Alan Keyes Sues Obama To Produce Original, Full Length, Birth Certificate

Loading

You may recall the lawsuit alleging that Obama is not eligible to be President of the United States due to the fact that he is not a natural born citizen. The big problem for that suit is standing.

Now we have a suit with plaintiff’s who have standing. (h/t Ace of Spades HQ)

keyeslawsuit.jpg

Alan Keyes, Presidential candidate of the American Independent Party, Wiley S. Drake, V.P. candidate of the Independent Party and California elector, and Markham Robinson, California elector have filed this lawsuit to prevent California from certifying their electors until satisfactory proof is produced that Obama is in fact a natural born citizen:

Legal Basis

62. Article II, Section I of the United States Constitution, states, in pertinent part, as follows:

“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;”

63. Senator Barack H. Obama is a candidate for the Office of the President of the United States. However, to assume such office, Senator Obama must meet the qualifications specified for the Office of the President of the United States, which includes that he must be a “natural born” citizen. Senator Obama has failed to demonstrate that he is a “natural born” citizen. There are other legal challenges before various state and federal courts regarding aspects of lost or dual citizenship concerning Senator Obama. Those challenges, in and of themselves, demonstrate Petitioners’ argument that reasonable doubt exists as to the eligibility of the Democratic Party’s nominee for President.

64. SOS is responsible for ensuring the validity of the State election process by, among other things, verifying the qualifications of the voters, approving the ballots and the candidates, supervising the counting of the ballots, and certifying the results. This certification of the vote by SOS, based upon which Electors received the highest number of votes in the state, is the method provided for in California law for ascertaining which Electors are appointed to vote for president (California Elections Code §15505, 3 U.S.C. § 6). On December 1, or as soon as soon as the election results have been received from all counties in the state, SOS shall certify the names of the ascertained Electors to the Governor, and then transmit to each presidential Elector a certificate of election (California Elections Code § 15505). The Governor then issues and seals a Certificate of Ascertainment which is delivered to the Electors by December 15 (3 U.S.C. § 6), who then meet to sign the Certificate of Vote (Federal Election Code §192.006). The office of SOS is intended to be non-biased and to provide the critical sense of fairness and impartiality necessary for the people to have faith in the fundamental underpinnings of the democratic basis for our elections.

65. There is a reasonable and common expectation by the voters that to qualify for the ballot, the individuals running for office must meet minimum qualifications as outlined in the federal and state Constitutions and statutes, and that compliance with those minimum qualifications has been confirmed by the officials overseeing the election process. Heretofore, only a signed statement from the candidate attesting to his or her meeting those qualifications was requested and received by SOS, with no verification demanded. This practice represents a much lower standard than that demanded of one when requesting a California driver’s license. Since SOS has, as its core, the mission of certifying and establishing the validity of the election process, this writ seeks a Court Order barring SOS from certifying the California Electors until documentary proof that Senator Obama is a “natural born” citizen of the United States of America is received by her. This proof could include items such as his original birth certificate, showing the name of the hospital and the name and the signature of the doctor, all of his passports with immigration stamps, and verification from the governments where the candidate has resided, verifying that he did not, and does not, hold citizenship of these countries, and any other documents that certify an individual’s citizenship and/or qualification for office.

It’s very simple to solve this issue. Show the damn birth certificate and have it certified. It takes a few minutes and is not a invasion of privacy considering he is going to be the people’s President.

Other interesting parts in the lawsuit:

…From August 21, 2008, for over two months, Senator Obama has refused to provide his original birth certificate, even though, in his book, Dreams of My Father, page 26, he states, “… I found the article folded between my birth certificate and old immunization records…” which shows that he clearly has his birth certificate, or that he lied in his book. Particularly telling is the fact that not one single person has come forward, not a doctor, not a nurse, not a hospital administrator, nor anyone else, to state that he or she was present during this birth, except for Obama’s paternal grandmother, who affirmed that she “was in the delivery room in Kenya when he was born Aug. 4, 1961.” Additionally, when Mr. Berg served subpoenas on the hospitals mentioned above, Senator Obama refused to sign a consent form that would allow the hospitals to release any of his information. Instead, Senator Obama has hired three law firms to defend himself, and has challenged the action by Mr. Berg on a technicality, claiming that an ordinary citizen does not have standing to bring the suit.

And:

80. If he was born in Hawaii, there are four (4) other obstacles to Senator Obama’s eligibility. In and about 1967, Senator Obama moved to Indonesia, took the last name of his stepfather, Soetoro, and went by the name Barry Soetoro. In original legal action filed by Mr. Berg, he presented Senator Obama’s school registration, showing him registered as Barry Soetoro, Citizenship-Indonesian, Religion Islam, signed by L. Soetoro. From 1945, Indonesia has not allowed dual citizenship and, therefore, Ms. Dunham-Obama-Soetoro, Senator Obama’s mother, had to relinquish her son’s U.S.citizenship in order to obtain Indonesian citizenship for him, which would make him ineligible to become a United States President. Additionally, the United States could not allow dual citizenship with Indonesia at that time, as Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship, and it was prohibited by the Hague Convention of 1930, as interfering with the internal affairs of another sovereign Country.

81. In addition, upon return to the United States in and around 1971-1972, Senator Obama would have been required to go to the then current immigration procedures to regain his U.S. citizenship. There is no record of him ever doing that. Even if he had done so, he would be considered a naturalized citizen and not a “natural born” citizen.

82. Additionally, assuming Senator Obama was born in what is now Kenya, at the time of Senator Obama’s birth in 1961, (now) Kenya was the British Protectorate of Zanzibar and Senator Obama was automatically accorded a form of British citizenship under Section 32(1) of the British Nationality Act of 1948, effective date January 28, 1949, based on his father’s citizenship.

83. Finally, in 1981, Senator Obama traveled to Pakistan, when there was a ban for U.S. citizens to travel to Pakistan. The only logical possibility for him to do so was by using one of his other passports: Indonesian, Kenyan, or British.

Produce the original full length passport and the case is done…..quite easy. And the fact that he won’t is keeping this story alive.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
115 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

As for the questions of dual citizenship and the use of a non-US Passport, the answers can be found here:

http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html

In which it seems, to my limited legal layman’s eyes, that Obama is also covered.

As for the releasing of the certificate, it is my understanding that there are legalities surrounding the disclosure of anything but a copy. I know I cannot go to the city in which I was born and ask for the original. I could be wrong about this, but if it is indeed a legal matter, Obama may not be able to get around it. If all the other questions here were not answered to my satisfaction, and did not cover all possible scenarios, I would definitely look into it more. But, as it stands, it seems more of an unnecessary procedural move at best.

@Cary:

Do you have a link to the law that you reference?

Larry,

I believe that if this lands at SCOTUS, they will dq Obama faster than you can say, “The Warren Court wasn’t radical enough,” and I think the Keyes suit is much better written than Berg’s and it gives much more compelling arguments — such as the Eldridge Cleaver argument.

Cary,

Look at this quote from your link: “However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country.” The obligatory allegiance required of dual citizens is the red flag — much more when the allegiance, or loyalty, is natural from birth. It’s an obvious, and “natural,” conflict of interest that the founding fathers preempted.

Larry, as a fellow Liberal Democrat and Obama supporter

Heh. Never been mistaken for either of those before, although the first one would have made sense several hundred years ago.

The Constitution is the foundation of how our country is run, and no threats of mass hysteria rioting should ever be allowed to void it.

I hope I did not say “should”. But I did certainly mean “would”.

Aye, I’m currently looking for the actual law, if I can find access to it. But the news sources I’ve read, which are on both ends of the political spectrum, cites the law. Sorry I can’t do better at the moment.

CTN – from what I’ve read, there has yet to be an official ruling as to what the Founding Fathers provided for this. Since this has yet to be officially settled, your opinion is just that – an opinion. You could very well be right, but it’s unclear. But it seems to me that if this issue were only being brought up by private citizens, and not senior GOP members, the FBI, CIA, ect… it’s probably a non-issue.

Larry – I confused your posts with the other Larry, who also commented. Sorry ’bout that.

Cary,

You are absolutely correct. We are all voicing our mere opinions and I hope that I’m not leaving the impression that I believe I am an authority, because I’m not. I’ve read enough, however, to know that the founding fathers did not require “natural born citizenship” in the executive office for no apparent reason and that this matter will not be resolved if Obama decides to show us a certified copy of his birth certificate.

Moreover, it is fallacious to argue that since “private citizens” have broached this issue as opposed to “senior GOP members, the FBI, CIA, etc., it’s probably a non-issue.” Never underestimate the work of private citizens in a “government of the people, by the people, for the people.” Besides, if “senior GOP members, the FBI, CIA, etc.,” had vetted Obama for his origin, someone would have come forward to put an end this vexing question. But as Keyes noted in his lawsuit, the only person to come forward throughout this travesty is Obama’s grandmother in Kenya, and she claimed that she was present when her grandson was born — in Kenya! And I quote:

“Particularly telling is the fact that not one single person has come forward, not a doctor, not a nurse, not a hospital administrator, nor anyone else, to state that he or she was present during this birth, except for Obama’s paternal grandmother, who affirmed that she ‘was in the delivery room in Kenya when he was born Aug. 4, 1961.’”

CTN,

Your points are well taken. I have no idea why someone present at his birth in HI would not come forth. Perhaps it could have something to do with the fact that, in the US, the burden of proof is always on the accuser.

I agree with you that private citizens not only have the power, but also the responsibility to broach legal matters. However, in this case, the District Courts seemed to have deemed otherwise:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born_citizen#Cases_in_other_courts_relating_specifically_to_the_.22natural_born_citizen.22_clause

With all the potential scenarios that could take place here, the scariest one to my mind is the thought that SCOTUS would cave to the threat of violence instead of upholding Constitutional law.

In other words, if it turns out that the Supremes believe that Obama does not satisfy the “natural born citizen” requirement, but they don’t rule against him because of a well-grounded fear that his supporters would riot in the streets and cause complete and total chaos across the land, then ultimately SCOTUS would abdicate their sworn duty to uphold the US Constitution, surrendering lawful government to anarchy and relinquishing their judicial authority to a Chicago thug. This would spell the end of the US as we know it, introducing rule by an iron fist.

CTN,

Here, we agree entirely.

Cary, your mention of dual citizenship would hold true in cases where the US had a treaty with the other country and vice versa… Neither Kenya or Indonesia had dual citizenship agreements with the US at the time that Obama held citizenship in those countries. At least that is the allegation in the lawsuits.

For those of you interested in learning more about Obama and the citizenship issue, go to this site:

Homepage

and check the Berg v Obama threads. (in the right hand column)

He has some other posts that are definitely worth reading.

For still more info, check out:

http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/

TD doesn’t have a searchable blog, but most of this type of info was during Oct., so check the October archives.

Lets be clear here, If Obama was born in Hawaii then he is a natural born citizen.

His mother’s age or fathers citizenship doesn’t matter.

As long as Barack Obama was born on U.S soil, then he is a natural born citizen.

Now, if you can prove, and when I say prove, I mean have ACTUAL Documents, that prove Obama was born OUTSIDE of the United states.

Then that’s another story.

But, as it stands now, Obama is a natural born citizen of the United states.

The Consitution doesn’t regonize dual citizenship{as for as I know}.

If Obama was born on U.S soil then he is a natural born Citizen.

Now as for the Offiical Birth Certificate.

As said before, Fackcheak. org has proof of the Birth Certificate {and I forgot to mention Politico.com has the proof as well}

Hawaii State Officials have it also and have made statements on the record, that the Birth Certificate is Valid.

Also an Hawaiin Newspaper had Obama’s Birthday on its newspaper in April On Obama’s birthday.

AND Barack Obama went to Highschool in Hawaii. If he didn’t have a Valid Birth Certificate how could he have gone to a Hawaiin highschool?

Now, these lawsuits that are going around, including the Keyes case are truely laghable.

Considering these facts:

1. Obama was born on U.S soil{which makes him a natural born citizen.}

2. Alan keyes ran againts Obama for Senate back in Chicago and ran a nasty campaign againts him. And it would’nt look right to a lot of Americans if this were to get a lot of Media Coverage.

3. Hawaii Officials could easily give out the Birth Certificate and it would make Alan and the others who have filed lawsuits look stupid. {Btw, Obama has already sended out his Birth Certificate to the public, so these lawsuits trying to make him give it out, don’t make sence}

4. And Finally, if the GOP or Mcain campaign REALLY belived that this was an issue that they could use againts Obama, would’nt they have used it during the Campaign?

All these facts indicate that the Lawsuits {including the Alan keyes Suit} are a non-issue.

If the Obama camp. REALLY felt that this issue was a threat to them they would’nt have ignored{after they gave out his Birth Certificate to the public} like they did.

You don’t ignore things like this, if your a campaign.

Now to the people above who actually believe this mess.

I would like to ask yall some questions:

1.Why would Obama be an elected Senater if there was any question of his Citizenship?

2. As stated before, Obama went to High school in Hawaii. If Obama didn’t have a valid Birth Certificate how could he have gone to an Hawaiin Highschool?

3. Also, in case you don’t know, all Presidental Cannidates are investigated by the FBI and Secret Service.

So, if there was any question that he was not a “natural born citizen” would’nt they have addressed it??

4. Barack Obama went to Harvard Law School, how would he have gotten into that College if he didn’t have a valid Birth Certificate?

Last question:

And this is as obvious as it gets……..If Obama knew that he wasn’t a “natural born citizen” why would he even run for Office? It makes no sence.

Inconclusion, this whole issue has been out there sence the primarys.

And still the GOP and there supporters won’t let it go!

*smh*

It’s non-issue you guys.

Case Closed!!!!

@David: You make some strong points – I will just say that the Natural Born Citizen is required for the office of President, not for Senator.

But to your points I will add, as I’ve said before, that the legal burden of proof in on the accuser. The accused is not required to provided proof in his defense prior to that.

David,

I’m glad to respond to your points and arguments, wherever you make them, as well as your baseless assertions; however, let me state up front that persons such as you give fodder to persons such as me, because you are so completely ignorant of the questions at hand (not to mention your dreadful spelling).

You make several assertions vis-à-vis “natural born citizenship,” however you fail to substantiate your assertions with evidence, making this incredible conclusion, “But, as it stands now, Obama is a natural born citizen of the United states.”

In fact, as it stands now, no one knows anything about Barak Hussein Obama’s birth. We don’t know if he was born of a woman, hatched of an egg, or conceived in a pod, any more than we know if his entrance into this world took place in Hawaii, Kenya, Canada, Indonesia, or an alien spaceship. To be sure, we know more about Joe the Plumber’s private information, most of it obtained illegally, than we know about Obama’s birth.

Regarding the Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) on factcheck and on Obama’s website, please see comment # 40. The image is INVALID, which doesn’t mean anything because it’s irrelevant — it’s not a certified copy of an original birth certificate, stating the name of the hospital where the birth took place and signed by the attending physician.

Regarding your so-called “facts,” which you instruct us to “consider”: none of them are facts and therefore are unworthy of our consideration.

You ask:

“1. Why would Obama be an elected Senater if there was any question of his Citizenship?”

Because the US Constitution does not place a “natural born citizenship” requirement on senators.

“2. As stated before, Obama went to High school in Hawaii. If Obama didn’t have a valid Birth Certificate how could he have gone to an Hawaiin Highschool?”

Because a birth certificate is not required to enroll in high school. Think about it. You think that he had to produce a birth certificate to get into high school but he does not have to produce a birth certificate to get on the ballot. Try to be consistent.

“3. Also, in case you don’t know, all Presidental Cannidates are investigated by the FBI and Secret Service.”

Really? And when the FBI and the Secret Service conduct their investigations and discover that a presidential candidate has close associations to foreign and domestic terrorists, the law requires them to sit on the information? You’re dreaming.

“4. Barack Obama went to Harvard Law School, how would he have gotten into that College if he didn’t have a valid Birth Certificate?”

At this point you force us to conclude that you believe the standards to get into a Hawaiian public high school and Harvard University are higher than the standards to get on a national ballot to run for POTUS.

Finally, you ask, “If Obama knew that he wasn’t a “natural born citizen” why would he even run for Office?  It makes no sence.”

Answer: because Obama holds pretty much everyone in contempt and has demonstrated a level of hubris hithertofore unseen in any other candidate for president. When he isn’t flipping off his opponents, he’s thumbing his nose at common decency, and the act of defying Constitutional law is consistent with his well-established patterns of behavior.

Cary,

If you read Keyes’ suit, he points out that the burden is on the Secretary of State to prove Obama’s eligibility — hence his cause of action.

The burden of proof is on Obama. He refuses to provide it. Why? There must be a reason. What are they hiding? If nothing, then it is so simple, provide the document! Every american has to do this at one time or another. It is routine stuff. This guy has never been vetted by the media or anyone else. Never in our history have so many people voted for such an unknown quantity with no experience and a hidden past on some vague promise of CHANGE. Change to what? Communism? The stupidity of this country never ceases to amaze me. I for one will never be satisfied until the truth is known. There will always be doubt about whether or not he is legitimate and it will dog him until the question is answered. I don’t mind the fact that he won but if it turns out that he has deceived us, then, he belongs in jail for along time. At least people knew who Hillary Clinton was, like her or not. This guy is a blank slate and nothing that points to having any knowledge or experience for such a big job. The Presidency is not the next step up for community organizers. This guy missed every rung on the ladder and jumped right to the top. If we can’t find out who this guy is now, we might all be sorry later. Americans need to wake up and get enlightened or they shouldn’t be permitted to vote. It is too important to let a bunch of morons decide our fate. Polls have shown that the average Obama voter is as clueless as a tree stump about him and about poltics in general. They don’t know who their elected officials are. They don’t know who stands for what. They get their news from Saturday Night Live and The Daily Show with Jon Stewart or worse yet, from raving mad goofballs like Keith Olbermann on MSNBC. THis is not the way to run a country unless you want it to go down the toilet. Actually, there are many who want america destroyed to bring about The New World Order and One World Government and the morons play right into their hands. If you don’t know what you are voting for, you get what you deserve. Slavery!

I have read many of these articles regarding this subject Curt and you have done a very good job presenting the facts.

In the Berg suit Justice Souter has given President Elect Obama until December 1st to produce the long form of the Hawaii Birth Certificate.

This person that was just elected President may be born in Kenya, currently Citizen of Kenya, Citizen of Indonesia, and may not even be considered a U.S. Citizen.

Watching the video on what the Obama voters know is unbelievable to me, showing the terrible, terrible coverage of the mainstream media on the actual facts about Obama.

They should have asked the question, “Which candidate voted three times while he was State Senator from Illinois to throw a live baby away in a botched abortion?”

Those people would not have even known where Obama was from.

I was sitting at my table just after P. Clinton had been elected the first time and told my father-in-law that P. Clinton would be elected again in 4 years. My father-in-law looked at me and said, “The American people would never be that stupid.” I said to him, “You have overestimated the intelligence of the American people.

Sadly, I was correct and my father-in-law voted for Clinton in 4 years.

CTN… I go on vacation, and what a delight to check in remote and find *you*! First warning, David is our occasional in-house idiot… when she can get thru the spam filters. Yes, “david101” is a she, using various names of her friends to lend fake “support”. I’m glad you enjoy her. But like fake sugar, it will get old quickly, and leave a bad taste in your mouth.

But in this case, I’m glad she did… because reading your responses to her cut/paste campaign talking points just made me roar!

I haven’t had a chance to read Keyes’ briefs yet, so I’m happy to hear the arguments are better constructed than Berg’s.

But while I was catching up on this thread, I wanted to make a comment to Larry’s assertation that the SCOTUS would not DQ Obama, were the presentation argued successfully, because of fear of a civil war. And I see you already made my point for me in your #58 post…. that a SCOTUS that ignores the rule of law for anticipated repercussions is the end of the nation, as we know it.

BTW, Larry… I highly doubt that a lower court would DQ the President elect. No one wants that precedent on their bench record. They’d let the plaintiffs take it thru the legal food chain to the highest court for their opinion.

INRE Obama and this penchant for secrets of his past – I’m not sure what is more… hummm, what’s the word? somewhere inbetween astonishing and frightening… about Obama in general. We know few concrete specifics on Obama’s record. A man who feels he needs to publish several autobiographies for a life that is hardly mesmerizing until this frenzied primary and election. The things he has done… such as the Chicago Annenberg Challenge in conjunction with Bill Ayers… he refuses to use as a “reference” for his administrative skills. Perhaps because his only administrative experience is on record as a financial and educational failure, but certainly a political campaign fundraiser success.

From his medical records to his correspondence and IL Senate records (he was a virtual do-nothing Congressman in his short term), what Obama specializes in is “just words” and little documentation and experience to back even those.

Instead we have a nation of dewey-eyed faithful who toss aside any substantiation of the “just words” because they like the visual package.

It’s one thing for the electorate to become infatuated with a personality… a sad statement of analytical abilities and demands for transparency of the voting mind, perhaps. But it’s another thing for the DNC, the FEC and our justice system to toss aside the eligibility issue with but a “scoff” and take it all on an assumption. And thus far, that’s what’s been done.

Were Obama found to be ineligible, I certainly think more heads need to roll for such violation of responsibility. And personally, I don’t care if there are riots. The day we toss out the rule of law, the would-be-rioters have already seized the nation for their own.

MataHarley,

Thanks for the thumbs up; I must admit that I’ve done more venting than anything else here and I really appreciate the forum.

There’s one other thought, however, that I’d like to vent before I let go of this thread, and that’s the incomprehensible disinterest I see coming from the right on this subject, when the right has been so adamant on all the other issues surrounding the total lack of transparency about this complete stranger known as Barack Obama. With the “natural born citizen” controversy we have an issue that epitomizes his vagueness and how little we know about the man, yet I hear the pooh-poohing this issue with the same fervor as the left.

This is especially disconcerting when you consider that of all the points where Obama has obscured transparency — the extent of his relationship with Bill Ayers, why Khalid al Mansour advocated for his entrance into Harvard, the whereabouts of Columbia transcripts, etc. — this is the only issue that cuts to the heart of the US Constitution and Obama’s legal right to hold the office of POTUS. Yet despite this fact — and it is a FACT — the vast majority of the right dismisses the question of Obama’s constitutional eligibility for POTUS as “ho hum” or else filed in the category of “tin-foil hat,” without ever considering the merits of the arguments.

Therefore, whenever I see it broached on right-leaning blogs, I’ve decided to weigh in with thoughtful and factual arguments, hoping to demonstrate that Obama has a moral obligation, if not a legal obligation, to answer the questions raised by these lawsuits to assure those whom he intends to govern of his good faith, as well as the benefits of a Harvard education. Thus far, however, he has only assured me that intends to do business the Chicago way — a stiff middle finger held up high while he defies those who want to see him account.

By the way, comment 68 is factually incorrect. Justice Souter has NOT given President Elect Obama until December 1st to produce the long form of the Hawaii Birth Certificate. From Berg’s site:

“It is expected that the Court will decide whether or not to review Berg v. Obama after the Defendants file their response, and Mr. Berg has replied to the Defendant’s response.”
http://www.obamacrimes.com/index.php/news/52-us-supreme-court-awaits-response-to-berg-writ-of-certiorari-from-obama

On December 1, Obama’s legal team merely has to respond to Berg, which is not the same as producing a certified copy of his birth certificate. Given their track record, you can count on more obfuscation.

CTN, I understand the frustration with the entire nation’s laissez faire attitude towards Obama’s birth. Then again, I also have seen that the right tend to be cowed by the typical Alinsky assaults on facts… obscuring the issue by ridiculing the charge, and those that do the charging. They did this successfully with Ayers (because the GOP did not make the correct connections between Ayers and Obama thru the educational agenda), the Wright-Farrakhan-Khalid associations, etal.

Frankly, since the GOP advisors don’t seem to have a handle on how to present the issues and related associations, they are probably scared to death to tread on an issue fraught with new vs old immigration laws and precedents. If they attempted, it would just be made one more object of “distraction” and ridicule.

I’ve been watching Berg’s lawsuit primarily for quite some time. And now, with Alan Keyes suit, I will turn my attention to his. I’ve always liked Keyes. And now, thinking back on it, I have to wonder if Keyes noticed Berg’s suit, saw the flaw in the status of “standing”, and officially ran just to achieve sufficient standing in the court’s eyes.

But I’m ill equipped on this issue of Obama’s eligibility. I am curious, I am unbelievably irate at the Obama legal dodges. However this is a pattern with him on every action.

Yet the electorate still liked the visual package, and bought the conservative lies (tax cuts) oozing from Obama’s every speech. I’ve often said, if Obama committed a murder in full view of the faithful, they’d find some way to excuse it.

So now, it’s in the hands of the courts. And I hate to say that if they, too, dodge this proof and merely cast it aside, I fear we have fallen so far that it may be impossible to return to what the founding fathers had in mind with the separation of powers.

Not to mention that, frankly, the idea of a President Biden does not lift my spirits….

You make a lot of good points and I agree with every one of them — except I wouldn’t pin this year’s failure on the GOP so much as on John McCain. The day after the election, Rush a great observation; he said, “Did you see McCain’s concession speech last night? . . . His whole campaign was a concession!” McCain never connected Obama to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, just as he never connected Obama to Bill Ayers and the WUO. This was not a campaign mistake — it was a campaign catastrophe. It was also unforgivable. When McCain saw the Obama juggernaut crush Hillary, he had all summer to prepare his camp for the upcoming blitzkrieg — and when all the dust settled, you and I are sorely lamenting the incredible malfeasance of the McCain camp to do anything remarkable at all — let alone try to stop Obama. To be sure, McCain actually looked weaker than Hillary — at least she had the gumption to prosecute Obama with Wright and Ayers while McCain treated them as lepers — “hands off.”

Regarding Biden, I know I’m alone on this one, but he does not scare me at all. I see him as a typical Washington insider who would insure gridlock and not compromise national security, except through incompetence. Obama, however, scares me so much that he keeps me up at night. He and Michelle have made it clear to me that they despise the USA and all that it represents, and they despise it with the same level of hatred that Bill Ayers has for our country. And all of their radical associations only confirm to me that their contempt is comprehensive — it’s all encompassing, from sea to shining sea. This is what shocks me about the Obots. I can understand frustration with politics and I can understand a desire for “change,” whatever that means, but I cannot understand getting behind a radical ideologue who positively despises everything that makes our country great.

I am sick beyond belief.

PS: Like you, I have always appreciated Keyes. In fact, I supported him when he sought the GOP nomination. He’s got a sharp mind; he’s an excellent speaker; and he is a principled man. Too bad he wasn’t the first African-American president.

Wow, thanks CTN and the others for the interesting read. I really enjoyed all this. I knew about this issue since I heard Berg speak on “Crosstalk America” on the radio station WVCX. Pretty interesting. I seem to share the others skepticism about it being legitimate, but you begin to sway me. 😉

And I don’t think the second comma in the title is correct grammar? OR did Obama bend the rules on that too? 😉

Marbleblaster,

It’s one of the most common punctuation errors around. Someone, I don’t know who, made a rule that adjectives should be separated by commas, when the rule is that you should only separate adjectives with a comma when the comma stands as a replacement for the word “and,” or when the first adjective modifies the second. For example, “The fullest, most complete style manual is the Chicago Manual of Style.” Notice that the comma replaces the word “and,” and the words “most complete” act as an appositive to “fullest.”

However, you could also write, “The Chicago Manual of Style makes some people look like poor undisciplined writers because it fails to address this common mistake.” In this case, it could go either way, which leaves it to the writer to decide what word modifies what. And I decided that “poor” modifies “writer,” not “undisciplined.”

Subject: FOI request for Obama’s birth certificate –found on the internet at http://www.DailyJeff.com-has all 50 SOS emails-1 stop emailing!

FOI REQUEST TO ALL SOS FOR OBAMA’S BIRTH CERTIFICATE
We need to find out what the SOS of the various States know about Obama’s birth certificate and qualifications to be president. If you have time, please send/fax/email the following FOI (freedom of information letter) to some or all of the SOS bureau of elections. After you get a response please post on http://www.obamacrimes.com, http://www.freerepublic.com, http://www.peoplespassions.org, http://americamustknow.com,www.rallycongress.com.
1. The address , fax number and email address for the Bureau of elections for the states are at http://www.eac.gov.
2. I like the faxes because they will respond quicker to them. Print off your generic FOI request and past/tape the next name over the top and fax it off. See emails listed below for all 50 SOS.Cut and paste to send all 50 at one time. Sit back and wait for answers.

November 21, 2008
TO: BUREAU OF ELECTIONS
Bureau of Elections, California
1500 11th St, 5th Floor FAX: 916-653-5634
Sacramento, CA 95814 Email: elections@sos.ca.gov

ATTN: Freedom of Information Officer
REF: Freedom of Information Act Request/Privacy Act/ Open Meeting Act, Common Law
This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act. Please send the following documents for examining and photocopying:
1. Documents that show that Barack Obama is qualified to be President of the United States , including but not limited to:
a. Original birth certificate
b. Proof that he is a natural born United States citizen
c. Proof that he was born in Kenya
AS you know , the FOIA provides that if a portions of a document are exempt from release, the remainder must be segregated and disclosed. Therefore, I would like to examine all nonexempt portions of the records that I requested and I ask that you justify and deletions by citing specific exemptions of the FOIA
This is a continuing request into the future for 6 months.
If this is not the proper department, please forward to the Election Bureau/SOS.
I promise to pay reasonable search and duplication fees in connection with this request. (Note: The FOIA permit some fee reduction or waivers).
Please notify me if the charges will exceed ($20.00), so that I can decide whether to authorize a higher amount.
Thank you for your assistance, I look forward to receiving your reply within five business days, as required by law.

Sincerely,
Robert Johnson
123 Main St
Anywhere , CA

Cc: Clerk of the US Supreme Court
One First Street N.E.
Washington, DC 20543
FAX: (209) 479-3021

WARNING
Should any person try to cover up this request or documents herein, BE YOU HEREBY PUT ON NOTICE: You may be indicted under USC Title 18 Sec. 3. 4, 2381, 2382, 2383, and 2384. Also, 4 U.S.C. & 101, federal law requires all state employees and officers take an oath of office and records kept of such administered oath.

Jeannie.price@sos.alabama.gov,governor@alaska.gov,governorsoffice@asg-gov.net,

sosadmin@azsos.gov,sos@sosmail.state.ar.us,constituentaffairs@sos.ca.gov,

secretary@state.co.us ,susan.bysiewicz@po.state.ct.us ,lorilee.harrison@state.de.us ,

Stephanie.scott@dc.gov,secretaryofstate@dos.state.fl.us,sosweb@sos.state.ga.us,

elections@aloha.net,sosinfo@sos.idaho.gov,JWhite@ilos.net,

constituentservices@sos.in.gov,sos@sos.state.ia.us,kssos@kssos.org,sos.secretary@ky.gov,

bobby.jindal@la.gov,sos.office@maine.gov,bmorris@sos.state.md.us,

agoweb@state.ma.us,secretary@michigan.gov,secretary.state@state.mn.us,

administrator@sos.state.ms.us,sosmain@sos.mo.gov,sos@mt.gov,receptionist@sos.ne.gov,

sosmail@sos.nv.gov,elections@sos.state.nh.us,feedback@sos.state.nj.us,

nmsos@state.nm.us,info@dos.state.ny.us,emarshal@sosnc.com,sos@nd.gov,

tworley@sos.state.oh.us,governor@gov.state.ok.us,Oregon.sos@state.or.us,

pcortes@state.pa.us,correo@fortaleza.gobierno.pr,comments@sec.state.ri.us,

rdaggerhart@sos.sc.gov,sdsos@state.sd.us,phil.bredesen@state.tn.us,

secretary@sos.state.tx.us,mshurtleff@utah.gov,dmarkowitz@sec.state.vt.us,

justice@usvi.org,soc@governor.virginia.gov,mail@secstate.wa.gov,

wvsos@wvsos.com,wigov@gov.state.wi.us,secofstate@state.wy.us,

TAKE ACTION and DEFEND OUR CONSTITUTION! Stop The Fraud by Obama!

The Donofrio v Wells Case Regarding Obama Birth Certificate Question Will Be Discussed In Conference By The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday, Dec. 5. If 4 of 9 Justices want a full hearing, then oral arguments may be heard. Read: “The Great Birth Certificate Scandal-Cover-Up of the 2008 Election” by Joan Swirsky
http://www.rightsidenews.com/200811222725/editorial/the-great-birth-certificate-scandal-cover-up-of-the-2008-election.html

If Obama gets into office without verification that he has met the requirements of the U.S. Constitution, if you care about life, liberty or the family, you’re going to have to make hundreds of calls to try and fight an agenda that seeks to silence you.
There is a way to help prevent this. Our founders sacrificed their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor. I’m asking you to do three things.

Fast and pray for all the hidden things to come to light.

Call the Republican members of the House Judiciary Committee – in their district offices while they’re home this week for Thanksgiving. Ask them to “Please hold congressional hearings to investigate whether Barack Obama meets the basic constitutional requirements for the highest office of the land.” Link For Contact Info: http://www.f2a.org/NewsStory.cfm?Story_ID=2545

Write a letter to the nine Justices of the United States Supreme Court and put them in a FedEx (or other overnight) envelope to: U.S. Supreme Court
See Justice Names and Sample Letters at this site:

Write To U.S. Supreme Court Justices Regarding Obama Birth Certificate etc.

Contact your members of Congress automatically via email at this easy to use site: http://www.rallycongress.com/constitutional-qualification/1244/

I’ve followed this mess closely for several months now, since June of 08 when the DailyKOS and Stop The Smears ran the now discredited copy of a CERTIFICATION of Live Birth (NOT a Birth Certificate). Also, I know a little about the controlling law relating to the acquisition of citizneship to those born outside the US. You see, I’m a retired ICE agent with 25+ years of experience. Section 301(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which is the law that is controlling in this situation, IN EFFECT IN 1961 required the following:

In cases involving the birth of a child outside the US to one US citizen parent and one non citizen parent (aka; Alien), the US citizen parent MUST have met the residency requirements set forth in the law at the time of the child’s birth. Those reuqirements were: The US citizen had to have resided in the US for a minimum period of ten years with five of them being over the age of 14. So, the earliest a US citizen parent could transmit their citizenship to a child born overseas in 1961 was 19. On August 4, 1961, Ann Dunham, Obama’s US citizen mother, was 18 years old since she was born in November of 1942. She missed it by about three months.

In 1986, Section 301(g) was modified slightly to reduce the residency requirements for a US citizen in order to transmit citizenship. However, unlike Section 303 of the INA, there is no retroactivity clause in Section 301(g). Section 303 deals with children of US citizens born in the Panama Canal Zone and in Panama. I raise this section since inevitably someone one will point to John McCain’s birth in the Canal Zone. Section 303 when enacted in 1952 was retroactive to the date the US acquired the Canal which was in August of 1904. Ergo, McCain IS a natural born US citizen while Obama, if born in Kenya which seems to be the case, simply is not.

To put a cap on it, the term “natural born US citizen” means that US citizenship is acquired at the time of the person’s birth and not at some point thereafter.

No amount of wishing, hoping, or carping about this will change the FACTS or the law. Now, will it matter? Only if the Constitution and the Rule of Law matter anymore. If they don’t, then let’s face it, we’re done as a country and every serviceman and servicewoman who has died in defense of this country and the Constitution did so in vain. It’s that simple. We either have a Constitution and it means something, or we don’t. Time will tell.

John Sampson
Aurora, Colorado

I’ve stated many times on different sites, that each person that wants to be placed on the ballot should be made to go to the SOS office of EVERY state that they want to be included. Rather than just faxing the paperwork to the offices stating that they would like to be placed on the ballots.

In Texas this year, both Obama and McCain failed to file their forms before the deadline set forth in the Texas Election Code. Yet somehow, they were both placed on the ballot. If any Third Party missed the deadline they would have been excluded from the ballot. For the record, Obama filed the day after the deadline and McCain the following week. Reason being… the Rep and Dem Conventions had not made them official. The deadlines are laws that should be followed. The party planers need to adhere to them as every one of us needs to adhere to laws in our respective States.

I sent an email to the Lt Governor, TX Atty General and the Texas SOS about it. The only reply was from the Lt Governor, read in part…

‘…there is a long line of rules, cases and practice that supports placing the Democratic and Republican candidates on the ballot in Texas this year.’

————–

Apparently, if you’re part of the Rep and Dem Parties, election law deadlines do not apply.

GENTLEMEM: WHILE YOU’RE CHECKING ON HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE, YOU SHOULD BE CHECKING WHAT IS IN THE CONTENTS OF LINCLN’S BIBLE BEFORE HE SWEARS ON IT, JAN. 20.

Mr. Ashford;
I’m not sure what you are referring to or driving at. Perhaps you could elucidate on whatever it is you are talking about and provide us some supporting links. The only notable content of the “so called” Lincoln Bible other than the printed scriptures is a statement by William Thomas Carroll, Clerk of the Supreme Court, and his seal certifying that particular Bible, purchased by Justice Carroll, was indeed the same one used for Lincoln’s inauguration:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/deadlineusa/2008/dec/23/barackobama-obama-white-house

Said Bible has not been used for the swearing in of any other president since Lincoln, nor was it used by Lincoln before the inauguration or afterward while in office. It has been maintained in a special display in the Library of Congress. It was not the Lincoln family’s Bible. Which was shipped from Lincoln’s Springfield home, but did not arrive in time for his inauguration.

As a relative of Lincoln tied to him via the Berry line and his grandmother Lucy, the only “content” that I can think of that might appear in the Lincoln family Bible, which might have resulted in a surprise to Americans, is should it contain certain entries corroborative of oral family history handed down the Berry line. I have not have the opportunity to personally examine the Lincoln family Bible, yet Berry family legend states that Lincoln was wedded twice before his marriage to rich socialite and debutant Mary Todd, and both of these marriages were purged from official records by the Republican party prior to his run for president. Neither of these marriages resulted in children. One was to an unnamed woman who succumbed and died of tuberculosis within their first year of marriage. According to the family tradition; this woman was the daughter of American Indians and/or former slaves (which, if true would go far to explain his position on slavery). The other marriage was to an Elizabeth Berry, which ended in divorce or annulment. We believe this woman was the same Elizabeth Berry whom later wed a William G. Jeter. Public records support a suspected relationship between the two. It is mentioned that Abe was quite enamored of Elizabeth. Elizabeth (Berry) Jeter herself is quoted long after her marriage to W. G. Jeter as stating she found Abe to be homely and unattractive. As a legislator he was a frequent guest in the Jeter household.

The Berrys and Hanks were pioneering families who traveled westward together to settle in what is now the Indiana/Kentucky/Illinois tri-state area. Lincoln had a general store partnership with one of them, His mother Nancy was raised as a ward of the Berry household, rather than by her mother Lucy, and Elizabeth Berry did frequent the Lincoln-Berry store. She was also distant cousin of Abe and both were cousins to my maternal great-great-grandmother. The suspected reason behind the record purge was that had either of those marriages become common knowledge, it would have been considered strikes against him with the puerile sensibilities of voters of that era.

The sensationalism of Obama choosing this particular Bible as a PR stunt is receiving criticism by Politico:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16569.html
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_12/016173.php

As a relative of Lincoln, I consider this politically symbolic PR stunt a deep insult to Lincoln, his memory, and his legacy. Obama is no Lincoln. He isn’t even descended from slaves freed via the Civil Wars and Emancipation Proclamation. The only reason I can see for Obama to be doing this is as a cynical attempt to tug on the emotional cords of black voters and try to paint himself as one of them, rather than as an elitist and corrupt politician forged in the Chicago mold.

It didn’t sound to me like he was insinuating something bad about Lincoln’s bible, that Lincoln had placed something bad there. Rather, it sounded to me like he suspects Obama might slip something inside of the bible on which he takes oath. The oath might be sworn upon something placed inside the bible as opposed to the bible itself. I don’t know. It was my interpretation anyway… the commenter seemed to say “check inside to make sure something else has not been slipped in, to be sworn upon.”
To the Lincoln descendant – I agree with you – this a political stunt and an insult.

I’m encouraged that the side of right is persisting in digging out the truth on Obama’s eligibility. It ain’t over til it’s over. And it will only be over when the documents are shown.
Happy New Year to you all. May God watch over us and may we as a nation turn BACK TO HIM.

This is the bottom line. Barack Hussain Obama is your President as well as he is mine. You have the rest of the World out there that would LOVE to blow all of us off the map. You don’t have a choice. Either you back your president, or find somewhere else to live. Like it or love it!!!

@Reality:

He is the president, but that doesn’t mean we can’t disagree with him or use our constitutional rights to sue. If all the Republicans in congress voted for Obama’s way on everything, I bet we would be blown off the map sooner than if the don’t!

Makes me wonder, marbleblaster, if “reality” was equality adamant with his/her vehement notion that “Either you back your president, or find somewhere else to live. Like it or love it!!!” when Bush was POTUS.

Why do I somehow doubt that?

Then again… he/she’s never been here before. Came to comment on an article from Nov of last year, and is probably unlikely to return. One of the self-appointed grassroots Obama Cyber Hit Squad that scours the internet looking for things like the birth certificate perhaps?

Don’t think we’ll be missing much with it’s absence….

@MataHarley:

By the way, what happened to this whole lawsuit?

I have not heard it has been withdrawn, nor have I heard that it has come before a judge for a hearing yet, marbleblast. The latest news I see is from a Dec 8th, 2008 interview with Keyes by Essence magazine with Cynthia Gordy. He provides no status update on the lawsuit.

But I will assume if it’s tossed out of court for any reason, it will hit the news. Other than that, as with any lawsuit, it’s a “hurry up and wait” situation.

UPDATE “today, I think”….

Oddly enuf, marbleblaster, I was going thru some of the news and ran across an LA Times “Top of the Ticket” blog entry with a more recent Keyes interview. He’s got some pretty strong language going, calling Obama a radical “communist” (can’t entirely disagree there…), an “abomination” (not sure I agree there either), and states he refuses to call him “President” Obama.

Needless to say, I doubt he’s going to be pulling his lawsuit and has every intention of following thru. He also states there are some additional lawsuits being filed by military, but no specific news on that.

Keyes has always been one of my favorite Libertarians, and I’ve followed him for quite some time. I’m not going to be spending time posting on whether his lawsuit will be successful or not… that’s for the courts to decide. And when they do make a decision, that’s when I’ll express my own comments. Until then, this is a primarily far right and Libertarian issue that is unlikely to go away until the courts rule… and probably not even then.

In the meantime, we push ahead with what we got in the Oval Office because there is no other alternative. So I leave the long term legal battles to Keyes and ilk, and tackle the daily battles that come up over legislation and policy.

One of Keyes’ attorney’s hosts this site:

http://defendourfreedoms.us/

She’s a Russian immigrant who tends to get easily excited and way off point, but she sees very clearly what’s happening here and she is resolved to get remedy. In addition to the Keyes suit, Orly has many other plaintiffs and they plan to hold Obama to account for the term of his illegitimate presidency. This case is not going away, even though the MSM, as well as most conservative blog sites, refuses to cover the story. So far we have four (4) justices who have voted to hear the numerous cases that have made it to SCOTUS, and as usual Kennedy is the swing vote against us.

The tragedy of it all is that a man, who is demonstrably NOT a natural born citizen (his own website conceded that he was born a subject of the King of Britain), has hijacked our White House and is overtly pandering to radical Islam while he is overtly subverting our economy. Saul Alinsky is so happy he’s wetting his grave.

And I am positively ill.

CTN, I understand your passion since you detest who won the 2008 election. Believe me, I’m not thrilled either… then again, I didn’t have a “dog in this race” since I didn’t like my choices.

However let me point out reality to you via your statement:

The tragedy of it all is that a man, who is demonstrably NOT a natural born citizen (his own website conceded that he was born a subject of the King of Britain), has hijacked our White House and is overtly pandering to radical Islam while he is overtly subverting our economy.

“demonstrably *not* a natural born citizen”???? Might I remind you that we are based on an innocent until proven guilty system… no matter what your desired outcome based on preconceived notions.

*IF* you respect our framers’ structure of our government., you had most better certainly respect our process. Lawsuits have been filed. They will be addressed. However don’t insult us all by proclaiming your personal judicial decision prior to it’s arrival, or you are no better than those you purport be be superior to.

I don’t know how to tell all you confirmed conspiracists this, but I am *really* tired of you wacky people – claiming to “support the Constitution” – forcing me into the postion to defend Obama. You have no idea how much it riles me to defend Obama.

If you had a lick of honor towards our Constitution, you’d let this work it’s process before condeming the rest of us. I don’t like Obama. I don’t like his used Ferrari car persona nor his domestic policies. But still… day after day… those of you, who presume to speak for our judicial system, cast judgment not only on Obama, but on all of us because we don’t take up your extreme cause.

Give it a f*@king break, would you?

Let the judicial system do it’s job.. which should NOT be subject to public opinion, but based on law alone. When there is a decision, THEN and only THEN should we be discussing it. The amount of lawsuits challenging Obama’s legal birth outweigh the danged Octuplet Mom’s kids, fer heavens sake. Our judicial system doesn’t “ignore” any law suit.. frivolous or not.

Until then.. unless you are a Supreme Court judge… stop lecturing me and others. Start demonstrating some patience in our system. Otherwise you have only one recourse. And I am not willing to go there yet.

MataHarley,

I am afraid that you have confused me for someone such as yourself, that is, someone who does not understand the facts of this case. Therefore, in the interest of honesty, let me correct some of your errors so that you may understand the actual issues at stake.

FACT: the question of Obama’s eligibility to hold the office of POTUS pursuant to the terms of the US Constitution has nothing to do with “innocent until proven guilty,” contra your assertion (by the way, our legal system is grounded in a presumption of innocence, which is not the same as innocence per se). No one has charged anyone with a crime and no one has asserted guilt; hence the civil actions.

FACT: the question of Obama’s eligibility to hold the office of POTUS pursuant to the terms of the US Constitution is not a matter of process, contra your assertion. Yes, process is required in order to hold him accountable, i.e. to enforce the strict terms of the Constitution, but process cannot change the historical fact of his natural birth.

FACT: the founding fathers placed the “natural born citizen” stipulation in our charter document in order to prevent a man born into divided loyalties from hijacking the Executive Branch. Their worst fear was that a dual citizen of the US and of Britain (America’s principal enemy at that time) would sit in the White House.

FACT: Obama’s own website declared that his father was a British citizen when he sired Obama Jr. and consequently he conferred British citizenship on his son at birth. This means that even if Obama was born in the USA to a mother of US citizenship, his citizenship was dual, or divided:

“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.”
http://www.fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate

FACT: no one knows where Obama was born and he has refused to answer the question.

FACT: if Obama ever possessed “natural born citizenship” (which remains unknown), no one knows if he ever renounced it in order to become naturalized in Indonesia, where he held citizenship for 7 years.

MataHarley, these are facts, and neither your opinion nor mine will change them. Moreover, if there are only four justices on SCOTUS who are willing to hear the case, then the other five have not changed the facts. They have simply voted thumbs down, for whatever reason, though they cast doubts on themselves because their chief duty is to interpret and uphold the Constitution and this case could be easily resolved if Obama produced proof of his natural born citizenship. (And don’t forget that he is a constitutional attorney who earned his JD at Harvard.)

Finally, I invite you to abandon the conspiracy of idiots, who obviously have you bent out of shape, and to join those of us who respect our Constitution. This will require that you put aside your ignorant preconceptions, as well as your shrill ad hominems, but you’ll be the better for it.

And take a moment to read this piece, written by a constitutional scholar who has actually argued cases before SCOTUS:

http://newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin84.htm

It’s a good starting point for you to begin understanding the magnitude of your ignorance.

Another pompous windbag who thinks he/she wears a robe and sits on the bench. Your disrespect for our system, as designed/visualized by the founders and written up in our Constitution by the framers, is breathtaking.

So let’s set your pompous ass straight, and point out your very narrow focused arrogance, shall we? I more than understand the “facts” as you (actually Berg and Keyes) lay them out. I have read both Berg’s various brief filings and followed his progress thru the SCOUTS, and Keyes. Tho technically what you call “facts” are considered evidence and points of argument in the various lawsuit briefs. Only the judge… if they hear the case… will decide if they are “facts”.

Personally, I think these points and evidence (including those that cannot be admitted) have validity and *should* be heard. So in principle, I agree with you. These lawsuits should be heard, and a determination made… or Obama produces the proper documents to put this to rest. And no, I don’t like that he spends more cash to halt these suits than cleaning up on the issue.

But that’s not the point.

Where I do *not* agree with you is your predetermination that the evidence is decided and inarguable. In our Constitution, the only way to resolve a challenge to a candidate’s eligibility is thru the courts. Also, in our judicial system, there is still supposed to be the semblence of innocence until proven guilty.

You have abandoned both to jump on conspiracy bandwagon. And worse yet, you are waving a banner of “The Constitution!” in order to behave in the exact antithesis laid out by that same document for legal recourse. You shove this elementary argument in our faces, completely blind to your own disrespect to the two main principles in our nation’s system.

So don’t be lecturing *me* about respect for the Constitution… when it is *you* who is not patient enough to allow the due process to run it’s course. And it is *you* who has decided the defendant is guilty before judicial judgment.

So take your single focused BS arguments back to the Vieira, libertarian and extreme right wing forums who want to sit around to moan and groan about this daily and endlessly. Like I said, when the courts make a decision, I’ll speak my peace, and it just may surprise you as to what I have to say. Until then, you’re all just stroking each other’s pompous and ignorant fury… while telling yourselves you have “respect” for the Constitution and the separation of powers.

Magnitude of ignorance, indeed. You and your impatient buds, subtly advocating rebellion, are the poster children for brainwashed ignorants, placing the quest above the process.

Blow it out your ear. You are invisible to me on this forum, as quite a few of your bretheren and sisters have become when you slide over the deep edge.

MataHarley,

Let me state it again, very succinctly, in a manner that you might be able to follow.

THE STATE HAS NOT CHARGED ANYONE WITH A CRIME, THEREFORE THERE IS NO DEFENDANT IN THIS CASE, CONTRA YOUR INSISTENCE, AND THEREFORE NO ONE ACCORDS ANYONE A PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE.

Once you get past this simple point, you may begin to understand that you are trying to make three arguments:

First, you are arguing that the US Constitution grants all candidates for the office of POTUS the presumption of “natural born citizenship,” and that the US Constitution requires us to honor this presumption. Of course, this is absurd on its face and defies state and federal law. Moreover, you cannot substantiate your position, which probably accounts for your shrill name-calling.

Second, you are arguing that a concession of fact is not a fact until the courts determine it’s a fact. For example, when Obama conceded dual citizenship (at best) on his website, you believe that his concession is not fact proper until the court affirms it. But what if the court never affirms it, which may likely be the case, does this mean he was never a citizen of Great Britain? Of course not. It simply means that the courts have refused to hear this case.

Third, you are arguing that (due) process overrides free speech. Check that. You’re arguing that your flawed understanding of process entitles you to voice your opinion, but it proscribes those of us who disagree with you from voicing our opinion. As with the previous two arguments, however, you have grounded your argument in self-righteous fiction.

Finally, let me note your incredible inconsistency, which leads me to believe that you are not only ignorant, but dishonest. Yesterday you wrote, “I have not heard it has been withdrawn, nor have I heard that it has come before a judge for a hearing yet, marbleblast. The latest news I see is from a Dec 8th, 2008 interview with Keyes by Essence magazine with Cynthia Gordy. He provides no status update on the lawsuit.”

But today you insist, “I have read both Berg’s various brief filings and followed his progress thru the SCOUTS, and Keyes.”

This is an example of a contradiction. Both statements cannot be true. Either December 8, 2008, is your cutoff and you are unaware of the status of the Keyes suit, or you have followed both cases through SCOTUS (not SCOUTS). And if you had followed either case, you would know that SCOTUS tossed both of them last month.

Therefore, I am happy to end this exchange with you, because in addition to being completely ignorant and incompetent, you are demonstrably dishonest.

Yo, bozo… From Justia.com, the E. PA district Federal Court docket filings site:

Berg v Obama:

Plaintiff: PHILIP J. BERG
Defendant: BARACK OBAMA, THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE, THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION and DOES 1-50 INCLUSIVE

This isn’t a criminal proceeding. It’s a civil proceeding. They have plaintiff (also called petitioners) and defendants (also called Respondents), and verdicts of guilty with judicial relief and compensation in civil proceedings as well. Doh…

Don’t like the use of the word “defendant”? Suggest you contact docket sites like above and tell them how to do their job because it doesn’t suit your chosen language.

“I have read both Berg’s various brief filings and followed his progress thru the SCOUTS, and Keyes.”

I’ll take the criticism of this sentence not being well constructed, and a typo on SCOTUS. However I have had Berg’s site ObamaCrimes bookmarked since near the beginning, read his court briefs, followed his progress thru to present. Keyes has not gone anywhere in the system yet. Nor does Keyes provide any updates on the status on his website. Frankly, his case is far more interesting.

SCOTUS did not address Keyes, but Berg. And it did not address the arguments of the case, but only reviewed… as SCOTUS can only do on his special appeal… Berg’s emergency request for a Stay of electoral count and temporary injunction until his writ of certorari could be resolved in the federal courts. That federal case was dismissed by the judge saying Berg did not have the proper standing. Berg also has three other cases going that I know of. He’s no where near done yet.

Therefore SCOTUS did not toss out, nor hear any evidence and arguments that had anything to do with Obama’s birth. Therefore it is you who is “being completely ignorant and incompetent” and you who is “demonstrably dishonest”.

First, you are arguing that the US Constitution grants all candidates for the office of POTUS the presumption of “natural born citizenship,” and that the US Constitution requires us to honor this presumption.

I didn’t argue that at all. Apparently your comprehension of how legal recourse works, and how any issue (like the eligibility of a candidate) is resolved, is only slightly less than your ability to read.

Second, you are arguing that a concession of fact is not a fact until the courts determine it’s a fact.

Again, not what I argued. You read a brief with arguments and described evidence (without seeing or hearing that evidence). You decided it was “fact”. The DEFENDANTS named in the case have not presented counter arguments. Instead they have filed various motions for dismissal, who’s legal precedents obviously ran more viable with the judge than did the plaintiff’s. Now, as a citizen, you have the full right to determine that one legal side of an argument is wrong, and the other right. But you’re not the judge… yet you want to be the judge, the jury and the executioner. *That* is my argument.

Third, you are arguing that (due) process overrides free speech.

Again, that is not even close to what I am arguing. See above. You can say anything you like. I’m not forced to listen to it, nor do I have to agree. I’ll listen to what a judge has to say when it gets ahold of the Keyes lawsuit, that was only filed fall of last year. It is no where close to making it to the SCOTUS docket.

I may not agree with a judge’s decision *not* to hear the case based on Berg’s standing. But I damn will respect our due process enough to encourage the appeal process all the way to the Supreme’s, and live with their decision. I didn’t like their Boumediene decision. In fact there’s a lot of SCOTUS opinions I think suck the big one. But I respect the process, and live with the results.

Now, this is my last response to your BS. Frankly, it was libertarian long-winded, blow hards like you – the types who live by “the meaning of “is”… is” type debates – who made it quite pleasant for me to discard my Libertarian registration a long time ago. You’re boring, repetative, and a pompous, arrogant windbag. But there plenty of places other than FA who will welcome your 24/7 rant on this.

Buh bye. Tata. and au revoir.

MataHarley,

You can see another point of inconsistency on your part in comment #68, where you actually treated me with respect:

Alan Keyes Sues Obama To Produce Original, Full Length, Birth Certificate

I have not changed my position one bit since then; apparently, however, you have changed yours, which is your right. I don’t know how to account for your rabid tone, however, which leads me to believe that something else is going on here.

THE STATE HAS NOT CHARGED ANYONE WITH A CRIME, THEREFORE THERE IS NO DEFENDANT IN THIS CASE, CONTRA YOUR INSISTENCE, AND THEREFORE NO ONE ACCORDS ANYONE A PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE.

Now, that right there my friends is a stunning example of concentrated stupid.

CTN, let me put it in very succinctly, in short sentences, a manner that even you might possibly be able to follow.

The person who files a civil suit is the Plaintiff, or in this case, Petitioner.

The person who has a civil suit filed against them is the Defendant.

The Plaintiff, by bringing the case, is “charging” the Defendant.

Of course there is a presumption of innocence for the Defendant, even in a civil suit.

Otherwise, why is the burden of a “proponderance of evidence” placed on the Plaintiff in order to prevail?

That’s right. Because the Defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

If things were as you claim them to be, then the Defendant would have that burden.

Sorry, epic FAIL for you.

You come trotting in here waving your claims around, scattering crumbs on the carpet, insulting the intelligence of your hosts when it is you, sir, who is clueless about the most basic premises and machinations of the US legal system.

When you cannot even get the basics of presumption of innocence straight, then anyone with half the brains of a goose knows to use caution when it comes to the rest of your drivel.

You’re a mental midget among giants here.

At the moment you’re in grave danger of being squashed.

Sigh… breaking my own vow here. Dang.

CTN… I liked you in the above posts because you were more rational, and didn’t make abject prounouncments such as:

The tragedy of it all is that a man, who is demonstrably NOT a natural born citizen (his own website conceded that he was born a subject of the King of Britain), has hijacked our White House and is overtly pandering to radical Islam while he is overtly subverting our economy. Saul Alinsky is so happy he’s wetting his grave.

You want to know why this makes me rabid? I’ll repeat it one more time.

You have *no* idea how it riles me when you force me to defend Obama!

You have taken the unproven statements by Berg and Keyes, accepted them as fact, ignored the defendants/respondents due process rights, and in one short paragraph taken them to the extreme.

This extreme BS puts me in the position of having to stand on our Constitutional rights to legal recourse and defense against accusations of state or individuals in civil or criminal courts… and defend the bastard.

Knock it off. I don’t even like the man in the WH. But I do like our system. However flawed.

I wish you two with your twenty hits a day the very best, and you, MataHarley, need to do something about your anger. No one needs to wait for process to know that there’s something very wrong with you, and that’s after we accord you the presumption of innocence.

@CTN:

Now I have to say, shame, shame. Apparently you have given up refuting anything Mata or Aye attempted to explain to you so you resort to insults. Our legal system grinds slowly, until there is something we can get behind there is no sense in fighting with people that will eventually be on your side should the courts demand Obama produce the documents.

We aren’t there yet, all the rabble rousing across the net won’t make things happen. Patience is a virtue, use it.

Missy girl… so admirable of you to come in with logic when none will be accepted by the recipient. LOL

In the meantime, I’m quite sure our “22” hits – laughable considering this post is at 6415 times, and 67 so far today – will live just fine without CTN. The pity is that, prior to to lemming dive over the cliff, CTN had some value.

Wow! Been a long time since someone referred to me as a girl. Now you got me feeling like I should let down my hair down and don a mini.

And, ya know, Ms. Missy… in my visual of you, you will *always* look good in a mini because beauty comes from within…

And oh, BTW, Italian men might think both of us look “good” in a mini. They do know how to appreciate the “aging wine”, so to speak.

I have to say quite a few of those hits are mine- maybe 12… I’m subscribed to this post and I checked it out with every comment… Pretty interesting, but then again, I hate to see squabbles… 🙂

Just kidding. That’s what makes this place so interesting. 😉

Consider this post is from Nov of 2008, I’m surprised it gets any hits, marble! Most stick to the current pages.