Friday, June 12, 2009

Where is Obama's Birth Certificate? (Part 1)

*******
*******
Why the Founding Fathers Were “Birthers”Along with Millions of Americans, not willing to let their Constitution die without a good ole patriot's fight!By JB Williams
Saturday, August 1, 2009
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/13295
The label of “birther” is fast becoming a noble badge of honor for millions of Americans who are not willing to let their Constitution die without a good ole patriot’s fight!
The leftist Obama propaganda press would love for you to believe that “birthers” are just a bunch of “crazy racists” that number in the hundreds, and that they have NO basis to demand proof of whom and what Barack Hussein Obama really is…
But the “birthers” actually number in the millions and the basis for their demands were set in stone by the men who wrote and ratified the US Constitution. If millions of American “birthers” are “right-wing nuts,” they are in good company with men like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Adams and Ben Franklin.
Obama has been running from his entire past all of his political life. His many minions in the press have been running interference every step of the way.
For the record, the following Obama records remain under lock and key, more than two years into public demands for Obama “transparency"… and Obama has spent a reported $1 Million in legal fees to keep them SEALED!
Obama’s official birth records -SEALED
His Occidental College records -SEALED
His Columbia College records -SEALED
His Harvard College records -SEALED
His College Thesis -SEALED
His Harvard Law Review articles -SEALED
His Indonesia Adoption records -SEALED
His Passport file -SEALED
His connection to countless foreign and domestic thugs -SEALED
Yet the American press, now to include Fox News Channel’s Bill O’Reilly, insist that they somehow inherently know with absolute certainty, that Barack Hussein Obama was indeed born in Hawaii, a “natural born citizen,” not just “a citizen” or a “native citizen,” and that millions of Americans who think he should provide a minimum level of proof, are just “crazy” -"racists" or possibly even “potential domestic terrorists” as Obama’s Department of Homeland Security recently suggested.
Since ALL Obama records remain SEALED, what files did O’Reilly and others investigate in order to draw their absolute conclusion that Obama is legit and millions of Americans are nuts?
What’s all of the stink about?
US Law establishes that while there are several ways one can become a US citizen, there are actually only three different types of US Citizens with three very different sets of qualifications and citizen rights.
A US Citizen
A Native Born Citizen
A Natural Born Citizen
Today, we have to add one more category, the “illegal” US citizen. But that story is for another day.
A foreign born immigrant, who has successfully navigated the naturalization process, is a legal US citizen with all of the Constitutional rights afforded a US Citizen with the exception of one, the right to be President of the United States. As a matter of Constitutional case law, - 94 ”Whatever the term ‘’natural born’’ means, it no doubt does not include a person who is ‘’naturalized.’’
In this regard, the issue of Obama’s adoption by Indonesian citizen Lolo Soetoro is also of consequence, as Obama could only be a US citizen by way of “naturalization.” There is no record of Obama naturalizing as a U.S. citizen upon returning from Indonesia.
All of this is at the heart of the debate over where Barack Hussein Obama II was born. His family and friends say that he was born in Kenya. His political allies say that he was born in Hawaii, our fiftieth state. Obama has stated that he was born in Hawaii and he has presented as proof, THREE different Certifications of Live Birth (COLBs) [ NOT the same as a Certificate of Live Birth ] and he has named TWO different hospitals located in Hawaii, as his official place of birth.
But since he has refused to open up his official birth records in Hawaii, nobody knows for certain where Barack Hussein Obama II was born. Contrary to leftist attempts to spin, the mere fact that such a constitutional requirement exists implies that one must provide proof of compliance, if and when asked to do so.
NOTE: One can be a US citizen without being a “native citizen” or a “natural born citizen.” It must also be stated that Hawaii issued Certifications of Live Birth to foreign born non-citizens of the US as a regular practice.
If Barack Hussein Obama II was indeed born in Hawaii, and this can be verified by authenticating his official birth records alleged to exist in Hawaii, then he could be a “US Citizen” and maybe even a “Native Born Citizen” having been born on American soil. To date, no such evidence has been made available for purposes of authentication.
However, one can be both a “US citizen” and a “Native Born citizen” and still NOT be a “Natural Born Citizen.”
As an example, what are often referred to as “anchor babies” are both US citizens and Native Born citizens as a matter of federal law. But as a matter of the US Constitution, specifically Article II -Section I, they are NOT a “natural born citizen” as their parents were NOT citizens of the U.S.
NOTE: Barack Hussein Obama I, Obama’s legal birth father was NOT a US citizen. He was a British subject and a legal citizen of Kenya.Under “natural law” at the foundation of the “natural born citizen” clause, a blood descendent will inherit by way of natural law, the fathers name and citizenship, no matter where they were born.
Until the election of Barack Hussein Obama, all Presidents since and including Martin Van Buren were born in the United States, a descendent of parents who were both US citizens.
Why the Founders were “Birthers”It was the Founding Fathers who wrote and ratified, “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;”
They based this clause on the following; “Congress, in which a number of Framers sat, provided in the Naturalization act of 1790 that ‘’the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, . . . shall be considered as natural born citizens. . . .’’ 96 This phrasing followed the literal terms of British statutes, beginning in 1350, under which persons born abroad, whose parents were both British subjects, would enjoy the same rights of inheritance as those born in England; beginning with laws in 1709 and 1731, these statutes expressly provided that such persons were natural-born subjects of the crown.”
So, had both of Obama’s parents been US citizens, he would indeed be a “natural born citizen” of the US, even if he had been born in Kenya. By way of “natural law,” he inherited the name and citizenship of his father, in Kenya, not the US.
As his father was not a US citizen, but rather a citizen of Kenya, Obama inherited by birthright, natural law, his fathers name and citizenship. He is NOT a “natural born citizen” of the US, no matter where he was born.
The Founders exempted themselves from the “natural born citizen” clause because at the time of ratification, there were no “natural born citizens,” - US citizens born to two parents who were both US citizens.
But from President Martin Van Buren on, US born descendents of two US citizens did exist and up until the election of Barack Hussein Obama, those who became president passed the “natural born citizen” requirement in the Constitution.
Clearly, the Founders were very serious “birthers.” But why were they “birthers?” What were they so worried about?
Dual or Divided Loyalties
The president of the United States has unfettered access to ALL national security information. He is afforded powers unlike any other individual on earth. His finger rests on the Red button and his office is respected and revered around the globe. He is the international representative of every American citizen.
Such an office cannot be held by one with even the potential for dual or divided loyalties. The international pressure to act upon global interests instead of American interests is immense. Only one with completely undivided loyalties can be trusted. He MUST be a “natural born citizen” as the Constitution requires.
Above all else, the Founding Father’s feared a despotic central government that would one day turn its abusive power on its people. They went to great pains to design a Representative Republic limited in scope and power by constitutional text that would best secure the people against such an event, including Article II -Section I, intended to keep leaders with foreign loyalties from ever holding the broadest power on earth.
Then, they told us to alter or abolish any government that became a threat to Life, Liberty or the pursuit of Happiness.
They were “extremists...” They didn’t trust central power and they sure didn’t trust that power in the hands of someone with dual or divided loyalties.
Why the “Birther” Movement is EXPLODING!Demonstrated by plummeting approval ratings only six months into office, the American people have seen enough of Obama’s “global” agenda, at odds with American interest, and what was once “hope” for “change” six months ago, has become fear, anger and discontent. Obama took office six months ago with a +28 point strong approval rating. Six months later, Obama finds himself at a -12 point approval rating, an unprecedented 40 point swing!
The Obama administration has named more unelected Czars in six months than pre-Soviet Russia named in its thousand year existence. They have forced industries into bankruptcy only to emerge the property of the federal government. They are ramming Marxist laws through a leftist congress so fast that members of congress don’t even have time to read them before they pass.
Members of congress are now afraid to hold town meetings for fear of being attacked by angry constituents who have had enough of watching DC elitists run roughshod over the other side of the aisle, the states and the American people. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090731/pl_politico/25646)
There are TWO reasons why the “birther” movement is EXPLODING instead of going away, despite daily attacks and name calling from the lamestream press.
· The Constitution, including Article II -Section I either stands or it doesn’t.
· The people are watching the utter hourly destruction of their nation in Washington DC and they need a peaceful way to end that destruction legally, before things become violent.
The flaw in the left’s plan to change the Unites States into a secular socialist One World Order is they have foolishly underestimated the desire for freedom and liberty in the hearts and minds of most Americans.
They have miscalculated… The 22.4% of the population who voted for Marxism in the last two election cycles thought that they won the right to shove Marxism down the throats of every American. They are horrifically mistaken…
By launching a heavy handed all-out assault on individual freedom and liberty from every possible front at breakneck speed, they have sent the nation into shock and dismay. Even many, who foolishly voted for the mystery messiah last November, are now jumping ship after watching him make a mockery of the US Constitution and the principles and values that made America the greatest free nation ever known to mankind.
The people need to right the ship and remove every anti-American fraud from the halls of the federal government before things get really ugly. Afraid to confront their constituents, law-makers are running for cover. When representatives stop listening to the people they work for, the people will stop talking and start acting!
If Obama is a “constitutional” president, he is going to have to prove it and fast. If not, he is going to have to leave the people’s White House, in handcuffs if need be! The issue will not go away. The Constitution stands or all bets are off!
Every member of his administration and his party who had knowledge of, participated in or provided cover for the greatest hoax every perpetrated on the American people, must step down with him.
The people will have to figure out what to do next, but one thing is certain, - this “silent coup” will not stand much longer. The walls are closing in and Obama & Co. are trapped in their own massive web of deceit.
People do NOT spend a million dollars to hide something that there is no reason to hide.
The inescapable reality is this… - We have an unconstitutional resident of the White House and a whole lot of people working around the clock to keep him in office, for God only knows what purpose.
Although 22.4% of Americans don’t seem to care about that, millions of American “birthers” do, as did the Founding Fathers.
Sooner or later, Obama is going to have to prove that he is legitimate. The longer it takes for him to come forward and do so, the more dangerous the situation will become, as citizens grow increasingly angry over the utter destruction of their country.
The truth exists in Obama’s official birth, adoption, college and passport records. Nobody hides the truth unless the truth will expose a lie…
Even Obama’s political allies had better start calling for the truth and fast, or they will sink with him! The Founders had it right and on that basis alone, so do the “birthers.”
We’re keeping a list of all who have chosen badly…
*******
“Birther” Issue EXPLODES!
Leftist O-Bots Become Vicious!
By JB Williams Tuesday, July 28, 2009
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/13205
Just yesterday, I released Obama Media Machine Rushing to Derail Treason Charges and the column went viral within moments of its release. Take a few minutes to read my up-to-date report on the issue driving the Obama White House, congressional Marxists and their media minions insane!
Within hours, every network news agency was in damage control mode, spinning their twisted set of false facts and missing evidence into a demonstration of unbridled outrage aimed at American citizens who simply want to know who the mystery messiah is, residing in their White House.
Are “birthers” Getting too close for Comfort?The White House rushed out its media talking points memo – CBS Hotsheet explains the Birther movement here, in O-bot terms. The state controlled alphabet propaganda networks jumped on the DNC talking points immediately, with a vengeance. The “birthers” (aka constitutionally conscious) are the target of vicious broad based attacks, usually only found on left-wing blogs like the toxic Democratic Underground or DailyKos!
Meanwhile, House members in congress quietly rushed through H.R. 593, under the guise of “Recognizing and celebrating the 50th Anniversary of the entry of Hawaii into the Union as the 50th State” – which included this phrase, “Whereas the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961;” [See H.R. 593 here -:]
The not-so-subtle rush to end the debate over Obama’s lack of Constitutional standing to be President and Commander-in-Chief, begs the question, -- if what you say is true, wouldn’t access to Obama’s secret files have answered the question, without the need for an act of congress? I thought congress had “10,000 more important things to do,” according to Robert Gibbs???
If Obama is a “Natural Born Citizen” – Why Can’t he Prove it?Why use an act of congress, backed by NO authentic evidence whatsoever, to establish that which would be easily proven (or disproved) by the release of ALL Obama birth, adoption, college and passport records? What’s in these records that Obama is afraid to release for public access?
H.R. 593 passed with 56 co-sponsors, 220 Democrat YEAs, 158 Republican YEAs and NO NEAs… What’s with the unanimous congressional rush to end the debate over Obama’s sealed records? What happened to the “transparent president” promise?
Even “Right-wing” Pundits are Running for CoverSo-called “right-wing” talking heads like Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly are also carrying water for Obama by downplaying the “birther” (aka constitutionally concerned citizen) demand to know who the mystery messiah really is…
What’s in Obama’s records, that is so dangerous to his current standing, that NOBODY wants to open those files? Whatever it is, members of the House would rather pass a resolution declaring Obama a “citizen” than ask him to open those files… Why?
Real Conspiracy or Just a Theory?As I pointed out in yesterday column, “the real truth actually does exist and it most likely exists in Obama’s official birth, adoption, college and passport records, [Not some silly symbolic House resolution] - all of which remain under lock and key, under Obama’s orders.”
Instead of simply opening those records and ending the debate, Obama has chosen to spend a million bucks keeping those records locked up and now, House members have decided to pass a non-binding resolution declaring Obama a “citizen” without first demanding to see the evidence necessary to prove their claim.
This is the stuff that real conspiracies are made of.... It’s not a “theory” that the Natural Born Citizen clause is a Constitutional requirement for the presidency, it’s a reality.
It’s not a theory that Obama’s records will either prove or disprove his eligibility for office, it’s a fact.
And it’s not a theory that when someone works this hard to hide something, there must be something worth hiding....
Robert Gibbs Lame Parsing of WordsReacting once again to press corps softballs tossed up for Gibbs to hit out of the park, White House press secretary Gibbs parsed his words very carefully....
CBS News reports – “Gibbs lashed out Monday at the so-called “birthers” who believe President Obama is not a legal U.S. citizen despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.”
Notice the absence of the term “natural born citizen.” Gibbs and CBS both know that we are NOT discussing “legal US citizenship” but rather the Founder’s “natural born citizen” requirement, unique to the Oval Office. They also know that these two terms have VERY different meanings and purposes. Still, Gibbs tries to deflect the debate to one over “US citizenship,” and CBS quickly follows his lead.
Further, what Gibbs and the lamestream press agree is “overwhelming evidence”—is THREE different COLBs (certificates of live birth) presented by Team Obama, and TWO different hospitals, named by Obama as his official place of birth.
No mention of the sworn affidavit signed by Obama’s family in Kenya, which states that they were present at Obama’s birth in Kenya, or the fact that not a single hospital in Hawaii will confirm that Obama or his mother ever entered the door of their facility.
No mention of the fact that Obama was adopted and became a legal citizen of Indonesia in his youth. No mention that no US passport record exists for Obama, until he was given a diplomatic passport as an Illinois Senator.
What is the “overwhelming evidence” that leads Gibbs, the press and now congress to conclude that Barack Hussein Obama meets the “natural born citizen” requirement to be Commander-in-Chief?
NO such evidence has been presented, as ALL Obama birth, adoption, college and passport records remain sealed as of this writing. What evidence are they talking about? The evidence that Obama is NOT a “natural born citizen” is beyond “overwhelming.”
Gibbs stated in the press briefing, “If I had some DNA, it wouldn’t assuage those who don’t believe he was born here,” he said. “But I have news for them and for all of us: The president was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, the 50th state of the greatest country on the face of the Earth. He’s a citizen.”

What does DNA have to do with it? Would DNA prove Obama was born in Hawaii?
Obama has openly admitted to being the son of a British subject. No DNA test is needed to establish the identity of Obama’s father, is it? And DNA would not establish whether or not he was born in one of the two Hawaiian hospitals he has named as his place of birth. The DNA comment is nothing more than another cute effort to misdirect…
If the president was indeed “born in Honolulu,” just open the records. Let’s talk to his doctors and nurses and put an end to this mess. End of discussion!
He may indeed be “a citizen,” which of course has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not he is a “natural born citizen” in accordance with the purpose of the “natural born citizen” clause.
California Governor Arnold Swartzenager is a “US citizen,” but he is NOT a “natural born citizen” and cannot run for US President as a result. Unless he prints up a fake Hawaiian COLB, I suppose.
What is a Natural Born Citizen?“There are 10,000 more important issues for people in this country to discuss rather than whether or not the president is a citizen, when it’s been proven ad nauseum,” Gibbs added.
This is what Bill Clinton said right after saying; “I did not have sex with that girl, Monica Lewinsky.” And of course, like Hillary Clinton at the time, Robert Gibbs hopes to misdirect attention away from the fact that NO evidence has been presented confirming Obama’s status to date, focusing attention upon “right-wing conspiracy” theories of his own imagination.
But the subject is really quite simple…To know with certainty what the Founders meant by “natural born citizen,” one need look no further than the “natural law” at the foundation of everything they did.
Natural law says, when a father has a son, the son is the “natural born” descendent of the father, assuming his sir name and his citizenship by “birth right.” No man-made law is needed to establish the “birth rights” of the son.
The Founder’s used the “natural born citizen” clause to avoid any obvious conflicts in the Oval Office resulting from dual, divided or questionable loyalties to any foreign government or nation.
In Obama’s case, no matter whether he was born in Hawaii or Kenya, he cannot meet the Founder’s constitutional standard because he was born the son of an Arab-Muslim British subject from Africa, and therefore, has obvious dual or divided loyalties, which are now easily demonstrated by his “global agenda” at odds with American interests.
No Room to RunHouse Resolution 593 is NOT binding. It is only symbolic.
Still it demonstrates the lengths to which the federal government, both Democrats and Republicans, are willing to go to avoid whatever hard evidence on the matter might exists in Obama’s official birth, adoption, college and passport records.
Now, as the American people have been repeatedly denied access to the truth which exists only in Obama’s secret files, the people are left to their “theories” about what might be in those files and how damning it might be.
Clearly, the “birther” movement has hit full stride and investigators are getting too close for comfort. Hence the all-out media blitz of vicious attacks on “birthers” – baseless accusations of “racism” and non-binding congressional measures, all aimed at derailing the citizen effort to unmask the mystery messiah.
This is the ONLY “evidence” offered by the White House as of today.... According to Gibbs, it’s “overwhelming” in nature… You decide!
Note: Any alterations invalidate this certificate....The mere fact that this document has been “altered” by blocking out the official certificate number means that the document is “invalid.”
Come on boys and girls.... Why the kindergarten level debate?
Just open the man’s files. If he has nothing to hide, why are you all working to hard to hide it?
*******
Federal judge dismisses reservist's suit questioning Obama's presidencyBY LILY GORDON - lgordon@ledger-enquirer.com.
Thursday, Jul. 16, 2009
http://lib.store.yahoo.net/lib/realityzone/UFNfedjudgedismisssoldier.html
A federal judge this morning dismissed the suit filed here by a U.S. Army reservist who says he shouldn't have to go to Afghanistan because he believes Barack Obama was never eligible to be president.
Judge Clay Land sided with the defense, which claimed in its response to Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook's suit, filed July 8 with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, that Cook’s suit is “moot” in that he already has been told he doesn’t have to go to Afghanistan, so the relief he is seeking has been granted.
"Federal court only has authority of actual cases and controversies," Land said. "The entire action is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction."
Cook arrived at the federal courthouse in uniform this morning for his hearing.
Outside the courthouse, before the hearing, Cook defended his controversial position and declared his devotion to the military.
“I love the Army and I want to continue to serve in the Army,” Cook said. “If we can establish that he is in fact president of the United States legally, I’m on the airplane the next day over to Afghanistan… if they cut my deployment orders, so I can do the job that I want to do.”
Cook said following orders made by an illegitimate superior could ultimately lead to his prosecution, or worse.
“If one cannot establish the validity and legality of the order ... we would be following illegal orders and subject to prosecution,” he said. “I could be prosecuted by the Uniform Code of Military Justice and if captured I would not be privy to protections under the Geneva Convention.”
Other soldiers have been supportive of his position, Cook said.
“I’ve received quite a bit of popular support from officers in my grade and some officers a grade above and some officers a grade below,” he said. “Thus far, I’d say about 90 percent positive.”
Cook was accompanied by his attorney, Orly Taitz, who has challenged the legitimacy of Obama’s presidency in other courts. Two similar suits have previously been thrown out of federal court.
Ledger-enquirer.com will have more on this breaking story later this afternoon.
*******
Obama Forgery Exposed (Dr. Polarik)
Kenyan Ambassador Admits Obama Born in Kenya
*******
Eligibility debate explodes on White House 'dialogue' site
77% of voters demand Obama release long-form birth certificatePosted: June 01, 2009
By Chelsea Schilling© 2009 WorldNetDaily
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/?pageId=99884
The entire transparency portion of the White House website on "open government dialogue" has been overrun with citizens calling on Barack Obama to release his elusive "long-form" birth certificate to establish his constitutional eligibility to serve as president.
The forums are open to the public for participation. Joseph Farah, editor and chief executive officer of WND, has been urging those concerned about the issue to get involved.
As WND reported, on Sunday night only 30 percent of respondents in one forum demanded the president release the document. But that number exploded to nearly 80 percent after the public became aware of the White House resource.
Here's your chance to tell the White House directly whether you think the birth certificate issue is important.
At the time of this report, more than 175 comments were posted to the forum, titled "Verifying eligibility to be president of the USA," including the following:
We need to keep the pressure on! How did BO even get one foot in the White House door without a birth certificate?
Even if he shows a forged birth certificate – which he undoubtedly will in time (he and his cronies are in WAAAY too deep) it is common knowledge (records, and his book and many articles) that his father was not a US citizen at his birth – so ... Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen … period.
After the campaigning on all the "wonderful" socialist programs then obfuscating on all the plans to implement them, I'm sick of NO transparency. I recall we were promised the opposite. Only a traitor can be elected as U.S. President and simultaneously refuse to abide by his oath of office.
He can't show what doesn't exist! He is a Kenyan usurper and with his minions of baby-killers will ruin our nation!
It is a foregone conclusion that Obama is not a natural born citizen. No one would work so hard to hide the truth.
Gibbs "laughing" at the reporter who inquired about the long-form birth certificate had body language of deception all over it. And the fact that the other media laughed as well just goes to show how blind and imbecilic they are. Do they really think that the American people don't know the difference between what's on the internet and what they SHOULD be seeing? And yes, I agree that Gibbs isn't just laughing at the reporter. He's laughing at all of us who stand for truth, transparency, and the integrity of our nation.
Instead of asking for a birth certificate, at this stage an impeachment should be in the works.
Only eight people objected to calls for Obama to produce his long-form birth certificate on the single forum while more than 180 postings urged him to do so.
Since the debut of the "Verifying eligibility to be president of the USA" topic, many other forums have popped up in the records management section of the website demanding Obama produce the document, including the following:
"We the people want to see the real long form birth certificate"
"Show us the long form birth certificate that would contain verifiable details of Obama's birth"
"Direct challenge and demand to Obama and his cronies"
"This will go away of you'll just prove your citizenship"
"Prove your natural-born citizenship, Comrade Obama"
"My son shouldn't serve under Obama"
"Presidential birth certificate"
In the "Making government Operations more open" section of the website, the following forums have also appeared:
"Natural born citizenship"
"Demonstrate respect for law"
"Mr. Obama's birth certificate"
"Mr. Soetoro, please show us the birth certificate"
"Where's the birth certificate?"
"OMG just show us the birth certificate"
"Eligibility requirements Article II, Section I, Par. 4"
The list continues for several pages as the entire transparency portion of the website has been overrun with citizens demanding presentation of the long-form birth certificate. Every thread features dozens – and even hundreds – of people in agreement that Obama should release the document.
The website TechPresident blasted "birthers" for "fouling" the Open Government Dialogue website today. Micah Sifry called the voters "conspiracy nuts who think the President isn't legitimately a U.S. citizen" and noted that the website has experienced a big jump in users and comments in the last few days – something the author claims could be "a possible sign of trouble."
"Personally, I've already been on the site voting down the various 'birther' suggestions," Sifry wrote. "It's one thing to be tolerant of differences of opinion and have civil disagreement; it's another thing to let nuts trash a town hall."
Meanwhile, as WND reported Friday, Obama's elusive long-form birth certificate that would establish his eligibility to serve as president as a "natural born citizen" was the hottest discussion topic at the Fox News Channel's website.
Under the heading, "Should Obama release his birth certificate? Or is this old news?," more than 1,600 comments were posted – all of them after White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was questioned about the document earlier this week by WND White House correspondent Les Kinsolving. [article below]
The rush of posts at the Fox News site made it the "most talked about" issue, according to a ranking on the right side of the page.
The visibility of the Obama birth certificate issue has also been raised by a new national billboard campaign initiated by Joseph Farah, editor and chief executive officer of WND. Launched just over a week ago, the campaign has raised about $65,000 and begun erecting billboards that ask the question, "Where's the birth certificate?"
That campaign followed one launched months earlier to collect names on an electronic petition demanding accountability and transparency on the issue. So far, that petition has gathered nearly 400,000 names.
In his questioning of Gibbs, Kinsolving specifically made reference to the WND petition.
"Are you looking for the president's birth certificate?" he asked incredulously. "Lester, this question in many ways continues to astound me. The state of Hawaii provided a copy with the seal of the president's birth. I know there are apparently at least 400,000 people – (laughter) – that continue to doubt the existence of and the certification by the state of Hawaii of the president's birth there, but it's on the Internet because we put it on the Internet for each of those 400,000 to download. I certainly hope by the fourth year of our administration that we'll have dealt with this burgeoning birth controversy."
It was the first time any member of the press corps has publicly asked a member of the administration a question directly related to Obama's constitutional eligibility for office as a "natural born citizen."
The question comes as the controversy is heating up nationally – sparked in part by a new billboard campaign asking the question: "Where's the birth certificate?" The campaign has also raised more than $50,000 in contributions from the public.
Just last week, Farah announced the billboard campaign to raise public awareness of the fact that Obama has never released the standard, "long-form" birth certificate that would show which hospital he was born in, the attending physician and establish that he truly was born in Hawaii, as his autobiography maintains.
The "Certification of Live Birth" posted online and widely touted as "Obama's birth certificate" does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same "short-form" document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii. The true "long-form" birth certificate – which includes information like the name of the birth hospital and attending physician – is the only document that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not permitted its release for public or press scrutiny.
Oddly, though congressional hearings were held to determine whether Sen. John McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president as a "natural born citizen," no controlling legal authority ever sought to verify Obama's claim to a Hawaiian birth.
Both the petition and the billboard campaign are part of what Farah calls an independent "truth and transparency campaign."
The first sign to be posted under the week-old campaign, a digital, electronic one, is up and online on Highway 165 in Ball, La. In addition, based on the heavy volume of financial donations in the first two days of the campaign, WND was able to commit to leasing two more standard billboards – one in Los Angeles and the other in Pennsylvania. It will take several weeks to get those billboards up because of the vinyl printing and shipping involved. Yesterday, WND agreed to lease another electronic billboard in Orange County, Calif.
While the campaign is off to a robust start, many viewers have asked why Obama's name is not included in the billboard. Farah said the matter was carefully considered.
"There are several reasons we chose the message: 'Where's the birth certificate?'" he explained. "There is only one birth certificate controversy in this country today – despite the near-total absence of this issue from coverage in the non-WND media. This is a grass-roots issue that resonates around the country, as our own online petition with nearly 400,000 signers suggests. In addition, I like the simplicity of the message. I like the fact that the message will cause some people to ask themselves or others about the meaning of the message. It will stir curiosity. It will create a buzz. I'm assuming when these billboards are springing up all over the country, it might even make some in the news media curious. And there's one more factor that persuaded me this was the way to go.
"Come 2012, campaign laws will pose restrictions on political advertising mentioning the names of presidential candidates. This one clearly doesn't. I would like to see the federal government make the case that this is somehow a political ad," he said.
Farah said the campaign was born of frustration with timid elected officials in Washington, corrupt judges around the country and a news media that show a stunning lack of curiosity about the most basic facts of Obama's background – especially how it relates to constitutional eligibility for the highest office in the land.
"As Obama transforms this country from self-governing constitutional republic to one governed by a central ruling elite, the simple fact remains that no controlling legal authority has established that he is indeed a 'natural born citizen' as the Constitution requires," Farah said. "Obama's promises of transparency have become a bad joke as he continues to hide simple, innocuous documents like his birth certificate and his student records."
The idea behind the billboard campaign is to make sure Obama cannot avoid this question any longer. He must be asked to produce it at every turn, Farah says. Billboard space is currently being hunted in Houston, Dallas, Sacramento, San Francisco, Seattle and other metro areas.
"Is it unusual for a news agency to launch such a campaign?" asks Farah. "Yes it is. But we live in very unusual times. The founding fathers built special protections into the First Amendment for the free press. The reason they did that is because they understood a vibrant 'Fourth Estate' was necessary as an independent watchdog on government. It is in that tradition that WND assumes this role – since nobody else in the press will do it."
WND previously launched a petition campaign that has collected more than 375,000 names demanding Obama's eligibility be verified and demonstrated publicly. That campaign continues. That list has been shared with members of the Electoral College and the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.
"I wish such a campaign were not absolutely necessary," said Farah. "I wish there were checks and balances in our political and electoral systems to ensure that constitutional eligibility of presidential candidates was established before politicians could assume the highest office in the land. I wish my colleagues in the news media believed the Constitution really means what it says and pressed this issue as hard as we have pressed it at WND. I wish radio talk-show hosts were bold enough to ask this question. But wishing is not enough. It's time to raise the visibility of this issue vital to the rule of law in America. I ask everyone to pitch in and help WND make a simple yet profound statement: The Constitution still matters."
*******
Obama flack laughs off birth certificate question
'It's on the Internet, Lester,' claims Gibbs at White House briefing
Posted: May 27, 2009
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=99342
WASHINGTON – Somebody finally asked Barack Obama's White House press secretary about the president's elusive birth certificate.
When asked by WND White House correspondent Les Kinsolving why the president, who has pledged transparency in his administration, would not release his long-form birth certificate to establish his constitutional eligibility for office, spokesman Robert Gibbs guffawed in unison with members of the Washington press corps about the concerns of 400,000 petitioners who have demanded it.
"Are you looking for the president's birth certificate?" he asked incredulously. "Lester, this question in many ways continues to astound me. The state of Hawaii provided a copy with the seal of the president's birth. I know there are apparently at least 400,000 people – (laughter) – that continue to doubt the existence of and the certification by the state of Hawaii of the president's birth there, but it's on the Internet because we put it on the Internet for each of those 400,000 to download. I certainly hope by the fourth year of our administration that we'll have dealt with this burgeoning birth controversy."
It was the first time any member of the press corps has publicly asked a member of the administration a question directly related to Obama's constitutional eligibility for office as a "natural born citizen."
The question comes as the controversy is heating up nationally – sparked in part by a new billboard campaign asking the question: "Where's the birth certificate?" The campaign has also raised more than $50,000 in contributions from the public.
The ongoing petition campaign was launched several months ago by WND Editor and Chief Executive Officer Joseph Farah. Just last week, Farah announced the billboard campaign to raise public awareness of the fact that Obama has never released the standard, "long-form" birth certificate that would show which hospital he was born in, the attending physician and establish that he truly was born in Hawaii, as his autobiography maintains.
The "Certification of Live Birth" posted online and widely touted as "Obama's birth certificate" does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same "short-form" document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii. The true "long-form" birth certificate – which includes information like the name of the birth hospital and attending physician – is the only document that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not permitted its release for public or press scrutiny.
Oddly, though congressional hearings were held to determine whether Sen. John McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president as a "natural born citizen," no controlling legal authority ever sought to verify Obama's claim to a Hawaiian birth.
Both the petition and the billboard campaign are part of what Farah calls an independent "the truth and transparency campaign."
At today's White House briefing, Gibbs was contentious with Kinsolving before he ever asked his question. Calling on WND's longtime correspondent, he said: "Lester, I'm a glutton for punishment."
Kinsolving said: "Thank you, thank you, very much. Just one question concerning what the president said in his speech on Thursday, and I quote, 'I ran for president promising transparency, and I meant what I said. This is why, whenever possible, we will make information available to the American people so they can make informed judgments and hold us accountable.' End of quote. Do you remember that statement?"
Gibbs: "I can confirm that he said that."
Kinsolving: "Good. In consideration of this very good promise of transparency, why can't the president respond to the petition to requests of 400,000 American citizens by releasing a certified copy of his long-form birth certificate listing hospital – (laughter) – 400,000. …"
Gibbs: "Are you looking for the President's birth certificate?"
Kinsolving: "Yes."
Gibbs: "It's on the Internet, Lester."
Kinsolving: "No, no, no -- the long form listing his hospital and physician." (Laughter.)
Gibbs: "Lester, this question in many ways continues to astound me. The state of Hawaii provided a copy with the seal of the President's birth. I know there are apparently at least 400,000 people – (laughter) – that continue to doubt the existence of and the certification by the state of Hawaii of the president's birth there, but it's on the Internet because we put it on the Internet for each of those 400,000 to download. I certainly hope by the fourth year of our administration that we'll have dealt with this burgeoning birth controversy."
And with that, Gibbs ended the briefing.
"This is what the White House thinks of American citizens who take the Constitution seriously," said Farah in response to Gibbs' response. "I think I speak for the 400,000 petitioners when I say disregard for the Constitution is no laughing matter."
Farah was pleased, however, that the question was finally asked of a member of the administration – in public and on the record. He said it is likely to provide new impetus to the petition and billboard campaigns.
The first sign to be posted under the week-old campaign, a digital, electronic one, is up and online on Highway 165 in Ball, La. In addition, based on the heavy volume of financial donations in the first two days of the campaign, WND was able to commit to leasing two more standard billboards – one in Los Angeles and the other in Pennsylvania. It will take several weeks to get those billboards up because of the vinyl printing and shipping involved. Yesterday, WND agreed to lease another electronic billboard in Orange County, Calif.
Birth certificate question being raised in Ball, La.
While the campaign is off to a robust start, many viewers have asked why Obama's name is not included in the billboard. Farah said the matter was carefully considered.
"There are several reasons we chose the message: 'Where's the birth certificate?'" he explained. "There is only one birth certificate controversy in this country today – despite the near-total absence of this issue from coverage in the non-WND media. This is a grass-roots issue that resonates around the country, as our own online petition with nearly 400,000 signers suggests. In addition, I like the simplicity of the message. I like the fact that the message will cause some people to ask themselves or others about the meaning of the message. It will stir curiosity. It will create a buzz. I'm assuming when these billboards are springing up all over the country, it might even make some in the news media curious. And there's one more factor that persuaded me this was the way to go.
"Come 2012, campaign laws will pose restrictions on political advertising mentioning the names of presidential candidates. This one clearly doesn't. I would like to see the federal government make the case that this is somehow a political ad," he said.
Farah said the campaign was born of frustration with timid elected officials in Washington, corrupt judges around the country and a news media that show a stunning lack of curiosity about the most basic facts of Obama's background – especially how it relates to constitutional eligibility for the highest office in the land.
"As Obama transforms this country from self-governing constitutional republic to one governed by a central ruling elite, the simple fact remains that no controlling legal authority has established that he is indeed a 'natural born citizen' as the Constitution requires," Farah said. "Obama's promises of transparency have become a bad joke as he continues to hide simple, innocuous documents like his birth certificate and his student records."
The idea behind the billboard campaign is to make sure Obama cannot avoid this question any longer. He must be asked to produce it at every turn, Farah says. Billboard space is currently being hunted in Houston, Dallas, Sacramento, San Francisco, Seattle and other metro areas.
"Is it unusual for a news agency to launch such a campaign?" asks Farah. "Yes it is. But we live in very unusual times. The founding fathers built special protections into the First Amendment for the free press. The reason they did that is because they understood a vibrant 'Fourth Estate' was necessary as an independent watchdog on government. It is in that tradition that WND assumes this role – since nobody else in the press will do it."
WND previously launched a petition campaign that has collected more than 375,000 names demanding Obama's eligibility be verified and demonstrated publicly. That campaign continues. That list has been shared with members of the Electoral College and the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.
"I wish such a campaign were not absolutely necessary," said Farah. "I wish there were checks and balances in our political and electoral systems to ensure that constitutional eligibility of presidential candidates was established before politicians could assume the highest office in the land. I wish my colleagues in the news media believed the Constitution really means what it says and pressed this issue as hard as we have pressed it at WND. I wish radio talk-show hosts were bold enough to ask this question. But wishing is not enough. It's time to raise the visibility of this issue vital to the rule of law in America. I ask everyone to pitch in and help WND make a simple yet profound statement: The Constitution still matters."
*******

*******
What Can We Do?By Lynn Stuter
May 19, 2009
NewsWithViews.com
http://www.newswithviews.com/Stuter/stuter159.htm
The evidence concerning the eligibility of Also Known As (AKA) Obama to the office of president is really quite simple.
Regarding the document AKA claims is his birth certificate:
1. That document is not a birth certificate; it is a Certification of Live Birth; an entirely different document than the birth certificate.2. No one, outside a very select group of people close to the AKA campaign, has actually seen the Certification of Live Birth document although innumerable pictures of it supposedly exist.3. The pictures of that document that appear on the internet do not constitute legal proof of anything.4. The pictures of the Certification of Live Birth that appear at, Daily Kos, Poliitfact.com, Fightthesmears.com, and latimesblogs.latimes.com (here, here, and here) have all been altered/forged. How do we know this? Because, as these are digital images, they are represented by digital files, ie, computer language which can be opened using a text editor program. Every digital file of these so-called "birth certificates" shows that the original digital file has been forged/altered. At this time, proof exists of at least three different computers being used to forge/alter these documents. This issue was addressed in my article, Bogus Documents Passed as Real Thing, with pictures provided of what the altered digital files disclose.5. The Department of Health, Hawaii, has stated, emphatically, that they cannot authenticate the document that AKA is presenting as his birth certificate, which is not a birth certificate but a Certification of Live Birth.6. The Department of Health, Hawaii, has produced no documents signed by AKA in which a request for his birth certificate or legal facsimile thereof has been made. Absent the proof that a written request was made by AKA to obtain his birth certificate or legal facsimile thereof, it can only be concluded that the COLB AKA is presenting is a forgery.7. There has been no proof presented that AKA was not born in Kenya as his step-grandmother claims, making him, at birth, a British citizen under the British Nationality Act of 1948; in 1961 Stanley Ann Dunham Obama was not of sufficient age to have conferred her citizenship to AKA if he was born in Kenya.8. Not one member of Congress has seen, touched, or examined AKA's actual long form birth certificate issued at the time of his birth.9. Not one member of Congress has seen, touched, or examined the Certification of Live Birth that AKA is presenting as his birth certificate.10. Not one member of Congress knows, with certainty, where or when AKA was born.
The issue of AKA's birth certificate and place of birth, however, becomes moot in consideration of the following:
1. AKA has stated that he was, at birth, a dual citizen. His admission to this is on his own factcheck.org website. This precludes him from eligibility as the Founding Fathers made it quite clear that Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 did not extend to individuals of dual loyalty, ie, dual citizenship, themselves excluded under the particular part of Clause 5 which reads "or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution …"2. On January 1, 1967 AKA was enrolled in the Fransiskus Assisi Primary School in Jakarta, Indonesia. The picture of that registration was taken by an Associated Press photographer, Tatan Syuflana, released on January 24, 2007 and appears at DailyLife.com. This picture shows AKA's name as Barry Soetoro (not Barack Hussein Obama); his father as Lolo Soetoro (not Barack Obama, Sr as shown on the COLB, the authenticity of which is in question), his citizenship as Indonesian (not American). There has been no documents provided that AKA had his name legally changed from Barry Soetoro to Barack Hussein Obama. This indicates that Barry Soetoro is his real name and Barrack Hussein Obama is an alias. The divorce papers of Lolo Soetoro and Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro indicate two children: 1 minor (Maya Soetoro) and one over 18 (Barry Soetoro). This indicates that Barry Soetoro is the legal child of Lolo Soetoro, if only by adoption.3. In late 1981, AKA, by his own admission, traveled to Pakistan and Indonesia. Could AKA have traveled on an American passport? The answer to that question is no. In 1981, Pakistan was on the U.S. State Department's no travel list. This means that AKA had to have traveled to Pakistan on a foreign passport. If AKA had been, at birth, a United States Citizen, he could have reclaimed his citizenship at the age of 18. That he traveled to Pakistan in 1981, at the age of 20, on a foreign passport means that he was not, at the age of 20, an American citizen; that he did not, at the age of 18, reclaim his American citizen (if he had a right to reclaim it in the first place). This means that the most AKA can be is a naturalized American citizen. There is no proof that he is even that. Such precludes him from eligibility under Article II, Section I, Clause 5, United States Constitution.
People ask, "What can we do about this?" The courts, both state and federal, have refused to address the issue. We hear rumors that judges, Supreme Court Justices, and elected representatives in Congress have been told to leave the issue alone, to not address it.
If that is the case, as I and many others suspect it is—if by no other evidence than the consistent refusal of the courts and Congress to address this issue, such should be a very clear message to the American people that …
1. They did not elect AKA; the election was fixed; vote fraud was rampant. In the day and age of electronic voting machines that can be programmed to insure a specific outcome, this is highly likely. What this also means is that the claim that 66,000,000 people voted for AKA is bogus, that the number who actually voted for AKA could actually be quite low.
2. The people "elected" (remember that when elections are fixed via programming of electronic voting machines, the winner is selected, not elected) to serve in Washington, DC, represent no one but those who selected them; in this case the same shadow government that selected AKA.
On May 15, 2009, Michigan News published an excellent article by Sher Zieve entitled The Fast and Furious Growth of the Obama Dictatorship. In that article Zieve provided a list of despotic actions, taken by AKA, to destroy this nation:
1. Forced impoverishment of the US population (it’s easier to control the poor than it is the rich).2. Full power of US government to be exerted against Obama opposition.3. End of legal contracts—­IE Chrysler bondholders—­if Obama doesn’t like them.4. HUGE political pay back to Obama’s friends and gutting of economy for We-the-People taxpayers.5. Obama-supporting/opposition-suppressing youth goon squads being put in place.6. Enforced limited or non-existent free speech.7. Enforced limited or virtually non-existent citizen mobility.8. Obama-determined US workers’ monetary compensation.9. Obama and his officials to determine who is allowed to live and who should die.
I will add one more to that list:
10. total disarmament of the American people such that defense against Obama's tyrannical policies is not possible.
On April 29, 2009, Representative Peter King (D-NY) introduced H.R. 2159. This bill sets about to deny the right to keep and bear arms to anyone who is "appropriately suspected" of being a terrorist.
But, you rationalize, terrorists wear white robes and live in places like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and Iraq; they have weird sounding names and are associated with al-Qaida, Islamic fundamentalists and Osama bin Laden. Why wouldn't we want to keep firearms out of the hands of these types?
Understand that how you define "terrorist" is not how AKA—bowing in fealty to the royalty of Saudi Arabia, kissing up to the leaders of the Middle East, and more than strongly suggesting his worldview finds basis in Islam—define "terrorist."
According to reports put out by AKA and minions, being the denigrators of all that is America (including freedom) that they are, the paradigm has been shifted.
Remember that under a paradigm shift, that which was down is now up, and that which was up is now down.
As such, according to AKA and minions, foreigners intent on destroying America are not terrorists, they are "man-caused disasters" (undoubtedly, according to AKA and minions, the fault of the United States) while you are a terrorist if you oppose the Marxist policies of AKA, as duly noted in various documents put out under their aegis. Those documents can be read here, here, and here (requires Adobe reader).
This, of course, places you under the heading "appropriately suspected" terrorist; giving the government the right to deny you your Second Amendment Rights.
Remember the words of a wise man — he who is willing to give up freedom for security will, in the end, lose both freedom and security (Benjamin Franklin, paraphrased).
Following in the footsteps of Bush—the man AKA scorned vociferously before being elected, AKA and his minions are playing on the fear of the America people—of what "might happen"—to take from them their rights. This is the schmuck who said, a few short months ago, that he would not operate on fear. Just another lie told by a snake oil salesmen who has told so many lies that it's hard to keep up with them all.
On May 13, 2009, Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), known for her opposition to the Second Amendment, introduced H.R. 2401. This bill sets about to deny the right to keep and bear arms to anyone who ends up on the "no fly" list. The bill is called the "No Fly, No Buy Act of 2009."
No due process, no need to prove you are actually a threat to the people of this nation, your rights will be denied if you end up on a no fly list for whatever reason, whether by some joker at the airport that didn't like the way you looked or some government hack making the kind of mistake they are prone to making!
There is, of course, no end to the possibilities this slippery slope provides. The bottom line is that this is back-door gun control and the intention is to disarm the American people.
People continually ask what can they do.
I will ask people, in response,
1. Do you want to live under the oppressive Marxist government that AKA is rapidly establishing with the help and support of Congress?2. Do you truly believe that someone as greedy for power as AKA is going to back off if asked nicely to do so?3. Do you truly believe that, given their track record of ignoring the Constitution, Senators and Representative to Congress are going to stand by their oath to protect and defend the United States Constitution?4. Do you truly believe judges, given their track record in dismissing cases out-of-hand brought regarding AKA's eligibility to the office of president, are going to stand by their oath to protect and defend the United States Constitution?
If your answer to these questions is no, then you already know what the answer to this unfolding situation is.
This is our country. It is not AKA's country. The evidence shows that he is not even a citizen of this country. For those in Congress who have refused to stand by their oath to protect and defend the United States Constitution, this is also not their country. In refusing to protect and defend it, they are nothing short of traitors. The same is true of the judges.
As established (and irrespective of AKA's ignorant remarks to the contrary), the power in this country flows from God to the people to the government, establishing inalienable rights; the legitimate government being of the people, by the people, and for the people.
We must remember that those who are doers of Satan's evil fear, above all others, God, for it is God who can snatch victory from the jaws of what seems to be inevitable defeat. Remember David and Goliath. Remember that so long as we walk with God, Satan walks in fear.
We must, first and foremost, walk with God and seek the wisdom and council of God.
Recommended reading:
1. Barack's Epistle to the Egyptians
10. How America lost its freedom (an what Americans must do to get it back)
*******
Anti-Obama Fringe to Descend Upon Supreme Court Tomorrow
Jake Tapper
December 04, 2008 5:32 PM
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/12/anti-obama-frin.html
The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court will tomorrow discuss whether or not it should take up the case of Leo C. Donofrio, Applicant, v. Nina Mitchell Wells, New Jersey Secretary of State, a case that challenges the citizenship of President-elect Obama.
After the Justices meet -- and assuredly decline to hear the matter -- the anti-Obama activists supporting the case will hold a vigil near the steps of the highest Court in the land.
The theory -- which is without evidence -- is that Mr. Obama's birth certificate is faked, and that he was not born in Hawaii but rather Kenya, making him ineligible for the presidency. (Or, alternately, that the birth certificate proves only that Mr. Obama was born at some point, not that he was born in Hawaii.)
The Obama campaign says that's nonsense, that he was born in Hawaii, has a birth certificate, and is a natural born U.S. citizen. Period.
As Hawaii's Pacific Business News reported in October: "The director of Hawaii’s Department of Health confirmed on Friday what Barack Obama has been saying all along: the presidential candidate was born in Honolulu. 'There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate,' said Chiyome Fukino. 'State law prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record.' Citing her statutory authority to oversee and maintain Hawaii’s vital records, Fukino said she has 'personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures. No state official, including Gov. Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawaii,' Fukino added."
As today's Chicago Tribune points out, Donofrio's case is just the most successful of many such cases that seek to somehow prove that Obama is not an American. Among the other applicants: eccentric conservative commentator and erstwhile Obama Senate opponent Alan Keyes, Pennsylvania attorney Philip J. Berg (who also has interesting theories about how President Bush played a role in the 9/11 terrorist attacks), an anti-Semite -- and assorted other interesting characters.
*******
Obama Natural Born Citizen?, Leo Donofrio explains, Donofrio lawsuit, US Supreme Court Appeal, Obama not eligible, Obama’s father Kenyan, Donofrio interprets Constitution
November 23, 2008
http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2008/11/23/obama-natural-born-citizen-leo-donofrio-explains-donofrio-lawsuit-us-supreme-court-appeal-obama-not-eligible-obamas-father-kenyan-donofrio-interprets-constitution/
There has been much confusion regarding Barack Obama’s eligibility and the aspect of Leo Donofrio’s lawsuit that sets it apart is his claim that Obama does not meet the constitutional definition of Natural Born Citizen. Here is an explanation from Leo Donofrio:
“Don’t be distracted by the birth certificate and Indonesia issues. They are irrelevant to Senator Obama’s ineligibility to be President. Since Barack Obama’s father was a Citizen of Kenya and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of Senator Obama’s birth, then Senator Obama was a British Citizen “at birth”, just like the Framers of the Constitution, and therefore, even if he were to produce an original birth certificate proving he were born on US soil, he still wouldn’t be eligible to be President.
The Framers of the Constitution, at the time of their birth, were also British Citizens and that’s why the Framers declared that, while they were Citizens of the United States, they themselves were not “natural born Citizens”.
Hence their inclusion of the grandfather clause in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution: No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President; That’s it right there. (Emphasis added.)
The Framers wanted to make themselves eligible to be President, but they didn’t want future generations to be Governed by a Commander In Chief who had split loyalty to another Country. The Framers were comfortable making an exception for themselves. They did, after all, create the Constitution. But they were not comfortable with the possibility of future generations of Presidents being born under the jurisdiction of Foreign Powers, especially Great Britain and its monarchy, who the Framers and Colonists fought so hard in the American Revolution to be free of.
The Framers declared themselves not eligible to be President as “natural born Citizens”, so they wrote the grandfather clause in for the limited exception of allowing themselves to be eligible to the Presidency in the early formative years of our infant nation.
But nobody alive today can claim eligibility to be President under the grandfather clause since nobody alive today was a citizen of the US at the time the Constitution was adopted.
The Framers distinguished between “natural born Citizens” and all other “Citizens”. And that’s why it’s important to note the 14th Amendment only confers the title of “Citizen”, not “natural born Citizen”. The Framers were Citizens, but they weren’t natural born Citizens. They put the stigma of not being natural born Citizens on themselves in the Constitution and they are the ones who wrote the Document. Since the the Framers didn’t consider themselves to have been “natural born Citizens” due to their having been subject to British jurisdiction at their birth, then Senator Obama, having also been subject to British jurisdiction at the time of his birth, also cannot be considered a “natural born Citizen” of the United States.Brack Obama’s official web site, Fight The Smears, admits he was a British Citizen at birth. At the very bottom of the section of his web site that shows an alleged official Certification Of Live Birth, the web site lists the following information and link thereto: FactCheck.org Clarifies Barack’s Citizenship
“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.
Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”
That is a direct admission Barack Obama was a British citizen “at birth”.
My law suit argues that since Obama had dual citizenship “at birth” and therefore split loyalties “at birth”, he is not a “natural born citizen” of the United States. A “natural born citizen” would have no other jurisdiction over him “at birth” other than that of the United States. The Framers chose the words “natural born” and those words cannot be ignored. The status referred to in Article 2, Section 1, “natural born citizen”, pertains to the status of the person’s citizenship “at birth”.
The other numerous law suits circling Obama to question his eligibility fail to hit the mark on this issue. Since Obama was, “at birth”, a British citizen, it is completely irrelevant, as to the issue of Constitutional “natural born citizen” status, whether Obama was born in Hawaii or abroad. Either way, he is not eligible to be President.
Should Obama produce an original birth certificate showing he was born in Hawaii, it will not change the fact that Obama was a British citizen “at birth”. Obama has admitted to being a British subject “at birth”. And as will be made perfectly clear below, his being subject to British jurisdiction “at birth” bars him from being eligible to be President of the United States.
As I have argued before the United States Supreme Court, the 14th Amendment does not confer “natural born citizen” status anywhere in its text. It simply states that a person born in the United States is a “Citizen”, and only if he is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.
Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States:
“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
The most overlooked words in that section are: “…or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution…” You must recall that most, if not all, of the framers of the Constitution were, at birth, born as British subjects.
Stop and think about that.
The chosen wording of the Framers here makes it clear that they had drawn a distinction between themselves – persons born subject to British jurisdiction – and “natural born citizens” who would not be born subject to British jurisdiction or any other jurisdiction other than the United States. And so the Framers grandfathered themselves into the Constitution as being eligible to be President. But the grandfather clause only pertains to any person who was a Citizen… at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution. Obama was definitely not a Citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution and so he is not grandfathered in.
And so, for Obama or anybody else to be eligible to be President, they must be a “natural born citizen” of the United States “at birth”. It should be obvious that the Framers intended to deny the Presidency to anybody who was a British subject “at birth”. If this had not been their intention, then they would not have needed to include a grandfather clause which allowed the Framers themselves to be President.”
*******