Posted on 03/26/2009 7:10:06 AM PDT by ROLF of the HILL COUNTRY
I received this in an email from the folks at World Net Daily. While it was a solicitation to participate and donate for a fax campaign to the MSM, I found it to be an excellent summary of the issue. I have deleted all the solicitations:
Is the biggest political crime in American history taking place right before our eyes? Is the man in the White House INELIGIBLE, according to the Constitution, to sit in the Oval Office... is he a FRAUD... a USURPER?
Barack Hussein Obama could put the issue to rest right now by simply releasing his ACTUAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE!
But he WON'T release his ACTUAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE. In fact, he is actively RESISTING efforts to compel him to release his ACTUAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE.
He's dug in his heels. He has teams of lawyers fighting efforts to get him to release his ACTUAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE, while his underlings look down their noses at the American people and call these legitimate requests "garbage."
And the one pivotal question that those who attempt to dismiss the controversy cannot answer is:
If Barack Hussein Obama has nothing to hide, what's the problem? The more he resists, the more you have to wonder.
Meanwhile the liberal press is trying to drag this story into a dark alley and bludgeon it to death...
[solicitation deleted]
Not Conspiracy Theories... Just The Facts...
Here are some of the disturbing facts surrounding Barack Hussein Obama's ACTUAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE — not rumors, not wild theories — just the FACTS.
FACT #1: Article 2, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States, SPECIFICALLY states, "No person except a natural born citizen of the United States, at the time of adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President..." It's NOT a technicality, or lunacy on the part of our Founding Fathers. It is a specific statement within a document that forms the basis for ALL of our laws and not open to interpretation (unless the entire Constitution should be now open to interpretation).
FACT #2: In order to be a "natural born citizen," you must be born in the United States or, if you are born abroad, you CAN (if specific circumstances are met) inherit citizenship status from your parents. If he was born abroad, then that's a problem for Barack Hussein Obama because his father was NOT a citizen of the United States and his mother had not lived in the United States the required amount of time after attaining the age of consent when Obama was born - meaning SHE COULD NOT pass her citizenship on to Obama.
FACT #3: If Barack Hussein Obama WAS NOT born in the United States, he IS NOT a "natural born citizen" and if that is the case, Obama is guilty of perpetuating the most massive fraud in the history of the United States!
FACT #4: Barack Hussein Obama has ACTIVELY REFUSED to show his ACTUAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE to the people who elected him. Under Hawaiian law, only Obama can legally release the document but HE JUST WON'T DO IT! Why not?
FACT #5: Obama has multiple teams of lawyers helping him shield the document from the prying eyes of the American people. Why?
FACT #6: Instead of producing an ACTUAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE, Team Obama produced another document — a "Certification of Live Birth" — and said, in effect, "Here's his Birth Certificate! Now shut up!"
And when it comes to FACT #6, Team Obama engaged in a sleight-of-hand that is going unnoticed by the American people, because the liberal media refuses to scrutinize the actions of Barack Hussein Obama.
A CERTIFICATION of Live Birth and a Birth Certificate (A CERTIFICATE of Live Birth)... [notice the difference in the words "certification" and "certificate"] ARE TWO TOTALLY DIFFERENT DOCUMENTS.
A CERTIFICATION of Live Birth - the document that Team Obama produced - is a document that essentially proves that you exist and Barack Hussein Obama most certainly EXISTS - that point is not in dispute.
A CERTIFICATE of Live Birth (an ACTUAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE) - on the other hand contains more information. It gives the specific location of your birth, the hospital, the time of birth, the attending physician etc.
For purposes of illustration see the images below. The image on the left is the CERTIFICATION of Live Birth that Team Obama released and the image on the right is a redacted copy of an actual CERTIFICATE of Live Birth (an ACTUAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE) from the State of Hawaii from approximately the same time that Obama was born.
[SORRY, I COULDN'T GET THE IMAGES TO COPY OVER]
So what's the big deal?
Simply put, a CERTIFICATION of Live Birth CAN contain ERRORS.
The State of Hawaii provides a concrete example of this point! Hawaii maintains programs to encourage property ownership for native Hawaiians.
And pursuant to those programs, the Hawaii Department of Home Lands (DHHL) states the following on its website:
"In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL."
If the State of Hawaii DOES NOT accept its own CERTIFICATION of Live Birth as proof that an individual was actually born in Hawaii, why should we? If Hawaii REQUIRES an ACTUAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE , WHY SHOULDN'T WE??
[solicitation deleted]
Transparency Indeed...
Article 2, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States, states in part, "No person except a natural born citizen of the United States, at the time of adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President."
That means neither Arnold Schwarzenegger nor George Soros can be President of the United States. Not EVER! Neither can Osama bin Laden. It also means, as previously stated, that IF Barack Obama was born outside the United States, he is not eligible to be President of the United States.
And Obama's paternal grandmother said, she was present at Obama's birth, which took place in Mombasa in what is now Kenya.
So where was Obama born?
Only an ACTUAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE can answer that question (not the Certification of Live Birth that Obama produced) — and Obama has multiple teams of lawyers dedicated to the proposition that nobody — but NOBODY — gets to see the one document that can clear up this controversy. That's INSANE!
It's OUTRAGEOUS that Obama continues to cover up the document! IT'S IMPOSSIBLE NOT TO CONCLUDE THAT HE'S HIDING SOMETHING!
In his grandiose MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES, Obama proclaimed:
"SUBJECT: Transparency and Open Government: My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government."
Just pretty words. They mean absolutely nothing to Barack Obama, the non-transparent president — IF INDEED HE IS THE PRESIDENT.
[solicitation deleted]
Is This Whole Controversy Such A Big Deal Or Much Ado About Nothing?
IT WAS for John McCain!
You may still remember that the liberal media make a HUGE DEAL out of the fact that McCain was born in the Canal Zone, while his father, a Naval officer, was stationed there. The liberal media relentlessly questioned whether or not McCain met the constitutional test?
But John McCain - unlike Obama - released all relevant records!
While the Canal Zone was not American soil, McCain's parents were both American citizens who had resided in the United States for the required number of years after having reached the age of majority! McCain was good to go.
Can we say the same for Obama? And why isn't the liberal media asking that question?
Strangely, it may have been the liberal media's willingness to savage McCain over the issue that eventually brought this whole controversy to light.
When Obama's grandmother claimed Obama was born in Kenya, the McCain controversy was still fresh in the minds of people who wondered - and are still wondering - why the same standard was NOT being applied to Obama.
But, as the American people are coming to know, you are simply not allowed to criticize or scrutinize "the messiah" or hold "the chosen one" up to any standard.
Now, just raising what was a legitimate question in regards to John McCain makes you a conspiracy theorist or nut when it comes to Obama.
Please understand, no one is saying that Obama is NOT a "natural born citizen." What we're saying is we just don't KNOW, BECAUSE BARACK "MR. TRANSPARENCY" OBAMA WILL NOT RELEASE HIS ACTUAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE.
[solicitation deleted]
More Questions....
Not to confound or confuse the issue but here's a complicating twist: the State of Hawaii permits parents to obtain a "birth certificate," EVEN IF THE CHILD WAS NOT BORN IN HAWAII.
Below is the relevant statute:
"[§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State. (a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child."
When queried, Dr Chiyome Fukino, with Hawaii's Department of Health, stated:
"Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawaii, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures."
Okay, an ACTUAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE exists. Great... why can't the American people see it since it will clearly indicate the specific place of birth?
As for Obama's inner circle, they offer a quick, arrogant reply to anyone who asks about the rumors surrounding Obama's birth certificate (and this is a direct quote):
"All I can tell you is that it is just pure garbage."
Writer Jerome Corsi, pursuing this story, raised the following question: "If Barack Obama was born in Africa, wouldn't there be a birth certificate on file there?" So Corsi hopped a plane to Kenya, where he spent most of his time in a holding area, the next thing to a prisoner. His hotel room was ransacked. He was questioned by the police. But he was never permitted to search for a birth certificate.
Maybe he didn't reckon on Obama's cousin, Raila Odinga. Covering up a birth would have been a piece of cake to Odinga, who has been charged with ethnic cleansing against Kenyan Christians.
[solicitation deleted]
Even More Questions....
Janet Porter, writing for WorldNetDaily.com, raises additional issues. This may be convoluted, but it is well-worth examining, if only to see the tangled web Obama has woven for himself and the American people.
"'There's the matter that Obama traveled to Indonesia, Pakistan, Southern India and Kenya in 1981. He said he went to Indonesia to see his mother. This seemed plausible, except for the fact that his mother returned to Hawaii in August of 1980 to file for a divorce from her second husband, Lolo Soetoro. Unless she went back to pal around with the man she divorced, she wasn't there at the time of Obama's visit."
"'There's another problem. No record of Obama holding an American passport prior to the one he received once becoming a U.S. senator has been found. If he traveled to Pakistan with an American passport, he wouldn't have been allowed in — since Pakistan was in turmoil in 1981 and under martial law. It was also on the State Department's travel ban list for U.S. citizens.... If he couldn't get into Pakistan with a U.S. passport, perhaps he went there with an Indonesian passport. But the only way you can get one of those is if you are an Indonesian citizen.'"
Remember how Dan Rather and CBS News took a lie about George Bush's military service record and twisted it into a major news story? Remember how the New York Times put an old rumor about John McCain on its front page and tried to make it a major issue in the campaign?
In sharp contrast, see how the New York Times and CBS News have run from this story like a rabbit runs from a coyote.
[solicitation deleted]
Saving The United States Of America....
If Obama was in fact born in Kenya, the information may save the United States from bankruptcy: Since Obama's inauguration on Jan. 20, stocks have plummeted to catastrophic lows.
The Dow has fallen 20.4 percent. Investors have lost an estimated $2.5 trillion in market value.
All because an arrogant young man — obsessed with 19th century Marxism — is trying to wreck the United States of America.
But suppose he isn't legally president after all? Then that fact would surely nullify all his official acts, and acts he plans to put into place, including the following: His recent executive order rescinding the Mexico City Policy and committing U.S. taxpayers to fund abortion worldwide;
His upcoming appointments, including FCC members who might attempt to shut down conservative talk radio;
Any treaty he might sign that would weaken our defenses in an increasingly dangerous world;
And the signing of legislation giving amnesty to illegal aliens.
While this is true, birth in the US *may* not be sufficient in an of itself to qualify one as a "natural born citizen". Just having a foreign national father, not even a legal immigrant, but just a visitor on a student visa, may be a disqualification. It would not be disqualification for being a citizen, per the 14th amendment if nothing else, but "natural born" is something else again.
I say *may* not, because the matter has never really been adjudicated. The only time it matters is if one wishes to be eligible to the office of President. Governors need not be "natural born", nor Senators, nor Representative, we have examples of each who are not, but Presidents, they must be natural born.
It's not being merely born in Hawaii that they are not accepting proof of. It's being born of parents with sufficient native Hawaiian ancestory.
But the point that the Certificate is "is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth" which is "a computer-generated printout", is still important. The Certificate shows place of bith for the parents, and residence address of the parents at the time of birth. The Certificate only shows their race.
Because it is a computer generated printout, it's much easier to modify or forge completely than the certification, which, at the time Obama was born, was usually a form filled in by typewritten enteries, and then signed by the parent, the doctor or other attendent, and the hospital registrar, (for hospital births).
Even the State Department won't issue a passport on the basis of a Certification from some states, because it does even show place of birth, but rather place of registration. They also won't accept one from any state if the date of birth and date of registration are more than a year apart. Now that is not the case with the Certification (alleged) posted as Obama's. However it illustrates why the Certification is not acceptable in all circumstances or for all purposes. The reason they won't accept a "delayed" registration, is that those are more likely have been "pencil whipped", with the information for the Certificate provided by the parent, or grandparent, with no doctor's signature, and so forth, and the State Department wants to know if that is the case on a "delayed registration", so as to be able to do further checking.
I wonder what The Messiah's Certificate would show on the "Attendent/witness" and "local registrar" lines?
The criminal enterprise democrat party controls both the House and the Senate. The criminal democrats are not going to impeach their marxist messiah even if he were caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy, or even if he were proven to be an agent of Islamic jihad.
Assuming that they would continue to stand there if the Court ruled that the occupant in that office was not eligible to be there. The Secret Service is sworn to protect The President, and the Marine is likewise obligated to follow legals orders only, and is likewise obligated to protect The President. If the person in the Oval Office is only the occupant, and not the President, why would they protect him/her? They might even aide in tossing him/her out, so that the real President, whoever that might be, can take his lawful place.
It's all unknown territory.
But I don't think they would order federal marshals, who are part of the executive branch anyway, to remove an ineligible person. They would just rule on that eligibility. At least unless or until asked, they likely would not even order him to vacate the office.
< But, as the Court has said, an unconstitutional law is unconstitutional from the time it is passed, not just after being declared so. Similarly, a person ruled ineligible to the office, can never have actually held it or legitimately exercised any of its powers.
Moreover, there is ample legal precedent for the Supreme Court to take this position and quite properly so. After all, the matter could have been handled by the political parties themselves, by the secretaries of state of the individual states which certified candidates or ballots, or when they certified the election results, or by the political party in convention, or by the House of Representatives and the Senate. The Supreme Court is not the only venue for resolving disputes in America and it is not the venue for deciding "political" questions at all.
Just because all those other folks did not exercise their "due diligence" doesn't mean that the Court should not enforce the Constitution, or rule on a particular case or controversy arising under the Constitution. Besides none of those folks even examined the eligibility of the candidates or the electee. (Except perhaps for the parties who nominated him, who declared him eligible to various State officials).
In the end, it is not a "political question", involving some policy matter, but rather it is a Constitutional question of the first magnitude.
You do realize that if you sack Obama you have Biden at the helm ? And behind him stands Nancy Pelosi.
As you work through the list I don’t even start to feel comfortable until we reach the name Robert Byrd, and I only like him because compared to the rest he’s about as good as we can do.
Actually the law itself might be Constitutional, but it would in effect never have been properly inacted, and thus not a law at all. Before they become laws, bills must be signed by the President, or passed over his veto by supermajorities of both houses of Congress. Any bill which he signed, would simply never have become law.
It would be one smell of a hess.
You might be right, but I doubt it. Taking the oath of office is a requirement for taking office, but it does not make the person being sworn President. It's just another requirement for becoming President on January 20th, at noon. Just like being eligible and getting a majority of electoral votes. But, given that the requirements are all satisfied, it's the clock going past noon January 20th, that makes one President. Specifically the Constitution says:
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:
and
The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.
Note that it does not say that the President elect become President upon taking the oath, nor even just when before entering the execution of the office the oath must be taken. (I'll not even get into the oath fiasco. :) ). It's only by tradition that the ceremony includes the oath takings is done on right at noon on the 20th, or in the date in March that the Presidential term began before the XXth amendment changed it to January 20th.
The Supreme Court has a power potentially greater than physical power—that of bringing facts to light.
It would really help if more Americans were to become aware of the facts here. Right now most base their opinions on rumor and innuendo established by the media. A Supreme Court ruling would fix the problem. It’s far better to have a few riots sparked by the light of truth than a slow asphyxiation in a sea of lies.
Right now the Supreme Court appears to be running from the truth.
Because it's their job? Otherwise any law repugnant to the Constitution could not be overturned, since it would have been enacted with all the proper procedures, votes and signing by the President and such as that. But they do overturn unconstitutional laws, from time to time. And they could find that a Usurper was ineligible.
The ammo is on backorder. :)
We do know that he was registered for school in Indonesia as "Barry H. Soetero". There is documentation of that. Not complete evidence, but like birth certificates, adoption records are no longer "public", so one could not expect to have them. The other evidence is that Barry, or someone other than his half sister who is mentioned by name, is recorded as a non minor child of the marriage requiring educational support, on the divorce papers of Stanley Ann and Lolo Soetero. (Divorce papers *are* public).
As my father told me, endlessly (well it has ended, and I wish it had not), book smarts, which is what it takes to be a rocket scientist, and common sense, are two entirely different things. He knew I had the former, and was secretly proud of it, but always said I didn't have a lick of the latter, possibly with at least a little justification.
Gee, yah think?.
Only until he appointed a VP and that person was confirmed by Congress. That's how we got President Ford you know. He was never elected, not even to be VP, he was appointed when Spiro Agnew resigned.
Of course as IQ deficient as Biden is, he might appoint Hillary or Pelosi as VP. We might then get another non-elected President.
No I did not. Reference post is right here.
Here's the exact quotation just in case you need reading glasses:
"And you still failed to answer the original question which is not a gotcha question its a legitimate question you obama supporters can't seem to answer." [Underline added].
I believe I called you an 'obama supporter' NOT and 'obamabot'. In every single post regarding the birth certificate issue YOU sir have stood on the side of those bashing the 'birthers' and defending Obama. THAT sir is being a SUPPORTER, which is ALL I called you. Get it right. Res Ipsa Loquitur.
My reading of the 20th amendment is correct. It may not stand up in a courtroom today stacked with so many who are deliberately seeking to tear down the constitution and excuse Obama's failure to prove he is qualified to hold the office - but it is correct. The real lame duck argument is trying to read 'electoral votes' into the 20th amendment codification 'shall have failed to qualify' when by your own admission the ONLY constitutional qualifications are found in Article 2 Section 1 which is specific towards being 'natural born' NOT 'votes'.
Your position of "I am in full agreement...should have to supply proof..blah blah blah" but then combined with "I see nothing......that says somone MUST do so...." are talking points straight out of the liberal playbook. In any event I refuse to engage someone who has proven himself to be deliberately obtuse and lie about what I have said in previous posts. Good day sir.
No I did not. Reference post is right here.
Here's the exact quotation just in case you need reading glasses:
"And you still failed to answer the original question which is not a gotcha question its a legitimate question you obama supporters can't seem to answer." [Underline added].
I believe I called you an 'obama supporter' NOT and 'obamabot'. In every single post regarding the birth certificate issue YOU sir have stood on the side of those bashing the 'birthers' and defending Obama. THAT sir is being a SUPPORTER, which is ALL I called you. Get it right. Res Ipsa Loquitur.
My reading of the 20th amendment is correct. It may not stand up in a courtroom today stacked with so many who are deliberately seeking to tear down the constitution and excuse Obama's failure to prove he is qualified to hold the office - but it is correct. The real lame duck argument is trying to read 'electoral votes' into the 20th amendment codification 'shall have failed to qualify' when by your own admission the ONLY constitutional qualifications are found in Article 2 Section 1 which is specific towards being 'natural born' NOT 'votes'.
Your position of "I am in full agreement...should have to supply proof..blah blah blah" but then combined with "I see nothing......that says somone MUST do so...." are talking points straight out of the liberal playbook. In any event I refuse to engage someone who has proven himself to be deliberately obtuse and lie about what I have said in previous posts. Good day sir.
I must then assume that your statement is not a fact.
That's your problem, right there. You see, the appropriate response when getting an email from WorldNutDaily is to delete it. Reading anything put out by those clowns is generally a waste of time. Shrug.
Yep, bad wording on my part. Should have said bill. Late at night ....
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.