When I first brought the What’s Your Evidence site to your attention, I did so because unlike most of the MSM, I felt it was important to show an opposing view and let you the reader decide for yourself. I received a message from Ron Polarik, the man who has shown through extensive research, that the Obama COLB is a phony . . . a very bad one, at that. His message was that he has debunked the WHATS YOUR EVIDENCE site.
You can read his information here. Below is a snippet from his blog, The Greater Evil, at Townhall.com.
WHATSYOUREVIDENCE.COM: Nothing like the truth
Posted by Polarik on Thursday, October 30, 2008 8:53:55 PM
WHATSYOUREVIDENCE.COM: The TRUTH, the WHOLE TRUTH, and NOTHING LIKE the TRUTH!
Overview
This is the follow-up to my last post, WHATSYOUREVIDENCE: Retractions and Restatements, and contains all of the information that appeared in my original post, WHATSYOURSHYSTER, except for deleting two statements that were in error, and replacing a few words that were not appropriate. It is no longer a secret to FReepers that Ms. Teresa La Loggia is the owner and operator of the website, WHATSYOUREVIDENCE.COM. However, even after I outted her in my first post (and second post), and even after she wrote her “cease and desist” letter, Teresa La Loggia is still keeping her identity hidden from the public. This fact begs the question, “How much of her indignation was due to my statements incorrectly linking herself and her law firm to the Obama/DNC defense team, and how much of it was due to identity being discovered?”
After reading this post, and especially her letter, I’ll let you be the judge.
I voted for Gore in 2000 and watched with disbelief when the Supreme Court decided to take on Bush v Gore . . . disbelief because the method Florida decided to use to count the 2000 election votes should have remained with Florida. Federal intervention was not necessary, period.
It was an unprincipled decision that the Supremes in their “infinite wisdom” decided should apply solely to this case … that it could not be used as precedent for future cases. Cute, right? The majority of the court acted improperly (States rights, anyone?) and politically (5 Republican Justices) and some would say corruptly.
I still remember the number of people who questioned whether Scalia’s vote was because he wanted to position himself to be the next choice as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
What was shattered, along with the Constitution, was our belief in the incorruptibility of the Supreme Court justices. We witnessed, first hand, that the Supremes are as political as the rest of the hacks in this country that pretend to be fair and impartial and whose actions show the opposite reality. Legions of Americans have hoped that the Supremes would, once again behave with honor and dignity . . . alas as Donofrio,Berg, etal have witnessed, that will not take place.
The following is from an excellent article in Salon (written in 2000) . . . back when Salon was a source one could trust. It is a superior article that reviews several books written by legal authorities, including Alan Dershowitz, Vincent Bugliosi, Richard H. Pildes, and Cass R. Sunstein and Richard A. Epstein.
I urge anyone that has been fighting the good fight, trying to get our legislators, elected officials, and the courts to take an intellectually honest look at Obama and the Constitutional crisis brought on because Obama will not (cannot) present any documentation (exception the forged COLB on the Internet) proving he meets the eligibility requirements for POTUS as a natural born citizen to read the article. It may give you additional insight as to how to proceed. The article begins:
Supreme Court to democracy: Drop dead
With a single rash, partisan act, the high court has tainted the Bush presidency, besmirched its own reputation and soiled our nation’s proudest legacy.
Dec. 14, 2001 | Tuesday, Dec. 12, is a day that will live in American infamy long after the tainted election of George W. Bush has faded from memory. With their rash, divisive decision to dispense with the risky and inconvenient workings of democracy and simply award the presidency to their fellow Republican, five right-wing justices dragged the Supreme Court down to perhaps its most ignominious point since the Dred Scott decision.
With this as a back drop, should anyone really be surprised that the Supremes are, again, turning backs on the Constitution? Are we really so surprised that there isn’t a single backbone among them? Is it really so surprising ?
Why, when we have legitimate Constitutional questions will the Supremes not act? Self interest, perhaps? Lack of integrity, courage, intellectual honesty, impartiality? Some of these . . . all of these?
The far reaching impact of the Supreme Court’s decision to dismiss the cases brought thus far on technical issues (standing, wrong format, didn’t cross a “t” or an “i” was missing) is monumental. We have witnessed numerous people run for the office of POTUS we know are ineligible because they are not “natural born citizens” Obama (until he proves he is), Bill Richardson, Roger Calero and still the Supremes remain silent on an issue that effects every citizen of this country!
There is an element of power and, perhaps inevitably, self-interest in all judicial decisions. As Sunstein remarked, “We’ve tended to have too idealized a view of the court.” But the idea that justice must be blind, that the most powerful court in the world — and arguably the most powerful institution in the country — must not sink into brazen partisanship, is a bedrock principle . . . ( change & emphasis mine )that they have failed to live up to!
We must stand by it, and those justices who violate it must be held accountable. By failing to live up to their judicial oath, by allowing political motivations to sway them, by besmirching democracy itself, the five members of the (change and emphasis mine) 2009Supreme Court majority will have disgraced themselves forever.
I continue to be surprised by what fires people’s imaginations and passions. I have blogged about a wide variety of issues and topics, some serious, some not so much. The post that continues to draw the most interest is the one on Michelle Obama’s decision to wear that red & black dress with the X in the front … the decision to dress her entire family in those colors the night Barack won the 2008 election for president. You can read about it here.
My visceral reaction to the pictures each and every time I view them has not abated when seen through the prism of rebellion or defiance. But what if there was another way of viewing these pictures of the Obama’s all dressed up in red and black? What if the garb worn by the Obama’s was a silent tribute to Barack’s real father, Malcolm X?
I know anyone that has followed this blog and my positions on BHO’s ineligibility to hold the office of POTUS will find the following to be surprising. If the truth be known, I would be relieved to find out Obama’s real father is Malcolm X. Why? Because the alternative is many times worse.
Having a fraud become president is unthinkable. Having a man who is knowingly ineligible to hold the office because he never met the eligibility requirements as detailed in the Constitution will harm this country in ways that cannot tolerated. The consequences are far reaching and potentially devastating.
The evidence against his being eligible to hold the office of POTUS continues to accumulate on a daily basis. Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, aka Barry Dunham is not a “natural born citizen” regardless if he was born in Hawaii (as he alleges) or he was born in Kenya which multiple lawsuits contend and which his paternal grandmother say is the truth.
The story Team Obama continues to foist on the world is that his father, Barack Hussein Obama Sr., was a Kenyan. His father was also British citizen thus making Barry a British citizen as well, because his citizenship would have been determined by the father’s nationality. Since Barack’s mother was 17 and underage at the time of his birth, her nationality was moot. Like it or not, that was the law of the land in 1961. Even if his mother’s age could be discounted, because Barack would have held a dual citizenship at the time of birth, he would still be ineligible. Complicating all of this, is his mother’s second marriage to Lolo Soetoro and Barack’s adoption by his step-father. Lolo was Indonesian; now we’ve got yet a third country that impacts on Barry’s citizenship.
What if this entire story isn’t true and what does this have to do with Michelle Obama’s red & black dress, the one she worn in Grant Park the night Barack became the President Elect? Well, plenty if I’m right.
The supreme irony is that if Malcolm X isObama’s father then Obama meets the eligibility requirements of the Constitution! Malcolm X was a natural born citizen thus making Barack (Barry?) a natural born citizen. The worst case scenario is that if Barack were born in Kenya he would face (essentially) the same issues that John McCain faced! But back to Michelle’s red & black dress.
I know I am not the first to suggest that Obama’s father may be Malcolm X. This connection has been brought up before at Atlas Shrugs, Oil for Immigration, and on Polarik’s site using (as best I can determine) information that originated with Israel Insider. Other than idle curiosity, there hasn’t been much else to tie Obama to Malcolm. But then we’ve got that image of Obama’s in Grant Park, thered and black dress and that X that hits you between the eyes . . . an insult to the senses because the dress is so entirely out of place. It hard not to shout, “America’s next First Family shouldn’t be dressed these colors of defiance! Where are the various shades of red, white, and blue?”
Then suddenly it smacks you in the face . . . that X is for Malcolm. That X on the front of Michelle’s dress and those colors are for Malcolm. What other reason can there be? Sudden bad taste or a horrendous lack of sensitivity to the historical significance of the colors chosen for the very first photos of the Obama’s? In a campaign this carefully orchestrated and staged with the deliberate associations to the Kennedy’s how does it suddenly become feasible that a faux pas of this magnitude would be allowed?
Let’s cobble a few more interesting notes about Malcolm’s name.
In 1952, after he was released from prison, Malcolm changed his last name from Little toX, a designation that denotes “a certain mystery, a certain possibility of power in the eyes of one’s peers and one’s enemies …The ‘X’; announced what you had been and what you had become: Ex-smoker, Ex-drinker, Ex-Christian, Ex-slave.” and is also intended as a rejection of slave names.
X is also a brand that many slaves received on their upper arms. Though likely the most famous Black Muslim to change his name to X, Malcolm was one of many who eventually adopted this practice.
“He was tall and handsome and when he walked into a room, he took it over. These things were important. And when he spoke, he could talk our talk in a way that made people understand right off.” Remind you of anyone? Barack, perhaps?
If you are under 30 you probably have very little idea who Malcolm X was. For more complete understanding of his life see additional video here.
Make no mistake the 60’s were a violent time. The black revolution was beginning . . . this was a time of conflict where most black leaders were looked at in a negative manner. Malcolm X, although very controversial, was not an extremist like Farrakhan was and remains to this day. Malcolm could rightly be called an extremist initially, but he came to believe that the races could live and work together.
Malcolm left the Nation of Islam as a matter of principle. It cost him his life.
Like many of us who change and grow into maturity, Malcolm at the end of his life was much different than the Malcolm of his youth. During this time, Malcolm became a guest of Muhammed Faisal (son of then Prince Faisal), and Malcolm made a pilgrimage to Mecca, an event that changed his life. He believed, through Muslim teachings, that all racial barriers could be overcome.
Malcolm returned from Mecca a Sunni Muslim, a changed man. He also bore a new name, El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz. This is from Lessons from Malcolm X
Below is an excerpt of a powerful speech Malcolm gave upon his return:
“Human rights are something you were born with?.In the past, yes I have made sweeping indictments of all white people. I will never be guilty of that again (emphasis mine) as I know now that some white people are truly sincere, that some truly are capable of being brotherly toward a black man…Since I learned the truth in Mecca, my dearest friends have come to include all kinds, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Agnostics, even Atheists My friends today are black, brown, red, yellow and white While in Mecca, for the first time in my life, I could call a man with blond hair and blue eyes my brother.”
Ok, so what’s the truth? Is Malcolm X or Barack Hussein Obama Sr. BHO’s father? I don’t know. Is Barack really a Muslim . . . the Freudian slip with George Stephanopoulos indicates he is. I really don’t know. There is a mountain of compelling evidence that supports several positions on Barack’s birth father and his religion.
Here’s what I do know. Stanley Ann Dunham was a complicated woman, a woman with a past more interesting than what we’ve been led to believe, regardless who Barack’s father really is. This is a family whose lives are clothed in secrets.
Something else I know is that this is a tragedy of epic proportions if Malcolm X really was BHO’s father. Imagine having to deny your real identity on a daily basis because somewhere along a line a decision was made that it was better to be known as the “son” of Barack Obama Sr. than to acknowledge that you are the son of Malcolm X.
In the desire to become president, was this denial born out of expediency because Malcolm X was a Muslim. America might tolerate a multi-cultural man as president . . . but after 9/11 does anyone think a Muslim would have any chance at the office? Again, I don’t know. I do know that the truth has a way of always coming out . . . that secrets kept in the dark have a way of finding the light of day.
If you have been following the Obama “natural born citizen” drama since August, when I first posed the question of whether or not BHO could hold the office of POTUS, you are most certainly aware of the numerous sites, that detail the multitude of lawsuits filed to discover the truth about Obama’s identity… his birth father and place of birth.
For those on the chase, I’m recommending you look at a pro Obama site called What’s Your Evidence? This is the first site I’ve found that analyzes the Berg complaint, as well as, the collateral issues surrounding this epic journey into whether or not Barack Hussein Obama II is eligible to hold the office of POTUS under our Constitution from anopposing viewof those of us who believe that Obama is not a natural born citizen or eligible to hold the office of POTUS.
Clearly, someone has taken a great deal of time to “debunk” the Berg claim. Make no mistake, the site is pro-Obama. If you haven’t stumbled across the site already, I am recommending this site for a number of reasons. The writer keeps insisting on evidence to support claims against Obama’s status as a natural born citizen, at the same time he/she either glosses over or omits evidence that supports Berg and others.
Agree or disagree with the legal conclusion here, it is an interesting compendium of the issues that many may find useful on their quest for the truth.
A quick read will show that the writer believes Factcheck.org is a reliable source, that Obama didn’t lie on his Illinois lawyer registration form, and that the Obama COLB posted on the Factcheck.org is a reliable record for determining Obama’s birth. No mention is made as to whether the Tooth Fairy is considered a reliable source. (Ok, cheap shot! So what!)
The following is from the site’s front page:
Berg v. Obama Citizenship Lawsuit: Status & Summary as of December 29
This blog is in the process of evaluating the allegations set forth in the complaint brought by Mr. Philip Berg against Senator Obama, alleging that he is not qualified to serve as President, on multiple different grounds.
The case was filed in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, by Mr. Philip Berg. Mr. Berg has published a website, www.obamacrimes.com, with copies of the pleadings and some materials related to the case. Mr. Berg’s lawsuit was dismissed by the District Court, on October 24, 2008. See Memorandum and Order. However, Berg is appealing this decision to both the Third Circuit (registration required) and the Supreme Court.
Should anyone still question the import to this Constitutional issue please review the following article from the American Thinker website.
[…] Obama has refused to disclose the vault copy of his Hawaiian birth certificate. This raises the question whether he himself has established that he is eligible to be President. To date, no state or federal election official, nor any government authority, has verified that he ever established conclusively that he meets the eligibility standard under the Constitution. (emphasis mine)
For those tracking this story on a daily basis, visit Oil for Immigration, Citizen Wells, TD Blog, Obama Crimes, America’s Right . . . etc.
I don’t like things that are out of place, that stick out without a rational explanation for their being there. Michele Obama’s black & red dress with the prominent “X” in the front is an example of an”out of place” moment in time that makes no sense in the context of the situation .
The Kennedy relationship with Obama is another example. It never made sense to me. There was/is something slightly odd about it unless one steps back and looks at larger possibilities.
Princess Caroline’s announcement that she would like Hillary Clinton’s Senate seat got me thinking about this odd collection of characters, again. Teddy and Caroline dissing the Clinton’s and endorsing Obama always was unsettling. Then I found a connection with the Obama “natural born citizen” saga and a connection with Caroline’s first cousin, Maria Shriver, and her husband Governor Schwarzenegger.
Since bloggers, patriots, and a host of other citizens began their search for the truth about Obama’s citizenship we have been accused of holding Obama to a differnet set of standards. Not true.
In fact given the lack of coverage by the MSM, one would think that a candidate’s eligibility under the “natural born citizen” first came to light with Obama. Nothing could be further from truth. This has been an ongoing question for many, many candidates. Obama’s wasn’t the first candidate facing this problem nor will he be the last unless and until the Constitution is changed by amendment.
I would ask you to review these 4 exhibits and ask yourself this. If Obama is allowed to side step the Constitution and serve as POTUS what is to prevent Schwarzenegger from attempting to do the same thing?
Exhibit one – From an article in USA Today written in 2004
Matthew Spalding, director of the Center for American Studies at the conservative-oriented Heritage Foundation, says the amendment’s prospects would “nosedive” if it were perceived to be designed to land Schwarzenegger in the Oval Office. “We don’t amend the Constitution to advance someone’s political career,” Spalding says.
Schwarzenegger faces an additional handicap, Spalding says: “You can’t have a United States president who is a dual citizen.”
Proposals to end the Constitution’s sole discrimination against the foreign-born have kicked around in Congress since the 1870s. But 26 proposed amendments have died in subcommittees.
Exhibit two – Place this comment under some people are different. Why? Leahy had no problem sponsoring a non-binding Senate resolution favoring McCain and by default Obama (who BTW helped sponsor the resolution) when it suited his political agenda.
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), who succeeded Hatch, said of Schwarzenegger: “The guy has become governor of California. What more credentials could you ask?”
Some senators are less enthusiastic. The ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Patrick Leahy of Vermont, has denounced the legislative attention to the issue, saying the Senate had more pressing matters.
Exhibit three – No Kennedy connection, right?
Veteran Democratic Senator Ted Kennedyhas said he would support a constitutional amendment that would enable his niece’s foreign-born husband, California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, to potentially run for President, reports AFP from Washington.
Kennedy’s niece, former journalist and Kennedy heiress Maria Shriver, is married to one of America’s most famous foreign-born citizens.
Exhibit four – View the latest poll from WorldNet Daily. Take a real good look at the questions, the order of the questions, and place them into context with the Obama dual citizenship/ ineligible to be president Constitutional crisis we are facing.
Do you think Arnold Schwarzenegger should be eligible for president?
1. Yes, he’s a legal American citizen now. That’s all that matters
2. Yes, but only if the law is changed to allow foreign-born citizens to run
3. Yes, if dual citizenship is good enough for Obama, it’s good enough for Schwarzenegger
4. Yes, even though I’m not thrilled with the idea, the subversive Democrats need to be kept in check
5. Yes, since Arnold is actually a cyborg created by Cyberdyne Systems in California, he’s technically born in the USA
6. No, his accent is just too un-American
7. No, Arnold is a pretender, as he is showing his true left-leaning colors now in “Calleeforneea”
8. No, the question of national loyalty is the key reason at stake here
9. No, I don’t want anyone to skirt the Constitution
10..No, he is not a natural-born citizen of the United States. End of story
The rich and powerful live by a different set of rules, don’t they.
Ignorant (meaning unlettered, uneducated, uninformed, having a lack of knowledge) and arrogant ( meaning disdainful, condescending, patronizing) two unflattering words that demonstrate how we have arrived at a point in our nation’s history where we are weeks away from watching a man, ineligible to hold the office of POTUS as defined by the requirements of the Constitution, take the reigns of power of the most powerful nation on earth.
We have watched as millions have put the welfare on one man ahead of their country and ahead of their own self-interests. How did we get here?
In less than a month, Barack Hussein Obama, a man many define as a fraud and a charlatan, will place his hand on the Lincoln Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States. This is a statement bristling with irony.
Sadly, the following excerpt typifies the prevailing attitude of large numbers of people in this country. These are shocking words from a blogger, one who clearly is educated, articulate, and has command of the English language.
At the same time this writer is ignorant of how our system of government works, ignorant of the importance of our Constitution, of his/or her place in a democratic Republic. (No Virginia, the US is not a democracy . . . it is a Republic!)
If the Constitution were truly the Law of the Land, certainly a definition of “natural born citizen” would have been offered by the Supreme Court or the Congress by now. Or there would have been a law passed by the Congress that no candidates could run for president unless first vetted for eligibility according to Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. Of course, any American with a brain knows that we no longer live under rule of the Constitution, hence all of this kerfuffle over where Barack Obama was “really” born matters not one wit.
Bet you didn’t know we no longer live under the rule of the Constitution! Clearly this writer is equally arrogant of the importance of abiding by the Constitution and lives with the mistaken impression that our Constitution is no longer relevant and can be ignored at will!
BTW, while we’re at it, I suggest you read the entire post and notice how the writer considers that having qualifications for the office of president is the equivalent of discrimination! What planet do you suppose one lives on to hold these kinds of ideas? Imagine, our Founding Fathers thought we should have minimum qualifications to be president and one of those qualifications was to be a natural born citizen so that there would never be a question about loyalty to the citizens of this nation? Imagine!
Equally shocking is the fact that this attitude is shared not only by Obama supporters but a legion of politicians, lawmakers, the MSM, and the courts. All have turned their backs on the Constitution and allowed this country to drift into a state of lawlessness.
It has become fashionable to ignore that with which you disagree, or diminish its importance, and live in a pretend world where we get to pick and choose the laws we will follow. Don’t like or understand what it means to be a “natural born citizen” and its import as it relates to the minimal qualifications for POTUS, as defined by the Framers of the Constitution? Ignore it, pretend there are no long term consequences to be suffered.
Above all else, don’t contemplate what it means once one ineligible candidate is allowed to illegally take office. Where do we apply the brakes? How about Arnold Schwarzenegger as our next president? He’s not a “natural born citizen” and acknowledges it. But hey, New Jersey has already allowed Socialist Workers Party candidate Roger Calero to run in the ’08 presidential election even though he was born in Nicaragua.
What has happened to our Republic? What has happened to our collective common sense? Many voices are asking the same pointed questions as we have watched a “star struck” media abdicate its responsibilities to the voters of the country, giving Obama a pass on a multitude of relevant questions and background checks, while devastating his opponents. We have seen the MSM (The New York Times, MSNBC, & CNN in particular) behaving as if their roles in the 2008 election were to help elect Obama.
At the same time we’ve witnessed politicians assisting Obama’s campaign in unimaginable ways that include managing the “Truth Squads” in Missouri. The Senate passed a non-binding resolution in Congress as a way to side step the issue of Article II Section 1 of the Constitution. BTW, non-binding resolutions are not law. They are essentially statements in support of a particular position that’s all.
As I said in Part I, the Obama Conspiracy evolved out of circumstances and happenstance. Not that Obama wasn’t seriously seeking the office, he was. The only way to run for the office of POTUS was to conceal his past, obfuscating the truth. Why else make sure that every record concerning his parents, his background, birth records, schooling, education records etc. be sanitized or scrubbed? It has been reported that Obama has spent close to one million dollars with three law firms to make sure his true identity remains hidden from the public.
Although this video references the Donofrio v Wells suit. It should be noted that there is continued Supreme Court action scheduled for January ’09.
Think I’ve been too tough on the voters, politicians, and the MSM that has brought us to this Constitutional crisis? Think again. Take the following American Civics literacy test. It can be found here
The exam questions covered American history, the workings of the US government and economics. The results of many of those who took the civics test are shocking giving you a look at why so many can vote for a fraudulent candidate Obama and not recognize the consequences.
US officials flunk test of American history, economics, civics
Thu Nov 20, 2:24 pm ET
WASHINGTON (AFP) – US elected officials scored abysmally on a test measuring their civic knowledge, with an average grade of just 44 percent, the group that organized the exam said Thursday.
Ordinary citizens did not fare much better, scoring just 49 percent correct on the 33 exam questions compiled by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI).
“It is disturbing enough that the general public failed ISI’s civic literacy test, but when you consider the even more dismal scores of elected officials, you have to be concerned,” said Josiah Bunting, chairman of the National Civic Literacy Board at ISI.
“How can political leaders make informed decisions if they don’t understand the American experience?” he added.
The exam questions covered American history, the workings of the US government and economics.
Among the questions asked of some 2,500 people who were randomly selected to take the test, including “self-identified elected officials,” was one which asked respondents to “name two countries that were our enemies during World War II.”
(Some respondents chose Canada and Mexico as our enemies during WWII! If you think that’s bad, how about JKF freed the slaves!)
For the record, I’ve taken the civics quiz for the last three months, scoring 51 out of 60 correctly — 85.00 % in October, 29 out of 33 correctly — 87.88 % in November, and 32 out of 33 correctly — 96.97 % in December.
I was unhappy with my October score until I found out that students at Harvard, Princeton, and Yale were only able to answer 69% of the questions on this test correctly! The best and brightest of the next generation only able to answer 69% of the questions correctly!
How can we expect voters to behave in a rational manner if they have no understanding of how our government works? How can we expect our politicians and lawmakers to act in the best interests of our country when they have an ever poorer understanding of our system of government? How, indeed!
This has been a very frustrating time for me. I am in the middle of the busiest business times of my company’s fiscal year . . . buried IN WORK with no time to write as the Obama Conspiracy marches on.
That having been said, I will see some daylight in the next 48 hours. I have lots to say about the continued legal actions against Obama and his ascent to the throne.
The legitimacy of his candidacy will not go away, regardless of how the Supremes look at the latest legal challenge this morning.
The following is from Investigating Obama, an excellent site to follow for the latest goings on. I am also recommending you check The Betrayal Blog on a daily basis.
Today is a very critical day at the Supreme Court. They are considering in conference, the Wrotnowski/Donofrio petition for stay of Monday’s scheduled Electoral College vote and for certiorari (to call a full hearing) based in large part, upon Barack Obama’s foreign patrilineal descent.
Applications are also hitting the SCOTUS which directly refer to his refusal to reveal his original birth certificate.
These cases also point out that due to his Indonesian citizenship as a child, Obama has since become a naturalized citizen, or else he is an illegal alien.
Whatever Obama’s particulars are (and America does deserve to see his actual birth certificate) there is no apparent “out” here — Barack Obama is constitutionally disqualified from being sworn in, on January 20. His candidacy has been legally fictitious from the Iowa Caucuses, onward. Each ballot was an injury and insult to the Sovereign American Voter.
With the latest political shenanigans being exposed with the attempted selling of Obama’s Senate seat by Governor Blagoievich, I’m not prepared to call Obama dirty just yet, but it is getting harder and harder not to. Stay tuned.
BTW, anyone who thought the Clinton presidency in the 90’s was filled with intrigue and legal fighting, my guess is you “‘ain’t seen nothing yet!” Obama’s presidency will hit new highs . . . or is it new lows!
As I write this, I find it incomprehensible that MSM is virtually silent on the Constitutional crisis that is before us . . . one that could have been easily averted if Mr. Obama had simply produced the records that prove that he is a natural born citizenas described in Article II Section 1of the Constitution.
But he hasn’t and the only logical conclusion one can reach is Obama can’t prove he meets the eligibility requirements for president as determined by the Framers of the Constitution. We all know that and so too the Obamabots. I remain incredulous that citizens should be forced to the take the extreme action of filing suit in order to obtain such basic information.
Why would Obama fail to comply with basic requests that include his school records etc? Possibly as, Dr. Kate wrote a few days on TD Blog, it’s because his sealed records, including college financial aid applications, papers, and coursework, and his financial aid applications (would) reveal his foreign status.
[…] I believe his Columbia and Harvard papers could reveal his examination of the “weaknesses” of the U.S. Constitution and ways to “remedy” them using “administrative procedures” as discussed in this 2001 radio interview.
Think it’s possible that the shuck ‘ jive routine about Obama’s thesis is because it concentrated on topics like naturalized, natural born, or dual citizenship as regards the eligibility for POTUS? And before anyone writes to tell me his thesis at Columbia was on nuclear negotiations with the Soviets . . . don’t. Copies of Michelle’s thesis from Princeton are available on line, but not Barack’s. Curious don’t you think? No one can find a single page, a draft, anything that resembles hard copy.
As anyone who has been following this knows, Obama, the DNC, and his teams of lawyers have ignored all requests to present these documents . . . documents that would be requested of anyoneseeking the highest office in the land. And so, with the January inauguration around the corner we now have a case resting in front of the Supremes. If the Justices of the Supreme Court agree to hear this case, I cannot help but wonder what kind of shock wave is going to go through this country.
I have this picture in my mind of all those people on the Titantic, sailing in that sea of icebergs, about to hit one head on . . . clueless about the tragedy ahead of them. The Captain of the ship who was aware … ignored the warnings. Along side of these visions I keep thinking about the MSM, aware of the consequences if Obama is found to be ineligible, ignoring the warnings. Possibly hoping like the Captain of the Titanic, that icebergs could be averted?
The Donofrio v Wells lawsuit is the only one that is not anchored to Obama’s birth certificate, instead focusing on the fact that Obama held dual citizenship at birth. This case does not face the same challenges regarding “standing” that the long list of other lawsuits face. For this reason alone, it has (IMHO) the best chance of succeeding. What has happened since Monday and as detailed on a new site I recommend to anyone looking for more in-depth coverage is that:
the United States Supreme Court scheduled the case – Leo C. Donofrio v. Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey – US Supreme Court Docket No. 08A407 – for a conference of the nine Justices. The conference is a completely private affair and the public may not attend. If four of the nine Justices vote to hear the case in full, oral argument may be scheduled. The conference is scheduled for December 5, 2008, ten days before the meeting of the Electoral College.
US SUPREME COURT TAKES EXTRAORDINARY EXPEDITED ACTION IN FAST TRACKING NJ CITIZEN SUIT CHALLENGING ’08 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.
I am awaiting clarification from the Clerk’s office at the United States Supreme Court as to whether my stay application has now been accepted in lieu of a more formal full petition for certiorari (and/or mandamus or prohibition). Such a transformation is a rare and significant emergency procedure. It was used in Bush v. Gore, a case I have relied on in my brief.
We do know the case has certainly been “DISTRIBUTED for Conference“, a process usually reserved for full petitions of certiorari. Stays are usually dealt with in a different manner. As to a stay application, a single Justice may; a) deny the stay; b) grant the stay; c) refer the stay to the full Court.
If you haven’t looked at the CONSTITUTION, Bill of Rights, and the other key documents that form our democracy in a very long time, please visit The Charters of Freedom. It is a great site to visit and I highly recommend that people that want to comment on the merits of the Donofrio suit may want to visit before posting their comments.
John Marshall, oil painting (reproduction) by Rembrandt Peale, 1826
During the thirty-five years that John Marshall served as Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, he asserted both the power of the judiciary as a coequal branch of government and the supremacy of Federal authority.
Courtesy of the Supreme Court of the United States Washington, DC
Well here we are boys ‘n girls, coming full circle to where we were in August 9th when I first queried about Obama’s dual citizenship; fully acknowledged on his own website.
My question, a the time was, “can a person with dual citizenship run for the office of POTUS?” The question arose because of post on the Rocky Mountain News website, that briefly alluded to Obama’s dual citizenship. At the time I was not familiar with the relevant part of the Constitution that reads:
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 numerous lawsuits (at least 8 in various states) that have been filed challenging Obama’s eligibility to run and serve as President have changed that. It wasn’t until tonight, however, that the importance of my August question became clear.Thanks to Leo Donofrio, for finally putting all of the pieces in place . It finally makes sense.
Mr. Donofrio, who, on Monday, November 17 he will renew his application for an Emergency Stay of the ’08 election in the Supreme Court, refers to the same Rocky Mountain News piece, as does FactCheck.Org in its attempt to “clarify Obama’s citizenship. His blog, Natural Born Citizen, which is tracking his legal moves in this critical Constitutional case said this evening:
Obama admits he was a British Citizen at birth and therefore, just like the Framers, he was not a “natural born citizen” of the United States
The Framers distinguised 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 by law.
[…]
The Framers were not natural born citizens because, “at birth” they were all British citizens. That’s why they included a grandfather clause in Article 2, Section 1. 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. They recognized that they were NOT “Natural Born Citizens”, because “at birth” they were subject to the British Crown as was Barack Obama.
The Framers were not comfortable with the possibility of future generations of Presidents being born under the jurisdiction of Foreign Powers. The Framers declared themselves not eligible to be President as “Natural Born Citizens” so they wrote the grandfather clause in for a limited exception.
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.
Note, Article 2, Section 1 of our Constitution does not allow for dual citizenship, in fact, the Framers of our Constitution went out of their way to make sure that no person serving as President of these United States would have to suffer conflicting loyalties to more than one country. It has already been suggested that Barack has demonstrated divided loyalties because of his association with Raila Odinga in Kenya.
Why this is important; according to Fact Check, Obama was both a British Citizen and U.S. citizen, thereby making him ineligible to be POTUS. Quoting directly from the site:
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:
British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth. In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.
Here’s the bottom line, regardless what the vault copy of Obama’s birth certificate reads, when he was born he was both a British Citizen and U.S. citizen.
He does not meet the requirement of having been born a natural born citizen of this country and it was always in plain sight!
Memo to the Obamabots . . . the issue of Obama’s eligibility to run as president and his refusal to provide the vault copy of his birth certificate is not going away. Below are two more challenges to his constitutional legitimacy for the office of POTUS.
H/T to Eagle1 this morning for bringing these two additional challenges to our attention.
Obama Presidency Challenged By New Jersey Voter re:”natural born citizen” – Before US Supreme Court
Obama presidency challenged by New Jersey voter re: “natural born citizen” now before US Supreme Court. Standing not an issue-Birth Certificate not main point of suit. Action was originally filed against both Obama and McCain alleging ineligibility.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
PRLog (Press Release) – Nov 10, 2008 – On October 27, 2008, plaintiff-appellant, Leo Donofrio, a retired attorney acting Pro Se, sued Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, demanding the Secretary execute her statutory and Constitutional duties to police the security of ballots in New Jersey from fraudulent candidates ineligible to hold the office of President of the United States due to their not being “natural born citizens” as enumerated in Article 1, Section 2, of the US Constitution.
This second legal challenge is more interesting because it is by a forensic psychologist, Dr. T.B. Bradley, who works for the criminal justice system and the courts. Among other things he is charging that Obama’s mother committed fraud. The complaint reads in part:
6. Shortly thereafter, Applicant discerned that Obama’s Mother engaged in a pattern of illegal and fraudulent conduct as
a result of both of her two children’s birth outside of the United States: (1) Obama, Jr. born in Kenya Africa and (2) Maya
Soetoro born in Jakarta Indonesia, but the mother, a US Citizen, raced to Hawaii after each of her children’s birth where
she engaged in fraudulent conduct upon the United States by declaring a late registration birth for both children claiming
that they were born in Hawaii.
7. In fact, this pattern of fraudulent conduct is evidenced by the fact that Obama, Jr. was born in Africa and her second
child, Maya Soetoro, was born in Jakarta, Indonesia; however, both children are allegedly registered with birth certificates
as born in the United States.
8. Obama’s mother defrauded the United States not once, but twice due to her out of US births of her children that she
desperately sought to protect by late registration births with false and fraudulent information declaring that both children
were born on US soil.
If your only retort to this Constitutional crisis, brought on by Obama, his lawyers, and the DNC is that Factcheck.org “proved” Obama’s birth certificate is real, might I suggest you put your Kool-Aid down for a moment and think. Quoting from Janice Okubo, Director of Communications of the State of Hawaii Department of Health,
as told to the Israel Insider: “At this time there are no circumstances in which the State of Hawaii Department of Health would issue a birth certification or certification of live birth only electronically.” And, she added, “In the State of Hawaii all certified copies of certificates of live birth have the embossed seal and registrar signature on the back of the document.”
For starters, using the Annenberg funded Fact Check, a Chicago organization with long standing ties to William Ayres and Barack Obama (among others) is meaningless because of the organization’s has a built in bias, whether the bias is acknowledged or not. Now if you can find forensic evidence that would stand up in court, we who are questioning Obama’s eligibility, will listen.
Here’s the Obamabot Challenge. Want to shut all the skeptics up? Prove us wrong. Start digging yourself. Don’t believe us and then ask yourselves what possible reason could Obama and the DNC have for refusing to provide this basic information unless they are hiding something.
Demand that Obama and the DNC present this basic information to the country . . . unless you are afraid we are right!
Stumble It!
/>
Hillary and Me 