The continuing efforts of a fringe group of conservatives to deny Obama his victory and to lay the basis for the claim that he is not a legitimate president is embarrassing and destructive. The fact that these efforts are being led by Alan Keyes, an unhinged demagogue on the political fringe who lost a senate election to the then unknown Obama by 42 points should be a warning in itself.

This tempest over whether Obama, the child of an American citizen, was born on American soil is tantamount to the Democrats' seditious claim that Bush "stole" the election in Florida and hence was not the legitimate president. This delusion helped to create the Democrats' Bush derangement syndrome and encouraged Democratic leaders to lie about the origins of the Iraq War, and regard it as illegitimate as Bush himself. It became"Bush's War" rather than an American War with destructive consequences for our troops and our cause.

The Birth Certificate zealots are essentially arguing that 64 million voters should be disenfranchised because of a contested technicality as to whether Obama was born on U.S. soil. (McCain narrowly escaped the problem by being born in the Panama Canal zone, which is no longer American.)

What difference does it make to the future of this country whether Obama was born on US soil? Advocates of this destructive campaign will argue that the Constitutional principle regarding the qualifications for President trumps all others. But how viable will our Constitution be if 5 Supreme Court justices should decide to void 64 million ballots?

Conservatives are supposed to respect the organic nature of human societies. Ours has been riven by profound disagreements that have been deepening over many years. We are divided not only about political facts and social values, but also about what the Constitution itself means. The crusaders on this issue choose to ignore these problems and are proposing to deny the will of 64 million voters by appealing to 5 Supreme Court Justices (since no one is delusional enough to think that the 4 liberal justices are going to take the presidency away from Obama). What kind of conservatism is this?

It is not conservatism; it is sore loserism and quite radical in its intent. Respect for election results is one of the most durable bulwarks of our unity as a nation. Conservatives need to accept the fact that we lost the election, and get over it; and get on with the important business of reviving our country's economy and defending its citizens, and -- by the way -- its Constitution.

Arlen Williams - 12/12/2008

I haven't posted in this forum before and don't know of HTML is permitted. I'll post the URL for the Web page with my email:

http://investigatingobama.blogspot.com/2008/12/email-to-david-horowitz-and-some-others.html

From: "Investigating Obama"
To: "David Horowitz" (editor/at/frontpagemag.com), "Rush Limbaugh" (ElRushbo/at/eibnet.com), "Sean Hannity" (Hannity/at/foxnews.com), "Hugh Hewitt" (hhewitt/at/hughhewitt.com), "Mark Levin" (marklevin.show/at/citcomm.com), "Kathryn Jean Lopez" (klopez/at/nationalreview.com), "Rich Lowrey"(omments.lowry/at/nationalreview.com), "Michelle Malkin" (michelle/at/hotair.com), "Glenn Beck" (me/at/glennbeck.com), "Dennis Prager" (dennis/at/pragerradio.com), "David Brody" (thebrodyfile@gmail.com), et. al.

Subject: Friday: The Two Criteria of Natural Born Citizenship; Constitution in the Balance

Tomorrow is a critical day at the Supreme Court, and in the imminent future of our republic. The Court will have to decide, before the Electoral College is to vote on Monday, whether they will allow three candidates for president to stand, whom by their own reported biographies, are not natural born Citizens according to the two criteria accepted and documented from the framing of the Constitution.

In case some have missed it, I hope to provide by morning, a summary of the numerous ways in which Barack Obama is, or in some cases may be, a fictitious presidential candidate. Along with this, the right sidebar of of Investigating Obama is humbly provided as a means of tracking immediate developments.

Your choice and mine, is to pay attention and inform the Citizenry, or to simply follow what is observably a fraud, protected and propagated by the power called "the fourth estate" -- leading to America's denial of its Constitution and whatever disorder this promises. What each of us has done or may do about this, is "upon our heads."

A week's worth of articles in Investigating Obama:

[listed the titles below, with links.]

If, somehow, I might assist you, please let me know.

Highest regards to fellow American Sovereigns,
Arlen Williams
I.O.

PS: Reader, there is still time to contact media... friends...

And key information about how to contact Electors.... here

Craig Michael Loftin - 12/10/2008

I can't believe I am going to write this: David Horowitz is right!

Obama was born in Hawaii. Hawaii was a US state at the time. Obama is now president. DEAL WITH IT.

Daniel M Rosenberg - 12/10/2008

I am just amazed at all of the grand standing and accusations that the Constitution is being shredded. Where have all of you been the last eight years while Bush was breaking laws left and right?

Torture
Wire Tapping
Literally 1,000's of signing statements that allow him to ignore laws.

This is a monumental and ridiculous waste of time and energy.

U.S. Constitution - 12/8/2008

www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a469.htm">http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a469.htm

No. 08A469
Title:
Cort Wrotnowski, Applicant
v.
Susan Bysiewicz, Connecticut Secretary of State
Docketed:
Lower Ct: Supreme Court of Connecticut
Case Nos.: (SC 18264)

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nov 25 2008 Application (08A469) for stay and/or injunction, submitted to Justice Ginsburg.
Nov 26 2008 Application (08A469) denied by Justice Ginsburg.
Nov 29 2008 Application (08A469) refiled and submitted to Justice Scalia.
Dec 8 2008 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 12, 2008.
Dec 8 2008 Application (08A469) referred to the Court by Justice Scalia.

Ian R. Valenzuela - 12/8/2008

The United States Supreme Court seems to think the legal issues raised here are without merit. I'll defer to them.

rx sid - 12/8/2008

1) What 'ample' evidence? Because the politician Obama say's to believe him, it's fact? Again, what evidence?

2) As I clearly showed via actual U.S. law at the time of his birth, not opinion, Obama could NOT have received U.S. Citizenship (notice the law say's NOTHING about Natural born citizenship...there's a difference), based only on his mother's citizenship. Go an look at point D) above. You choose to ignore the actual law in play here. Opinion is just that, opinion. The law is the law.

Ian R. Valenzuela - 12/8/2008

Even if you refuse to believe the ample evidence that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, the argument has no foundation. Section 8 of the US Code allows that a citizen can be "born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years." There is no question that Ann Dunham was a citizen, and she clearly lived in the United States for her entire life before her son's birth in 1961, so whether her son was born in Hawaii or abroad, Barack Obama II is undoubtedly a natural born citizen.

Doug Edelman - 12/8/2008

Obama has put forth only a "Certification of live birth", which is NOT A Birth Certificate!



After months and months of unrequited requests, the Obama campaign did finally present a document which they claimed validated his eligibility (per the Constitution of the Unted States, Article II, Section I) as a "Natural born citizen" to have his name on the ballot in contention for the office of the President of the United States of America.



However, what the Obama campaign supplied was not, in fact, a "birth certificate". What they supplied was actually a "Certification of Live Birth." There is a major difference between a "birth certificate" and a "Certification of Live Birth."



Aside from the level of detail differentiating the documents (hospital of record, doctor, height, weight, etc) - in the state of Hawaii, one authenticates natural born citizenship, and the other doesn't. This part is important; - it has nothing to do with tin foil hats.



Per the State of Hawaii's Department of Health, "Amended certificates of birth may be prepared and filed with the Department of Health, as provided by law, for 1) a person born in Hawaii who already has a birth certificate filed with the Department of Health or 2) a person born in a foreign country." (For citation purposes, please feel free to visit their site: http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/index.html).



The "Certification of Live Birth" provided by Obama, is in fact, a derivative of the "Amended certificates of birth" they site. Why is that important? Because of that second clause in the above citation. While you may show citizenship via such a document, you do not necessarily prove "natural born" citizenship. "Natural born citizenship" is what is required to be eligible to be considered for the Presidency, per the United States Constitution.



The form Obama posted wouldn't even be acceptable to make an application in Hawaii's Home Lands Program!



From: http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl



"In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL."





THIS is a HI Birth Certificate:

http://snarkybytes.com/?p=521



And this is the Certification of Live Birth posted on Obama's website:


http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate


Notice any differences?



Hospital of birth? Residence address of mother? Birthplace of parents? SIGNATURE OF ATTENDANT AT BIRTH?



What Obama has posted IS NOT A BIRTH CERTIFICATE!



There is a further complication, however. His subsequent adoption by Lolo Soetoro and resultant INDONESIAN citizenship is a bigger fly in his ointment. (I laugh whenever reference is made to "citizen of the WORLD'... Obama truly is a WORLD CITIZEN!)

Indonesia, at the time Obama lived there and was deemed an Indonesian citizen, did not recognize dual citizenship, and neither did the US recognize dual citizenship with Indonesia. Thus, whether he held dual citizenship with the US and Kenya, whether he was born in the US or Kenya, or even - as some suggest - CANADA, is irrelevant as the ONLY legitimate citizenship he held once his adopted father moved him to Indonesia was Indonesian! His US Citizenship would be forfeit!

http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/09/05/breaking-photo-documents-barry-soetoro-indonesian/


Whether and when Barry Soetoro/Barack Obama might have regained US Citizenship thereafter, it would be thru NATURALIZATION and that is SPECIFICALLY and EXPRESSLY ineligible to serve as President of the United States under Title II. (Could this be why he uses the politically risky name Barack Hussein Obama instead of the more innocuous "Barry Soetoro"? Perhaps Barry Soetoro is STILL an Indonesian citizen? Perhaps there are naturalization papers in the name of Barry Soetoro? I'm just asking...)

don wilkie - 12/8/2008

ronald reagan: "trust everyone, but cut the cards"

Cara Nurnberg - 12/7/2008

What is radical is lying about your credentials for a job and not being able to produce the paperwork, then saying "you are a lunatic to make prove I am what I say I am"

This would not work for a doctor, a lawyer or an accountant. A person may apply for a job as a staff physician, and they may seem like a good candidate, but if you won't submit your credentials, you're out. You may also be prosecuted for your false claims.
Obama said to the elctorate "I was born in Hawaii", not "I was born in Kenya, but elect me anyway". We all know he would not be President-elect if he had made the latter statement.

If the judges find fraud, it's not "disenfranchising" anyone any more than overturning a statute as Unconstitutional is in so many cases.

Horowitz, your argument is absurd

Hank Rand - 12/7/2008

A more complete response to Mr. Horowitz is posted here: http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-158978 .

(I checked the rules for posting and linking an article does not violate them.)

Jeff Brumbaugh - 12/7/2008

and what is its answer?
Obviously, the ONLY (real) problem which all Obama has obfuscated, is prove or provide or reveal the original. All questions would stop – proving he is a natural-born citizen. What is the problem with that? To compare this to Bush in 2000 is ludicrous.

And if the problem is too big for you to grasp:
“What difference does it make to the future of this country whether Obama was born on US soil? Advocates of this destructive campaign will argue that the Constitutional principle regarding the qualifications for President trumps all others. But how viable will our Constitution be if 5 Supreme Court justices should decide to void 64 million ballots?”

A big difference. “destructive campaign? ... Then they need to put the blame where it belongs, not the people who asked. How viable would our Constitution be if they did not -- that is verify his status as natural born? Are we indeed in the Land of Make Believe where anything goes, long as you establish popularity you may do anything?



No, David, its not the problem of people asking (regardless who you compare them too) --- the problem is: what is the real question and what is the real answer? Note: the question and the answer is not the people asking the Consititution be followed.

Ray N Felitto III - 12/7/2008

Mr Rand that is smartest and most indisputable argument for Obama coming forth and admitting this fraud here and now that I've either written nor read myself, and I've written over 50 pieces on this issue alone and posted 300 focusing on Obama on my 4500 post 3 year old blogging effort at chicagoray.blogspot.com. .

I applaud your rebuttal to Horowitz and the Obamorons and join you in asking that ever simple question of Obama and these people who as you put it so weirdly excuse this apparent and obvious conflict of allegiance, conscience and Obama's likely disregard for our most precious asset in this republic, the rule of law and our most precious document:

"Where is the certificate, why not provide it under such divisive circumstances Mr Obama, furthermore why spend $800,000 and climbing of your poor gullible supporters campaign contributions illegally as your doing by continuing to hide this easily provided and reasonably requested piece of information?"

Simple answer as follows: Because we so called nuts are right, he's not a legal citizen and never has been!!!}

It's likely a unbelievable oversight after getting away with this for years with no problems, but no less serious and stupidity certainly isn't a defense for a so called "professor of the constitution" (as this fraud claims to be which he lied about to and was nothing more than a lecturer, big difference) In finality, He, the DNC and now it also seems the RNC and complete governmental structure indeed thought we were all too insignificant and way too stupid to bring up such an argument, and now that we have they're dumbfounded as to how to proceed and have indeed taken the position that they will hope the Supreme Court chucks the suits for standing as lower courts have they've conveniently done and just tolerate the consequences.

As a legally "armed to the hilt conservative" ready for just about anything, I will be more than happy to join any group of citizens who wish to uphold the constitution in the spirit of our founding fathers, and will continue to do so with the pen but will utilize the sword if and when forced.

Obama must admit his fraud and throw himself on the mercy of the American people and now. Then maybe just maybe after being thoroughly vetted like he should've been in the first place the people can vote again to decide whether or not we want a lying cheating scum like himself to remain in the office before he's even been inaugurated.

Seems simple enough to me, and if guilty as charged the gallows would be a great place to start, as that's what the founding fathers would've done to a foreign usurper defrauding the people for the presidency, no small feat nor simple crime.

The crime of the century many of us will maintain.

Jon Pettit - 12/7/2008

A U.S Naval Hospital in Panama is Panama soil, not American soil. McCain was born on foreign soil. He was made a citizen by statue. McCain is not a natural born citizen. Yes the suit does involve McCain & third party candidate on the ballot who was born in Nicaragua, a naturalized Citizen. Obama was in fact a British citizen at birth. As to being born in Hawaii or not is does not matter since he is not a natural born citizen due to his British citizenship at birth. So you had 3 Presidential candidates on the ballot who were ineligible to be President.


This is not sour grapes....This is a Constitutional Crisis… A usurper is about to become President. All acts, treaties, orders as commander-in-chief are non-binding, illegal.

U.S. Constitution - 12/7/2008

Obama clearly stated on his website fightthesmears.com that his father's British citizenship was passed on to him;

http://www.fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate

‘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…’ “

-----------

Therefore Obama is NOT a "natural born" citizen of the United States because he was born a "dual-citizen". This is the basis of Leo Donofrio's case from New Jersey which is now before the Supreme Court.

You can get the latest updates on Leo Donofrio's blog;

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/

The Intellectual Redneck - 12/7/2008

"What difference does it make to the future of this country whether Obama was born on US soil? Advocates of this destructive campaign will argue that the Constitutional principle regarding the qualifications for President trumps all others."

If people can pick and choose what part of the Constitution they want to follow, it becomes a worthless piece of paper. What section do you want to ignore next? Free speech? Freedom of assembly? The right to bear arms? You state that Obama was born on American soil to an American citizen. Then, he should have no problem resolving this issue by submitting his long form COLB. Why is he spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to prevent that? If he has nothing to hide, he must be insane.
The Intellectual Redneck

Dianne Burnett - 12/7/2008

Don't they mean anything any more?

Paige Turner - 12/7/2008

Show the Certificate of live birth and then people will shut up.
David needs to read the Constitution and understand the Democrats could have possibly created the ultimate
"Coupe D Etat".
But hey, maybe there are only a few of us left who believe that Pesky oh Consitution is the law of the land.

Robert DeLong - 12/7/2008

Disappointed that you think abiding by the Constitution requirements for the Presidency is a fringe position. All Obama has to do is provide his birth certificate, not really a huge unreasonable request. You have to ask why Obama has fought so hard to avoid providing this document rather than take the simple and easy route of producing a document that is readily available to him. Could it be that it would indeed prove that he is not qualified to be President? Until he provides this document we will not be sure will we. I think you fail to grasp the true implications of this issue, and that amazes me to be quite honest. Instead of arguing against the "fringe lunatic" republicans, by the way, Berg is a Democrat, you should be writing that Obama should produce this simple document so that he assumes the Presidency with no doubts remaining about his legitimacy.

Non Serviam - 12/7/2008

Even as a person who supported neither McCain or Obama, I must disagree with your statement about McCain not being a natural born citizen due to his birth in the Panama Canal Zone (or PCZ for short). Specifically, he was born at a US Naval hospital to two American citizens, one of which was active duty (hence being at the PCZ, which at the time, was US property). Additionally, McCain has never been a citizen of any other nation (his birth in the PCZ didn't grant him Panamanian citizenship).

The current suit before SCOTUS has nothing to do with where a person is born, but merely to whom they are born to, and what allegiances they are born with, hence why dual citizenship is considered an issue.

We've seen McCain's long form birth certificate. Where is Obama's?

Jon Pettit - 12/7/2008

I would like to clarify something. When I said that the 14th amendment does not apply to McCain, I meant for U.S. Citizenship only, not Natural Born Citizen. The 14 amendment did not grant natural born citizenship but just citizenship. McCain was born in Panama so that in itself would deny him being a natural born citizen & being a citizen via the 14th amendment. Only by statue did McCain gain U.S. citizenship.

Jon Pettit - 12/7/2008

The United States is Democratic Republic not a Democracy...

What is a Natural Born Citizen?
By Leo Donofrio

Don’t be distracted by the birth certificate and Indonesia issues. 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”, just like the Framers of the Constitution, and therefore, even if he were to produce an original birth certificate proving he were born on US soil, he still wouldn’t be eligible to be President.

The Framers of the Constitution, at the time of their birth, 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”. Hence their inclusion of the grandfather clause in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution:

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;

That’s it right there. (Emphasis added.)

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.

The Framers declared themselves not eligible to be President as “natural born Citizens”, so they wrote the grandfather clause in for the limited exception of allowing themselves to be eligible to the Presidency in the early formative years of our infant nation.

But nobody alive today can claim eligibility to be President under the grandfather clause since nobody alive today was a citizen of the US at the time the Constitution was adopted.

The Framers distinguished between “natural born Citizens” and all other “Citizens”. And that’s why it’s important to note the 14th Amendment only confers the title of “Citizen”, not “natural born Citizen”. The Framers were Citizens, but they weren’t natural born Citizens. They put the stigma of not being natural born Citizens on themselves in the Constitution and they are the ones who wrote the Document.

Since the the Framers didn’t consider themselves to have been “natural born Citizens” due to their having been subject to British jurisdiction at their birth, then Senator Obama, having also been subject to British jurisdiction at the time of his birth, also cannot be considered a “natural born Citizen” of the United States.
Barack Obama’s official web site, Fight The Smears, admits he was a British Citizen at birth. At the very bottom of the section of his web site that shows an alleged official Certification Of Live Birth, the web site lists the following information and link thereto:
FactCheck.org Clarifies Barack’s Citizenship

“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.”

That is a direct admission Barack Obama was a British citizen “at birth”.

My law suit argues that since Obama had dual citizenship “at birth” and therefore split loyalties “at birth”, he is not a “natural born citizen” of the United States. A “natural born citizen” would have no other jurisdiction over him “at birth” other than that of the United States. The Framers chose the words “natural born” and those words cannot be ignored. The status referred to in Article 2, Section 1, “natural born citizen”, pertains to the status of the person’s citizenship “at birth”.

The other numerous law suits circling Obama to question his eligibility fail to hit the mark on this issue. Since Obama was, “at birth”, a British citizen, it is completely irrelevant, as to the issue of Constitutional “natural born citizen” status, whether Obama was born in Hawaii or abroad. Either way, he is not eligible to be President. Should Obama produce an original birth certificate showing he was born in Hawaii, it will not change the fact that Obama was a British citizen “at birth”.

Obama has admitted to being a British subject “at birth”. And as will be made perfectly clear below, his being subject to British jurisdiction “at birth” bars him from being eligible to be President of the United States.

As I have argued before the United States Supreme Court, the 14th Amendment does not confer “natural born citizen” status anywhere in its text. It simply states that a person born in the United States is a “Citizen”, and only if he is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States:

“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President; 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.”

The most overlooked words in that section are: “…or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution…” You must recall that most, if not all, of the framers of the Constitution were, at birth, born as British subjects.

Stop and think about that.

The chosen wording of the Framers here makes it clear that they had drawn a distinction between themselves - persons born subject to British jurisdiction - and “natural born citizens” who would not be born subject to British jurisdiction or any other jurisdiction other than the United States. And so the Framers grandfathered themselves into the Constitution as being eligible to be President. But the grandfather clause only pertains to any person who was a Citizen… at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution. Obama was definitely not a Citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution and so he is not grandfathered in.

And so, for Obama or anybody else to be eligible to be President, they must be a “natural born citizen” of the United States “at birth”. It should be obvious that the Framers intended to deny the Presidency to anybody who was a British subject “at birth”. If this had not been their intention, then they would not have needed to include a grandfather clause which allowed the Framers themselves to be President.

http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?p=359


Leo Donofrio is also correct about McCain not being a Natural Born Citizen. McCain was born in Panama. So the 14th Amendment would not apply for Citizenship since he was not born in the U.S. (U.S. military bases is not American soil) He was made a U.S. citizen by statue...Finally the Socialist party candidate was born in Nicaragua...He was on 9 state ballots. This election was fraudulent if you apply the U.S. Constitution. Three Presidential Candidates were ineligible. The U.S Supreme Court is the guardian of the Constitution & should invalidate this fraduant election & instruct Congress to hold a new one. As a nation we have survived many adversities…Why…The Rule of Law…Not the Rule of the mob.

jeremy radtke - 12/7/2008

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?

maria g fuentes - 12/7/2008

do a little research into this. Obama is possibly an illegal alien. He is possibly not fit to hold office of president. look at obamacrimes.com, and other sites. there is more to this than you are letting on. There are numerous suits and it is NOT going away.

Obama is NOT fit to take office. He has defrauded the American public.

jeremy radtke - 12/7/2008

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?

rx sid - 12/6/2008

A) Hawaiian law, at the time of Obama's birth, allowed for FOREIGN born baby's to be registered in Hawaii via a 'Certificate of Live Birth':
"[§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State..."

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0017_0008.htm


B) The Hawaiian govt' officials NEVER stated that Obama was born in Hawaii. They only stated that they have seen his birth certificate on file. But a B.C. from where?? (see #1 above).

On October 31, 2008, Dr Chiyome Fukino, Department of Health:
"Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures."
http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2008/08-93.pdf

For the Hawaiian 'Policies and Procedures' she refereed to...see item #1 above which, again, affords foreign born babies to obtain a Hawaiian COLB.
Legally, the Hawaiian Govenor & the Dpt of Health official mearly stated fact based on their own laws. One can obviously see that a Kenyan B.C. from 1961 would be legal and valid per Hawaiian law. This would also allow Obama to obtain a U.S. Passport.


C) Examples of Hawaiian Long Form COLB's:
1963 Hawaiian Long Form COLB:
http://a5.vox.com/6a00c2252293c4604a0100a80270e5000e-pi
1962 Hawaiian Long Form COLB:
http://passportsusa.com/wp-content/gallery/passportusa/edith_front.jpg

Obviously, what the Obama camp has released looks nothing like those two Hawaiian COLB's from that time. Where's his?


D) If proven Obama is indeed foreign born (Kenya), He would NOT have received U.S. citizenship based, only, on his mother's citizenship status. Per U.S. law at the time of his birth (December 24, 1952 to November 13, 1986).
"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."

http://immigration.findlaw.com/immigration/immigration-citizenship-naturalization/immigration-citizenship-naturalization-did-you-know(1).html

Obama's mother didn't give birth to him at 21 (16 + 5). Therefore, Obama could not obtain U.S. citizenship based only by virtue his mother's citizenship.


E) And then there is the dual citizenship issue. Factcheck themselves state that Obama was indeed a British subject and did in fact hold dual citizenship AT Birth.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_citizenship.html
"In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen ... and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC)"

So even IF he was indeed born in Hawaii (would be easy for him to prove but hasn't so far), Obama could therefore not be a Natural Born citizen because Natural Born citizens can not hold dual citizenship at birth. It has to do with the potential for divided loyalties and the very reason the
writers of the Constituion allowed for their acception (grandfather in) because all of them were British Subjects at birth.

He might be a "Naturalized" Citizen, but there is nothing (to date) in the public sector to suggest he is a 'Natural Born" Citizen, the Constitution clearly requires for one to become POTUS.


F) Without question, the Secretary of State of New Jersey (& possibly other SoS's) did NOT do their job in making sure the presidential candidates (including Obama) were qualified and eligible to be on their states' ballot. [This is, in part, the subject of Leo Donofrio's lawsuit.]

Why?

How would the SoS from NJ explain that Roger Calero was on their ballet as a candidate?

Socialist Workers Party candidate Roger Calero isn’t even a U.S. citizen (Naturalized OR Natural Born), yet appeared on NJ’s presidential ballot.

Calero was also allowed on the state ballot in: Delaware, Minnesota, New York and Vermont.

Calero is a permanent resident alien (holding a green card).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%B3ger_Calero

Jim A Kerns - 12/6/2008

The fact that these efforts are being led by Alan Keyes, an unhinged demagogue on the political fringe who lost a senate election to the then unknown Obama by 42 points should be a warning in itself.

Actually Alan Keyes was the unknown in said senate race. He entered the Illois senate race at the last moment to replace a GOP candadate that obama forced out of the race (Jack Ryan) by exposing sealed divorce records which were sealed to protect 5 year old daughter. Obama spends 100s of thousnds of dollars to block the release of his school records and his hospital birth certificate that are needed to see if he is even constitutiional eligible to be president. Next time I get pulled over driving by police I will tell the cop to check my website for a copy of my driver licence. Or the next job I appliy for I will tell the employer he can not see any of my records re: school or employment or if I am even a legal citizen. I am sure I will get the job... Right...
If Obama is voted by electoral college, Americans can treat the law like the president and not obey them after they spit on the worthless constitution. BTW I was going to vote for Obama until I did some real research: not the propaganda like the main stream spews.

Hank Rand - 12/6/2008

"What difference does it make to the future of this country whether Obama was born on US soil? Advocates of this destructive campaign will argue that the Constitutional principle regarding the qualifications for President trumps all others. But how viable will our Constitution be if 5 Supreme Court justices should decide to void 64 million ballots?"

A proponent of the reality that there is an outstanding question that exists relating to Barack Obama's natural born citizenship (not that I have an answer, but rather simply that no answer has been given), my personal opinion is that this has less to do with the merit of this particular Constitutional law...and more to do with the character and integrity of a man who may have gone to such great lengths to, knowingly, break it. And in that course of action, our entire country (not just those who didn't vote for him) and our most coveted process of Democracy (our vote), were defrauded.

If he's found to be ineligible per the Constitution, proving he knowingly and willfully defrauded our people and process, it won't be the Justices who will have disenfranchised 64 million voters. It's Barack Obama. How many times are you prepared to claim "you fell down the stairs" for this man? I was an initial supporter. I started seeing very real and very questionable issues raised about the nature of his past associations, and the laughable explanations he would give...and I was sure it would hurt him in the press and among supporters. But what did I see? The press and most supporters to engrossed in their partisanship to care. In fact, the more reasonable questions came up about him...the harder the press and the 64 million that same press brainwashed, drove to the hoop for him. As I stood back watching this, again, as an initial supporter of his, even making phone calls on his behalf...I realized what I was seeing, was nothing short of WEIRD. Just, plain, weird.

And I thought this birth certificate issue (check that, "Certificate of Live Birth" issue...as opposed to "Certification of Live Birth") was cleared up a long time ago. I thought there was no way the DNC would have been capable of such a gross oversight. Then the court cases came up, and nothing was done to quell the question. What finally landed me understanding that something is not right, is when Chiyome Fukino, Director of Health for Hawaii, released the statement about his birth. That statement actually did more harm than good, and it only demonstrated further how moronic far too many public officials and people in the media and governing bodies, think Americans are.

Sure, America has it's slew of idiots. And sure, the aisle that questions Barack Obama's natural born and/or properly maintained citizenship statuses has it's smattering of fringe wingnuts. But just because one contingent of people happen to be on board, doesn't nullify the fact that the question is still outstanding. I hear the same 5 refutations over, and over, and over. "He posted his birth certificate on his website", "Factcheck proved it", "The state of Hawaii released a statement saying he was born there", "There was a birth announcement in a Hawaiian newspaper", "Judges meritoriously threw it out as 'frivolous'"; and while each of those statements hold an element of truth, they're also easily debunked. And "truth" is objective. There is no debunking it. We should be able to move past this on to more subjective and productive lines of communication...with all the dissent we're accustomed to...forging, like competition, improvement. But here we are. And one man can answer this objective question. And sure, not everyone will get on board if he were to release his college records and actual Certificate of Live Birth (as opposed to the factually less credible, more easily attained and more easily forged "Certification" - which bears no corroborating evidence like the hospital or doctor's name)...but many would get on board. Coming off a platform of transparency, directly in to a promised pursuit for unity...why leave so many of us divided on what is a simple and objectively debunked question? If the Certification is authentic, the it's more credible parent - the Certificate, exists. But rather than produce it, he has fought those requests so fiercely that he's allowed the same requests to land in court rooms...where he continues to fight them. Why? So rather than quell the reasonable, objective and easily answered outstanding question...he opts non disclosure. I wrote somewhere else that the production of Certificate of Live Birth is a very small price t pay for unity. And yet, here we are. And Barack Obama, and Barack Obama only, is responsible for that. I am certain of that beyond any reasonable doubt, because Barack Obama, and Barack Obama only, can quell it...with an actual Certificate of Live Birth, and he has watched requests transition to court cases, and still refuses. So as a first order of business, in a promised pursuit for unity, he leaves us divided, on what should be a very simple, very objective, very basic matter. Who among us can applaud that? "I do, Hank. Because you're all just whackjobs." That's all well and good if that's your opinion. My brother said to me, "Yeah but if we pull him out, we're going to look corrupt to the rest of the world." I replied, "I'd rather look corrupt and not be it, than be corrupt and not look it." So goes my position on being called a whackjob, for maintaining through nothing more than logic and fact, that there is a still outstanding question regarding Barack Obama's natural born and properly maintained citizenship statuses. I'd rather be called a whackjob and stand by truth, than submit to mistruths and be called sound.

I didn't hear any of the 5 standard press talking points in your piece, which leads me to believe the transition I anticipated is occurring. That is, virtually all of supporters (and I don't know if you were one prior to November 4th or not), will go from, "He didn't commit fraud. He is a natural born citizen", to "So what if he committed fraud. So what if he isn't a natural born citizen." I've challenged others, staunch supporters in fact, as to whether or not they'd concede a gross misstep in character and judgement, and support his being held accountable for that, if he did commit this fraud. They've uniformly claimed they would. This article, blog, whatever it is...demonstrates the first piece I've actually seen that goes out of it's way to say, "No. I wouldn't. Barack Obama can lie, cheat and steal all he wants. And if he gets held accountable for it, it's the fault of the Justices...because Barack Obama himself, is simply incapable of wrongdoing."

Running that red light you sit at, day after day, when no one is looking, is pretty harmless too. But you know it's wrong. This man, if not a natural born and properly maintained citizen of the United States, will have knowingly and willfully cheated our entire country, and more critical than that - our absolutely, inherently, unquestionably most coveted process of democracy - in what can only be articulated as a relentless pursuit for unapologetic, integrity-free, and division-inducing pursuit for power.