Posted on 11/07/2008 8:16:05 PM PST by Smokeyblue
An Open Letter to Barack Obama: (Draft of WTP full-page ad to be published in USA TODAY the week of November 10, 2008)
Are you a Natural Born Citizen of the U.S.?
Are you legally qualified to hold the Office of President?
Dear Mr. Obama:
On October 24, 2008, a federal judge granted your request to dismiss a lawsuit by Citizen Philip Berg, who challenged your qualifications under the “Natural Born Citizen” clause of the U.S. Constitution to legally hold the office of President of the United States of America.
Mr. Berg presented factual evidence to the Court in support of his claim that you are either a citizen of your father’s native Kenya by birth, or that you became a citizen of Indonesia, relinquishing your prior citizenship when you moved there with your mother in 1967.
In your response to the lawsuit, you neither denied Mr. Berg’s claims nor submitted any evidence which would refute his assertions. Instead, you argued that the Court lacked the jurisdiction to determine the question of your legal eligibility because Mr. Berg lacked “standing.”
Astonishingly, the judge agreed, simply saying, “[Mr. Berg] would have us derail the democratic process by invalidating a candidate for whom millions of people voted and underwent excessive vetting during what was one of the most hotly contested presidential primary [sic] in living memory.”
Unfortunately, your response to the legal claim was clearly evasive and strikingly out of character, suggesting you may, in fact, lack a critical Constitutional qualification necessary to assume the Office of President: i.e., that you are not a “natural born” citizen of the United States or one who has relinquished his American citizenship.
Before you can exercise any of the powers of the United States, you must prove that you have fully satisfied each and every eligibility requirement that the Constitution mandates for any individual’s exercise of those powers.
Regardless of the tactics chosen in defending yourself against the Berg lawsuit, significant questions regarding your legal capacity to hold this nation’s highest office have been put forth publicly, and you have failed to directly refute them with documentary evidence that is routinely available to any bona fide, natural born U.S. Citizen.
As one who has ventured into the fray of public service of his own volition, seeking to possess the vast powers of the Office of President, it is not unreasonable to demand that you produce evidence of your citizenship to answer the questions and allay the concerns of the People. Indeed, as the one seeking the office, you are under a moral, legal, and fiduciary duty to proffer such evidence to establish your qualifications as explicitly mandated by Article II of the Constitution.
Should you proceed to assume the office of the President of the United States as anything but a bona fide natural born citizen of the United States that has not relinquished that citizenship, you would be inviting a national disaster, placing our Republic at great risk from untold consequences. For example:
· Neither the Electoral College on December 15, nor the House of Representatives on January 6 would be able to elect you, except as a poseur - a usurper;
· As a usurper, you would be unable to take the required “Oath or Affirmation” of office on January 20 without committing the crime of perjury or false swearing, for being ineligible for the Office of the President you cannot faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States;
· Your every act in the usurped Office of the President would be a criminal offense as an act under color of law that would subject the People to the deprivation of their constitutional rights, and entitling you to no obedience whatsoever from the People;
· as a usurper acting in the guise of the President you could not function as the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy and of the militia of the several states, as such forces would be under no legal obligation to remain obedient to you;
· No one in any civilian agency in the Executive Branch would be required to obey any of your proclamations, executive orders or directives, as such orders would be legally VOID;
· Your appointment of Ambassadors and Judges to the Supreme Court would be VOID ab initio (i.e., from the beginning), no matter what subsequent actions the Senate might take as well as rendering any such acts by such appointed officials void as well;
· Congress would not be able to pass any new laws because they would not be able to acquire the signature of a bona fide President, rendering all such legislation legally VOID;
· As a usurper, Congress would be unable to remove you from the Office of the President on Impeachment, inviting certain political chaos including a potential for armed conflicts within the General Government or among the States and the People to effect the removal of such a usurper.
As an attorney and sitting U.S. Senator, I’m sure you agree that our Constitution is the cornerstone of our system of governance. It is the very foundation of our system of Law and Order – indeed, it is the supreme law of the land. I’m sure you also agree that its precise language was no accident and cannot be ignored if Individual, unalienable, natural Rights, Freedoms and Liberties are to be protected and preserved.
As our next potential President, you have a high-order obligation to the Constitution (and to those who have fought and died for our Freedom) that extends far beyond that of securing a majority of the votes of the Electoral College. No matter your promises of change and prosperity, your heartfelt intent or the widespread support you have garnered in seeking the highest Office of the Land, the integrity of the Republic and Rule of Law cannot, -- must not -- be put at risk, by allowing a constitutionally unqualified person to sit, as a usurper, in the Office of the President.
No matter the level of practical difficulty, embarrassment or disruption of the nation’s business, we must -- above all -- honor and protect the Constitution and the divine, unalienable, Individual Rights it guarantees, including the Right to a President who is a natural born citizen of the United States of America that has not relinquished his American citizenship. Our nation has endured similar disruptions in the past, and will weather this crisis as well. Indeed, it is both yours and the People’s mutual respect for, and commitment to, the Constitution and Rule of Law that insures the perpetuation of Liberty.
As a long time defender of my state and federal Constitutions, and in consideration of the lack of sufficient evidence needed to establish your credentials as President, I am compelled to lodge this Petition for Redress of Grievances and public challenge to you.
Make no mistake: This issue IS a Constitutional crisis. Although it will not be easy for you, your family or our Republic, you have it within your ability to halt this escalating crisis by either producing the certified documents establishing beyond question your qualifications to hold the Office of President, or by immediately withdrawing yourself from the Electoral College process.
With due respect, I hereby request that you deliver the following documents to Mr. Berg and myself at the National Press Club in Washington, DC at noon on Monday, November 17, 2008:
(a) a certified copy of your “vault” (original long version) birth certificate; (b) certified copies of all reissued and sealed birth certificates in the names Barack Hussein Obama, Barry Soetoro, Barry Obama, Barack Dunham and Barry Dunham; (c) a certified copy of your Certification of Citizenship; (d) a certified copy of your Oath of Allegiance taken upon age of maturity; (e) certified copies of your admission forms for Occidental College, Columbia University and Harvard Law School; and (f) certified copies of any court orders or legal documents changing your name from Barry Soetoro.
In the alternative, in defense of the Constitution, and in honor of the Republic and that for which it stands, please announce before such time your withdrawal from the 2008 Presidential election process.
“In a government of laws, the existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.” Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 469-471.
Thank you for your understanding and cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Robert L. Schulz, Founder and Chairman, We The People Foundation for Constitutional Education, Inc.
CLICK HERE to make your secure donation to the WTP Foundation.
Click here to see how much money we have raised so far.
“The ad is ASKING Obuma to produce the birth certificate. It is not claiming any authority.”
The ad reads: I hereby request that you deliver the following documents to Mr. Berg and myself at the National Press Club in Washington, DC at noon on Monday, November 17,
and then gives a long list of demands. Sounds like a Court to me!
“This isn’t a court. All he needs is the money to buy the ad and USA Today’s willingness to publish it.”
He demands that Barry show up at a place certain, at a date certain and deliver a whole laundry list of evidence going back to his college days. That’s what a Court does.
Kewl welcome aboard
This looks interesting. Maybe something will come from all of our efforts after all.
By the way, I wanted to pass this one by you guys. Someone posted it on my intrade thread. The jist of it seems to be, how can 2 Honolulu newspapers, print identical lists if Obama’s birth announcement was supposedly paid for?
http://bb.intrade.com/intradeForum/posts/list/240/2279.page
bogus
Junior
Joined: 06/09/2008 20:39:35
Messages: 67
Offline
In the page that Delphi linked (http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/obamabirth.php) the images are small, but if you click on the image it shows a larger image.
These are ...
http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/ObamaBirthStarBulletin.jpg
http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/obama-1961-birth-announcement-from-honolulu-advertiser0000.gif
One thing you will notice if you look at the full list - they are identical.
So two Honolulu newspapers, printing an identical lists? How does that happen? Maybe they are owned by the same people? I checked - they weren’t - they were rivals until May 1962 (http://www.altlaw.org/v1/cases/1065427)
So they must have had the same source ... A little more digging and it turns out that they do ...
http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/07/23/obama-was-likely-born-in-hawaii/#comment-12154
Hi, I’ve talked to the Department of Vital Records and the Honolulu Advertiser.In 1961, the hospitals would take their new birth certificates to Vital Records. At the end of the week, Vital Records would post a sheet that for the news paper to pick up that contained births, deaths, marriages and divorces. The Advertiser routinely printed this information in their Sunday edition. This is not a paid announcement that his grandmother could arrange. This is information that comes from Vital Records - we know this because this particular section reflects those records. They didn’t have a provision for paid, one sentence announcement that would be included in the Vital Records. At the time, if a child was born outside a hospital, the family would have 30 days to apply for a birth certificate and Vital Records would expect to see prenatal care records, or pediatrician records of the first check up, etc. They’d also want the notarized statement from the mid-wife. Of course, they can apply later but that would noted as a different kind of birth certificate. I think TD has already addressed that. This information was received by Vital Records the first week of his birth = that suggests the hospital.
Next, the announcement is from Sunday, August 13th and Obama was born on Friday, August 4th. Hospitals usually don’t take birth certificate information the first couple days to avoid changes. So it was likely filled out on the 4th or so, as hospital stays were usually 3 - 5 days at the time. Lastly, having worked in a newborn nursery in college, hospitals don’t ask for documentation. If mom says she’s married, that’s what they write. They have no authority to question her statement.
In Honolulu at the time, paid birth announcements weren’t in vogue. Frequently families would post one year announcements that included pictures from the party, etc. I haven’t checked to see if that exists.
I hope that finishes clearing this up.
This is from Lori who was the researcher that dug up the Sunday Advertiser announcement ... Oh and she is a “PUMA” so she was probably looking for a LACK of an announce.
Until I found this, I was reluctantly willing to concede that (however unbelievably unlikely,) it was theoretically possible or at least hard to disprove, the story that Obama was born in Kenya on the 4th, flew to Hawaii on the 6th or 7th and the birth was registered on the 8th. But this information blows even that crazy story out of the water.
OK, could/would Gov Palin do that?
Wish she would, but I doubt it. The press would savage her for “trying to steal the election”
Thanks, Kevmo.
Ping to #64. Good question here.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2128445/posts?page=64#64
DNC - Admitted, but was dismissed:
1. The DNC nominated Barrack Hussein Obama as the Democratic Nominee for President.
2. The DNC has not vetted Barrack Hussein Obama.
3. The DNC did not have a background check performed on Barrack Hussein Obama.
4.The DNC did not verify Barrack Hussein Obama’s eligibility to serve as President of the United States.
5. The DNC admits Barrack Hussein Obama was born in Kenya.
6. The DNC admits Barrack Hussein Obama is not a “natural born” United States citizen.
7. The DNC admits Barrack Hussein Obama was not born in Hawaii.
8.The DNC admits they have not inquired into Barrack Hussein Obama’s citizenship status.
9. The DNC admits they have a duty to properly vette the Democratic Nominee for President.
10.The DNC admits Lolo Soetoro, M.A., an Indonesian citizen adopted Barrack Hussein Obama.
11. The DNC admits the Credentials Committee has been aware of this lawsuit since August 22, 2008 as the lawsuit was faxed to our Washington D.C. Office on August 22, 2008.
12. The DNC admits their Credentials Committee failed to verify and/or inquire into the credentials of Barack Hussein Obama to serve as the President of the United States.
13. The DNC admits their Credential Committee’s Report failed to address the issues of Barack Hussein Obama’s ineligibility to serve as President of the United States.
14.The DNC admits Howard Dean, Chair Person has and had knowledge Barack Hussein Obama was born in Kenya and ineligible to serve as the President of the United States.
15. The DNC admits Plaintiff and all Democratic citizens of the United States have been personally injured as a result of not having a qualified Democratic Presidential Nominee to cast their votes upon.
16. The DNC admits Plaintiff and all citizens of the United States have a Constitutional Right to vote for the President of the United States and to have two (2) qualified candidates of which to choose from.
17. The DNC admits Plaintiff and all citizens of the United States have a Constitutional right to have a properly vetted Democratic Presidential Nominee of which to cast their vote.
18. The DNC admits an FBI background check is not performed on the Presidential or Vice Presidential Candidates.
19. The DNC admits the United States Constitution does not allow for a Person to hold the office of President of the United States unless that person is a “natural born” United States citizen.
20. The DNC admits they collected donations on behalf of Barack Hussein Obama for his Presidential campaign.
21. The DNC admits Plaintiff and Democratic citizens donated money based on false representations that Barack Hussein Obama was qualified to serve as the President of the United States.
22. The DNC admits if Barack Hussein Obama is elected as President and allowed to serve as President of the United States in violation of our Constitution, it will create a Constitutional crisis.
23. The DNC admits Barack Hussein Obama took an Oath to uphold the United States Constitution.
24. The DNC admits allowing a person who is not a “natural born” citizen to serve as President of the United States violates Plaintiff’s rights to due process of law in violation of the United States Constitution.
25. The DNC admits allowing a person who is not a “natural born” citizen to serve as President of the United States violates Plaintiff’s rights to Equal Protection of the laws in violation of the United States Constitution.
26. The DNC admits the function of the DNC is to secure a Democratic Presidential Candidate who will protect Democratic citizen’s interests, fight for their equal opportunities and fight for justice for all Americans.
27. The DNC admits the Democratic National Committee has been promoting Barack Hussein Obama’s Presidential election knowing he was ineligible to serve as President of the United States.
A court has the power to subpoena - - this guy doesn’t.
He can demand until he’s blue in the face. Means nothing.
When I was nosing around on the FactCheck server files, I found graphic files for the announcement. I posted a sample here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2127901/posts?page=236#236
That file was linked to go out on another virtual server that resides on FactCheck, publicbroadcasting.net.
Then, on FactCheck’s page where they dispute the rumors, they link to the copy that was sent to TxDarling as a source. It looks like they created the announcement then used TxDarling as a 3rd party source. Very typical of propaganda.
There are also COLB pictures at FactChect’s server files. Seems they have COLBs in various colors.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2127901/posts?page=234#234
I had thought Polarik said the paper code meant the paper was suppose to be the same; but I have not heard back from him yet.
Wellcome to FreeRepublic.com, Smokeyblue.
Ping! Bump! Ping!
Welcome to Free Republic Smokey. Thanks for the ping and the link to donate Starwise. If USA Today actually promises to run the ad (before Obama is sworn in) and we have proof of such communications from USA Today, I believe we can get the neccessary monies donated to get this ad published. Until then, I for one, am holding onto my wallet.
I saw the stuff on Atlas Shrugged yesterday and was encouraged that there are still people out there looking into this possible travesty.
Obama has already recieved classified national security briefings and is set to get more tomorrow. I wonder if the CIA or the Secret Service has ‘vetted’ his eligibility before handing over the secrets of our Republic?
There might be a way to find out for sure if he really was born in the U.S. There are people who know. One of them died last week. There are still others who know.
Obviously you're not a constitutionalist.
How could we all not have such standing? The very idea of "standing" is a massive defaecation upon our constitution.
U.S.A. Today
Nothing sticks to him because of Pravda (msm). They won’t allow anything to stick to him.
Yep - letters like this are going to sure solve our country’s economic issues and our own party’s unity.
Exactly right. THEY DON’T CARE. The Constitution to them is a ‘FLAWED’ DOCUMENT. In their eyes, dual citizenship is an ASSET. Nationalism and sovereignty BAD; ‘citizen of the world’ GOOD.
Ping to Post #64
Thanks Kevmo for this information
Several questions that I think have been discussed before but I can’t remember the threads...maybe there are some freepers out there that have the posts.
*Frank Marshall Davis wrote for the Honolulu Advertiser, not sure what that time frame was
*Were these birth announcement images from ACTUAL original 1961 newspaper articles or from microfiche? I am trying to figure out if the original newspapers had that info of if it has been photoshopped in somehow
*Did we ever get a handle on the home that was referenced in the birth announcement (ie... In 1961, what exactly existed at that address...Was it a single dwelling home and who owned it. Also, the image that shows up now on Terra viewer or whatever one uses...Is this the same building that existed in 1961?
Most States have online info regarding property taxes, mortgages, etc. Does Hawaii have this available?
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.
