Alan Keyes Sues Obama To Produce Original, Full Length, Birth Certificate

The comedy continues. The most criminal election process in the history of the nation and the winner (biggest crook in history) won, or bought the election with terrorist funding, and may be an illegal alien. The forgers are at work 24-7 to clean up the poor forgery they released earlier.

I’m often told I am the firebreathing, knuckle dragging right wing radical in the bunch around here so it may lower my approval rating amongst readers to learn that I think pursuing this issue is a no win situation for us.

First of all, Democrats don’t give a flying F*** about the Constitution, so even if Obama is not a U.S. citizen they wouldn’t bothered in the least.

Second, the dim wit dummies (otherwise known as moderates) can be so easily conned by whatever Obama produces it won’t matter.

Obama will be Inaugurated and if we harp too much on this we will be left to look silly.

This issue isn’t at all as important as the character questions raised by his associations with Ayers, Khalidi, Wright, Odinga, etc.etc.etc. which I do believe will become clearer once Obama takes policy courses that are in line with the radical thinking of those America haters.

There is just so much bad stuff about Obama that will soon become evident to the dim wit dummies that I don’t think we need to go out on the limb over Obama’s birth certificate.

If Obama truly is not a natural born citizen, that would be unpresidented. ; )

Biden is named in the above suit, as someone who knowingly “helped” perpetuate the fraud. He would be convicted of a felony.

@Mike’s America:

I’m often told I am the firebreathing, knuckle dragging right wing radical in the bunch around here so it may lower my approval rating amongst readers to learn that I think pursuing this issue is a no win situation for us.

Mike, you RINO!

I think Mike is right. Just by nature of his mom being a U.S. citizen, I don’t see how there is any question of Obama’s citizenship; beats the hell out of me why he can’t just produce the damn document and put this to rest.

Too, bad though. I always wanted to make a post entitled,

President Pelosi?

Welcome Hillraiser 429, what if they find Pelosi to knowingly help perpetuate the fraud, is she also named in the suit? What a mess we would find ourselves in, all those voters that thought they voted to change our image in the world, feh!

I’m just saying… given that President-Elect Obama is found in an unlikely situation to not be a natural born citizen, et al, and he is still allowed to serve… Schwarzenegger 2012. How’s that for a bumper sticker?

I have studied this intensively and I see no “dry hole”. Obama will not or cannot prove his eligibility, and that represents a tremendous opportunity for the opposition. This is the last, best hope to remove him.

But more important, patriotic Americans should not stand by while any part of the Constitution is abrogated. If Americans ignore this, they will have ethically and legally failed in their sworn duty to defend and protect the Constitution. Great adversity and danger lies ahead, and if Americans do not defend their Constitution, then it will not defend them.

This is from Gina Cobb, where I usually post, and this post from an expert in logic nails the key issue. More on Gina Cobb.
___________________________________

SUMMARY
The US Constitution specifies that the US President must meet certain eligibility criteria to take office. Many Americans have sworn to uphold and defend the US Constitution, usually expressed as, “I will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” To honorably defend this oath, the eligibility of the President-elect must be known to the individuals who have sworn this oath. Once the eligibility of the President-elect has become known to the individuals who have sworn to uphold the Constitution, this information has become public.

This leads to a from of deductive logic called a Categorical Syllogism, which reads as follows: (1) To be POTUS, the candidate’s eligibility must be public. (2) Obama’s eligibility is not public. (3) Therefore, Obama is not POTUS. This syllogism is written in the present tense, and as time moves forward, the meaning of the syllogism moves with it. On January 20, 2009, if the premises remain true, this syllogism will disqualify Obama from becoming POTUS.

The Syllogism is based on the rules of nature, not of mankind. It responds only to the rules of deductive logic and cannot be overturned by any human action. If the premises are taken to be true, then the conclusion must be true. There is no law or statute that requires the rules of logic to be proven in a court of law for them to be enforceable. The rules of logic are compelled by nature, and cannot be challenged by any law of man.

Therefore, the conclusion of this syllogism cannot be questioned by humans of any authority. No human is empowered to alter, rewrite, or adjudicate the laws of the Universe. Therefore, so long as the premises of the syllogism remain true, Obama is not POTUS.

I hate to be on the same page as someone as delusional as Larry W, but this is a waste of time. He will be proven to be a citizen.

Obama Is Not A Natural Born U.S. Citizen And Is Therefore Ineligible For The Presidency / Documentary Video (10m52) by: Philip J. Berg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWTs1YyhFRg

And I also found this:

Barack Obama is not legally a U.S. natural-born citizen according to the law on the books at the time of his birth, which falls between “December 24, 1952 to November 13, 1986?

Presidential office requires a natural-born citizen if the child was not born to two U.S. citizen parents. US Law very clearly stipulates: “.If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16.” Barack Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen and Obama’s mother was only 18 when Obama was born, which means though she had been a U.S. citizen for 10 years, (or citizen perhaps because of Hawai’i being a territory) the mother fails the test for being so for at least 5 years **prior to** Barack Obama’s birth, but *after* age 16. It doesn’t matter *after*. In essence, she was not old enough to qualify her son for automatic U.S. citizenship.

His mother would have needed to have been 16+5= 21 years old, at the time of Barack Obama’s birth for him to have been a natural-born citizen. As aformentioned, she was a young college student at the time and was not. Barack Obama was already 3 years old at that time his mother would have needed to have waited to have him as the only U.S. Cizen parent. Obama instead should have been naturalized, but even then, that would still disqualify him from holding the office. Naturalized citizens are ineligible to hold the office of President.

http://www.blogtext.org/naturalborncitizen/

That link is to a suit in NJ which has been found to have standing at the State level.

Now it is waiting on SCOTUS for action.

Why don’t you people just go to Fact Cheack .org!

They have PROOF of his Birth Certificate.

NOT acceptable David, as factcheck.org… is owned by Annenberg/Obama. This is kin to asking the fox to check on the hens and make sure they are safe in the hen house! Neither factcheck nor fightthesmears are credible proof of anything associated with Barack Obama’s legitimacy to assume the presidency. The document listed there has already been shown to be a forgery anyway.
I really hope the court will now do their job in view of the severals suits which do have proper standing. I also hope the electoral college will do their job as well. Either our constitution is what it is – or it is NOTHING. We either uphold it and abide by it – or throw it out! (Which I hear he is wanting to do anyway!)

We need a president who will abide by, protect and defend our constitution. PERIOD.

My friends ask, If he has a legitimate birth certificate why not just produce it?

I say Bo is flipping the bird to us, in essence saying that he can do anything he damned well pleases and nobody can touch him.

…

@David101:

David, a birth certificate and certification of live birth are two different animals. It’s the certification of live birth Obama needs to produce. See Justadude’s comment #21.

Why don’t you people just go to Fact Cheack .org!

Because that is exactly equivalent to ask Obama.

Snopes also sold their soul

Curt,

No disrespect intended, but your grasp of the issue at hand is terribly simple and off base because the questions raised by this case (and others) will not be solved by producing a legitimate birth certificate from the State of Hawaii (assuming he has one) and his original full-length passport.

More specifically, the issue at hand is one fold — “loyalty” — as demonstrated by the founding fathers’ absolute, non-negotiable insistence that only a “natural born citizen” could hold the executive office. They placed this requirement in the Constitution to insure that no one with any conflicts of interest would sit as president, and in this case “conflict of interest” means “possible loyalty to another country.”

Obama’s website has already conceded that he is a “natural born citizen” of Kenya, which was under the dominion of the King when he was born, and that he allegedly allowed his Kenyan citizenship to expire when he turned 21. Expiration does not remove the problem, however, because it does not eradicate his “natural,” i.e. “inherent,” loyalty. In other words, assuming Obama was born in Hawaii, he would hold “natural born citizenship” in two different countries, which is tantamount to saying that he has “dual loyalties” to two different dominions.

This means that, in the end, someone will have to define the founding fathers’ intent vis-à-vis the “natural born citizen” requirement. Did they require a pure pedigree? — or would they accept split loyalties in the executive office? The answer to this question strikes me as a no-brainer. My brain notwithstanding, however, the question must be answered at a constitutional level — the Supremes must define “natural born citizenship” and they must apply their definition to the Constitutional requirement. In short, Obama’s in a world of hurt, which explains why this Harvard-trained Constitutional attorney has consistently ducked the issue. Once he produces a birth certificate, he will be compelled to answer all the other questions, and there is no satisfactory answer that won’t demonstrate his dual loyalties.

Consider, for example, that less than one year ago Obama campaigned for his cousin Odinga in Kenya. Most Americans understand that an American senator campaigning in Kenya for a Communist who pledged to institute Sharia Law was problematic. This matter becomes even more complex when you remember that the same American senator is a “natural born citizen” of Kenya — it just looks funny. And now he wants to be president.

I could go on but I think you follow the point. This is not a mere matter of producing a birth certificate from Hawaii — there are very serious Constitutional issues involved.

Hi Missy,

You ask a lot of good questions, some of them rhetorical, that deserve answers. Just for kicks, I’ll take them in order:

1. Is there a source for that [“natural born Kenyan citizenship”] information?

Yes, here’s the direct quote and with the link:

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.’s children.

“Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4, 1982.”
http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate

2. How could there be any question, if he wasn’t born here, he can’t be president according to the Constitution?

Know one knows with absolute drop-dead certainty the place of Obama’s birth; hence the need for him to produce a legitimate birth certificate. But a birth certificate will not resolve the issue — it will only establish his birth place.

3. Why did Mr. Audacity/Constitutional scholar even run, he knows what our laws concerning the presidency consist of?

Straight from the Alinksy school of thought. These guys have placed a premium on in-your-face audacity, the kind that steals from you in broad daylight, defying you to stop them.

4. What happens to anything he signs while in the Oval Office while we wait for the courts to decide what constitutes a natural born citizen?

This is where the proverbial rubber hits the road and it explains why every single one of the lawsuits (there’s about 11 so far), including Keyes’, uses the phrase “Constitutional crisis” and it explains why I believe the SCOTUS must define “natural born citizen.” It may turn out that Obama qualifies for POTUS. Then again, it may turn out otherwise, which means this thing’s going to get real ugly real fast.

We shall see.

Let me make one other point relative to the Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) on Obama’s website.

Please notice the all-bold, all-capitalized words at the bottom of the image, which state: “ANY ALTERTATIONS INVALIDATE THIS CERTIFICATE.”
http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate

You don’t have to think twice about this to understand that the image on the site is a scanned reproduction that someone prepared for web use, which means that they resized and modified the graphic. In other words, they altered it. And if you don’t think my argument is valid, then ask yourself if any court of law, let alone SCOTUS, would accept a virtual image on a website as viable evidence.

Obama could be rid of this one aspect of the question if he scanned an original birth certificate (which is not the same as a COLB), while he simultaneously showed the original to the powers that be. I find it interesting that he circumvented the original, as well as the issue, with this sleight of hand.

I dropped my conclusion above (#37). It meant to frame this argument:

Obama’s COLB states that any alterations to the document invalidate it.
Obama’s web master altered the document when he replicated it.
Therefore, Obama’s COLB is invalid.

USMC Daughter,

Your post (I received it via email) and its accompanying link furnishes the standard answer to the question, What constitutes a “natural born citizen”? However, it fails to address the question at hand — What does the Constitution say regarding persons enjoying natural born citizenship in two different countries?

Even though the US Constitution does not specifically address the question of dual loyalties, I don’t think this means that the founding fathers did not contemplate it. Can you imagine what the fathers would have answered if someone raised their hand during the constitutional convention and asked, “Ummmm, what if someone is a ‘natural born citizen’ of the USA and a ‘natural born subject’ of the King?”

NO SOUP FOR YOU!

If the goal is to protect the office of POTUS from conflicting loyalties, methinks the fathers would contend that a person suffering from rivaling loyalties due to dual citizenships does not qualify as a “natural born citizen.”

Larry,

There’s no such thing as “rule by technicality” when the technicalities are points of law. For example, let’s say you’re a convicted felon who is ineligible to vote. Do you believe you have a valid contention to enter a polling place and demand a ballot because “it’s a technicality” that US law prohibits felons from voting?

There are no technicalities.

Regarding the issue of when to raise this objection to Obama, most of the lawsuits against Obama were filed prior to Election Day.

I can’t believe the Courts would let this hang. They can look at the actual documents “in camera”. They could rule that the originals can be viewed but not copied by the parties involved.
BO is most certainly hiding something. Even if he wA BORN in Hi., he could be charged with crimes which would exempt him from taking office. The passport issue is interesting because it can be checked easily within the Gov.t(in camera). What passport did he use on the trip to Europe this summer? Maybe he is exempt?

This is for REAL. The election is NOT OVER. IF Obama is ineligible because he is not a natural born U.S. citizen then the Supreme Court could decide who will be President OR the Electoral College could reject Obama as a growing list of potential electors are joining a lawsuit demanding proof of birth. Instead of talking let’s do something.

Take action here: http://peoplespassions.org/index.html
It’s EASY. Just click and send emails to Reps. then send letters/emails to Electors asking them to defend the U.S. Constitution and demand Obama provide birth certificate or step down from Presidency. Every email and letter counts! Please help.

Write To U.S. Supreme Court Justices Regarding Obama Birth Certificate here: http://libertynjustice.wordpress.com/

FOR PROOF look here: http://peoplespassions.org/documents/The_Problem_with_a_birth_place.htm
and here:
LISTEN TO AUDIO of Kenya Grandmother stating that Obama born in Mombassa Kenya: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlFc4wCpvSo

People in Kenya know something that Americans don’t: Obama born in Kenya!
VIDEO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yl1K94ALlTA

More than a half-dozen legal challenges have been filed in federal and state courts demanding President-elect Barack Obama’s decertification from ballots or seeking to halt elector meetings, claiming he has failed to prove his U.S. citizenship status. WND is tracking the progress of many cases across the U.S., including the following: OH, CT, WA, NJ, PA, GA, Hawaii
Read full article: http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80928

Larry, as a fellow Liberal Democrat and Obama supporter, I have to say I wholeheartedly disagree with your points here. The Constitution is the foundation of how our country is run, and no threats of mass hysteria rioting should ever be allowed to void it. If it is found that Obama is indeed ineligible to serve, then I shall remove my support, as fervently as I stood for him. We cannot say that the Constitution doesn’t count when it’s inconvenient for us, and then later argue that California’s passing of Proposition 8 is in violation on the Equal Protection Claus of the 14th Amendment, or fight for any other issue we believe in. If the Constitution doesn’t count for everything, it doesn’t stand for anything.

With that said, I do believe this to be a non-issue. For when Congress changed the law which requires one parent to be 19 to the new requirement of 16, they also made the law retroactive to 1952 – which covers Obama in any of the aforementioned scenarios.

@Cary:

Do you have a link to the law that you reference?

Larry, as a fellow Liberal Democrat and Obama supporter

Heh. Never been mistaken for either of those before, although the first one would have made sense several hundred years ago.

The Constitution is the foundation of how our country is run, and no threats of mass hysteria rioting should ever be allowed to void it.

I hope I did not say “should”. But I did certainly mean “would”.

Cary,

You are absolutely correct. We are all voicing our mere opinions and I hope that I’m not leaving the impression that I believe I am an authority, because I’m not. I’ve read enough, however, to know that the founding fathers did not require “natural born citizenship” in the executive office for no apparent reason and that this matter will not be resolved if Obama decides to show us a certified copy of his birth certificate.

Moreover, it is fallacious to argue that since “private citizens” have broached this issue as opposed to “senior GOP members, the FBI, CIA, etc., it’s probably a non-issue.” Never underestimate the work of private citizens in a “government of the people, by the people, for the people.” Besides, if “senior GOP members, the FBI, CIA, etc.,” had vetted Obama for his origin, someone would have come forward to put an end this vexing question. But as Keyes noted in his lawsuit, the only person to come forward throughout this travesty is Obama’s grandmother in Kenya, and she claimed that she was present when her grandson was born — in Kenya! And I quote:

“Particularly telling is the fact that not one single person has come forward, not a doctor, not a nurse, not a hospital administrator, nor anyone else, to state that he or she was present during this birth, except for Obama’s paternal grandmother, who affirmed that she ‘was in the delivery room in Kenya when he was born Aug. 4, 1961.’”

With all the potential scenarios that could take place here, the scariest one to my mind is the thought that SCOTUS would cave to the threat of violence instead of upholding Constitutional law.

In other words, if it turns out that the Supremes believe that Obama does not satisfy the “natural born citizen” requirement, but they don’t rule against him because of a well-grounded fear that his supporters would riot in the streets and cause complete and total chaos across the land, then ultimately SCOTUS would abdicate their sworn duty to uphold the US Constitution, surrendering lawful government to anarchy and relinquishing their judicial authority to a Chicago thug. This would spell the end of the US as we know it, introducing rule by an iron fist.

Cary, your mention of dual citizenship would hold true in cases where the US had a treaty with the other country and vice versa… Neither Kenya or Indonesia had dual citizenship agreements with the US at the time that Obama held citizenship in those countries. At least that is the allegation in the lawsuits.

Lets be clear here, If Obama was born in Hawaii then he is a natural born citizen.

His mother’s age or fathers citizenship doesn’t matter.

As long as Barack Obama was born on U.S soil, then he is a natural born citizen.

Now, if you can prove, and when I say prove, I mean have ACTUAL Documents, that prove Obama was born OUTSIDE of the United states.

Then that’s another story.

But, as it stands now, Obama is a natural born citizen of the United states.

The Consitution doesn’t regonize dual citizenship{as for as I know}.

If Obama was born on U.S soil then he is a natural born Citizen.

Now as for the Offiical Birth Certificate.

As said before, Fackcheak. org has proof of the Birth Certificate {and I forgot to mention Politico.com… has the proof as well}

Hawaii State Officials have it also and have made statements on the record, that the Birth Certificate is Valid.

Also an Hawaiin Newspaper had Obama’s Birthday on its newspaper in April On Obama’s birthday.

AND Barack Obama went to Highschool in Hawaii. If he didn’t have a Valid Birth Certificate how could he have gone to a Hawaiin highschool?

Now, these lawsuits that are going around, including the Keyes case are truely laghable.

Considering these facts:

1. Obama was born on U.S soil{which makes him a natural born citizen.}

2. Alan keyes ran againts Obama for Senate back in Chicago and ran a nasty campaign againts him. And it would’nt look right to a lot of Americans if this were to get a lot of Media Coverage.

3. Hawaii Officials could easily give out the Birth Certificate and it would make Alan and the others who have filed lawsuits look stupid. {Btw, Obama has already sended out his Birth Certificate to the public, so these lawsuits trying to make him give it out, don’t make sence}

4. And Finally, if the GOP or Mcain campaign REALLY belived that this was an issue that they could use againts Obama, would’nt they have used it during the Campaign?

All these facts indicate that the Lawsuits {including the Alan keyes Suit} are a non-issue.

If the Obama camp. REALLY felt that this issue was a threat to them they would’nt have ignored{after they gave out his Birth Certificate to the public} like they did.

You don’t ignore things like this, if your a campaign.

Now to the people above who actually believe this mess.

I would like to ask yall some questions:

1.Why would Obama be an elected Senater if there was any question of his Citizenship?

2. As stated before, Obama went to High school in Hawaii. If Obama didn’t have a valid Birth Certificate how could he have gone to an Hawaiin Highschool?

3. Also, in case you don’t know, all Presidental Cannidates are investigated by the FBI and Secret Service.

So, if there was any question that he was not a “natural born citizen” would’nt they have addressed it??

4. Barack Obama went to Harvard Law School, how would he have gotten into that College if he didn’t have a valid Birth Certificate?

Last question:

And this is as obvious as it gets……..If Obama knew that he wasn’t a “natural born citizen” why would he even run for Office? It makes no sence.

Inconclusion, this whole issue has been out there sence the primarys.

And still the GOP and there supporters won’t let it go!

*smh*

It’s non-issue you guys.

Case Closed!!!!

David,

I’m glad to respond to your points and arguments, wherever you make them, as well as your baseless assertions; however, let me state up front that persons such as you give fodder to persons such as me, because you are so completely ignorant of the questions at hand (not to mention your dreadful spelling).

You make several assertions vis-à-vis “natural born citizenship,” however you fail to substantiate your assertions with evidence, making this incredible conclusion, “But, as it stands now, Obama is a natural born citizen of the United states.”

In fact, as it stands now, no one knows anything about Barak Hussein Obama’s birth. We don’t know if he was born of a woman, hatched of an egg, or conceived in a pod, any more than we know if his entrance into this world took place in Hawaii, Kenya, Canada, Indonesia, or an alien spaceship. To be sure, we know more about Joe the Plumber’s private information, most of it obtained illegally, than we know about Obama’s birth.

Regarding the Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) on factcheck and on Obama’s website, please see comment # 40. The image is INVALID, which doesn’t mean anything because it’s irrelevant — it’s not a certified copy of an original birth certificate, stating the name of the hospital where the birth took place and signed by the attending physician.

Regarding your so-called “facts,” which you instruct us to “consider”: none of them are facts and therefore are unworthy of our consideration.

You ask:

“1. Why would Obama be an elected Senater if there was any question of his Citizenship?”

Because the US Constitution does not place a “natural born citizenship” requirement on senators.

“2. As stated before, Obama went to High school in Hawaii. If Obama didn’t have a valid Birth Certificate how could he have gone to an Hawaiin Highschool?”

Because a birth certificate is not required to enroll in high school. Think about it. You think that he had to produce a birth certificate to get into high school but he does not have to produce a birth certificate to get on the ballot. Try to be consistent.

“3. Also, in case you don’t know, all Presidental Cannidates are investigated by the FBI and Secret Service.”

Really? And when the FBI and the Secret Service conduct their investigations and discover that a presidential candidate has close associations to foreign and domestic terrorists, the law requires them to sit on the information? You’re dreaming.

“4. Barack Obama went to Harvard Law School, how would he have gotten into that College if he didn’t have a valid Birth Certificate?”

At this point you force us to conclude that you believe the standards to get into a Hawaiian public high school and Harvard University are higher than the standards to get on a national ballot to run for POTUS.

Finally, you ask, “If Obama knew that he wasn’t a “natural born citizen” why would he even run for Office?  It makes no sence.”

Answer: because Obama holds pretty much everyone in contempt and has demonstrated a level of hubris hithertofore unseen in any other candidate for president. When he isn’t flipping off his opponents, he’s thumbing his nose at common decency, and the act of defying Constitutional law is consistent with his well-established patterns of behavior.

The burden of proof is on Obama. He refuses to provide it. Why? There must be a reason. What are they hiding? If nothing, then it is so simple, provide the document! Every american has to do this at one time or another. It is routine stuff. This guy has never been vetted by the media or anyone else. Never in our history have so many people voted for such an unknown quantity with no experience and a hidden past on some vague promise of CHANGE. Change to what? Communism? The stupidity of this country never ceases to amaze me. I for one will never be satisfied until the truth is known. There will always be doubt about whether or not he is legitimate and it will dog him until the question is answered. I don’t mind the fact that he won but if it turns out that he has deceived us, then, he belongs in jail for along time. At least people knew who Hillary Clinton was, like her or not. This guy is a blank slate and nothing that points to having any knowledge or experience for such a big job. The Presidency is not the next step up for community organizers. This guy missed every rung on the ladder and jumped right to the top. If we can’t find out who this guy is now, we might all be sorry later. Americans need to wake up and get enlightened or they shouldn’t be permitted to vote. It is too important to let a bunch of morons decide our fate. Polls have shown that the average Obama voter is as clueless as a tree stump about him and about poltics in general. They don’t know who their elected officials are. They don’t know who stands for what. They get their news from Saturday Night Live and The Daily Show with Jon Stewart or worse yet, from raving mad goofballs like Keith Olbermann on MSNBC. THis is not the way to run a country unless you want it to go down the toilet. Actually, there are many who want america destroyed to bring about The New World Order and One World Government and the morons play right into their hands. If you don’t know what you are voting for, you get what you deserve. Slavery!

I have read many of these articles regarding this subject Curt and you have done a very good job presenting the facts.

In the Berg suit Justice Souter has given President Elect Obama until December 1st to produce the long form of the Hawaii Birth Certificate.

This person that was just elected President may be born in Kenya, currently Citizen of Kenya, Citizen of Indonesia, and may not even be considered a U.S. Citizen.

Watching the video on what the Obama voters know is unbelievable to me, showing the terrible, terrible coverage of the mainstream media on the actual facts about Obama.

They should have asked the question, “Which candidate voted three times while he was State Senator from Illinois to throw a live baby away in a botched abortion?”

Those people would not have even known where Obama was from.

I was sitting at my table just after P. Clinton had been elected the first time and told my father-in-law that P. Clinton would be elected again in 4 years. My father-in-law looked at me and said, “The American people would never be that stupid.” I said to him, “You have overestimated the intelligence of the American people.

Sadly, I was correct and my father-in-law voted for Clinton in 4 years.

MataHarley,

Thanks for the thumbs up; I must admit that I’ve done more venting than anything else here and I really appreciate the forum.

There’s one other thought, however, that I’d like to vent before I let go of this thread, and that’s the incomprehensible disinterest I see coming from the right on this subject, when the right has been so adamant on all the other issues surrounding the total lack of transparency about this complete stranger known as Barack Obama. With the “natural born citizen” controversy we have an issue that epitomizes his vagueness and how little we know about the man, yet I hear the pooh-poohing this issue with the same fervor as the left.

This is especially disconcerting when you consider that of all the points where Obama has obscured transparency — the extent of his relationship with Bill Ayers, why Khalid al Mansour advocated for his entrance into Harvard, the whereabouts of Columbia transcripts, etc. — this is the only issue that cuts to the heart of the US Constitution and Obama’s legal right to hold the office of POTUS. Yet despite this fact — and it is a FACT — the vast majority of the right dismisses the question of Obama’s constitutional eligibility for POTUS as “ho hum” or else filed in the category of “tin-foil hat,” without ever considering the merits of the arguments.

Therefore, whenever I see it broached on right-leaning blogs, I’ve decided to weigh in with thoughtful and factual arguments, hoping to demonstrate that Obama has a moral obligation, if not a legal obligation, to answer the questions raised by these lawsuits to assure those whom he intends to govern of his good faith, as well as the benefits of a Harvard education. Thus far, however, he has only assured me that intends to do business the Chicago way — a stiff middle finger held up high while he defies those who want to see him account.

By the way, comment 68 is factually incorrect. Justice Souter has NOT given President Elect Obama until December 1st to produce the long form of the Hawaii Birth Certificate. From Berg’s site:

“It is expected that the Court will decide whether or not to review Berg v. Obama after the Defendants file their response, and Mr. Berg has replied to the Defendant’s response.”
http://www.obamacrimes.com/index.php/news/52-us-supreme-court-awaits-response-to-berg-writ-of-certiorari-from-obama

On December 1, Obama’s legal team merely has to respond to Berg, which is not the same as producing a certified copy of his birth certificate. Given their track record, you can count on more obfuscation.

CTN, I understand the frustration with the entire nation’s laissez faire attitude towards Obama’s birth. Then again, I also have seen that the right tend to be cowed by the typical Alinsky assaults on facts… obscuring the issue by ridiculing the charge, and those that do the charging. They did this successfully with Ayers (because the GOP did not make the correct connections between Ayers and Obama thru the educational agenda), the Wright-Farrakhan-Khalid associations, etal.

Frankly, since the GOP advisors don’t seem to have a handle on how to present the issues and related associations, they are probably scared to death to tread on an issue fraught with new vs old immigration laws and precedents. If they attempted, it would just be made one more object of “distraction” and ridicule.

I’ve been watching Berg’s lawsuit primarily for quite some time. And now, with Alan Keyes suit, I will turn my attention to his. I’ve always liked Keyes. And now, thinking back on it, I have to wonder if Keyes noticed Berg’s suit, saw the flaw in the status of “standing”, and officially ran just to achieve sufficient standing in the court’s eyes.

But I’m ill equipped on this issue of Obama’s eligibility. I am curious, I am unbelievably irate at the Obama legal dodges. However this is a pattern with him on every action.

Yet the electorate still liked the visual package, and bought the conservative lies (tax cuts) oozing from Obama’s every speech. I’ve often said, if Obama committed a murder in full view of the faithful, they’d find some way to excuse it.

So now, it’s in the hands of the courts. And I hate to say that if they, too, dodge this proof and merely cast it aside, I fear we have fallen so far that it may be impossible to return to what the founding fathers had in mind with the separation of powers.

Not to mention that, frankly, the idea of a President Biden does not lift my spirits….

PS: Like you, I have always appreciated Keyes. In fact, I supported him when he sought the GOP nomination. He’s got a sharp mind; he’s an excellent speaker; and he is a principled man. Too bad he wasn’t the first African-American president.

And I don’t think the second comma in the title is correct grammar? OR did Obama bend the rules on that too?

Subject: FOI request for Obama’s birth certificate –found on the internet at http://www.DailyJeff.com-has all 50 SOS emails-1 stop emailing!

FOI REQUEST TO ALL SOS FOR OBAMA’S BIRTH CERTIFICATE
We need to find out what the SOS of the various States know about Obama’s birth certificate and qualifications to be president. If you have time, please send/fax/email the following FOI (freedom of information letter) to some or all of the SOS bureau of elections. After you get a response please post on http://www.obamacrimes.com, http://www.freerepublic.com, http://www.peoplespassions.org, http://americamustknow.com,www.rallycongress.com.
1. The address , fax number and email address for the Bureau of elections for the states are at http://www.eac.gov.
2. I like the faxes because they will respond quicker to them. Print off your generic FOI request and past/tape the next name over the top and fax it off. See emails listed below for all 50 SOS.Cut and paste to send all 50 at one time. Sit back and wait for answers.

November 21, 2008
TO: BUREAU OF ELECTIONS
Bureau of Elections, California
1500 11th St, 5th Floor FAX: 916-653-5634
Sacramento, CA 95814 Email: elections@sos.ca.gov

ATTN: Freedom of Information Officer
REF: Freedom of Information Act Request/Privacy Act/ Open Meeting Act, Common Law
This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act. Please send the following documents for examining and photocopying:
1. Documents that show that Barack Obama is qualified to be President of the United States , including but not limited to:
a. Original birth certificate
b. Proof that he is a natural born United States citizen
c. Proof that he was born in Kenya
AS you know , the FOIA provides that if a portions of a document are exempt from release, the remainder must be segregated and disclosed. Therefore, I would like to examine all nonexempt portions of the records that I requested and I ask that you justify and deletions by citing specific exemptions of the FOIA
This is a continuing request into the future for 6 months.
If this is not the proper department, please forward to the Election Bureau/SOS.
I promise to pay reasonable search and duplication fees in connection with this request. (Note: The FOIA permit some fee reduction or waivers).
Please notify me if the charges will exceed ($20.00), so that I can decide whether to authorize a higher amount.
Thank you for your assistance, I look forward to receiving your reply within five business days, as required by law.

Sincerely,
Robert Johnson
123 Main St
Anywhere , CA

Cc: Clerk of the US Supreme Court
One First Street N.E.
Washington, DC 20543
FAX: (209) 479-3021

WARNING
Should any person try to cover up this request or documents herein, BE YOU HEREBY PUT ON NOTICE: You may be indicted under USC Title 18 Sec. 3. 4, 2381, 2382, 2383, and 2384. Also, 4 U.S.C. & 101, federal law requires all state employees and officers take an oath of office and records kept of such administered oath.

Jeannie.price@sos.alabama.gov,governor@alaska.gov,governorsoffice@asg-gov.net,

sosadmin@azsos.gov,sos@sosmail.state.ar.us,constituentaffairs@sos.ca.gov,

secretary@state.co.us ,susan.bysiewicz@po.state.ct.us ,lorilee.harrison@state.de.us ,

Stephanie.scott@dc.gov,secretaryofstate@dos.state.fl.us,sosweb@sos.state.ga.us,

elections@aloha.net,sosinfo@sos.idaho.gov,JWhite@ilos.net,

constituentservices@sos.in.gov,sos@sos.state.ia.us,kssos@kssos.org,sos.secretary@ky.gov,

bobby.jindal@la.gov,sos.office@maine.gov,bmorris@sos.state.md.us,

agoweb@state.ma.us,secretary@michigan.gov,secretary.state@state.mn.us,

administrator@sos.state.ms.us,sosmain@sos.mo.gov,sos@mt.gov,receptionist@sos.ne.gov,

sosmail@sos.nv.gov,elections@sos.state.nh.us,feedback@sos.state.nj.us,

nmsos@state.nm.us,info@dos.state.ny.us,emarshal@sosnc.com,sos@nd.gov,

tworley@sos.state.oh.us,governor@gov.state.ok.us,Oregon.sos@state.or.us,

pcortes@state.pa.us,correo@fortaleza.gobierno.pr,comments@sec.state.ri.us,

rdaggerhart@sos.sc.gov,sdsos@state.sd.us,phil.bredesen@state.tn.us,

secretary@sos.state.tx.us,mshurtleff@utah.gov,dmarkowitz@sec.state.vt.us,

justice@usvi.org,soc@governor.virginia.gov,mail@secstate.wa.gov,

wvsos@wvsos.com,wigov@gov.state.wi.us,secofstate@state.wy.us,

I’ve followed this mess closely for several months now, since June of 08 when the DailyKOS and Stop The Smears ran the now discredited copy of a CERTIFICATION of Live Birth (NOT a Birth Certificate). Also, I know a little about the controlling law relating to the acquisition of citizneship to those born outside the US. You see, I’m a retired ICE agent with 25+ years of experience. Section 301(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which is the law that is controlling in this situation, IN EFFECT IN 1961 required the following:

In cases involving the birth of a child outside the US to one US citizen parent and one non citizen parent (aka; Alien), the US citizen parent MUST have met the residency requirements set forth in the law at the time of the child’s birth. Those reuqirements were: The US citizen had to have resided in the US for a minimum period of ten years with five of them being over the age of 14. So, the earliest a US citizen parent could transmit their citizenship to a child born overseas in 1961 was 19. On August 4, 1961, Ann Dunham, Obama’s US citizen mother, was 18 years old since she was born in November of 1942. She missed it by about three months.

In 1986, Section 301(g) was modified slightly to reduce the residency requirements for a US citizen in order to transmit citizenship. However, unlike Section 303 of the INA, there is no retroactivity clause in Section 301(g). Section 303 deals with children of US citizens born in the Panama Canal Zone and in Panama. I raise this section since inevitably someone one will point to John McCain’s birth in the Canal Zone. Section 303 when enacted in 1952 was retroactive to the date the US acquired the Canal which was in August of 1904. Ergo, McCain IS a natural born US citizen while Obama, if born in Kenya which seems to be the case, simply is not.

To put a cap on it, the term “natural born US citizen” means that US citizenship is acquired at the time of the person’s birth and not at some point thereafter.

No amount of wishing, hoping, or carping about this will change the FACTS or the law. Now, will it matter? Only if the Constitution and the Rule of Law matter anymore. If they don’t, then let’s face it, we’re done as a country and every serviceman and servicewoman who has died in defense of this country and the Constitution did so in vain. It’s that simple. We either have a Constitution and it means something, or we don’t. Time will tell.

John Sampson
Aurora, Colorado

GENTLEMEM: WHILE YOU’RE CHECKING ON HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE, YOU SHOULD BE CHECKING WHAT IS IN THE CONTENTS OF LINCLN’S BIBLE BEFORE HE SWEARS ON IT, JAN. 20.

It didn’t sound to me like he was insinuating something bad about Lincoln’s bible, that Lincoln had placed something bad there. Rather, it sounded to me like he suspects Obama might slip something inside of the bible on which he takes oath. The oath might be sworn upon something placed inside the bible as opposed to the bible itself. I don’t know. It was my interpretation anyway… the commenter seemed to say “check inside to make sure something else has not been slipped in, to be sworn upon.”
To the Lincoln descendant – I agree with you – this a political stunt and an insult.

I’m encouraged that the side of right is persisting in digging out the truth on Obama’s eligibility. It ain’t over til it’s over. And it will only be over when the documents are shown.
Happy New Year to you all. May God watch over us and may we as a nation turn BACK TO HIM.

@Reality:

He is the president, but that doesn’t mean we can’t disagree with him or use our constitutional rights to sue. If all the Republicans in congress voted for Obama’s way on everything, I bet we would be blown off the map sooner than if the don’t!

@MataHarley:

By the way, what happened to this whole lawsuit?

UPDATE “today, I think”….

Oddly enuf, marbleblaster, I was going thru some of the news and ran across an LA Times “Top of the Ticket” blog entry with a more recent Keyes interview. He’s got some pretty strong language going, calling Obama a radical “communist” (can’t entirely disagree there…), an “abomination” (not sure I agree there either), and states he refuses to call him “President” Obama.

Needless to say, I doubt he’s going to be pulling his lawsuit and has every intention of following thru. He also states there are some additional lawsuits being filed by military, but no specific news on that.

Keyes has always been one of my favorite Libertarians, and I’ve followed him for quite some time. I’m not going to be spending time posting on whether his lawsuit will be successful or not… that’s for the courts to decide. And when they do make a decision, that’s when I’ll express my own comments. Until then, this is a primarily far right and Libertarian issue that is unlikely to go away until the courts rule… and probably not even then.

In the meantime, we push ahead with what we got in the Oval Office because there is no other alternative. So I leave the long term legal battles to Keyes and ilk, and tackle the daily battles that come up over legislation and policy.

CTN, I understand your passion since you detest who won the 2008 election. Believe me, I’m not thrilled either… then again, I didn’t have a “dog in this race” since I didn’t like my choices.

However let me point out reality to you via your statement:

The tragedy of it all is that a man, who is demonstrably NOT a natural born citizen (his own website conceded that he was born a subject of the King of Britain), has hijacked our White House and is overtly pandering to radical Islam while he is overtly subverting our economy.

“demonstrably *not* a natural born citizen”???? Might I remind you that we are based on an innocent until proven guilty system… no matter what your desired outcome based on preconceived notions.

*IF* you respect our framers’ structure of our government., you had most better certainly respect our process. Lawsuits have been filed. They will be addressed. However don’t insult us all by proclaiming your personal judicial decision prior to it’s arrival, or you are no better than those you purport be be superior to.

I don’t know how to tell all you confirmed conspiracists this, but I am *really* tired of you wacky people – claiming to “support the Constitution” – forcing me into the postion to defend Obama. You have no idea how much it riles me to defend Obama.

If you had a lick of honor towards our Constitution, you’d let this work it’s process before condeming the rest of us. I don’t like Obama. I don’t like his used Ferrari car persona nor his domestic policies. But still… day after day… those of you, who presume to speak for our judicial system, cast judgment not only on Obama, but on all of us because we don’t take up your extreme cause.

Give it a f*@king break, would you?

Let the judicial system do it’s job.. which should NOT be subject to public opinion, but based on law alone. When there is a decision, THEN and only THEN should we be discussing it. The amount of lawsuits challenging Obama’s legal birth outweigh the danged Octuplet Mom’s kids, fer heavens sake. Our judicial system doesn’t “ignore” any law suit.. frivolous or not.

Until then.. unless you are a Supreme Court judge… stop lecturing me and others. Start demonstrating some patience in our system. Otherwise you have only one recourse. And I am not willing to go there yet.

Another pompous windbag who thinks he/she wears a robe and sits on the bench. Your disrespect for our system, as designed/visualized by the founders and written up in our Constitution by the framers, is breathtaking.

So let’s set your pompous ass straight, and point out your very narrow focused arrogance, shall we? I more than understand the “facts” as you (actually Berg and Keyes) lay them out. I have read both Berg’s various brief filings and followed his progress thru the SCOUTS, and Keyes. Tho technically what you call “facts” are considered evidence and points of argument in the various lawsuit briefs. Only the judge… if they hear the case… will decide if they are “facts”.

Personally, I think these points and evidence (including those that cannot be admitted) have validity and *should* be heard. So in principle, I agree with you. These lawsuits should be heard, and a determination made… or Obama produces the proper documents to put this to rest. And no, I don’t like that he spends more cash to halt these suits than cleaning up on the issue.

But that’s not the point.

Where I do *not* agree with you is your predetermination that the evidence is decided and inarguable. In our Constitution, the only way to resolve a challenge to a candidate’s eligibility is thru the courts. Also, in our judicial system, there is still supposed to be the semblence of innocence until proven guilty.

You have abandoned both to jump on conspiracy bandwagon. And worse yet, you are waving a banner of “The Constitution!” in order to behave in the exact antithesis laid out by that same document for legal recourse. You shove this elementary argument in our faces, completely blind to your own disrespect to the two main principles in our nation’s system.

So don’t be lecturing *me* about respect for the Constitution… when it is *you* who is not patient enough to allow the due process to run it’s course. And it is *you* who has decided the defendant is guilty before judicial judgment.

So take your single focused BS arguments back to the Vieira, libertarian and extreme right wing forums who want to sit around to moan and groan about this daily and endlessly. Like I said, when the courts make a decision, I’ll speak my peace, and it just may surprise you as to what I have to say. Until then, you’re all just stroking each other’s pompous and ignorant fury… while telling yourselves you have “respect” for the Constitution and the separation of powers.

Magnitude of ignorance, indeed. You and your impatient buds, subtly advocating rebellion, are the poster children for brainwashed ignorants, placing the quest above the process.

Blow it out your ear. You are invisible to me on this forum, as quite a few of your bretheren and sisters have become when you slide over the deep edge.

MataHarley,

You can see another point of inconsistency on your part in comment #68, where you actually treated me with respect:

http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/11/15/alan-keyes-sues-obama-to-produce-original-full-length-birth-certificate/#comment-132536

I have not changed my position one bit since then; apparently, however, you have changed yours, which is your right. I don’t know how to account for your rabid tone, however, which leads me to believe that something else is going on here.

Yo, bozo… From Justia.com…, the E. PA district Federal Court docket filings site:

Berg v Obama:

Plaintiff: PHILIP J. BERG
Defendant: BARACK OBAMA, THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE, THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION and DOES 1-50 INCLUSIVE

This isn’t a criminal proceeding. It’s a civil proceeding. They have plaintiff (also called petitioners) and defendants (also called Respondents), and verdicts of guilty with judicial relief and compensation in civil proceedings as well. Doh…

Don’t like the use of the word “defendant”? Suggest you contact docket sites like above and tell them how to do their job because it doesn’t suit your chosen language.

“I have read both Berg’s various brief filings and followed his progress thru the SCOUTS, and Keyes.”

I’ll take the criticism of this sentence not being well constructed, and a typo on SCOTUS. However I have had Berg’s site ObamaCrimes bookmarked since near the beginning, read his court briefs, followed his progress thru to present. Keyes has not gone anywhere in the system yet. Nor does Keyes provide any updates on the status on his website. Frankly, his case is far more interesting.

SCOTUS did not address Keyes, but Berg. And it did not address the arguments of the case, but only reviewed… as SCOTUS can only do on his special appeal… Berg’s emergency request for a Stay of electoral count and temporary injunction until his writ of certorari could be resolved in the federal courts. That federal case was dismissed by the judge saying Berg did not have the proper standing. Berg also has three other cases going that I know of. He’s no where near done yet.

Therefore SCOTUS did not toss out, nor hear any evidence and arguments that had anything to do with Obama’s birth. Therefore it is you who is “being completely ignorant and incompetent” and you who is “demonstrably dishonest”.

First, you are arguing that the US Constitution grants all candidates for the office of POTUS the presumption of “natural born citizenship,” and that the US Constitution requires us to honor this presumption.

I didn’t argue that at all. Apparently your comprehension of how legal recourse works, and how any issue (like the eligibility of a candidate) is resolved, is only slightly less than your ability to read.

Second, you are arguing that a concession of fact is not a fact until the courts determine it’s a fact.

Again, not what I argued. You read a brief with arguments and described evidence (without seeing or hearing that evidence). You decided it was “fact”. The DEFENDANTS named in the case have not presented counter arguments. Instead they have filed various motions for dismissal, who’s legal precedents obviously ran more viable with the judge than did the plaintiff’s. Now, as a citizen, you have the full right to determine that one legal side of an argument is wrong, and the other right. But you’re not the judge… yet you want to be the judge, the jury and the executioner. *That* is my argument.

Third, you are arguing that (due) process overrides free speech.

Again, that is not even close to what I am arguing. See above. You can say anything you like. I’m not forced to listen to it, nor do I have to agree. I’ll listen to what a judge has to say when it gets ahold of the Keyes lawsuit, that was only filed fall of last year. It is no where close to making it to the SCOTUS docket.

I may not agree with a judge’s decision *not* to hear the case based on Berg’s standing. But I damn will respect our due process enough to encourage the appeal process all the way to the Supreme’s, and live with their decision. I didn’t like their Boumediene decision. In fact there’s a lot of SCOTUS opinions I think suck the big one. But I respect the process, and live with the results.

Now, this is my last response to your BS. Frankly, it was libertarian long-winded, blow hards like you – the types who live by “the meaning of “is”… is” type debates – who made it quite pleasant for me to discard my Libertarian registration a long time ago. You’re boring, repetative, and a pompous, arrogant windbag. But there plenty of places other than FA who will welcome your 24/7 rant on this.

Buh bye. Tata. and au revoir.

I wish you two with your twenty hits a day the very best, and you, MataHarley, need to do something about your anger. No one needs to wait for process to know that there’s something very wrong with you, and that’s after we accord you the presumption of innocence.

Missy girl… so admirable of you to come in with logic when none will be accepted by the recipient. LOL

In the meantime, I’m quite sure our “22″ hits – laughable considering this post is at 6415 times, and 67 so far today – will live just fine without CTN. The pity is that, prior to to lemming dive over the cliff, CTN had some value.

And, ya know, Ms. Missy… in my visual of you, you will *always* look good in a mini because beauty comes from within…

And oh, BTW, Italian men might think both of us look “good” in a mini. They do know how to appreciate the “aging wine”, so to speak.

Consider this post is from Nov of 2008, I’m surprised it gets any hits, marble! Most stick to the current pages.