, 2008 at 3:02 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: MsRock4Ever
The LARGE majority of voters elected Barack Obama to be our President. It seems the SMALL minority of voters are poor losers. Barack Obama has not even been sworn in yet, but he's done more for the country in 32 days than gw bush has in 8 years. I seriously doubt the case will be heard because the law scholars know There IS NO "case". The Supreme Court Judges have a full docket, they won't want to be bothered by this infantile request. Mr. Obama is going to be a GREAT President, EVEN for the people who were too stupid to vote for him. I predict that many who have protested against his Presidency will have to eat their words early in his term.
December 6, 2008 at 2:49 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: brian_d_w
You commenters are all a bunch of racist, christen fascist, bad losers. Obama won by the largest margin for a non-incumbent, ever. He was born to an american citizen in the USA. He father is not revelent to the issue. Case closed.
This is a bogus challenge, and an affront to democracy.
December 6, 2008 at 2:18 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: VAGirl
Greetings, all: Have a question. God willing, SCOTUS will decide this matter is something they cannot ignore and will decide to hear the case. Say that happens on 8 Dec. Can the Electoral College, which meets on 15 Dec decide to hold off on their final vote on BHO till either: 1) SCOTUS makes a final determination; or 2) can they disqualify him because he has not adequately proven (beyond a reasonable doubt) the he can be legally & CONSTITUTIONALLY elected POTUS? Has anyone seen anything about BHO submitting the required information to SCOTUS on 1 Dec? I haven't. That just shows BHO's contempt for the law, but that's just my opinion.
Also, all those cabinet positions BHO has filled -- one would think those people named would be a bit concerned.
December 6, 2008 at 1:27 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: clramsay
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS COMMENT
http://forums.hannity.com/archive/index....
UNITED STATE CODE
TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part I > § 1401
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years… (LINK (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/usc...))
Immigration and Nationality Technical Corrections Act of 1994 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)
TITLE I--NATIONALITY AND NATURALIZATION
SEC. 101. EQUAL TREATMENT OF WOMEN IN CONFERRING CITIZENSHIP TO CHILDREN BORN ABROAD.
(c) RETROACTIVE APPLICATION- (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the immigration and nationality laws of the United States shall be applied (to persons born before, on, or after the date of the enactment of this Act) as though the amendment made by subsection (a), and subsection (b), had been in effect as of the date of their birth, except that the retroactive application of the amendment and that subsection shall not affect the validity of citizenship of anyone who has obtained citizenship under section 1993 of the Revised Statutes (as in effect before the enactment of the Act of May 24, 1934 (48 Stat. 797)). (LINK (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?...))
In closing I urge all American's to weigh the candidates and base your decision on the course you wish to set for America over the next 4-years.
God bless the USA.
December 6, 2008 at 11:36 a.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: clramsay
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS COMMENT
http://forums.hannity.com/archive/index....
Born in Kenya
The final legal challenge is based on the idea that Obama was born in Kenya and his mother then flew to Hawaii to register the birth. This is the issue which generates all the discussion about his birth certificate. The perception is that the law of at the time (Immunization and Nationality Act of 1952) required that a person born to a couple where one was a US Citizen (Stanley Ann Dunham) and the other an Alien (Barrak Obama Sr, Kenyan) – that the US Citizen had to have been a citizen for 10 years, 5 of which were after the age of 14 to be able to pass citizenship to an offspring by birth. Current law as contained in USC Title 8 Section 1401 (paragraph g) states that to pass citizenship in this case the parent need only have been a citizen for 5-years two of which were after the age of 14.
But you say the law from 1952 is applicable, not the current law? Not quite.
This now appears to be incorrect as in 1994 Public Law 103-416 was passed which is the Immigration and Nationality Technical Corrections Act of 1994. This law makes current immigration law applicable retroactive to Obama’s birth in 1961. As such it does not matter if Obama was born in Kenya or in Hawaii as he would have been a citizen by birth either way. By his mother’s status if born in Kenya and by his location if born in Hawaii.
December 6, 2008 at 11:34 a.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: clramsay
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS COMMENT
http://forums.hannity.com/archive/index....
Indonesian Citizenship (by Adoption)
The claim is that Obama lost his United States citizenship when adopted in Indonesia. However, no adoption records have been presented, only a school registration slip listing his citizenship as Indonesian. I hate to point out, but school records are not adoption proceeding, they are applications filled out by parents trying to get their kids into school. Might he have been adopted? Maybe, maybe not – but a school registration is not proof.
But actually that whole discussion, while it might impact voters, is irrelevant to his constitutional eligibility as US Citizenship is determined by US law and not by Indonesian Law. Indonesia’s view of his dual citizenship status does not change in anyway the view of the United States’ view of his citizenship status. Under United States Law the parents of a minor child cannot relinquish the US Citizenship of that child prior to the age of 21 (law at the time) as per the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 or prior to 18 years of age (current law) per the United States Code Title 8 Section 1401. Since Obama never relinquished his citizenship after the age of maturity, and his parents could not have relinquished it for him as a minor, then he never lost his citizenship status so no naturalization or oath of allegiance would have been required.
Section 349 (a) From and after the effective date of this Act
a person who is a national of the United States whether
by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by —
(1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his
own application, upon an application filed in his behalf
by a parent, or duly authorized agent, or through the
naturalization of a parent having legal custody of such
person: Provided, That nationality shall not be lost
by any person under this section as a result of the
naturalization of a parent or parents while such a person
is under the age of twenty-one years, or as the result of
naturalization obtained on behalf of a person under
twenty-one years of age by a parent, guardian,
or duly authorized agent, unless such person shall fail to
enter the United States to establish a permanent residence
prior to his twenty-fifth birthday: ....(LINK (http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_e... eIII_Chapter3.pdf))
December 6, 2008 at 11:32 a.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: clramsay
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS COMMENT
http://forums.hannity.com/archive/index....
Constitutionally speaking there are only three requirements, (well actually four if you also read the 14th Amendment, but that would be an even tougher challenge then trying for a TKO on citizenship). Those requirements as per Article II are:
A Natural Born Citizen,
35 Years of Age,
14 Years a Resident
Now over the last few months we’ve seen multiple lawsuits challenging Obama’s technical eligibility to serve under the law based on his status as either a Natural Born Citizen or not. The Constitution, while listing it as one of the eligibility requirements, does not define what that phrase means. Does it mean you have to be born on United States soil, or, does it mean you have to derive citizenship based on birth (i.e. not a naturalized citizen). So far those challenges have been dismissed based on lack of standing, just as for fairness, was the legal challenge to Senator McCain’s eligibility. I’m disappointed on these dismissals as I truly feel there should be some mechanism in place to legally vet a candidate for public office, however it appears that will have to wait until after the election. The thrust of these challenges have been centered on a few primary possible points:
Possible Dual Citizenship
Indonesian Citizenship (by Adoption)
Born in Kenya
What does that law say about each of these possible challenges to Obama’s legal eligibility to serve in the Office of President of the United States?
Let’s review.
Possible Dual Citizenship
Some have claimed that you cannot be a citizen of the United States and hold citizenship in another country. This is not the case. In the case of Mandoli v. Acheson (1952) the United States Supreme Court clearly demonstrates that US Citizens can hold citizenship in another country and by holding such citizenship do not relinquish their rights as a United States Citizen and to relinquish citizenship requires positive action after the age of maturity.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/344/133/cas...
December 6, 2008 at 11:30 a.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: clramsay
http://forums.hannity.com/archive/index....
WorldWatcherOctober 31st, 2008, 10:02 am
Over the last few months there has been a small, but growing, group of people dearly hoping to eliminate Barrak Obama as a presidential candidate due to questions concerning is citizenship status. In my opinion this is a non-issue as the Technical Knock Out (TKO) that many are hoping for will never happen. Why? Well read below and I’ll explain why. There are two separate questions on the table: (a) the legal requirements, and (b) the political influence of information on voters. Realistically speaking information which may have no relevance legally can of course have a huge impact on voter perceptions and therefore impact the results of the election. This post addresses Obama’s legal eligibility.
If we are going to defeat Obama we need to do it based on the issues and not based on some trickery of the law. We need to vote against Obama because his tax plan is bad for America. We need to vote against Obama because socialized medicine is bad for America. We need to vote against Obama because he lacks the experience to lead the greatest nation on Earth. We need to vote against Obama because his past associations show a lack of understanding of what America is truly about. Voting the candidate is something we do in the primaries trying to get our candidate into the final election, however, when it comes to the General Election we have to put sour grapes aside and decide to cast our vote based on what’s best for our country. While I disagree with McCain on certain issues, hands down he is the better candidate to lead this country for the next four years. His economic policies will be better for America then Obama’s, his leadership and moral courage are without a doubt better then Obama’s.
December 6, 2008 at 11:28 a.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: Snakedoc
Furthermore, if the SCOTUS decides against Obama's eligibility after the Electors meet, and he has been inaugurated, then certainly it will be President Biden. My question is this, then. If Obama was a fraudulent candidate, therefore his election would be by definition fraudulent. Biden was a nominated running mate on his fraudulent ticket.
Originally, the Constitution defined Vice-President as the Presidential candidate who received the second highest number of electoral votes, which of course has now been amended.
This has the potential of being the most serious Constitutional crisis the country has seen since the election of Lincoln and subsequent hostilities that ensued.
December 6, 2008 at 10:49 a.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: Snakedoc
What do you all think? If the SCOTUS decides after reviewing the appropriate documents and finds them to be fraudulent, where will this put the democrats:
a) prior to the Electors voting
b) after the Electors have voted.
If the Electors have not met, they will be compelled to vote only for eligible candidates, correct? Of course this leaves McCain, and a long list of 3rd party candidates. Who is the Democrat, then? Biden?
December 6, 2008 at 10:35 a.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: jfitz89
Why would his father's citizenship be more of a determination than his mother's, especially when he was born on US soil?
December 6, 2008 at 10:21 a.m. | Mark as Offensive
Next Page
*
By: Drumsalot
jl1,
Are there any pending court cases or were there any court cases contesting McCains citizenship status? If so, please enlighten me and give me the source for us to verify.
December 6, 2008 at 9:51 a.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: Drumsalot
Givin the fact that this WOC has not been dismissed yet and is considered 'Pending" offers me a little bit of hope that the case will be heard. I would imagine that the SCOTUS is well aware of the other WOCs that are upcoming and other suits filed in the District Court system in many states regarding the same basic principle as this one which is the claim that Obama does not qualify to be POTUS.
mrunpc,
I read that sworn affadavit by Bishop Ron McCrae. If this affadavit of accusation is true , then my theory that Obama is a one man sleeper cell is certainly strengthening.
December 6, 2008 at 9:45 a.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: jl1
Oh and BTW, please note that Sen. McCains citizenship is also being challenged on the very same grounds that Obama's is. So if the courts should rule that Obama is not a "naturally born citizen", then McCain would not be president either and Palin can suddenly find that she may not have wait till 2012 or 2016 after all. And the person who started all this murmuring? Why, Mr. Corsi, of course. Just keep that in mind good people.
December 6, 2008 at 9:43 a.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: dynodick
For the supremes not to take this up will cause great damage to the country. It would also lower our stature among other world leaders. What ever they do, it would be prudent to place all law enforcement and national guard units on standby.
Either way, violence will ensue!
December 6, 2008 at 9:36 a.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: jl1
I tell you, some of the dumbest people out there are the most educated. I guess by this guys argument, Jindal's citizenship may also be suspect, right? Here's the other thing I find interesting about this. My dad was born under British colonialism. My oldest sister too. Neither one of them is a British citizen.
December 6, 2008 at 9:28 a.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: eddieb lue
saw a copy of the "birth certificate" the obama campaign released to the press.
it stated that obama's race was "african-american"
that designation is a recent one and was not used when obama was born.
December 6, 2008 at 8:33 a.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: creativeogre
It is important to point out that the clause in Article 2 section one, 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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
"at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution" is a grandfather clause since there were no eligible "Natural born" citizens at the time. The Framers wanted to make themselves eligible to be President, but they didn't want future generations to be Governed by a Commander In Chief who had split loyalty to another Country. The Framers were comfortable making an exception for themselves. They did, after all, create the Constitution. But they were not comfortable with the possibility of future generations of Presidents being born under the jurisdiction of Foreign Powers, especially Great Britain and its monarchy, who the Framers and Colonists fought so hard in the American Revolution to be free of.
For more information on all the cases before the courts, and background on the entire matter visit:
http://countryfirst.bravehost.com/phpBB3...
December 6, 2008 at 8:03 a.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: stevedeery
He may be a citizen, he may be natural born, but he is still anti-american.
Just move in with the Dixie Chicks, move to France, and everyone will be happy
December 6, 2008 at 7:14 a.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: mrunpc
If Barack Hussein Obama were a Republican with this hanging over his head I "wonder" if Democrat Big Media would be completely ignoring it.
ANYONE who loves this country as I do, should be VERY concerned about what it happening. Just the sworn affidavit from Bishop Ron McRae (google him) is enough to make one's skin crawl about Obama.
This issue and many others surrounding his shady past is far from over and a LOT of Americans are readying themselves for something that they sense is coming, something very unusual and bad.
Anyone read about firearms and ammunition sales lately? They're skyrocketing nationwide and it's not just because people fear stricter gun control laws. Women are also among those lining up to purchase and one of the most popular weapons on back order is the AR-15 assault rifle...that's NOT your typical home self-defense weapon, folks!
Either way, it's going to be an interesting 4 years, isn't it?
December 6, 2008 at 7:04 a.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: rancho2008
I did not vote for Obama or McCain, but I just want to know if any employer has a person applying for a top job in his company and yet there are so many questions popping up regarding his eligibility, do you think the employer will just go ahead and hire him without further investigation? I doubt it. So why not clear up the doubts before Obama takes this highest job in the U.S? Is this really so hard? Strange enough almost no other MSM reports the case.
December 6, 2008 at 3:50 a.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: Gene44
A simple solution is for Obama to present to any of the Federal Judges in any of the lawsuit cases a certified copy of his orignial birth certificate proving beyond a doubt his place of birth and citizenship at the time. According to international law a persons father creates the childrens citizenship. Thus Obama under this law would be a British subject at birth, however, as he was adopted by his stepfather in Indonesia it could be claimed that he is Indonesian.
The Surpreme Court must take this case and prove one way or the other the actual legal status in order to uphold the U.S. Constitution. Anything else would be breaking the law of the land.
December 6, 2008 at 3:14 a.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: norcalauto
As I understand it, the Founding Fathers, (and framers of our constitution); gave careful and serious consideration to the possible ramifications to our country should a future President in any way, have a conflict of foreign allegiance, hence the words, “natural-born". The term is unique in that it applies ONLY to POTUS per Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the US Constitution. I do not believe the 14th Amendment applies but I am not a lawyer either.
Notes to ponder:
All natural-born citizens are citizens of the United States
-- but NOT all citizens of the United States are natural-born citizens
Obama may or may not be a US citizen, entitled to all that a US citizen is entitled to
-- EXCEPT POTUS.
Obama certifiCATION may or may not be acceptable for most purposes
-- in lieu of a CertifiCATE
-- EXCEPT POTUS .
Obama may or may not still hold US/UKC dual-nationalities
-- EITHER way; because he was (admittedly) born with same, he is
-- NOT ELIGIBLE FOR POTUS.
Obama TAUGHT Constitutional law
-- was well aware of his predicament.
Obama has gone to great length and expense to prevent release of pertinent documentation
-- WHY?
Obama cannot claim privacy issues while seeking the authority of Commander In Chief.
-- these documents must eventually become part of our history
-- past candidates and Presidents have done so willingly
Obama has not argued the facts of any case against him
-- relies on a technicality of "standing", which has worked (so far)
-- 4-5 cases now before SCOTUS
-- 17-20 still in the lower courts
-- SCOTUS has the power to "drawl" in all pertinent cases
-- and make ONE ruling
Obama may or may not succeed again on the technicality of "standing"
-- it will not end there because voters and opponents will have been
-- denied Equal Protection under the law.
Obama was never properly vetted for public office
-- legislators insist that is the responsibility of the public
-- voters have already vetted him twice
-- once by voting for him in the primaries
-- once by voting for him in the general election
What's wrong with this picture?
-- according to legislators VOTERS are responsible for vetting public officials
-- including candidates for the Presidency
-- yet are denied access on grounds of "privacy"
-- have NO "standing" to demand proof of qualification to hold the position.
-- cannot obtain records without a court order.
-- Catch 22?
Obama may or may not be inaugurated on January 21st
-- if so; do we face the possibility of a usurper in the White House?
-- will social and legal chaos ensue?
"There is not a truth existing which I fear... or would wish unknown to the whole world." (Thomas Jefferson)
December 6, 2008 at 2:54 a.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: Lonnie
Since our Constitution legitimatizes candidates one who fails to fulfill it's requirements is illegitimate. Therefore Obama's status is fraudulent which reduces ALL of his presidential "activities" to a game of charades! We need to get to the heart of the problem. The Supreme Court needs to pry open his closely guarded box of secrets and hold him accountable to our rule of law. The office of president is no place for playing games. There should be zero tolerance for a person who exhibits such clandestine behavior. Who knows what you are getting? You don't.
December 6, 2008 at 1:23 a.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: SonAmerica
I suspect that Obama himself does not believe he meets the qualifications of "natural born citizen", otherwise he would have cooperated by now. Some point out that he has already released his "birth certificate" on his website. But the posting of a short-form Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) on his website does not suffice, because that same COLB certificate is given to those of foreign birth who just register their foreign birth with Hawaii. Why does he not just allow his long-form birth certificate (e.g. showing hospital, doctor, etc) to be released. I also find it very revealing that Hawaiian officials will not say he was born in Hawaii; they just say they have seen his birth certificate. That's a very odd parsing of words when the direct question was whether he was actually born in Hawaii. Maybe he was born in Kenya and according to law he could still be considered a natural born citizen. I would be okay with that. Just let the facts and the law be aired. Let the chips fall where they may. Our constitutional republic can withstand the truth faced squarely. But we would not be able to withstand just sweeping aside the Constitution for "unity". If we do so, we will have neither.
We know that the Supreme Court did not issue of Writ of Certiorari today. They could still take it up next week. May all freedom-loving and Constitution-loving Americans pray this weekend that the Supreme Court will muster the courage to do their duty and hear the facts and law on this prior to the Electoral College meeting on 15 Dec. "We here highly resolve... that government of the People, by the People, and for the People shall not perish from the earth."
December 6, 2008 at midnight | Mark as Offensive
*
By: SonAmerica
To those who supported and voted for Obama, I say a heartfelt congratulations. Truly. It was an historic day for all Americans. I did not vote for Obama, but he is my President Elect, and I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt. However, this cloud hanging over his eligibility is making that hard to do. Defending and upholding the Constitution is more important than "unity" and more important than any one personality. The Constitution is absolutely central to our form of government. It is the supreme law of the land. If we begin to ignore the black letter text of the Constitution, then it soon ceases to be a constitution and we are on a slippery slope towards tyranny. Some may say we have already started down that slope, but at least up til now there have been arguments presented (even if poor arguments) that at least attempt to address the Constitutional issues and leave the formal authority of the Constitution intact. Just ignoring it is not acceptable.
I just want the Supreme Court to hear the case to show that at least somebody gives a care about the Constitution. They don't even have to necessarily declare Obama eligible/ineligible. I just want the facts and the law on this issue out there for all to see. There needs to be a clear independent determination of the facts and a clear independent determination of the law defining "natural born citizen". Even if the Supreme Court doesn't want to inject itself into a presidential race, it at least needs to be a clearinghouse of the facts and law. Then on Dec 15 trust the Electoral College to do their duty, as they are also sworn to uphold the Constitution. Both of these bodies have a rendezvous with duty. May they rise to the occasion and not shrink.
December 5, 2008 at 11:59 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: corporalquick
Take note of the MINCING OF WORDS by Dr. Chiyome Fukino. They have the original. She did not utter the words, "Barack was born in Hawaii and it can be proven." Instead, ANOTHER official said, that Dr. Fukimo MEANT he was born in Hawaii. Very clever. No one can be sued or held liable for what someone else THINKS you mean. Why won't she use the words herself? She's concerned, if by the unlikely chance, she will ever have to surrender the original handwritten document. So, corrupting one official is outside the realm of possibility? Show the ORIGINAL circa 1961 document!!! The press is demonizing anyone who will challenge and they are misstating basic facts. Throw in the fact of Barack's Pakistan trip in the 80's, and we have a national security issue. Wake up at the Court! FInd a way to get your hands on the original document. If there's only a 2% chance that we're dealing with something really, really serious -- would you want it on your watch if you could have prevented it?
December 5, 2008 at 11:38 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: Slow Poke
This is good news. At least they didn't say no to a review. Many folks take this issue very nonchalantly. Not being a "natural born citizen" is a violation of our Constitution as well as a treasonous act, which no one wants to discuss. Regardless of all the assumptions and attempts to soft pedal the issue, as this article does, he obviously can't prove he is eligible. He shouldn't mind showing a legitimate birth certificate, in lieu of a forgery, as many times as need be. Why does he have several law firms trying to make sure no one sees it, if in fact one exists? Folks, it simply doesn’t compute. The media and those that voted for him simply want to let it pass because it is a “historic event”. He, as well as every Secretary of State, the DNC, the FEC, and others that should have vetted him, should be arrested and charged with treason. It is not up to the individual voter to vet a candidate. If a name appears on a ballot, it is assumed the person has been properly vetted. If he is willing to proceed, what's to say that he will not trample more of our Constitution, or doesn’t anyone care about our rules of the land? If the SC rules in favor of him, they should be arrested as well. Sure, there will be problems if found ineligible, but would you rather have the problems later?
December 5, 2008 at 11:17 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
+++++++++++++
WeThePeopleFoundation.org is a fraud.
If you visit their home page, you will see an enlarged section from a 1963 Hawaiian birth certificate box 7c with the caption "Foreign Country" which they claim proves that Hawaii allowed foreign-born persons to register on the Live Birth form. The fraud is that blocks 7a-7g are the MOTHER'S RESIDENCE, not the place of birth, which is in block 6a and has nothing about "Foreign Country". It's a total sham which they hope nobody will notice since the full certificate showing the context is too blurry to read.
kwdavids has left a new comment
Court delays action on suit - 'They apparently need the time to deliberate'
Tom Ramstack (Contact)
Saturday, December 6, 2008
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/06/obama-challenge-awaits-a-decision/
The Supreme Court held off Friday on deciding whether to grant a hearing in a long-shot lawsuit that would decide whether Barack Obama can constitutionally become president as a "natural born" U.S. citizen.
The Friday list of court orders that denies or grants hearings did not mention the lawsuit, which says Mr. Obama should be disqualified from the presidency because he purportedly acquired the same British citizenship that his father had when he was born.
A spokesman for the court said the decision on whether to hear the suit brought by retired New Jersey lawyer Leo Donofrio is likely to be announced next week.
A decision not to grant a writ of certiorari -- the legal term for the declaration that the justices will hear the case -- would mean that a lower court ruling that dismissed the lawsuit can stand.
The Supreme Court's justices met in a private conference Friday morning to discuss the issue. At least four of the court's nine justices must approve before the case is heard.
Justice Clarence Thomas picked up the petition to hear the lawsuit after it was denied by Justice David H. Souter. Justice Thomas referred it to the full court, which decided to distribute the case for the justices' conference.
Mr. Obama demonstrated his citizenship during his campaign by circulating copies of his birth certificate, which showed he was born in Hawaii on Aug. 4, 1961. But unlike many of the lawsuits regarding Mr. Obama's citizenship -- which claim he really was born on foreign soil -- Mr. Donofrio's case concedes that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii but says he still held foreign citizenship at birth.
"Since Barack Obama's father was a citizen of Kenya, and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of Senator Obama's birth, then Senator Obama was a British citizen 'at birth,' just like the framers of the Constitution, and therefore, even if he were to produce an original birth certificate proving he were born on U.S. soil, he still wouldn't be eligible to be president."
Kenya was British East Africa until it received its independence in 1963.
Legal scholars doubt the court will hear the case. The Supreme Court rarely grants the kind of court orders -- or stays -- sought by Mr. Donofrio. And doing so in this case would set up an unprecedented challenge to the presidency of a man who already has won the election and almost certainly will have taken office by the time any hearings or decisions could occur.
About a half-dozen people who say the court should stop Mr. Obama from becoming president protested in front of the Supreme Court on Friday morning.
"He does not meet the criteria of the Constitution that the Founding Fathers set out," said Roger Bredow, an Internet publisher from Bethlehem, Ga., who has tried to rally lawsuit supporters to block Mr. Obama's presidency.
Valerie Wohllheden, of Alexandria, said the danger is that in deciding the lawsuit, the Supreme Court might bend to "the will of the people" by allowing Mr. Obama to become president despite constitutional provisions.
"Then you've got mob rule," she said. "How can he uphold the Constitution if he's breaking it?"
The Supreme Court may hear a lawsuit that argues President-elect Barack Obama cannot become president as a "natural born" U.S. citizen. (Associated Press)
After the list of actions was released, Washington resident Theresa Cao said she took heart from the court's delaying its decision on whether to grant a hearing.
"They apparently need the time to deliberate," she said.
COMMENTS
*
By: Panamabound
This is another lying newspaper. Obama HAS NOT produced a birth certificate. He has only produced a "certificate of live birth", which has been inspected by several specialists in fraud detection and this document has been declared to be fraudulent by at least 3 parties. A "certificate of live birth" is not sufficient in the USA to even obtain a passport. Only a birth certificate is sufficient.
There is a tape recording of Obama's grandmother who is now living in Kenya who said that she was present at Obama's birth and he was born in Kenya. As far as I'm concerned he's a phony any way you cut it. That's why he's always smirking.
December 7, 2008 at 5 a.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: unspun
More on the Donofrio challenge, including rationale, context, and case law:
http://investigatingobama.blogspot.com/2...
December 7, 2008 at 1:42 a.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: boopu2
Thank God! Hopefully the Supreme Court will do the right thing by forcing Obama to produce a valid birth certificate! Obama is a fraud! He's trying to derail our country!
December 7, 2008 at 12:51 a.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: coolpillow
So happy that the TIMES - and the Kool Aid Drinkers- are Finally waking up! Just hope that the Supreme Court does the same.
OR We are lost-
Wake up Justice Kennedy- PRAVDA is paying more attention than YOU!
December 7, 2008 at 12:01 a.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: pff136
"A general dissolution of the principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy.... While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but once they lose their virtue, they will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader.... If virtue and knowledge are diffused among the people, they will never be enslaved. This will be their great security." - Samuel Adams
December 6, 2008 at 11:54 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: Krazyhorse
I tell ya, I am so fed up with the whole thing, it is not funny. I don't know what the people are doing anymore???? this could be the single most important court case that we have ever had in America and we the people should make sure it see's the inside of a court room. I feel like my country is going soft and that is a shame.
December 6, 2008 at 11:25 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: adamsrelic
OK, let me get this straight. I sign up my boys to play baseball and I'm required to present their birth certificates, yet this guy can run for president and nobody checks his credentials? What's wrong with this country?
December 6, 2008 at 10:21 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: emery
The Obama Zombies seem quite pleased with this because they themselves have sold their souls to this charlatan Obama or whatever the hell his name really is. He is the mystery man of the New World Order. He is far more secretive than his equally incompetent predecessor GW Bush. He appears to have been groomed for this role by the elite for many years. If we can ever get them to release his college info we will see what this student of Bzrezinski has been hiding from us. They should take him to court for that info to be released to. Let the court proceedings begin.
December 6, 2008 at 10:14 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: emery
Obama was born in Kenya. Berg has the sworn affidavits proving this. Obama produced a false certificate of live birth claiming he was born in Hawaii. This is not the same thing as a birth certificate. He did so knowing it was fraudulent and a lie. He used that false document to claim he could legitimately run for office of POTUS. It stands to reason that he had some doubt or he would not have lied and produced a falsified document to try and put the issue to rest. The DNC is also complicit in the fraud as well as the national media who continue to try and cloud the real issue.
Here is a report by Dr. Polarik proving this COLB is a photoshop fake.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-blog...
The Obama media has not reported this yet. The first reports were available as early as July 20th.
This is the real issue. It is criminal what he has done. Obama should be arrested and tried for defrauding the American electorate. An election based on fraud and deception is not the basis of validating an election. The majority does not rule when it comes to the US Constitution or interpreting the law. This undermines not only the spirit but the letter of the laws of our constitution and our election laws.
We are not surprised the dummycrats have been fooled by this charlatan. But shame on the Republican leadership who has not and still has not challenged this fraudulent election. It is an example of how compromised the Republican party really is today. It is empty shell of American conservative values.
If Obama and the DNC and the New World Order wanted to modify or change the US Constitution there is a legal way to do it. Obama thinks he can illegally posses the office and then change the Constitution to suit the selfish personal needs of his ego.
Does the Supreme court have the backbone to do their job and rule on the law? It is highly unlikely. They will pull a Pontius Pilate and wash their hands of the crime. The American people have no standing. This is suppose to be the peoples court to protect us from the rich and powerful. Now it protects the rich and powerful. This is the same morally compromised court that has allowed the murder of millions of innocent babies in the womb in the name of women's reproductive rights. This is the same court that has presided over the destruction of the American way of life by the liberals and socialist and communist and atheists. Thanks to them criminals have more rights than legal citizens now.
It is highly unlikely that the SCOTUS will find their conscious after it has so completely compromised. The undermining of the judicial system has been one of the main strategies of the New World Order in dismantling the US Constitution. They are very close to finally succeeding in destroying America.
December 6, 2008 at 10:14 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: TARHEELKNIGHT
But on the other hand, current America doesn't care.
December 6, 2008 at 10:03 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: TARHEELKNIGHT
Just like Jose'; need I say more?
December 6, 2008 at 9:57 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: americangenie
"Mr. Obama demonstrated his citizenship during his campaign by circulating copies of his birth certificate, which showed he was born in Hawaii on Aug. 4, 1961." NOT!!
Mr. Obama produced a bogus Certification of Live Birth as evidenced by the use of the word "African" to indicate his father's race. "African" is not a race. In 1961, the accepted terminology for the race of a black person was "negro" or "colored." The Harvard educated 'one' is too elitist to even allow the correct terminology on his fake COLB. His father couldn't have possibly been a negro or colored. That's simply beneath him.
Lord, have mercy on us all.
God bless America.
December 6, 2008 at 9:26 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: zeezil
Where there's smoke, there's fire. And the question of Obama's birth/citizenship is producing so much smoke, the fire is imminent.Even more so if the Supreme Court dodges the issue.
December 6, 2008 at 9:19 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: SmittyinLACA
This is the "Anchor baby" issue, are foreign nationals within the US under US jurisdiction and eligible for birthright citizenship?
Before you say yes, be sure you understand it will allow birthright citizenship by adverse posession to the global community and guarantee continuous criminal foreign invasion of America forever or until America becomes the least desirable place on the planet, America by law wll become the global lowest common denominator.
The Supremes will not touch this issue, they have no spine, they've managed to avoid this issue for decades, now they're stuck with the wreckage, one of the Anchor babies is running for President and the immigrant mob of Socialist voters is bigger than the non-immigrant mob.
December 6, 2008 at 7:51 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: mother1991
Immigrations have started out that citizenship between an alien and US citizen is inherited through the father. Then in 1922 under Cable Act Married Womens Independent Nationality Act changed to state that it limited women could keep US citizenship if she stayed within US but if she married foreigner and lived on foreign soil for two years she lost American nationality. And the Immigration of 1972 reduced restrictions concerning residence requirements for retention of U.S. citizenship acquired by birth abroad through a U.S. citizen parent and an alien parent.
We need to make sure the paperwork was done correctly for Obama if he really was born in Kenya and if he was really born in Hawaii then the arguments need to go bye. Personally I tjink we need to let things lie so we can heal as a country and if not it could create anarchy and an uprising that would do more harm than good.
December 6, 2008 at 7:18 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: Bubbette
The earlier long post relating to the laws that apply to Obama is not quite correct."Prior to 14 November 1986, the physical presence requirement in this case was ten years (instead of five) -- including five years (instead of two) spent after the parent's 14th birthday. The requirement was reduced in 1986, but the change did not retroactively make US citizenship available to people born previously who did not meet the old requirement. (Congress's intent not to make this change retroactive was affirmed in 1988 with the passage of Public Law 100-525, § 8(d), 102 Stat. 2619)." So the question of whether Obama was born in Hawaii is still an issue, there is a further issue in regards to whether his parents were married if you read through this material.
http://www.richw.org/dualcit/law.html#Ci...
But this is a complicated issue that can only start with the production of the birth certificate or Certificate of Live Birth.
Here is the State of Hawaii site that shows Obama how to fill out the form and send in $10.00 to get a copy of his birth certificate or Certificate of Live Birth as opposed to the worthless Certification of Live Birth he has produced. See pages 7-11 for the particulars.
http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/Loaa%2...
This is a complex issue that can only be answered once Obama is willing to be transparent on this issue and provide the documentation needed by government representatives that are knowledgeable in this area and competent to make the determination. This should have been done BEFORE THE ELECTION. It is obvious that Obama and his team have found a loop hole in the election process pertaining to vetting of candidates that will need to be addressed to ensure this never happens again.
December 6, 2008 at 7:04 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: Cullen
To all the Obama supporters who don't care about the Constitution, I have a new Pledge of Allegiance for you:
"I pledge allegiance to the President of the Blue States of America, and to Socialism, for which he stands, one Obamanation, under Democrats, indiscriminate, with poverty and abortion for all."
(Say while facing rainbow-flag and placing hand over wallet.)
Somebody made a video of you voting on election day: http://www.howobamagotelected.com/
Check it out, it's your finest moment!
December 6, 2008 at 6:36 p.m.
*
By: Irate Nation
>We have the media to thank for this not coming out sooner. This was known before he was the democratic nominee.
So true, even now it's being called a long shot or non starter. Interesting to see this story appeared in Pravda before a DC newspaper decided to report it
December 6, 2008 at 6:10 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: johnboy
SoCalSicilian:
Democracies and Republics are NOT opposites.
Republics can be monarchies, dictatorships, or representative democracies like ours. There are some very nasty Republics around the world with dictators in charge (can you say Zimbabwe?)
You really shouldn't be so forceful with your opinions even when you are right (which in this case you most definately are not)
December 6, 2008 at 6:06 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: Kitty1
We have the media to thank for this not coming out sooner. This was known before he was the democratic nominee.
December 6, 2008 at 5:41 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
Next Page
*
By: levotb
Answer: You can't. Once the Constitution is broken, abused and trashed--which would be the case if they give Obama a "pass"--anarchy will reign and the country will spiral into civil unrest. SCOTUS MUST debate and rule for the People!
December 6, 2008 at 5:20 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: SoCalSicilian
Additionally, The article is WRONG!!!
Obama has NOT released a copy of his Birth Certificate. What he submitted to factcheck.org is something ANYONE can get, natural-born citizen or not!
Vladimere Putin could get the same thing Obama produced!
WAKE UP PEOPLE!!
Once again you are being controlled and duped by the power base and their cronies, the media!
December 6, 2008 at 5:20 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: SoCalSicilian
First of, WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY in the USA! Therefore, even if 100% of "The People" wanted Obama to be President, if he is NOT Constitutionally Qualified he can't be President of the United States!
The fact that the majority of "The People" voted for someone means NOTHING! It is NOT a racist thing, a Right Wing Conspiracy Thing, IT IS A CONSTITUTIONAL THING!!
The United States of America is a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC!! The CONSTITUTION is what matters! If the "will of the people" goes against the Constitution, TOUGH!
The founding fathers NEVER wanted a democracy, IN FACT they despised democracy. Read the Federalist Papers which outlined WHY the founders did NOT want democracy. It is VERY clear!
If the SCOTUS has ANY Constitutional credibility, they will hear the case.
What is it that everyone who opposes this suit scared of. If he is qualified according to the Constitution you have nothing to be worried about. However, IF he is NOT Constitutionally qualified then we are ALL better off if he is exposed now so we are not thrown into a Constitutional crisis.
It is so typical of those who have NO Respect for the Constitution to sit there and say it doesn't matter. However, IT DOES MATTER!
The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land!
If Obama refuses to follow the Constitution, what do you think he will do when it comes time to preserve and protect your liberty?
December 6, 2008 at 5:16 p.m.
*
By: joe y
Get over it, you lost.
Let's move on.
December 6, 2008 at 4:47 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: Bubbette
Here is a State of Hawaii site that actually shows how to fill out the form to receive a birth certificate, and why a Certification of Live Birth (as produced by Obama) is not sufficient see pages 7 to 9:
http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/Loaa%2...
Obama could produce a birth certificate for $10.00?
December 6, 2008 at 4 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: SonAmerica
Rendezvous with Duty
To those who supported and voted for Obama, I say a heartfelt congratulations. Truly. It was an historic day for all Americans. I did not vote for Obama, but he is my President Elect, and I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt. However, this cloud hanging over his eligibility is making that hard to do. Defending and upholding the Constitution is more important than "unity" and more important than any one personality. The Constitution is absolutely central to our form of government. It is the supreme law of the land. If we begin to ignore the black letter text of the Constitution, then it soon ceases to be a constitution and we are on a slippery slope towards tyranny. Some may say we have already started down that slope, but at least up til now there have been arguments presented (even if poor arguments) that at least attempt to address the Constitutional issues and leave the formal authority of the Constitution intact. Ignoring it is not acceptable.
I want the Supreme Court to hear the case to show that at least somebody gives a care about the Constitution. They don't even have to necessarily declare Obama eligible/ineligible. I just want the facts and the law on this issue out there for all to see. There needs to be a clear independent determination of the facts and a clear independent determination of the law defining "natural born citizen". Even if the Supreme Court doesn't want to inject itself into a presidential race, it at least needs to be a clearinghouse of the facts and law. Then on Dec 15 trust the Electoral College to do their duty, as they are also sworn to uphold the Constitution. Both of these bodies have a rendezvous with duty. May they rise to the occasion and not shrink.
December 6, 2008 at 3:57 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: American for America
If Obama is what he is trying to appear to be, he will provide the certificate. How tough is it to do so? Mccain had to show his being from Panama. Obama will not provide this because he was not even born on US soil. I believe we are in for some VERY SERIOUS problems with Obama. Change is what you want? Sure you do. Just like most Presidents he will start well and he will finish with us hating him. We need another Reagan or Kennedy. Our Constitution was set in place for a reason and it has been stepped on, amended, etc. There will come a time when we the people will have to use the Declaration of Independence and will throw the corrupt Government out of office. This must happen because people, there are greater forces at work here. If you think the President and our Government are in control, you are mistaken. The Bankers are evil and will stop at nothing to achieve their goals. The current goal seems to be the North American Union. Expect Obama to work on that. Obama is backed by Rockefeller and that man is backed by the Rothschilds. Believe me when I tell you that the Rothschilds have Central Banks all over the World in areas of major economy. They only place they don't have yet are where? Afghanistan and Iraq!!!
This is evil working in front of us and they must be stopped. If the Supreme Court is not corrupt, they will see this case through. If not, we have no one to turn to but ourselves to stop the New World Order...
December 6, 2008 at 3:55 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: Justmy02
And what are they waiting for this time? For January 20th to come and go so it becomes even tougher to get any sort of straight answer about this CONSTITUTIONAL issue?
I don't understand why Obama is so reluctant to show a vault birth certificate and end this matter once and for all. Could it be because George Soros and Co. and the DNC don't want people to know we've all been screwed?
December 6, 2008 at 3:16 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: ska'd4life
Here's something to think about...
If you were running for POTUS, because you knew you were qualified as a per the Constitution a Natural born citizen, wouldn't it be self incriminating if you were to spend one penny for a law firm to safeguard your birth records?
BHO is paying 3 law firms (not lawyers) to defend him.
Why would someone who knew he was qualified to be president need lawyers to defend him?
BTW he is a constitutional lawyer from Harvard.
If you were a lawyer, what kind of deep stuff would you be in if you needed to hire a bloody lawyer?
December 6, 2008 at 3:02 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: MsRock4Ever
The LARGE majority of voters elected Barack Obama to be our President. It seems the SMALL minority of voters are poor losers. Barack Obama has not even been sworn in yet, but he's done more for the country in 32 days than gw bush has in 8 years. I seriously doubt the case will be heard because the law scholars know There IS NO "case". The Supreme Court Judges have a full docket, they won't want to be bothered by this infantile request. Mr. Obama is going to be a GREAT President, EVEN for the people who were too stupid to vote for him. I predict that many who have protested against his Presidency will have to eat their words early in his term.
December 6, 2008 at 2:49 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: brian_d_w
You commenters are all a bunch of racist, christen fascist, bad losers. Obama won by the largest margin for a non-incumbent, ever. He was born to an american citizen in the USA. He father is not revelent to the issue. Case closed.
This is a bogus challenge, and an affront to democracy.
December 6, 2008 at 2:18 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: VAGirl
Greetings, all: Have a question. God willing, SCOTUS will decide this matter is something they cannot ignore and will decide to hear the case. Say that happens on 8 Dec. Can the Electoral College, which meets on 15 Dec decide to hold off on their final vote on BHO till either: 1) SCOTUS makes a final determination; or 2) can they disqualify him because he has not adequately proven (beyond a reasonable doubt) the he can be legally & CONSTITUTIONALLY elected POTUS? Has anyone seen anything about BHO submitting the required information to SCOTUS on 1 Dec? I haven't. That just shows BHO's contempt for the law, but that's just my opinion.
Also, all those cabinet positions BHO has filled -- one would think those people named would be a bit concerned.
December 6, 2008 at 1:27 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: clramsay
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS COMMENT
http://forums.hannity.com/archive/index....
UNITED STATE CODE
TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part I > § 1401
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years… (LINK (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/usc...))
Immigration and Nationality Technical Corrections Act of 1994 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)
TITLE I--NATIONALITY AND NATURALIZATION
SEC. 101. EQUAL TREATMENT OF WOMEN IN CONFERRING CITIZENSHIP TO CHILDREN BORN ABROAD.
(c) RETROACTIVE APPLICATION- (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the immigration and nationality laws of the United States shall be applied (to persons born before, on, or after the date of the enactment of this Act) as though the amendment made by subsection (a), and subsection (b), had been in effect as of the date of their birth, except that the retroactive application of the amendment and that subsection shall not affect the validity of citizenship of anyone who has obtained citizenship under section 1993 of the Revised Statutes (as in effect before the enactment of the Act of May 24, 1934 (48 Stat. 797)). (LINK (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?...))
In closing I urge all American's to weigh the candidates and base your decision on the course you wish to set for America over the next 4-years.
God bless the USA.
December 6, 2008 at 11:36 a.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: clramsay
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS COMMENT
http://forums.hannity.com/archive/index....
Born in Kenya
The final legal challenge is based on the idea that Obama was born in Kenya and his mother then flew to Hawaii to register the birth. This is the issue which generates all the discussion about his birth certificate. The perception is that the law of at the time (Immunization and Nationality Act of 1952) required that a person born to a couple where one was a US Citizen (Stanley Ann Dunham) and the other an Alien (Barrak Obama Sr, Kenyan) – that the US Citizen had to have been a citizen for 10 years, 5 of which were after the age of 14 to be able to pass citizenship to an offspring by birth. Current law as contained in USC Title 8 Section 1401 (paragraph g) states that to pass citizenship in this case the parent need only have been a citizen for 5-years two of which were after the age of 14.
But you say the law from 1952 is applicable, not the current law? Not quite.
This now appears to be incorrect as in 1994 Public Law 103-416 was passed which is the Immigration and Nationality Technical Corrections Act of 1994. This law makes current immigration law applicable retroactive to Obama’s birth in 1961. As such it does not matter if Obama was born in Kenya or in Hawaii as he would have been a citizen by birth either way. By his mother’s status if born in Kenya and by his location if born in Hawaii.
December 6, 2008 at 11:34 a.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: clramsay
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS COMMENT
http://forums.hannity.com/archive/index....
Indonesian Citizenship (by Adoption)
The claim is that Obama lost his United States citizenship when adopted in Indonesia. However, no adoption records have been presented, only a school registration slip listing his citizenship as Indonesian. I hate to point out, but school records are not adoption proceeding, they are applications filled out by parents trying to get their kids into school. Might he have been adopted? Maybe, maybe not – but a school registration is not proof.
But actually that whole discussion, while it might impact voters, is irrelevant to his constitutional eligibility as US Citizenship is determined by US law and not by Indonesian Law. Indonesia’s view of his dual citizenship status does not change in anyway the view of the United States’ view of his citizenship status. Under United States Law the parents of a minor child cannot relinquish the US Citizenship of that child prior to the age of 21 (law at the time) as per the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 or prior to 18 years of age (current law) per the United States Code Title 8 Section 1401. Since Obama never relinquished his citizenship after the age of maturity, and his parents could not have relinquished it for him as a minor, then he never lost his citizenship status so no naturalization or oath of allegiance would have been required.
Section 349 (a) From and after the effective date of this Act
a person who is a national of the United States whether
by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by —
(1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his
own application, upon an application filed in his behalf
by a parent, or duly authorized agent, or through the
naturalization of a parent having legal custody of such
person: Provided, That nationality shall not be lost
by any person under this section as a result of the
naturalization of a parent or parents while such a person
is under the age of twenty-one years, or as the result of
naturalization obtained on behalf of a person under
twenty-one years of age by a parent, guardian,
or duly authorized agent, unless such person shall fail to
enter the United States to establish a permanent residence
prior to his twenty-fifth birthday: ....(LINK (http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_e... eIII_Chapter3.pdf))
December 6, 2008 at 11:32 a.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: clramsay
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS COMMENT
http://forums.hannity.com/archive/index....
Constitutionally speaking there are only three requirements, (well actually four if you also read the 14th Amendment, but that would be an even tougher challenge then trying for a TKO on citizenship). Those requirements as per Article II are:
A Natural Born Citizen,
35 Years of Age,
14 Years a Resident
Now over the last few months we’ve seen multiple lawsuits challenging Obama’s technical eligibility to serve under the law based on his status as either a Natural Born Citizen or not. The Constitution, while listing it as one of the eligibility requirements, does not define what that phrase means. Does it mean you have to be born on United States soil, or, does it mean you have to derive citizenship based on birth (i.e. not a naturalized citizen). So far those challenges have been dismissed based on lack of standing, just as for fairness, was the legal challenge to Senator McCain’s eligibility. I’m disappointed on these dismissals as I truly feel there should be some mechanism in place to legally vet a candidate for public office, however it appears that will have to wait until after the election. The thrust of these challenges have been centered on a few primary possible points:
Possible Dual Citizenship
Indonesian Citizenship (by Adoption)
Born in Kenya
What does that law say about each of these possible challenges to Obama’s legal eligibility to serve in the Office of President of the United States?
Let’s review.
Possible Dual Citizenship
Some have claimed that you cannot be a citizen of the United States and hold citizenship in another country. This is not the case. In the case of Mandoli v. Acheson (1952) the United States Supreme Court clearly demonstrates that US Citizens can hold citizenship in another country and by holding such citizenship do not relinquish their rights as a United States Citizen and to relinquish citizenship requires positive action after the age of maturity.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/344/133/cas...
December 6, 2008 at 11:30 a.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: clramsay
http://forums.hannity.com/archive/index....
WorldWatcherOctober 31st, 2008, 10:02 am
Over the last few months there has been a small, but growing, group of people dearly hoping to eliminate Barrak Obama as a presidential candidate due to questions concerning is citizenship status. In my opinion this is a non-issue as the Technical Knock Out (TKO) that many are hoping for will never happen. Why? Well read below and I’ll explain why. There are two separate questions on the table: (a) the legal requirements, and (b) the political influence of information on voters. Realistically speaking information which may have no relevance legally can of course have a huge impact on voter perceptions and therefore impact the results of the election. This post addresses Obama’s legal eligibility.
If we are going to defeat Obama we need to do it based on the issues and not based on some trickery of the law. We need to vote against Obama because his tax plan is bad for America. We need to vote against Obama because socialized medicine is bad for America. We need to vote against Obama because he lacks the experience to lead the greatest nation on Earth. We need to vote against Obama because his past associations show a lack of understanding of what America is truly about. Voting the candidate is something we do in the primaries trying to get our candidate into the final election, however, when it comes to the General Election we have to put sour grapes aside and decide to cast our vote based on what’s best for our country. While I disagree with McCain on certain issues, hands down he is the better candidate to lead this country for the next four years. His economic policies will be better for America then Obama’s, his leadership and moral courage are without a doubt better then Obama’s.
December 6, 2008 at 11:28 a.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: Snakedoc
Furthermore, if the SCOTUS decides against Obama's eligibility after the Electors meet, and he has been inaugurated, then certainly it will be President Biden. My question is this, then. If Obama was a fraudulent candidate, therefore his election would be by definition fraudulent. Biden was a nominated running mate on his fraudulent ticket.
Originally, the Constitution defined Vice-President as the Presidential candidate who received the second highest number of electoral votes, which of course has now been amended.
This has the potential of being the most serious Constitutional crisis the country has seen since the election of Lincoln and subsequent hostilities that ensued.
December 6, 2008 at 10:49 a.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: Snakedoc
What do you all think? If the SCOTUS decides after reviewing the appropriate documents and finds them to be fraudulent, where will this put the democrats:
a) prior to the Electors voting
b) after the Electors have voted.
If the Electors have not met, they will be compelled to vote only for eligible candidates, correct? Of course this leaves McCain, and a long list of 3rd party candidates. Who is the Democrat, then? Biden?
December 6, 2008 at 10:35 a.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: jfitz89
Why would his father's citizenship be more of a determination than his mother's, especially when he was born on US soil?
December 6, 2008 at 10:21 a.m. | Mark as Offensive
Next Page
*
By: Drumsalot
jl1,
Are there any pending court cases or were there any court cases contesting McCains citizenship status? If so, please enlighten me and give me the source for us to verify.
December 6, 2008 at 9:51 a.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: Drumsalot
Givin the fact that this WOC has not been dismissed yet and is considered 'Pending" offers me a little bit of hope that the case will be heard. I would imagine that the SCOTUS is well aware of the other WOCs that are upcoming and other suits filed in the District Court system in many states regarding the same basic principle as this one which is the claim that Obama does not qualify to be POTUS.
mrunpc,
I read that sworn affadavit by Bishop Ron McCrae. If this affadavit of accusation is true , then my theory that Obama is a one man sleeper cell is certainly strengthening.
December 6, 2008 at 9:45 a.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: jl1
Oh and BTW, please note that Sen. McCains citizenship is also being challenged on the very same grounds that Obama's is. So if the courts should rule that Obama is not a "naturally born citizen", then McCain would not be president either and Palin can suddenly find that she may not have wait till 2012 or 2016 after all. And the person who started all this murmuring? Why, Mr. Corsi, of course. Just keep that in mind good people.
December 6, 2008 at 9:43 a.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: dynodick
For the supremes not to take this up will cause great damage to the country. It would also lower our stature among other world leaders. What ever they do, it would be prudent to place all law enforcement and national guard units on standby.
Either way, violence will ensue!
December 6, 2008 at 9:36 a.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: jl1
I tell you, some of the dumbest people out there are the most educated. I guess by this guys argument, Jindal's citizenship may also be suspect, right? Here's the other thing I find interesting about this. My dad was born under British colonialism. My oldest sister too. Neither one of them is a British citizen.
December 6, 2008 at 9:28 a.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: eddieb lue
saw a copy of the "birth certificate" the obama campaign released to the press.
it stated that obama's race was "african-american"
that designation is a recent one and was not used when obama was born.
December 6, 2008 at 8:33 a.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: creativeogre
It is important to point out that the clause in Article 2 section one, 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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
"at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution" is a grandfather clause since there were no eligible "Natural born" citizens at the time. The Framers wanted to make themselves eligible to be President, but they didn't want future generations to be Governed by a Commander In Chief who had split loyalty to another Country. The Framers were comfortable making an exception for themselves. They did, after all, create the Constitution. But they were not comfortable with the possibility of future generations of Presidents being born under the jurisdiction of Foreign Powers, especially Great Britain and its monarchy, who the Framers and Colonists fought so hard in the American Revolution to be free of.
For more information on all the cases before the courts, and background on the entire matter visit:
http://countryfirst.bravehost.com/phpBB3...
December 6, 2008 at 8:03 a.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: stevedeery
He may be a citizen, he may be natural born, but he is still anti-american.
Just move in with the Dixie Chicks, move to France, and everyone will be happy
December 6, 2008 at 7:14 a.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: mrunpc
If Barack Hussein Obama were a Republican with this hanging over his head I "wonder" if Democrat Big Media would be completely ignoring it.
ANYONE who loves this country as I do, should be VERY concerned about what it happening. Just the sworn affidavit from Bishop Ron McRae (google him) is enough to make one's skin crawl about Obama.
This issue and many others surrounding his shady past is far from over and a LOT of Americans are readying themselves for something that they sense is coming, something very unusual and bad.
Anyone read about firearms and ammunition sales lately? They're skyrocketing nationwide and it's not just because people fear stricter gun control laws. Women are also among those lining up to purchase and one of the most popular weapons on back order is the AR-15 assault rifle...that's NOT your typical home self-defense weapon, folks!
Either way, it's going to be an interesting 4 years, isn't it?
December 6, 2008 at 7:04 a.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: rancho2008
I did not vote for Obama or McCain, but I just want to know if any employer has a person applying for a top job in his company and yet there are so many questions popping up regarding his eligibility, do you think the employer will just go ahead and hire him without further investigation? I doubt it. So why not clear up the doubts before Obama takes this highest job in the U.S? Is this really so hard? Strange enough almost no other MSM reports the case.
December 6, 2008 at 3:50 a.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: Gene44
A simple solution is for Obama to present to any of the Federal Judges in any of the lawsuit cases a certified copy of his orignial birth certificate proving beyond a doubt his place of birth and citizenship at the time. According to international law a persons father creates the childrens citizenship. Thus Obama under this law would be a British subject at birth, however, as he was adopted by his stepfather in Indonesia it could be claimed that he is Indonesian.
The Surpreme Court must take this case and prove one way or the other the actual legal status in order to uphold the U.S. Constitution. Anything else would be breaking the law of the land.
December 6, 2008 at 3:14 a.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: norcalauto
As I understand it, the Founding Fathers, (and framers of our constitution); gave careful and serious consideration to the possible ramifications to our country should a future President in any way, have a conflict of foreign allegiance, hence the words, “natural-born". The term is unique in that it applies ONLY to POTUS per Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the US Constitution. I do not believe the 14th Amendment applies but I am not a lawyer either.
Notes to ponder:
All natural-born citizens are citizens of the United States
-- but NOT all citizens of the United States are natural-born citizens
Obama may or may not be a US citizen, entitled to all that a US citizen is entitled to
-- EXCEPT POTUS.
Obama certifiCATION may or may not be acceptable for most purposes
-- in lieu of a CertifiCATE
-- EXCEPT POTUS .
Obama may or may not still hold US/UKC dual-nationalities
-- EITHER way; because he was (admittedly) born with same, he is
-- NOT ELIGIBLE FOR POTUS.
Obama TAUGHT Constitutional law
-- was well aware of his predicament.
Obama has gone to great length and expense to prevent release of pertinent documentation
-- WHY?
Obama cannot claim privacy issues while seeking the authority of Commander In Chief.
-- these documents must eventually become part of our history
-- past candidates and Presidents have done so willingly
Obama has not argued the facts of any case against him
-- relies on a technicality of "standing", which has worked (so far)
-- 4-5 cases now before SCOTUS
-- 17-20 still in the lower courts
-- SCOTUS has the power to "drawl" in all pertinent cases
-- and make ONE ruling
Obama may or may not succeed again on the technicality of "standing"
-- it will not end there because voters and opponents will have been
-- denied Equal Protection under the law.
Obama was never properly vetted for public office
-- legislators insist that is the responsibility of the public
-- voters have already vetted him twice
-- once by voting for him in the primaries
-- once by voting for him in the general election
What's wrong with this picture?
-- according to legislators VOTERS are responsible for vetting public officials
-- including candidates for the Presidency
-- yet are denied access on grounds of "privacy"
-- have NO "standing" to demand proof of qualification to hold the position.
-- cannot obtain records without a court order.
-- Catch 22?
Obama may or may not be inaugurated on January 21st
-- if so; do we face the possibility of a usurper in the White House?
-- will social and legal chaos ensue?
"There is not a truth existing which I fear... or would wish unknown to the whole world." (Thomas Jefferson)
December 6, 2008 at 2:54 a.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: Lonnie
Since our Constitution legitimatizes candidates one who fails to fulfill it's requirements is illegitimate. Therefore Obama's status is fraudulent which reduces ALL of his presidential "activities" to a game of charades! We need to get to the heart of the problem. The Supreme Court needs to pry open his closely guarded box of secrets and hold him accountable to our rule of law. The office of president is no place for playing games. There should be zero tolerance for a person who exhibits such clandestine behavior. Who knows what you are getting? You don't.
December 6, 2008 at 1:23 a.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: SonAmerica
I suspect that Obama himself does not believe he meets the qualifications of "natural born citizen", otherwise he would have cooperated by now. Some point out that he has already released his "birth certificate" on his website. But the posting of a short-form Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) on his website does not suffice, because that same COLB certificate is given to those of foreign birth who just register their foreign birth with Hawaii. Why does he not just allow his long-form birth certificate (e.g. showing hospital, doctor, etc) to be released. I also find it very revealing that Hawaiian officials will not say he was born in Hawaii; they just say they have seen his birth certificate. That's a very odd parsing of words when the direct question was whether he was actually born in Hawaii. Maybe he was born in Kenya and according to law he could still be considered a natural born citizen. I would be okay with that. Just let the facts and the law be aired. Let the chips fall where they may. Our constitutional republic can withstand the truth faced squarely. But we would not be able to withstand just sweeping aside the Constitution for "unity". If we do so, we will have neither.
We know that the Supreme Court did not issue of Writ of Certiorari today. They could still take it up next week. May all freedom-loving and Constitution-loving Americans pray this weekend that the Supreme Court will muster the courage to do their duty and hear the facts and law on this prior to the Electoral College meeting on 15 Dec. "We here highly resolve... that government of the People, by the People, and for the People shall not perish from the earth."
December 6, 2008 at midnight | Mark as Offensive
*
By: SonAmerica
To those who supported and voted for Obama, I say a heartfelt congratulations. Truly. It was an historic day for all Americans. I did not vote for Obama, but he is my President Elect, and I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt. However, this cloud hanging over his eligibility is making that hard to do. Defending and upholding the Constitution is more important than "unity" and more important than any one personality. The Constitution is absolutely central to our form of government. It is the supreme law of the land. If we begin to ignore the black letter text of the Constitution, then it soon ceases to be a constitution and we are on a slippery slope towards tyranny. Some may say we have already started down that slope, but at least up til now there have been arguments presented (even if poor arguments) that at least attempt to address the Constitutional issues and leave the formal authority of the Constitution intact. Just ignoring it is not acceptable.
I just want the Supreme Court to hear the case to show that at least somebody gives a care about the Constitution. They don't even have to necessarily declare Obama eligible/ineligible. I just want the facts and the law on this issue out there for all to see. There needs to be a clear independent determination of the facts and a clear independent determination of the law defining "natural born citizen". Even if the Supreme Court doesn't want to inject itself into a presidential race, it at least needs to be a clearinghouse of the facts and law. Then on Dec 15 trust the Electoral College to do their duty, as they are also sworn to uphold the Constitution. Both of these bodies have a rendezvous with duty. May they rise to the occasion and not shrink.
December 5, 2008 at 11:59 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: corporalquick
Take note of the MINCING OF WORDS by Dr. Chiyome Fukino. They have the original. She did not utter the words, "Barack was born in Hawaii and it can be proven." Instead, ANOTHER official said, that Dr. Fukimo MEANT he was born in Hawaii. Very clever. No one can be sued or held liable for what someone else THINKS you mean. Why won't she use the words herself? She's concerned, if by the unlikely chance, she will ever have to surrender the original handwritten document. So, corrupting one official is outside the realm of possibility? Show the ORIGINAL circa 1961 document!!! The press is demonizing anyone who will challenge and they are misstating basic facts. Throw in the fact of Barack's Pakistan trip in the 80's, and we have a national security issue. Wake up at the Court! FInd a way to get your hands on the original document. If there's only a 2% chance that we're dealing with something really, really serious -- would you want it on your watch if you could have prevented it?
December 5, 2008 at 11:38 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
*
By: Slow Poke
This is good news. At least they didn't say no to a review. Many folks take this issue very nonchalantly. Not being a "natural born citizen" is a violation of our Constitution as well as a treasonous act, which no one wants to discuss. Regardless of all the assumptions and attempts to soft pedal the issue, as this article does, he obviously can't prove he is eligible. He shouldn't mind showing a legitimate birth certificate, in lieu of a forgery, as many times as need be. Why does he have several law firms trying to make sure no one sees it, if in fact one exists? Folks, it simply doesn’t compute. The media and those that voted for him simply want to let it pass because it is a “historic event”. He, as well as every Secretary of State, the DNC, the FEC, and others that should have vetted him, should be arrested and charged with treason. It is not up to the individual voter to vet a candidate. If a name appears on a ballot, it is assumed the person has been properly vetted. If he is willing to proceed, what's to say that he will not trample more of our Constitution, or doesn’t anyone care about our rules of the land? If the SC rules in favor of him, they should be arrested as well. Sure, there will be problems if found ineligible, but would you rather have the problems later?
December 5, 2008 at 11:17 p.m. | Mark as Offensive
+++++++++++++
WeThePeopleFoundation.org is a fraud.
If you visit their home page, you will see an enlarged section from a 1963 Hawaiian birth certificate box 7c with the caption "Foreign Country" which they claim proves that Hawaii allowed foreign-born persons to register on the Live Birth form. The fraud is that blocks 7a-7g are the MOTHER'S RESIDENCE, not the place of birth, which is in block 6a and has nothing about "Foreign Country". It's a total sham which they hope nobody will notice since the full certificate showing the context is too blurry to read.
kwdavids has left a new comment
Will Supremes review citizenship arguments?
OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL
Will Supremes review citizenship arguments?
Lawsuit: Even with a valid birth certificate, 'he still wouldn't be eligible to be president'
Posted: December 05, 2008
10:00 pm Eastern
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=82833
Roger Bredow and demonstrators protesting before the U.S. Supreme Court
With protesters gathering and praying on the front steps, the U.S. Supreme Court met in conference today to discuss whether or not to hear a case challenging Barack Obama's eligibility to be president.
"Obama was born a dual citizen," protester Roger Bredow told the Washington, D.C., local events blog, DCist. "British, and a citizen of the United States, at birth."
According to Bredow – and the case the Supreme Court reviewed today – dual citizenship makes Obama ineligible to take the oath of office.
Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, sign WND's petition demanding the release of his birth certificate.
The case of Leo C. Donofrio v. New Jersey Secretary of State Nina Mitchell Wells, which claims Obama does not meet the Constitution's Article 2, Section 1 "natural-born citizen" requirement for president, was initially denied a hearing by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter, but Justice Clarence Thomas agreed to bring it back for review today.
In order to go forward in the process, the case needs four of the Supreme Court's nine justices to approve a full hearing.
Bredow created a YouTube video inviting supporters to travel to Washington, D.C., and join him in urging the Supreme Court to hear the Donofrio case.
"If I'm going to be honest with you," Bredow confessed, "I thought I might be the only person here."
DCist contributor Dave Weigel reported roughly 15 to 20 people showed up for the rally.
"There aren't a lot of people out here today," said Steve Brindle, who drove into the capital from Pennsylvania. "There are a lot of people talking about this back home. Really, everyone's asking questions."
Donofrio's questions began months ago.
Donofrio's original suit sought a court order to stop the Nov. 4 presidential election. When that was denied, he amended his complaint to stop the Electoral College from certifying Obama as the winning candidate when it meets Dec. 15.
Unlike many of the lawsuits regarding Obama's "natural-born citizen" status, the Donofrio case makes no allegation that Obama was born on foreign soil. Instead, Donofrio contends Obama was a British citizen at birth, because of citizenship in a British colony, Kenya.
"Don't be distracted by the birth certificate and Indonesia issues," Donofrio writes on his Natural Born Citizen blog. "They are irrelevant to Senator Obama's ineligibility to be president. Since Barack Obama's father was a citizen of Kenya and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of Senator Obama's birth, then Senator Obama was a British citizen 'at birth.'"
Obama's Fight the Smears website confirms that Donofrio is correct about the Democrat's citizenship at birth, but says his dual citizenship with Britain expired, leaving him with only American citizenship.
Donfrio, however, contends that the Constitution was written in such a way to exclude dual citizens like Obama.
"The Framers of the Constitution, at the time of their birth," Donofrio writes, "were also British citizens, and that's why the Framers declared that, while they were citizens of the United States, they themselves were not 'natural born citizens.'"
"Therefore," Donofrio summarizes, "even if he were to produce an original birth certificate proving he were born on U.S. soil, he still wouldn't be eligible to be president."
As WND has reported, Donofrio's case is only one of several filed around the country challenging Obama's eligibility to be elected president under the Constitution.
Last month WND reported worries over a "constitutional crisis" that could be looming over the issue of Obama's citizenship.
WND senior reporter Jerome Corsi even traveled to Kenya and Hawaii prior to the election to investigate issues surrounding Obama's birth. But his research and discoveries only raised more questions.
The biggest question is why Obama, if a Hawaii birth certificate exists as his campaign has stated, simply hasn't ordered it made available to settle the rumors.
The governor's office in Hawaii said there is a valid certificate but rejected requests for access and left ambiguous its origin: Does the certificate on file with the Department of Health indicate a Hawaii birth or was it generated after the Obama family registered a Kenyan birth in Hawaii?
Obama's half-sister, Maya Soetoro, has named two different Hawaii hospitals where Obama could have been born. There have been other allegations that Obama actually was born in Kenya during a time when his father was a British subject.
Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes and others filed a court petition in California asking 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 California action was filed by Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation on behalf of Keyes, the presidential candidate of the American Independent Party, along with Wiley S. Drake and Markham Robinson, both California electors.
"Should Senator Obama be discovered, after he takes office, to be ineligible for the Office of President of the United States of America and, thereby, his election declared void, Petitioners, as well as other Americans, will suffer irreparable harm in that (a) usurper will be sitting as the President of the United States, and none of the treaties, laws, or executive orders signed by him will be valid or legal," the action challenges.
The popular vote Nov. 4 favored Obama over Sen. John McCain by several percentage points. But because of the distribution of the votes, Obama is projected to take the Electoral College vote by a 2-to-1 margin.
The California case states, "There is a reasonable and common expectation by the voters that to qualify for the ballot, the individuals running for office must meet minimum qualifications as outlined in the federal and state Constitutions and statutes, and that compliance with those minimum qualifications has been confirmed by the officials overseeing the election process," the complaint said, when in fact the only documentation currently required is a signed statement from the candidate attesting to those qualifications.
"Since [the secretary of state] has, as its core, the mission of certifying and establishing the validity of the election process, this writ seeks a Court Order barring SOS from certifying the California Electors until documentary proof that Senator Obama is a 'natural born' citizen of the United States of America is received by her," the document said.
"This proof could include items such as his original birth certificate, showing the name of the hospital and the name and the signature of the doctor, all of his passports with immigration stamps, and verification from the governments where the candidate has resided, verifying that he did not, and does not, hold citizenship of these countries, and any other documents that certify an individual’s citizenship and/or qualification for office.
The "certification of live birth" posted by the Obama campaign cannot be viewed as authoritative, the case alleges.
"Hawaii Revised Statute 338-178 allows registration of birth in Hawaii for a child that was born outside of Hawaii to parents who, for a year preceding the child’s birth, claimed Hawaii as their place of residence," the document said. "The only way to know where Senator Obama was actually born is to view Senator Obama's original birth certificate from 1961 that shows the name of the hospital and the name and signature of the doctor that delivered him."
The case also raises the circumstances of Obama's time during his youth in Indonesia, where he was listed as having Indonesian citizenship. Indonesia does not allow dual citizenship, raising the possibility of Obama's mother having given up his U.S. citizenship.
Any subsequent U.S. citizenship then, the case claims, would be "naturalized," not "natural-born."
WND's petition is available online, and more information is available at this link.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81585
++++++++++
WeThePeopleFoundation.org is a fraud.
If you visit their home page, you will see an enlarged section from a 1963 Hawaiian birth certificate box 7c with the caption "Foreign Country" which they claim proves that Hawaii allowed foreign-born persons to register on the Live Birth form. The fraud is that blocks 7a-7g are the MOTHER'S RESIDENCE, not the place of birth, which is in block 6a and has nothing about "Foreign Country". It's a total sham which they hope nobody will notice since the full certificate showing the context is too blurry to read.
kwdavids has left a new comment
Will Supremes review citizenship arguments?
Lawsuit: Even with a valid birth certificate, 'he still wouldn't be eligible to be president'
Posted: December 05, 2008
10:00 pm Eastern
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=82833
Roger Bredow and demonstrators protesting before the U.S. Supreme Court
With protesters gathering and praying on the front steps, the U.S. Supreme Court met in conference today to discuss whether or not to hear a case challenging Barack Obama's eligibility to be president.
"Obama was born a dual citizen," protester Roger Bredow told the Washington, D.C., local events blog, DCist. "British, and a citizen of the United States, at birth."
According to Bredow – and the case the Supreme Court reviewed today – dual citizenship makes Obama ineligible to take the oath of office.
Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, sign WND's petition demanding the release of his birth certificate.
The case of Leo C. Donofrio v. New Jersey Secretary of State Nina Mitchell Wells, which claims Obama does not meet the Constitution's Article 2, Section 1 "natural-born citizen" requirement for president, was initially denied a hearing by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter, but Justice Clarence Thomas agreed to bring it back for review today.
In order to go forward in the process, the case needs four of the Supreme Court's nine justices to approve a full hearing.
Bredow created a YouTube video inviting supporters to travel to Washington, D.C., and join him in urging the Supreme Court to hear the Donofrio case.
"If I'm going to be honest with you," Bredow confessed, "I thought I might be the only person here."
DCist contributor Dave Weigel reported roughly 15 to 20 people showed up for the rally.
"There aren't a lot of people out here today," said Steve Brindle, who drove into the capital from Pennsylvania. "There are a lot of people talking about this back home. Really, everyone's asking questions."
Donofrio's questions began months ago.
Donofrio's original suit sought a court order to stop the Nov. 4 presidential election. When that was denied, he amended his complaint to stop the Electoral College from certifying Obama as the winning candidate when it meets Dec. 15.
Unlike many of the lawsuits regarding Obama's "natural-born citizen" status, the Donofrio case makes no allegation that Obama was born on foreign soil. Instead, Donofrio contends Obama was a British citizen at birth, because of citizenship in a British colony, Kenya.
"Don't be distracted by the birth certificate and Indonesia issues," Donofrio writes on his Natural Born Citizen blog. "They are irrelevant to Senator Obama's ineligibility to be president. Since Barack Obama's father was a citizen of Kenya and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of Senator Obama's birth, then Senator Obama was a British citizen 'at birth.'"
Obama's Fight the Smears website confirms that Donofrio is correct about the Democrat's citizenship at birth, but says his dual citizenship with Britain expired, leaving him with only American citizenship.
Donfrio, however, contends that the Constitution was written in such a way to exclude dual citizens like Obama.
"The Framers of the Constitution, at the time of their birth," Donofrio writes, "were also British citizens, and that's why the Framers declared that, while they were citizens of the United States, they themselves were not 'natural born citizens.'"
"Therefore," Donofrio summarizes, "even if he were to produce an original birth certificate proving he were born on U.S. soil, he still wouldn't be eligible to be president."
As WND has reported, Donofrio's case is only one of several filed around the country challenging Obama's eligibility to be elected president under the Constitution.
Last month WND reported worries over a "constitutional crisis" that could be looming over the issue of Obama's citizenship.
WND senior reporter Jerome Corsi even traveled to Kenya and Hawaii prior to the election to investigate issues surrounding Obama's birth. But his research and discoveries only raised more questions.
The biggest question is why Obama, if a Hawaii birth certificate exists as his campaign has stated, simply hasn't ordered it made available to settle the rumors.
The governor's office in Hawaii said there is a valid certificate but rejected requests for access and left ambiguous its origin: Does the certificate on file with the Department of Health indicate a Hawaii birth or was it generated after the Obama family registered a Kenyan birth in Hawaii?
Obama's half-sister, Maya Soetoro, has named two different Hawaii hospitals where Obama could have been born. There have been other allegations that Obama actually was born in Kenya during a time when his father was a British subject.
Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes and others filed a court petition in California asking 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 California action was filed by Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation on behalf of Keyes, the presidential candidate of the American Independent Party, along with Wiley S. Drake and Markham Robinson, both California electors.
"Should Senator Obama be discovered, after he takes office, to be ineligible for the Office of President of the United States of America and, thereby, his election declared void, Petitioners, as well as other Americans, will suffer irreparable harm in that (a) usurper will be sitting as the President of the United States, and none of the treaties, laws, or executive orders signed by him will be valid or legal," the action challenges.
The popular vote Nov. 4 favored Obama over Sen. John McCain by several percentage points. But because of the distribution of the votes, Obama is projected to take the Electoral College vote by a 2-to-1 margin.
The California case states, "There is a reasonable and common expectation by the voters that to qualify for the ballot, the individuals running for office must meet minimum qualifications as outlined in the federal and state Constitutions and statutes, and that compliance with those minimum qualifications has been confirmed by the officials overseeing the election process," the complaint said, when in fact the only documentation currently required is a signed statement from the candidate attesting to those qualifications.
"Since [the secretary of state] has, as its core, the mission of certifying and establishing the validity of the election process, this writ seeks a Court Order barring SOS from certifying the California Electors until documentary proof that Senator Obama is a 'natural born' citizen of the United States of America is received by her," the document said.
"This proof could include items such as his original birth certificate, showing the name of the hospital and the name and the signature of the doctor, all of his passports with immigration stamps, and verification from the governments where the candidate has resided, verifying that he did not, and does not, hold citizenship of these countries, and any other documents that certify an individual’s citizenship and/or qualification for office.
The "certification of live birth" posted by the Obama campaign cannot be viewed as authoritative, the case alleges.
"Hawaii Revised Statute 338-178 allows registration of birth in Hawaii for a child that was born outside of Hawaii to parents who, for a year preceding the child’s birth, claimed Hawaii as their place of residence," the document said. "The only way to know where Senator Obama was actually born is to view Senator Obama's original birth certificate from 1961 that shows the name of the hospital and the name and signature of the doctor that delivered him."
The case also raises the circumstances of Obama's time during his youth in Indonesia, where he was listed as having Indonesian citizenship. Indonesia does not allow dual citizenship, raising the possibility of Obama's mother having given up his U.S. citizenship.
Any subsequent U.S. citizenship then, the case claims, would be "naturalized," not "natural-born."
WND's petition is available online, and more information is available at this link.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81585
++++++++++
WeThePeopleFoundation.org is a fraud.
If you visit their home page, you will see an enlarged section from a 1963 Hawaiian birth certificate box 7c with the caption "Foreign Country" which they claim proves that Hawaii allowed foreign-born persons to register on the Live Birth form. The fraud is that blocks 7a-7g are the MOTHER'S RESIDENCE, not the place of birth, which is in block 6a and has nothing about "Foreign Country". It's a total sham which they hope nobody will notice since the full certificate showing the context is too blurry to read.
kwdavids has left a new comment
In era of Obama, no new Reagans allowed
In era of Obama, no new Reagans allowed
Posted: December 06, 2008
1:00 am Eastern
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=82828
© 2008
I have noticed a common theme in the media lately: Sarah Palin, the 2008 Republican vice-presidential candidate is being portrayed as the bane of the GOP – the single-handed destroyer of the McCain campaign who should retire into political oblivion.
Why is this an ongoing message, with even some so-called Republicans pushing it?
I believe it is because Gov. Palin resonated with conservatives nationwide in a way that caught the mainstream (read: not-so-clandestinely liberal) media completely off guard. They don't want her, or anyone like her, to rise up as the exciting future of conservative politics; they want no new-generation Reagan gaining steam in the era of Obama.
So what's the problem with Mrs. Palin in the eyes of the media? I believe she has intimidated them. She's young, she's an unashamed Christian, and she resonates with countless women as a working mom who embraces pro-life and pro-traditional family positions.
This is not the accepted dynamic of the modern political woman – certainly not the type the mainstream promotes. And therein lies the allure of Sarah Palin to conservatives. She is the embodiment of the political nonconformist – the outsider who has a history of being not only a maverick (and not simply as a catchphrase) but an effective reformer.
As such, she will continue to face what I see as an intentionally deceptive depiction from the mainstream media that she is a lightweight, a political pretender whose supposed ambitions outweigh her capabilities.
And to such criticism, I hope she continues to say, "So what!"
Who cares what the media and the left think, anyway? Gov. Palin's values are not going to be accepted by Big Media or by Capitol Hill's entrenched insiders who seek out yes men to carry out their tired political visions. I would suggest that she shouldn't even try to make inroads into those shallow worlds. (She's done pretty well on her own, anyway.)
It's time for real change. As such, it is time for conservatives to join together and redesign their playbook so that it hearkens back to the days of Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America." Sure, they'll be scoffed at, but that will be the price of standing up to the fashionable left.
As Christians living in an increasingly secular world, we face these types of challenges every day. You see, the very foundations of what we believe – from our conviction in how the world was created to how it will one day end – are constantly disputed by the purveyors of accepted "truth." Even in the Republican Party, we – the religious right – are often covertly whispered about and laughed at (until election time, conveniently).
But conservative people of faith continue to be the solid backbone of the Republican Party, whether some of its leaders want to admit it, or not.
"Conservatism, real conservatism, resonates with heartland America, and wins elections," said Christopher G. Adamo in a GOPUSA commentary this week. He added, "The people of this country have little interest in a Republican Party that seeks to define itself as a milder and cheaper version of the societal dissolution and erosion of American greatness offered by the opposition."
Thankfully, there are people who still understand this, and Sarah Palin is one of them. There are other rising conservative stars on the horizon (Reps. Mike Pence of Indiana, Jeff Flake of Arizona, Paul Ryan of Wisconsin and Eric Cantor of Virginia, Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, and others) who can communicate economic and social solutions that counter the policies of the left. Our friend Mike Huckabee is also telling everyone that the November losses by Republicans mean that the party must return to its conservative roots.
I believe millions of Americans are anxious to find vocal leaders to usher in a new day for conservatism.
However, the conservative leaders who do come to the fore must realize two important facts: 1) they are going to be the black sheep of the political world, and 2) the similarly outcast religious right is one of the big keys to a conservative revival.
Related special offer:
Get Joseph Farah's prescription for our nation, "Taking America Back"
Jonathan Falwell is the pastor of the historic Thomas Road Baptist Church in Lynchburg, Va., the church his father started in 1956.
Posted: December 06, 2008
1:00 am Eastern
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=82828
© 2008
I have noticed a common theme in the media lately: Sarah Palin, the 2008 Republican vice-presidential candidate is being portrayed as the bane of the GOP – the single-handed destroyer of the McCain campaign who should retire into political oblivion.
Why is this an ongoing message, with even some so-called Republicans pushing it?
I believe it is because Gov. Palin resonated with conservatives nationwide in a way that caught the mainstream (read: not-so-clandestinely liberal) media completely off guard. They don't want her, or anyone like her, to rise up as the exciting future of conservative politics; they want no new-generation Reagan gaining steam in the era of Obama.
So what's the problem with Mrs. Palin in the eyes of the media? I believe she has intimidated them. She's young, she's an unashamed Christian, and she resonates with countless women as a working mom who embraces pro-life and pro-traditional family positions.
This is not the accepted dynamic of the modern political woman – certainly not the type the mainstream promotes. And therein lies the allure of Sarah Palin to conservatives. She is the embodiment of the political nonconformist – the outsider who has a history of being not only a maverick (and not simply as a catchphrase) but an effective reformer.
As such, she will continue to face what I see as an intentionally deceptive depiction from the mainstream media that she is a lightweight, a political pretender whose supposed ambitions outweigh her capabilities.
And to such criticism, I hope she continues to say, "So what!"
Who cares what the media and the left think, anyway? Gov. Palin's values are not going to be accepted by Big Media or by Capitol Hill's entrenched insiders who seek out yes men to carry out their tired political visions. I would suggest that she shouldn't even try to make inroads into those shallow worlds. (She's done pretty well on her own, anyway.)
It's time for real change. As such, it is time for conservatives to join together and redesign their playbook so that it hearkens back to the days of Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America." Sure, they'll be scoffed at, but that will be the price of standing up to the fashionable left.
As Christians living in an increasingly secular world, we face these types of challenges every day. You see, the very foundations of what we believe – from our conviction in how the world was created to how it will one day end – are constantly disputed by the purveyors of accepted "truth." Even in the Republican Party, we – the religious right – are often covertly whispered about and laughed at (until election time, conveniently).
But conservative people of faith continue to be the solid backbone of the Republican Party, whether some of its leaders want to admit it, or not.
"Conservatism, real conservatism, resonates with heartland America, and wins elections," said Christopher G. Adamo in a GOPUSA commentary this week. He added, "The people of this country have little interest in a Republican Party that seeks to define itself as a milder and cheaper version of the societal dissolution and erosion of American greatness offered by the opposition."
Thankfully, there are people who still understand this, and Sarah Palin is one of them. There are other rising conservative stars on the horizon (Reps. Mike Pence of Indiana, Jeff Flake of Arizona, Paul Ryan of Wisconsin and Eric Cantor of Virginia, Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, and others) who can communicate economic and social solutions that counter the policies of the left. Our friend Mike Huckabee is also telling everyone that the November losses by Republicans mean that the party must return to its conservative roots.
I believe millions of Americans are anxious to find vocal leaders to usher in a new day for conservatism.
However, the conservative leaders who do come to the fore must realize two important facts: 1) they are going to be the black sheep of the political world, and 2) the similarly outcast religious right is one of the big keys to a conservative revival.
Related special offer:
Get Joseph Farah's prescription for our nation, "Taking America Back"
Jonathan Falwell is the pastor of the historic Thomas Road Baptist Church in Lynchburg, Va., the church his father started in 1956.
Friday, December 5, 2008
More than 60,000 letters sent to U.S. Supreme Court
More than 60,000 letters sent to U.S. Supreme Court
WND readers deliver urgent requests to review Obama citizenship
Posted: December 05, 2008
1:00 am Eastern
By Chelsea Schilling
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=82717
The Supreme Court will soon receive urgent requests to determine whether Barack Obama meets natural-born citizenship requirements under the U.S. Constitution – in the form of more 60,138 letters.
The shipment includes 6,682 FedEx packages of nine letters each that will be delivered before the court reviews a case Friday challenging the eligibility of Barack Obama under Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution, which stipulates the position can only be filled by "a natural born citizen."
"If we didn't do everything possible to let the Supreme Court justices know what a concern this is to millions of Americans, I would feel like I was letting down the Constitution and the men who framed it – not to mention every citizen of the United States living now and in the future," said Joseph Farah, WND's founder and editor. "This constitutional eligibility test has become a key issue with me because if the plain language of the Constitution is no longer taken seriously by our nation's controlling legal authorities, we have become an outlaw nation – no longer under the rule of law but under the rule of men."
Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. and thus a "natural born American" as required by Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution? If you still want to see it, sign WND's petition demanding the release of his birth certificate.
Farah personally drafted the letter that has been sent to the justices above the name and address of participants in the program.
Farah launched a petition drive on WND three weeks ago that calls on all controlling legal authorities to ensure the Constitution is followed on the question of eligibility and for full public disclosure of the facts of Obama's birthplace and parentage. More than 153,000 people have signed on to the petition so far.
Obama has claimed in his autobiography and elsewhere that he was born in Hawaii in 1961 to parents Barack Hussein Obama Sr., a Kenyan national, and Stanley Ann Dunham, a minor. But details about which hospital handled the birth and other details provided on the complete birth certificate have been withheld by Obama despite lawsuits and public demands for release.
(Story continues below)
The letters have been individually addressed to each justice over the names and addresses of those who take part in the limited-time program. The body of the letter reads:
Dear Associate Justice ______:
If the Constitution doesn't mean precisely what it says, then America is no longer a nation under the rule of law.
A nation no longer under the rule of law is, by definition, under the rule of men.
Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution clearly stipulates "No person except a natural born Citizen" shall be eligible to serve as president of the United States. That statement has clear meaning, and the Supreme Court of the United States is one of the controlling legal authorities in ensuring that the Constitution is enforced – even if doing so may prove awkward.
With the Electoral College set to make its determination Dec. 15 that Barack Hussein Obama Jr. be the next president of the United States, the Supreme Court is holding a conference Friday to review a case challenging his eligibility for the office based on Article 2, Section 1.
I urge you to take this matter most seriously – and judge it only on the clear, unambiguous words of the Constitution: A president must, at the very least, be a "natural born citizen" of the United States.
If you agree that this clear constitutional requirement still matters, the Supreme Court must use its authority to establish, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that Barack Hussein Obama Jr. qualifies for the office under that standard.
There is grave, widespread and rapidly growing concern throughout the American public that this constitutional requirement is being overlooked and enforcement neglected by state and federal election authorities. It's up to the Supreme Court to dispel all doubt that America's next president is truly a natural born citizen of the United States.
I urge you to honor the Constitution in this matter and uphold the public trust.
Sincerely,
Sender's name
Sender's address
Related offers:
Get "The Audacity of Deceit," and learn about the looming hostile attack on Judeo-Christian values and freedoms Americans hold dear
"NObama" magnetic bumper sticker
Whistleblower magazine's "THE SECRET LIFE OF BARACK OBAMA"
Get the book that launched the "None of the Above" political movement – personally signed by the author. It comes with a free "None of the Above" magnetized bumper sticker.
Help spread the word about the "None of the Above" campaign with extra copies of the magnetized bumper sticker.
Proudly display the hottest campaign button in the nation – "None of the Above." Buy them in bulk at phenomenal prices.
Previous stories:
'Natural-born' requirement called 'stupidest provision'
Democrat asks Supreme Court to halt electors
Print, TV ads demand citizenship proof from Obama
Imaging guru: 'Certification' of birth time, location is fake
Obama, DNC elude citizenship lawsuit deadline
WND launches new forum on Obama's eligibility
Supremes to review citizenship arguments
'Constitutional crisis' looming over Obama's birth location
Obama camp: Lawsuits by citizens are 'garbage'
Will Supreme Court have say in presidency?
Doubts persist about Obama birth certificate
Supremes asked to halt Tuesday's vote
Democrat: Obama's grandma confirms Kenyan birth
Judge dismisses Obama birth certificate lawsuit
Obama 'admits' Kenyan birth?
DNC steps in to silence lawsuit over Obama birth certificate
Democrat sues Sen. Obama over 'fraudulent candidacy'
Blogger reveals Obama birth certificate
Is Obama's candidacy constitutional?
Chelsea Schilling is a staff writer for WorldNetDaily.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=82717
WND readers deliver urgent requests to review Obama citizenship
Posted: December 05, 2008
1:00 am Eastern
By Chelsea Schilling
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=82717
The Supreme Court will soon receive urgent requests to determine whether Barack Obama meets natural-born citizenship requirements under the U.S. Constitution – in the form of more 60,138 letters.
The shipment includes 6,682 FedEx packages of nine letters each that will be delivered before the court reviews a case Friday challenging the eligibility of Barack Obama under Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution, which stipulates the position can only be filled by "a natural born citizen."
"If we didn't do everything possible to let the Supreme Court justices know what a concern this is to millions of Americans, I would feel like I was letting down the Constitution and the men who framed it – not to mention every citizen of the United States living now and in the future," said Joseph Farah, WND's founder and editor. "This constitutional eligibility test has become a key issue with me because if the plain language of the Constitution is no longer taken seriously by our nation's controlling legal authorities, we have become an outlaw nation – no longer under the rule of law but under the rule of men."
Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. and thus a "natural born American" as required by Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution? If you still want to see it, sign WND's petition demanding the release of his birth certificate.
Farah personally drafted the letter that has been sent to the justices above the name and address of participants in the program.
Farah launched a petition drive on WND three weeks ago that calls on all controlling legal authorities to ensure the Constitution is followed on the question of eligibility and for full public disclosure of the facts of Obama's birthplace and parentage. More than 153,000 people have signed on to the petition so far.
Obama has claimed in his autobiography and elsewhere that he was born in Hawaii in 1961 to parents Barack Hussein Obama Sr., a Kenyan national, and Stanley Ann Dunham, a minor. But details about which hospital handled the birth and other details provided on the complete birth certificate have been withheld by Obama despite lawsuits and public demands for release.
(Story continues below)
The letters have been individually addressed to each justice over the names and addresses of those who take part in the limited-time program. The body of the letter reads:
Dear Associate Justice ______:
If the Constitution doesn't mean precisely what it says, then America is no longer a nation under the rule of law.
A nation no longer under the rule of law is, by definition, under the rule of men.
Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution clearly stipulates "No person except a natural born Citizen" shall be eligible to serve as president of the United States. That statement has clear meaning, and the Supreme Court of the United States is one of the controlling legal authorities in ensuring that the Constitution is enforced – even if doing so may prove awkward.
With the Electoral College set to make its determination Dec. 15 that Barack Hussein Obama Jr. be the next president of the United States, the Supreme Court is holding a conference Friday to review a case challenging his eligibility for the office based on Article 2, Section 1.
I urge you to take this matter most seriously – and judge it only on the clear, unambiguous words of the Constitution: A president must, at the very least, be a "natural born citizen" of the United States.
If you agree that this clear constitutional requirement still matters, the Supreme Court must use its authority to establish, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that Barack Hussein Obama Jr. qualifies for the office under that standard.
There is grave, widespread and rapidly growing concern throughout the American public that this constitutional requirement is being overlooked and enforcement neglected by state and federal election authorities. It's up to the Supreme Court to dispel all doubt that America's next president is truly a natural born citizen of the United States.
I urge you to honor the Constitution in this matter and uphold the public trust.
Sincerely,
Sender's name
Sender's address
Related offers:
Get "The Audacity of Deceit," and learn about the looming hostile attack on Judeo-Christian values and freedoms Americans hold dear
"NObama" magnetic bumper sticker
Whistleblower magazine's "THE SECRET LIFE OF BARACK OBAMA"
Get the book that launched the "None of the Above" political movement – personally signed by the author. It comes with a free "None of the Above" magnetized bumper sticker.
Help spread the word about the "None of the Above" campaign with extra copies of the magnetized bumper sticker.
Proudly display the hottest campaign button in the nation – "None of the Above." Buy them in bulk at phenomenal prices.
Previous stories:
'Natural-born' requirement called 'stupidest provision'
Democrat asks Supreme Court to halt electors
Print, TV ads demand citizenship proof from Obama
Imaging guru: 'Certification' of birth time, location is fake
Obama, DNC elude citizenship lawsuit deadline
WND launches new forum on Obama's eligibility
Supremes to review citizenship arguments
'Constitutional crisis' looming over Obama's birth location
Obama camp: Lawsuits by citizens are 'garbage'
Will Supreme Court have say in presidency?
Doubts persist about Obama birth certificate
Supremes asked to halt Tuesday's vote
Democrat: Obama's grandma confirms Kenyan birth
Judge dismisses Obama birth certificate lawsuit
Obama 'admits' Kenyan birth?
DNC steps in to silence lawsuit over Obama birth certificate
Democrat sues Sen. Obama over 'fraudulent candidacy'
Blogger reveals Obama birth certificate
Is Obama's candidacy constitutional?
Chelsea Schilling is a staff writer for WorldNetDaily.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=82717
Weatherman terrorists: Obama's centrism a 'smokescreen'
http://www.worldnetdaily.com
CHANGING OF THE GUARD
Weatherman terrorists: Obama's centrism a 'smokescreen'
Forecast a radical agenda that would impress Lenin coming
Posted: December 05, 2008
12:15 am Eastern
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=82774
Former Weathermen member Mark Rudd
President-elect Barack Obama is "feigning" a centrist position on some issues so he can ultimately push through a radical agenda, including universal healthcare and trimming the military, according to analysis by a founder of the Weathermen terror group, Mark Rudd, who has ties to Obama mentors.
Another top former Weathermen terrorist with ties to Obama mentors, Jeff Jones, concurred the president-elect will attempt major change, including "redistributing financial resources downward." He called Obama's "centrist" appointments a "smokescreen" to "co-opt the moderate center," declaring, "even Lenin would be impressed!"
In an article on the radical leftist Rag Blog, Rudd commented, "Obama plays basketball. I'm not much of an athlete, barely know the game, but one thing I do know is that you have to be able to look like you're doing one thing but do another. That's why all these conservative appointments are important: the strategy is feint to the right, move left. Any other strategy invites sure defeat. It would be stupid to do otherwise in this environment."
Rudd stressed what he called Obama's second-tier appointments to various agencies, claiming those individuals are far more "progressive."
"Cheney was extremely effective at controlling policy by putting his people in at second-level positions," noted Rudd.
The terror group founder outlined what he believes is Obama's domestic agenda:
"What he's doing now is moving on the most popular issues – the environment, health care and the economy. He'll be progressive on the environment because that has broad popular support; health care will be extended to children, then made universal, but the medical, pharmaceutical, and insurance corporations will stay in place. ... The economic agenda will stress stimulation from the bottom sometimes and handouts to the top at other times. It will be pragmatic."
He said Obama ultimately seeks to shrink the military but cannot make that goal public for some time.
Find out all about Barack Obama's links to Weather Underground leader Bill Ayers and his entire agenda for "change" in Brad O'Leary's "The Audacity of Deceit," the virtual blueprint for the next administration's radical prescriptions.
"Leave the military alone because they're way too powerful," writes Rudd. "For now, until enough momentum is raised. By the second or third year of this recession, when stimulus is needed at the bottom, people may begin to discuss cutting the military budget if security is being increased through diplomacy and application of nascent international law."
On the same blog, former Weatherman terrorist Jones wrote Obama is "really SMART."
"His centrist appointments are a smokescreen; they co-opt the moderate center, but he's still the commander in chief. Even Lenin would be impressed!" he declared.
Jones wrote that Obama's various initiatives, "which will collectively set the nation on a path towards energy independence, ending the war and redistributing financial resources downward, are presented as unconnected pieces of legislation, but actually they are interlocking components of Obama's coherent multi-layered agenda."
Both Jones and Rudd were active in Progressives for Obama, an independent organization acting to ensure the Illinois senator's election. The group includes among its ranks many former members of the 1960s radical organization Students for a Democratic Society, or SDS, from which the Weathermen splintered, as well as current and former members of other radical organizations, such as the Communist Party USA and the Black Radical Congress.
Jones, according to his own website, was "elected, along with (Weathermen terrorist) Bill Ayers and Mark Rudd, to the SDS national office. Then, in the spring of 1970, he disappeared. As a leader of the Weather Underground, Jeff evaded an intense FBI manhunt for more than a decade. In 1981, they finally got him. Twenty special agents battered down the door of the Bronx apartment where he was living with his wife and four-year-old son."
Jones' site says he traveled to Cambodia in 1966 to meet with high-level leaders of the anti-American National Liberation Front. In 1967 and 1968 he served as an SDS regional organizer for New York City.
Rudd, a petition supporter as well as a main signatory to the Progressives for Obama group, was one of the main founders of the Weathermen terrorist organization. A biography published on his website explains Rudd worked to form the Weathermen as a radical alternative to the SDS and for white Americans to eject their "white skin privilege" and begin "armed struggle" against the U.S. government.
Rudd went underground in 1970 when a bomb exploded in a townhouse in Greenwich Village in New York City, killing three of his comrades. He lived for seven and a half years in hiding as a fugitive, finally surrendering in 1977 and facing only low-level state charges after federal charges against Weathermen leaders had been dropped. He resurfaced as a teacher in New Mexico.
As late as 2005, Rudd wrote an editorial in the Los Angeles Times lamenting the state of the anti-war movement in the U.S.
"What's hard to understand – given the revelations about the rush to war, the use of torture and the loss of more than 2,000 soldiers – is why the antiwar movement isn't further along than it is," he wrote. "Given that President Bush is now talking about Iraq as only one skirmish in an unlimited struggle against a global Islamic enemy, a struggle comparable to the titanic, 40-year Cold War against communism, shouldn't a massive critique of the global war on terrorism already be underway?"
In the piece, Rudd condemned the Weathermen's decision to embark on an "armed-struggle," calling it "stupid" since the violent acts led to the group's demise. But he didn't condemn the terrorism itself, only its contribution to the downfall of the Weathermen.
The New Zeal blog noted both Rudd and Jones have connections to Obama through the radical Movement for a Democratic Society, where the two serve on the board alongside former Weathermen Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, whose deep connections to Obama sparked controversy during the presidential campaign.
To interview Aaron Klein, contact M. Sliwa Public Relations by e-mail, or call 973-272-2861 or 212-202-4453.
Related offers:
Get "The Audacity of Deceit," and learn about the looming hostile attack on Judeo-Christian values and freedoms Americans hold dear
"NObama" magnetic bumper sticker
Whistleblower magazine's "THE SECRET LIFE OF BARACK OBAMA"
Get the book that launched the "None of the Above" political movement – personally signed by the author. It comes with a free "None of the Above" magnetized bumper sticker.
Help spread the word about the "None of the Above" campaign with extra copies of the magnetized bumper sticker.
Proudly display the hottest campaign button in the nation – "None of the Above." Buy them in bulk at phenomenal prices.
Previous stories:
Obama economic adviser was socialist party member?
North American Union supporter top Obama economic adviser
Communist Party strategist maps out Obama's agenda
Communist Party hails role of labor unions in Obama win
Communist Party ecstatic over '08 election results
Marxist 'mentor' sold drugs with Obama
Report: Obama mentored by Communist Party figure
Report: Obama to appoint anti-Israel adviser
Another Weatherman terrorist a player in Obama campaign
Guess who recommended Obama to enter Harvard
Obama worked closely with terrorist Bill Ayers
Obama cited Ayers job as qualification to run
Meet Obama's new Bill Ayers associate
Obama minimizes relationship with Ayers
Obama accuses McCain of linking him to 'radical'
Obama disguising ties to radical leftist group?
CHANGING OF THE GUARD
Weatherman terrorists: Obama's centrism a 'smokescreen'
Forecast a radical agenda that would impress Lenin coming
Posted: December 05, 2008
12:15 am Eastern
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=82774
Former Weathermen member Mark Rudd
President-elect Barack Obama is "feigning" a centrist position on some issues so he can ultimately push through a radical agenda, including universal healthcare and trimming the military, according to analysis by a founder of the Weathermen terror group, Mark Rudd, who has ties to Obama mentors.
Another top former Weathermen terrorist with ties to Obama mentors, Jeff Jones, concurred the president-elect will attempt major change, including "redistributing financial resources downward." He called Obama's "centrist" appointments a "smokescreen" to "co-opt the moderate center," declaring, "even Lenin would be impressed!"
In an article on the radical leftist Rag Blog, Rudd commented, "Obama plays basketball. I'm not much of an athlete, barely know the game, but one thing I do know is that you have to be able to look like you're doing one thing but do another. That's why all these conservative appointments are important: the strategy is feint to the right, move left. Any other strategy invites sure defeat. It would be stupid to do otherwise in this environment."
Rudd stressed what he called Obama's second-tier appointments to various agencies, claiming those individuals are far more "progressive."
"Cheney was extremely effective at controlling policy by putting his people in at second-level positions," noted Rudd.
The terror group founder outlined what he believes is Obama's domestic agenda:
"What he's doing now is moving on the most popular issues – the environment, health care and the economy. He'll be progressive on the environment because that has broad popular support; health care will be extended to children, then made universal, but the medical, pharmaceutical, and insurance corporations will stay in place. ... The economic agenda will stress stimulation from the bottom sometimes and handouts to the top at other times. It will be pragmatic."
He said Obama ultimately seeks to shrink the military but cannot make that goal public for some time.
Find out all about Barack Obama's links to Weather Underground leader Bill Ayers and his entire agenda for "change" in Brad O'Leary's "The Audacity of Deceit," the virtual blueprint for the next administration's radical prescriptions.
"Leave the military alone because they're way too powerful," writes Rudd. "For now, until enough momentum is raised. By the second or third year of this recession, when stimulus is needed at the bottom, people may begin to discuss cutting the military budget if security is being increased through diplomacy and application of nascent international law."
On the same blog, former Weatherman terrorist Jones wrote Obama is "really SMART."
"His centrist appointments are a smokescreen; they co-opt the moderate center, but he's still the commander in chief. Even Lenin would be impressed!" he declared.
Jones wrote that Obama's various initiatives, "which will collectively set the nation on a path towards energy independence, ending the war and redistributing financial resources downward, are presented as unconnected pieces of legislation, but actually they are interlocking components of Obama's coherent multi-layered agenda."
Both Jones and Rudd were active in Progressives for Obama, an independent organization acting to ensure the Illinois senator's election. The group includes among its ranks many former members of the 1960s radical organization Students for a Democratic Society, or SDS, from which the Weathermen splintered, as well as current and former members of other radical organizations, such as the Communist Party USA and the Black Radical Congress.
Jones, according to his own website, was "elected, along with (Weathermen terrorist) Bill Ayers and Mark Rudd, to the SDS national office. Then, in the spring of 1970, he disappeared. As a leader of the Weather Underground, Jeff evaded an intense FBI manhunt for more than a decade. In 1981, they finally got him. Twenty special agents battered down the door of the Bronx apartment where he was living with his wife and four-year-old son."
Jones' site says he traveled to Cambodia in 1966 to meet with high-level leaders of the anti-American National Liberation Front. In 1967 and 1968 he served as an SDS regional organizer for New York City.
Rudd, a petition supporter as well as a main signatory to the Progressives for Obama group, was one of the main founders of the Weathermen terrorist organization. A biography published on his website explains Rudd worked to form the Weathermen as a radical alternative to the SDS and for white Americans to eject their "white skin privilege" and begin "armed struggle" against the U.S. government.
Rudd went underground in 1970 when a bomb exploded in a townhouse in Greenwich Village in New York City, killing three of his comrades. He lived for seven and a half years in hiding as a fugitive, finally surrendering in 1977 and facing only low-level state charges after federal charges against Weathermen leaders had been dropped. He resurfaced as a teacher in New Mexico.
As late as 2005, Rudd wrote an editorial in the Los Angeles Times lamenting the state of the anti-war movement in the U.S.
"What's hard to understand – given the revelations about the rush to war, the use of torture and the loss of more than 2,000 soldiers – is why the antiwar movement isn't further along than it is," he wrote. "Given that President Bush is now talking about Iraq as only one skirmish in an unlimited struggle against a global Islamic enemy, a struggle comparable to the titanic, 40-year Cold War against communism, shouldn't a massive critique of the global war on terrorism already be underway?"
In the piece, Rudd condemned the Weathermen's decision to embark on an "armed-struggle," calling it "stupid" since the violent acts led to the group's demise. But he didn't condemn the terrorism itself, only its contribution to the downfall of the Weathermen.
The New Zeal blog noted both Rudd and Jones have connections to Obama through the radical Movement for a Democratic Society, where the two serve on the board alongside former Weathermen Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, whose deep connections to Obama sparked controversy during the presidential campaign.
To interview Aaron Klein, contact M. Sliwa Public Relations by e-mail, or call 973-272-2861 or 212-202-4453.
Related offers:
Get "The Audacity of Deceit," and learn about the looming hostile attack on Judeo-Christian values and freedoms Americans hold dear
"NObama" magnetic bumper sticker
Whistleblower magazine's "THE SECRET LIFE OF BARACK OBAMA"
Get the book that launched the "None of the Above" political movement – personally signed by the author. It comes with a free "None of the Above" magnetized bumper sticker.
Help spread the word about the "None of the Above" campaign with extra copies of the magnetized bumper sticker.
Proudly display the hottest campaign button in the nation – "None of the Above." Buy them in bulk at phenomenal prices.
Previous stories:
Obama economic adviser was socialist party member?
North American Union supporter top Obama economic adviser
Communist Party strategist maps out Obama's agenda
Communist Party hails role of labor unions in Obama win
Communist Party ecstatic over '08 election results
Marxist 'mentor' sold drugs with Obama
Report: Obama mentored by Communist Party figure
Report: Obama to appoint anti-Israel adviser
Another Weatherman terrorist a player in Obama campaign
Guess who recommended Obama to enter Harvard
Obama worked closely with terrorist Bill Ayers
Obama cited Ayers job as qualification to run
Meet Obama's new Bill Ayers associate
Obama minimizes relationship with Ayers
Obama accuses McCain of linking him to 'radical'
Obama disguising ties to radical leftist group?
President-elect would seek changes in Supreme Court
'Constitution a living, breathing document and more justices have to understand that'
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=82729
OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL
President-elect would seek changes in Supreme Court
'Constitution a living, breathing document and more justices have to understand that'
Posted: December 05, 2008
1:00 am Eastern
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
President-elect Barack Obama believes the U.S. Constitution needs to be interpreted through the lens of current events, and the U.S. Supreme Court needs to include empathy for the plight of minorities in its opinions, a new report has found.
The issues are raised in Fox News report in which Obama staff members affirm the Democrat's goals. WND also reported Obama believes the Constitution is flawed, because it does not mandate redistribution of wealth, and he says the Supreme Court should have intervened years ago to accomplish that.
Fox News noted four of the Supreme Court justices are in their 70s, and Justice John Paul Stevens now is 88, so Obama is expected to leave a major footprint on the makeup of the court through possible appointments in the coming years.
Obama has stated repeatedly his desire for empathetic judges who "understand" the plight of minorities.
In a 2007 speech to Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider, he said, "We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."
Obama has committed himself to respecting the Constitution, but he said the founding document must be interpreted in the context of current affairs and events.
Melody Barnes, a senior domestic policy adviser to the Obama campaign, said in the Fox News report, "His view is that our society isn't static and the law isn't static as well. That the Constitution is a living and breathing document and that the law and the justices who interpret it have to understand that."
Obama has criticized Justice Clarence Thomas, who is on the more conservative side of the philosophical spectrum in the Supreme Court, as not a strong jurist or legal thinker.
And Obama voted against both Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, two appointees of President Bush who vote with Thomas on many issues.
Read the No. 1 New York Times best seller, Jerome Corsi's "The Obama Nation," to find out how Barack Obama is likely to lead America as president – only $4.95 today, an amazing $23 savings!
Obama said their vision of the Constitution, essentially as a document whose provisions still are controlling all aspects of U.S. law, isn't correct.
"There's nothing wrong with voting against nominees who don't appear to share a broader vision of what the Constitution is about," he told the pro-abortion audience in 2007.
He even raised the topic during a campaign event at Pastor Rick Warren's Saddleback Church, saying one of the most important jobs of the Supreme Court is to guard against "encroachment" on the separation of powers.
Obama has complained Roberts has given in to the White House too much while on the bench.
"I think he has been a little bit too … eager to give an administration … more power than I think the Constitution originally intended," Obama said in the report.
Barnes told Fox News that Obama is looking for "empathy" on the part of justices.
As WND reported, Obama said in a 2001 radio interview said the Constitution is flawed in that it does not mandate or allow for redistribution of wealth.
Obama told Chicago's public station WBEZ-FM that "redistributive change" is needed, pointing to what he regarded as a failure of the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren in its rulings on civil rights issues in the 1960s.
The Warren court, he said, failed to "break free from the essential constraints" in the U.S. Constitution and launch a major redistribution of wealth. But Obama, then an Illinois state lawmaker, said the legislative branch of government, rather than the courts, probably was the ideal avenue for accomplishing that goal.
In the 2001 interview, Obama said:
If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OK
But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.
And that hasn't shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.
The video is available here: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=82729
In his top-rated national radio show, Rush Limbaugh reacted.
The Constitution, he said, "most certainly does spell out things it must do on your behalf. He understands it. He just doesn't like it."
"He's talking about giving things to people," Limbaugh said. "This is perverted. Some people call this radical. I call it perverted.
"To me, ladies and gentlemen, the Constitution is a gift from God. It's not a disappointment; it's a blessing," he said.
WND also has reported an associate at a Chicago law firm whose partner served on a finance committee for Obama has advocated simply abandoning the U.S. Constitution's requirement that a president be a "natural-born" citizen.
The paper was written in 2006 by Sarah Herlihy, just two years after Obama had won a landslide election in Illinois to the U.S. Senate. Herlihy is listed as an associate at the Chicago firm of Kirkland & Ellis. A partner in the same firm, Bruce I. Ettelson, cites his membership on the finance committees for both Obama and Sen. Richard Durbin on the corporate website.
The article by Herlihy is available online under law review articles from Kent University.
The issue of Obama's own eligibility is the subject of nearly two dozen court cases in recent weeks, including at least two that have gone to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Herlihy's published paper reveals that the requirement likely was considered in a negative light by organizations linked to Obama in the months before he announced in 2007 his candidacy for the presidency.
"The natural born citizen requirement in Article II of the United States Constitution has been called the 'stupidest provision' in the Constitution, 'undecidedly un-American,' 'blatantly discriminatory,' and the 'Constitution's worst provision,'" Herlihy begins in her introduction to the paper titled, "Amending the Natural Born Citizen Requirement: Globalization as the Impetus and the Obstacle."
Related offers:
Get "The Audacity of Deceit," and learn about the looming hostile attack on Judeo-Christian values and freedoms Americans hold dear
Get Jerome Corsi's "The Obama Nation," autographed by the author, exclusively from WND's online store.
"NObama" magnetic bumper sticker
Whistleblower magazine's "THE SECRET LIFE OF BARACK OBAMA"
Get the book that launched the "None of the Above" political movement – personally signed by the author. It comes with a free "None of the Above" magnetized bumper sticker.
Help spread the word about the "None of the Above" campaign with extra copies of the magnetized bumper sticker.
Proudly display the hottest campaign button in the nation – "None of the Above." Buy them in bulk at phenomenal prices.
Previous stories:
'Natural-born' requirement called 'stupidest provision'
Obama rips U.S. Constitution
Obama spreads wealth – to non-taxpayers
Obama: 'It's not that I want to punish your success'
Barney Frank: We'll take more of your money
This is what Obama presidency would do to America
This Rush: Watch out for 30% who pay no taxes
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=82729
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=82729
OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL
President-elect would seek changes in Supreme Court
'Constitution a living, breathing document and more justices have to understand that'
Posted: December 05, 2008
1:00 am Eastern
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
President-elect Barack Obama believes the U.S. Constitution needs to be interpreted through the lens of current events, and the U.S. Supreme Court needs to include empathy for the plight of minorities in its opinions, a new report has found.
The issues are raised in Fox News report in which Obama staff members affirm the Democrat's goals. WND also reported Obama believes the Constitution is flawed, because it does not mandate redistribution of wealth, and he says the Supreme Court should have intervened years ago to accomplish that.
Fox News noted four of the Supreme Court justices are in their 70s, and Justice John Paul Stevens now is 88, so Obama is expected to leave a major footprint on the makeup of the court through possible appointments in the coming years.
Obama has stated repeatedly his desire for empathetic judges who "understand" the plight of minorities.
In a 2007 speech to Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider, he said, "We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."
Obama has committed himself to respecting the Constitution, but he said the founding document must be interpreted in the context of current affairs and events.
Melody Barnes, a senior domestic policy adviser to the Obama campaign, said in the Fox News report, "His view is that our society isn't static and the law isn't static as well. That the Constitution is a living and breathing document and that the law and the justices who interpret it have to understand that."
Obama has criticized Justice Clarence Thomas, who is on the more conservative side of the philosophical spectrum in the Supreme Court, as not a strong jurist or legal thinker.
And Obama voted against both Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, two appointees of President Bush who vote with Thomas on many issues.
Read the No. 1 New York Times best seller, Jerome Corsi's "The Obama Nation," to find out how Barack Obama is likely to lead America as president – only $4.95 today, an amazing $23 savings!
Obama said their vision of the Constitution, essentially as a document whose provisions still are controlling all aspects of U.S. law, isn't correct.
"There's nothing wrong with voting against nominees who don't appear to share a broader vision of what the Constitution is about," he told the pro-abortion audience in 2007.
He even raised the topic during a campaign event at Pastor Rick Warren's Saddleback Church, saying one of the most important jobs of the Supreme Court is to guard against "encroachment" on the separation of powers.
Obama has complained Roberts has given in to the White House too much while on the bench.
"I think he has been a little bit too … eager to give an administration … more power than I think the Constitution originally intended," Obama said in the report.
Barnes told Fox News that Obama is looking for "empathy" on the part of justices.
As WND reported, Obama said in a 2001 radio interview said the Constitution is flawed in that it does not mandate or allow for redistribution of wealth.
Obama told Chicago's public station WBEZ-FM that "redistributive change" is needed, pointing to what he regarded as a failure of the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren in its rulings on civil rights issues in the 1960s.
The Warren court, he said, failed to "break free from the essential constraints" in the U.S. Constitution and launch a major redistribution of wealth. But Obama, then an Illinois state lawmaker, said the legislative branch of government, rather than the courts, probably was the ideal avenue for accomplishing that goal.
In the 2001 interview, Obama said:
If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OK
But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.
And that hasn't shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.
The video is available here: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=82729
In his top-rated national radio show, Rush Limbaugh reacted.
The Constitution, he said, "most certainly does spell out things it must do on your behalf. He understands it. He just doesn't like it."
"He's talking about giving things to people," Limbaugh said. "This is perverted. Some people call this radical. I call it perverted.
"To me, ladies and gentlemen, the Constitution is a gift from God. It's not a disappointment; it's a blessing," he said.
WND also has reported an associate at a Chicago law firm whose partner served on a finance committee for Obama has advocated simply abandoning the U.S. Constitution's requirement that a president be a "natural-born" citizen.
The paper was written in 2006 by Sarah Herlihy, just two years after Obama had won a landslide election in Illinois to the U.S. Senate. Herlihy is listed as an associate at the Chicago firm of Kirkland & Ellis. A partner in the same firm, Bruce I. Ettelson, cites his membership on the finance committees for both Obama and Sen. Richard Durbin on the corporate website.
The article by Herlihy is available online under law review articles from Kent University.
The issue of Obama's own eligibility is the subject of nearly two dozen court cases in recent weeks, including at least two that have gone to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Herlihy's published paper reveals that the requirement likely was considered in a negative light by organizations linked to Obama in the months before he announced in 2007 his candidacy for the presidency.
"The natural born citizen requirement in Article II of the United States Constitution has been called the 'stupidest provision' in the Constitution, 'undecidedly un-American,' 'blatantly discriminatory,' and the 'Constitution's worst provision,'" Herlihy begins in her introduction to the paper titled, "Amending the Natural Born Citizen Requirement: Globalization as the Impetus and the Obstacle."
Related offers:
Get "The Audacity of Deceit," and learn about the looming hostile attack on Judeo-Christian values and freedoms Americans hold dear
Get Jerome Corsi's "The Obama Nation," autographed by the author, exclusively from WND's online store.
"NObama" magnetic bumper sticker
Whistleblower magazine's "THE SECRET LIFE OF BARACK OBAMA"
Get the book that launched the "None of the Above" political movement – personally signed by the author. It comes with a free "None of the Above" magnetized bumper sticker.
Help spread the word about the "None of the Above" campaign with extra copies of the magnetized bumper sticker.
Proudly display the hottest campaign button in the nation – "None of the Above." Buy them in bulk at phenomenal prices.
Previous stories:
'Natural-born' requirement called 'stupidest provision'
Obama rips U.S. Constitution
Obama spreads wealth – to non-taxpayers
Obama: 'It's not that I want to punish your success'
Barney Frank: We'll take more of your money
This is what Obama presidency would do to America
This Rush: Watch out for 30% who pay no taxes
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=82729
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
