web analytics
≡ Menu

Sorry for the Hiatus!

Just a note to assure everyone that I’m still here and will be resuming new posts shortly. For the past two weeks I’ve been on the road doing meetings, speeches and events that left little time for writing and reflection. I try not to post anything that isn’t carefully thought through and substantiated, so I couldn’t bring myself to share hastily slapped up offerings. A new post will be up later today or tomorrow morning. My thanks to all the good folks who have been visiting in the interim and leaving comments on my archived posts.

{ 18 comments… add one }
  • PORTUGAL10 October 31, 2009, 11:45 pm


    We the People of the United States of America do hereby appoint Dr Orly Taitz as the ELIBILITY CZAR

  • PORTUGAL10 October 31, 2009, 11:38 pm

    George Obama Visit Hawaii Fund.

    GOING ROGUE is the only way…we tried almost everything else.

    I will Donate the first $100 dollars and am looking to organize a fund to Sponsor the visit of George Obama or any other of Obama/Soetoro's family members that want to come to Hawaii and visit the place where their "famous" family member was raised.

    I am hoping Sarah Palin, Michele Bachamann, Dr Manning, Dr, Keyes, Rush, Beck, Savage, other CONgress people and all other prospective Christian Constutitonalist Coalition members will join together in this outreach effort to bring Obama/Soetoro's family to visit Hawaii. Of course they will depart with a Souveneir Document of their "famous" family member.

    If this gets publicized enough and BO opposes it he will have to be called on it and challenged to resign if he will make his family in Kenya and Indonesia Political Prisoners and at teh same time we will demand that his Ordered Deported Aunt Zeituni be Deported Immediatly along with the illegal Uncle Omar.

    Lets get this done…no court needed for a family memeber to request the "Souveneir Documents".

    Portuguese Revolutionary War Hero – Peter Francisco Oct 31, 2009.

  • Jackie Smith October 31, 2009, 11:24 pm

    Hi Dr. Keyes…..A few of us have been discussing the possibility of starting a Birthday Party Express somewhat like the Tea Party Express…only we would focus on one issue…..the fact that we have an illegal in our house…..it would be all about being a NBC and the Birthday Party Express would travel the country from east to west with a culmination of a mock trial in front of the White House where we prove that the FRAUD has NO right to be POTUS!!!! Of course this would be the COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION!!!! What say you??? We were wondering if you might want to be our leader???

  • chiu_chunling October 31, 2009, 10:17 am

    Well, 'controlled' implies they didn't take any action without the tacit (or direct) approval/initiative of the globalists. Bush did plenty of things that the globalists didn't much like, and he clearly is a member of their club.

    As to Constitutionality, the existing national government of America is already in Epic Fail territory on pretty much every issue. So…it is a big deal, but not outstandingly so. Hence my 'comparatively speaking' parenthetical qualification. The fact of the matter is that we don't really know for sure that Obama Sr. is Barack's father (though that much I can take on faith), and nobody really seems to know where he was born. I frankly don't even know if he was born…which might help explain his position on abortion.

    The thing is, the issue of where and of what parentage he was born takes second place to the fact that he unambiguously wants to destroy what is left of America's heritage of freedom. He seeks the outright deaths of American soldiers and the criminalization of basic patriotism. He's running interference with the world community to increase the number of radical Islamist regimes with access to nuclear weapons while supporting international recognition of Shariah law. I could go on at length but it's not really worth having to break my post into multiple volumes.

    He's not just unqualified to be President of the United States by virtue of birth. He's unqualified to live on the same planet with any freedom-loving people by virtue of everything he's done since. Luckily for him, I'm not a big freedom-lover or anything. I also might not qualify as "people" in some books. I think of myself as a person, and I recognize the value of freedom as an essential component of cybernetic evolution, but that's about as far as either goes.

  • IONU October 30, 2009, 9:00 pm

    chiu: "the issue of Obama's eligibility was never a big deal with me (comparatively speaking) and it has fallen back off my radar in light of all the far more serious disqualifications that have been piling up."

    What can be more disqualifying than BHO's glaring ineligibility?

    Obama's removal will not solve the problem, he will be replaced by another NWO puppet. Starting with Wilson, name one President not controlled (voluntarily or involuntarily) by the globalists. I can't think of one.

  • whywillitbe October 30, 2009, 9:16 am

    Can we follow you on twitter?

    That way you can post your thoughts and upcoming speaking venues from the road.

  • Terry Morris October 30, 2009, 9:07 am

    Been wonderin' where you were at, dutifully checking in on a daily basis. Here's a novel idea: Next time let us know beforehand that you'll be going on an extended hiatus.

    Nah, good to see you're back, sir. Looking forward to your next post.

  • Dawg_em October 30, 2009, 6:28 am

    Welcome back, Dr. Keyes. I'm looking forward to your next post.


  • whywillitbe October 30, 2009, 1:14 am

    Dr. Keyes,

    I had the distinct pleasure to watch the 2004 CSPAN recordings of your IL Senate race debates with Mr. Obama.

    One thing was crystal clear to me. You advocate self-reliance based in morality and faith in a higher power than Man. These are the very foundation of our great nation.

    It was also crystal clear to me, that Mr. Obama advocated reliance on the state as the supreme power. His thinking was muddled with new-age sophistry with no moral underpinning.

    God bless you Mr. Keyes and keep you strong in this fight for truth and justice.

  • chiu_chunling October 30, 2009, 12:00 am

    I'm sure that Mary is sorry for the mistake. She probably has been skipping all the posts which delve into the minutia of the legal arguments over Obama's eligibility. I must admit that I browse them pretty lightly myself.

    I think Mary isn't that unusual though…for a lot of people either unversed in the law or too familiar with judicial behavior, that someone is pursuing this case is more important than the legal details. Personally, the issue of Obama's eligibility was never a big deal with me (comparatively speaking) and it has fallen back off my radar in light of all the far more serious disqualifications that have been piling up.

    It's still a worthy fight, but I'm watching other parts of the line…and they're crumpling.

    Still, I do look forward to Dr. Keyes' next post.

  • gilbertabrett October 29, 2009, 11:28 pm

    Ted, I appreciate your opinions, as I do not know where to read any sensible "news" about what is going on in never-never land (CA). I am fascinated by law, court proceedings, etc. but am not educated in the subject. I actually believe that if you have enough money and know enough words, you can get away with anything. I formed that opinion after OJ got away with killing his wife and her friend… And Micheal Jackson and his romper room fiasco… now I believe it to be law itself, as we have a man whom no one knows anything about running OUR country into the ground just as hard as he can go with 100 million idiots saying, "GO FASTER!"

    Dr. Keyes… please do not tell me you were in VA speaking ANYWHERE near the Hampton Roads area so I do not have to get mad…


  • Ted October 29, 2009, 10:34 pm


    Against Orly????? (You'd be hard pressed to find a more ardent supporter of Orly AND Dr. Keyes.)

    Diatribes????? (You'd be hard pressed to find a workable synthesis of the crucial areas to attack Judge Carter's Decision in fewer words as above.)

    Ego???? (I could care less — readers don't even know my identity. Frankly I'd rather not have to spend any time on this, but love of country dictates that I do.)

  • MaryAnnH October 29, 2009, 10:17 pm

    Ted, your long diatribes against Orly Taitz are neither appreciated by Dr. Keyes, nor anyone else. They serve no purpose, other than to stroke your sense of ego.

    ~Mary Ann

  • swamp fox October 29, 2009, 9:22 pm

    smith act of 1940 / obama and his mao friends need to read this
    “ knowingly or willfully advocate, abet, advise, or teach the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing the Government of the United States or of any State by force or violence, or for anyone to organize any association which teaches, advises, or encourages such an overthrow, or for anyone to become a member of, or to affiliate with, any such association.

  • Fletcher October 29, 2009, 9:19 pm

    This is good to hear. I look forward to reading your posts and was getting worried at the lack of updates. Thank you so much for producing the quality content that you do.


  • Ted October 29, 2009, 6:31 pm


    Since federal statute affords grounds for Recusal of Judge Carter by reason of the appearances of, if not real, conflict of interest, there is certainly basis for Orly's Motion for Recusal by reason of Judge Carter's hiring as his clerk a lawyer from the very same firm whose senior partner represents Obama in his eligibility cases during the pendency of this case. Coupling that with Judge Carter's blatant errors, above, yet exhaustive (very well written) legal analyses as well as concluding harsh rebuke of Orly in "hamper[ing] the efforts of her co-counsel Gary Kreep" (one could only wonder at the possible intrigue there), one is left to wonder about Judge Carter's actual judicial motive, that is, ala Judge Land proceeding. We may never know.

  • Ted October 29, 2009, 6:29 pm

    Before bashing Judge Carter for his October 29 Order, consider that he gave Dr. Taitz three openings wide enough through which to drive a Mack truck.

    First, Judge Carter misstates Orly's argument as follows: "Plaintiffs argue that despite the fact that President Obama has produced a birth certificate from the state of Hawaii, there is evidence to show that the President was actually born in Kenya, thus making him ineligible to be President." This sentence could have two applications and meanings, each of which is flatly wrong and grounds for error. If it means that Orly ARGUED that Obama produced the Hawaii birth certificate, that is clearly wrong. She did not argue that. On the other hand, if it means that despite the fact that President Obama has produced a birth certificate, Orly ARGUED there is evidence to show Obama was actually born in Kenya, that is judicial error premised on a fact — "Obama produced a birth certificate from the state of Hawaii" — still in dispute and to be tried.

    Judge Carter then compounds the above with a misstatement of Orly's case in the very next sentence as follows: "Plaintiffs also argue that, even if the president was a natural born citizen, he abandoned his citizenship while living in Indonesia and has not gone through the proper immigration procedures to regain his United States citizenship." First, Orly's argument of "natural born citizen" is not premised on whether or not Obama was born in Hawaii rather than Kenya, but on Obama's father being a Kenyan/British citizen on baby Obama's birth. Second, Judge Carter applies the two terms, "citizenship" and "natural born citizen" in a context as if they are the same. To the contrary, only "citizenship" could be lost through Obama's intervening Indonesian status, that intervening status would have no bearing on "natural born citizen" — entailing the two citizen parent requirement attached only at birth. (Judge Carter may have announced what was Attorney Gary Kreep's argument, but it was not Orly's, leaving us to contemplate Judge Carter retaining Kreep's and Orly's cases together over Orly's strenuous objections.)

    And finally, Judge Carter cites Plaintiffs' failure "to bring their claims in this Court until after President Obama was sworn into office" as meaning that Orly lost the right to ask the Court to interpret the candidate's qualifications to run for office (we'll leave consideration of Gary Kreep's role in delay of Orly filing for another day) insisting that Orly's sole relief claimed is removal from office. At least with respect to Candidate Keyes who bases his claim on tortious fraud against "Candidate" Obama, not 'President' Obama, that removal is not the sole relief sought. First of all, whether or not Orly's case was filed at a time of day on January 20, 2009 before or after Obama was sworn in, the Court would be faced with same actual problem at the present time of addressing a "current President" rather than "political candidate" in terms of relief, hence the distinction is a red herring. On the other hand, IF the "before-or-after Oath" IS crucial vis a vis Orly's filing as Judge Carter maintains, the time and date of Obama's Oath is, at the very least, a fact to be tried and a fact in dispute considering that the Chief Justice was called upon to administer the Oath at the Whitehouse, the following day, January 21, 2009 — the day after Orly filed the case.

  • x October 29, 2009, 6:07 pm

    Dr Keyes,
    I don't know where to turn except to you for solace, encouragement after the devastating news today on your case in CA. Please post soon. Is there no justice? No end to this nightmare?

    Warmest regards,
    Gulf Coast, MS

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Copyright Regulations

All original material on Loyal To Liberty is copyrighted and you will need to observe these regulations when you plan to distribute or use content from this blog. Copyright Regulations for Content on Loyal To Liberty You are free to share, distribute or transmit any work on this blog under the following conditions: * Attribution: You must attribute any content you use to Loyal To Liberty by including a link back to the specific content page. You must not suggest that Loyal To Liberty endorses you or your use of the content on this blog. Even with attribution, you do not have permission to republish the entire blog post on a website. Only excerpts of less than 500 words from each blog post may be published on other websites. A link back to the specific blog post must be included. * Noncommercial Usage: You may not use this work for commercial purposes unless authorized to do so by Alan Keyes. * Derivative Works:Within the limits heretofore specified, you may build upon the contents of Loyal To Liberty as long as proper attribution (see above) is made. If you want to syndicate or distribute the full blog post on your website, permission must be obtained before you do so. For permission, please email alan@loyaltoliberty.com.
%d bloggers like this: