Posted on 10/29/2008 12:52:31 AM PDT by Kukai
PART ONE OBAMA: THE ILLEGAL ALIEN
I have become 100% convinced, to a moral certainty, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Barack Obama is not only not a "natural born citizen" as required by the U.S. Constitution to be president, but that he was not even born in the USA, not born in Hawaii, probably in Kenya, never naturalized. If he is elected, he will be the UnConstitutional President from the moment he takes the oath of office, the first president who is not a citizen of the United States.
Why I am so sure?
I was not convinced by the lawsuits filed by Philip Berg, Andy Martin, Jerome Corsi, and others seeking disclosure of Obama's birth certificate. I was not convinced by the books and articles that now abound contesting Obama's origins. I was convinced by the behavior of Barack Obama and his lawyers, asking the governor of Hawaii to seal Obama's birth certificate so it could not be seen, by anyone, and by the behavior of Barack Obama and his lawyers, sealing his records at Columbia University and Harvard Law. Barack Obama is hiding himself from America. And he wants to be POTUS, and Commander-in-Chief.
(Excerpt) Read more at familysecuritymatters.org ...
I think he has Two problems there.
Democrats have said in the past that everyone in the world should have the right to vote for the US president. It is not a stretch for them to believe that anyone in the world should have the right to BE the American President.
Pretty good argument, but it’s been made before, and the average American just doesn’t care. Frightening. But, that’s what the dumbing down of public education has brought us. It was intentional. Because who controls public education? The leftists. This has been their goal from Day One.
“Clinton made a joke of it all, Obama will finish the destruction of our country.”
Yup.
“Here’s the problem: To 0bama, his non-citizenship is irrelevant. And it’s irrelevant to his supporters too.”
EXACTLY!!!
I don’t think his followers care either. They see this as a ‘Rovian’ tactic to destroy their messiah.
There is a birth issue because he’s never produced an authentic BC. Don’t get me started about the fraud COLB that we’ve all seen.
It’s been disappointing how even the conservative media walked away from this case. I hope Berg and others continue the fight because it is a good fight.
Great article, good arguments, my question is, who was/is supposed to check on the citizenship thing and shouldn’t the “Chosen One” have supplied this info when he filed the paperwork to run as POTUS?
Hey all...take a look at this.
It’s been discussed in length that there are issues and concerns regarding Obama’s BC that if not involving citizenship, it was something big enough that it would do huge damage.
I tripped across a report tonight that, when I first started reading it, seemed incredibly far fetched as an explanation. After reading through the whole thing, and then seeing the first video included, I must admit this report gave me serious pause:
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/10/how-could-stanl.html
If it seems like I’m being vague, well that’s intentional. I want you to see it for yourself and make your own judgment without prejudice.
Look at that first video and listen to the cadence of his voice and see his expressions…and you tell me if there isn’t a possibility that this is true given the rest of the timeline and facts outlined.
Or you can tell me my tinfoil wrapped a little too tight. :D
But I swear…I watched that video and it freaked me out.
We’re talking about Democrats here, the rules don’t apply to them.
Every American should be wondering what the big deal is and be suspicious. Of the 600 million he can’t buck up 10 or 20 dollars to get the birth certificate? Such an easy thing to put to rest yet he does not do it, why?
This whole thing is very, very unnerving.
In the case of Berg v. Obama, US Federal Judge Richard Barclay Surrick agreed with Obama's lawyers and ruled that Berg, as a citizen, as a voter, has no "standing" to enforce the United States Constitution. I have read that other agencies have asserted that only another presidential candidate has standing to sue respecting the qualifications of a candidate, presumably because, arguendo, only another presidential candidate could be injured (lose an election) as a result of a non-qualified candidate on the ballot.
This may be the most patently absurd, illogical, incomprehensible, astonishing, mind-boggling, and utterly stupid argument I have ever heard in my life – and from a Federal Judge, at that. And if I didn't make myself perfectly clear, let me know and I'll try again.
Let's do the analysis.
1. The U.S. Constitution is a CONTRACT between The People, The States, and The United States, the federal government, that defines and limits the role of the federal government, and the rights of the States and The People, and, among other things, defines and limits the qualifications for president, i.e., that the president must be over the age of 35 years, and must be a natural born citizen.
2. Any party to a CONTRACT has standing to enforce it. This is as basic as it gets. Contract Law 101. First week of law school stuff. And it seems that lawyers and judges all over the country have forgotten all about it. Also, the Constitution was intended to benefit all American citizens, We, The People, and in basic contract law the intended beneficiaries of a CONTRACT, i.e., us, also have standing to enforce it.
3. If We, The People, do not have standing to enforce the CONTRACT, the U.S. Constitution, then it is unenforceable, and if it is unenforceable it is just a historic curiosity that means nothing. It’s just an old piece of parchment. But that was not the intent, and to give intent to the CONTRACT it must be enforceable by its parties and beneficiaries.
4. We, The People, have standing under the First Amendment "to petition the government for redress of grievances." If we have a grievance that a non-citizen, illegal alien, is running for president, I think the First Amendment unequivocally gives every American citizen standing to sue the government to redress that grievance and enforce the Constitution.
I think Judge Richard Barclay Surrick is dead wrong, illogically wrong, irrationally wrong, legally wrong, I think his legal analysis of this issue, in legalese, stinks.
Well said -- this article is right on. There is always a time to STAND and a place to STAND. Now is the time and this is the place. NSMA!
He’s going to be president of the World (and the U.N.).
Who CARES about citizenship?...
It’s irrelevant because the “Constitution if fundementally flawed.”
If Berg has ever taken an oath of office or enlistment that requires him to uphold or defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign or domestic then he can prove he has standing. Such oaths are deemed to be binding until death.
Good Point. Furthermore ANYONE who has ever taken that oath would also have STANDING before the Court -- as well as the duty to STAND in this case.
The courts have spoken "Berg, as a citizen, as a voter, has no "standing" to enforce the United States Constitution."
If We, The People, do not have standing to enforce the CONTRACT, the U.S. Constitution, then it is unenforceable,
If We, The People, do not have standing to enforce the CONTRACT, the U.S. Constitution, then it is unenforceable,
I don't thin the average American just doesn't care. The average American has just been kept in the dark.
I agree with you. I think all the info here has been seen elsewhere, but this is the first time it has been collated so well and so succintly.
Having taken this oath, Sen. Barack Obama has violated his oath of office if he is refusing to disclose a birth certificate that proves his candidacy for president is unconstitutional, and I believe this is a mandatory basis for his impeachment.
The above is from the article. This is the weakest argument made. If Obama is legit, and he doesn't want it made available for personal/political reasons, then he has not violated his oath. It is true that if his birth certificate is illigitimate, then he has violated his oath. To prove this, one needs to prove his birth certificate is invalid, which is the original point of contention. This argument, therefore, does not prove, or disprove for that matter, that Obama has an invalid birth certificate.
I have to say - yes, the premise of that site seems plausible.
“Has anyone seen this alleged birth announcement? Why does 0bama refuse to straighten this out when he could so easily do just that?”
There was a birth announcement published in Hawaii 9 days after he was born, but it lists no place of birth.
Obama can’t straighten it out for the reasons stated in this article.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.