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.
Much of what you askhas been addressed (but not necessarily answered) on the monster thread...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2040486/posts?page=6242#6242
It’s best to work backwards until you get a feel for what’s current.
I keep praying the MSM will fail and be taken over by reasonable, honest journalists who are unbiased. It can happen! I haven’t given up. God will deal with Osamabama in his own way. I have a feeling America is getting a real wake up call.
On Dec. 1 SCOTUS will either accept or reject Berg's appeal. If they reject it, they will be agreeing he has no standing to bring this suit. If they accept it & rule against him, same result. If they accept it & rule in his favor (that he does have standing) they will remand the case back to the PA court, which will then proceed with discovery of facts (perhaps ordering Hussein to produce the original certificate). That's my layman's understanding, based on the best-informed arguments I have read.
I doubt it will ever get back to the PA court, & I doubt they would order him to produce the original. Judge Surrick would not want to become famous for triggering national rioting.
SCOTUS should take the case, just to resolve the question of who exactly is responsible for proving an individual is Constitutionally eligible to be a Presidential candidate.
Hussein's rise from nowhere to the Presidency, raising & spending $600 million to get elected, is a surreal horror movie.
I believe he fails to meet the Constitutional natural-born citizen requirement, since under 1961 law, his mother (Stanley Ann Durham) was not herself a US citizen for a long enough time for zer0 to be eligible.
I suspect the truth is much uglier, but have no proof.
Forgery? The Certificate of Live Birth (CoLB) image he posted to his Web site has been proven (to my satisfaction) to be a PhotoShop forgery. The Governor of Hawaii (Lingle) has ordered his original cert. to be sealed; a good move. I doubt any of us mere civilian peasants will ever know the truth. Even if any part of the US legal system manages to disgorge it, it will be too little, too late. The Enemedia will never cover the story; it will be dismissed as more loony wingnut Intarwebs garbage; larger events will have swamped it completely.
Go to:
www.obamacrimes.com
Read the Petition For Writ of Certiorari - Berg spells everything out, including his allegations of judicial error.
There is something so big, so huge and powerful propelling Obama. Something actually bigger than he and most likely he will soon regret being President almost as much as we are going to.
To The DISHONORABLE R. Barclay Surrick:
At the end of your ruling you state: By contrast, Plaintiff would have us derail the democratic process by invalidating a candidate for whom millions of people voted and who underwent excessive vetting during what was one of the most hotIy contested presidential primary in living memory.
I don’t recall any evidence presented to the court about excessive vetting of Obama. As a matter of fact, that was part of the suit against the DNC - produce any materials as a result of any vetting they did. Did the DNC produce anything to you without showing it to the opposing side ? If they did and you didn’t inform the other side, isn’t that judicial error ( to put it kindly ) ? If they didn’t produce anything , please tell me your justification for the statement who underwent excessive vetting
“That is the press release he has up there. Not the actual Writ of Certiorari filed.”
This is VERY strange ...
I can’t find the Writ on his site anymore. But I previously downloaded it. It is 40 pages long.
If you send me your e-mail address on FR Mail, I will send to you via regular e-mail.
They should care, and it’s more than about a birth certificate, it’s about qualifications for presidency and it’s about our constitution.
The MSM can twist it and turn it, but most people will wonder why he won’t show it. Maybe they’ll dismiss it shortly after reading it, who knows. But, I’m glad someone is bringing this to the public’s attention because the majority of them have not heard about this at all. They only know what the MSM tells them.
We either have a constitutional government or we do not.
Tell me, what would your “line in the sand” be?
We either have a constitutional government or we do not.
Tell me, what would your “line in the sand” be?
We either have a constitutional government or we do not.
Tell me, what would your “line in the sand” be?
Hi Smoky, welcome here. I’m new too. Maybe we can help each other. Mail me if you have any questions. I haven’t been able to find a FAQ for new members kinda thing, but there have been two kind souls that have helped me with questions that I had.
That’s right. The folks who are trying to get this ad to run next Monday in USA TODAY are needing money for it. Cost is $90,000 and so far, last time I checked, they had $6100 or so. If we all chip in $10 we can get this to run. If we can’t come up with 90 grand then we can kiss it goodbye.
First of all, back in 1961 Hawaii, EVERY COUPLE would have been listed as Mr. and Mrs. regardless of their actual marital status when their child was born.
Secondly, there is NOTHING in these birth announcement that indicates WHERE a child was born. This fact alone should squash any hasty conclusion that Obama was "likely" born in Hawaii. Not only is Obama likely to have been born in Kenya, he is more likely to have been born there than Hawaii.
Barack could have been born anywhere in the world, and when his mom turned over the original birth certificate from an out-of-state location (whether it was Kansas or Kenya) in order to get a Hawaiian Certificate of Birth for Obama, the Health Department recorded the date that was on that foreign certificate, which BTW, was never, ever validated to be genuine and accurate. They DID NOT perform any kind of verification process for out-of-state certificates exchanged for Hawaiian ones and naturally assumed that the original birth certificates were genuine.
In other words, Obama easily could have been born on a different date in a different country, and the information that was on a foreign birth certificate does not have to reflect reality.
If Obama was born in Kenya, then the probability of the date on the Kenyan BC being inaccurate is as likely than it being accurate, given that the vast majority of births in Kenya did not occur in hospitals. Even if Obama was born in the best hospital in Kenya, getting local officials to fudge the data was simply a matter of waving around some American dollars.
Again, keep in mind that Health Department had no way of authenticating an original birth certificate from a foreign country. Whatever was on the foreign BC is what was put on the Hawaiian BC.
Bottom line: the ads are totally meaningless as far as proving that Obama was born in Hawaii and the probability of getting a bogus BC made, in 1961, and in a country like Kenya, was high.
Except USAToday and they'll print anything for a buck.
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.