- Obama’s Eligibility- Will courage or cowardice prevail?
- Does elite refuse to clear Obama eligibility doubts so as to exploit “affirmative action” resentment?
- Obama’s eligibility: the true issue
- Obama gives reason to question his legitimacy
- The eligibility case Obama wants no one to hear
- Why Lt. Col. Lakin is not mistaken
- Is Lakin’s court-martial an American ‘Dreyfus affair’?
Last night I posted as the ‘featured link’ on this site a link to what purports to be a 2004 article, from the online archives of a Kenyan newspaper, about the withdrawal of Obama’s original Republican opponent in the 2004 race for the U.S. Senate in Illinois. What is of interest for present purposes is that both the headline and body of the article refer to Obama as Kenyan born.
Given the sophisticated possibilities for fabrication in both the virtual and real world these days, it would be foolish to assume that by itself this ‘proves’ anything about Obama’s birthplace. Even if the article is authentic, it would simply indicate that some people in Kenya thought (perhaps mistakenly) that he was born there. Kenyan newspaper stories from 2004 (online or otherwise) are no more definitive proof of Obama’s birthplace than uninformative birth announcements in Hawaiian newspapers from 1961.
This episode simply illustrates the need for what I and many others have sought:
- a Constitutionally authoritative investigation of the facts;
- a similarly authoritative evaluation of its results;
- And, based on that evaluation, a Constitutionally authoritative judgment of law and fact as to whether Obama satisfies the Constitution’s clear eligibility requirements for the Office of President of the United States.
I have received, or read here and there in online exchanges, comments from people critical of those (like my lawyer in the case before Judge Carter, Orly Taitz) who publicized purported birth certificates that have been declared fabricated or fraudulent by unofficial experts. These critics apparently miss the point. The Constitution of the United States is not “unofficially” the Supreme Law of the land. Obama does not “unofficially” claim to be President of the United States. But those who voted in the 2008 general election, whether they voted for or against him, had occasion to do so thanks to his oath or affirmation that he satisfies the Constitution’s requirements. Such voters are actually being deprived of the substantive assurance that we have not “unofficially” (i.e., without due process of law) been deprived of the right and privilege of a Constitutionally valid choice at the ballot box. Without this assurance, the electoral process the Constitution establishes, and the scheme of representative (i.e., republican) government it is supposed to implement, will be permanently impaired by the suspicion of lying and fraud perpetrated at the highest possible levels of government.
The establishment of fact required for a credible, Constitutionally authoritative and substantive judgment cannot be supplied by unofficial evaluations of purported evidence, or casual internet discussions of the provisions of law that are relevant to a judgment based upon that evidence. Whatever may be the doubts with respect to any particular testimony or documentary claims, Obama’s own actions have surely become the main source of the cloud of uncertainty and suspicion with respect to his Constitutional eligibility. As with any other job applicant, the issue of credentials once raised is rightly dealt with as a matter of course. Applicants who refuse to comply with requests that they produce their qualifying credentials foment doubts, by their own behavior, where doubts would otherwise not exist. Add to this the concerted and unaccountably scurrilous media dismissal of the common sense demand that the issue be authoritatively resolved, and it’s not hard to explain the increasingly widespread presumption in the minds of many that something of important relevance to the Constitutional issue is being withheld from public scrutiny.
Seeking to blame and persecute those who are asking public officials to abide by their sworn duty to uphold the Constitution further aggravates the impression of malfeasance. Some continue to insist that this request indicates hostility to Obama. The real hostility (and perhaps even invidious discrimination) is shown by the unwillingness to accord him the same opportunity for resolution of all doubt that John McCain enjoyed. Do some of the power elite think they gain advantage, from perpetuating the impression that only fear of some adverse reaction based on race, rather than undisputed Constitutional authority, accounts for Obama’s continued presence in the White House? Like the workplace whispers that resentfully ascribe advancement to “affirmative action”, rather than proven qualifications and performance, the ongoing refusal to allow Constitutionally authoritative closure in this matter smacks of more ill will than the honest desire to clear the air of doubt.
More From
Alan Keyes is Loyal to Liberty
- Obama’s eligibility: the true issue
- Obama Threatens Keyes and other Eligibility Plaintiffs
- Judge Confirms Eligibility Trial to Proceed
Related posts:
![Recommend [loyaltoliberty]](http://s3.amazonaws.com/arkayne-media/img/badge/logo-recommend-badge-medium.png){kind=icon}
{ 87 comments… read them below or add one }
← Previous Comments
Where usurper in chief was born is irrelevant to the argument. As has been said, the fact that his father was a British Citizen makes, 0 ineligible for the presidency. (Mother could not transfer citizenship at the time)
I'm praying that 0 will be ruled ineligible for the presidency
Dear Pocket lady – I do not know of many people that I would term competent in our society anymore concerning legalities and ESPECIALLY our Constitution. Money buys too much nowadays and monkeys, birds, giraffes and bears (along with many animals) seem to be as capable as we at memorization and more importantly, COMPREHENSION. They also seem to have more rights because of a great mix on our part of ignorance, stupidity, pride and false hope. I do not credit another man when I can read just as well as him and am entitled to my opinion.
Be it as it may in your opinion, I see no other choice where President Bush was concerned. You would rather have had Al "heat 'em up" Gore? Or perhaps John "ketchup" Kerry?
I do not put too much trust in statistics either. People print those so people will use them to justify their position. If you are wrong, there is really no position anyway in the end, now is there? You cannot use someone else's perceived wrong to justify another's position either. It is not logical. President Bush AT LEAST stood for something and took action in protecting the unborn. Barack Obama (if that IS his LEGAL name) has no more business in OUR White House than Desmond Tutu. And he is an EVIL man. And you can best be sure sodomy will be on the rise because it is also a known fact that Barack likes it both ways… Now THERE is some hysteria for ya…
pocketrocket: "IONU – there are too many errors and false assertions in your comments to rebute in this type of forum, given the pace of moderation."
Typical liberal tactic.
Name ONE, and PROVE it.
Please Mr. Fitzpatrick… enlighten those of us who are not as intelligent as thou and pray tell us – WHAT has Dr. Keyes' latest crusade (?) been about that has lead you to believe he no longer provides spirited intellectual debate? As he is a man given to many extraordinary AMERICAN causes, we are not sure to which one you would degrade him for.
As far as prayer and Christianity go… I used to work at a Christian facility where it was en vogue to accuse people of not being saved. I thought it was not only tacky, but probably was more to the point of that person's lack of a honest relationship with GOD. You should never question if one is saved unless they are living an immoral life – say one who claims to love GOD but say it is ok to murder babies in the womb. I also try not to get too involved in others' prayer life, BUT I do know the BIBLE says to pray for those who despitefully use you – i.e. AKA Obama. I just believe the man is a curse and I pray for his removal. As GOD sees fit, of course…
Ted – Every competent legal authority in the United States disagrees with you on most every thing you assert, regarding the US Constitution and natural born citizen status.
IONU – There are too many errors and false assertions in your comments to rebute in this type of forum, given the pace of moderation.
MaryAnnH – While Mr. Bush was in office, there was no substantial reduction in the number of abortions, no reduction in the prevalence of sodomy, and our country was weakened by any reasonable measure. If you wish to pretend that Obama is destroying the country and making huge changes which will lead us to Marxism, that's your business and commonly voiced hysteria. The differences between the Bush and Obama, the GOP and Democrats are similar to those between beige and light tan.
I invite you to read Judge Carter's ruling and compare his opinion and analysis to comments which I'd made.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/21815599/KEYES-BARNETT-v-OBAMA-89-ORDER-by-Judge-David-O-Carter-REGARDING-DEFENDANTS-MOTION-TO-DISMISS-56-See-document-for-details-Defendants-Moti
Ted,
Yes, Congress would select a successor all right: Queen Hillary. This may have been the plan all along. Obama is the Trojan Horse conveying the Clintonistas back into D.C.
Hillary could not have done as much damage to the Republic in so short a time as Obama, who uses the excuse of racism to act with impunity.
I fear that no matter who the successor, it is all a puppet show controlled by the globalists.
Moving beyond, that is, assuming at some point soon — certainly well before the 2012 election — Obama will be ousted as ineligible (either by political pressure once Alan Keyes recovers in tort fraud against BHO or some other direct judicial directive to leave), there seem to be two opinions on determining a successor POTUS. (Biden would certainly be a no-go as connected to the ineligibile Obama fraud.)
Orly Taitz seems to think there’d be a special election. I’m not so sure. Wouldn’t Congress select a successor under the Constitution? Any discussion on this would seem to be of interest.
We’ve crossed a very critical juncture in the Obama eligibility cases — very critical in terms of timing. I believe Judge Carter knows this.
Until now (or very recently, say last week or two) any court taking action vis a vis Obama eligibility would have seriously risked (let’s use the term for want of a better one) “riots in the streets” by some portion of the population, certainly civil unrest by segments of the population. As of now, the reverse is true, were the Carter court NOT to address the Obama eligibility case, the risk of, if not outright “riots in the street”, certainly substantial civil unrest is manifest by OTHER large segments of the population.
Perhaps this waiting for the day of reckoning was worth the while, noting the cost with each day of delay in terms of destruction of our national economy and defense, but again maybe a necessary cost to reach this point in time where the majority of popular support is in favor of definite court action against Obama.
Obama associates have long since written specifically on the need to amend the Constitution’s natural born citizen clause.
See, for example:–
http://www.aipnews.com/talk/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=1131&posts=3
And here’s the complete article from the Chicago Kent Law Review (need to amend the natural born citizen clause):–
http://usjf.net/?p=1292
Pocketrocketbug,
Why on earth are you appalled and offended because Christians are praying Obama is removed from office? I wouldn't go so far as to pray for his death, but come on, this guy supports infanticide, sodomy, the destruction of America, etc. I could go on. And you pray he "does the right thing"!
I don't want to question your beliefs but I must say I've known people who claim to be Christian and are anything but. If you don't stand up to evil what can you claim to stand for?
Dr. Keyes! I am starting to become concerned. You have not written in too long. I am praying for you. Please pray for us in VA. Lots of turmoil with our elections here… I will be glad when the dust settles…
Used to be that even if you disagreed with Alan Keys, you could rely on him to bring a spirited intellectual debate. How woefully stupid is his latest crusade.
There's an additional very important point to make — as to why the Kerchner v. Obama dismissal is actually beneficial to Barnett (Keyes) v. Obama. During the Oct 5 Barnett/Keyes hearing, Judge Carter queried Orly Taitz specifically as to why her case was not filed before Congress tallied the electoral votes in early January or directed to Congressional actions or countering Congress.
Well, Kerchner's dismissal (albeit the merits against Obama can be entirely valid and even taken as entirely valid) said the court found plaintiffs like Kerchner AGAINST MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND CONGRESSIONAL ACTION HAD NO STANDING ON THAT — UNLIKE KEYES WHO HAS STANDING IN TORT-FRAUD AGAINST "CANDIDATE" (NOT 'PRESIDENT') OBAMA! — so per the Kerchner dismissal, since going against Congressional inaction gave no standing, the issue of not proceeding before Congress acted would have afforded Orly Taitz's plaintiffs in the position of Kerchner no avenue or relief — all the more reason why standing MUST BE GRANTED at least now (in Barnett/Keyes) OR THERE COULD NEVER BE ANY CASE OF ANY STANDING WHATSOEVER.
Mr. Keyes, I just wanted to say thank-you and Orly standing up for the truth. I have a serious question for you, though. As of right now, there are several people saying that during the 2nd debate you had with Barack Obama when you both were running for Illinois Senate, you accused Barack Obama of not being a natural born citizen to which Obama allegedly replied, "So what? I am running for Illinois Senator, not the presidency." My question to you is do you have any recollection of you saying this to Barack Obama during the debate? If that exchange between you and Obama did take place it wasn't included in the final cut of the debate that was aired by the ABC Chicago affiliate in 2004, but in April and May of 2005, C-SPAN re-aired the debate between you and Barack Obama, which supposedly included the bit where you accused Barack Obama of not being a natural born citizen. So far two people have come forward saying they saw the exchange on C-SPAN and one person said that he is willing to sign an affidavit. Do you know whether there is any validity to these claims?
[These are my observations and opinions, I am not being disrespectful, just offering rebutttal to pocketrocket's repugnant post]
pocketrocket,
It is glaringly obvious from your pathetic post that you are an O-bot spewing the talking points of your Marxist leader.
First, your feigned respect for "Ambassador" Keyes.
Second, voicing concerns about "lies and phony documents" presented by Orly Taitz is absurd in that Obama has been lying, obfuscating, presenting phony documents or withholding pertinent documents for years.
Third, if there are "constitutional means to determine if Obama engaged in fraud with regard to his eligibility for President," then why are the "constitutional means" employed by his opponents to question his eligibility dismissed as frivolous, mean-spirited, racist or inappropriate?
Fourth, while the Constitution does not explicitly define "natural born citizen," the opinions of "legal experts" and SCOTUS, or statutory (naturalization) law, do not overrule the Constitution, the supreme law of the land.
The Framers stipulated in no uncertain terms that the President must be a "natural born citizen," not just an "American citizen."
The requirement of two U.S. citizen parents is not an "arcane legal theory," it is an essential test of allegiance. The wishful thinking of "hatriots" who would accept native born citizens as President has no constitutional legitimacy. Natural born does not equal native born.
Fifth, Kerchner v. Obama was dismissed, there was no ruling, the only fact that it reinforces is a corrupt judiciary.
Sixth, concerned constituents who questioned Obama's eligibility DID ask their Senators and Representatives to verify Obama's credentials. It required only ONE Senator and ONE Representative to object, on January 8, 2009 when the Electoral votes were counted, to halt the vote. Not ONE Member of Congress objected, which tells me that Congress is complicit in the crime. (IMO, Secretaries of State, Attorneys General, the DNC and RNC and SCOTUS also looked the other way and allowed Obama to take office).
Seventh, a digitally photoshopped COLB, an "original COLB, provided by the State of Hawaii" or any COLB, does not without a reasonable doubt verify "Obama's citizenship." Only a long form birth certificate with hospital and doctor does.
Eighth, even if "Obama is found to be a US citizen, by birth," he can NEVER legally be President, PERIOD. Reason: when Obama was born, his father was a British citizen.
Finally, what "appalls and offends" me is using the Lord's name in vain, whether consciously or from ignorance, to lend credence to a known non-Christian who violates God's sacred Laws.
[My 2 previous posts were not acknowledged, they were probably lost in cyberspace, please use this latest revision]
Orly's Request for Judicial Notice on the AP Story's Obama "Kenyan-born" has already gotten Team Obama on the run:
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/10/25/snopes-debunks-orlys-request-for-judicial-notice/
pocketrocket,
It is glaringly obvious from your pathetic post that you are an O-bot, as much a fraud as your Muslim leader.
Your feigned respect for "Ambassador" Keyes. Accusing Orly Taitz of doing exactly what BHO has been doing for years: lying, obfuscating and producing phony documents, or withholding pertinent documents.
Demanding "constitutional means to determining if Obama engaged in fraud with regard to his eligibility for President" when that is exactly what is being demanded of BHO, but is being withheld to us by Team Obama.
You correctly state that the Constitution does not explicitly define natural born citizen but incorrectly leave the definition up to "legal experts and SCOTUS opinions." (the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not what is defined by statutory law or "legal opinion.") The Framers clearly stipulated that the POTUS must be a natural born citizen, not merely a citizen. There is no conceivable interpretation (other than the wishful thinking of "hatriots") of the Constitution that would permit the President to be simply a native born citizen. Native born ignores the essential question of allegiance.
A dismissal (Kerchner v. Obama) is not a ruling.
Senators and Representatives WERE asked by their constituents to raise objections concerning Obama's eligibility when Congress counted the Electoral votes on January 8, 2009 (it required only ONE Senator and ONE Representative to halt the vote) but NOT ONE OBJECTION WAS RAISED, which means that Congress is complicit in the fraud. (Also complicit, IMO: Secretaries of State, Attorney Generals, DNC, RNC, SCOTUS).
BTW, what is needed is not a digitally photoshopped COLB or an "original COLB," but a long form birth certificate identifying the hospital and doctor.
It makes no difference if Obama is found "to be a US citizen, by birth," he cannot under any circumstances be natural born and can NEVER rightly be President.
As for using the Lord's name in vain, YOU, as well as your patently non-Christian leader, are an abomination.
Dr. Keyes are you familiar with the following article:
http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009/10/21/2nd-witness-to-obama-admission-in-keyes-vs-obama-2004-debate/
Hmmm…you either have a lot more faith in Obama than I do or don't mind praying without faith.
Well, there's something to be said for just saying what you think other people expect in your prayers. I'm no good at that myself, but it can have value in terms of makine prayer a chance to reflect on the moral assumptions behind whatever you're expected to say.
I personally think the whole system is hopelessly unconstitutional by now, so remembering the President in prayer would be a bit like throwing in the latest American Idol. Nothing wrong with that, but I'm not going to do it myself.
Still, I have to be at least as tolerant about prayers that Obama leaves office. I mean, it's exactly the same in principle as praying for the welfare of loved ones, particularly if those loved ones happen to be American soldiers. In fact, praying for the welfare or success of any American soldier is now being counted as materially equivalent to a prayer that Obama be removed from office…um…according to my own speculation on the matter (implies no endorsement by any religious figure, including Jesus).
Well, and Obama counts them that way too, but he's not a religious figure.
Then again, I have to agree that prayers for anyone to die are inappropriate, at least for Christians. Christians aren't supposed to pray to…probably shouldn't tell you that either. Still, 'abomination' is probably overdoing it. It's merely a breach of etiquette. Divinely sanctioned ettiquette, true, but it isn't like supporting a massive program to cannibalize babies or something.
History Writer: May GOD have mercy on your nasty mouth AND your nasty spirit – you seem to not have a soul. Maybe you should take a middle school history class (one from pre-1970, that is) and then go back and read OUR Declaration of Independence AND Constitution. Then you will have some inkling why we do what we do – for people like you who cannot, or WILL not, stand up for yourselves and who belittle people because you are not a person given to reason, sanity or logic. Or reading comprehension…
Lady Pocket: I do not pray for Obama's death because, like Dr. Manning, I wish him to be tried for treason AND sedition. I do, however, pray for GOD to remove him from the office HE STOLE, as I believe he is the curse GOD put on this land for all we have allowed to happen for the past 50+ years. ESPECIALLY BABY MURDER. I prayed for his salvation for about the first six months after he "won" the election (as he lied to say he "believed" in JESUS) but like Hitler, sometimes people just go too far. Some people you have to let go and if it is GOD'S will, they will come around. People like Hitler, Mussolini, Pol Pot, KING SAUL… GOD gets TIRED. HE gets angry. AND HE gets revenge! HE SAYS it is HIS. He ALWAYS has the last word AND HE has not had it yet with AKA Obama. But HE will…
This is a VERY serious matter and like everything in MY life, I believe it boils down to battles in the spirit world. And there is NO way on GOD'S green earth that I believe that AKA Obama has any part on GOD'S side. I do, however, KNOW that he is part of GOD'S plan. I just hope we come out a better stronger country having lived through such a perilous tragedy – and not like what happened during Noah's time. You know the next cleansing told by the Bible is by fire, right???
There is something that is just NOT right about the Barack Hussein Obama adminastration. I just have a realy bad feeling.
Dr Doc dlcs
http://fox-news-magazine.blogspot.com/
Orly's two cases (Fed District Cts. in Ga and Ca) are pivotally different from Kerchner (Fed District Ct. in NJ).
In fact, it's no coincidence that Kerchner was dismissed — after waiting many months — right after the the two Orly cases successfully provided avenues to get Obama to account in a way which would NOT throw the courts and nation into constitutional crisis — the big fear of the federal courts (re political question etc.).
Judge Land (Orly penalty) case is currently all about Orly merely showing her case not frivolous (premised on need not to chill the rest of Americans from addressing their constitution). Checkmate against Obama!
Likewise, Judge Carter (Keyes) case does not have to deal with the constitutional nightmare of ousting Obama, that is, merely recovery of damages in fraud tort (even nominal) by Candidate Keyes against "Candidate" (not "President") Obama will do the job — since Congress and the Dems would be politically compelled to oust Obama. Again, checkmate against Obama!
Were either and/or both Orly cases to move forward (standing is ALL that's needed since it's SLAM DUNK that Const Art. 2 requires two citizen parents for POTUS eligibility), it's all over for Obama, because politically his remaining in the Whitehouse, again, would be completely untenable even for the Dems and Congress.
Thus, after Orly files for Motion for Summary Judgment, premised even on all facts in dispute going for Obama (noting that Obama has declared to the world in what as admission against interest, that his dad was Kenyan/British citizen on Baby O's birth) the Courts can take the case without ever having to deal with discovery on the sole legal issue of meaning/applicabability of Const. Art. 2.
This leaves Team Obama really with its last remaining legal argument (noting that Fed. Ct. can get pendant jurisdiction over Keyes' tort action):
Const. Art 2. “natural born citizen” = “citizen by birth”
Const. Art 2. “citizen” = “citizen by naturalization”
Nice try, but no cigar!
… especially since all the fuss about McCain and the Senate Resolution would be shown.
So, take heart — and if I'm wrong that's the current end of our Constitutional Republic (and could mean the second American Revolution since all other means have been turned back by a Government currently under unconstitutional coup d'etat).
I truly sympathize with Judge Carter, and our prayers should be with him, as he says he reads the internet and is aware of these factors (including the possible RICO implications recently filed by Orly and ongoing scrubbing of Obama-foreign born refernces in the Honolulu Advertiser just last week before our very eyes — and during the pendency of Stay on Discovery (apparently being exploited by the "Government" and Dept. of 'Justice', no less).
Why the fixation with Obama's birth place, These are mere technicalities. The man's mother is a full blooded American. If she had him in Kenya, America or the middle of the ocean what does it really matter. Not all laws are sensible or just. And with this line of reasoning we cannot become to entrenched in models that may not always be relevant or appropriate for our times.
Rememember, some of the most vicious and oppressive systems were enforced through laws that were in reality socially canibalistic.
Lets us talk about the substance of the man and forget this foolishness.
…and re the last comment: then why all the fuss about McCain and the Senate Resolution?
Team Obama's Latest Argument:
Const. Art 2. "natural born citizen" = "citizen by birth"
Const. Art 2. "citizen" = "citizen by naturalization"
Nice try, but no cigar!
"The establishment of fact required for a credible, Constitutionally authoritative and substantive judgment cannot be supplied by unofficial evaluations of purported evidence, or casual internet discussions of the provisions of law that are relevant to a judgment based upon that evidence." (Dr. Keyes)
I would suggest that, first, that principle be applied to the (purported) evidence that is being offered to compel the discovery that is being sought. Kenyan birth certificate. Social security numbers. Ann Dunham aliases. Shouldn't those items be subjected to the same scrutiny?
pocketrocketbug [Team Obama atty]:–
Re your comments, red herring after red herring and wrong after wrong
How can you possibly say that the end does not justify the means when all people are trying to do is discover the truth. If he is not an eligible Presdient, and he knows it, and his handlers know it, what is his real purpose here? Who is really pulling the strings? Do we not have a right to know this? Can he run two terms as Obama and another two terms as Soetoro? It is not enough just to pray and assume everything is going to be all right. If you have a fox in the henhouse all the prayer in the world will not keep the fox from killing the chickens. We see day after day how Obama is handing our sovereignty over to the UN and wiping his nose on the Constitution. Prayer will not make him change ideology.
Relying in prayer alone to preserve our democracy is a means of complacency that our enemies depend on. It didn't work in 1776 and it won't work now.
Ambassador Keyes, folks like me, who voice concern about the lies and phony documents presented by your attorney, Dr. Taitz, have valid concerns. The ends don't justify the means.
There are constitutional means to determine if Obama engaged in fraud with regard to his eligibility for President. What is clear is that there are flaws in the eligibility determination process for Presidential Candidates. States can and should demand proof of natural born citizenship for all candidate placed on ballots vs. allowing political parties to certify those candidates. These laws may be put in place before the next election.
While the US Constitution does not define "natural born citizen", there is overwhelming agreement by legal experts and from SCOTUS opinions which indicate that there are only two types of citizenship. Americans become citizens by birth or by naturalization. Individuals who are born American citizens are "natural born citizens". The arcane legal theories which demand 2 American citizen parents for natural born citizenship status have no validity. The recent ruling on Kerchner v. Obama reinforces that fact.
After the vote of the Electoral College has been certified by Congress and the President-Elect holds office, he may only be removed from office by Congress. The US Constitution is quite clear on this point. Instead of going to court, I would hope that you and others who question Obama's citizenship, should ask that a senator or representative take steps to verify Obama's citizenship via an original COLB, provided by the State of Hawaii. If such documentation cannot be verified, additional documentation can be sought and examined.
If Obama is found to be a non-citizen or naturalized citizenship, Congress may move to impeach and convict him or, alternatively, move to remove him via legislative process authorized per the 25th amendment.
If Obama is found to be a US citizen, by birth, he is rightly President.
As a Christian, I am appalled and offended by those claiming to be believers who are "praying" for Obama's removal from office or worse, his death. Such prayers are an abomination. I pray that the Lord guide our President to do that which is right, in the name of Jesus. Amen.
Much as Obama would like to prevent the fine folks in the military from returning home in the hour of need, there isn't actually a lot he can do to prevent it. I mean, right now he's doing his level best to get them killed, and they're doing a pretty impressive job of staying alive. I calculate that, when the time comes, Obama won't want to make himself look bad for no real gain.
He'll promise to expedite things, then drag his feet as much as he can (which is a lot, he's really good at stalling). But that didn't work to save his pirate friends from the Navy Seals, and it won't work to keep America's military twiddling their thumbs while her cities burn.
"When you publicly accuse someone of intentionally filing false documents or conducting false discovery, you have crossed the line from opinion into libel, slander and defamation." (MaryAnnH)
As I said in the other thread, when a Court accepts the evidence submitted (Kenyan birth certificate, social security numbers) as legitimate, then I will too.
From listening on blogtalk radio, I think Kerchner and Apuzzo either may be missing something here or they're aware but don't want to discuss.
Their court dismissed Kerchner right after the the two Orly cases provided avenues to get Obama to account in a way which would not throw the courts and nation into a constitutional nightmare. (And anyway, depending on how the Orly cases go, they may dovetail later for use in Kerchner's appeal.)
After re-reading the Oct 5 hearing transcripts in Judge Carter's court, looks like Kreep may be another Berg (already endeavored to sabotage service of process on Obama before the inauguration).
I don't think it should matter because Keyes case is for tort in fraud, not ousting a 'President' (Congress would take care of that in the event Keyes prevailed.)
But still, Kreep and Berg are two of a kind.
On a relaated matter, is there in an issue of a defective oath by Justice Roberts of BHO on inauguration (or secret oath) the next day?
Orly's two cases (District Cts. in Ga and Ca) are different from Kerchner in key respects.
Judge Land case is now all about Orly showing her case not frivolous, so as not to chill the rest of America. Checkmate against Obama!
Keyes case does not have to seek the constitutional nightmare of ousting Obama, just recovery of damages (even nominal) will do the job. Checkmate against Obama!
Take heart (and if I'm wrong here it's literally all over for America).
Wow! Are you guys STILL at it? Maybe there's something to be gained from all this after all: while the "birthers" spin their wheels in this monumental circle-jerk they're keeping themselves occupied and out of trouble.
As reported in comments on Citizen Wells, I cannot stress this strongly enough. After listening to Phil Berg’s radio interview I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT THAT PHIL BERG IS WORKING FOR, WITH AND/OR IN SUPPORT OF TEAM OBAMA. No doubt whatsoever!
The interesting thing here is the lengths and trickery used by and on behalf of Team Obama — to realize that Phil Berg was a plant for Obama all along! (By listening to Phil, it would appear that Team Obama is getting desperate and knows that Orly is closing in on them.)
Orly Taitz & Mario Apuzzo are on the right track — go Orly! go Mario!
(now I’m wondering about Gary Kreep???? injecting himself into Orly’s case)
Re Orly Taitz's case, seems to me that since Judge Carter has yet to grant discovery (perhaps afraid to compel Obama to answer interrogatories and/or depositions) and at the same time really can't dismiss the entire case as Team Obama and the Dept. of Justice want because he knows that at the very least Dr. Keyes has a valid tort-fraud action against Candidate (not 'President' Obama), she should proceed to file a Motion for Summary Judgment (as set out in Judge Carter's Scheduling Order) since, even basing all facts in favor of Obama, he loses as a matter of law since he declares his dad was British/Kenyan on Baby O's birth, hence, it IS SOLELY A LEGAL ARGUMENT, that is, Constitutional POTUS eligibility of "natural born citizen" as opposed to just "citizen", requires two citizen parents.
← Previous Comments