Obama’s Eligibility- Where is the Loyal Opposition?

Now that a document has surfaced that appears to be an officially certified Kenyan birth certificate for Barack Obama, what excuse will prevent responsible officials from properly investigating and adjudging his compliance with the Constitution’s eligibility requirements? The manipulative media and others who dismiss the demand for an investigation have relied for evidence on a facsimile of a State of Hawaii Certification of Live Birth published on the internet. The document contained no facts that indicate the place of birth; similar Hawaiian COLBs are known to have been issued for births taking place outside the United States; and except he was born on US soil, Obama had no claim to US citizenship at birth because his mother, married to a foreign national, was not of age under the law to transmit citizenship by blood.

Neither I nor anyone else can claim that we are sure that a similar facsimile of a purported Kenyan birth certificate is authentic. However, it specifies the hospital in Kenya where he was born; the date on the apparent certified copy appears to coincide with the time during which it might plausibly have been requested as part of Anne Obama’s divorce proceeding against Barack Obama, Sr.(an observation further developed here😉 and, as noted in WND’s report on the subject it appears identical to other birth documents issued in Kenya at the time. Just as people like me demanded, and continue to demand, that the birth document on file with the State government of Hawaii be opened to scrutiny, so it is essential to seek conclusive verification of the existence (or non-existence) of the original of the purported Kenyan birth document.

Despite a tidal wave of ridicule, mockery, threats and media repression many grassroots Americans have persisted in the common sense demand for an authoritative investigation and decision. Tragically for our country, officials sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution have done nothing to fulfill their oath. Perhaps blind partisanship and the arrogance of power explain the failure to act of Democrats and others who openly or secretly identify with the Obama faction (among the Judiciary for example). But how are we to explain the silence or open complicity of the Republicans in that failure?

The Republican party purports to be the loyal opposition. Presumably, the loyalty in question is to the Constitution, not to any individual, office or Party established or operating under the Constitution. Yet some Republicans in Congress have responded to inquiries from constituents concerned about this issue with language implying that Constitutional requirements may be ignored if that is the will of the majority in any given election. Others, through indolence, ignorance or cowardice, have simply accepted the inadequate evidence and arrogant dismissals of those who speak for or represent the Obama faction.

Does the Republican party actually subscribe to the view that Constitutional provisions can be amended or overturned by simple majority vote in an ordinary election? But the Constitution represents the agreed upon and established rules that confer legitimacy on such elections. If and when an electoral majority simply disregards those requirements, the election has no legitimacy. Such de facto alteration of the Constitution, in disregard of the orderly and rigorous amending process it ordains, represents a breach of the social contract the Constitution articulates- a breach that portends the dissolution of civil society and politics, with all the serious dangers that implies.

To preserve the nation from those dangers, clearly visible and transparent steps must be taken to reassure people that the authority of the U.S. Constitution remains intact as the basis for the government of the United States. If the Republicans continue to remain silent; if they continue to submit to the intimidation of the Obama faction’s manipulated media claque; if they continue to allow the perception that the Constitution may be formally and openly disregarded without scrutiny or consequence; they will make clear that they have abandoned both their loyalty to the Constitution and their sworn duty to oppose the forces, foreign or domestic, that seek to overthrow it.

As one body, the Republican representatives in both the House and the Senate must rise to demand that the facts with regard to Obama’s Constitutional eligibility for office be investigated, that the resulting evidence be carefully weighed, and that, by a process open to public scrutiny, a fair decision be rendered. I believe that, for the sake of the Constitution which secures the peace and unity of the nation, Americans will accept and abide by the result of such a process. However, without it, no other decisions or actions taken by the U.S. government in these increasingly momentous times will be free of the taint of illegitimacy and coercion.

For the survival of the constitutional Republic, the Republicans should have the courage to live up to their name. If they do not, those who still forlornly cling to the delusion that their Party offers hope to liberty may yet be forced to follow the example of people like me, who now seek to build a truer political vehicle for freedom’s hope under the banner of America’s Independence.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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

  1. Obama took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. He plainly is not doing so. Instead he is doing everything he can to dismantle and destroy it. He is illegally usurping authority by bringing too many government functions under his sole control and creating positions within his administration without the Constitutional authority to do so.

    Therefore, he has failed to discharge his sworn duty as President, if he is a legally elected President; however whether elected legally or illegally to that office he should be impeached; if not for high crimes, then misdemeanors in conduct.

  2. Dear Ambassador Keyes:

    I was wondering if you have seen these video responses defending a copy of a Kenyan Birth Certificate placed by a Mr. Lucas Smith, apparently filmed in Africa. It appears that he is responding directly to WND's accusation that the document is fraudulent. He has his original video with the birth certificate and four video responses to WND's Jerome Corsi claiming it is a fraud.

    After watching the videos, proof aside, at the least it appears this man believes firmly he has an authentic document.


    As I said, I reserve no judgment on the document. But the man appears to be speaking with genuine conviction.

  3. I would certainly love for this to become reality. If he were shown to not be a "natural born citizen", how would the constitution be used to "undo" everything that he has done to date? Would Sotemeyer be allowed to weigh in since her nomination would be "illegal"?
    This would be a great contitutional question for us to resolve!

  4. What more can I add? The Catholics had a pope most people believe was a woman, but that person held all the keys to power and no one could push an investigation. How would we ever get Obama out of power even if he was a Kenyan?

  5. Alan is basicly saying what I have been saying for some time now. BOTH parties are 2 wings of the same rotten bird of prey. No matter which party occupies the WH, nothing much changes. The GOP is Dem-lite.

    Aside from the many unconstitutional laws both proposed and passed by the incestuos Congress, how about this for an eye-opener: recall how Pat Buchanan was excluded from the debates when he was the Reform Party nominee? He had at least as much, if not more, support of the electorate than Ross Perot. The debate committee rebuffed him anyway and the Supreme Court (surprise, surprise) agreed he had no standing because they were a private organization. The word "conspiracy" comes to mind. And that's not a theory, it's fact.

    As to 'why' the Republicans refuse to broach this subject, I don't believe it's as complicated as it may seem. The same corporate elite, the "globalists" if you will, hold sway over both parties. The vast majority in both parties support NAFTA, immigration reform, surrendering sovereignty, bailouts, etc, ad nauseum. So long as we fall for the false left/right paradigm, the juggling will continue as the ball goes from the left hand to the right hand and back again. Yet it will continue to be the same "person" doing the tossing.

    Thanks to the leadership of Dr. Alan Keyes I will soon be a member of America's Independence Party.


  6. Green Tara sums it up nicely. Each side views the other as insane. End of discussion. And the beginning of…something else.

  7. Mr. Keyes:

    You are INSANE. It is really as simple as that. THANK YOU for finally showing us your true colors.

  8. Obama supports infanticide (murder of babies born full term who lived through abortion attempts).

    Obama produces forged identification documents (birth certification, SS Registration document and others.

    He is a murderer and a liar.

    As for the "loyal opposition." That was a lie to.

    And as to being labeled crazy or wacked, labeled by who? The world? The NWO? We should only care what God thinks about us. Especially when you look ahead and see the major judgment coming to those who are sharing in the sins of America. Best to separate ourselves from Obama and his NWO so we will not share in his sins. Folks that includes THEIR TV.

    I canceled my cable TV today. All I can get are my local channels. I'm saving $67 per month and my soul. I recommend others to do the same. The TV is programming folks, even good folks. Turn the TV OFF.

  9. Actually, I heard an interesting (and intelligent) explanation of the general (public) position of those unwilling to touch the issue of Obama's legitimacy. Glenn Beck basically says that even if Obama isn't a citizen by birth, it's basically a worthless issue because you can't talk about it without looking like you're wearing a tinfoil hat. Coming from Glenn Beck, this seems rather…interesting.

    Glenn is stating things which are superficially correct but putting them backwards on purpose. The danger here isn't that you will look like a lunatic, but that the 'conventional wisdom' (or consensual reality, if you prefer) will be exposed to be fatally mistaken. Glenn (and many other sharp conservatives) regard the consensual reality as being the foundation of public dialog and civil political discourse. Which it is. Once the consensual reality is revealed to be totally invalid, civil discourse becomes impossible and disagreements can only be resolved by force.

    The dedication of those who wish to preserve the consensual reality has long been a license to the progressives, who understand well that the consensual reality is nothing more than a social construct and further realize that, if the opposition is dedicated to preserving a civil discourse above all other principles, then they can force the consensual reality in their own direction by aggressive assertion. Say something insane often enough, and the other side has to either be willing to call you insane (which is the end of civil discourse) or they must modify the limits of the consensual reality.

    Barack Hussein Obama's legitimacy is now part of the consensual reality. To challenge it is to challenge the notion that progressives and their allies are not totally insane.

    Once you establish that there exists no common understanding of reality between your position and the opposition, you have to abandon all options which rely on reason to resolve the dispute. Glenn (and many others) understands where that leads, and will do almost anything to avoid it. Ironically, as ever, it is precisely this reluctance to resort to force which has put America in the position where civil war is unavoidable.

    But then, it is one of history's most profound truths that only those prepared to wage war can ever enjoy lasting peace.

  10. Alan Keyes wrote:

    Are you saying it makes more sense to draw a conclusion based on inadequate evidence (the position of the "Obama has proven his eligibility' crowd)than to look at both instances of inadequately substantiated evidence and demand a proper investigation?

    No. He's saying, in a manner of speaking, that he's a dyed-in-the-wool, true-believing Obamabot.

    "HistoryWriter?… ain't that a peach!

  11. People just don't get it. He is a liar. And just as many have said, he is not a NATURAL born citizen. His father was a British citizen. BORN IN KENYA. Hello… can you 'non-birthers' read? Oh, I mean comprehend… That just takes too much energy, huh? It is so much easier to believe you made the right choice back in November 2008. You were fooled because you WANTED to be fooled. And it felt good! You cried when you saw that wreck of a "man" walk out to be "sworn in" while you booed President Bush. What a joke you people are… When the pendulum swings back, get ready… the trouble you have brought you have brought to us all by your feeble attempt to spit in GOD's face.

  12. Brave Mr. Keyes!

    I am a french-brazilian, friend of Olavo de Carvalho, and here in Brazil we are very proud of your fight for freedom and America's Constitution.

    God Bless You.

  13. "And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority. And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast. And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?"

    So it is written. If Barack Hussein Obama can shrug off this revelation, there is no longer any point in denying what he is. But…he has not yet been healed of this injury. Therefore it is still possible that your world may continue another season, if Obama can be removed.

    Even should you fail, do not fear. The end of the world is not such a bad thing, after all. I can promise you that your adversary will not prosper. If you retain a hope of Heaven, your state will not be wretched. So do what is right.

  14. Again, Barrack's entire life is illegitimate. From conception through Presidency every stepping stone it has been a tour of illegitimacy. He doesn't hear, nor has ever had to deal with, the word "no". Of course, the leftist (rapists), repubs included, don't seem to get the concept of "no". The word "no" is meaningless to the criminal mind. Here we are saying "no". While I do so hope and pray that this gets the fruitcake out of the oval office, something tells me they will fight to hold you down while carrying on with the rape. Otherwise we may end up with more than a war of words. (I do not advocate violence. It could be states from fed or counties from states seceding or otherwise divorcing themselves from others) I and many others believe that is exactly what they want. The nearly inevitable chaos engineered on us cannot fester much longer. What does history say about political ambition and engineered disasters? I'm sorry to be so blunt. Down with the NWO.

    God Bless,

  15. The FRAUD in our White House is ineligible….not because of his birth certificate….but because he is not a "natural born" citizen….per the requirement to be POTUS!! His birth certificate is just a side show and will only show he is a BIG FAT LIAR and needs to go to the BIG HOUSE….not the WHITE HOUSE!!

  16. HistoryWriter say "if you can't produce the original than why should anyone believe you?" Oops are we talking about the one from last June?

  17. Historywriter:
    Unlike those who are willing to accept an internet published copy of an uniformative document as proof that he is eligible, I draw no conclusions from the purported Kenyan document except what I have said all along: an authoritative investigation is needed. Are you saying it makes more sense to draw a conclusion based on inadequate evidence (the position of the "Obama has proven his eligibility' crowd)than to look at both instances of inadequately substantiated evidence and demand a proper investigation? Where's the logic in that?

  18. Ambassador Keyes:

    Thank you for this article and your recent YouTube video. The behavior by Congress during its January 8, 2009 Joint Session resulted in a constitutional defect, apart from whether O is qualified.

    The defect is that in the face of the national outcry as to the lack of evidence O was even a US citizen, the Congress -- who had no credible reason to believe Obama was a U.S. citizen, and who also knew O’s father was not a US citizen -- did not verify O’s qualifications as it was authorized to do by statute. That simple omission put our nation in the very peril it is in today.

    The cure may be to have one or more Republican member of Congress introduce a measure to correct that defect. If that member is ignored or defeated by the Democrat/Socialists, that member(s) of Congress can petition the USSC for review.

    If the USSC cannot hear a plea by a member of Congress that the Congress is proceeding in a dramatically unconstitutional manner, what good is the USSC?

    Please look at the petition at http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/1st-amendment-petition.html. Unsigned copies are being sent to Republican members of Congress with the question, “How many signatures will you require to read the petition on the floor of your chamber and move for the requested action?”.


    The biggest part of this shell game is that Obama and his operatives have convinced most of America that it has the burden of proving O is unqualified.

    It is exactly the opposite, O has always had the burden of proving he is qualified.
    He acknowledged that burden when he signed or arranged for his agent(s) to sign each state’s primary election certification that he was qualified/eligible for the office of the president. Such execution was made, of course, under penalty of perjury.

    Later, during the January 8, 2009 Joint Session called solely for the purpose of assuring America that the election was conducted properly, Obama had the burden of satisfying any request by the Congress to demonstrate his citizenship (see 20th Amendment, “…if the President elect shall have failed to qualify…” as well as 3 USC 15).

    Every liberal I have argued with has conceded that Obama was obligated to produce, or to authorize the production by Hawaii, of a verifiably authentic BC if the Congress had required such prior to accepting the work of the Electoral College.

    Should the Congress have requested that document? Certainly, and particularly in the face of the substantial pre-election concern and outrage transmitted to Congress over the fact that there was absolutely nothing in the public record that demonstrated O was a U.S. citizen.

    He may be qualified, but there is no reason to believe so and Congress had a duty to the nation to act on the issue.

  19. A copy of a copy of a Kenyan brth certificate that "appears to be …" Seriously, how can you expect people to get excited over it when you can't even produce the original document? Maybe that will satisfy the conspiracy theorists, but if you can't produce the original why should anyone believe you? Ooops, that sounds suspiciously like your own argument.